To the same extent though - if free games are encouraging you to buy sequels/sequels - would there be a percentage of people out there who sign up for Plus (I've got casual/ non-core gamers in mind here - not people like us!), with the intention of mainly playing the free/subscription subsidised offerings?

"Yeah I loved playing Resident Evil 5. I'll just wait a year or two til 6 shows up in my plus offerings. Hey, I waited that long to play 5, so a coupla years wait is no big deal. Besides I pay for plus, I've got at least 16 games a year in the pipes to play/complete, I may as well wait."

It's just a thought, not a strongly held belief. But it seems logical. These people may have been the sort of people that just buy used games (no revenue to publisher) or few games (less revenue to Sony than Plus subscription fee) anyway, and then whose to say they're the sort of market that would pay for a plus subscription anyway.

I know Steam sales have conditioned me to passing on many impulse buys, awaiting that inevitable %30-75 off Daily Deal or Black Friday sale. And even though my cable channel usually gets its "movie channels" (ie. Not pay per view/digital rental ) titles about a year after their dvd release, but for plenty of titles I have casual interest in, that I'd maybe rent, or wait til they're $10 or so, I'll think - Nah I pay my monthly cable fee, I may as well wait a few more months. Not the titles that I "must have" (got Dark Knight Rises last week!) but those second tier "maybe want" titles. But hey - sometimes I end up buying those too if I really like them so...

Demos generate more sales, no doubt. Do free/subscription package games generate more sales, or encourage a " my sub fee will cover it" mentality. Overall I'd say its hard to accurately quantify. I'm sure Sony will/have/continue to undertake user/market research to determine this. I'm sure Microsoft have/are looking into it as well, if not Nintendo - heck, I could call the extra I paid for my launch 3ds and its 22 free titles (I'm including excitebike and 4swords too because - they were free in that time frame as well) a one time 3ds plus fee! And I will admit hours spent playing Fire Emblem or Warioland, may have been spent playing other games I'd planned to buy, but even I couldn't say how many... I know I'd definitely have bought a few of those titles from the e-store...

Anyway, just adding a few different shades and talking points to the discussion, no big points to make..

At least online is free

While I do understand your gripes that Sony picks the stuff and that you don't actually own the games that you can access without further payment apart from your subscription fee, I do think that without these limitations the service would realistically cost 10 or more times the amount it does now, which makes it way less attractive to me, especially because Sony often picks really good games tbh.

But plus definitely is not an "extremely limited rental service", as you can keep all the stuff you got at once and for however long your subscription runs.. that's way different to renting something for a few days. And additionally there are sales on a lot of things which you can buy and keep "forever".

Well your point is all over the place

Chayzis. Talking points. Settle down big fella.

This is a great service if you never buy games or have bought your console late in the generation. If there's a game on Plus that I haven't played yet, I probably don't want to play it.

I do not have that issue because the deals on Playstation Plus have been so good there is no reason to stop the service. I have played far more games for cheaper then I would have and it is not like Sony only puts crap games on PS+.

By "extremely limited rental service", I mean the following:

Not the entire PSN game list.

Limited to what Sony picks for you.

If you miss a month you are S.O.L.

As for the "keep forever" sales you are talking about. Sure that's nice, but Origin, Steam, XBLA, and Wiiware all have sales and you don't have to subscribe to access them. XBLA does have a few Gold only sales very rarely, but I just don't see the point of paying for access to sales. It's like buying a coupon book for the grocery store without getting to peak inside first.

I'd conside PSN+ if it had at least one of the following:

Full access to entire catalog games at all times (With or without a limit to how many you can play at a time) Like Netflix

Full perminent ownership of games.

Exclusive games that I want and will never be able to get anywhere else.

As of right now I see no value in PSN+ for myself. I will stick to buying physical copies when ever possible and buying the occasional digital only when one catches my or or is on sale.

I'm glad your enjoying the games and the service is paying off for you. Not everyone is going to like all the games that you do. Some would be lucky to get access to a game they want once in a blue moon. For them it's not worth it. Just because the games are good doesn't mean they appeal to everyone. Even a racing game fan won't want to play every "free" racing game handed to them. If the entire library of PSN games was available and you could only have one installed at a time, I'd at least see the value in it like I see value in Netflix.

Limited rental service? My over 180 Plus games says hi.

Best service I ever see in a videogame... so much win.