I don't know why you'd highlight the "are not a replacement for" part and saying that's not good enough for EA...while praising EA for doing the exact same thing.

But the associated DLC that people buy (I repeat, that goes directly into their pockets) and larger exposure (later in the game's life, I'll add, after the majority of the sales have been done) to create a higher fan base for said game....that's not good enough either?

And I mean, it's not like EA is Square Enix....who sell 5M copies of a game and are still disappointed. Other than Madden, FIFA, Mass Effect, and Battlefield, what franchises does EA have where free exposure (due to being paid by MS or Sony, mind you) ---> larger fan base and more DLC money won't be a good thing? I just looked at the 360 (I think that's a safe platform, since EA sold most of their software on it last gen) and only Battlefield, L4D, and ME got above 3M (with Battlefield 3 skewing things up with 7M sales). You telling me Need for Speed, Dead Space, Crysis, Medal of Honor, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Army of Two, etc. wouldn't benefit from people getting to play it, who overlooked it. Bought DLC, sequels, and whatever other merch....that's not "good enough" for EA? They're not needing 5M sales for these games to be successful, so the free money that Sony or MS could give them to put on PS+/GwG, plus the associated revenue from more people being exposed to these games.....if that's not "good enough", I don't know what is

They can already get these games without EA access. 

Once I found out that this was first on XBOX my psychic abilities foretold that Sony fans would find a way to convince themselves that this was another evil MS/big business tactic to ultimately rob the customer.

Certain people here are so daft. If someone, who is all digital plans on buying 3-4 EA games this year(example Dragon Age+ 2 sports games) thats $18 in savings. Hell you can BUY 1 MONTH($5) and get $6 off a digital game. So at this point you get a free month of EA+ your new game.

I dont currently see value in it, but down the road when Dragon Age, Mirrors Edge, Mass Effect, ect are on the service I dont see the harm in getting access for or eve $5 for a few months. But MS is the bad guy. Sony the company who removed backwards compatibility and sold many of those backwards compatible games (remade or not) via PSN. As with most days hypocrisy is running high in the Sony camp.

Saying EA Access is $5 month is like saying PS+ is $18 every 3 months. Get the annual subscription.

If the previous year's sports games and other EA titles aren't worth $30 a year to you, don't subscribe. Its an option ideal for those interested in playing those games.

I don't feel FFXIV is worth $15 a month. But I'm fine with the option existing.

EA already starts giving away their older games (aka the good ones) for free or for a heafty discount. The new EA games are NOT worth a subscription fee and Sony is 100% right

I just say wait and see how things play out. I can see both sides where it is good for consumers and the other side where it is not good for consumers as well. I just want to know what the costs will be like for EA/MS. Because getting access to that many games for only $30 a year can't be cheap. Will there be a limit to how many games you can try a month? Or will certain games only be available for a short amount of time? Will you only get so many hours per game per month or per year? There are still lots of questions to how this subscription will work. So for now let's all just wait and see....

Can they have access to all those games for $30 a year? Unlikely.

Once again, just an option.

You know this Sony just doesn't want the competition. Its not because its a bad deal.

Damn, no offense but it sounds like Sony is straight hating right now.

You are so correct. Also, good catch on that $5 for $6 savings :)

I cannot believe that people are rallying in support of Sony in this instance. I already said in the other thread, I am sorry I cannot get this deal. It is a great value, if you buy 5 EA games per year you're already breaking even, and then you get free access to their back catalog of games that are good, but you somehow missed.

I think everybody is focused on sports games so much, they forget that EA publishes dozens of other games.

I also need to say for me personally - several years back when I had X360, I have purchased a $20 EA Sports Early Access package, which allowed me to play Madden and FIFA a week early, along with some Ultimate Team cards and discounts. I perceived it as a good value. So $30 per year is infinitely better value for me. 

Sadly, Sony doesn't want me to have that choice. 

Lol, as if EA is only some niche game maker to appeal to this "different audience". They make sci-fi games (Mass Effect), racers (NFS), shooters (Battlefield), survival horror (Dead Space), and more of the like. I'm sure there's some overlap between what EA makes and the games I mentioned (also, remember, I said that was just off the top of my head, PS3 only, and actually only from Jan-June 2014, not the future, or games before Jan 2014).

And you are right, it is an option to get games from a publisher they enjoy. But you make it seem like EA is going to publish a list of games detailing a year's worth of what their catalogue is going to be. Chances are, it's gonna be as random as PS+ and GwG is, except it's going to be EA Games only. So there's no guarantee you'll get what you want there either. And people don't just like EA by default, so just because EA published it doesn't mean people will like it. You can just as easily get NBA Live 14.

And PS+ is 6 games a month. It's "just a few games a month now" makes it seem like they lowered the number....but they haven't? They just exchanged the 3rd PS3 title for a 2nd PS4 title because the PS community wanted more PS4 games (which is kinda ridiculous to ask for a new console).

It may be "just an option", but if it's not one or the other (online/GwG vs. EA Access), then at some point, you're paying an additional sub. And all I've been saying this whole time is that PS+ already offers all of that stuff combined in one package.

edit: but you know what? There's no point in arguing about how pragmatic the services are, what the value is, etc. I shouldn't be defending Sony's sentiment here. Sure, I get what they're saying and I agree with it (thinking long term, because I don't want a domino effect of publishers having these subs, so instead of getting free games for $50, I have to pay separate subs for separate publishers because Assassin's Creed isn't published by Activision, for example), but they shouldn't tell me what is a good value. Give the option and let the market decide.