By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
darkshadow23 on 04 August 2014
Edit Thread
LudicrousSpeed said:
Raziel123 said:
As I already said, EA access = no EA games on PS+. It is not "completely optional" because it steals away from the sub we already pay for.

If Ea wants to put its games on a sub, put it on PS+

That's the "kind of value Playstation players have come to expect". 

That's nothing but 100% speculation on your part. If EA Access were on PS4, my bet is you'd still see Crysis 3 and whatever else you listed in the OP on PS3 PS+ because EA Access is only for newer next gen titles.

And how does that "steal away" from the sub you already pay for? Can you please list for me the big retail games Sony has made "free" on PS4 PS+? How about the ones Microsoft has made "free" on Xbone GwG? Oh, not a damn hell shit on either one you say? So what is going on? What is potentially maybe probably eventually going to possibily be stolen?

Here's a much more logical hypothetical, since this entire thread is based on illogical ones:

You haven't seen any 3rd party retail "big games" on PS4 PS+ because Sony no longer has a need to make the games as desirable. With PS+ now being required for online play, a vast majority of PS+ consumers are people who will have PS+ whether there are free games or not (see: XBL before GwG came about). So why should Sony go out and spend a lot of money on these games when they can likely fund months worth of PS+ content for the amount of money publishers would (rightfully) ask for their next gen games to become permanently free on PS+ or GwG?

In this hypothetical, a service like EA Access is good for consumers. Because it gives us a chance to get next gen games at a cheap price, even if they are only playable until whoever decides to take them down. If you don't care for EA games, then don't subscribe. It doesn't affect you at all. EA is not putting next gen titles on PS+ (nor is anyone else), so at the end of the day nothing has changed.

And down the line if other publishers wanna latch on and start up their own, awesome. Again, they aren't putting a thing on next gen PS+/GwG anyway. And if you're a fan of this publisher or that one, then good for you. What you are bitching about is like bitching that an optional sports package on your cable provider is a ripoff and will affect you negatively. When the reality is if you're into those sports then you're getting a great value and anyway else can just not subscribe and go on living their life.

Of course, this doesn't even get into the fact that all of this spurs competition, which would only make PS+ and GwG better. You think MS isn't looking at this stable of next gen titles EA is offering for a paltry $30 a year and thinking they might need to improve the 2 games each month they toss Xbone owners at $60 a year?

The funniest part is you go on in another post later in this thread to say "they don't just want money. they want moooooooooooooooooore money" as if this isn't the goal of EVERY BUSINESS EVER. You think Sony really denied this service because they think PS owners are delicate little flowers who deserve something better than this service from EA? Hell no. They denied it because they have a service in PS+ where they can control what they offer publishers for games and EA came in with a service that would put an end to that and Sony saw the potential for less money. Sony didn't just want money, they wanted mooooooooooooooooooore money. And then they wanted mooooooooooooooooore money, so they decided to charge us $5 to rent some shitty PS3 games for four hours.


Why is there nothing but indies on PS+ and GwG?

The gen just started. There is a small selection of retail games to choose from.

Why is it bad for PS+ and GwG?

Why would EA put one of their games on PS+/GwG? They would put it into EA access instead.