You can't replace EA Access with PS Now, either. You'll be paying a lot more money to access older non-EA games. But EA Access shares many more elements with PS+ than it does PS Now. And online play is exactly why the selection has been such hot garbage so far. There's no need for them to get big games to draw in customers anymore, it's wasting money. The draw to EA Access is still the vault of free games. Too bad Sony said no thanks.

I think it´s a great idea because it means more competition. Let´s be honest PS+ on PS4 has really been a joke so far, indie game after indie game. It would be great to see cheaper but also far more appealing services like EA Access seems to be. At the very least you know what exactly you are subscribing into when it comes to the games, instead of what Sony is doing with the PS+ games.

Sony has been very lazy after the successful launch of the PS4 postponing games like Driveclub and instead rerelease overpriced rehashes like The Last of US and they are even thinking to do the same with the old games like previous Uncharted entries.

Also it´s kind of telling that it´s mostly PS4 only owners that are complaining about this offering. Like they feel the need to justify Sonys monopolistic ambitions.

I was talking about PS+/Gold in my last post... not PSNow. And just to be clear I probably will never use PSNow at how it is priced now.

"MicroSony would be compelled to add better games if EA is offering next gen titles at a much lower subscription price."

No they wouldn't. Why would Sony/MS be compelled to add better games because of EA Access? Will EA Access steal subscribers from PS+/Gold?

For the same reason Microsoft was compelled to add GwG, competition. Was PS+ stealing customers away from MS? XBL required Gold to play online back then, too.

You have a service on the same network adding such better, newer games and at such a cheaper price, it's only natural that customers would start to notice. Sony didn't allow it on PSN because it would make PS Now look like even more of a joke and would make their PS+ game offerings look worse too. This is, of course, assuming Sony actually turned down the service and their comments about "customer values" were not birthed out of scorned, bitter tears.

MS either doesn't mind the competition or doesn't care.

A year of EA Access is $30. That's only 4 months (roughly) for Now, or 4 games for one month. Doesn't seem bad to me.

EA Access is $29.99 per year if you buy it yearly. People aren't going to renew if the value isn't there the first year. EA and MS have to make it worthwhile.

And people are acting like this is the end all/be all for the way games are going to be distributed. It's essentially an experiment and it may fail, but it may not. Just like PS Now, which gives me access to old games that I don't care about for ridiculous prices, based on the early models.

GwG came around when the PS4 and XOne were announced. They did it to make their service of equal value to their main competitor. Microsoft did it to take away a benefit that Sony had with their service. Get a PS4 and with PS+ you get free games, but get a XOne and you have to pay for Gold to play online and no free games. Sounds to me like it would have been a selling point for the next gen consoles (PS4/XOne).

EA Access isn't a competitor to PS+/Gold. Why would anyone drop PS+/Gold to get EA Access instead? They are different services. To play games online you MUST have PS+/Gold. You can't drop it and get EA Access to play games online.

EA Access will not push Sony/MS to improve their game offering in PS+/Gold. Sony/MS doesn't care what games EA Access offers... They are both going to get their money from PS+/Gold.

And at the bold: EA Access is on XOne because it is NOT a competitor to Gold. Microsoft cares about making money. That's how it works. So again this brings me to my point. EA Access isn't going to make Gold/PS+ better. They are both going to stay the same whether EA Access is there or not.

Yeah no clue why people seem to think it is directly competing with PS+/GwG. EA Access doesn't allow you to play online...

You're still going on as if I am saying you can replace Gold or + with Access. As if it has to be one or the other. You said it yourself towards the end, MS (and Sony) care about making money. Customers funneling money into EA Access is less money they spend on PS+ discounts, or Deals with Gold. Being able to play Madden 15 in its entirety five days early is less time spent on a PS+ trial. It's competition. If you're telling me it's not competition then you must believe the load of crap Sony said about refusing the service because it's not a value to their customers.The difference here is Sony has another service they are trying to launch and wants no part of another company cutting into it.

Your opinion about its affect is fine. We can just agree to disagree.

You stated earlier: "MicroSony would be compelled to add better games if EA is offering next gen titles at a much lower subscription price."

They would only add better games if EA Access was taking customers away.

"You said it yourself towards the end, MS (and Sony) care about making money. Customers funneling money into EA Access is less money they spend on PS+ discounts, or Deals with Gold. Being able to play Madden 15 in its entirety five days early is less time spent on a PS+ trial."

EA Access is taking customers away from used game sales. Let's say I have PS+ and a trial comes up. Would Sony make money if I play the trial or lose money if I play the trial? They would have to host the trial for me to download so they would lose money, although extremely small, but they certainly wouldn't make money from it.

"It's competition. If you're telling me it's not competition then you must believe the load of crap Sony said about refusing the service because it's not a value to their customers.The difference here is Sony has another service they are trying to launch and wants no part of another company cutting into it."

You pretty much just agreed with some of what I was saying right here. Like I said earlier... EA Access competes with PSNow not PS+. This is why Sony doesn't want it on their platform and MS is ok with it. Having PS+ is pretty much given. Now the users have EA Access and PSNow to choose from. Would Sony have rejected EA Access from coming to their platform if PSNow didn't exist?

So you have agreed that PS+ and Gold will not be replaced by EA Access. So why would Sony/MS make PS+/Gold better? They are still getting their money.