The Xbox One isn't even a year old yet, how could the games be 2 years?

If you can stop for a second and stop making this a sony vs. thing then you may understand where I am coming from.

We are talking games and discounts here. Thats basiclly what this service does right? PS+ is doing it, XBL is doing it and now EA access.

Again, games and discounts.

I am sorry, I would rather pay $50 and get "games and discounts" from every publisher as it is now rather than pay on a publisher by publishr basis. Cause if this thing takes off, next thing you know ubisoft has theirs, activision, take 2...etc. Before you know what more and more vlue will be leveraged behind these "services" to the point where not paying for it would seem stupid......

So no, down the road I don't see how this is good value. I don't see why adding yet another service to do something that a service is already in place to do is a good thing especially when it reduces the value of the already existing service. Be it PS+ or XBL. 

What? Which is the newest Madden then? Which game is 2 years old? And what about early access and 10% discount?

The consumers should decide if its a great value. $30 a year for access to games valued over $100 is a bad deal?

It seems to many Sony just doesn't like competition.

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.

No company likes competition, of course. Consumers are the ones who should enforce competition.

Uhhh....PS+ already gives discounts on games and DLC, full game trials, and free games per month. And it's pretty across the board (meaning, EA games included). Why would you want a publisher specific subscription? What if it blows up? Then there's gonna be an "Activision Access" and "Ubisoft Access" and "Capcom Access". Then there won't be a "point" to PS+...which already does the things that EA Access is going to do.

Yea, it's just PR spin here. No way is the option to have it "not representing a good value", but from a business standpoint, it makes no sense to have a subscription model compete with their own...on their own platform. And it would really undermine all the strides they have made to make PS+ what it is today, because if people start saying EA Access > PS+ (and other publishers follow suit), then PS+ will just revert to "paying to play online" which is something that, in other words, "doesn't represent a good value to the Playstation gamer" because for years, free online is something we've liked and with the PS4, if we have to pay for online, at least we get something in return.

If the only value in PS+ is only to play online, and not the free games, discounts, betas, trials, etc. it'll be just as bad as XBL was before Sony made MS change their tune. That's not good for the Playstation gamer.

I'd rather pay $50 and get free games, discounts, trials, etc. from several publishers, and still get my online....than have to choose between either embracing the "value" of EA Access, and forgoing online.....or spending $60 on XBL and forgoing the discounts, game trials, etc. You need to spend $90 to get both. $50 vs. $90. Which amount sounds better in terms of what you're getting? $50 for online, free games (from several companies), discounts (on games from several companies), full game trials (on games from several company), etc. vs. $90 for online, free games (from several companies), discounts (on EA games), early access (on EA games), etc.

I'll take $50 for everybody over $90 for EA only, every day of the week.

Not quiet like that. $60 game. Sony/MS gets ~$15 for royalties, Reatiler gets ~$15 and Publisher gets ~$30. 

If the third party game has certain exclusivity benefits, then sony/ms either pays up front for it or reduces how much they take on royalties per game giving more to the publisher. 

If you are looking at store based exclusivity, like what you see with gamestop/amazon pre-order bonuses, the store takes less money from selling the game giving more back to the publisher.

If you are looking at a system where the publisher has the consumer already pay a service charge, then thats not the business of sony/ms. They still get whatthey get for the ame being on their platform. The publisher is the one that now stands to make less from each game sale. But in the case of EA here, they are hoping that this will expose more people to their games and ultimately boost the sales of their games.

well.. the difference between gamestop and ea access is.. at the end of the day.. you OWN your game, which you could resell, trade, give away, or continue playing it as long as you have your disc(s). as for ea access.. it's a one shop all done ordeal.. you don't OWN your game, you wouldn't be able to resell, trade, or give away.. and the game itself could easily be taken away when EA decides to, or rendered useless when taken out of the vault when EA decides to.

As a gamer, it's alarming how quickly people are willing to not to want to own their own gaming purchases/content. I can continue to play basically every game I've ever purchased not tied to internet connectivity and will still be able to far into future even if new consoles come out.. i will never lose the ability to play that game as long as my console doesn't go kaputz. In the GAF threads, people are already talking about trading in their physical copies of EA games because of the subs.. problem is, they owned the game, which they can continue to play well into the future should they choose to.. but, now they are basically "renting" the same game they previously owned, but now with no ownership and no idea of how long such a title will remain in the vault. they are at the mercy of EA.

Look.. there is some value there.. i'm not blind.. but some of those titles in the vault are annualized titles and many are already getting new iterations here within the next month or so. People talk about what a great value it is to be playing those older iterations, but so many of those titles re-playability lies within multiplayer.. which you will still need XBL Gold for. Not to mention, it remains to be seen what kind of games will be put in the vault.. Titanfall wasn't for a reason.. I'm not expecting many high profile games or SP experiences will either. It's funny because many people in the GAF thread and even here in VGC talks about "can't wait to get their hands on Dragon Age, Madden 15, Fifa 15, Titanfall, etc.. and only for $30 a year!" not understanding that EA Access is for a backlog of older titles only.. They will eventually get the Maddens, Fifa, etc.. but probably only after 6-9 months or a few months before the release of new iterations. Which isn't bad.. but more than likely, by that point, a huge chunk of the MP community will already be gone or game will no longer be that relevant as the release into the vault would typically mean sales have dropped to the point where the game could be found in the bargain bin.

don't want to get all negative nancy, but it's hard to find value in this other than access to a backlog of older annualized games. the 5 day before retail release, 10% discount, and the sub being optional is the only plus i'm seeing thus far.

my 2 cent.

I only said it because it is a playstation representative who were known befoer to say PS plus is good value and so compare it with EA access...

And what you say is what I exactly said before, you rather pay 50$ for getting games/Discounts that you don't know witch one exact will be..

Than pay 30$ for games and discounts that you know witch one it will be from the start...