|
sba posted:You get to play the new releases for 3-4 days before street date. Do those actually work in early access? I thought I read that online stuff isn't up yet when they come out.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Do those actually work in early access? I thought I read that online stuff isn't up yet when they come out. The only things you can't do are get your cheevos (they unlock when you first boot up the retail game though) and buy DLC
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Cool it's super weird you never did since they've been offering the ability to do that for awhile now. I've been able to play FIFA 14 and Madden 25 on my XBOne with a subscription "for awhile now?" That's news to me, since it looks like they announced it today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
I'd be very happy to be wrong about this but I'd like to know what happens with the availability of last year's FIFA/Madden subscriptions when the new ones are released. One of the big potential gotchas here (which is a big problem with Netflix and PSNow) is if stuff will get cycled out all the time. Like, if I buy a year subscription now, and download FIFA 14 and Madden 25, will those still be playable once the new games come out, or will the ability to play it be eliminated somehow? Because if they can just remove it on a whim that's going to kill a lot of potential with the service. And companies have pulled poo poo like this too (e.g. Amazon remote deleting eBooks, Disney removing the ability to stream Christmas movies during Christmas), so the only thing that would be shocking about EA doing it is the fact that they were beaten to the punch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
univbee posted:I'd be very happy to be wrong about this but I'd like to know what happens with the availability of last year's FIFA/Madden subscriptions when the new ones are released. One of the big potential gotchas here (which is a big problem with Netflix and PSNow) is if stuff will get cycled out all the time. Cycling out is a good point, however with services like Netflix they cycle as that is the end of their license for that piece of content in that territory. Ea wouldn't have that problem as they obviously own the content. Also it really wouldn't be in EA's interest to cycle out FIFA 14 when FIFA 15 is just around the corner, as no one's going out and buying that game anyway. Better for them to beef up their selection in hopes of retaining subscribers. It seems like too much of a good deal, especially coming from EA. I'm guessing you download the game rather than streaming it like psnow? I hope so, that would cut down on laggy streaming and buffering/blocky artifacting problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I'd have to see what non-sports/ Battlefield games are being offered to see if this was worth it as well as how soon new games are put out on it. But $30 bucks a year for EA netflix isn't bad, although, again, it'd be better if it were more than a single publisher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Crafty posted:What you're ignoring is the fact that bf4 and FIFA 14 still go on eBay (used) for 30 + shipping. So if I bought both of those now that'd be 70ish dollars. I could instead get two years of this subscription service and save myself ten dollars and get access to all the new games they add in between now and two years time. It's been nearly a year since since either of those games has come out, hell FIFA 15 will release in just under two months. Most people that have waited that long were never going to purchase the game. The deal allows EA to still make money off of those people thinking it has value while still potentially selling DLC to them. So basically ask yourself this. Is the game they are offering a game you would pay it's current retail value for? If the answer is yes you are saving money since you were going to spend 70ish dollars on purchasing those games and instead you have only spent 29.99. If the answer is no you you wouldn't purchase those games at their current price but now will because of the deal you haven't saved 40 dollars you've spent 29.99.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Crafty posted:I'm guessing you download the game rather than streaming it like psnow? I hope so, that would cut down on laggy streaming and buffering/blocky artifacting problems. I have a suspicion it might be streaming since there was already talk of them doing exactly that using the X1 box through Comcast, and their press release talking about "start play at the push of a button" suggests there isn't an hours-long download that takes place. My suspicion about the cycling out is more about customers who might decide to subscribe and do that instead of buying the newest release. I mean, $30 for two sports games that are only a year old versus $120+tax for the latest ones is kind of getting into the territory where I don't see many people going with the latter option; used old sports games tank in value pretty fast but even ones a year old would still command at least $25 used each through most channels. That said, EA did go a little weird with their sports games pricing; I have NHL 14 on PS3 (still the newest one) because they sold it as a digital download for 75% off at one point ($15  ), and likewise FIFA 14 for PS4 in Japan was a $15 download for the duration of the World Cup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:It's been nearly a year since since either of those games has come out, hell FIFA 15 will release in just under two months. Most people that have waited that long were never going to purchase the game. The deal allows EA to still make money off of those people thinking it has value while still potentially selling DLC to them. I see what you're saying but that argument only really holds if the 30 dollar one year subscription only gave access to those two games. I've never played a peggle game so I'd give that a go too, and I imagine there would be more added at later dates. Personally I wouldn't go for the year subscription. I'll get a month, maybe two, and play fifa and bf4 till I'm bored of them. It remains to be seen how old games need to be before they are added to the vault. It could be 9 months, it could be 3 months. I imagine EA don't want to cannibalize their game sales.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Crafty posted:I see what you're saying but that argument only really holds if the 30 dollar one year subscription only gave access to those two games. I've never played a peggle game so I'd give that a go too, and I imagine there would be more added at later dates. Personally I wouldn't go for the year subscription. I'll get a month, maybe two, and play fifa and bf4 till I'm bored of them. It's the same exact concept no matter how many games they offer. Would you be willing to pay money for this game at current price y/n? If you would totally go out right now and pick up BF4 and FIFA you are saving money with value added from the other two games regardless of if you would pay for them or not. The vast majority of people however will not see it that way they will see it as, "I am saving money because this is cheaper than normally even though I had no intention of picking up those games for any money"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
I don't see this as a bad thing if you want to try out certain EA games before buying them. I would've gladly paid $5 to try BF4 before I bought it (instead of dropping $40 on it and trading it in a month later like I did).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:It's been nearly a year since since either of those games has come out, hell FIFA 15 will release in just under two months. Most people that have waited that long were never going to purchase the game. The deal allows EA to still make money off of those people thinking it has value while still potentially selling DLC to them. I have no interest in dropping $60 on FIFA 15 or Madden 15, but will happily pay 5 or 10 bucks to play them for a month or two. It doesn't mean I'm sippin' the EA kool-aid, just that I finally feel like the cost matches my desire. There are plenty of reasons why EA are dicks, but "offering a cheap barebones subscription service" isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Freaquency posted:I have no interest in dropping $60 on FIFA 15 or Madden 15, but will happily pay 5 or 10 bucks to play them for a month or two. It doesn't mean I'm sippin' the EA kool-aid, just that I finally feel like the cost matches my desire. There are plenty of reasons why EA are dicks, but "offering a cheap barebones subscription service" isn't one of them. There are plenty of ways to take advantage of deals (even terrible ones designed to get people to spend more money than the deal is worth) but to say it's a good deal because you found a way to take advantage of it doesn't make sense. The deal is designed for annual subs hence why it is half price for ponying up for the year. Yeah there are going to be some people that want to play sports games for a month only and then will drop the sub but they certainly aren't the target audience for the offer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:It's the same exact concept no matter how many games they offer. Would you be willing to pay money for this game at current price y/n? If you would totally go out right now and pick up BF4 and FIFA you are saving money with value added from the other two games regardless of if you would pay for them or not. The vast majority of people however will not see it that way they will see it as, "I am saving money because this is cheaper than normally even though I had no intention of picking up those games for any money" I'm not following you. If I went and bought those games in store right now i'd be paying around 130 dollars with tax, maybe more (I think games are 70 in Canada right now). I'd play them for a maximum of 3 or 4 months I imagine and then trade them in for probably around 20 dollars each, maximum. So i'd be down around 80 or 90 dollars for the privilege. That's too much for me, however... I could subscribe for 4 months, play those games and maybe try peggle and madden, get 5 days of free play on new titles that were about to release, all for 20 dollars. Saving myself 60/70 dollars. I don't see how you can argue that's a bad deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Crafty posted:I'm not following you. If I went and bought those games in store right now i'd be paying around 130 dollars with tax, maybe more (I think games are 70 in Canada right now). I'd play them for a maximum of 3 or 4 months I imagine and then trade them in for probably around 20 dollars each, maximum. So i'd be down around 80 or 90 dollars for the privilege. That's too much for me, however... It's like saying you expected to lose 100 dollars but only lost 75 dollars and telling people you gained 25 dollars. So again would you pay 80 or 90 dollars for those games right now? Is the answer no? Then you didn't save 60 to 70 you spent 20 dollars. Since you normally wouldn't have spent any money to play those games. I guess this logic doesn't work if you feel like not buying a game isn't an option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
EA would like to make money. I would like to play these games, but not at the price point that EA set. EA lowers the price point to a level that I feel comfortable paying, and we make a transaction. It's not like EA is taking $10 from me and giving me nothing in return.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:
what in the heck are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:It's like saying you expected to lose 100 dollars but only lost 75 dollars and telling people you gained 25 dollars. Ok I see what you're saying, you're assuming I have zero interest in battlefield and FIFA. My interest isn't enough to pay full price. I had bf4 before and traded it for titanfall, I'd like to play it again though, but obviously not for 70 dollars. I've played the FIFA demo a lot and i'd like to get the full game, again not for full price. If I could buy both those games for 15 dollars (inc tax) each right now I'd probably do it. To play both for 5 dollars a month is a no brainer. Plus the other games, plus the discount on dlc, and in the future getting early access to new game trials. I'd say this is also a good deal for people that haven't tried bf4 yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Freaquency posted:EA would like to make money. I would like to play these games, but not at the price point that EA set. EA lowers the price point to a level that I feel comfortable paying, and we make a transaction. It's not like EA is taking $10 from me and giving me nothing in return. You keep taking this personally when I said that fine if that's what your doing carry on. I could argue that none of those games is worth five dollars or you're giving money to EA games for often broken always DLC laden games but that's irrelevant. What EAs target for this is to get people to pay for the annual sub. It's further to get these subs into games that they would normally not pay for to get them to purchase DLC for those games with the additional hope that they will spend money on new releases since it gets them 6 dollars off. Again you can argue that you personally will take advantage of the deal and sure there are totally ways to do that. But to call it a good deal or praise EA for offering it is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:
Is it ok to call it a good deal if I, personally, am getting a good deal? And to be happy with EA doing it because its a pretty big benefit to me personally? And I am gonna move this down here \/\/\/ seriously. Its a good idea. Its another option. Its not a requirement to play their games. The theory that EA wants people to buy their DLC (of course they do) so they are offering up unlimited access to games to do it and thats somehow bad for the consumer is insane. You can play a very small amount of money to play these games and you can choose to buy DLC if you want. WinnebagoWarrior fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
WinnebagoWarrior posted:Is it ok to call it a good deal if I, personally, am getting a good deal? And to be happy with EA doing it because its a pretty big benefit to me personally? No, only if it was offered by Valve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
WinnebagoWarrior posted:what in the heck are you talking about So do you actually know how the deal works or what? quote:You can join EA Access for just $4.99 per month, or you can purchase an annual membership for $29.99 per year on Xbox LIVE®. Five times twelve is sixty. Thirty is half of sixty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:You keep taking this personally when I said that fine if that's what your doing carry on. I could argue that none of those games is worth five dollars or you're giving money to EA games for often broken always DLC laden games but that's irrelevant. It's a good deal. If you have a personal beef with EA I can understand why you wouldn't like it. Down with big companies and all that. I generally only play games for a couple of months maximum anyway, this way I'll save money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
The easiest thing to do here to work out if its good value is to compare it to a years worth of PS+ or Live free games, as thats the kind of service this is contending with, even down to the discounts etc while subbed. $30 for 4 games vs $40/50 for 72 games with PS+ or $60 for 48 games with GWG, with the EA vault subject to changes and removals at the whim of EA rather than permanent access as long as you are subscribed (which doesnt get wiped with a lapse). Its really not very good value at all, even if you only take into consideration current gen offers on PS+ and GWG (24 a year for GWG, 24 minimum for PS+ with more possible/likely with cross platform games given away).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Crafty posted:It's a good deal. If you have a personal beef with EA I can understand why you wouldn't like it. Down with big companies and all that. Oh for sure man. People just froth at EA in particular cause it's like big and stuff. Stux posted:The easiest thing to do here to work out if its good value is to compare it to a years worth of PS+ or Live free games, as thats the kind of service this is contending with, even down to the discounts etc while subbed. $30 for 4 games vs $40/50 for 72 games with PS+ or $60 for 48 games with GWG, with the EA vault subject to changes and removals at the whim of EA rather than permanent access as long as you are subscribed (which doesnt get wiped with a lapse). Its really not very good value at all, even if you only take into consideration current gen offers on PS+ and GWG (24 a year for GWG, 24 minimum for PS+ with more possible/likely with cross platform games given away). Also this. That works out to 69 cents per game for PS+ and 80 cents for GWG and 7.50 per game for EAs. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:You keep taking this personally when I said that fine if that's what your doing carry on. I could argue that none of those games is worth five dollars or you're giving money to EA games for often broken always DLC laden games but that's irrelevant. I'm not taking it personally, I'm just using myself as an example. To be honest, I can't see somebody who wouldn't play these games until they were a $5/mo sub dropping a ton of money to get all of the DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Almost everything Sedisp is spouting seems nonsensical to me, but:Stux posted:The easiest thing to do here to work out if its good value is to compare it to a years worth of PS+ or Live free games, as thats the kind of service this is contending with, even down to the discounts etc while subbed. $30 for 4 games vs $40/50 for 72 games with PS+ or $60 for 48 games with GWG, with the EA vault subject to changes and removals at the whim of EA rather than permanent access as long as you are subscribed (which doesnt get wiped with a lapse). Its really not very good value at all, even if you only take into consideration current gen offers on PS+ and GWG (24 a year for GWG, 24 minimum for PS+ with more possible/likely with cross platform games given away). That actually makes sense and is an interesting comparison. From that perspective, it certainly isn't anywhere near the value as other offerings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
WinnebagoWarrior posted:Is it ok to call it a good deal if I, personally, am getting a good deal? Keep in mind we don't actually know what the deal is yet. Is it streaming or download versions of games? We don't know, but they say "with the push of a button" and they had streaming games plans so maybe it's streaming? Are games going to rotate out and cut off access? EA says "no plans" while at the same time saying they totally could on a technical level (and helpfully let you know in an email they just hosed you) and specifically listing BF4 and Peggle 2 as 10% off games. This could be a good deal, and I really hope it is, but don't forget we're talking about EA here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
/\/\/\ yeah, this is a big loving deal to me. Streaming games sucks a ton and I wouldnt pay for it if it was streaming I dont think. Sedisp posted:
Which is a good deal regardless right? paying 70-80 cents for games that are typically 10-20 dollars or 7.50 for games that are 12-40 dollars is a good deal regardless. You are just getting more games cheaper. If you want them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Freaquency posted:I'm not taking it personally, I'm just using myself as an example. I don't see a whole lot of people using it as an EA flavored Netflix. More of a supplement to GWG or PS+. So if you want to actually play BF4s MP yeah you're going to be buying DLC. WinnebagoWarrior posted:/\/\/\ yeah, this is a big loving deal to me. Streaming games sucks a ton and I wouldnt pay for it if it was streaming I dont think. I typically only consider a deal good if the alternatives are basically the same. EAs is ten times less valuable than the other two. Literally in PS+'s case and nearly literally in GWG. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Oh for sure man. People just froth at EA in particular cause it's like big and stuff. 69 cents for Contrast, and 7.50 for bf4 or fifa actually sounds very fair. Don't you think? Stux posted:The easiest thing to do here to work out if its good value is to compare it to a years worth of PS+ or Live free games, as thats the kind of service this is contending with, even down to the discounts etc while subbed. $30 for 4 games vs $40/50 for 72 games with PS+ or $60 for 48 games with GWG, with the EA vault subject to changes and removals at the whim of EA rather than permanent access as long as you are subscribed (which doesnt get wiped with a lapse). Its really not very good value at all, even if you only take into consideration current gen offers on PS+ and GWG (24 a year for GWG, 24 minimum for PS+ with more possible/likely with cross platform games given away). Gwg and ps+ have given away exclusively indie titles this generation so I don't know how fair of a comparison this really is. I've spent over 100 hours on bf4 when it released, I imagine there's goons clocking in way over 500 hours by now. I don't think its fair to compare games like FIFA and BF4 to halo wars or entwined on a like for like basis. If gwg and ps+ were giving away retail titles it'd be a better comparison. On a like for like basis you could compare this ea subscription to psnow. On psnow 5 dollars will get you four hours with a single old title, or 30 dollars for 90 days for one game. Bit of a no contest there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Crafty posted:69 cents for Contrast, and 7.50 for bf4 or fifa actually sounds very fair. Don't you think? BF4 is going to be a miserable experience for anyone buying it for the SP campaign or don't want to spend 30 dollars on actually getting into the MP for premium. As for fifa? in two months it will be last years fifa. So lets compare it to 13. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=fifa+soccer+13&_sacat=0 Crafty posted:Gwg and ps+ have given away exclusively indie titles this generation so I don't know how fair of a comparison this really is. I've spent over 100 hours on bf4 when it released, I imagine there's goons clocking in way over 500 hours by now. I don't think its fair to compare games like FIFA and BF4 to halo wars or entwined on a like for like basis. If gwg and ps+ were giving away retail titles it'd be a better comparison. Weren't you just saying you play a game for like a month then ditch it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Crafty posted:On a like for like basis you could compare this ea subscription to psnow. On psnow 5 dollars will get you four hours with a single old title, or 30 dollars for 90 days for one game. Bit of a no contest there. How in the gently caress is this "like for like?" He was comparing a subscription service which offers game discounts and free older titles to services which offer game discounts and free older titles (and it does give you free retail titles for the older consoles, even some EA games at least on PS3), which isn't what PSNow is doing at all. PSNow is a poo poo deal right now but it's also a completely different service (we don't know enough about EA Access to fully assess what common ground there is, if any).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
univbee posted:How in the gently caress is this "like for like?" He was comparing a subscription service which offers game discounts and free older titles to services which offer game discounts and free older titles (and it does give you free retail titles for the older consoles, even some EA games at least on PS3), which isn't what PSNow is doing at all. PSNow is a poo poo deal right now but it's also a completely different service (we don't know enough about EA Access to fully assess what common ground there is, if any). It's like for like because it's a subscription service that gives access to a full retail game? I don't see how that can be confusing. It's a lot more like for like than gwg or ps+ which are multiplayer subscription services primarily, that offer free indie games as a sweetener. Sedisp posted:Weren't you just saying you play a game for like a month then ditch it? A month or two yeah, that's why I'd only subscribe to a monthly rather than a yearly. Yes sports games drop in price when the newest iteration comes out but the auction you just posted shows a 20 dollar 360 version of FIFA 13. Lets ignore the fact that last gen games may be a little cheaper than current gen. For 10 dollars more you could get a yearly subscription containing at least 4 games, discounts and early access. But you really think 20 dollars upfront is the better deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Crafty posted:A month or two yeah, that's why I'd only subscribe to a monthly rather than a yearly. Yes sports games drop in price when the newest iteration comes out but the auction you just posted shows a 20 dollar 360 version of FIFA 13. Lets ignore the fact that last gen games may be a little cheaper than current gen. For 10 dollars more you could get a yearly subscription containing at least 4 games, discounts and early access. But you really think 20 dollars upfront is the better deal? There are 8 and 11 dollar copies of it. The top search result is 14. So yes it is a terrible deal compared to the other two offerings. Sedisp fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Crafty posted:69 cents for Contrast, and 7.50 for bf4 or fifa actually sounds very fair. Don't you think? A streaming service that allows you to stream (eventually admittedly) full retail PS3 games to devices like the ps vita, pstv, certain television sets as well as future support for phones and tablets in which you pay to rent certain titles is in no way comparable to a subscription based service offering year old games and discounts, which is what PS+ and GWG both are. It is safe to assume that GWG and PS+ will both be giving away retail titles for current gen consoles sometime after they aren't literally less than a year old, and PS+ at least has, this year, given away both pro evo 14 and NBA2K14 during the years they were relevant on PS3. EA simultaneously not giving away their sports titles over either service, while launching a similar service with a far worse value proposition isn't a coincidence and if it takes off it will ensure they won't see any merit in putting their sports games onto PS+ or GWG. If it fails then its possible they might let their year old sports titles appear on those services, because at least then they still get some money, whereas people buying them used gets them exactly $0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:There are 8 and 11 dollar copies of it. The top search result is 14. So yes it is a terrible deal compared to the other two offerings. You're cracking me up dude. It's like you never saw an eBay auction before  People bid when they are about to close. Your example isn't working too well, that games two years old now and still commanding close to 20 dollars on an older, cheaper platform. You get one single game for that price too. No discounts, no early access. But the EA subscription is terrible!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Crafty posted:It's like for like because it's a subscription service that gives access to a full retail game? I don't see how that can be confusing. It's a lot more like for like than gwg or ps+ which are multiplayer subscription services primarily, that offer free indie games as a sweetener. PS+ only just became a multiplayer subscription service (it's been giving discounts and free games for a few years now and has only been a multiplayer subscription since November). PSNow's main purpose is to allow game rental (and for a specific title you choose) and streaming it from distant servers, generally (but not exclusively) because you don't have the console to run it on. It not being a subscription service is specifically why so many people turned against it; if it was "$X a month for free access to a large rotating PS3 library" the deal would potentially be a hell of a lot better, but right now its pricing is really hosed and Sony knows it and is still trying to figure things out (whether or not this will happen remains to be seen, it's entirely likely the pricing will always be poo poo). Sony's interest in the technology seems more long term, like seeing if it's even possible/popular to have a console game service without the whole problem of getting a console to the end user for possible "beyond PS4" use. Calling it a "subscription" is weird like saying you had a "Blockbuster subscription" whenever you had a VHS tape out for a few nights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Crafty posted:A month or two yeah, that's why I'd only subscribe to a monthly rather than a yearly. Yes sports games drop in price when the newest iteration comes out but the auction you just posted shows a 20 dollar 360 version of FIFA 13. Lets ignore the fact that last gen games may be a little cheaper than current gen. For 10 dollars more you could get a yearly subscription containing at least 4 games, discounts and early access. But you really think 20 dollars upfront is the better deal? FIFA 13 in the UK is £2.99 for the 360 and £3.99 on the PS3 used, with free delivery, online, from a major retailer. And then you could even trade them back in after a month for £1 off another game if you really wanted. univbee posted:PS+ only just became a multiplayer subscription service (it's been giving discounts and free games for a few years now and has only been a multiplayer subscription since November). PS now is meant to have a subscription option as well at release, but we don't know what that will entail yet. Stux fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
the xbox one can play ps3 games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
