This seems pretty disingenuous and petty from Sony, to be honest. You’re not “asking” fans to pay that, you’re giving them the option to. And declaring it “not a good value” seems like a blanket dismissal of a concept that does seem rather promising.
I think it’s fairly obvious that one reason behind Sony turning down EA Access is their success with PS Plus, and as they say, they may not want to complicate things by adding in a publisher-specific subscription on top of their own. The line about a 200% jump in PS Plus memberships is irritating however, given that Sony literally locked online multiplayer behind the Plus paywall with the launch of PS4, which is clearly a significant factor in the increase.
But past that, and probably the main reason for them spurning EA’s advances, is that they have a lot riding on the upcoming PS Now, their game streaming service that isn’t quite the same thing as Access, but likely competes for the same dollars to a certain extent.
Unfortunately, what we’ve seen from PS Now so far, namely the pricing model, shows that service has a long way to go to “be a good value to the PlayStation gamer,” to quote Sony. Looking at the last pricing chart
we saw for the service, it’s $5 to rent most games for four hours. How can Sony claim EA’s $5 a month for unlimited access to Vault games is a bad value when their own pricing model for Now is dramatically more expensive for less access in every way?
shyt
