Quote Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn View Post
So because Sony doesn't see "value" in it, they're just going to assume that no one else does either and that the program shouldn't even be launched on their platform? Makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, Sony is trying to charge outrageous prices with PS Now to stream old games. Value.
Initially I thought the decision was made more to protect PS Plus, but perhaps it was done so for PS Plus and PS Now. (PS Now is so off my radar, I had forgotten about it.)

The "reason" given should be taken with a boulder of salt since it was off the record and anonymous, but I can't help think they may have passed on EA Access to help protect + & Now. Sony cannot afford to have each and every developer/publisher with their own console app to rent/purchase old games. I would assume EA's participation in Plus and Now would drop significantly should Access come to PS4, if it hasn't/won't already. The same could possibly (likely?) happen once Ubi-pass, Acti-scription, etc. come to fruition.

This isn't an issue with Microsoft as their free games in Games with Gold have been considered extremely weak and outdated. PS Plus has been solid in this regard.

In the long run, PS Plus to play them online and then costs for PS Now and/or for multiple publishers to play older titles could end up being very costly to consumers. While I personally would prefer more choices (let me decide to buy or not buy EA Access), I also do not want to see less publishers offering titles with PS Plus, hence a lower perceived value for the cost. (This assuming publishers will get a higher cut with their own app vs. PS Plus.)


I'd also add it's worth noting that the website/release for EA Access does not say anything about it coming first, only, or exclusively to Xbox One. Given the backlash, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony reverses course, though in the long run I am not sure it would be for the best of the gaming community.