Looks as if it is a separate service on all platforms. I guess I can see why it make sense from both perspectives. Why couldn't it be one service across all platforms with one price, where each platform get's their cut and gamers simply get access to the EA games available to the platforms they play on? On the other hand, if that service needs to cost say $20 per month or $75 per year for multi platform, it makes sense to divide it all up and charge $5 for the month and $30 for the year per platform.
Still surprised there's little to no outrage by the cross platformers, but it would be directed towards EA and not PS or MS, unless they are a major part of the reason why the service is set up like that behind the scenes. We wouldn't find out either unless another Fortnite type controversy were to take place.
Almost all subscription services I can think of are platform agnostic and you pay for the subs itself. This is an odd and unwanted precedent.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."