I would actually welcome that move, and switch to that model the first chance I got.

This way, I'm paying $50 for two games per month (only recently, it was only one until June). So far, for my $50 (other than access to online) I got a steady stream of indie games I don't care for and didn't even bother downloading them after checking them out on YouTube.

With your model, I could pay half ($25) and invest the othe rhalf in a company I like (EA, Ubi, Acti, Sony, MS... whoever). And get the games I like to play, instead of games Sony tells me I need to pay.

I don't mind paying for stuff I want. I don't mind having multiple subscriptions, I'm perfectly capable of keeping them sorted. I subscribe to NFL Game Pass because I want to watch NFL. I wouldn't subscribe to Random Sports just in case they decide to broadcast a sport I like.

So are you getting the newest sports games at launch with EA Access, or the ones from the year before?  If its the year before then I think this service is useless.

MS and EA have been really chummy since the DRM Fiasco. Let Microsoft have it. It's not adding any value for them. Those are old games that gamers would've bought anyhow. I buy  most of my games from EA physical just in case I have to bring them back. The few that I don't are made by Bioware.

The year before. EA is just looking for more ways to profit. If it fails then the will drop it.

100%

How is that second hand game market going for PC? Oh wait.. You mean there are competing gaming digital distribution offerings that have tons of deals that save WAY more money then the console used game market??

Sorry.. The Used game markets helps NO ONE except for GameStop and those who sell used games..    If Ubisoft, Activision, and Indie developers have similar offers to EA Access.. the consumers could save money.. and the money goes BACK to the COMPANY that ACUTALLY MADE the game.. allowing for MORE game development..  

The USED gaming market actually HURTS the industry.. and only HELPS GameStop and the like..    Example..  Brand new game sells for $59.99..  Customer sells in a month..  GameStop gives him $25.. then sells it for $54.99.      Next customer buys that used game for $54.99 .. profit of $30 goes to GameStop.. NOTHING goes to the GAME MAKER.. who NOW lost a WHOLE sale of a new $59.99 game..    Just so the consumer saved $5...  the GAME developer got ZERO.

PS.. I would rather pay $9.99 a month and have access to thosands of movies.. or 30 million songs..  then have to buy a movie or CD.. that I may listen to or watch a few times.. and pay $9.99 for on CD.. or $14.99 for ONE movie..     sorry.. that wins every day for me..   and is MUCH more economical. 

So...will it be new EA games or older ones? It seems like $30 a year is too low to grant access to new games so I'm guessing it will only be older games.

I'd rather have PSNow (assuming they do end up adding a subscription option) because it will be more than just EA games which I don't really play anyways.

110% EA publically denied it but I still don't believe them either. MS and EA have been in bed since last year.

See, you will get your choice, unfortunately PSNow doesn't interest me a bit and EA Access that does is unavailable.

Had we had both choices, we both would spend money on things we like.

Limiting options only hurts consumers, in this instance myself, while only helping corporations, in this instance Sony.

Sony's plans for PS Now are just as much supporting this trend. They have already said PS Now will have PS4 games at some point. So it is NO different..

Also.. lets stop saying $5/month..  who wouldn't just pay the $30/year pricing.. which is then $2.50/month..    how do u not see value in $2.50/month.. for games that even at used prices RIGHT now.. would cost you over $75 dollars..