By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Sony was right, EA access is a rip-off and needs to flop

Raziel123 on 03 August 2014
VanceIX said:

Oh really? And pray tell me, what's wrong with an OPTIONAL service that gives gamers discounts and access to a vast amount of games? If you don't like it, fine. But what you're saying is that NO other gamer should be able to decide if it is a good value for themselves, just because you don't feel it is.

What right do you have to decide for other gamers what's a good value and what's not? Can you answer that? No, because you don't represent every gamer, not even close. 

This is like someone wanting Netflix removed from game consoles just because they don't use it, and they feel it might compete with Sony's video store. Both Netflix and EA Access are completely optional services. Heck, EA access is cheaper than Netflix and doesn't even compete directly with any of Sony's services, the way Netflix does.

Your argument is flawed to the core, simply because you assume that everyone perceives value the same as you do, which they don't. That's why we have options in the real world. 


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". 



Around the Network
Trunkin on 03 August 2014

Your OP screams of an illogical and extreme bias against EA. You claim that its a certainty that they'll remove titles from the vault after a few months, but give no logical explanation for why they would do that. Thr games in the vault are going to be older ones that arrent selling much anymore anyway, removing them would only serve to devalue EA Access, and more importantly it would drive more people to buy used, which is exactly what EA doesnt want. What does EA have to gain from maintaining only a very limited number of titles in their vault? It's not like they have to pay royalties to themselves to keep them there.

What's more, even your assumption is true, and they really do remove titles after only one month, it's still a good, viable option. You see, unlike PSPlus, with EA access you will know evey game that's in the vault at any given time. If there are a few games that you want to play during a given month, you need only pay $5 to access all of them for that month. And that's not even getting into the discounts and early access.

I also find issue with the claim that having subscription services from all major third parties would be such a bad thing. If you play a lot of games, you actually stand to save a good deal of they're all priced like EA Access. What's more, the major advantage these would have is that they're third party, and would theoretically not have to be tied to any platform holder. What this means is that, potentially, for a $30/year sub, you could gain access to a plethora of titles, and play them on whatever system you want. This would be *huge* for multiplatform owners, if it went down this way. The only drawback would be that PSPlus and GWG would be somewhat devalued. Which honestly isn't a big deal.



Doctorslim on 03 August 2014
DonFerrari said:
VanceIX said:
Raziel123 said:
VanceIX said:

If you honestly believe that not giving the consumer options to choose what they like is is good, you've bought far too much into the PR from Sony. 

 


What PR? I don't need Sony to tell me anything, once Access was announced and I looked into it i knew how bad it was. I didn't post this earlier because I was banned.

Needless to say, when Sony said what they said, i clapped. Couldn't be happier. Now i just hope they stick with their stance instead of doing a 180.

Oh really? And pray tell me, what's wrong with an OPTIONAL service that gives gamers discounts and access to a vast amount of games? If you don't like it, fine. But what you're saying is that NO other gamer should be able to decide if it is a good value for themselves, just because you don't feel it is.

What right do you have to decide for other gamers what's a good value and what's not? Can you answer that? No, because you don't represent every gamer, not even close. 

This is like someone wanting Netflix removed from game consoles just because they don't use it, and they feel it might compete with Sony's video store. Both Netflix and EA Access are completely optional services. Heck, EA access is cheaper than Netflix and doesn't even compete directly with any of Sony's services, the way Netflix does.

Your argument is flawed to the core, simply because you assume that everyone perceives value the same as you do, which they don't. That's why we have options in the real world. 

I don't see value in EA access because I don't play their games... but I'm pretty darned certain that a lot of people will... I even said in a different thread that it would be good to have a "cable plan" for PS4 where you can choose what publishers you want to have access.


Wow can you contradict yourself anymore? So pretty much what you're saying is that if any other company does this it's okay, but because it's EA it's not? You sir are very bias towards either EA or Microsoft



VanceIX on 03 August 2014
Raziel123 said:
VanceIX said:

Oh really? And pray tell me, what's wrong with an OPTIONAL service that gives gamers discounts and access to a vast amount of games? If you don't like it, fine. But what you're saying is that NO other gamer should be able to decide if it is a good value for themselves, just because you don't feel it is.

What right do you have to decide for other gamers what's a good value and what's not? Can you answer that? No, because you don't represent every gamer, not even close. 

This is like someone wanting Netflix removed from game consoles just because they don't use it, and they feel it might compete with Sony's video store. Both Netflix and EA Access are completely optional services. Heck, EA access is cheaper than Netflix and doesn't even compete directly with any of Sony's services, the way Netflix does.

Your argument is flawed to the core, simply because you assume that everyone perceives value the same as you do, which they don't. That's why we have options in the real world. 


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". 

PS+ and EA Access are 2 completely different services, which is why you can't combine them. I would love for my PS+ to cover a Netflix subscription, a Music Unlimited subscription, a Hulu+ subscription, and give me a 10% discount on any content I purchase ever. That isn't feasible, though. This is the real world, where companies have to look out for themselves and make money, and EA sure as hell won't be making money by freely giving PS+ subscribers access to potentially hundreds of games and discounts. 

If that's the "kind of value Playstation players have come to expect" why the hell are people paying seperately for services like Netlix and Music Unlimited? Shouldn't Sony remove those services since they aren't a good value since they aren't included in PS+?



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Raziel123 on 03 August 2014

Netflix and music unlimited offer games. That's new to me.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 03 August 2014
Doctorslim said:
DonFerrari said:
VanceIX said:

Oh really? And pray tell me, what's wrong with an OPTIONAL service that gives gamers discounts and access to a vast amount of games? If you don't like it, fine. But what you're saying is that NO other gamer should be able to decide if it is a good value for themselves, just because you don't feel it is.

What right do you have to decide for other gamers what's a good value and what's not? Can you answer that? No, because you don't represent every gamer, not even close. 

This is like someone wanting Netflix removed from game consoles just because they don't use it, and they feel it might compete with Sony's video store. Both Netflix and EA Access are completely optional services. Heck, EA access is cheaper than Netflix and doesn't even compete directly with any of Sony's services, the way Netflix does.

Your argument is flawed to the core, simply because you assume that everyone perceives value the same as you do, which they don't. That's why we have options in the real world. 

I don't see value in EA access because I don't play their games... but I'm pretty darned certain that a lot of people will... I even said in a different thread that it would be good to have a "cable plan" for PS4 where you can choose what publishers you want to have access.


Wow can you contradict yourself anymore? So pretty much what you're saying is that if any other company does this it's okay, but because it's EA it's not? You sir are very bias towards either EA or Microsoft

Please read it right.

I said I don't see value in the service because I don't play their games (and even said I know that several people see value on it), I don't see a problem with it existing. And avoid calling other people biased or putting more than 3 quotes in the tree since it's bannable offense.



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."

Raziel123 on 03 August 2014
Ka-pi96 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". 

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.



goulibouli on 03 August 2014

This is simple, if you pay or trust anything EA does, you deserve to be ripped-off



VanceIX on 03 August 2014
Raziel123 said:
Netflix and music unlimited offer games. That's new to me.

Use the quote button please.

And Sony has offered miscellanious content from services like Music Unlimited before with PS+, so it actually makes perfect sense here. You can't expect EA to make hundreds of games and give an insane amount of discounts for free. PS+ and EA Access are two completely different services, right down to the core.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Puppyroach on 03 August 2014

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". 

So.... shouldnt you blame Sony for not making PS+ attractive enough for EA to invest in? After all, it´s the customers they care about?