Imagine if EA were the only one's to do it. Then you'd only optionally have to pay for it like now. 

It's a good thing because I support EA Access and I get to play it before it's released everywhere lol

I'm not sure how anyone can say EA access is bad. Its $2.50 a month to play free games and get early access. And even if you don't want it, its always nice to have the option of getting it rather than having no options at all. Personally, I like the service and I hope Ubisoft and Square Enix offer similar services.

You also get discounts on games. I don't get why people argue why it is bad to have even the option. Why not let the market decide? If it is a bad service, people won't subscribe to it and it will die. If it is indeed a value to customers, it will stay. Easy.

Come on, you guys know exactly why it's being argued.

You only have to imagine how discussion would look like if it was the opposite: EA Access would be not on Xbox One because MS thinks it isn't enough value while on the other hand it would be available on PS4

If it will succeed,Sony will allow it on PSN,it's that simple.

EA Access makes playing annuals sports franchises bearable.

If it succeeds, Ubisoft, Activision, Square Enix, Bethesda and others will do the same and soon/next gen, we will have to pay 20-30 dollars a month to play the "full experience" of all our games (DLC, multiplayer, release date... anything can be included). Playstation players have the right to doubt IMO... XBox players payed to play online without saying anything and now we need to pay too, because it's "normal". Even Nintendo does DLCs now because it became "normal" in the industry. If we accept anything, then our industry can become anything. 

It's great. 

Because of its possible implication, pretty sure we went through this already.

Um... Sony didn't want EA access because they said it wasn't good value. Why should they decide that?