LOL - I love how he "wouldn't call that restricting, just more expensive"

People should stop comparing services:

Playstation Plus is Xbox Live with free games every month(just like Xbox Live Gold) including a backlog. These game are a FREE BONUS, Xbox Live of the old days was just as expensive without free games.

Playstation Now is a game STREAMING service, not a rental service. There are servers running the entire game.

EA access is a subscription based rental service, but unlike most rental service you don't have a say to what you get to play. Also it has no backlog, once the game is taken down it's gone. If you sign up to play a certain game and it gets taken down the next day, you're out of luck.

Sure both are way to "rent" games but, they both are completely different services. Access is for more recent games with a subscription based model while now is games from previous generations that can be rented individually. If you can't see why that's harder to compare now, there's no way you'll see what we are trying to say.

Dang if EA Access is a rip-off then what is PS Now? I see the prices in PS Now and can't believe anyone would pay for any of these rentals on offer, while EA Access on the other hand has several games on offer for 30 bucks for a year.

Disagree with this thread. EA access is optional and is the future regardless if people hate it or not. Best thing about it is its cheap and will offer a library of great games. I don't like EA but under the EA umbrella houses some of the greatest franchises gaming has seen. I have a XB1 and I wont be subscribing to EA access however I am sure there are plenty who will to play BF/Madden/Fifa and the next Dead Space or Bioware game. If there's a service ripping people off its PS Now.

I've read the OP twice and I still fail to see how Ea access is a rip-off.

The argument is based on hypotheticals like "EA could do this" and not on any solid truth.

And your response kind of sold me as to why EA Access is so much better right now, since I get more recent games in a subscription model for the same price as it cost me to rent a game for 4 hours in PS Now.

Look, Sony is a company that has had financial troubles and are just now looking towards better economy in large part thanks to PS4. EA Access would compete too much with their idea of making more money from PS Now, therefore they reject it with the "does not represent value" argument in their PR statements. In reality it does not represent good value for their own business model, where they need more revenue for the company to stabilize.

Ofcourse they can´t say this, but we as gamers must stop being so blind for this cold hard truth. I think the prices of PS Now are so steep but I would never say it is a crappy service that shouldn´t exist since it is YOUR choice as a consumer to decide if you want it or not, not mine.

Yeah, don't let people use PS Now as comparison even when  Sony was the company who started to compare services with each other to let other companies (MS and EA) look bad.

How silly of people to do the same.

Also funny how you think that it's stupid to compare the services with each other but then you do the same and even more detailed. If you really don't see a reason for it you would just read over theses posts without taking them serious but you seem to take them very serious if you already thought so much about own points you can use to compare PS Now with EA Access. 

Sony can be happy if their statement about EA's service as if it would be the last crap won't harm their relationship to EA.  I mean, it's not as if EA wouldn't release games on Playstation which sell the console almost from alone (like FIfa).

Sony is surely not happy when companies start their own services which can obviously take some potential customers away from PS Now but hey, they obviously tell you "it's no value for the players" and not "it's no value for Sony".

YOu don't even know which games will be playable for how long and already start a whole topic about how EA's service is crap and how right Sony was. Don't you find this a little bit funny? I mean, how long exactly can people play games which will be released in the Vault and how many games at the same time will be in the Vault in let me say November 2015? 

 "For the duration of availability"  can mean that a game will be in the Vault for 3 weeks or 10 years after EA releases it in the Vault...

It's a thousand-fold better deal then what Sony is offering through Now.

Half the price of a new game PER YEAR. Yeah, that's a rip-off for sure.

/s

Some people are just jealous. Either that, or they can't accept that the competition has something worthwhile that their console doesn't, so they start useless propaganda like this.

I'm GLAD I get to use this service. And I'd have been UNHAPPY if it was exclusive to PS4.