hermes

Trying to explain why The Rock is good is like trying to explain why ice cream is good. It just feels good...

But I will give it a try with this: Sean Connery is in it, and he kicks asses...

Well... I consider this game amazing, but the graphics are as basic as graphics can get.

Which proves that, as with anything, context is everything...

God of War 3. I even bought a PS3 in preparation for that game... but the characters were so cartoony it was painful.

Nevermind. It appears like a program I installed earlier inadvertently installed an extension that was causing the problem.

Apologies for the confusion.

Hello,

I am a subscribed member, yet when I enter and log in to the site, I find it full of advertisements. Did something in the ads providers or my subscription changed recently? This didn't happened last week...

Problem: A sequel to a game underperformed until it was included in multiple sales, on multiple platforms, eventually being successful.

Solution: Restrict access to the game to the newest generation of consoles, and among those, only to the least sold one in the market... Because logic.

I am not sold on it being exclusive. A few months later, it will come to everything under the sun, but the damage to the franchise will be done.

The writing in Remember Me was subpar, particularly the main character, but the setting was interesting and I am all for studios with unique visions been given the chance to express themselves...

No... they said that, with them being a small team, and the business about the flood and all, they were planning to handle platforms one at the time, which for them meant focus on PS4 now, and maybe PC and XB1 later ("maybe" being the important word here).

Good to know they put their act together after the flood so that they can confirm other platforms now... I can't wait to see it in action.

@leebmx said:

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.

@brodehouse said:

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")...