I’m a big proponent of open access. For me, it’s the best way for scholarship to become most widely available, since those who are active in the field yet are unaffiliated with an academic institution, such as independent scholars, can maintain a current appraisal of the field.
But it’s also a bit problematic. A lot problematic. The economics of higher ed are often the reason for journals to avoid switching over to an open access platform. Somebody has to pay for the online hosting, or for the printing. And somebody has to pay the editor, maybe. And somebody has to arrange for reviewers. All of this takes time, money, and academic capital.
In the long run, though, it would be beneficial for all journals to have some form of open access. Whether that’s delayed e-publication, or special members-only content is up to publishers to decide. Nevertheless, open access is a way for more content to be published, as well as higher-quality reviewed content, and a stronger field.