| LudicrousSpeed said: 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. |
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.
