Sony was right to turn down EA
- Thread starter dBoyFresh*212
- Start date
Why get paid what Sony offers for Plus games when you can get money direct from customers selling your own service?
Because you still need Sony's PSN infrastructure for the consumers to pay and play the game. If EA was doing this using totally their own infrastructure on PC, that would be one thing, but they need Sony (and MS) network and support in order to do this. fukk I look like letting you use my shyt to make money and fukk myself over?
New Interview With Shu Da Gawd (explaining Sony's stance on not fukking with EA Access)
Eurogamer: I'd like to talk about the EA Access issue. Sony put out a strongly-worded statement that suggested it wasn't good value for PlayStation customers. The reaction from some was, we'd like that decision for ourselves. We'd like the choice. How do you feel about that reaction?
Shu: The statement might look aggressive. But the thinking behind it is, we just do not look at one proposition, like EA Access. We look at the whole offering of the titles or services on the platform, and we thought about the impact of having something like that as a new symptom. If every publisher follows suit, and as a consumer you have to choose by publisher which service to subscribe to, that's not something we believe is best for consumers.
So we are not just looking at that one proposition. We were thinking about the impact that might have for the future offering of products and services on PlayStation.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...itas-no-show-and-the-mystery-of-10m-ps4-sales
Eurogamer: I'd like to talk about the EA Access issue. Sony put out a strongly-worded statement that suggested it wasn't good value for PlayStation customers. The reaction from some was, we'd like that decision for ourselves. We'd like the choice. How do you feel about that reaction?
Shu: The statement might look aggressive. But the thinking behind it is, we just do not look at one proposition, like EA Access. We look at the whole offering of the titles or services on the platform, and we thought about the impact of having something like that as a new symptom. If every publisher follows suit, and as a consumer you have to choose by publisher which service to subscribe to, that's not something we believe is best for consumers.
So we are not just looking at that one proposition. We were thinking about the impact that might have for the future offering of products and services on PlayStation.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...itas-no-show-and-the-mystery-of-10m-ps4-sales
I don't see what's wrong with that at all. Its not like a subscription to EA Access is required. You look at the perks and decide for yourself if you want it or not.
All I see is a company telling me they won't give me the option to choose for myself if I want or don't want EA Access on their console because the choice is supposedly bad for me and they fear what I may choose obviously.
I'm not stupid. If every publisher was selling their own vault like service they'd horde the better games for their own service and not give Sony those games for Sony's service. I don't need a company exec lying to me telling me they're doing something for my benefit when in reality its for their own company's benefit.
Microsoft offers Games with Gold but still let EA start a subscriber program Sony should do the same. Let consumers decide for themselves what's good or bad for them.
because it's easy money and for the fact they not supporting their own shyt...they using ms and sony's infrastructure(servers, customer service, etc.) to run their service...if they werent, then you'd have a point....but since they not, that would be dumb on sony/ms to take on the majority of the responsiblity of running the service, but receive the least....it's smart on ea's part, but dumb for ms/sony....
come on man, it sounds like you being contrarian just to be....how is it better for us (gamers) if all the devs offered different plans to play their games?...how is paying for different plans better for us?...it's not, that's better for them (companies), not us (gamers)....yea, sony is saying this trying to protect their interest of ps now, but in this case, what they saying is true in regards to us gamers....it's better for us to have all the games under 1 roof ala netflix, instead of different plans for each dev...
i see you keep talking like this is a sony only thing...if every dev did this, ms would be affected too...they'd get less games for gold....i know yall cats like to make everything ms vs sony, but this aint that....this is a business vs consumer thing....
as for ms offering the service: i dont think it's cause they think it's best for gamers....2 reasons why i think they doing it: 1) they have established a partnership with ea so far this gen, and this is just an extention of that; 2) it's to hurt sony's business....if they do this, maybe they get ea to pull their games from sony's ps now, maybe even ps+ (although i doubt that, that's free & extra money for the most part)....whatever the reason(s) is, i think it's cause it's best for ms & ea, not us....
Last edited:
Just like its better for you to have one cable company with no competition in your area? If other publishers have to complete for buyers on these subscription plans they have reason to offer better games at competitive prices as well as better and more perks. More competition in a given space isn't a bad thing unless you're the monopoly that rules in that space now which Sony is.
how does different companies offering the same thing (cable) compare to companies offering specific things (devs and their games)?....it doesnt...cable companies offer the majority of the same channels, so different options is good for consumers...ea only offering ea games, ubisoft only offering ubisoft games, activision only offering activision games, etc. is not good for consumers cause it limits the variety of what we get....them only offering their specific games means we'd have to pay for more (each sub plan) to enjoy each different dev's games...that's not good...
said it once, i'll say it again: this aint a ms vs sony thing, so please stop trying to make this about sony being the big bad guy...you're so busy trying to do that, you're not making any sense....you're talking about limiting what we get now just so you can have the option to pay more....seriously, how is it better for us (gamers) to get limited free choices through ps+/gold and having to pay for the 'good' games through each dev's sub plan, instead of us getting the 'good' games from all devs through ps+/gold like we do now?....it doesnt...yea, you're just talking shyt to talk shyt..
How do you have to pay anymore then you have to pay now to enjoy their games? If anything you pay less because some of the games you want get offered on their subscription and instead of paying $60 for a game you buy a given developer's service for a year.
You're almost misrepresenting this as if its some type of mandatory fee when its not as if you can't enjoy developer X's games unless you buy into a service. You could just buy the game outright like you do right now or you can hold off and hope Sony adds it to Playstation Plus if the developer lets them.
you pay more cause you're paying extra to play their old games that they're including in ps+/gold right now...why are you talking about new games? they arent gonna be included in the sub plan...and i'm not gonna wait a year or longer to play something that i want to play....if you are willing to, that's on you, but i'm not....
no, i'm not misrepresenting it cause i know it's optional....i'm talking about this from a consumer standpoint....i buy a lot of games already, but i dont buy every game....and right now, even though i dont sit and hope something gets put on ps+/gold, we do get a great selection of old games offered free through ps+/gold....if devs start their own sub plans, our selection gets very limited and to try some of those old games we'd either have to pay for the sub plan or go buy the game....which either way means spending more money....what part of that arent you getting?....
again: it just seems you talking shyt just to talk shyt...cause lets say each dev did get their own sub plan, which means limited selection of games given away through ps+/gold.....i bet you'd be complaining about that and having to pay for those extra sub plans or games you just thought about trying, but not really paying for...
MightyHealthy
said what he said
OBVIOUSLY fukkIN NOT!!!
I'm just playing FIFA with it, that's been worth the whopping 2.50 a month.
C'mon Courtdog Lite, you wouldn't give a shyt if this wasn't Xbox exclusive
Having the separate publishers do the plans gives you more choice as a consumer. The main gripe with PS+ and GWG is you get a bunch of shyt you don't want. If the indivudual publishers did their own service then you can just subscribe to the ones that are likely to have the games you want.
separate dev sub plans doesnt mean more choice....it means limited choice....you only get ea games from ea; only ubisoft games from ubisoft, etc....that's great for them (companies), not us (gamers).....it would be better for us if ms/sony did a service that included all the devs under 1 roof for a single fee...
how can the games being given away on plus/gold be a main gripe?...they've been giving away some big named titles (dmc, dead space 3, 2k14, gucamelee, etc) for free.....and all the other newer big named titles they offer discounts......individual sub plans would mean more games people dont want cause the choices would be limited.....
also, the games the devs are gonna offer are gonna be old, nothing new.....so the newer games people want, i hope they are going out buying, renting, and/or borrowing to play as soon as they can...i seriously hope people are not just waiting/hoping the games they really wanna play come to plus/gold.....i understand people's pockets are different, but i hope people arent being that cheap....that's killing the enjoyment of gaming for themselves....