I see people saying a worry they have with EA access is that companies like Capcom, 2K, Ubisoft, etc. Would follow suit if EA Access is successful.
My response would be that I'm all for it. It gives us more choice.
Let's say you subscribe to EA, Capcom, 2K, and Ubi, and they are all about $30. And let's assume they all put out the minimum 4 games. You just got access to 16 games to play as much as you wanted for $120 (the price of two new games). And even if games are only there about a year. For me at least, it's pretty rare I play a game over a year. Even last gen I think I only played Skyrim, Fallout 3, Borderlands 2, and Street Fighter 4 for over a year.
I think in the end, adding more choice is always better. I mean, you can still go out and buy individual games if only one game in the subscription interests you.
Just think, Sony wants to own their ecosystem and that includes digital game sales *AND* rentals (via PS Now). Sony wants to own their rental market - at the same $5/month or so - and they can't offer EA's program before their own program launches. if most companies get on board and follow EA example,with,EA Access it will cut into the 2nd hand market-share slice of pie.
I Get Why, Sony doesn't see this as a good idea...
I'm sure if I broke it down logically I'd just get called someone's alt.
Why don't you break down why its paying more for less?
Heres an example - remember Driveclub? The game that was supposed to launch with the PS4? Been delayed 1000 times...
You might not keep on it, and I really don't either because I'm not into racing games, but a while back they announced PS+ members would get the game for free. Hooray, right?
Apparently it came out that the PS+ would have less content, and you could upgrade at a discount to get the "full version".
Whats PS+? $50 a year or something? So, lets say you get the "free" version included in your $50 you use for gaming online and other things. You get the discount version for lets say $30. (Im making these numbers up - its for the sake of the example).
I don't know the the fate of that game was or whats going on with currently or if that is still how its being handled. I just know some people were up in arms over the idea because they thought they may be getting more than they thought with how it was originally revealed.
XBL? We'll say $50. EA Access. What is it $30? Right now you've spent the same, but you're getting more, right? The other example got you only one game. Now you get a library of titles!
EA has an... interesting reputation, lets be frank. I assure you this isn't designed with your best interests at heart. Games are becoming increasingly expensive to make and upkeep. There has to an increase somewhere. They would NOT offer this service unless its been carefully calculated to bring more in returns than throwing a game out for $60 with DLC and calling it a day. Period.
So, what happens? Not right away with titles you know and have had the opportunity to play? But down the road, with a larger install base X title is released. You get the "free version" for being a member. Awwww. But the "full version" costs extra. Quick! Discount map pack for new game for being a member, but it shipped with 4 less maps than all the other versions have...
Any person with any common sense can see how this can be maniuplated in a negative manner.
It may never be. Who knows. But, it can. And what can happen... sometimes does.
You only increase these odds when more people try to get their own slice of the pie.
It wouldn't be a bad thing if you enjoy many games from one publisher. Ubisoft, Activision and EA launch many games throughout the year on each console. But it definitely competes with what Sony is trying to do with PS Now and they're likely afraid that if you're paying EA $30 per year then you won't want to pay them whatever their monthly or yearly subscription is as well.