The people flipping out have to be American. Europe are used to waiting a few days for games.

Sony was right and wise to deny that service on their console. Imagine if every publisher and devolper had their own streaming/rental service. Hiding DLC or game content behind that type of service.  It's just another paywall to content. EA could easily do that with many of their games.  I can understand a company wanting to create new ways to make money off of their products but that concept is bad for gamers in the long run. I don't care for it. We don't need anymore paywalls to content and games.

If people are hating on EA for being EA (EA access) then they're right but if they're whining just because of the early access (they have it but I don't) with that game, that's silly. 

Actually im paying for full games of UFC, Peggle, Battlefield, NBA Live, Plants vs zombies, Need for Speed, a Fifa and a Madden. Plus the demo you keep harping about. Also 10% off new EA games. I'm not seeing the bad. I can quit the service whenever i want also. Anyone also can choose not to even sign up.

If "we" wouldn't need it, then "we" would decide with our wallets. But for this to come true, all should at least have the option. If it is a bad service, you can quit it. If the majority thinks like you and others than the service would automatically disapper. But sadly some aren't even getting the option to decide.

So the experiment if we need such a service can't be determined by all and can't be decided if you don't even have the option. This doesn't change your opinion, though.

Sony could look at it as attempt to breach exclusive advertisement but the most I can see is they asking for some form of compensation. It is indirect marketing of x1 version.

Doubt they will put much on it unless real profit is lost since it would create unnecessary friction otherwise.

On the early access, 10% discount I couldn't care less since I don't buy day one or pay more than 25% the initial price for most games.

And in BF:H I don't even care about the game itself.

For me all 3 or 5 big publisher could do a sub service since I buy very little from them and Sony would have to offer more 1St party on plus and indies would get even more highlight.

That isn't gonna happen, but why would that be a bad thing? If the subscription services are only $30 a year and can provide hundreds of hours of entertainment, I'd call that a bargain. I don't understand why some people are against options.

PS Now has a subscription service with over a 100 games from various publishers. However, it lacks many noteworthy games and it cost $180 ($240 if paying by the month) a year! Each publisher having their own service atleast lets people narrow down what they want to pay for at a lower cost.

Yes, "we" need don't anymore paywalls. An experiment is not required to determine if it's bad or whether it is "needed". EA showed their intentions with EA Access by locking access temporaly behind a paywall or service. It wouldn't take much for them to do that with DLC to get more people to buy into that their service is worth it. They will only do things like that more with their other games. Of course, I'm not gonna change my opinion because of a paragraph and a few sentences.  Sony chose not to have a bad service on "their" console when their console is dominating the market. Fair well, EA access. Good riddance.

Its most likely because Origin has 492 games that PC gamers would be expecting in their vault. The only options would be:

1. Allow EA Access on PC with only 8th gen games and have people complain about not having all the games.

2. Allow EA Access on PC with all games and raise the price substantially and have people complain about the price

3. Not allow EA Access on PC and have people complain about not having it.

Again: Why not let the market decide?

It's not so much about the immediate percieved value you get from EA access now but about how it affects you later down the line. EA has a really bad reputation and they're already confirming some gamers' fears about how they would use their service. Locking content or access to their games behind a paywall/service. If that is successful, more publishers and developers will use a service like EA's to lock content behind. PS Now hasn't been used like that because sony doesn't make the vast majority of content or own it. Also, sony is the proverbial gamer friendly company. 

I don't know about you but I rather just be able to buy the exact games I want to play, maybe buy dlc for whatever one and just play it. That's just me but I can understand if someone wants to rent, stream or subscribe for games for the value. That's why more centralized services are better for gamers that want something like that. They don't own the vast majority of content or games and therefore can't control any content beyond what they are licensed for.