Topic: I ❤ PS+ and the IGC

If Sony were to drop IGC, I doubt it would have a major impact on Subscribers as the majority no doubt buy it for online gaming. Its virtually mandatory now in that respect. If you don't buy, a lot of games are totally redundant or at the very least, extremely limited.

Before Sony released the PS4, the number of PS+ subscribers was a very small percentage compared to the number of PS3 and Vita owners. Since then though it has jumped up significantly.

If Sony dropped the charge for online but kept the IGC and the extra 10% Discounts, I would expect that many (not all) would cancel their subscription far more than if they dropped IGC/Discounts.

@themcnoisy "I can actively buy retail games without the nagging thought they may be on igc"

I have never worried about buying retail games regardless of whether or not they come to IGC/GwG. I bought Sunset Overdrive a week before MS offered this as a GwG and that certainly didn't annoy me. I could of course trade in my Physical copy but I also know that regardless of whether I maintain my Subscription or not, I can ALWAYS play Sunset Overdrive - unlike the GwG games. Not only that, in a lot of cases, I buy games around the time they release and/or at a price I am willing to spend. If a game is offered, regardless of its 'status' (AAA, Indie etc) then I will buy. If a game is offered on either of these subscriptions that I haven't bought, its generally because I had no interest or the price wasn't right. Its very unlikely that any game I really want is ever offered within months of it coming out so I have no worries about pre-ordering or buying games and consider the chances that they may or may not come to IGC/GwG. In the past 6months+ though, I have had games like Thief, Sleeping Dogs: Definitive, Rayman, Sherlock Holmes, Murdered: Soul Suspect etc (As well as games I already owed like Tomb Raider, Sunset Overdrive) Games I wouldn't necessarily of bought even in a sale but still won't affect what I buy in the future.

Some AAA games have actually got me interested in others in a franchise and even those offered that I own can renew my interest and/or actually make them playable again. When the XB360 offered Gears of War for example, a lot of my friends were actually playing this so it helped to do the campaign in co-op and the MP was actually full. If Sony offered Killzone, even though I own it for example, I bet the MP would be a lot more full than it is now and renew my interest in playing it again and give me some extra value from the game I own. Its one of the reasons I don't mind games being offered I already have - especially those with online functionality. Its almost impossible to get a game on Killzone in the mode I want or even a chance to play it with a lot of friends as they don't have it. Monthly releases like this would see a massive jump in the number of people online and make finding matches for those of us who have it, play the game with friends etc so much easier.

AAA games raise the profile of both Sony and PS+/IGC. Sony may not need to raise their profile so to speak but its not exactly getting a lot of positivity towards IGC. Most monthly announcements on Youtube for example are much more disliked than liked. If you were sat on the fence about whether to subscribe or not or if you were considering your options (say upgrading to a PS4/Pro or XB1/Scorpio) and deciding which offered the better subscription package, would you opt for one offering more AAA releases and BC games or one where you get 2 indie games that are not that dissimilar to last months indie games and likely to be similar to next months? I know there are more important considerations than that - like exclusives, friends etc and it rarely comes down to comparing these two (or 3 when Switch starts its online subscription service) but its a hypothetical to illustrate the difference.

@themcnoisy: To clarify a bit further I've never got much value from the IGC, even when it was giving away AAA big hitters last gen. I think the only one I ever played to completion was Outlast :s

AAA or indie, if I want it the chances are very high I got it already.

Not worth it for me at the moment. There aren't any games I play online, the IGC is extremely spotty in terms of the content that comes to it, and despite it featuring great discounts, I'm not really looking to add older games to my already enormous backlog.

I just hope that Nintendo doesn't overcharge for their service, but, who am I kidding, we know they will.

Oh well. I'm willing to play $50 or so a year to play Splatoon.

The Deadly Tower of Monsters £10
Never Alone £10
Legends of War ?
Day of the Tentacle £10
Stories: The Path of Destinies £15
PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale (PS3 and PSVita) £20 Color Guardians £10
Ether One £10
Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty £15 Xeodrifter £5
Geometry Wars £15
Transistor £20
Grim Fandango £10
Final Horizon ?
echochrome ?
LittleBigPlanet 2 £20
Velocity 2X £15
Ultratron £5
Letter Quest Remastered £5
Papo & Yo £10
The Swapper £15
Code: Realize ~Guardian of Rebirth~ ?
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons £10
Valiant Hearts £15
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands £10
Contrast £10
Rocket League £20
Broken Age £15
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon £15
Killzone: Mecenary £20
Actual Sunlight £5
Metrico £5
Proteus ?
Amnesia: Memories ?
Fez £15
Unfinished Swan £10

Based on my maths that's £350 worth if games at the value I would give them. Just saying.

@themcnoisy: I don't think anyone really can argue that the combined value of the games offered far exceeds the cost of PS+ - let alone the benefits of Online gaming and money that could be saved via discounts. For some, especially if they have a Vita and PS3, they could end with over £1000 worth of games every year for around £40 - that's an incredible value - although to keep playing, you do need to keep paying and you never actually 'own' these games - they are not classified as 'assets'. Whether they would cost as much if you were to 'rent' them - albeit indefinitely as long as you keep up a subscription or not can be debated but that's a separate topic.

If you only have a PS4, the value is around a third of that - still more than the cost of PS+ - but nowhere near as high. Then factor in how many of those games you would actually buy or even want, that drops the value down again. It may work out that you need to download 3-4 games a year to break even in terms of money spent and RRP value of the games - which like I said IF you own all 3 platforms can easily be done in the first month but if you have just 1 platform and absolutely NO interest in the games offered, it can be months before you see any return. Of course that's not including the months of online gaming and/or discount savings.

In the two years I have owned PS+, Whilst I do have a PS3, I haven't turned it on in that time, I have downloaded less than 10 games - most in the first few months just because they were free and spent less than 5hours gaming on the free games. I know you have spent more hours on Rocket League than I have on some AAA games so I can see why PS+/IGC was worth it for you but for others its nothing more than a necessity an additional expenditure just to access Online features in games they have already spent money on. Its not as if you are always using Sony's servers either as most AAA games have their own.

The 'value' I get from IGC is minimal and if Sony were to drop the charge for Online gaming, I would not hesitate in cancelling. I have no plans in buying predominantly digital and most games I buy are rarely in the sale at the time I want them and even when they are, they can often be cheaper elsewhere. I know I probably wouldn't have bought games like Thief, Murdered: Soul Suspect, Sherlock Holmes, Rayman Legends, AC4 etc - the AAA games offered on XB1 but I have spent more hours on just 1 of these than ALL of the IGC games I have downloaded so far and would cancel Gold too IF online was free on that too.

Point I am making though is that its relative to each person - even which consoles they own. Is it worth it for PS3 only gamers? Online is free anyway so you are only paying for IGC and discounts. I guess that depends on if you like/want the games they offer each month or to keep playing the games they have offered - although it could be cheaper to buy the games you still play and cancel.

"although to keep playing, you do need to keep paying and you never actually 'own' these games - they are not classified as 'assets'."

I've seen comments like this online before. I don't think anyone sees the games as assets, but its got me thinking and in fact - I don't see digital content as an asset, you cant resell it, so as long as the license holds up for 24 months on an igc game who cares?

That's a genuine question does anybody actually really care that you don't 'own' the games. What does that mean now in the 21st century with a multi faceted service combining a pseudo ISP, discounts and games? Would I even care if the games I first got on igc 24 months ago were cut from my library?

Maybe - but I wouldn't cry my eyes out.

@themcnoisy: Like I said its swings and roundabouts. The whole digital versus physical is also a big debate and some see Pro's and Cons for both. I have seen arguments like what if in 5yrs time they cut the game from the store, how can you get it back or maybe even play it. The same argument can be used for online only Physical games - what if they stop the servers...

Value can be perceived in many ways - not just financial or resell value. We see this argument a lot when it comes to game pricing too. How can Overwatch be worth the same as some other FPS games that offer a campaign as well as some that offer a co-op experience? Is the Witcher 3 worth more than Uncharted 4 because its campaign is much longer? How can the Order cost so much with its short campaign and little/no replay option. Throw digital into the mix and that brings even more into the equation like how can they charge more for a game that has no resale value, no retail overheads, manufacturing or transportation costs... I don't know if Sonys work the same way as MS's but for a family, it can work out cheaper as instead of needing to buy multiple copies, you can play the game on 2 different profiles so two people can play the same game at the same time on different consoles - not possible with discs and now with cross-play, you can play games on Xbox or win10 PC's instead of buying it separately for each.

If you do trade in games/consoles, its true that you digital library is absolutely worthless (unless you also sell your profile too). A console with 20 games saved on the HDD is not worth more than a Console with no games saved on it but a console with the same 20 games on disc, all boxed and with their manuals etc is worth more. Games do seem to drop in value quickly but then gradually creep up again - How much is a boxed working NES/SNES with 1/2 boxed games worth? More than a PS4 Pro is at trade in I expect and more than some peoples cars are worth.

Value is again relative. For some the value of the game is relative to the experience and cost they paid more than the resale value. When I moved, I threw away Microwave sized boxes full of games. Not just 1 or 2 boxes like this but 5 or 6, as well as old consoles/computers. My son ended up with my N64 and games (all with boxes and manuals, extra controllers, expansion pack, rumble packs and a peripheral that allowed you to transfer Pokemon GB characters into Pokemon Stadium). I have a microwave sized box of original Xbox games and my original Xbox (one of my other sons ended up with my PS1/2 games which I gave him when my original PS3 ended up with YLOD and replaced with a Slim). In all these years of gaming, I have rarely traded anything so Assets are not something I have really invested in. I sold my Virtual Boy and few games (all boxed in perfect mint condition) - mostly because it gave me migraines - and sold my first Xbox to buy a crystal Xbox, traded my first Xbox 360, to get the Xbox 360 Elite which I sold to get the Xbox 360 Slim with Kinect but all the games (apart from the Virtual Boys) have either been thrown away, given to my kids or I still have them.

Like I said its relative. Do you consider the financial cost per hour it generates, do you consider retail cost against trade in cost, do you consider the experience and what that meant for you?

I wonder how people would feel though if a game (like Rocket League for example) that was given away free, then you spen money on its DLC, couldn't be played until you renew your subscription. A game like Fallout 3, which has additional DLC. can be played regardless of online access and even if they were to turn of the Servers off on the PS3/XB360, you could still play all of this content in the future. If they turn the servers off for the Vita/PS3 or in years to come the PS4, even if you have these games downloaded, you won't be able to play them - even those that are just offline games which you could if you bought them outright. For a lot of people that may not be an issue as they don't tend to keep old consoles or play old games but there are a few that are interested in 'vintage' gaming, still a few that are just as happy to play on their PS1/PS2 and/or Original Xbox or older consoles.

@themcnoisy: Giving your own prices for items you have to subscribe to is a bit odd, I mean you wouldn't go through Netflix pricing the items to show what a good deal it is. Although with Netflix at least its content isn't also locked behind a loyalty programme. A lot of the non-exclusives on that list have been in humble bundles for pennies too which should help illustrate how little Sony actually pays to put them on PS+. I know you are trying to illustrate why you think PS+ is worth while, but that is maybe pushing it a little too far.

@Dichotomy: Why wouldn't I? Why is it odd? However you work out value - its relative. They are the relative prices I would pay for the games, not the prices they sell for. So in actual fact on Booshys list - with the grand total of £145 I've paid for my subscription which started in December 2014 runs out in January 2019, as a gamer who plays a variety of games its a bargain - with 2 years to go!

Also with humble bundles and cheap as chips games on steam - they are great deals too.

@themcnoisy: Because it is enough to say that the service offers good value for you without justifying it with a list of pseudo prices. The reason I mentioned Humble was not to say they are better value or anything like that, but to illustrate how little it costs Sony to include these games in their subscription. If you look on the Humble store at the bundles and pay attention to the default breakdown of where the money goes, most of the time they will be lucky to get more than a few pennies for their game and you can guarantee Sony will pay the minimum they think they can get away with.

I always remember one of the interviews with Sony at the launch of the PS4 when they were asked about the price of the console. They said they ran the numbers and it came out at launch that a PS4 and a one year PS+ subscription was enough to be in the black, which should show you that PS+ is a tax on gaming on the PS4 and that is why, no matter what the perceived value of the subscription games are, I will in no way support any of these paid "services" in the future. How can it be fair if, for instance, someone who only wants to play Destiny is charged £40/year for the privileged of using Bungie's servers by Sony?

ueah. really

I think it is fair enough to evaluate the number of titles you get or have played with a cash value if you had purchased them. The way I look at it is that as a PS4 and Vita owner, I normally have the option of 3-4 games a month. If you pay the £43 a year (or about that), that works out as less than a pound to play a game. Now obviously, I don't play all of them each month but I have played through a good fair few in a year and a few more are on my to play list (Furi, Transformers, Resi Evil). So if I play through only twelve, say one a month, that is still under £4 for a game. That isn't adding in discounts and online play which add further value. I also tend to try games that I normally wouldn't, like Valiant Hearts and Amnesia Memories (still no idea what that one was about).

As for digital versus physical, I buy physical where I can but I am not precious about it. With multiplayer and patches/updates needed on most games, your game only has a live as long as these are supported be it physical or digital. Only if you want to trade in would I say there is an immediate difference.

@Rudy_Manchego: I'm in the same boat as both a vita and ps4 owner and that's exactly what I am trying to say. Its a great deal at the moment for people like us!

@Dichotomy: "They said they ran the numbers and it came out at launch that a PS4 and a one year PS+ subscription was enough to be in the black, which should show you that PS+ is a tax on gaming on the PS4 and that is why, no matter what the perceived value of the subscription games are, I will in no way support any of these paid "services" in the future."

I kind of see where your going with this, but an easy spin would be to say that without psplus Sony would have been in the red and why would Sony run a company like that? For me - and this thread is called I love psplus and igc, its pretty damn amazing. For some random destiny player who's too short sighted to play anything else, well great, they can support my hobby! That's a great plan. Get the fifa only players in on it too. And the gta v only gamers. Its great FOR ME!

The reality of course jokes aside is we (the uk) are a service economy. I'm used to paying £70 month for the pleasure of heating and lighting my house. The fact for less than £4 a month I get a ton of games, then that's a win. £6 Netflix a month is great too when I used to pay a £13 sub for sky movies, its relative to my situation. £5 sonos streaming whenever I want is great also when I used to pay £15 an album 5/6 times a year. For others Netflix and sonos would be too expensive / not good enough. But they have saved me dough.

I get that playing on the internet was free, its not anymore. Someone has to pay in the end. I cant moan at Sony for £4 a month for providing a great service when my broadband provider charges me £25 a month rental on a plastic coated wire.

@themcnoisy: Not sure if you are aware, but it had always been the case that consoles at launch would cost less than was profitable, the money was recouped through lucrative game licences (the reason why there is usually around a £10 difference between PC and console game prices) and after a year or two the console would also become profitable through advances in the industry. As is the case with business though, they will try to milk every penny out of its customer base by trying various schemes, if they find they can get away with it they will stick with it, but if its customer base revolts they quickly revert the changes and apologise. I mean, remember Microsoft trying to put a paid online service on the PC? That rubbish was never going to work and it led to a lot of Xbox gamers questioning why they were paying too after Microsoft backtracked and gave the same service for free on the PC.

The problem with your service analogy is that you pay for those things, but don't have to pay extra for using them in various ways, for instance you don't have to pay a £3 premium a month if you want to use electricity to watch TV on top of lighting your house. And if you don't pay for netflix you can still watch normal TV. I suppose the closest analogy is the TV licence in the UK, if you use a TV you have to pay for the licence whether you watch the channels or not - and we all know how popular that scheme is.

For me a more direct analogy, though, would be if you bought a Blu-Ray player and go home to put a disc in and be asked if you want to pay a fee to be able to watch some chapters they have locked. You've paid for the system and the disc, yet you have to pay extra to get the full experience, much like you pay £250 for a PS4, £40 for a game and still are asked to pay for something that literally costs Sony nothing, online play.

I don't really get where you have got the "someone has to pay" bit from, you already pay for your ISP and Sony very rarely run their own servers (even Uncharted 4 is peer to peer). You have already paid for the online component in the price of the game, there is literally no reason for an online charge from Sony other than to make more money at its customers expense. Despite getting all this money even Sony's store doesn't offer uncapped download speeds, although I'd argue that even if they sorted it out that you would still technically just be paying to go into someone's shop. However it shows that they don't use those hundreds of millions they get from plus to upgrade their network, it is mainly just profit for some people who don't even care about gaming.

Bottom line is that if PS+ is good it will stand on its own two feet without locking online away behind it, but the truth is the games are only there to lessen the backlash against the charge. There is no reason to argue that PS+ locking online away is a good or even fair practice and they should remove the requirement. That way you can still get your games each month and Sony might actually get some money out of me again - I literally have hundreds of PS3 games and about 15 PS4 games which were bought under heavy discount. I don't see my collection increasing much with the way things have been going either and while I know one person isn't going to mean anything to Sony, it is an unfortunate state of affairs that after 30+ years I am on my way out of the console market as I can't take the 'bottom-line numbers mean more than our customers' mentality that permeates through the industry anymore.

@Dichotomy: "I literally have hundreds of PS3 games and about 15 PS4 games which were bought under heavy discount."

Truth of the matter here is, your old skool like me - I hate Microtransactions, season passes, pre order extra etc. I really do. So much it cracks me up. But the big difference between me and you right here based on that sentence is I buy games that I want at release or shortly after, I buy into the hype as that's a major part of gaming for me when buying recently released games, I look forward to the games I'm given rather than resentful. I pay my TV license and am happy to do so, ok I would prefer it to be a smidge cheaper - but I understand that without it the UK would have a smorgasbord of American junk on the TV. I can compare psplus to my old £150 a month gaming expenditure as I now spend probably £50 with psplus helping bring it down due to igc.

I understand your stance and with the old xbox live I would be there with you (when we didn't get games), but for the pittance Sony ask, I'm sorry but I cant change my opinion on this.

@themcnoisy: I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just giving a relatively in-depth look at my own psyche on the issue. I used to buy into the hype, but all those things you listed made me feel less and less inclined to bother and now I am the sad husk of a man you see who was once a happy gamer. I think around the middle of the last generation I really started getting fed up of it and don't get me started on microtransactions in full price games (I literally won't buy any game I know that includes them, cosmetic or not which means I've missed out on the latest Deus Ex that I may have bought around launch otherwise). I used to pay full price back in the early to mid PS3 era though, but now I feel you pay for a buggy product if you buy at launch and there is little point paying to be a beta tester when I can pay less a couple of months down the line and have a better experience.

I was there complaining from the moment they started locking cosmetic items behind preorders, and was relatively accurate with my predictions for what was coming even back then. The thing is no one is willing to draw a line if it might inconvenience them for a time, so I only see things getting worse until the industry effectively kills itself and all those smaller companies I try to support can step in and hopefully learn from the past.

If you read my first post on this topic though you'd see I used to pay for plus in the PS3 era so I'm not against an optional subscription service, the reason I won't now is because online is linked to it. Even if the games were constantly ones I wanted I still wouldn't pay for it as I disagree with this practice as I do with a lot of other things that have invaded our games to their detriment. So hopefully you can agree that, even if you are liking plus, it would be better for the players (see what I did there ) if online was not locked to a subscription service.

With LittleBigPlanet 3 being this months 'free' game I decided to trade in my retail copy...£12 back at GAME.

I Love PS+ and the IGC

@booshy89 No I didnt check unfortunately. Would be very surprising if it wasn't. I know when I got rid of retail copies for both DriveClub & Destiny the save files carried over to my digital copies.

@Fight_Teza_Fight That's 1/3 of the cost covered!

Hopefully we see a couple more first party big games come our way! Nice month ahead with a couple of great games.

@themcnoisy Yh I'm thinking GoW Remastered or Mirrors Edge Catalyst have to be on the short list as the next 'big' PS+ titles.
Both had some massive price drops recently, which was actually the reason I didn't buy the latter.

Mama raise no fool