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.

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.

nor do people realize ps+ adds in online multiplayer on top of those features you speak of.. which you pay for already with the yearly $50.  EA Access multiplayer will require XBL Gold.. thus uping the actual cost if you wanted the same sorta value found on ps+.

They wouldn't be as stupid, FIFA 15 will sell millions as a new game but around now, FIFA 14 is probably hardly selling anything at all, it's not worth anything to trade either for customers. This Access thing will just give them another set of income on games they have already made money on. Good for those that don't mind it sure but pointless if you buy the game new every year.

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..

you only need gold for the multiplayer parts of games not the service 

http://www.vg247.com/2014/07/30/you-dont-need-xbox-gold-for-ea-access-unless-you-play-online/

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..

that's what I'm talking about.  Look at their lineup?  BF4?  Fifa?  Madden?  Most are made and catered to the MP crowd..

There is something about this statement and the idea about EA Access that seems a little off. Only on Xbox One is fine, it's great for those that feel this will be of value but for Sony to say it's not good for consumers makes me thing something else is going on.

For example, when a game sells (hard copy or download) some of the money from that sale goes to Sony, MS or Nintendo for the 'right' to have the game on their system. Me thinks that this service bypasses that income, while MS happy to let EA do this on their system because they are mostly rolling in money and want more people to use the system anyway. Sony on the other hand might not be as willing to let that extra income go. While in the case of PS+, the companies that make the games get a cost for putting the game on PS+, EA might not be giving any income to Sony for using their system for this service.

So while it hasn't been explained how the income in made, if Sony don't make any from the service being on their machine, why bother, especially when the games are out there to purchase anyway, just in hard for or download from the store.

I doubt all this though... maybe they really don't think it's good value.