Been thinking of reasons why Sony might be reluctant to allow this ( at least at this stage). People saying they're being anti-consumer by denying choice are, IMO, not thinking things through, merely knee-jerking. Sony aren't likely to deprive users of a service that might benefit the ecosystem as a whole, therefore we have to look for the potential for harm.
i. Firstly it obviously competes with and potentially devalues ps+ (you'd have to think EA games would be less likely to become available to plus, or potentially they could be even more outdated versions of the sports titles).
ii. End user support. For the tiny fraction of the fee Sony would receive, they'd be expected to manage the purchase and delivery as with any digital purchase, but the fact that it's not just a single transaction for a single item and rather the support of a yearly or monthly subscription service, opens the door to many more potential issues.
Sony would be the first point of call for end user support when anything went wrong (and with ea/origin on top of ps+, that might not be trivial). Reading the many threads on GAF, I'm sure Sony's CS support lines are busy enough as is regarding the various issues that are thrown up with with their own ps+ without generating more with an extra layer of potential pitfalls on top. There would no doubt be grey areas - problems where Sony think it's an EA issue, EA think it's a Sony issue. Not appetising.
iii. It's not just EA - you have to think further ahead. Other publishers are likely to expect to be able to be given the chance to offer a competing (but maybe not even necessarily that similar) service for their own titles. This would not only multiply the effects of the above concerns but, thinking it through a bit more, you'd have to factor in each publisher's competing service's rules, regulations and nuances... and you are now presenting an even more complex problem for Sony CS.
Taking this further, it's not difficult to imagine the potential for a sea of confusion customer-side when Johnny Gamer expects certain things of one service that is actually only a part of a rival service he also subscribes to. This would only compound with every new service added. All customers would go directly to Sony to air their grievances and have their minds set at ease. Those CS staff are going to spend the next few years in and out of training courses like an mcse.
iii. Having to set up an auto-renewal with a credit card held on file. Sony don't really want to go there, do they? And that Johnny Gamer guy - what if he forgets to cancel and the service auto-renews - Sony CS have to deal with enough "my dog bought COD Ghosts when it scratched its arse on my DS4 help me please!" kind of gripes as it is.
So those were some possible reasons are why I reckon Sony isn't keen to want to walk this path, there are likely many more I can't comprehend not being in a position to understand. It's more understandable why Microsoft, struggling as they appear to be to hang on to the coat tails of ps4, are more open to a roll of the dice with their comfortable bedfellows in this extending of an unprecedented relationship
The current setup with ps+ is actually the best for the consumer in my view. Sony is the platform holder - they have their store and their services. Keeping that simple and uniform for customers is key. Having ps+ with the potential for any and all publishers competing for exposure through this single subscription service is
true competition between rival publishers and it keeps things dead simple for the end user. No nested bullshit.
Several "competing" publisher-exclusive services would appear to me to be be anti-competitive and funnel gamers into a more fractured and uncertain gaming-as-a-service future.
Away from Sony and on a personal level - the TOS on the EA site reads significantly differently to a few random EA spokespersons' comments I've seen quotes in this and the other thread over the past 24 hours (regarding expiration of titles and purchases made using the 10% discount). There's ambiguity there. Tweets and e-mails to gaming sites aren't good enough - the ToS needs to be edited to reassure. It's entirely reasonable to expect EA to stick to the letter of their TOS and not some quote given to gaming Website X or a tweet from some guy who might no longer even work for EA any longer. EA don't really have the gravitas to ensure faith in their future generosity or ability to play fair.
The discount thing is thrown in there as a deal clincher. At 10% it is fairly measly vs the actual retail price paid for physical copies (here in UK at least) and for it to have much benefit as a DLC discount the user would have to be a serious content-hoover, and I can't see that very niche kind of consumer being too thrifty. The time-limited game trials some 120 hours before release I can see appealing to a hardcore minority hell-bent on getting their hands on EA's latest offerings as soon as humanly possible.
