at the bold... if EA access puts up a game then after they take it down you can't play it anymore. If PS Plus or MS puts a game up then takes it down then you can still play it after it is no longer available.

true but it still servers the same purpose as to what th op was trying to say.  that they put a game up for a short while (for ea its a 30 day min) then take it down just to get subs.  

It's not going to flop. People will flock to EA services just like they always have, this is why EA can release the same sports game every year with minor changes. For some reason, people just keep buying. But I can see why Sony will say this is bad. It is bad for them because it will mean another compedator for them and a strong one at that.

oh EA!

*cue the wacky music*

This is basically something that some Xbox fans are going to defend no matter what, since it's exclusive and they need ANYTHING positive for their system with how this gen is playing out. And something that some PS fans will bash just cause it's not on the PS4.

Personally, I don't like it because of the slippery slope it creates. If it's successful, you can bet your ass every publisher will have their own service. Which means only small games and 1st party games for PS+ and GWG. It also means that most publishers will be offering exclusive content to subscribers, which will most likely just be normal content ripped from the game, much like most DLC, now.

The money has to come from somewhere.

EA could have put the same thing included with PS+, but that would either make PS+ more expensive or Sony would be making up the balance. It seems like Sony didn't want to make up the balance and so EA started their own service which Sony didn't want either.

EDIT: And people on this board want all the announced content for free just because they have a PS+/Gold subscription. lol Dreaming.

I'm giving this thread a 6.7/10, its the most entertaining thread, that isn't one of mine, of the forum right now, but its still pretty boring, I actually fell asleep typing this response.
OT: Both PS Now and EA access have liquid prices, and with regards to PS, Sony, specifically Yoshida, has been quick to address concerns. If PS Now generates enough negativity, because of prices during the open beta, then its not unlikely that Sony will adjust.
This is why comparing PS Now and EA access prices are nonsensical.
EA control of the Vault is troubling, but without more specific details, its really to early to say.

That's nothing but 100% speculation on your part. If EA Access were on PS4, my bet is you'd still see Crysis 3 and whatever else you listed in the OP on PS3 PS+ because EA Access is only for newer next gen titles.

And how does that "steal away" from the sub you already pay for? Can you please list for me the big retail games Sony has made "free" on PS4 PS+? How about the ones Microsoft has made "free" on Xbone GwG? Oh, not a damn hell shit on either one you say? So what is going on? What is potentially maybe probably eventually going to possibily be stolen?

Here's a much more logical hypothetical, since this entire thread is based on illogical ones:

You haven't seen any 3rd party retail "big games" on PS4 PS+ because Sony no longer has a need to make the games as desirable. With PS+ now being required for online play, a vast majority of PS+ consumers are people who will have PS+ whether there are free games or not (see: XBL before GwG came about). So why should Sony go out and spend a lot of money on these games when they can likely fund months worth of PS+ content for the amount of money publishers would (rightfully) ask for their next gen games to become permanently free on PS+ or GwG?

In this hypothetical, a service like EA Access is good for consumers. Because it gives us a chance to get next gen games at a cheap price, even if they are only playable until whoever decides to take them down. If you don't care for EA games, then don't subscribe. It doesn't affect you at all. EA is not putting next gen titles on PS+ (nor is anyone else), so at the end of the day nothing has changed.

And down the line if other publishers wanna latch on and start up their own, awesome. Again, they aren't putting a thing on next gen PS+/GwG anyway. And if you're a fan of this publisher or that one, then good for you. What you are bitching about is like bitching that an optional sports package on your cable provider is a ripoff and will affect you negatively. When the reality is if you're into those sports then you're getting a great value and anyway else can just not subscribe and go on living their life.

Of course, this doesn't even get into the fact that all of this spurs competition, which would only make PS+ and GwG better. You think MS isn't looking at this stable of next gen titles EA is offering for a paltry $30 a year and thinking they might need to improve the 2 games each month they toss Xbone owners at $60 a year?

The funniest part is you go on in another post later in this thread to say "they don't just want money. they want moooooooooooooooooore money" as if this isn't the goal of EVERY BUSINESS EVER. You think Sony really denied this service because they think PS owners are delicate little flowers who deserve something better than this service from EA? Hell no. They denied it because they have a service in PS+ where they can control what they offer publishers for games and EA came in with a service that would put an end to that and Sony saw the potential for less money. Sony didn't just want money, they wanted mooooooooooooooooooore money. And then they wanted mooooooooooooooooore money, so they decided to charge us $5 to rent some shitty PS3 games for four hours.

If they keep removing games in vault then people will unsub which will hurt EA.

And you know what? Because of Netflix, you can no longer rent that brand new 007 the day it ships. Why? Because the rise of streaming killed video rental stores and thus, allowed for back door, corporate handshakes with greedy agendas.

Only an ignorant fool would support this non sense.