This has nothing to do with pro-Sony and anti-MS bias, below i defend both PS+ and Games with Gold against EA's most recent scam attempt called EA access
I will break this down into key points
EA (don't) access:
From the ToS:
"(3) access to a limited library of certain EA Content (“Vault Title(s)”) for unlimited online play (“Vault Access”) for the duration of their availability in the Vault."
If people read TOS before they used services they wouldn't be using expressions such as "unlimited access" or "bargain" or "get games for free and play them for a year". A lot of misinformation here.
EA access, unlike its namesake, is very restrictive and limited. At any given moment you can only access the games that are in the vault in THAT particular moment. This means that EA can do whatever they want. Legally they can even add a huge game to the Vault for 1 day, watch the subs spike, and then remove it right away. Consumers will have no basis to complain or ask for a refund. You will no longer be able to play that game.
Unlike PS+ and GWG, you will not build a backlog if you subscribe to EA access. In both Sony and MS systems, once games are "rotated out", you are able to play them as long as you are subscribed. This means that even if the monthly offerings don't appeal to you for several months in a row, it's possible your yearly sub fee wasn't wasted as you can still go back and either replay PS+/GWG you enjoyed a lot or you can go through your backlog of games from those services. Not so with EA access. If you sub for a year because of 2 or 3 nice games that get removed in 1-2 months and then only games you don't like get added to the Vault for the rest of the year, you just wasted 30 bucks. No backlog, no access to previous games, no nothing. You either like what they put in there or you're screwed. It's safer to pay a monthly fee, but then that also drives up the yearly price to 60 bucks instead of 30...
With PS+ and GWG you get true "unlimited access" to all games that are ever put on the service. The only way that Sony and MS can legally restrict your access is if they become unable to legally sell that specific game on the store (like if a publisher's license expires or enters legal limbo). Otherwise, they simply cannot do it. Which is why subscribers of these services have built libraries of hundreds of games that they can play at any time. Unbeatable value compared to the scam that is EA access where you have "access" to nothing but what is in the Vault. There are also no requirements (at least right now) in the ToS about what gets put there, which means they can have only one game instead of several for a long time, or they can put mobile ports and shovelware if they so desire. Basically it's a great bait and switch system, where they can draw in subs with a few games for 1-3 months, switch it with crap nobody wants until the sub numbers get low again, rinse and repeat. EA has complete power to do this under their own terms.
Let's do a comparison here. PS+ currently offers 72 games per year on 3 platforms. By 2019 (new consoles?) you will have built up a library of 360 games. For 4 bucks per month, you can play them at any time. You will not lose them. Same for GWG, although the number of games is smaller because they only have 2 consoles instead of 3.
Slippery slope:
Subs like EA access reduce the value of the subscriptions that we already pay for. We just got Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3 on PS+. If we had EA access, that wouldn't have happened. "But you'd have gotten other games instead". Sure.. But if people want those EA games they'd have to pay 2 subs. PS+ and GWG are already there...why is a publisher trying to break away from that and have their own tightly controlled anti-consumer system?
And what happens if other major publishers try to do the same, in case EA access prevails?
Ubisoft Access
Square Enix Access
2K games Access
Capcom Access
Konami Access
Activision access (play the COD from 2 years ago!)
etc
"What's wrong with that? It's optional, you don't have to sub to all those things".
You're right, I don't...but what the hell happens to PS+ and GWG? Aren't a lot of people complaining that we are getting too many indies in these subs? So why even defend this EA practice? Cause if the publishers go forward with this, you can rest assured that indies is all you'll ever see on PS+ and GWG. Not just now, in the console's early life, but forever. You'll be playing 50/60 bucks a year for the ability to play online and indies. Then you'll have to pick which publishers subscriptions you'll want to pay for... If you like half of those, that's an extra 100-150 dollars a year right there...bringing the total to 200 dollars of subscription fees every year.
"But you kinda save (lol) money by having to buy less games". Not really. So you got BF4 or Cod #6393 on your subscription. Congrats. Enjoy playing it. For..a few weeks? 1 month, 2 months? What then? People play these games in a regular basis.. At most, the only thing you could accomplish is to buy less SP-only games, but it's debatable whether those would actually make it into these systems (right now EA vault games heavily revolve around replayability and multiplayer). And what about DLC? You buy the DLC and then lose access to the game. Wasted money on DLC. Have to buy the game anyway..to keep playing it. How many times do you want to pay for the damn game? Jeez.
Slippery slope 2.0:
I put this in a separate section because, unlike the above, it's more speculative and worse-case scenario rather than nearly certain. What is it? Business practices.
Systems like EA access will allow publishers to make whatever dick moves they want to cram the subs down people's throats. Like, say, exclusive DLC. DLC that's only sold for people who are playing the game through the Vault. Another bait and switch tactic. Put the game in there, get people to spend money on DLC, remove it from the Vault, and.. the player will probably "double dip". Meanwhile EA laughs to the bank.
Also the early access stuff.. Possibility of giving subscribers unfair MP advantages compared to regular buyers (or late buyers).
Less incentive to do price drops on games due to the (fake) appearance of a cheap alternative; the vault. Don't want to wait till it's less than 60? Well come along here friend, just subscribe and you can play it.. Until you can't because it's not in the Vault anymore.. And then you have to buy it if you want to keep going!
I see absolutely no reasonable motive to defend EA access. It is a bait and switch rip off of astounding proportion and threatens the future of our console gaming.
I can say right now with a straight face that if Sony gives in and actually allows EA access on PS, i will sell all my PS systems and switch to Nintendo. I'm not even kidding. I won't support someone who gets in bed with EA to screw the consumers like this. Force them to put the games on PS+ and GWG. Or tell them to buzz off.
Source: Me
Before I got banned some people saw I posted writing i was about to buy a Vita. I put that on hold until we get a completely 100% definitive confirmation that EA access will never come to PS. If Sony (or EA?) gives us that and confirm that it'll never come, I will get it. If the opposite happens, i'll sell the PS4 and PS3 and get a Wii U + 3DS.
Btw I won't bother replying to posts that have the words "Netflix", "PS now" and others in them. I've shot down enough non-counter-arguments already.
