Mr Puggsly said:
That isn't gonna happen, but why would that be a bad thing? If the subscription services are only $30 a year and can provide hundreds of hours of entertainment, I'd call that a bargain. I don't understand why some people are against options. PS Now has a subscription service with over a 100 games from various publishers. However, it lacks many noteworthy games and it cost $180 ($240 if paying by the month) a year! Each publisher having their own service atleast lets people narrow down what they want to pay for at a lower cost. |
It's not so much about the immediate percieved value you get from EA access now but about how it affects you later down the line. EA has a really bad reputation and they're already confirming some gamers' fears about how they would use their service. Locking content or access to their games behind a paywall/service. If that is successful, more publishers and developers will use a service like EA's to lock content behind. PS Now hasn't been used like that because sony doesn't make the vast majority of content or own it. Also, sony is the proverbial gamer friendly company.
I don't know about you but I rather just be able to buy the exact games I want to play, maybe buy dlc for whatever one and just play it. That's just me but I can understand if someone wants to rent, stream or subscribe for games for the value. That's why more centralized services are better for gamers that want something like that. They don't own the vast majority of content or games and therefore can't control any content beyond what they are licensed for.
