Provide me a link to the source please.

No worries man! I am just the type to ask questions that's all and from some of the posts in here I can COMPLETELY understand your rant. So we are good lol.

Here's a post that sums it all up pretty nicely. From GAF.

Originally Posted by panda-zebra  Been thinking of reasons why Sony might be reluctant to allow this ( at least at this stage). People saying they're being anti-consumer by denying choice are, IMO, not thinking things through, merely knee-jerking. Sony aren't likely to deprive users of a service that might benefit the ecosystem as a whole, therefore we have to look for the potential for harm. i. Firstly it obviously competes with and potentially devalues ps+ (you'd have to think EA games would be less likely to become available to plus, or potentially they could be even more outdated versions of the sports titles). ii. End user support. For the tiny fraction of the fee Sony would receive, they'd be expected to manage the purchase and delivery as with any digital purchase, but the fact that it's not just a single transaction for a single item and rather the support of a yearly or monthly subscription service, opens the door to many more potential issues. Sony would be the first point of call for end user support when anything went wrong (and with ea/origin on top of ps+, that might not be trivial). Reading the many threads on GAF, I'm sure Sony's CS support lines are busy enough as is regarding the various issues that are thrown up with with their own ps+ without generating more with an extra layer of potential pitfalls on top. There would no doubt be grey areas - problems where Sony think it's an EA issue, EA think it's a Sony issue. Not appetising. iii. It's not just EA - you have to think further ahead. Other publishers are likely to expect to be able to be given the chance to offer a competing (but maybe not even necessarily that similar) service for their own titles. This would not only multiply the effects of the above concerns but, thinking it through a bit more, you'd have to factor in each publisher's competing service's rules, regulations and nuances... and you are now presenting an even more complex problem for Sony CS. Taking this further, it's not difficult to imagine the potential for a sea of confusion customer-side when Johnny Gamer expects certain things of one service that is actually only a part of a rival service he also subscribes to. This would only compound with every new service added. All customers would go directly to Sony to air their grievances and have their minds set at ease. Those CS staff are going to spend the next few years in and out of training courses like an mcse. iii. Having to set up an auto-renewal with a credit card held on file. Sony don't really want to go there, do they? And that Johnny Gamer guy - what if he forgets to cancel and the service auto-renews - Sony CS have to deal with enough "my dog bought COD Ghosts when it scratched its arse on my DS4 help me please!" kind of gripes as it is. So those were some possible reasons are why I reckon Sony isn't keen to want to walk this path, there are likely many more I can't comprehend not being in a position to understand. It's more understandable why Microsoft, struggling as they appear to be to hang on to the coat tails of ps4, are more open to a roll of the dice with their comfortable bedfellows in this extending of an unprecedented relationship The current setup with ps+ is actually the best for the consumer in my view. Sony is the platform holder - they have their store and their services. Keeping that simple and uniform for customers is key. Having ps+ with the potential for any and all publishers competing for exposure through this single subscription service is true competition between rival publishers and it keeps things dead simple for the end user. No nested bullshit. Several "competing" publisher-exclusive services would appear to me to be be anti-competitive and funnel gamers into a more fractured and uncertain gaming-as-a-service future. Away from Sony and on a personal level - the TOS on the EA site reads significantly differently to a few random EA spokespersons' comments I've seen quotes in this and the other thread over the past 24 hours (regarding expiration of titles and purchases made using the 10% discount). There's ambiguity there. Tweets and e-mails to gaming sites aren't good enough - the ToS needs to be edited to reassure. It's entirely reasonable to expect EA to stick to the letter of their TOS and not some quote given to gaming Website X or a tweet from some guy who might no longer even work for EA any longer. EA don't really have the gravitas to ensure faith in their future generosity or ability to play fair. The discount thing is thrown in there as a deal clincher. At 10% it is fairly measly vs the actual retail price paid for physical copies (here in UK at least) and for it to have much benefit as a DLC discount the user would have to be a serious content-hoover, and I can't see that very niche kind of consumer being too thrifty. The time-limited game trials some 120 hours before release I can see appealing to a hardcore minority hell-bent on getting their hands on EA's latest offerings as soon as humanly possible.

TheBlackNaruto said: NiKKoM said: TheBlackNaruto said: Since this thread is STILL going strong I see I will just say what I said again. It is better to just wait and see how this plays out because NONE OF US have enough information on this service to make an accurate judgement on it. We have NO idea how this will all work out. So until then how about we just chill and see how things plays out Were is the fun in that? Next month we're gonna bash the PS5 and the XboxUnlimited LOL from what I am seeing you have a good point and more than likely are correct lol. Because I can't see any real logical reason for all the back and forth when NO ONE even knows how this will work. Heck $30 a year for an ENTIRE backlog is SUPER cheap and that would mean MS/EA would be coming out of some money to make this happen so where will they make up for that money? How many games a year? Are the games only available for that month or do you only get a limited amount of time with those games? Is there a set number of hours you can play a game per month or year? How big will the downloads of the game be? I can keep going and going on so many questions lol. But what is the point in thinking like that lol.....there is no fun in that!

May i ask how EA is out of money for doing this?  They get $30 a year from a crap load of people doing this.  It's all old games that are not selling.  EA is not making a dime anymore on Madden 25.  They have sold all they are ever going to sell for that game.  Probably the same for many other games out there.  People still buying those games are buying USED versions or even if they are new, they are just dwindling stock in the store.  I highly doubt Best Buy or other stores are ordering many new shipments of these old games.

So all this is doing is basically hurting gamestop or other used game stores.  No reason to buy a used copy of any EA game ever again becuase it will most likely be available on EA Access by the time people are buying used copies of said game.  

I'm suprised Gamestop didn't go down further in stock price from this announcement.  I mean imagine Madden or Battlefield 4 sitting on their shelves for $40 or $30 used.  If I was a consumer would I buy that one used game or buy EA access and have access to 4-5 games for that same price, or just $5 for a month if I don't want to spend a whole $30.

This announcement basically made all EA games used game sales become non-existant for the most part.  

Got to agree with a few others that the most likely reason behind this is Sony isn't keen on having a partially-competing service on their platform; they'd much prefer anyone paying a free-games sub pay for THEIR free-games sub. In any case, what I'm curious about is what this means for Sony and EA, more specifically whether EA won't be offering their titles on PS+ (whenever the sub, eventually, starts giving out older AAA games on PS4 that is.)

If this service was only being released in North America, I could see both EA and Sony stubbornly holding their ground, waiting for the other to blink first; though Sony does have a lead in the U.S., there's still (an admittedly steadily dwindling) chance of Microsoft turning things around, especially if EA jumps behind them to help push. In the short term, even the long term, EA might be content keeping their stuff out of PS+, in the hope that Sony will eventually cave in and let them host their own service.

But Europe is preeeetty much Sonyland, and keeping their games off PS+ services, particularly the European one, is akin to waving goodbye to a substantial part of the market there. If Sony holds their ground (basically, if Sony continues to outsell the Xbox One and has no reason to backtrack on anything,) I could see EA grudgingly deciding that 'Some money gained from PS+' is better than 'No money gained from a service Sony won't allow on their platform anyway.'

I don't understand why they don't give PlayStation owners the choice. Are they afraid it will take away people from PS+ or perhaps they are worried people won't pay their extorionate PlayStation Now prices.

A statement like this isn't going to do wonders for Sony's relationship with EA.

 It was in a conversation I had with Padib, actually. Wait...you have not once sent me a link to back up a word that you have written. Please...I am not wasting my time bro. This is a good thing about remembering the past. You act like you have authority, but if you understand the sales you should look at them for yourself. Its not that hard. Look at the hardware change from the industry and then narrow the sales of MS, Sony and Nintendo down for yourself. The change shows how many Sony lost dramatically after the PS2 era to MS because of Microsofts early launch with the 360.

You pulling shizzle out of butthole again.

What were we talking about and I didn't provide a link. I know we had a conversation but I can't recall the content.

Would be nice to have a choice in the matter.

Well if they are giving EVERY game they release every year to the subscription the following year then wouldn't that hurt EA money wise? For instance why buy the next Fifa, the next BF or Madden when they come out if all I have to do is wait til the following year and get all of them for $30? So EA would essentially be getting $30 as opposed to say $180(not including taxes of course). And of course this will hurt used game sells there is no denying that. 

From the games currently available they are not "old" games they are games that are only about a year old. Fifa 14, Madden 25, BF4 heck those are the latest games in their respective series. Heck some of them are not even a year old yet Madden 25 and Fifa 14 for example. So yeah I can see them losing more money than they would gain. Great value for consumers without a doubt though. Because I can save over $150 a year to play these games now.