Sony was right to turn down EA

[MeachTheMonster]

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...

are you reading what your typing

Allowing the platform holders choose the games for us = more choice

Choosing which games/pubs we want to subscribe to = Less choice

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 teh other newer big named titles they offer discounts......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....

EA access gives you 3 full AAA games that came out less than a year ago for $30 a year. To go buy ONE of those games today it would cost you more than $30.

There's no way in hell you can paint that as "bad for consumers" GWG still exists and will still give good games. Now I have the option to save money on games that GWG doesn't have.

Funny thing is, if Sony never came out with that statement none of you would be talking about how bad it is for consumers.

Sony is basically telling you "Allowing our competitors to compete is bad for you" and y'all are eating it right up

 

[winb83]

are you reading what your typing

Allowing the platform holders choose the games for us = more choice

Choosing which games/pubs we want to subscribe to = Less choice



EA access gives you 3 full AAA games that came out less than a year ago for $30 a year. To go buy ONE of those games today it would cost you more than $30.

There's no way in hell you can paint that as "bad for consumers" GWG still exists and will still give good games. Now I have the option to save money on games that GWG doesn't have.

Funny thing is, if Sony never came out with that statement none of you would be talking about how bad it is for consumers.

Sony is basically telling you "Allowing our competitors to compete is bad for you" and y'all are eating it right up

Playstation Plus outside the Sony games are old games that have more than done their run or indie games that cost $5 anyway.

Just to get Battlefield 4 on EA Access is worth the $30 a year right now. I bet on PS+ you'd have to wait till a month out from Hardline just to maybe get 4 on that service.

All developers having services like this is better for us as gamers not worse. Sure there are things we lose but we gain more than we lose IMO.

 

[lutha]

are you reading what your typing

Allowing the platform holders choose the games for us = more choice

Choosing which games/pubs we want to subscribe to = Less choice



EA access gives you 3 full AAA games that came out less than a year ago for $30 a year. To go buy ONE of those games today it would cost you more than $30.

There's no way in hell you can paint that as "bad for consumers" GWG still exists and will still give good games. Now I have the option to save money on games that GWG doesn't have.

Funny thing is, if Sony never came out with that statement none of you would be talking about how bad it is for consumers.

Sony is basically telling you "Allowing our competitors to compete is bad for you" and y'all are eating it right up

yes, i know what i'm typing: having each dev's games under a specific sub (ea for ea only games, ubisoft for ubisoft only games, activision for activision only games, etc.) = less choice for games and more money...having all the dev's games under 1 roof = more choices for games to pick...it would be like having nexflix vs each movie studio having their own sub plan....

those games might be less than a year old, but they're still old....and were bought by peple when they first released....also, ea doing that was a nice way to get people to buy the sub plan....they arent gonna offer the new madden, battlefield, etc as soon as it's released, so people are still gonna have to go out and buy the newer games....unless they gonna wait until a year later to play it.....which most wont do....

i didnt say gold/plus wouldnt exist, but if each dev pulls their games so they can offer on their plan, that limits the games that will be given away...

like i told the other cat: you can try, but this isnt a sony vs ms thing...it's better and cheaper for us gamers to have all the devs games under 1 plan and not different plans for each dev....

 

[MeachTheMonster]

yes, i know what i'm typing: having each dev's games under a specific sub (ea for ea only games, ubisoft for ubisoft only games, activision for activision only games, etc.) = less choice for games and more money...having all the dev's games under 1 roof = more choices for games to pick...it would be like having nexflix vs each movie studio having their own sub plan....

those games might be less than a year old, but they're still old....and were bought by peple when they first released....also, ea doing that was a nice way to get people to buy the sub plan....they arent gonna offer the new madden, battlefield, etc as soon as it's released, so people are still gonna have to go out and buy the newer games....unless they gonna wait until a year later to play it.....which most wont do....

i didnt say gold/plus wouldnt exist, but if each dev pulls their games so they can offer on their plan, that limits the games that will be given away...

like i told the other cat: you can try, but this isnt a sony vs ms thing...it's better and cheaper for us gamers to have all the devs games under 1 plan and not different plans for each dev....

Not gonna continue the back and forth but what your suggesting goes against common knowledge of economics and business in general.

 

[lutha]

Playstation Plus outside the Sony games are old games that have more than done their run or indie games that cost $5 anyway.

Just to get Battlefield 4 on EA Access is worth the $30 a year right now. I bet on PS+ you'd have to wait till a month out from Hardline just to maybe get 4 on that service.

All developers having services like this is better for us as gamers not worse. Sure there are things we lose but we gain more than we lose IMO.

why do yall keep referencing battlefield 4?....that shyt is gonna be the exception...that is to get you to buy the plan....do yall really think they gonna offer the new madden, battlefield, etc. only a couple months after they release?.....hell no....

serious question: are yall buying this plan just to not buy games?...that what it sounds like...in that case, yea, i agree, devs offering that shyt would be great...if you still plan on buying games, it's not...

 

[winb83]

why do yall keep referencing battlefield 4?....that shyt is gonna be the exception...that is to get you to buy the plan....do yall really think they gonna offer the new madden, battlefield, etc. only a couple months after they release?.....hell no....

serious question: are yall buying this plan just to not buy games?...that what it sounds like...in that case, yea, i agree, devs offering that shyt would be great...if you still plan on buying games, it's not...

it gets me to buy the plan this year. they have to do something else next year to keep me subscribed.

I buy a lot of games. I've purchased 15-20 games this year alone on release day. Some of these games I'd hold off on buying 6 months if i can get them on a publisher service.

 

[lutha]

Not gonna continue the back and forth but what your suggesting goes against common knowledge of economics and business in general.

actually it doesnt, but we can stop...

 

[lutha]

it gets me to buy the plan this year. they have to do something else next year to keep me subscribed.

I buy a lot of games. I've purchased 15-20 games this year alone on release day. Some of these games I'd hold off on buying 6 months if i can get them on a publisher service.

in that case, i can see the plan working for you....but whose to say they wouldnt have givent those games away free with plus/gold....anyway, it's all gonna depend on content and i guess we'll see what's up....

 

[#StarkSet]

does the dlc come with bf4?

@MeachTheMonster

 

[Zero]

Why do I get the feeling that if this was on PS4 and not Xbone, certain people would change their tune about it?

 

[PS5 Pro]

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

Use propaganda articles to think for you brehs

Playstation Plus outside the Sony games are old games that have more than done their run or indie games that cost $5 anyway.

Just to get Battlefield 4 on EA Access is worth the $30 a year right now. I bet on PS+ you'd have to wait till a month out from Hardline just to maybe get 4 on that service.

All developers having services like this is better for us as gamers not worse. Sure there are things we lose but we gain more than we lose IMO.

Bruh, BF3 hitting PS+ when it did was an exception not the norm
The ONLY reason it hit PS+ as early as it did was because we were going into a new gen
And EA wanted to increase its BF fanbase, which worked since BF4 despite all the hate?
Is the premiere game of the next gen... well, it was at launch. Debatable now

Since then, sony has been bullshytting on games to the point M$ has been consistently offering better games
But other than that,