I don't know how that doesn't mean a lot. A game sells X amount of copies during it's original run. Then becomes free on PS+ and the people who didn't buy it originally, play it. If it's a good game, they have 1 more fan. And clearly people buy DLC for games they "rent" because if you google "DLC for PS+ games" you have tons of forum/community posts asking if they keep their DLC if their sub runs out (which repeatedly gets explained that you keep the DLC, not the game).

And actually, Crysis 2 was on PS+ and Dead Space 4 is "in the cards". I can't find a filtered list of EA Games on PS+ but I can personally tell you that I bought Crysis 3 because I had fun playing the [free] Crysis 2. Anecdotal evidence, but it shows that "free exposure" and "creating a larger fanbase" is possible.

But I've never argued the monetary implications on EAs side. We have seen that dev/publishers get cash in making their games available on the IGC (I don't know if there's a better price than 'free'). But let's just look at that statement you made: "why should EA give out games to MS and Sony for pocket change". Ignoring that exposure works and more money = higher chance for a sequel (that's not a strategy for anyone? L. O. L. If people didn't gobble up games, there wouldn't be sequels. They make sequels based on 'potential' purchases by looking at the reaction the first game got). No more PS+ or GwG. No more trials, betas, discounts, etc. that are uniform. You want discounts on EA games, you gotta get EA Access. You want discounts on Activision games, you're gonna need Activision Access. You want discounts on Ubisoft games, you're gonna need Ubisoft Access.

Instead of having uniformity and getting discounts, deals, betas, early access, etc. on "games", in general, you're gonna need separate subs because the publishers differ. That $5/mo or $30/year sure is gonna add up.

There was nothing wrong with the $599 price tag and people who still say that have no idea what was inside the PS3.

no they'll just delay their dlc for a few months

MS fans are beaming right now because Sony is acting like Microsoft, the irony.

Will defend anything MS does, but as so as Sony "takes away an option" its celebration time down in "Redmond"

But I jest.

It seem ppl are confusing this with PSNow, instread of what its being compared to PS+, since the EA Access thing has features of both but PS+ outstrips EA Access in value, they aren't compatible. Probably why its not on Origin either.

I think destroying the value of their games to kill off the second hand market is incredibly short sighted. If ALL OLD EA GAMES are only worth $30 then how much could their newest SINGLE GAME truly be worth?

If EA Access is not a good value for customers.. Then PS Now is HIGHWAY robbery.. For the 30 day price of EA Access (access to several games) you get just about 4 HOURS with a PS Now game... 1 game.. 4 hours.. how is that for VALUE!

Still hoping Sony announces a subscription based option for PS Now. $14.99/month is even fine. I pay $25 a month for GameFly (thought I can get new games for all systems) so I don't think $9.99-$14.99 is bad for PS Now.

If Sony really had a chance to get it and passed the service up, this is a huge blow for them. Why don't they let us users decide what's a good value and what's not? I would love to have access to a bunch of EA games and 10% new ones for just $30 a year! C'mon, Sony!

Both are in Beta. But the comparison is EA Acess vs PS+ not just PSNOW. And it doesn't work with PS+ is the issue. TBH if its supposed to give old EA games then it could work with Now as well.

It's absolutely clear that Sony doesen't wanted EA Access on PlayStation, because Sony believe it's not a good service for PlayStation!!!

why do people still complain about this?  the pricing hasn't yet been set nor is the service even available yet.  beta is still messing with different pricing models.  you're pitting an argument on a placeholder price vs something that's already set and fixed..