| d21lewis said: I don't know the history of EA and Sony. I owned a PS3 and an Xbox 360 last gen and I don't really remember any favoritism. And even if there were, why would it be any worse than Grand Theft Auto giving M$ a one year exclusive to GTAIV dlc or Call of Duty giving Xbox players first access to certain content? |
I can say what I suppose.
At the time EA Access was started EA put MS and Sony to bid and MS won, so Sony just made that remark out of spite after losing.
Or the even more plausible. EA demanded that most of the cut made from the games on EA Access discount plan to be made to EA because it would be their game and their service. So you get free games on EA Access that would compete with the sale of PSN and also the discounts that when made through EA Access wouldn't be made on PSN.
So altough it isn't less value to PS customers to have EA Access it almost certainly is less money to Sony.

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."







