Well they said they didnt feel it was value for money, and as they are working on their own system and have PS+ then they can rightly say that. The whole internet outrage of some users going "Sony deciding on what is value..." was a totally different discussion. I didnt agree with those angry internet people either to be fair. It's a Sony service they can offer whatever they like on it.

One is MS essentially breaking the law (they are advertising a game Sony and Activision signed a deal on) and the other is Sony choosing not to support EA Access (or so they say). I don't see the similarities.

Microsoft doesn't have permission from someone to use their product information in advertisements to sell their systems. It's a violation of their trademark.

Sony made a business decision to not open up access to subscription plans because of what they forsee it potentially doing to their ecosystem. No trademark or copyright violations or contraction violations.

However, some people are getting their undies in a bunch thinking, "How dare they insult the company!" Some people are going to complain about anything, so it's probably not worth worrying too much.

Let's look at it though: Microsoft is known for establishing exclusive marketing deals, so to try to weasel outside of it and use someone else's trademark to promote their system when they aren't authorized to do so is "insulting." Sony decided to not make a business arrangement with a company because they didn't believe it was a good deal, and some people think that is "insulting."

I don't think using someone else's creation to promote yourself without permission is the same kind of "insulting" as not entering into a business deal that seems to be bad for your company.

This is a completely different situation. One is childish, the other is good business.

Sony thinks it's a good deal. Just know that they don't want it to get in the way of ps now and ps+. Guaranteed.

Don't tell me Sony isnt childish. Trolling ms isn't childish.? 

The semantics you're trying to pull is akin to Sony/Microsoft buying exlusivity to a game and then the code is outsourced to a different dev because they "didn't technically agree to NOT develop the game", and they develop it on the other console. The contract says "Game X is only on PS/XB" but Other Developer had "nothing to do with" the contract, so they make the game.......even though the deal is that Game X is exclusive.

It may be copyright infringement or some other legal mumbo jumbo, for a 3rd party infringe on a binding contract. Like, if Adidas made Jordan's. Even though only Nike has the rights to make Jordans, Adidas didn't agree NOT to make Jordans. But that wouldn't fly in a court of law

How is refusing to open PSN up to abuse childish?

No, which is why this thread is pointless.

No, its their opinion that its the best for their fanbase.  Agree or not they are entitled to it.

MS has no right to do what they did given the contracts in place ones they know damn well them selves as they signed pelnty of them.