I'm a sucker about having all physical media as well...
But maybe some games we wouldn't play normally.

No. Unfortunately its where things will ultimately go if this EA access thing gets traction. Its also exactly what I have been speaking against since i heard about the EA access. They are simply "cable'izing" the console business model.

in all fairness, if done right it shouldn't really affect things too much. You pay for your service package which could consist of any number of publishers you choose, but still have access to buy games on their own as new games will probably be available on their own months before they are available on the service (just like with cable TV).

But in this industry no one is ever fair. What will end up happening is that publishers will lock out content to force people to subscribe to their service. Then you have consumers having to subscribe to upwards of 10 different services just to get a complete gaming experience. I think its just unnecessary as there is a much better way to go about all this as it stands.

You want exposure for games people may not have typically bought, put it on PS+ IGC or XBL GWG. You want to give people an option of getting games for super cheap, put it on PSnow (or whatever sony/ms decide to call a rental service that isn't based on streaming) at $10/month and make it downloadable.

I don't like subscriptions for alot of reasons but one of main ones, apart from owning the games, is being tied into spending money. I like the freedom of going into stores or going online and choosing WHEN I spend my money and on what. The all you can eat model is not for me.

Yes.. There is no need for the ancient idea of paying a platform holder.. MS doesn't charge whats released on Windows.. Google has its app store.. But android is open to other stores like amazon which google doesn't get money from..

It holds back price competition and new ideas like the EA access.. Surley if Sony wants PSnow on android or iOS you don't want Apple and Google stopping them and charge money as a platform holder.

Actually in a closed enviroment that is what I would expect. Even more when the service would cost them money to facilitate or take out from their offering (altough the later could be saw as a anti-thrust law breaking).

Sure in a closed enviroment that what happens.. Sony isn't Apple with 700 million iOS devices sold.. Apple get 30% of a subscription fee when people are subscribed through iOS.. Netflix, Microsoft Office 365 http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/27/apple-confirmed-to-take-30-cut-of-microsoft-office-365-subscriptions-purchased-in-office-for-ipad-apps etc so PSnow has likely pay too if it wants to be on iOS

thats why I don't like platform holders fees.. if Sony wants to be a meaningfull global brand again it should start by waving away the platform fee.. which leads to more content which leads to consumers.. they could earn money with for example a commercial before starting up a game.. 

If you want no overhead on their phone division that would be a diferentiator. But on the console when dominating would be just lost revenue.

which would be replaced by the higher sales.. Lets say they sell 80 million ps4's but if they could conquer most of the market with 300 million.. if the product is better for the publishers in the end it will be for the consumers.. wave away the fee and games are suddenly 5 buck cheaper.. how powerfull is that..  new revenue ways could be implanted.. like ads, selling personal information.. say you watched the Amazing Spider-man movie on the ps4.. let there be an ad for Spider-man videogame before you play a game..

Well expecting ps4 to sell 300M is just a little shy from Don Matrick's 1B system on the gen. Don't think the loss on license fee will be covered for market growing exclusely regarding this.