well why would i pay the service for beta 3 days before the launch, if i can just buy the games (the hard copy ), or store. and if you say you got a discount, yeah a discount for only EA games, NO THANKS

1. The problem is that that is never how these things pan out. If everything remains exactly as they are now even with all major publishers offerring subscription plans then like EA access. then its not all that bad. As long as everything remains optional. But the problem is that it won't be that way. PS+ is "optional". As long as not playing your games online is an option to you. And thats the problem with publishers, they will always find ways to strong arm consumers into doing what will give them th emost amount of money while taking the lowest possible risk. 
   
   Mind you, I am not saying even PS+ is great, its just the best of this very breed of evil cause it prevents us having to deal with individual publishers. If these publishers have their way; they would find ways to boost their service to give it "percieved" value. Basically taking that choce outta your hands even though technically you still have a choice. I used the example of day one updates, DLC and microtransaction earlier. These weren't always norms in the industry, and 6yrs ago when they became mainstream you would find them in maybe 1 of every 7 games. Today, practically every single game being made has at least two of those three things. Its now so bad that these things are actually even being announced before the game releases. Think about that for a second, before a game is released they actually announce that you will have to download a day one patch so certain tings work. Once upon stuff like that would never even happen. Now, its considered normal. Thats the kinda industry we are in.
   
   
2. This just reaffirms my point... anyone can and will do stuff like this once they see they can get away with it. Sony is now charging for online, we have microsoft and the millions willing to pay for XBL to thank for that. And I think PSnow is a joke, its pricing is attrocious. But I also understand what they are trying to do and is something I would do if I were in their shoes. They don't want 100M people on PS now day one, they can't even manage that. So they know that they cuurently have the infrastructure to handle maybe 3M people. You just price everyone outta contention and use a bogus pricing scheme like whatthey have now to iron out the kinks. In time the pricing will get better. Having said that, PS now is an entirely different kinda service than what EA access is or even PS+. Ea access has more in common with PS+ and XBL than any of those have in common with PSnow.

Not sure where you were at that cable tv was free?

Before cable tv, there were a number of different companies offering direct beam channels that you could pay monthly for.  Not free at all.

THen cable became available with it's 5-7 channels.  It was not free then.  It was a monthly cost.  A lot of apartments and older buildings offered it for free, as cable providers would charge the building owner a bulk rate for the whole building.  But still, it was not free.  Later, as cable companies technology got a lot better, they realized that to keep the overall cost of cable down, they would need to hook up subscribers independantly to get them to pick their channels and pay for what they wanted.

The only thing that was free around here was the PS service.  But even that wasn't free.  You had/have to buy a $200 console to get any use out of it.

Nothing is free.

Ever heard of OTA television? At one point, with nothing more than an antenna you would get a couple of free channels (local). Still happens now. However, when we started having national channels, the need for a special box that recieves the channels became necessary. At first, that box was just a way to get channels from other areas and then channels started being made specifically for people that had that  box. Yes people paid for the box, and then started paying as little as $2 a month for a monthly service charge. 

Fastforward 35years, paying for that box can cost you as much as $50/month. Point is, cause something starts cheap today, doesn't mean it will always be that way. Point is, we should not make the same mistakes made (and currently being fought against) in the TV industry in the gaming industry, when we have 40years worth of evidence to see why we shouldn't. Point is, I support that things need to be different in the gaming industry but I firmly belive that where the publishers are investing their time and efforts to are generally all anti-consumer and ultimately not good for the industry as a whole. Point is, I don't just believe, but know there are much better ways to go about all this, but the publishers stand to make more money from less people this way than doing it the other way.. or at least thats what they think. They are wrong though.

Because when it's EA, people claim it sucks.

Demos should remain free... why would you pay to test a game?

Because not every game has a demo and I'm not going to spend £20 on a game I might not like to take it back to get £10 trade it for it. There is a reason why I haven't bought KH 1.5HD or Drakengard 3, because I don't know if they are worth it, a £1 down, played for 2-4 hours so I can get a feel for it and then I can decide if I want to own it.

Given their business practices I'm sure there are quite a few people whom consider anything EA does to be a scam. Given EA's history I certainly wouldn't be the first to defend EA.

I agree that things started out cheap and eventually change to something more expensive.  But, the product that people receive is generally way more attractive than the original item too.  For intance, we had the Beamed transmission(over the air) system in my home back then.  That was the shit back then.  We had to buy a "special" antenna and the box for the tv.  If I remember right, we paid something like $50 for the Box and $75 for the antenna.  The service cost $10 a month.  That would be the equivelant of about $30 today.  That was for 2 channels, that had programming for only most of the day.  Today, you are right, that the minimum package is $50.  But, that $50 gets you 50 channels.  

Just like EA or other similar deals are now, they offer very little and charge only small amounts.  But, when the do as you predict and get more content and maybe even some smaller publishers games, they will have to charge more.  But, the buyer will also get more.

The problem you seem to really have is that PS+ is already providing some of the same or similar content now, and you seem to not want to rock the boat and create an additional cost to you/consumer and not get much more in return.  At first glance, that is somewhat true.  But, the model that you suggest isn't the reality long term.  Almost every content creator now has an ability to provide that content through the internet at no middle man cost.  Sure, consoles have a HISTORICALLY controlled that interface.  For the consoles to remain relevant long term, they need to cater to the masses that want to pick and choose exactly what they are interested in.  

Why do you think so many people are dropping cable/Satellite TV?  Lack of choice.  They would rather just pay netflix $9 a month and get their classic tv/older movie fix with no commercials.  They can get Hulu if they want current TV.  They can get HBO direct soon and buy that if they really want it.  Why pay $50 for 50 channels, when you can pay $20 and get all that you may need personally?  CHOICE.  

If you only have the PS4, Sony has made that CHOICE for you.

We should ask for free demos for every games instead of surrendering to a service that makes you pay for them.