And you think that EA Access' primary focus is to offer you free games? No, it's for you to buy more EA content digitally. EA Access is a service that clearly shares a lot with PS+ and Gold, you get free games of the publishers choosing and deals with it and the whole multiplayer thing is exactly what people are worried about EA will do, hiding content of their games behind this subscription and since we're talking about freaking EA here, this is something I can easily see them doing.

I brought facts, you just chose to ignore them and post completely senseless bullshit.

What is this crap about the clause for using the MS servers to download the games? The clause is "release your game on our machine and give us a cut of every game sold" it has been that way ever since digital downloading on consoles began. Why do you think people constantly pointed out how downloads are much faster on 360 than PS3? It was because they had better servers and it certainly wasn't the third parties that provided these better servers on 360.

Now for reasons why it is completely irrational to expect similar prices:

1. PSNow server costs.

Even if, which is not the case, we assume that EA has to pay for the servers on their service directly, then every download would still just be a one time  transaction. Every time you use PSNow you're using Sonys servers to stream the game. What do you think is more expensive for the server holder? One 30GB download or streaming a game let's say for one week/3 hours a day? You can say that is not your problem, but that would be just stupid, the cost of a service or good always influence its price and PSNow has way higher costs. You wouldn't say that a taxi should be as expensive as riding the bus, because both basically take you somewhere.

2. The actual service.

I already said it, but I'll say it again, if you compare the services for what they actually do, then they are hardly alike at all. PSNow lets you (or will let you) stream your games to several different devices, you basically get the hardware to play the games with the games, EA Access lets you download games on your X1. You have a way bigger collection of games from different publishers to choose from and it is actually completely yours to choose which game you want to pay for (and for how long) on PSNow, on EA Access you pay for the whole vault, even if you possibly only want one game out of it.

Doubt that it will be a negative.  Sony will jump on board at some point(PS+).  They don't want to miss out on the money train.  Also, eventually the PS4 owners will clamor for this too.  Sony didn't do the EA Access because they wanted the control.  THey didn't do it becasue it was better for gamers or saved money for the gamers either.  Sony wanted control of the $$$.

If they wanted to control the $$$ wouldn't they allow it and just get a certain amount of commission? That way, with PS+, normal sales and EA Access, they can control even more avenues of generating income. This seems as simple as it is a form of competition to PS+ (so won't miss out on your money train) and they really did think it would start something bad (idea of this entire thread) and so said no to it.

I guess people have a hard time remembering that for over a decade, XBL was for nothing but multiplayer, and was the only one that did it. And then, when the Xbox interface expanded to include apps and such....those apps were put behind the paywall of XBL. Apps that you only need an internet connection for, not a subscription to a gaming service.

It's hard to remember that only recently did you get "anything in return" in the form of Games with Gold, discounts on XBL Gold, and apps/internet browser not locked behind a paywall.

But what thismeintiel said was true: the Xbox fanbase excused the former for 10+ years. Excused multiplayer. Excused apps (like Netflix, which you already pay for) behind a paywall. Etc. Because "most people who get an Xbox get Live anyway" 

Just because you guys are finally getting some value out of your subscription doesn't mean you got it before and that you aren't "the same people who excused MS making them pay for online without giving anything in return". That post was talking about the past (the recent past included, mind you), not right now. I mean "of course the same people" kinda implies him referring to posts made in the past, right?

Doubt that it will be a negative.  Sony will jump on board at some point(PS+).  They don't want to miss out on the money train.  Also, eventually the PS4 owners will clamor for this too.  Sony didn't do the EA Access because they wanted the control.  THey didn't do it becasue it was better for gamers or saved money for the gamers either.  Sony wanted control of the $$$.

If they wanted to control the $$$ wouldn't they allow it and just get a certain amount of commission? That way, with PS+, normal sales and EA Access, they can control even more avenues of generating income. This seems as simple as it is a form of competition to PS+ (so won't miss out on your money train) and they really did think it would start something bad (idea of this entire thread) and so said no to it.

My guess is that they didn't really had a chance to - EA most probably told them that they offered this to MS already so the service woudln't be unique to them. And they knew if they word it appropriately their fans and followers would easily adopt their opinion as they do nowadays like we can see in the media.

You pay for a service. You're not paying for charity or depositing your money in the bank and expect interest to amount.

I got ESPN app on Xbox for years, where I could watch EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Portuguese League, Ligue 1 and MLS for "free". Plus, MLB, NFL, NBA,etc...

A sports pack on Comcast costs $4.95 month, that's around 60 dollars a year. Meanwhile I can get all of those games on HD, plus a superb online match connection for $32 on Amazon, Newegg and eBay.

The "start something bad" isn't about consumers.  It's about making their service less valuable for them.  EAA and the many other versions that will come from the other publishers only devalue the PS+ service.  MOST electronics manufacturers make very small margins on their electronics nowadays - Sony included.  Those margins are consistantly getting smaller all the time.  Sony is looking at this in the long term.  They want to hook you into their proprietary system just like Apple or M$ or Google.  They know that once you amass a big enough amount of content, you are stuck keeping their service so you don't lose your content.  IF they allow EA or Origin or whoever to give you your content, you are no longer stuck with their proprietary system.  You would be a free agent.  THe likely scenario in the future, your EA account will allow you access on any device to your EA content.  If that happens, your ties to M$/Sony/Apple/Google  are eliminated.  Sony is pointing at the trees, hoping you won't see the forest...          

Yea...you pay for a service. That was free everywhere else (multiplayer gaming). Hence the "the same people who excused XBL...".

And I've seen you talk about the ESPN app twice now in this thread. You already pay for ESPN via your TV provider. You would think that you could, then, just use the ESPN app by inputting your TV credentials, but nope, you had to log in to XBL first. ESPN on Xbox Live doesn't just give you free football games "in return for subscribing to XBL". It gives you games that you already pay for via your cable or satellite service, that you can't watch on your Xbox unless you pay again to Xbox Live. You get EPL, MLS, NBA, NFL, etc on the app....because ESPN broadcasts games in those leagues. You're not getting preferential treatment in any way, shape, or form. Don't compare that to NFL Sunday Ticket or NBA League Pass.

Anyway, that's how it was before the policy reversal. Like I said, it wasn't until recently that apps weren't locked behind a paywall.