By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ka-pi96 said:
Raziel123 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

If there is no EA games on PS+ how is that that the fault of EA Access? If anything that would be Sony failing to make their own service worthwhile. Now that EA access exists and Sony have said what they've said I'd be quite surprised if any EA games come to PS+ ever again.

Also why would EA possible want to put it's games on PS+ as a sub? I don't think anyone knows how the money is distributed but surely not much actually goes to the publisher, EA actually get to keep all the money with EA access.


There are EA games on PS+..

And it WOULD be the fault of Ea access if there weren't (in case it came to PS)

Why would they put the games on PS+? For money. Same reason they put them there now. Even BF3 was there.

But no, they don't just want money. They want mooooooore money. As much as they can squeeze out of you.

Yes there are, not likely to be any more though and that would solely be Sonys fault, they are the ones that bashed EA about EA access. If EA really wanted to react to Sony's condemnation they could stop supporting PS platforms entirely, other companies have done similar things, that too would be solely Sony's fault.

Yeah they put games on PS+ for money, not very much money though. Is it so wrong of them to want more money? Can you honestly say you would turn down more money yourself?

Well EA could drop their support for Sony and I wouldn't care... They probably wouldn't benefit much from it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."