Its not rocket science.....

What EA is doing would be Ok if it was platform based not publisher based. eg. Say it was just another service you get cause you are already paying for the XBL service or the PS+ service. 

But as it stands, being publisher based, if its successful then expect activision, ubisoft, take 2...etc to follow suit. next thing you know we have a situation where things like demos, dlc and even game discounts are all behind a paywall and the consumer expected to subcribe to an ever increasing number of services to get the most out of all his/her content.

What EA has done, is basically look at PS+ and go, hey... we can do that too. make our own service, give out free games too, give out discounts too..etc and we can get the consumer t pay us instead of having to piggy back on the platform holders service.

If you don't see how this can ultimately become a bad thing then you are the ignorant consumer EA is hoping to take advantage of right now. Its notthat their service idea is bad, its just that its bad cause its on its own when it could just as easily been part of XBL. 

Copanies want your money of course, why let another cash in when you could do it yourself? Also what prevents Sony from releasing games exclusively on PSNow or lock demos on PS Now? It's like there's only the worst cases and not a wait and see approach or hey this could lead to good things for consumers. Like "gamers" know what's best for the industry.

@bolded... so because I think differently I'm an ignorant consumer? What should I do with my money, please enlighten me my lord! 

Never said trust should be a given. But quite franckly a lot of people are just "following" the wave and do not really understand why they should not trust EA or are using EA as a perfect exemple of an evil publisher while they are nothing different than any other publisher out there like Activision, Sony, Ubisoft etc...

My point is that this is a business and like any other business out there (Activision, Ubisoft, Sony, etc.) they are not evil in any way and they are not trying to ruins gamers' life.

Also regarding points made in the video, the guy pretended that competition between the big publishers (for this kind of service) will result in bad things basicaly... Yeah right, because usually competition results in bad things for the consumers? Nope... I can list here a lot of other exemple from this video. The guy is just talking about a lot of "what if bad" and nothing about "what if good" like only bad and evil things happens from publishers.

So you really cannot see anything bad happening from every big publisher starting a service like this, which they obviously want people to subscribe to so they give them extra incentives in the form of locking content behind it? Seriously, I don't want a fucking game industry where I have to subscribe to a service like this whenever I want to get a game and don't want to have content locked away from me and I wouldn't put it past any of those publishers to do something like this.

EA Access's whole purpose is it for people to spend more money on EA content, after all you've already put down the $30 to get the 10% discount or the early access, so might as well get this game or piece of DLC that you originally didn't want to get, that's the whole psychological effect they are trying to create here.

He explained it in the video?  Basically, EA doesn't deserve our trust, and if EA is successful, then you're also talking about an Ubisoft service, and an Activision service and any major publisher who thinks they can cash in on it.  Eventually, you're paying for PSN, XBL, Origin, Activision, Ubisoft etc...  ergo, paying several hundred in just subscription fees.

Thing is, no one is telling you to purchase all of those.

You only have to get the one for the publisher you like the most. You have a choice here.

It's not as if you would have 100 publishers who have enough games to even think about this. EA does it because they release a lot of games per year so that they also have a realistic number of games they can release in the Vault. Most other publishers would have to work  together on a service and if we will have like  5 different services anytime soon, they will obviously also compete in price and quality with each other.

If you buy your games mostly new you can still do it since that will still make more money for the publishers so that they won't stop to release games as single purchase and if you play games only like a year after release you should easily get a lot of games with a few subscription where it would make sense to subscribe for maybe one service a full year and for other services only for a month when there is a game you want to play. 

For me it's pretty obvious why we get these services like PS+, EA Access and so on... Publishers are aiming especially at those who would normally only pay money for these games on the used games market or for maybe a few bucks in a store so that even a few dollar  is better for them as if someone would buy the game on the used market. But that doesn't mean that it will be more expensive for you as a customer over the year, just that publisher try to get at least a few dollars for their older games. 

I mean, you can argue "if 10 publishers do that I have to pay 300 bucks a year" but not sure why you would think that. You won't have to pay for every service as long as you don't play games from all of them and if you would play so many games from so many different publishers you would probably pay the same or even more if you would get the games without this service. I mean, let's be honest here "paying for so many different services for older games" would be only true for those who pay already for "so many different older games"