So with more options you will get less potential deals? That doesn't make sense.

Ah no sorry I meant the other services.  I can't really say much about Now as I'm not stateside.  But over here we can usually buy a game if we shop around and sell it back to one of the rip off trade in stores for almost the same price.   The rental services don't effect me as far as I can see, but although i am pro choice, I can see a time with all the other stuff where I have no choice in the matter anymore without me having a say so along the way.

doesn't make sense because you have to use your brain.

Example time:

NOW - You have free EA games and discounted games already on PS+. you pay only the 50 or 60$ per year to get those and hundreds of other free games + discounts (total 60$)

AFTER THE EA SERVICE - you pay still the 50 or 60$ per year, only this time you get everything you did - EA offerings. Adding to this, you want to pay 60$ more (total 120$) to get a handful of rental games + discounts (of supposedly 10%) just on EA titles. 

So it should be clear now, no matter how willingly lazy you want to pretend to be. You're defending paying double to get the same as to what you're getting nowadays genius.

It's 30 bucks a year for the EA thing. You do get discounts on PS+ but you would also get deals on EA Access if you CHOSE to use it. PS+ is a great service but the fact that publishers have been willing to put free games on it has always been astonishing to me. You only get really old games on PS+ most of the time anyways 2 or 3 years usually or ones that didn't do so well.

hmm, that's a really interesting point that I never even though about. If its true, then whoever thought of it was very smart. They must have hired someone from Apple who gave them the idea.

have you ever used PS+?

2 or 3 year old games? you must be confusing it with games with gold surely... do i need to prepare a list? i hope not

No, I dont like this because these publishers might start charging people for items that would have otherwise been free. Things you might have gotten from a preorder or something else. I dont want to have multiple subscriptions with different Publishers in the hopes that I may get a good deal for a game I fancy. Even if I do get something, It would be something the publisher want me to have. If it is something I dont like, then i start if feel like the money I spent is wasted. Do you really think they will give a good discount (10%?) on the Item or games they know will make them the most money? you really think the free games will be the new ones. So basically, you are willing to pay $120 (hypothetically) to EA, Activioson, Ubisoft and 2K in the hopes that you might get a good discount ( they havent realsed persent numbers on that discount for new games) and play all old games from ONLY these publishers? If PS now released with a subscription based service ( i highly doubt would be more than $60 per year), you can play from WAY more publishers on different Sony electronics even on the go with the Vita. It is also a streaming game sytem which I see as a Big +. 

Lastly, on EA Acess, I just read that you can only play current gen games....wow. http://www.ea.com/eaaccess/

On PS Now, you can play games from the PS1, Ps2 and last gen....not really a contest on that one.

That is the logic you missed...

Most of the games I've gotten on PS+ are either old games, games that didn't sell well, or indie games.

Interesting thread. OP is right about Sony saying EA access is bad for consumers is BS.
But OP is wrong saying PS now or PS+ is any kind of DRM

Edit:close to what MS was trying to pull off

the word you are looking for is: monolopy.