Not getting deep into this mess. Personally I don't have any interest in EA Access, and I doubt I will unless they include some of their good (read: Bioware) single player games on the service.

But I will note two things that seem to have been overlooked:

1. If EA makes a habit of removing Vault titles with any regularity they will immediately destroy their own services - its important to examine what is realistic, not just what they can theoretically do (seriously, read a bunch of ToS for the console's you own, the rights they claim for themselves are insane).

2. Under the ToS EA has to provide notice of at least 30 days before removing a Vault title.

Ultimately though I agree with one point, titles should be accessible for as long as a subscription is paid IMO.

It's nothing like PS+ and XBL. And i'm not going to repeat why because it's in the OP that you should have read.

Ok fair enough. But seeing that $8/month is basically 60% more than PS+ but on PSNow that could give you access to north of 1k titles in the future, and each publisher wanting a slice I find hard to believe it would cost less than 20 month... If $3/month is good value on 4/5 games on EA, imagine how much it would be with 20-30 publishers and thousand of games.

TL;DR

But if the OP is saying EA access isn't all unicorns and rainbows. I completely agree.

In theory i like what EA access represents. What i don't get is why does it have to be yet another service. Why don't they just find a way to integrate it into PS+/XBL without making the user pay extra? What hapens if every other publisher starts doing this?

To me Sony was just making a butthurt comment. So they wouldn't have to say MS outspend them in starting the program.

I really hope so, because if they really did reject a proposal for the service, that would just be low. 

Even then, trying to say that they know what gamers want the best is such terrible PR. They just have to go out and say that the service is not available and won't be available on the PS4 for the time being, and be done with it, not spout off nonsense like they know exactly what each gamer wants. 

What PR? I don't need Sony to tell me anything, once Access was announced and I looked into it i knew how bad it was. I didn't post this earlier because I was banned.

Needless to say, when Sony said what they said, i clapped. Couldn't be happier. Now i just hope they stick with their stance instead of doing a 180.

Well they were being ridiculous, as when MS were doing bad PR about "we know what customers want", and then put all the anti-consumer things that would then be destroyed to keep them alive.

Oh really? And pray tell me, what's wrong with an OPTIONAL service that gives gamers discounts and access to a vast amount of games? If you don't like it, fine. But what you're saying is that NO other gamer should be able to decide if it is a good value for themselves, just because you don't feel it is.

What right do you have to decide for other gamers what's a good value and what's not? Can you answer that? No, because you don't represent every gamer, not even close. 

This is like someone wanting Netflix removed from game consoles just because they don't use it, and they feel it might compete with Sony's video store. Both Netflix and EA Access are completely optional services. Heck, EA access is cheaper than Netflix and doesn't even compete directly with any of Sony's services, the way Netflix does.

Your argument is flawed to the core, simply because you assume that everyone perceives value the same as you do, which they don't. That's why we have options in the real world. 

I don't see value in EA access because I don't play their games... but I'm pretty darned certain that a lot of people will... I even said in a different thread that it would be good to have a "cable plan" for PS4 where you can choose what publishers you want to have access.

EDIT: Vancell look at the thread I created for this http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=187837&page=1# and give your opinion.