Is this a mandatory subscription? Last I heard its optional. If you like what's offered then pay the $30, if you don't then don't worry about it.

I have mixed feelings about this, I like the idea that if it's a slow month, I can pay a small fee to play a number of games. Sadly though, if this takes off, it's only a matter of time where (like DLC and Microtransactions) it will be abused and become detrimental for gamers.

You're just making too much sense for many to see what's actually going on. EA and Microsoft have been in bed together for a mighty long time, it's only logical that someone's bound to catch cooties in the process.

Microsoft and EA have been grooming the fanbases for this for a very long time! Just think a military shooter released yearly, by a list of developers under EA yearly! Plastered by DLC, Maps from the older games and Season passes. People need to wake up.

And for the record EA Access is not like PS+ or even PS Now, you're talking one developer as opposed to multiple developers.

How does this constitutes not liking money. EA access doesn't threaten new physical game sales, it provides a cheaper alternative to buying from a used retailer.

If all the publishers copied EA Access, and OFFERED year old games for a monthly/yearly subscription, how would that make gaming more expensive? You'd only subscribe to those who had the games you want for the price you want... otherwise, you'd just continue buying used...

It's simply another option.

"Gamers, you have it within you not to support the future continued gouging of your wallets by not supporting this service that will just prompt every publisher to try and do the same thing"

now that would require common sense. some gamers are quick to give up everything so as its disguised as " good value"

I won't support PS Now or EA Access. Both of them are cash grabs.

Go me.

EDIT:Strangely enough I don't see Mr Knight talking about how PS Now is a big con. Actually, that's not too strange as everyone knows which way his flags blows. Just another day for the Sony man.

"In your very own post you're taking the position that anyone against EA Access is obviously a Sony fanboy"

I'm taking the position that because EA Access is only on one platform that any argument concerning it instantly becomes divisive. That many will only see black or white depending on their side and not think. Forgive EA for what they've done in the past and not consider they're likely to repeat mistakes in the future. Like Madden 15 being buggy as hell making early, paid, access stupid.

If the thing was on both the PS4 and XB1 there would still be hardcore A fans defending them, but they'd be in a clear minority.

I am going to enjoy this feature, just like psnow. For me, I don't buy every game released during every gen, and I only retain some games that hold an iconic status in my gaming world. This way I can play games that I on't own, complete them, and move on without selling it back for a lost of an average of 30 dollars per trade in (when I can pay 30 for the year, or 4.99 when I want to engage this service for 30 days). This works for me. Game on.

oops

@DragonKnight - People have the right to make what ever choices they want. I do not think people are sayign EA is so great and trustworthy since EA Access started. I think some people are excited at the potential and value.

Sony did not pass on EA Access, because they thought it was BS. They passed on it, because they saw it as a hindrance to their new program...PS Now.

Agreed, EA Access and PS Now are completely different. One is a subscription based program for games from EA. The other is a rental based system. It has potential, but it needs a overhaul on the fees.

Dude calm down..reading all your comments make you sound like an asshole and don't tell people what they can't buy with their money.

I vehemently hate micro-transactions and definitely don't accept the "you can ignore them if you don't like them" defence.

I would love to be able to subscribe to services like EA access or a ubisoft equivalent in order to play games. I sincerely hope these services evolve to encompass new games and additional content. I hope the existence of these services heralds a complete re-think on content delivery.

EA access and the terrifying future you are so opposed to are a step towards a future I want. It has me looking at consoles as a viable place to play games again. I want and expect to see ubisoft jump in next.

@Dragon
I had to comment and give you a bubble. I feel the exact same way as you do. Starting to think I was the only one. It's nice to see someone thinking ahead for once and where this will lead, especially when you look at past trends and what has led up to this. DLC, micro transactions, f2p (P2W) have all been introduced fairly recently and have been a burden on gaming IMO since. I won't support EAA and I'm glad Sony doesn't want it. Even if Sony did get EAA, I'd be complaining about it. On their own forums no doubt

Dude, it's optional.. If you don't like it, vote with your money and don't buy it..

I personally like the value proposition of EA Access.. I'm not someone who has to buy every single game on day one because, let's face it, games are expensive.. They cost $60 each for maybe a month of prime enjoyment.. This is why I only buy a few "must have" titles a year and end up missing out on a bunch of interesting titles that I just couldn't justify spending $60 on.. And unfortunately, even if you wait 6 months to buy a game, you'd still be hard-pressed to find one under $30..

With EA Access (and hopefully other publishers follow), I can spend the $30 I would have spent on an 6~8 month old game from Gamestop, and apply that to full year's subscription.. A subscription that allows me access to a Vault of ever increasing content.. Just like you pay $8 a month to gain access to 100s of movies on Netflix, eventually you'll be able to pay $30 a year to gain access to loads of games.. Yearly, EA makes alot of games that I'm interested in, but only a few I want to buy on day one for $60 each.. The rest, I can wait and play once they drop into the Vault.. It's such an obvious value..

And again, it's OPTIONAL!!..

If other publishers get on board and i can pay $90 a year to get a back catalog of games from EA, Ubisoft, and Activision that range from 6~8 months old, that's infinitely better than paying $30~$40 for only ONE of those older games individually.. That's the "worst case scenario" of having to pay separate subscription fees and it STILL destroys the idea of paying $30-$60 for each and every game I want to play.. And again, that would still be OPTIONAL!!..

And this doesn't even take into consideration the 10% discount and 5 days early access on new games..

Sony (and therefore, Sony fanboys) don't see the value in this because if all the major publishers get on board, PS Now is dead.. A $380 million dollar flop.. That's the only reason EA Access isn't on the PS4 right now.. Period..

And besides, I thought everyone wants "choice".. Since when did it become ok for Sony or any other company to tell you what you want?.. This is a great option for those that are interested and people who arent interested can simply ignore it.. So what's the problem?.. Oh that's right, all of this is just more consoles war fan boy hypocrisy..

Carry on...

It's an option, just like any other service and just like PSNow.

You don't think that if PSNow is popular and takes off that Sony won't move in that direction and decide to release their new games for that service only? It's no secret that every game company is looking at an all digital future.

EA Access and PSNow are the stepping stones, the foundation to this future. They are both testing this feature and seeing how successful it is. That is why both services seem so bare bones at the moment. As they grow and become more popular you will see their services, and offers grow as well.

To sit there and say people are blind just because they like EA Access but then turn around and defend Sony and say it's "different" is equally as blind. Also the nerve to shut people down for their own opinion and to say these things just makes you look ridiculous.

And as others have stated...wasn't "OPTIONS" the big buzz word around here not too long ago?

I hope they do! If I'm paying for a service I expect to get some perks. Just like any other service I pay for.

There's also a chance that they might give players access to things earlier than others who don't.

You want to play the beta early? Sure! For all you subscribers!

You want to play a demo? Sure! You paid for are service, let's hook you up with some demos.

You want some DLC? You subscribe? How about we just give it to you for free or half off or even better earlier than the rest of the ones who didn't subscribe!

The slope can go both ways my friend, no one complains when a paid service like PS+ starts giving away free games, early access to betas and discounts to their members and EA Access could easily go the same way.

***The slope can go both ways my friend,***

I guess if you consider that slope of moving from getting that stuff without having to pay anything extra to now having to pay money for access to them.

Yeah, really good logic there. Don't think you're understanding the conversation at hand really well if you miss the fact that they're adding yet another paywall to stuff where there was no paywall.

*** no one complains when a paid service like PS+ starts giving away free games,***

Well, first, you're paying for the games. Second, they aren't just a single publisher control model and actually give games from a wide variety of sources.

EA Access is totally in control by a publisher, who isn't your friend and only wants your money and not to be your friends. Publishers aren't the people who slave for hours to make the games you want, they're the people who think of more ways to get more money from you for less content.

EA Access already steps over the line that PS+ hasn't. EA Access gives early access to games to people. They already prioritize access to a game based on your ability to give them more money.