Mmmh...
I get the idea. Subscription-based services, I think, are something that we should see more...but from hardware houses themselves. Like PSNow (even if its status is kind of limited for the next future). I mean, EA's lineup is made for a good amount by sport titles that have yearly iterations. Yes, there are other titles, like Battlefield, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, but, for this gen, sport titles are a very prominent part of their offering. To be honest, I don't know how appealing would be to spend $30/year for playing games from just a software house, and which offering is made of sport titles for a good part. I don't either know how many mass customers who actually buy sport titles later due to prices being lower would decide to subscribe such a service, in order to get their yearly...year-late sport fixing. Other features are from decent (10% discount) to good (early trial periods), and they make the proposal better, but still, it's just for games from one software house, and from one who makes a good amount of sport titles, which have yearly versions with updated rosters and whatever, so they have far less long-standing value than other titles like a Dragon Age or a Mass Effect, other EA games.
The other thing is that publisher-based subscription services in the current gen environment are kind of stopped by a simple thing: MS/Sony requiring to pay a subscription to play online. In this case, if you are a fan of both sport titles and Call of Duty and similar titles (there is an overlap between the two audiences), you'll certainly pay $50/60 per year to play CoD, so...why would you want to pay additional 30$ just for getting EA Access? That would mean $80/90 per year. I don't think that's an interesting proposal. Of course, EA Access is entirely optional, but such option is made far less attractive. The same would be if other publishers try doing that (like Ubisoft, or Activision). Again, fortunately their subscription services would be all optional, but their successes would be immensely limited.
Now, subscription services from the big three themselves? NOW that's an option I'd like to see. Netflix is amazing because you have an insane catalogue from basically every moviemaker, not just from Disney or Warner Bros. or Paramount or whoeverelse. That's what everyone should be aiming for. PSNow is a start in this sense, but so far it's for rentals (with high prices to begin with), and it seems that it'll take some time before seeing at least part of its potential. Basically, both first and third party titles from each publisher being added to the mix (older ones, of course - from 6 to 12 months after the release) + other features (discounts, early pre-loading, exclusive betas, one more recent game - 4 months after the release - and one indie title - even at launch - per month), all at prices around on par with what PS+/XBL require currently...wouldn't that be a great option? Specific companies could do specific things, like Sony with Remasters being free for subscribers who already own the original version of the game, or Nintendo throwing Virtual Console content in the mix as well.
Again, as an OPTION: Netflix-like services can't be the main revenue source for games and companies, especially the only way. Netflix isn't the only way movie companies get revenue: their main revenue source are the movie theathers runs, then DVDs/Blu-Ray and Netflix. The same should be for the gaming industry...and yeah, this would require not putting online behind the paywall, which is my main negative towards Sony this gen. >_>
