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

IkePoR on 03 August 2014
VanceIX said:
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+. 

Allow me to rephrase what I said.

F2P elements in paid games (PvZ: Garden Warfare) is bullshit.  You're right, F2P in general is not bs.  

I don't mean the options word in the case of PSNow is spun but in general when the word options is used(again, in PvZ: GW) is when we have to take a closer look.



"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
Puppyroach on 03 August 2014
Raziel123 said:
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.

Sony has really succeded in their PR if people actually think it is better to buy EA games at full price than have them cheaper through EA Access.



DonFerrari on 03 August 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


This was already debunked on the PSNow thread... Kowen was pushing the same point, but when presented that the $8/month put OnLive on incredible debt even when having games with terrible lag and quality issues for a small public.



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
Puppyroach said:

Sony has really succeded in their PR if people actually think it is better to buy EA games at full price than have them cheaper through EA Access.


EA access does not give you the games, did you not read the OP?



Teeqoz on 03 August 2014

While this certainly reduces the 'attractivity' of ea access, But it doesn't make it a Rip-off. Also lol at all these people complaining about psnow, it hasn't released officially yet, and prices will (Almost surely) decrease.



Around the Network
Puppyroach on 03 August 2014
Raziel123 said:
Puppyroach said:

Sony has really succeded in their PR if people actually think it is better to buy EA games at full price than have them cheaper through EA Access.


EA access does not give you the games, did you not read the OP?

Exactly like PS Now, PS+ and XBLG, you don´t own the games, but for 60$ (the equivalent of a new EA game?) i get two years of EA Access with alot of games to play through and this is what you find horrible, and is is a much "better" deal for PS fans to buy those games from Sony instead? As I said, Sony PR has worked wonders, kudos to them.

I actually don´t bash Sony in this, just the way people blindly defend their strategies as consumer-focused when they are in relaity business-focused.



Teeqoz on 03 August 2014
Puppyroach said:
Raziel123 said:
Puppyroach said:

Sony has really succeded in their PR if people actually think it is better to buy EA games at full price than have them cheaper through EA Access.


EA access does not give you the games, did you not read the OP?

Exactly like PS Now, PS+ and XBLG, you don´t own the games, but for 60$ (the equivalent of a new EA game?) i get two years of EA Access with alot of games to play through and this is what you find horrible, and is is a much "better" deal for PS fans to buy those games from Sony instead? As I said, Sony PR has worked wonders, kudos to them.

I actually don´t bash Sony in this, just the way people blindly defend their strategies as consumer-focused when they are in relaity business-focused.


It's not equivalent, as long as you are subscribed to PS+ you can plat all games you have gotten there, But on ea access you can only play the games that are in the ea vault at that time. Even if you subbed from the start, you can only play the games that are in the vault at that time.



smroadkill15 on 03 August 2014

It's a rip-off based off what? Your speculation of "what if" scenarios? Your reaching pretty hard with this one.



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

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.


This was already debunked on the PSNow thread... Kowen was pushing the same point, but when presented that the $8/month put OnLive on incredible debt even when having games with terrible lag and quality issues for a small public.

Their financial problems began before well before their $8 a month strategy. That's something they started doing in recent months. I've completed numerous games on the service and it generally worked fine.

The biggest reason for OnLive's failure is weak support. That's a death sentence for any platform.



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:

Allow me to rephrase what I said.

F2P elements in paid games (PvZ: Garden Warfare) is bullshit.  You're right, F2P in general is not bs.  

I don't mean the options word in the case of PSNow is spun but in general when the word options is used(again, in PvZ: GW) is when we have to take a closer look.

Ah gotcha, in that case I agree that the word "options" can be a dual edged sword.

Raziel123 said:
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.

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. 

There are TONS, and I mean TONS of gamers out there that would easily purchase the EA Access for the 10% off games and vault. It's not even a competitior to PS+, since most of the games depend on online play anyway, and thus would need a PS+ subscription. A lot of people (like you) won't buy it, but does that give you the right to cut off access to consumers like me, who love digital games and discount packages?

No, this is just terribad PR from Sony, the likes not seen since Microsoft screwed up at the beginning of the generation. I'm honestly ashamed of Sony as a Playstation fan, pulling this kind of shit on your customers is just disgusting. 

How about letting the consumers decide what's a good value and what's not through their wallets?



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC