Whether you're a lifetime subscriber or not, PlayStation Plus changed the game for the PlayStation 3 at the tail-end of the previous generation. The service – alongside late exclusives like The Last of Us and Puppeteer – helped pave the way for the positivity that Sony leveraged for the launch of the PlayStation 4; it offered outstanding value for money, doling out dozens of big budget blockbuster games on a monthly basis.
But the service that so many held in high regard seems to have taken its foot off the gas of late. Your subscription was still worth over a $1,000 in both 2014 and 2015, but there's now an acceptance – with the influx of smaller digital games – that the Instant Game Collection will disappoint; the days of universal enthusiasm surrounding the service are long gone. And with competing brands beginning to bridge the gap, exactly what's gone wrong with the ground breaking membership model?
Victim of its own success
One important thing to remember is that PlayStation Plus was entirely optional on the PlayStation 3 and Vita. This means that, in spite of the positivity surrounding the service, the subscriber numbers were likely very low prior to the launch of the PS4. We don't have the figures to hand, but we'd hazard that there were probably no more than one to two million subscribers in early 2013 – a figure that we know has increased significantly since.
Sony last revealed numbers in October 2014, when it announced that it had amassed 7.9 million subscribers on an install base of 13.5 million PS4 consoles. Because the service is practically mandatory on the new-gen format, we're certain that the membership metrics will have increased alongside the system's install base – and with over 35 million machines now in homes, there are potentially 25 million PlayStation Plus subscribers in the wild these days.
PlayStation Plus is now practically mandatory, which is sure to have had an impact
This changes things immensely. Not only does it mean that Sony, who buys all of the Instant Game Collection titles in bulk, will be paying ungodly amounts of money to developers in order to secure them, but the bigger publishers may be less willing to play ball – especially when it comes to major "retail" games that may still be selling reasonably well in retail outlets and, of course, on the PlayStation Store.
For example, when Rockstar gave away Red Dead Redemption on the PS3, it was only handing out copies to a very small slice of the system's install base – potentially one to two million people, as estimated above. This, presumably, increased the word of mouth surrounding the game, coaxing the many millions of non-subscribers to consider purchasing it. But if the same scenario were to repeat on the PS4, then the pub would be hypothetically handing out the game to 25 million members.
Suddenly, the scenario doesn't make sense. Yes, it may see an increase in DLC sales, but it would be killing its retail and digital presence dead; there'd be some people who wouldn't claim their free copy, of course, and new console owners are joining the ecosystem all of the time – but handing out a blockbuster to almost the entirety of the PS4's active install base simply doesn't make sense. The service may be a victim of its own success.
But it is still early in the generation
Having said that, it's important to remember that PlayStation Plus was at its best on the PS3 in late 2012 and early 2013 – a whopping seven years after the launch of the console. The PS4, in its defence, has only just celebrated its second birthday, so it's not like there are a long line of blockbuster games in its library that Sony could realistically give away. Even launch exclusives like Knack and Killzone: Shadow Fall are, bizarrely, enjoying something of a resurgence right now in the UK sales charts, so the above points come into focus yet again.
One way the platform holder's trying to get around this is by looking forwards instead of backwards; it's given away several brand new digital games of late, as opposed to ones in its archive. And while many may be tired of sprite-based platformers like Broforce, there's an advantage to handing out these fresh arrivals: there's no chance of anyone getting a title that they already own, smaller developers avoid all risk by guaranteeing some income on launch day, and – in the case of really great games like Rocket League – there's an opportunity to reach the kind of install base capable of transforming a release into the next big thing.
What's the solution, then?
It's quite easy to pick out the problems with PlayStation Plus: consumers are dissatisfied with the calibre of games being given away, but Sony's options may be limited by the politics surrounding its gigantic install base. What's more challenging, however, is trying to come up with a water-tight solution that makes sense for everyone. And, if we're brutally honest with you, it's something that we're not entirely sure can be solved.
We're not sure PlayStation Plus' problems can be solved in a manner that will please all parties
The one thing that we'd change immediately is to ditch support for the PS3 and Vita; we have to imagine that the vast majority of members only care about the PS4 giveaways these days, and with Sony failing to offer a solution to backward compatibility on its new-gen console, the last-gen games don't really make sense anymore. But would you accept less games if it meant that resources could be invested into securing bigger names? It's a tricky one.
Sony must be scratching its head. PlayStation Plus invented the standard by which all console subscription services will always be judged, but it may be that the platform holder has set the bar too high. As a lifetime member, this author remembers when it was all Mega Drive games and free themes, so the service has certainly been in a much, much worse state. That said, if the manufacturer's going to remain on top, then it needs to come up with a solution to the membership model's woes – and fast.
What do you think's gone wrong with PlayStation Plus? How can Sony solve the problems that we've identified? What would make you a happy subscriber again? Do the maths in the comments section below.
How would you rate PlayStation Plus in its current state? (226 votes)
- Very good
- Good
- Meh
- Poor
- Very poor
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 120
thing is, yeah the games have been disappointing on PS4 but as a PS4, PS3 and Vita owner the £40 a year is still great value at least for me as i'm still downloading more than enough games each year to warrant the cost
now i can understand how PS4 only owners would be disappointed by the selection of content that they are getting but the thing is PS+ is a cross platform service for 3 different systems so you can't just look at the PS4 offerings and say it's bad, you have to view it as a whole and as a whole it's a good service
now a way it could be made better is to drop the PS3 and PSVita games and make PSNow a part of the service so you have access to ALL those PS3 games
"but Sony's options may be limited by the politics surrounding its gigantic install base"
Thing is if Sony can't give away AAA games any more for whatever reason then that's fair enough (or should that be their problem not the paying consumers?), they should allow us the option to subscribe to other services like EA Access where we can get them.
Not giving us retail games AND telling us what we can/can't have is dictation at it's worst...
The fact is that games have a lifespan as far as sales are concerned. The first week/month is very important as that is when the game should sell in its highest volume. Then the next stage is through word of mouth and then the inevitable drop in price and into the sales.
The question is after a year or even two into the games life after the release date is whether getting £5-£10 is actually better for the developer when giving as part of the PS+ is better for them especially if they have a sequel in the works.
For example Catherine got me into Atlus games. Would the publisher of Gravity Rush be better served in terms of selling GR2 with giving the game on PS+ rather than trying to flog it on PS4? I believe the sales of GR on PS4 wasn't stellar so maybe they could use GR on PS+ as a way to promote GR2.
After two years how many copies are publishers expecting to sell?
@Dodoo I'm on your side with regards to EA Access, and I do agree that they should allow it on the PS4. However, just to play devil's advocate, I think their stance with EA Access is that they're scared of an influx of publisher controlled subs on the console.
EA Access as it stands is not nefarious in any way — in fact, it's pretty great value for money — but what happens if Ubisoft, Activision, Take Two, and more all introduce their own models? What if you can only play FIFA online with an EA Access and PlayStation Plus sub?
It's a different subject and, I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't think this would happen, but the danger's definitely there.
Totally didn't think of the install base's effect on the economics. Sad but seems very likely accurate. Hopefully they'll give away games that are past the end of their lives eventually.
My biggest issues with not getting Plus are paid online gaming & the iGC, i wanna decide myself what games to play. On top of that i don't like 'renting' games in general. I don't see Plus has any value if i loose the ownership of the games in question.
IN PS3 era online play was free but I was SO glad to be a PS Plus member due to great games... Right now online play is the only reason I have Ps Plus. I am not interested in the games anymore. They have been horrible. 1 out of 20 games are worthy my time. Games with Gold is hammering PS Plus. I don't want 6 games with my plus anmore. I dont want PS3 games, I dont want Vita games. Just give me 1 good game each month.
Offer a premium service with free games, which costs more but gives better games. Drop the price on the standard membership and ditch ps3 and vita support. Easy.
People would moan at first but so what?
@Bad-MuthaAdebisi @get2sammyb Agree allowing EA Access on PS4 could set a scary and expensive knock on effect with other publishers adding more services, so like Bad-MA says, it's time they upped the game with PS4 PS+ by dropping Vita and PS3 support for example so they have a higher budget for PS4.
Thing is Sony must be planning something as there seems to be a growing number of unhappy subscribers these days.
@KratosMD They are, yeah, which has brought this topic back to the fore. Two things I'd counter; while we don't have the numbers, I imagine there's a large difference between active PlayStation Plus and Xbox Live subs these days, which may be working in Microsoft's favour just like it did Sony's last-gen. Also, while Sunset Overdrive is obviously a brilliant pick, the word is it sold very poorly, so it does make it a safe selection.
It's also worth remembering that, as good as Microsoft's lineup is next month, neither of the manufacturers have come close to matching PlayStation Plus' glory days since new-gen started. It's actually insane when you look back at some of the old updates that Sony used to post.
Agree with you on reducing the number of games and ensuring higher quality across the board.
@Bad-MuthaAdebisi Haha I can imagine, will have to check that out next month!
I chose meh because I don't think it's good nor bad, it has some serieus higlights (the binding of isaac, rocket league and others) but also some serieus lows. it evens out to a big fat "meh"
Such a relative question/situation - as someone else has stated, its much better value if you own all 3 devices, so I wouldnt want that to stop as I have a wider margin of error for getting a title or titles that I am happy to add to my library. This subsequently means it is good value for me. It also provides my PS3 and Vita with longevity, in fact if there were no Plus titles added to the Vita every month I would have little reason to still own one considering they almost completely gave up on providing quality physical releases for it.
@Dodoo While we have a much friendlier community here, even the comments on this site get pretty funny!
I might be one of the few that's happy with the service. The reason being that I've always viewed ps plus as what I believe it's original intention and ongoing intention to be. A way to finance overhauling the backend of psn without breaking the bank on Sony's end. There is no doubt that psn since the early days of plus has gotten infinitely better with time, the store has gotten better, heck we get darn good sales it seems like twice a month that make me seriously consider breaking out the wallet. Still being so early in the generation, and not having the funds that Microsoft does to secure more popular titles, what has been made available is fine by me, mainly because of how rock solid psn has been overall.
Maybe it's because I look at ps plus the way I used to look at xbl, but anything on top of good service, a well designed and fast store, decent sales, and ongoing inovations like shareplay and psnow (which I also think plus subscribers helped finance) I consider a bonus. Sure I would wish that at least once a quarter they would release a knack or killzone, or infamous, but I would much rather more consistent psn connection, faster downloads, better sales, and ongoing inovation to how we play online than a free aaa title I either most likely own, or wasn't interested in in the first place.
As long as PS+ is required for online play, does it really matter if subscribers are unhappy? PS4 is outselling Xbox One and Wii U 3 to 1, I don't think a lot of potential PS4 owners will buy another console b/c the PS+ game selection is lackluster. And if there really are 25 million PS+ subscribers today, even if 5m didn't sign back up that's still 20m paying $50 per year, that's $1 Billion with a B dollars even if 20% quit. And with PSVR coming, if people are willing to pay $400 for that they probably aren't too worried about the $50 per year for online.
It would be nice for consumers if the PS+ game selection was better, but I really don't see any reason for Sony to make it so. As the article says, 2 or 3 years from now there will be a better selection of older games - The Order, Diablo 3, even The Last of Us someday - but we just have to wait.
It's pretty simple really - if you want to game online pay the $50, if you don't want to game online don't pay the $50, the choice of games is all but irrelevant. Oh, cloud saves are nice too. And the extra % during sales. But the games don't matter.
I think that if they could provide one AAA game per quarter, it would keep most subscribers happy. Some of the indie games are pretty good, I seem to have missed out on Rocket League , but it needs a little more meat on the bone. I will never agree with the idea of charging for PS+ just to have access to online games; but since I have little choice, it would be nice to squeeze a bit more out of them.
@FullbringIchigo 100% agree as an owner of all 3 systems. I would gladly sacrifice the PS3 and vita games for access to PSnow. If they simply ditch support for them without anything to make up for it, that would be a hard pill to swallow.
@rjejr It doesn't matter, no - but I think you want your most vocal fanbase to be as satisfied as possible, and it's clear that things aren't cutting the mustard at the moment. Looking at the poll on this article, 71 per cent of people are indifferent or unsatisfied. Considering a couple of years ago it was probably the other way around, that's a huge change.
Part of the success is that they have us believing they're giving us games, ones we pay for and lose if we stop subscribing. One of the better sleights-of-hand in marketing I've ever seen.
@rjejr Complacent/arrogant Sony of the past is not something I want to revisit, but your numbers are hard to deny.
What do people really expect for £40 a year? That gives you some free games and access to the online games. Its a steal for that money. If I want an AAA game I buy it like any other game that I want for the system.
No matter what games Sony gave away people would be unhappy. I like the fact that smaller games are given support by Sony. A large company does not need the exposure of giving a game away. But it can be the life blood of a smaller company.
The generation is still young. Until this month with Sunset Overdrive and The Wolf Among Us, there's been garbage on Xbox One as well. These companies can't just give away 'AAA' games for free each and every month. But I do agree the indie games given away need to start improving. Velocity 2X I believe was a give away and I thought that was great. Transistor as well. But I can see why people who don't care for those style of games are disappointed.
I voted meh.
I would have voted Very Good before PS4 came out and it became mandatory for online play. That is the selling point now not the games.
I mean it's still good value for the money but I no longer highly recommend it to people like I did in the PS3 days.
Sorry but I love it I always buy all consoles and this allows me to have not only ps4 games but 3 and vita.
And with cheap PS3 games in the shops it allows me to play and finish games I only played on 360 last gen
Take this month the ps4 games I loved I never played galak and that game is very good same with bro force and flame over
Let's face it some gamers will not be happy unless Sony is giving triple A games each month but there are other games out there just as good as those
How many clickbait articles are you gonna post about this you are getting sad on this site.
I'm mostly happy with it, but I can see why it's not for everyone. They give away some really good games. They've given away a few boring games as well I'll admit. But for the price, I think it's more than worth what I pay.
@Flaming_Kaiser Please post a list of other "clickbait" articles we've written on this subject. I'll be waiting.
@Flaming_Kaiser Not really. Don't you think it's a valid point the article discusses? I do.
If they get clicks then who gives a ****, good for them! It does you no harm.
By the way - you don't have to click the article you know...
@Splat Agreed.
Sony were smart to put the multiplayer behind a firewall as if they hadn't I could imagine PS+ numbers would be decreasing quite rapidly right now...
Don't you think it might have something to do with the image of Microsoft and Xbox as well? I mean, the only thing Sony has to gain from giving away games for less than they're sold for, is to improve their image, what else is there?
But their competition is already losing so big in that department so that if Sony can get away with slacking, and making more money by doing so, why shouldn't they?
I would be willing to pay the PS+ cost just for the opportunity to play online to be honest, whenever there are any games out that makes me want to play with others that is. The free games are a bonus, and in due time I, and I believe most, will be accustomed to it not being all AAA games and go happily on with our lives.
Didn't they have Killzone: Shadow Fall in Japan?
I hate that some people see indie and instantly assume it's means it's a bad game. I usually get AAA games worth while to me upon release so if they were giving those away it would be a waste. Them giving away these indies gives me a chance to experience games I may have waited on or looked over.
While I think they should throw a game like Knack in soon I don't think what they have offered is bad. We got Rocket League for free and that game is a big success. How many of you would've even tried it right away otherwise ?
@-FENRIS- I hope that isn't their attitude. While you're correct that they can get away with it, they should be fighting just as hard now as they were at the end of the PS3 generation. Their position in the market shouldn't really change their commitment to fans — in fact, it should open up new doors for them to please fans. (Like the signing of Kojima, for example.)
@Mako_Solider_X i know right, it's dumb that some people wont even look at a game because it's not made by a big studio or doesn't score over a 7
unknown studio doesn't mean bad game
@Mako_Solider_X I think you're spot on. However, I don't think people necessarily have an issue with indie itself, more that the selection hasn't been massively varied for a long time. Regardless of whether the games are good or not, the Instant Game Collection has been very much dominated by side-scrolling platforming-esque experiences for a long time now.
Few complained about Outlast, for example - but we haven't gotten anything like that for a while either.
If you play multiplayer games (PS4) then ps plus is a must and the plus games are a bonus wether you like them or not if you don't play online then don't but ps plus and you won't have to moan every month about how poor the games are
Excellent article, gives some good reasons behind something that is fast becoming contentious. If free games are becoming unaffordable (other than indies) I would love for there to be some money put aside for some really excellent digital discounts each month. The service could become online play + exclusive discounts. Imagine triple A titles getting 60% discounts etc. Also good to add rentals and classic titles to the list of freebies etc. Just an idea but give me something other than a charge for online play.
The service was screwed the minute they mandated membership to access online.
That moment the service stopped competing for the consumer's dollar, and instead coerced the dollar of out of the consumer.
Now they're raking in annual membership fees from 10x as many consumers, yet somehow providing less value. Well, you could argue it's more valuable now that it provides online access, but that value was stolen away from the consumer in order to slap a price on it, so I don't really see that as value gained, but rather value lost.
As for the games themselves, who cares if it gave "$1,000 in value". You could offer me a $1,000 bottle cap collection- doesn't mean it's worth one red cent to me. If I don't want it, it's not worth jack. And the problem with Plus games is you're likely not going to want the vast majority of them (and personally, I'd rather buy the ones I do want anyways so I don't have to pay a sub the rest of my life to maintain access).
You can probably guess I'm not really a fan of Plus. I subscribe because I must, not because I want to. But, I will say the save data backup feature is wonderful, and saved my butt on Vita when my 64gb memcard got an error and I thought I'd lost 4 years worth of save data. Still, you can manually backup without Plus. It's just a pain to do for a large library of games. Also, the Plus discounts do help offset much of the cost, so it's not all bad.
As an owner of all 3 platforms I would definitely reconsider renewing if Plus stopped including Vita games! PS3 doesn't bother me so much BUT Vita is definitely still a major part of my gaming! Have a 64GB Vita card which i'm filing up nicely thanks to Plus! The quality has been variable but hidden gems pop up frequently on PS Plus!!
@get2sammyb "71 per cent of people are indifferent or unsatisfied."
How may of those 71% own a PS4, and how many subscribe to PS+? I know it isn't 100% b/c of me, but it's probably very high. I think Sony has enough good will, and enough good games in U4 and DS3 and others coming out, that they can withstand a little negativity over the PS+ game selection. It isn't an ideal situation, but better to have people pay it and grumble than give stuff away for free, b/c then the shareholders aren't happy. The gamers seem to be willing to pay the $50 for online play, cloud saves, and better sale prices, the grumbling is minor in comparison to the uproar over taking away Other OS, and the CD rootkit issues.
Lets face it, people always complain - if they gave away Knack people would want Killzone, if they gave away Killzone people would want inFamous, if they gave away infamous people would want The Order. As long as people pay the $50 and continue to renew, there simply is no reason to give away better games, b/c even if they did give away better games, people would still complain and want better games. That's the way the internet works, people complain. But as long as they continue to pay up, why should Sony change things?
I love my Vita. I don't want support to be taken away for that. I love all the games. Variety is the spice of life. Can't please everyone. All I ask is for Sony to secure rights to high quality experiences. No shovelware, please.
When X1 has Sunset Overdrive as a marque Games with Gold offering not to mention the other big hitters Sony needs to strike back.
"Sony buys all Ps plus games in bulk"
Dead simple, they are given the data by the games publisher, distribute it accordingly and then pay up based on the numbers. Agree with the company beforehand - say £1 a download and boom. Easy. 20 million subscribers x£1 for a dead retail game. £20,000,000.
@Vineleaf I'm not a big fan of large corporations, but in this case I don't see it so much as complacent or arrogant as them trying to find a middle ground on PS+ between making the gamers happy and keeping the shareholders happy.
If anything this whole PS+ debate should really be reframed as - "Should we have to pay to play online?" B/c that's really what has happened, PS+ is NOT PS+ anymore, it should really be called "PS4 Online" b/c that is what we are paying for. PS+ was kind of a backdoor last gen to get us paying online this gen. I mean think about it - shouldn't there really be an uproar over paying to play online rather than getting $1,000 worth of free games every year for $50?
But that's how Sony framed the argument, so instead of a soapbox titled - "Should we have to pay $50 to play online?" we get - "Are gamers crybabies b/c we don't like the $1,000 worth of games we get for $50?". Sony dictates the conversation and makes us look bad in the process, not them. Anybody complaining Sony gets to dismiss as entitled whiners, meanwhile they force us to pay $50 to play our $60 games online on our $350 consoles. Brilliant strategy.
@JaxonH - Easter weekend special, we're in agreement again.
Nice analysis. It's not the service it was. Obviously at some point there's been a change in tactic. The annoying thing is that they don't have to be giving away the big games each month to improve the service! For example, in lieu of backwards compatibility, PS plus could incorporate PS Now in some way - either by including a game from the service in the monthly freebie or by allowing users unfettered access to a game if they already own the digital license, by PS Plus or by any other way. That's adding value without having to give much away. Or they could revert to having the titles available all year round - titles like Killzone and Infamous would be good contenders as they've been around for a while but are still impressive enough to show what the PS4 is capable of. (If they try do this with Knack Thoughh I'd be furious).
I think the main issue is that Sony aren't in fact scratching their heads trying to work out how to improve the service. They putti their feet up knowin they've already won this race. While that is true, it's a bitter pill to swallow.
Meanwhile xbox jumps into it late with games with gold and started poor and is killing it now while also offering backwards compatible 360 games too.
I know the install base is smaller on the xbox one but it's not exactly 1-2 million subs
@themcnoisy They might do it based on downloads actually. The details are very hazy - devs aren't allowed to disclose the info.
Good article for me the games are still worth my sub fee BUT I have stopped buying these smaller download only titles so it has changed my buying habbits.
FWIW, I view Plus as a means to play online and purchase games & content at a discount. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the discount of Plus has paid for itself in a year (I buy everything digitally). If that's true, then I'm basically playing online for free AND getting free games each month as well (although I rarely ever play the available free games - they just don't interest me - but there have been exceptions).
@get2sammyb What you also have to consider is that of that $1000+ Sony are giving away 6 games every month. MS may be slightly behind in 'value' but its also giving away just 4 games a month.
In terms of Numbers, Its fair to say that the percentage of gamers with PS+ is a LOT higher on PS4 than it was on PS3 - that also means a LOT higher revenue too. Just because a game may cost me $60, the cost to Sony is a lot lower. Being 'digital' it also means less overheads too. I doubt that by the time these games are 'offered' they are $60 games. Again comparing it to GwG, of late they have given away 4 AAA games a month - some months you get 3 AAA games but with Backwards Compatibility, these are available on its 'lead' platform. I doubt MS have to pay much 'less' and as Gold is required for online gaming - just as PS+ is for PS4 players, the percentage of people owning Gold I expect would be similar. Admittedly it does have a smaller user number but the fact its still offering AAA games and not 'exclusive' indie games (which no doubt cuts Sony's costs right down) I would expect MS's bill to be a lot higher - even with lower user numbers.
I know PS+ wasn't required for PS3 because online was free. For PS4 it is. PSN is improved in general but I don't feel its significantly improved compared to Live. I notice more drops (lag) and performance issues in general - particularly with more distance between players - than I do playing the same game on my XB1. I know Live has had 'hacking' issues but generally these are resolved quicker and you don't get 'maintenance' downtime ever.
As a result I feel I get much better value from my Gold Membership. If neither was required for online gaming, I would certainly not be tempted by PS+. After the free online gaming option on PS3, I feel I am not getting the same value or quality of service.
I admit it could be down to the fact MS have to pull out the stops to entice buyers, to try and do something to claw back the deficit and Sony may feel they don't have to bother. Personally I feel though that Sony need to improve their PSN and improve the IGC to give its PS4 user base 'value' for money. At the moment, I feel I am being 'forced' to pay for a service that doesn't deliver. PSN was 'acceptable' on PS3 because it was free - its not significantly better, I don't feel I get a better 'service' - I struggle to see how it can justify its costs compared to what I had last gen.
@BAMozzy All fair points, but as I explained in the article, I don't feel it's simply down to cost anymore. If we assume the number of subscribers is in the realm of 25 million, what does a publisher have to gain by giving a game away to that many people — especially when it's still a game that's selling a few hundred copies a week?
@rjejr I agree with you, and the fact of the matter is that PS+ is a subscription for online play, something that used to be free. Now that the games are kind of beside the point, anyone complaining winds up looking ungrateful. It was a slick way to shift the online access paradigm.
It's simple for me: I don't play online games, so the value of PS+ or GwG is close to nil. I get bothered by the evangelists telling me I need to subscribe because of $XXX in free games every year. Even though they're just disguised rentals.
@Dodoo id love EA access on PS4, I know there was an article on it here and I'm not sure people cared too much about it but, paying like €4 (I think that's the price) a month for games like Dragon Age, Battlefield, UFC, NFS etc it's well worth it, even if there's only one game on the access list you want you can pay for a months use play that game and let it go then.
Sony could at least give us the opportunity to make our own minds up about EA access
@get2sammyb Sony might of sold 25mil+ PS4's but how many of that number still have one or even are subscribed to Plus?
@get2sammyb What does any publisher have to gain by giving away any game? What do these 'Indie' developers gain by giving away games before they even have a chance to be sold and often no chance to gain money via DLC? AC4, Tomb Raider (Definitive), Thief, Sherlock Holmes, Lords of the Fallen, Wolf Among Us, Walking Dead etc have all been given away on XB1so why not on PS4 or at least something 'similar' I can understand that games like Knack and Killzone may not be the right time whilst these are selling, but maybe Killzone could be - It may generate sales of its DLC if its still popular online because people will enjoy the experience more with a lot of players.
According to the developers of Rocket League, they only managed to sell nearly 4m of their 11m user base (at the time I read this) - That's 7m worth of sales lost to an indie development studio. You could argue it gives the studio a bit more recognition/publicity and boost the profile of 'indie' games in general and therefore benefit more 'long term' than AAA games might. You can argue too that offering 'new' indie games are likely to appeal to more people because they obviously won't own it and I can see that point too. I don't know how the 'funding' works - do Sony pay a single price to the publisher or do they pay per 'download'. It could work out cheaper for them if its the latter to offer at least 1 AAA game every month or 2 because 'some' of its members will obviously own it.
I am not saying I expect ONLY AAA games to be offered but it would be nice to get at least 1 or 2 a quarter - that's better than none over a year. Some of these AAA games can actually be purchased for less than the 'indie' games offered but I think they offer more in terms of a 'game' and could/should raise the profile of PS+ and Sony too. IGC stands for 'indie game collection' at the moment. How is this benefiting 'indie' developers? I can imagine they are losing a LOT of sales as people are expecting it to be offered in he 'near' future. If not that game, you know that over the course of a year, you are going to get a LOT of indies so unless its something 'very' special, no point buying any at launch.
I can imagine that for a lot of AAA developers, offering their game 'free', not only generates publicity for them but can lead to better user base figures which in turn may lead to more investment from outside and could lead to more DLC sales too. It could very easily make up for the loss of a few hundred sales and maybe even generate sales of other games in the franchise. Giving AC4 away for example, could generate sales of the other games in the series as well as DLC too and raise the profile of UbiSoft.
This also raises Sony's and IGC's profile, and maybe generate sales of PS+ too - just knowing that you can get AAA's even if you aren't that interested in online, you may want to buy for those games! As it stands at the moment, three quarters of PushSquare think that PS+ is 'Meh' or worse. Only a quarter think its good or above. I expect this is quite representative of the PS4 owners across the world. Seeing how the IGC announcements are responded too across multiple sites, this is possibly higher than many other places - possibly because its a Playstation specific site compared to more general gaming sites. A lot of people are 'happy' with PS4 in general but PS+ is certainly an big area that Sony can work on and improve. In doing so, it not only benefits us as gamers/PS+ members but Sony and its perception too.
I don't mind indie games at all. It's just puzzle games are my least favorite kinda games and there are a TON of indie puzzle games.
I think the whole thing is disgusting, pointless, theft and a pile of garbage.
PS3 had the same scheme EXCEPT, it didn't affect how you used your machine.
PS3 I could access the store, try demos, download games, play online, communicate with players and use all the services.
If I paid for PlayStation plus, I got greater discounts come sale time, and a "free" (actually a rental) game.
PS4: I literally get nothing and my console is useless with no online features unless I submit and pay for the plus service that I don't want which they justify by saying I get £1000 worth of software a year; no I don't, I own none of it as it is locked out should I not renew my plus subs.
The best thing for PS3 over 360 was they didn't restrict online play and you could laugh at 360 players scrabbling over codes for 1-3 months subs from pre-owned games like crack heads routing in bins. Now Sony has followed suit and extorts its players into paying for something they originally got for free.
Now the only true online console is the Wii U which has unfortunately failed in every other manner.
Hopefully NX sticks to true online gaming and maybe realises what theiving parasites they are and unlocks online play without the requirement of needing their crap "plus" subscription.
Great article. Never really thought about PS+ being a victim of its own success.
That said I can't complain. I own the PS3, vita and the PS4 and every month there is something I'm intrigued by and/or always wanted.
PS+ offers me online play, store discounts (admittedly not always great) and free games, it's a good enough deal, but it's not something that would be a system seller.
What I would like to see is PS+ coming free with a years subscription to PlayStation Vue (elite package). Now that would be a system seller.
I've always felt that the service was good value, and by the numbers (cost of the free games outside of instant game collection) it still is. Add to that the discounts too, yes they are only slight but every penny saved...
However, the last title I bothered with was Freedom Wars on the Vita, can't remember when that was. Outside of that, there hasn't been much I personally have got excited about. Not a fan of all these indies and retro style games.
And I rarely play online games. So I could do without it on the ps4 push come to shove.
Unfortunately it is the state of if play, I believe that the analysis is right on the money here.
@get2sammyb While I totally agree with everything you are saying I'm still confused about the maths... Rocket League is an online only game so when they gave it for free on PS+ they were literally giving it to anyone who could play the game (meaning Rocket League paid sales should have been 0 on PS4 at launch)... Is it really cheaper for Sony to give Rocket League at launch than say Assassins Creed Black Flag after there's been 2 additional installments of that franchise and the thing is in bargain bins?
Also something that went wrong was doing away with the format of big yearly "evergreen" titles I think if they had at least 1 big AAA title that they keep on yearly rotation like they used to do with the likes of Uncharted 3... getting one major title per year would be enough to keep people happy
The way I see it is that I have to pay ps for being able to play online and coming from a xbox 360 where it was the same doesn't really bother me. The fact that I can play all these games that I wouldn't have paid for is a added benefit. I probably wouldn't have played games like bro force, steam dig and rocket league if I wasn't for instant game collection.
I have all 3 systems and I'm happy with every PS+ game, even if I don't play all of them or own some of them already. I regularly buy DLC for these games. I also saved a lot with + discounts.
@Vineleaf I'm really going to have to look into PS+ when I finally get a PS4. It will happen eventually, but now I feel like I may wait until PS4.5, though I also feel like I should have purchased 1 for $300 BF. I don't play games online - I'm looking forward to Uncharted 4, Ratchet & Clank and FFXV - but my sons really want Battleborn and PvZ:GW2. And I suppose I'll need online for all the levels made by people when Dreams releases next year - I'm not very creative, but I like playing levels in LBP. And I'm not even sure if I need PS+ for downloading demos or streaming services like Netflix and HBO Go, last article I could find was 2 1/2 years old so I'm sure things have changed.
http://kotaku.com/what-you-can-do-without-a-paid-playstation-plus-account-1455089775
But first things first. Buy a PS4. Then use it for awhile to see what works and what doesn't. Then decide. Then look for a sale - Target Cartwheel is our friend.
I do wish the games were better. If it wasn't for online play, I would have cancelled it.
You know Sammy, if you don't want weirdos harassing you on Twitter for allegedly slighting their platform of choice, you probably shouldn't refer to it as a last gen platform (when it has no successor) that Sony should support even less.
Im sorry Sammy but you are wrong. Xbox has millions of subs and they have had more AAA's games. They got Lords of the Fallen and Sherlock this month. They also got Assassins Creed BF when I had an XB1.
Just because PS4 has around 25mil subs doesn't mean they can't give us older games once in a while.
Here's one thing that ALWAYS comes up in the Ps plus debate and we really need to put it to bed.
"it's only a rental"
So what if it is? Why do you want to hoard valueless games on your hard drive. Get it, enjoy it, move on. The worlds changed, its a service economy. Just because you've bought a bus ticket doesn't mean you own the bus.
First world problems. I'm paying for mulitplayer access, like I've done prior on my Xbox 360, all added content and rebates is a bonus. People are spoiled.
Samuel, Sam, Sammy, time to update your profile picture.
These licenses cost cents, not dollars, euros or pounds, just cents, the licenses themselves cost no money for the publishers to generate and it's most likely based on purchases/downloads/activations which dictates the amount of money they get overall. The point about more subs = more games offered = exponentially more money given by Sony = trash can games of close to 0 value is invalid and a very flawed assumption, that's not how buying bulk works...
You are severely overestimating how much a license costs for these "affairs", even for games with more value than pretty much everything given in the last year they'd still be paying less/a lot less than 50 cents, except Rocket League, it probably got decently close to 1€ per license, unless they really sold themselves very cheap since nobody expected it to be an extreme hit in the gaming world.
You gave Red Dead Redemption as an example, which was a one off that will never happen again, stating that it only happened because the subs were low enough, which is another invalid statement. That was a deal they had to "secure" and they most likely spent a decent sum on it, if the subs weren't as high as they were the deal wouldn't have happened, in other words, it's the other way around. Games in general were of higher quality for subs because other than their share, they could use all that was left to buy licenses for games which had some value, not just 5-6 cent throwaways that almost nobody cares about like the current situation on PS4.
It's not hard to offer decent games, it's can't be easier actually, for both the devs/publishers to get more money and Sony to get good PR. They could pay for decent games and offer a limited number of licenses, let's say 30-45K per region, first come first served, that solves the PR issue. As for those who do not manage to activate them, the game(s) are available in the store at 66-80% off which should theoretically make more money if the games aren't terrible and people would actually be interested in owning them.
Clearly,the ps+ titles have been 99% shovelware for ps4 since launch.Outlast and Rocket League are the only ones i would of payed for separately.No i'm not an indie hater,its not even the lack of variety,its about the QUALITY.just look on steam -there's a plethora of highly original,highly polished indie titles with modern gameplay/graphics - some of which have already made their way to playstation..Ps+ on the other hand,almost all pathetic phone games..Its dishonest.."free games" that bump up the sub fee and are just waste of space/time..i mean,good luck to these guys making throwback games,its practice for them to maybe learn how to make a real game later - and there's always an exception that proves a rule..i just honestly can't understand how anyone gets fun out these throwback phone games,and also that they are apparently worth cash? Either give us some good quality games or don't bother with any at all,Sony.Xbone is getting loads of cool games it seems, showing up sony's "free" games thing for what it is. -Bull-ish.
For me the free games, I guess are a bonus since I subscribed to PS+ only because it was required to play games online on the PS4. I've been a subscriber for close to two years now and I've only enjoyed a handful of free games but I do appreciate some of the discounts.
"Cant please everyone".
I think you absolutely can, but not all at once.
From my position it seems they are pleasing a certain percentage, whether it is the majority or not, and then not the other percentage.
I feel if they mixed it up more, different genres, and a more mixed bag and tried to please each part of the user base at different times it would improve things.
@FullbringIchigo you should be getting it across all 3 platforms as they're tied to your account given with your personal information lol, what brings the value down to me is the fact that they made it mandatory where it was once optional. That said sony played a lot of people, lets give em a bunch of awesome free games word of mouth sells more subs then make it mandatory fd up but smart....in a couple years theyll give better games again but right now ps+ sucks its like a mandatory p2w
@themcnoisy so what happens if someday down the line your at a rough point where you cant really afford it but youve bought so much dlc for so many different games that you cant play cause you just cant afford ps plus but you own a ps4 and the games you bought the dlc for
You would also have to say most people on PS4 buy plus for Online Multiplayer. They get what they are buying it for regardless of the free games.Plus is $4 a month if you sub buy the year. What 2 games could you buy at that price. Nothing at all that's what you could buy. Some own a PS4 and PS3 4 games for them, some own a Vita also 6 games every month for them.
Let the subs drop for a few months Sony will sweeten the pot. But they wont because Plus offer something everyone wants be it Online access or the free games. In my case both online and the free games. I'm sure at the end of PS4's life cycle a lot of big titles will show up for it just like the PS3.
@Gamer83 so borderlands and sherlock wasnt your cup of tea? Ive just beat sherlock and it was a decent game....kept me entertained and borderlands is a game ill spend hundreds of hours on. To me march was an amazing month for GwG
@JoeBlogs that was on ps3. The articles focusing on the ps4.
As a PS4 owner waiting for AAA games, I've been shafted more times than Madonna.
@Cinuous you can use dlc without psplus.
I think PlayStation Plus should just provide some kind of "credit" for using it each month. Then those "credits" could be used for discounts on games you actually want.
@themcnoisy I think he means for online games.
@JoeBlogs I'm sure Sammy doesn't mean or suggest that indies aren't good games or anything. But the thing is, you can play Broforce or similar indie games on ps3. Indie games tend to have a small budget and they don't take advantage of the ps4 hardware. What's the point of gaming on a ps4 if all you do is play games that play and look exactly the same on last generation consoles?
Offering almost only indie games on ps4 is a bad strategy. They need to throw in some currently cheap AAA games. Not get rid of indie games altogether. One AAA game every 4 months would be a good start.
here's a solution: upgraded graphics for ps3, vita, and psp games in backward/downward compatibility mode for ps4.5. that vastly increases the library of potential ps4 titles to give away and put on sale.
Good article
@DESS-M-8 you do know you don't need PS+for ANYTHING apart from online multi-player
every other online function works with out it
@Cinuous what i meant was drop the free games and give ALL PS+ users access to PSNow as part of the PS+ service
then as long as your a Plus member you get access to ALL those games on PSNow on ANY PlayStation System
Maybe plus or gold are actually detrimental to the industry? I had stopped buying anything less than AAA games which I thought might appear for free. Gold might offering AAA games atm but I believe it long term side effects creates a psychologically fear of wait-wait-wait before buying a game. At least currently on plus if all Sony will offer is indie games or unpopular games, my purchase of a AAA won't be short changed.
I've never had PS+. I don't game with others, & since its inception, they've never offered enough games that I was interested in to recoup the cost of the service. It's just more cost effective for me to buy the (few) games I want.
@blourf Haha, it's about 10 years old innit!
@bbq_boy I really don't think it affects AAA sales at all. Its far harder to predict which, of any, AAA games will appear. I doubt anyone predicted that Sunset Overdrive would be offered next month or that Sherlock Holmes and Lords of the Fallen would be offered last month. At most you could 'guess' that Tomb Raider was going to be offered because of the 'deal' with MS over Rise of the Tomb Raider and maybe some of the 1st Party exclusives may well come at 'some' point but generally not the 'most' current in the franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if Forza 5 is offered at some point because people are more likely to be buying 6 and this could lead to people buying 5's DLC and Forza 6 too.
If anything the fact that IGC seems to be focussed on offering 'indie' games - regardless on whether you think they are good, bad, indifferent, why bother buying them? At some point, if its any god and hasn't been offered, it will be! Even if the exact game you 'want' isn't (or hasn't been) available, it feels inevitable that it will be and 'similar' games will be offered in the meantime.
Having been a PS owner for many years, I had full access to my games on PS3 - no membership needed. Sony have opted to put in a 'membership fee', like MS has, for this generation, so from my point of view, I am now 'forced' into buying PS+ to get the same functionality I had on PS3. I know I had to do the same on XB360 but this is about PS4. In terms of PSN though, on the PS3 I could forgive 'maintenance' outage and although the big problems that caused the PSN to go down for a long time, I got a couple of free games out of it as compensation but as it was 'free' I could accept that the service was like it was because it was free.
This generation, there is very little difference between PS+ and Gold in function. How can MS offer AAA games that Sony can't? What do these publishers 'gain' by offering 'free' games to XB1 owners that it can't gain by offering them to Sony gamers? Last generation, MS added GwG and its 'Gold' Subscription was probably higher than PS+ subscriptions this gen and yet it could still offer AAA games (maybe not as 'recent' as those on last gen PS+) and 'permanently' free too as well as maintain the standard of 'Live' we had come to expect. Its still offering AAA titles for both systems. XB360 titles are still totally free and playable on XB1 too - regardless of if you maintain Gold or not. I don't mind that I never out-right own these 'games' - its not like I could sell or trade them and I very unlikely to cancel my subscriptions but I would expect that Sony/MS wouldn't have to pay as much because those games don't have the same 'licence' as a 'bought' game.
Don't get me wrong, I would buy PS+ regardless because I have to for online gaming and to get the full access to the games I buy. However if I look at it and compare it to my 'Gold' membership, the one that offers me 'more' for my money, the one that IF I hit a financial issue and had to consider which membership to keep, the choice is simple!
@FullbringIchigo it's the online play function that is the only critical part.
Restricting online play with a fee is disgusting.
PS3 was free
3DS IS free
Wii U IS free.
PS4? Disgusting and pure extortion
Although I have been disappointed with some of the Plus offerings of late, it sure does beat where Plus was at launch. Free episodes of Qore and games like Calling all Cars!
@DESS-M-8 blame the 360 and their fanbase for that, they showed that people was willing to pay for the online service and it netted MS Millions over the 360's lifespan so can you really blame Sony for doing the same?
@FullbringIchigo yes I can. Nintendo aren't charging.
Just because Microsoft were thieving jokes and the 360 even worse, doesn't mean Sony had to turn on their user base. They already offered the premium service and left it to the choice of the user without restricting the basic provision of the console.
To then restrict something they originally provided as an integral part of their console to force people to pay for a mediocre subscription is disgusting.
Nintendo always said they wouldn't not venture into online gaming unless they could do so without charging their user base. They've stuck to that from its inception and they are to be commended for it.
Sony however? Quite the opposite.
@DESS-M-8 oh i'm not saying it wasn't a s***y move because it was but like i said they saw that a lot of people was willing to pay for it so they started charging for it
but who really is to blame here, Sony for capitalizing on a market or the players for creating the market in the first place?
after all Sony is a business at the end of the day and their ONE and only goal is to make money
also as for Nintendo,they aint charging now but who knows what the future will bring, for all we know the NX might charge for online (i really hope not)
Here's what you get with games with gold on 360 and x1 in march:
Lords of the fallen
sherlock holmes crimes and punishment
borderlands 1
supreme commander 2
Here's what you get across PS3, PS4 in march:
Broforce
Galak-Z
the last guy
super stardust HD
Argue the required addition of the vita games certainly but they've never been much more than cross buy ps3 or ps4 games for the most part I would say. I dislike the sensation sony is getting complacent because they're back on top.
@Vault101guy
Yes, not really games that I enjoy that much but hey, if you did that's great.
@get2sammyb I have tried to use the contact link provided on your home page SEVERAL times as you requested to converse about my banned account. Unfortunately EVERY time I have tried it displays a prompt stating I must fill in all of the fields, name, email, and message. I have filled them all in several times in several different ways and it still will not work, even with different email accounts. If you don't want me to comment here anymore that is fine, just let me know, but I am assuming your link is either broken or something is wrong with it.
one Solution give away dlc or season passes for game. Or exclusive items in game, In game currency or just give us BEER & CHIPS
@Majic12 Seeing as you've tried, we'll let you keep your new account as you've had a bit of a time out. Please be considerate and friendly from now on, though, otherwise @Tasuki and I will have no choice but to issue a permanent ban.
Coming from the 360 and having paid a monthly online subscription for years with no free games I don't really feel I can complain : p
Also If they were giving away AAA titles I think it would annoy me as I'm more likely to already own them and to have spent a fair amount on them. Getting random indie titles that I'm unlikely to have bought is quite nice and even if there was one that I already owned at least it was a cheaper game I was getting twice.
@get2sammyb You may want to revise your rules and policies page as it pertains to communities and comment posting. Nowhere does it state that multiple replies are not allowed and that is what led to my confusion of the moderators actions and what I felt was over zealous behavior.
This would help others IMO because I am sure there are many like me that read replies strictly through mobile email, as that is how I am notified when I have been replied to. In some instances you can receive multiple replies from a single post.
If you reply to each email seperately, as I was doing due to ease and timely response, it posts comments in a row on the comment section related to those messages. In many ways this seems like a deficiency of the messaging system itself, not the messenger. I tried to explain this initially, but was rejected full stop without any explanantion.
Sorry to air these grievances here but the contact page does not work properly on mobile either. It is possible that the wording used in the communities guideline was meant to convey this very issue, but I didn't interpret it that way and I certainly read the guidelines over a year ago before becoming a regular commenter. Thx
@Majic12 Thanks for the feedback, but our issue with you was your abrasive nature in some previous comments. As long as you treat other members courteously and with respect, then I doubt we'll have any further issues. We're getting off-topic here anyway, so let's all move forwards now.
@get2sammyb 10-4
KillZone needs to come out already for PS Plus. That should give it life again and maybe the devs would consider bring a KillZone to PS VR (:
Am I supposed to be impressed with the XBox list of games in March? Sony already gave away Borderlands and Borderlands 2 through PS+, Sherlock meh, and Lords of the Fallen I could buy used for $12 in the store.
How ticked off would you be if you paid $60 for AAA games and then they came out for PS Plus? You'd feel like you wasted your money. How annoyed are you if you spend $14.99 on a PSN game, and then it comes out for PS+? Annoyed, but you didn't invest as much, so you'll get over it. At least I do, anyway.
Seems clear we know that AAA games aren't the main focus of PS4's PS+ games, so feel free to save your money for the big games, and find solace in knowing your hard earned AAA game investment dollars aren't being wasted on a soon-to-be freebie.
PS+ Needs more variety!
I see ps plus as a way of trying games I would never buy. Since I have all 3 platforms, I have lots on interesting titles to try. AAA titles really aren't my thing, since its standard now that designation means buggie, broken games that don't work till a month later with a patch the size of the game. What I would like to see added is a way to "buy" the games on IGC that I really like so they will be permanently in my library. (preferably at a discount or just a button so I can buy them during sales)
Its "meh" as in i get to play games otherwise theres no chance i would ever buy, because most of them are so bad.
Rocket League, Magicka, Counter Spy, and not much else.
@FullbringIchigo As an indie developer myself, I always give other indies the benefit of the doubt, but the thing is, they are almost all terrible games. There is an occasional gem, but most of them are garbage games that throw in 8 or 16 bit like graphics to try and get the nostalgia buy.
Interesting way of justifying the lacklustre current Plus service. It could have been written by Sony itself.
@JaxonH You said everything I was thinking. Thank you for saving me the time of having to write it.
@Johnnycide This is a great idea. Have a normal service that offers online gaming and the indy stuff we get now for the price we pay now. Offer a premium version for 20 or so more a year and throw a AAA title in there every month.
Honestly I don't care anymore. Today i've decided its best that I just ignore IGC from now on. Sorry, but i's so sick of retro style pixalart titles.
LOL. I remember when I said that people are blind to what it really is - paying for online, and all these "free" games didn't matter and Sony will own you etc. Everybody attacked me saying how great the service was. Now people are finally admitting the same thing, so long after I called it first.
For me, It is literally just for the cloud storage and PSN discount now, and is worth it for that.
If I get a PS4.5 or my PS4 just explodes in a cloud of smoke, the ability to restore my up to date Fallout saves quickly are the difference between me still playing the game going forward, or not.
I don't play online multiplayer, and the free games are a bonus if the they interest me, at this stage.
@BAMozzy I use to be a reluctant to pay for ps+ gamer. But I've realised online services don't run themselves for free nowadays. Everything from PC's to itunes have some kind of fee, F2P model or advertising service bundled into their site eg. youtube, tvcatchup. I really enjoy the gaming broadcasts and can't figure out how that could run for free. Yep ps+ on PS3 was free but during those days Sony was losing monies fast. Nowadays they are slightly more secure financially and I'm okay with that. It means they won't disappear like SEGA console business, Atari console or even the poor guys at lionhead or evolution. Anyway, back to ps+, having no triple AAAs wouldn't deter me from switching to xbox just cos Gold has the odd AAA game. My issue during PS3 days was that everytime I bought a game eg. catherine, motorstorm, red dead redemption, it made me more reluctant to buy a full game. Nowadays on PS4 if I buy Metal Gear Solid or The Witcher I know that the full bucks I spent on it was worth it's value.. not to be devalued by becoming another freebie backlog item. Indie games can backlog all they like lol!!!
@bbq_boy PC's unless they F2P or Subscription based are totally free well once you pay for you internet service.Games like CoD, Battlefield/front etc - traditional MP games have no additional 'fee' to play the online component. I can watch Youtube, tvcatchup (iplayer, 4OD, demand 5, ITV etc), twitch etc for free and can find websites to download/watch shows for free inc those NOT broadcast or live in the UK - I have watched quite a few football matches this way.. I have a Sky subscription and BTSport too so can watch these channels live on my PC at NO extra cost. If I want to access the internet, browsers are free too and via the browser, I can find a lot of things to watch, games to play - often not that dissimilar from a lot of the 'indie' games in essence - in fact there are a number of sites with free games - 2D puzzlers/platformers, Tower defence etc.
I didn't buy PS+ for the free games at all and even if it never offers a AAA game or a game I want, I have NO intention of cancelling. I think Sony know this. I feel exactly the same way with regards to Gold too. The point I was making though, is that if my circumstances changed so that I could NOT afford to maintain both memberships, the one to go would have to be PS+ first. In terms of what I feel I get from it - just access to online gaming, is far less than I get from Gold. The fact that I get the opportunity to play up to 4 games per month 'free' on at least 1 console (I can also play the 360 games on that console) - I know I can get 4 games across both my PS3 and PS4 - and these games generally have more depth, more content etc and likely to last more than the month, without needing to buy any games. Consider the fact that I am having to cancel 1 membership - it probably means I can't buy any games.
I can't afford to buy every game that gets released, not even the ones I think maybe OK. I buy the ones I know will deliver, have a history with or has 'something' that catches my eye. A lot of AAA games passes me by and as we get more releases each month, these games get pushed further back. Getting the opportunity to play old AAA games that I may have missed is great. I know a few 'franchise' games have led me to purchase further games in the series and a few I am glad I tried before wasting money on them. I know the XB360 games are often 'old' - bit difficult not to be nowadays - but they are still 'great' games. Just because I (and a lot of others) have been gaming for 10yrs+ doesn't mean EVERYONE has and that everyone has played these. In that time, a lot of gamers may have grown-up and/or tastes have changed, they may have been too young to play/appreciate Borderlands or Dead Space - the fact people can play these on an XB1 (for some it maybe their first console or they owned a Wii (U) and so didn't get access also gives players the opportunity to play 'classics', revisit favourites etc. I didn't buy Thief, Lords of the Fallen, Sherlock Holmes etc because they didn't appeal at that price-point BUT for free, I can give them a go. Thief I know reviewed as 'average' but for free its not a 'bad' game - glad I didn't waste money on it - even £5 - and it last me longer than any 'superficial' indie game. Next months GwG, I already have 3 (Sunset Overdrive, Dead Space, Saints Row 4) of the games and don't like Telltale games BUT that line-up impresses me more than PS3/4's will regardless of the 3 games that go with the 'yet another superficial' indie game - having an 'upgrade' path doesn't always add 'depth' to the story, the game-play etc.
In terms of 'value', I see NO issue and cannot understand how you feel your games are devalued by them being offered free - months if not years later. The second you buy a game, it has lost value - rarely can you sell it back for more money. A few months after release, a lot of games are half the price. Games like AC4, Killzone etc can be bought for less money than an 'indie' game. In the case of Killzone (or similar), offering it free would actually give the game 'more' value because the MP servers are likely to be a lot fuller and therefore more chance to get decent matches. This gives the game a new lease of life for those that already own it rather than it being stuck on the shelf gathering dust. If you do own it, you could use it to trade - maybe not get a lot off in trade - and still keep the game!
What 'cripples' developers and why these have closed is because they were making 'sub-standard' games for the time, money etc that was put in. Lionhead have spent years on Fable Legends and the majority of those who played the Beta were very disappointed with it, Driveclub had launch issues and is competing with a number of other 'driving' games and certainly nothing 'unique' about it. Had both Lionhead and Evolution come up with quality software that was better than its direct competition, neither studio would be closed. If you make sub-standard product and need to rely on heavy investment to put it right, then you risk being written off. This happens in every industry. How many car manufacturers have closed?
Its not like Sony don't have an established 'racing' franchise already. Sony's console division hasn't always been run well but even at low points, its still been more successful than other branches of Sony. A number of console manufacturers have gone - like computers - what happened to sinclair, amstrad or commodore? Acorn and Dragon too? Sega decided to switch its focus to purely games rather than consoles too because they knew they could reach more people and increase sales by releasing software to multiple platforms. It also didn't need to have a R&D division, barter for hardware components and make a new console every 5 years to compete with the others. None of this is because of IGC or GwG its because of the changing market.
Anyway I have digressed, the point is compared to Gold, I don't feel as though PS+ offers me as much. I don't buy it for IGC and won't cancel it because of the perceived 'quality, value, game-play, variety etc' of the games. Even if I don't download any during my memberships. IF and this is hypothetical at the moment, I had to pick just 1 membership, for whatever reason, I would have to pick Gold because overall it will offer me more in return. In the last year I have had a LOT more hours of 'free' gaming and over that time, many more games that have appealed to me. Would you spend £40 just to play online or £40 to play online AND get up to 48 games a year? That's basically what the difference is to me!
@BAMozzy Some very good points, and I agree on some notes! I ask myself and buddies will they carry on paying PS+ even if there are more indies instead of bigger budget games going free. Well the simple answer is a resounding yes! Despite xbox one in the last few more months tempting gamer's with bigger budget games on Gold, we also need to ask how long can Microsoft tempt gamer's for? Obviously Sony used this same tactic on PS3. However, stats reveal PS4 is still the console to own if we had only one choice - this is the BIGGER PICTURE I see: friendly PS4 community, these lovely Playstation sites, the better gaming performance console, it's compactness, it's ability to play majority of third party blockbusters on higher resolution and FPS, and access to broader first party exclusives... not forgetting future PSVR. Sorry as I digress... back to point, so is PS+ or Gold actually that important? Not really. The thing is, the PS4 IS this gamer's choice of console this generation (if they had to choose this or xbox one), and choice buck for buck (PS4 outsells and has extended it's lead over xbox one with a whopping 3:1 ratio in 2016. In 2014 PS4 lead by a smaller 2:1 ratio). I'm guessing PS+/Gold subscription has stealthily become a type of membership fee with freebies/benefits (btw wasn't it Microsoft who introduced xbox live and it's silly online fees back in 2001?). Nevertheless we pay for this 'club entry fee' whether we like it or not nowadays. I'm quite happy with the ps+ fee as it stands just cos the BIGGER PICTURE far outweights the lack of big budget freebies from a subscription fee.
@bbq_boy As I have pointed out, regardless of what free games EITHER offer, I intend to keep my subscription to BOTH. In a theoretic situation where I have to cancel one, the one to go would be PS+. For its cost, it doesn't offer 'ME' as much as Gold does.
If this situation arose, I can still play 3rd Party campaigns at a higher resolution on my PS4, I wouldn't consider selling it. Games like Uncharted 4 and Horizon:ZD are games I want for the 'solo' experience where as Gears 4 is an MP game I am looking forward to as well as its campaign. I certainly wasn't impressed by the MP Beta of Uncharted 4 enough to miss it if I can't play. I can't say that PS4 has more 'exclusives' that appeal to me although the 2 that do are my most anticipated exclusives. Xbox though at this moment in time has more exclusives I want.
I would buy online games for XB1. It doesn't matter how much better the resolution is, if it has more game lag more over PSN and its quite regular 'down for maintenance' issues. Overall I feel PSN has improved since the PS3 days and maintenance isn't as common as it was. I have no interest in PSVR at this moment so that is not even something to add into the equation. Sales figures are certainly impressive for the PS4 but its not more than 2:1 - maybe VR will stretch the lead over 2016 to your speculated 3:1 sales ratio. The XB1 has sold more than the Wii U though so its hardly a small user base. PS4 maybe the better seller but that doesn't necessarily make it the 'gamers' choice - it just makes it the most popular. The Ford Focus is one of the most popular cars but that doesn't make it the 'drivers' choice! As a gamer myself, I own BOTH so that I can have access to pretty much all releases and take advantage of any third party deals.
Everytime I turn on my Xbox, I have 60+ friends online so no shortage of players to game with and the lobbies are certainly not impacted by the 'fewer' numbers of XB1 console owners. With Backwards Compatibility, the online component of 360 games are mixed with XB360 and XB1 owners - cross generation gaming! This is 3x the figure I have on PS4. Its Win10 and PC links make it a lot easier to arrange MP gaming, find players etc. DestinyLFG sites work so much better for Xbox users. In terms of community, the PS4 is no different from any other. Because of the success of the PS4 though, a lot are 'fanboys' gloating on the sales figures, the resolution etc instead of being able to give a reasoned discussion about 'games' and the pros/cons of each.
Xbox may have introduced the membership fee but also introduced the 'big membership discounts' too. I am sure Sony would have done so during the PS3 era but couldn't exactly do so half way through so settled on an alternative system. That was far more optional than it is now though.
Whilst you may feel confident and happy with you thinly veiled dig at MS and its service and those who also game on Xbox, from my perspective it shows me exactly how much of a 'fanboy' and the problems within gaming culture.
All I stated was that pound for pound, Gold gives me a lot more than PS+ does at the moment. Forgetting the fact that I think Live is better and more consistent (albeit slightly), forgetting the fact that I have more friends online and more that actually know how to use a Mic, forgetting the fact that because it was 'cheaper' more kids now have a PS4 so you get all the whinging, trolling etc in random online (although its still possible to mute) on PS4 now, I get up to 48 games free a year of which 80+% I actually want to play. Compared to PS+ which over the last year, I have not really wanted any of the games.
As I said I have NO intention of cancelling either because I want full access to all my games. Even if the MP of PS4 exclusives have little to no appeal at the moment, I still want the choice and opportunity to play should any of my friends want to. Cancelling PS+ (IF I had to) wouldn't impact on my gaming, my ability to play the majority of PS4 games I have/want - it won't stop me playing U4's campaign, I don't think it will stop me playing Horizon:ZD, it won't stop me playing Mass Effect, Fallout 4, the Witcher 3, Ratchet and Clank or 80-90% of my current PS4 library - some aspects maybe.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...