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.
