Topic: PlayStation Plus | OT |

@JohnnyShoulder @Voltan All I want from a refreshed Plus is basically what plus is now but with the ability to extend it to cover the entire family.

Unfortunately the vocal people out there probably won’t be happy with less than what game pass is, with first party games included.

It's here https://blog.playstation.com/2022/03/29/all-new-playstation-p...

and honestly it sounds pretty good to me

@Voltan Yeah, it looks like Spartacus is basically what we thought it was going to be. No major surprises, but glad it’s finally out in the open.

As I suspected, some of the older first party games are going to be offered on the collection it looks like. So Death Stranding and even Miles Morales was mentioned specifically, which surprised me a little since MM is still selling well at retail. Obviously new games aren’t there, but probably they will move over HFW, GT7, etc in a year or so.

My questions —

Do existing PS Plus subscribers get a discount to upgrade or is it just a flat “pay the difference” to upgrade a tier or two? I’m a little cranky that the PS Now subscribers get the sweet deal of just automatically upgrading to the Premium tier, which is a $120/yr value and a year of PS Now is only $60. It is advantageous to have Now and not Plus, and you’d be getting a nice deal right now. Hopeful they have some similar perk for legacy PS+ subscribers.

I also notice they say the Essential level get “2 monthly downloadable games” which is actually a downgrade since we’ve been getting 3 (and sometimes 4)

Also will the Essential level lose access to the PS Plus collection of PS4 games that came with the PS5? Or will that disappear when this new ‘Extra level’ catalogue of 400 games comes out?

Edit:
Also - does the Extra catalogue of games include the PS5 versions of the games (like the Director’s Cuts, or those with base cross gen versions like MM)?

By the way, not expecting an answer but just stating the question marks still in my mind

Looks good to me actually. Especially since I have Now so I’ll get Premium for now.

PS Plus Extra is basically like Game Pass Ultimate so that sounds very enticing to me. Could be the first time in years that I'll finally subscribe to PS+ this way, lol.

PS Plus Premium is sadly a bit too expensive just to get access to old games. I've already bought so many PS1 and PSP titles on Vita so that's not as appealing to me as Extra. However, it could be cool if they finally added NA PS1 titles like Xenogears or The Legend of Dragoon, but considering they're long JRPGs, I'd rather own them and play them on my own pace instead of having to rush through them before the month is up.

@Th3solution I don't think they'll remove the PS5 collection from Essential. It's just 20 of the 400 games.
For me personally - I'm in a region where PS Now is not available, so the Extra tier gets me the PS Now's downloadable library (and more, apparently - I don't think the big 1st party games were included) for the first time, at a slightly lower price.
That's not too bad

@Voltan Yeah, there are a couple games in the collection I’ve been meaning to play but haven’t found the time. Namely RE7, Arkham Knight, FF15, and maybe Crash Bandicoot. I’m sure I could find each of these for super cheap, but I actually sold back my copies of AK and FF15 since they were collecting dust and I knew I had access to the digital versions. 😅

Honestly, I’m pretty sure I’ll upgrade to Extra anyways.

Also, I noticed they took away the yearly sub option for PSNow off the PS store, and so you can only sub for a month as of today. Those rascals at Sony knew people would try to jump in and get a Now sub for a year and take advantage of the free upgrade to Premium.

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd have liked more options to what bracket you can purchase. I don't need access to a PS4 library as I pretty much have every game I want for that system but I REALLY want access to PS1, PS2, PS3 (shame it's streaming) and PSP games. I don't know if I can justify jumping to the top bracket for them but we'll see. I'd love retro-fitted trophies for older games.

I was hoping against hope that the boffins had figured out a way to make my legacy game discs playable on current hardware. Oh well. I'll just have to keep my launch day PS3's well maintained.

One more thought: While it sounds pretty good to me anyway, we won't truly know how good the offer is until we see how the library is updated over time.

@Voltan Agreed. If the Extra catalogue has games like Kena, Hades, Alan Wake, Life is Strange True Colors, and/or Disco Elysium (games from my wishlist that I am basically just waiting until I work through my existing backlog to get around to buying) then it’s a no brainer for me to pay an extra $40 per year to upgrade to the mid-tier.

However if the 400 games are just super old PS4 games like all the outdated versions of FIFA and NBA2K, then it’s just not worth it and I’ll keep buying games the old fashioned way.

I wonder when they will release the list of what third party games are planned to included besides Mortal Kombat 11.

@Th3solution Imagine if a good chunk of those 400 games were all EA games as they just included EA Play to Extra lol. Because that's what Microsoft did with Game Pass Ultimate.

@LtSarge Yeah, that would be interesting to see. It makes sense since EA Play just had their 3 month for $5 promotion and I signed up for and have it until May. Seems like the third party publishers should include mostly whatever they have in GamePass Ultimate into this new PS service.
I like having access to the Mass Effect LE and if I ever wanted to play any of the sports games or It Takes Two.

I assume all the comments are very supportive and understanding of the fact they haven’t mentioned any plans to release day 1 games on the service.

The middle tier could suit me if games are put on there a year or so after release. I’ve bought more games on or near release over the last 12 months due to the lack of PS5 games but am frequently happy to wait for price drops instead.

I guess if games won’t be day 1 on there, it’ll have to be at least 12 months until they do appear on the service which is fine by me.

@Thrillho Of course they are
The thing that gets me right now is how many people from regions with PS Now are concerned about PS3 games not being available in regions without PS Now, which is apparently unacceptable.
Meanwhile, I'm over here perfectly happy to pay less for everything else without being forced to pay for the PS3 games at the same time and I can't be the only one

So, I looked at a list of the last few years of ‘Games with Gold’ on Xbox, since I think the low-tier ‘Essential’ level of PS+ will eventually mimic GwG, as the mid-tier ‘Extra’ is designed to be closer to GP Ultimate. And Since GP caught on, the quality of monthly offerings for GwG seems low. I could be wrong though since I don’t know the Xbox ecosystem, but I’ve never heard of many of the games they have given out on GwG over the last year. And a few that have been on GwG last year were games already given out on PS+ like 3 years ago. Darksiders 3, Tropico 5, Resident Evil…?

I’m leaning toward the Extra tier anyways, but the I’m guessing we won’t be seeing games like FF7R or Star Wars Squadrons or Hitman 2, or other relatively recent big budget games anymore.

@Th3solution Games with Gold is offering 4 games, 2 of which are 'completely' free with NO strings attached. Yes they are '360' era, but its not like you have to keep subscribing to 'keep' playing. The other 2 games are more like PS+ where you must keep subscribing to keep playing.

That being said, the 'overall' perception is that the GwG offerings are not particularly 'strong' - although you'll always see someone pleased they get to try some 'indie/old' game they missed and/or forgot about. It does seem that the overall quality has dropped since Game Pass - although some of it could be down to other reasons -like offering 4 games (2xXB1 & 2x360) where Sony was offering just '2' PS4 games and for MS, it can't 'help' having to offer games through Game Pass too. They also need to be negotiated for too.

Some things are similar between the two companies, but on Sony, you are paying for cloud saves too that's standard for 'everyone' on Xbox so you can't compare directly. Arguably 4 games are better than 2/3 but then some would rather have CoD:Vanguard, BF2042 etc than a well crafted, decent 'indie' game they've not heard of. The perception that 'indies' are 'awful, low budget, not worth playing, even for free' does seem to govern the perception of games both Sony and MS offer. You know as soon as they reveal the games, unless there is a 'AAA' game or at least a very 'high' profile indie game, the general perception will be very negative, regardless of whether its PS+ or GwG. Therefore if you are offering more, but also more 'indie' and old games, the perception is going to be seen as 'worse' than fewer games but more often a 'newer' more well known franchise included. Each to their own of course - I can't remember the last PS+ or GwG game I actually wanted, added to my collection and/or tried so there as bad as each other to me in that respect...

At the end of the day, if you want to play ANY game you'll need PS+/GwG to gain access to the 'full' experience. The 'games' are more of a way to offset that 'blackmail' charge, stopping you from playing ALL the content you have paid for unless you give them a monthly fee.

As for Game Pass or the Extra/Premium subscriptions, it doesn't matter how Sony's compares to MS's or vice versa, it only matters whether the service adds 'value' to your experience. It doesn't matter how much 'value' Game Pass offers if you only game on PS, it only matters how much 'value' Sony offers to you.

From my personal experience and current situation/circumstances, I do not see the 'value' to me in paying more than PS+ essential. I don't have any interest in PS3, PS2, PS1 or PSP games - I lived through that era and would rather keep those 'rose tinted memories intact. PS4/PS5 games I wanted to play, I bought and, unless I get 'free' upgrades to PS5 versions, I'll play the PS4 games in my backlog via BC. I'll still have to buy 'new' releases so increasing my 'subscription' costs, especially as PS5 games already have a 'Premium' on top and have to buy PS+ to play everything, it makes no sense to me. I get month free of Game Pass Ultimate every 'quarter' so I only pay for '8months' of the year and could buy months with Xbox Reward points to bring the cost down below a years PS+ (and I get Gold, EA Access, Streaming, Game Pass for PC and Mobiles) as well as 'new' releases every month.

Sony could and no doubt will change over time. Maybe there will come a time when its service adds 'value' to me but as I said, right now, I cannot see how I would benefit by adding Extra/Premium to my PS+ 'essential' subscription. That's not to say it doesn't offer 'value' to others, but in my current situation, I'll stick with PS+.

Yeah I'll wait until we know what games are part of the more expensive tiers to decide what I'm doing. But unless there are a load of games I've yet to play that I'm interested in, I'll probably won't renew my NOW sub and just have the basic plus subscription.

@BAMozzy Thanks for the clarification BAM; I didn’t quite understand that there were two sets of GwG lists - one for the 360 games and one for the XB1 games but now that makes sense.
I appreciate your perspective since you live in both worlds and are equally invested in each gaming ecosystem.

And that’s why I say there might be some perfectly decent smaller titles which I just didn’t recognize in the GwG list for 2021 and 2022 that I looked at. I’d rather have a good solid indie than many of the older big-budget games they offer sometimes. Of all the COD and Battlefields I have in my library from PS+, I’ve played exactly zero of them. Yet I’ve quite enjoyed over the last year or so getting to play RiME, Bound, Valiant Hearts, and Subnautica, to name a few smaller budget titles, all through PS+. Nevertheless, it was absolutely phenomenal to have the good fortune to be able to play Control Ultimate Edition, A Plague Tale, Hitman, and Dirt 5 as well from the big budget AA-AAA group. Not to mention FF7R which I went ahead and played my physical copy so I could get the PS5 version, but could have also experienced through PS+.
And I still need to get around to Persona 5 Strikers, Ghostrunner, Wreckfest, Bugsnax, the rest of The Nathan Drake Collection, The Witness…. man, so many.

We used to get some real good quality titles routinely. But like you said, they have to negotiate deals for these games with publishers and it just makes sense that their bigger splashing titles will be put onto the ‘Extra tier’ level and the small or less exciting games will be relegated to the ‘Essential’ tier.

@Th3solution As I said, its about the general persons perspective around games that they don't know of and as a LOT of games are not 'big' budget, don't have the marketing budget etc to get 'big' presentations and a moment to 'shine', often part of a 'montage' at best of 'upcoming' indie games - assuming they are 'exclusive' or affiliated to a platform, if not, they just 'appear' on their consoles store one day...

Take this coming months GwG game 'Hue' - its an 'old' game that's on Switch, PS4/Vita, Steam etc and was given away on PS+ for Vita (cross buy with PS4) in 2017, but no-one has heard of it so its automatically a 'bad' game and therefore a bad month. GwG gives you Another Sight, Hue, Outpost Kaloki X, and MX vs ATV Alive - the first 2 are XB1 games you must keep your subscription to 'keep' playing but the other 2 are 360 era games you get to 'keep' regardless. Now that may seem a 'bad' selection for little over £4 a month/£50 a year. 48 games (24 you can keep regardless), online access for £50 a year.

On PS+, you have been getting 2 PS4 games a month with maybe a PS5 and/or PSVR title available to claim over several months - all of which require you to keep your subscription to keep playing. As we have also found out, if a PS4 PS+ game is 'given', even if it has 'free' upgrade paths for PS5, you are 'locked' to the PS4 version but on Xbox, you get the free upgrades. Price is 'similar' - both £50 annually and both are 'essential' to gamers wanting to play any game on their console - with the free games basically sweetening the fact you have to pay to access games you already paid money to play.

Not saying either is 'better/worse' - both are 'required' for accessing 'online' gaming and, as more and more games become 'dependent' on online, then you are 'limiting' your gaming choices by not having PS+/Gold - I assume PS+ is required to play GT7 Single Player and no doubt will be required for all those live service, online games Sony are developing. If they gave away 1 or even no games a month, people would still buy PS+/Gold to play the games they wanted - CoD, Fifa, GTA Online etc - the biggest selling games but could push some to PC.

In terms of 'value', I expect PS+/Gold to offer about the 'same' overall. I know they use the over inflated 'digital' store price to 'convey' the Value of the services - getting $40-$80 worth of games a month that literally have 'no' value (you can't sell for example to get that value, have to keep paying to keep playing etc - although Xbox does give you 24 360 games a year that still can't be sold but no obligation to keep paying to play) so I think both offer about the same value - but perception can be quite different.

The main difference between Sony and MS is their 'business' model. Sony are a Sales dominated business and want to be the 'best selling' console with the 'best selling' games and a 'subscription' service like Game Pass would be detrimental to that. Knowing you don't 'need' a Playstation, don't need to buy games to play day 1 (so won't add to sales and won't top charts) because you can play 'anywhere' via PC and/or mobile streaming would 'hurt' Sony's Business model.

Microsoft, who were always a Software company, are much more interested in reach, in player engagement etc. They would rather reach 20m 'customers' in weeks, than sell 4-5m over a lifetime - that 'software' has reached far more people. Each 'software' is a 'store' selling you on the art/craft of the developer, the world they created and want to sell you 'more' - whether that's more story, more content etc or just become a 'fan' of the studio and excited for their 'next' project - you are invited in to the store for 'free' and have no obligation to 'enjoy' what they offer and spend your valuable time and/or money. Having 20m eyes in your 'Store', spending their 'time' in your world, maybe going on to spend 'money' in appreciation/support of the devs having had 'no' obligation to spend money from the outset is very important to MS.

Its not that different to wanting 'Windows' or MS Office in every home in the world. That's where MS's Software routes are. Yes you can buy a MS Surface PC with Windows, but that hardware is just a 'small' part of getting the Software into peoples homes. With 'games', certainly since Phil took over and merged Xbox into MS as their 'entire' gaming brand inc in Windows, the 'Xbox Console' became a part of a 'family' of devices compatible with Xbox Software.

Because of 'sales' focussed attitudes, after all that's how 'gaming' has always been until ~2016 when MS changed their business model. Even today, there is some 'competition' about whose console is selling best but back when Series X was revealed, there were comments about who would buy a Series console when all their games are on PC, all given away on Game Pass, all playable on last gen hardware etc but for MS, they were 'happy' to make consoles at 'different' price points, different specs to offer their consumers different ways to access their Software - they don't necessarily want Surface to be the best selling PC because your still a 'windows' customer if buy ASUS, Acer, HP, intel, nVidia, AMD.

As I said, Sony would rather sell 1m copies of R&C to be the best selling game that week than have 20m+ people get to play it because they are 'sales' driven. MS are more about Player engagement - its better to have 20m invest their valuable time in your 'ecosystem', spend their money in your 'ecosystem', and with 'no' obligation to buy anything - inc Hardware as you can use Hardware you already have.

If you take Starfield, the only Platforms its not likely to be on is Playstation/Switch and don't need to purchase anything, other than a GP subscription for the platform(s) you have - inc Mobiles, PC & console. With 25m+ GP subscribers, and being on sale too, it could well have 'more' people playing it 'day 1' than have played Elden Ring. Those 25m+ are immediately in the 'Starfield' store, spending 'time' in their world, maybe even spending money on Mods, on DLC etc to support the game they are loving.
If you take Wolverine, the only platform that is on is Playstation (day/date) so you must buy PS5 and spend £70 before you even start the game. It could well be the best selling game that week with around 2-3m sales and go on to sell 5m or 6m as the rest who would normally buy at some point now wait for the inevitable PS+ Extra/Premium release.

Game Pass is a very different service - its literally its 'own' platform and many ads now have an 'Xbox Game Pass' logo as one of the platforms its coming too - along with Xbox consoles, PC and/or any other platforms. It fits more with MS's own business model which is not Sales driven and more about the Reach. If you can reach 10x more people, that's 10x more people in your 'store' spending their 'valuable' time enjoying 'your' content, happy to spend 'their' money to support the 'games/developers' they really enjoyed spending their time with.

Not saying one business model is 'better' or 'worse' - but that's what determines the 'services' they offer. Its clear that PSNow was 'not' a success, only about 2m people subscribed compared to nearly 50m PS+ subscribers. Those PS+ subs are 'forced' to pay for the freedom to play any game on their system of choice but few are willing to pay more for PSNow too.

With the 'new' gen hardware, it makes sense to refresh/update PSNow and to merge it with PS+ to try and tempt those 50m PS+ subscribers to give Sony 'more' money each month for essentially the same 'services'. Maybe the full PSNow was too much on top of what many feel is a 'compulsory' subscription but paying a 'bit' more for the more 'modern' games and more to add Retro may tempt more to spend more. Its not going to offer Day1 games that Sony have arbitrarily decided are 'premium' quality and charge more for and lose that sales revenue, maybe not be the 'best' selling game that week/month/year etc because that impacts on Sony's sales driven 'business' model...

I don't know how many times I (and others) have stated that MS and Sony are 'not' in direct 'sales' competition and therefore their 'services' are quite different. MS are negotiating to put many 'new' releases from indies to AAA, from 1st, 2nd and 3rd party developers day and date 'every month' - not 1 game a month, but multiple games as well as adding older games you may of missed. Guardians of the Galaxy is only 5mnths old but added this month, alongside 'new' release games like Tunic, Shredders, Weird West etc and for £11 a month for Ultimate, you get all those games, Gold games, EA Play games, streaming and GP on any compatible hardware because its all about 'reach' not sales.

Sony's Sales driven business is what makes sense to them and is the 'traditional' way of doing business. Its not wrong, its not worse, its 'different' and therefore has different goals, plans, services etc so cannot offer the 'same' services as MS because it would be 'detrimental' to their business plan.