Oh, I 100% agree. Now that this is on PS4 and most likely PS5, more publishers are going to want their own service on there, too. And they'll be withholding their games from Plus, as well as making what would have been a demo before, an early access hid behind a paywall.

People can only afford so much. Recently I had to cancel Hulu with Live TV and just switch to normal Hulu because all of these streaming sites are nuts to pay for. Now, I'm sticking with Netflix, Prime, and Hulu basic. Disney can kiss my ass if they think I'm subbing to their new one. People thought it was great that streaming was killing cable. But, because everyone wants their own, to get all of them is more expensive than cable.

The flaw with this fear that every publisher will want their own service, is that a majority of publishers don’t have the content to warrant a service. And if any of them were planning it, the logical testing ground would have been Xbone, not PS4. Not only was MS more open to it but with PS3 BC probably never happening, there is much less potential content there. But we didn’t see any... so this idea that the flood gates were going to open didn’t make sense four or five years ago and certainly doesn’t now.

And even when a couple other publishers start their own.... so what? If you aren’t interested, don’t subscribe. This isn’t something that will see exclusive content or anything. Games cost too much money for publishers to limit the audience.

And haha @ publishers holding games off of PS+ for their own service. PS+ and GwG this gen have been mostly small scale games and mostly doodoo with the rare gem thrown in. Sony doesn’t need to offer great value anymore since they charge for online. This won’t change until they stop charging for online.

Yes ludicrous, because 2 months after Netflix other companies opened their services, similar to PSNow... but it all leads to that.

It makes me think of CAA. You pay for a membership, a sub basically, they provide you with a service, and they don't care what type of vehicle you have. They offer different packages though so you can save if you don't travel as much or pay more if you do. It's a little surprising that EA being third party doesn't have a cross platform sub for a higher price. From a profit perspective it makes sense, because they are likely to make more money charging per platform, and the platforms themselves likely would make more profit by having it all locked to each platform. That doesn't really explain the lack of outrage though. I don't see this to be to much different than what happened with Fortnite, and yet no one really seems to care. I just find it quite odd that 'anti consumer' doesn't seem to apply at all times.

I can understand that Netflix and EA Access are different type of service, and that is less likely for someone to have numerous different consoles than Netflix enabled products. So perhaps very few are worried that they will need more than one sub. Still it is strange that no outrage have been done.

But considering gamepass still have low sub number, EA Access also probably have low, it don't really affect many.

Good point. If you compare all of EA's games over the past couple years or more vs just Fortnite there really is no comparison. From that perspective it makes sense why things have been fairly quiet. I'd also guess that EA games are played by an older audience on average, who better understand why cross play isn't a natural thing in the console industry, so little to no outrage should come of it. For now anyway. We'll see what happens if the service starts to take off and if 'anti consumer' outrage follows.

Most revenue is still generated from selling the games, not subscription services. Therefore the quality is concern for selling games and getting people to stay subscribed.

Gamepass in particular also offers a curated selection of notable games. So maybe if you don't like a new game, you could find some other critically acclaimed game on the service.

EA Access gives about 6-10 hours of play on newly released games. That means you can try them pretty thoroughly before you commit $60.

You can downplay these services, but they're objectively pretty great even if they don't necessarily appeal to you. They're competitive services that offer more than I ever expected from these types of subscription services.

I think, the reason is, that every platform has wildly different games.

The PS4 only has PS4 EA games

XBO comes with XBO and 360 games (do also OG Xbox titles get released with the service?), making it's offering twice as large as on PS4.

PC has the whole EA PC history, including all the games from PC-only companies like Bullfrog, Maxis or Westwood they bought up. It probably has a range of at least about 3 times as many games as the other 2 combined due to this.

In other words, you'll get by far the most out of it on PC, and on PS4 it has the least value if it has the same pricetag across all platforms.

Well it looks like it's the same price no matter the platform which makes no sense then. If some platforms have way more games on them, why the same price no matter the platform? They might as well have one higher price for cross platform access because it wouldn't be any different than it is now, minus assumed bundled savings. If each platform was priced based on how many games there were to play then it would make more sense.

You'll get the least value by having to pay 3 subs for the same service.