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

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

DonFerrari on 03 August 2014

All the points in the OP are conjecture, but valid ones... guess we will have to wait and see what turns out.



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."

Around the Network
VanceIX on 03 August 2014

"Options"

that is all



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

DerNebel on 03 August 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Sweep said:
IMHO : They (MS & EA) are slyly trying to revive the policies everyone was angered about with the X1 unveil.

They'll start doing the good guys giving access to games for a competitive price and if successfull, the service will slowly evolve until they lock you with their terms & conditions

IMHO, MS & EA can't be trusted anymore. They want to set their DRM policies back and they'll do whatever it takes to mandate them


Sony isn't much better. They're pushing digital sales because it benefits them, you lose access to game if you cancel your PS+ subscription, it cost money to play games online, they mocked EA Access because it didn't benefit PS+, and PS Now is looking like a cash grab.

Nobody is more sly than Sony. They're doing the same things as MS without getting the criticism.

I suppose you know what streaming those games costs Sony?



Doctorslim on 03 August 2014
Kyuu said:
Doctorslim said:

Now please stop bowing down to Sony like they are a king


Cute.


What's cuter is how you can't come up with any arguments against mine :)



IkePoR on 03 August 2014
VanceIX said:
"Options"

that is all

Be careful with that word.  It's touted out now more as PR bullshit than what the word actually means.  F2P games use the "options" line and we all know it's bull-shit.  

So be sure what's called an option is really an option and not just some rubbish spun into an excuse.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

Around the Network
Doctorslim on 03 August 2014
DerNebel said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Sweep said:
IMHO : They (MS & EA) are slyly trying to revive the policies everyone was angered about with the X1 unveil.

They'll start doing the good guys giving access to games for a competitive price and if successfull, the service will slowly evolve until they lock you with their terms & conditions

IMHO, MS & EA can't be trusted anymore. They want to set their DRM policies back and they'll do whatever it takes to mandate them


Sony isn't much better. They're pushing digital sales because it benefits them, you lose access to game if you cancel your PS+ subscription, it cost money to play games online, they mocked EA Access because it didn't benefit PS+, and PS Now is looking like a cash grab.

Nobody is more sly than Sony. They're doing the same things as MS without getting the criticism.

I suppose you know what streaming those games costs Sony?

Yes, but if it's really costing that much to where they have to charge up to 6.99 for a 4 hour rental, then they are using this as a cash grab. Just think, why put something on the market that's overpriced because it costs you so much in the first place? To make money from the consumer by ripping them off



Mr Puggsly on 03 August 2014
DerNebel said:
Mr Puggsly said:


Sony isn't much better. They're pushing digital sales because it benefits them, you lose access to game if you cancel your PS+ subscription, it cost money to play games online, they mocked EA Access because it didn't benefit PS+, and PS Now is looking like a cash grab.

Nobody is more sly than Sony. They're doing the same things as MS without getting the criticism.

I suppose you know what streaming those games costs Sony?

How much does streaming Netflix cost? Who cares? Some people spend many, many hours streaming Netflix every month and pay a measly $9. And that includes content!

With OnLive, when you purchase a game you own it digitally on Steam and can stream your library of games for $8 a month.

Sony is probably more concerned about covering the cost of Gaikai than the price of streaming games.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

VanceIX on 03 August 2014
IkePoR said:
VanceIX said:
"Options"

that is all

Be careful with that word.  It's touted out now more as PR bullshit than what the word actually means.  F2P games use the "options" line and we all know it's bull-shit.  

So be sure what's called an option is really an option and not just some rubbish spun into an excuse.

PR has nothing to do with it. F2P is really an option, since you don't have to play the game if you don't want to. And there are plenty of F2P games on Playstation now. I don't see Sony complaining about those.

Having options is ALWAYS a good thing for the consumer, so this PR of them looking out for the consumer is bullsh*t. What they mean is that it would risk their monopoly on PS+. 



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Raziel123 on 03 August 2014
VanceIX said:

Having options is ALWAYS a good thing for the consumer, so this PR of them looking out for the consumer is bullsh*t. What they mean is that it would risk their monopoly on PS+. 


I don't care if they did it because they were looking out for the consumer or not, because the end result is that they were looking out for us, regardless of motive. PS+ is better if Ea access doesn't exist on PS. Therefore there is no choice involved. "options" are good for consumers when there are no negative consequences to those that do not adhere. EA access has negative consequences for those that do not sub to access but are subbed to PS+.

It's that simple. No option, just EA+MS rip off.



DerNebel on 03 August 2014
Doctorslim said:
DerNebel said:

I suppose you know what streaming those games costs Sony?

Yes, but if it's really costing that much to where they have to charge up to 6.99 for a 4 hour rental, then they are using this as a cash grab. Just think, why put something on the market that's overpriced because it costs you so much in the first place? To make money from the consumer by ripping them off

That is complete bullshit. A cash grab would be something with little to no risk and really big profit margins.

A) We know that the risk of this service is huge

B) We have no idea about the profit margins on this thing

What you're doing here would be like saying that the X1 was a cash grab for MS or the PS3 was a cash grab for Sony.

Oh and just to add to this question about which of the 2 is actually the cash grab, lets look at EA Access

Risk? Close to none. They use games that have already covered their costs of development when they put them up on the service and the 10% discount on new games can easily be redeemed by the fact that the margins on digital games are higher for EA, thanks to the lack of retail. Also EA can basically get out of this service as fast as they want since they have literally no sunk costs at all.

Profit Margins? Again, debatable. The point of the subscription is, aside from the money it brings in normally, to get people to buy more EA games and DLC online, since those have as mentioned above higher profit margins. What we of course don't know is how many new sales would be lost through people rather waiting for games to hit the vault.

So sorry, if at all EA Access qualifies as a cash grab here and that is not to say that that service can't be of value to people.