Your OP screams of an illogical and extreme bias against EA. You claim that its a certainty that they'll remove titles from the vault after a few months, but give no logical explanation for why they would do that. Thr games in the vault are going to be older ones that arrent selling much anymore anyway, removing them would only serve to devalue EA Access, and more importantly it would drive more people to buy used, which is exactly what EA doesnt want. What does EA have to gain from maintaining only a very limited number of titles in their vault? It's not like they have to pay royalties to themselves to keep them there.
What's more, even your assumption is true, and they really do remove titles after only one month, it's still a good, viable option. You see, unlike PSPlus, with EA access you will know evey game that's in the vault at any given time. If there are a few games that you want to play during a given month, you need only pay $5 to access all of them for that month. And that's not even getting into the discounts and early access.
I also find issue with the claim that having subscription services from all major third parties would be such a bad thing. If you play a lot of games, you actually stand to save a good deal of they're all priced like EA Access. What's more, the major advantage these would have is that they're third party, and would theoretically not have to be tied to any platform holder. What this means is that, potentially, for a $30/year sub, you could gain access to a plethora of titles, and play them on whatever system you want. This would be *huge* for multiplatform owners, if it went down this way. The only drawback would be that PSPlus and GWG would be somewhat devalued. Which honestly isn't a big deal.
