Andrew Wilson, Electronic Arts’ CEO, took the stage at the BC Tech Summit on Tuesday, and heroically declared that his company isn’t trying to be a “corporate beast.” His comments echo remarks made late last year by Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgenson, who similarly argued that EA had no interest in “nickel and diming” gamers.

“If you understand the video game business, EA — the branding is this corporate beast that just wants to take money from them while people play our games,” said Wilson. “That’s not actually what we’re trying to do.”

Jorgenson’s comments weren’t exactly greeted by adulation from the publisher’s fans, and it’s doubtful Wilson will have better luck. EA has been repeatedly voted the worst company in America, and while I personally disagree with that assessment — I’d argue there are companies that engage in far worse behavior than anything a video game publisher has ever done — it’s obvious that there’s a great deal of lost trust and anger between EA and its customers.

At the conference, Wilson went on to explain how services like EA Access, which gives Xbox One gamers access to a back catalog of titles and early access to upcoming products, proved that the company had gamers’ best interests at heart. In and of itself, EA Access sounds like a decent concept, but Wilson’s description of its earnings potential isn’t all that encouraging.

“For the longest time in civilization, we would spend money as human beings, then we would spend time where we spent our money. That’s reversed now,” Wilson said. “You come in, and play a bunch of games, and ultimately you invest after that.”

First, let’s tackle the obvious: EA Access isn’t going to make a business model out of selling every $60 to $90 title that EA ships as a $5 all-you-can-play game. Given that game budgets have ballooned to the point that titles need to ship 3-5 million copies just to break even, EA Access would need a huge chunk of US households to subscribe to make up the difference.

EA has shown no inclination to raise game prices, so we won’t be seeing $70 – $80 titles anytime soon. That leaves two basic options — use microtransactions to fund products, as it did with the disastrous Dungeon Keeper reboot or Dead Space 3, or continue churning out DLC. DLC is incredibly popular with publishers as a way to earn additional revenue — we’ve visited the topic of what makes DLC good or bad in the past — and so far, it looks like the model EA wants to continue to push.

Consider Battlefield 4. The game is now over two years’ old, and the basic “Standard Edition” sells for $19.99 on Origin. Not bad. The “Digital Deluxe Edition” is $29.99 and gets you one DLC, China Rising. The Premium Edition is still $49.99, with all five DLCs.

If you stop and think about it, that’s brilliant — at least, from EA’s point of view. Normally, two-year-old games, particularly multiplayer games, have a short shelf life. The business model is designed to entice you, either with a relatively small up-front cost ($20) or a $5 monthly fee, then sell the DLCs at regular price (games on EA Access don’t include DLC).

Just for fun, I created an image of all the different things EA will sell you in Battlefield 4, not counting the actual game. The list below includes the standalone DLCs (available for $49.95 collectively, as previously mentioned).