hermes's forum posts

#1 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

@leebmx said:

@benmo316 said:

I can't help but think, and I could be 100% wrong, that EA charges Microsoft, and wanted to charge Sony, a fee to carry the service and Sony didn't want to pay it. It's a business decision that Sony thought wouldn't be best for them. Granted it's taking away the decision the consumer could've made if they wanted the EA service for not.

Why would EA being charging Microsoft? What possible service could they be charging for? MS are letting EA sell games through their infrastructure. It would be like a shop charging the mall owner rent. I don't think even EA has the balls to try that.

The only way EA could charge would be if they are giving MS a cut of their sales, which still doesn't really make much sense. I think they reason Sony said no was because it is a competing service (if a crappy one) and they don't want it drawing customers away from PSN.

There is a second possibility outside downright "charging them", which is EA does not want to pay for maintenance fees of PSN (currently, publishers pay Sony for the bandwidth users use to download demos, trailers or games). Since EA Access would only use PSN for login, they may want to renegotiate so it doesn't pay those fees, and Sony didn't wanted to.

The reason MS is different is because they never charged the publishers for maintenance of their online network. That is the reason PSN remained free for the public while XBox Live was always behind a pay wall.

#2 Edited by hermes (1387 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

@hermes said:

Of course, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that the system has some conditions on the part of Sony that they didn't want to take part of. The EA fee theory mentioned before sounds about right.

Why? Why do you think this? Why do people think this? This is the definition of idle speculation. It doesn't even make business sense for EA to charge console holders in order for those console holders to allow EA to sell a product on their store. That's the opposite of how licensing works!

Who said it was about licencing? All I am saying is that we don't know the fine print and, if we would, it would shade light into Sony's position.

Let me put it this way: Sony gets paid by EA every time someone downloads something from the PlayStation store by EA, in addition to the licencing fees they pay for making a PlayStation game (it was the way Sony kept the online free... by charging the publishers for the architecture maintenance costs instead of putting it on consumers and advertisement). Now imagine having that service allows EA to circumvent having to pay maintenance fees to Sony (which makes some sense, since the EA Access app would be a frontend for EA's servers, the same way the Netflix app doesn't impact on Sony's network architecture that much). Naturally, Sony would no be happy about it.

Or maybe it was a similar case to when Steam pulled EA games down under the justification that they wanted to start using in-game stores for DLC instead of going through Steam...

I guess my point is that I still feel like there is something about Sony's decision they are not telling us. "We don't want any competition" seems too shortsighted for a company that has shown to have no problem with services like Netflix and Amazon Movies chewing on the profits of their own services ("Video Unlimited")...

#3 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

Of course, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that the system has some conditions on the part of Sony that they didn't want to take part of. The EA fee theory mentioned before sounds about right.

However, at face value, it does look like they don't like the competition and want to avoid consumers confusion. I think it would be the first time a service requires a subscription fee on top of the plus fee (subscription applications like Netflix does not require plus)

#4 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

Yeah, I agree with that. Maybe not as a premium content of its own, but as part of UPF.

#5 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

@ltsmash said:

World War Z has a pretty great cast. Not the movie of course. The audiobook.

Yeah, I second that. The book is really good, and the performances are on a whole different level than most audiobooks.

The cast include veterans of voice acting like Max Brooks (Justice League), Mark Hamill (Batman) and John Turturro (Cars 2), besides a list of pretty big names in Hollywood (Simon Pegg, Martin Scorcese, Alfred Molina, etc)

Remember that audible has two versions (a regular one and the unabridged one). If you are going to redeem your tokens, you should go for the longest one, since they both cost the same...

#6 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

Brutal Legend.

Specially interesting if you are looking at a vertical slice of metal music.

#7 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

@fisk0 said:

@somedelicook said:

The only thing similar to The Bureau's combat is Mass Effect and the only thing similar to a 60's setting with monsters would be Bioshock 1 and 2, otherwise there isn't too much on PS3

What about the Resistance series? While in first person rather than third person, they are set in during an alien invasion the 50's, and that series is PS3 exclusive.

Yeah... Resistance 1 and 3 have a similar setting than Bureau (since we are at it, also check Singularity), but the only thing that comes close in terms of combat mechanics is Mass Effect (with a feature that doesn't get used too much, though).

#8 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -
  • Brothers
  • Bastion
  • Papo & Yo
  • Journey
  • Bioshock 2 DLC: Minerva's Den

Those are pretty short, and can get pretty emotional near the end.

I would also recommend Final Fantasy X (there is an HD version for PS3/Vita) and Okami, but they are pretty long games that take a while before they get really emotional (great games, though). Okami is different that the rest because it gets emotional but not sad, more of an uplifting game.

#9 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

Thomas was Alone...

#10 Posted by hermes (1387 posts) -

So many...