By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - I think Sony is onto something with PSN Plus and I'll explain why.

bonkers555 on 05 December 2012

PSN+ is great value. Unfortunately it doesn't fit for me. I like to own my games and I don't like to get tied down with subscription fees annually to use the games.



My Video Games Collection/Set-Up.

Around the Network
TheTux94 on 05 December 2012

They gave away inFamous 1 for free (when they got hacked) right before inFamous 2 was realeased.



sales2099 on 05 December 2012

It is a good idea and I hope the other guys follow suit



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

theprof00 on 05 December 2012

For 50$ a year, after 3 years i will have a library of 120 full retail games to redownload at any point.
Calling it a rental service is clearly missing the point.



theprof00 on 05 December 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Lafiel said:
kain_kusanagi said:
PSN+ does not interest me in the slightest. I'd much rather just get random sales than pay for a subscription to "free" games that I'll lose if I end my subscription.

To me games are not a service. They are products for me to purchase and I don't want o purchase anything temporary. It's more like an extremely limited rental service.

The "free" games on PSN+ are more like rentals. But you don't get to pick them out. Sony picks some games and allows you to download and play them. Who say's I wanted those games? Maybe I want different games. Subscribers are paying for access to these "free" games regardless of if they get any games that interest them.

If PSN+ was more like Netflix, meaning that you pay a monthly fee to access 1 or 2 games a month but have access to the entire catalog of games, I could at least see the value. But as the service is right now, I just don't want to spend money on access to games Sony picks for me and sales on stuff I may not want.

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".


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.

youve got to be trollin.





Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 05 December 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Lafiel said:
kain_kusanagi said:
PSN+ does not interest me in the slightest. I'd much rather just get random sales than pay for a subscription to "free" games that I'll lose if I end my subscription.

To me games are not a service. They are products for me to purchase and I don't want o purchase anything temporary. It's more like an extremely limited rental service.

The "free" games on PSN+ are more like rentals. But you don't get to pick them out. Sony picks some games and allows you to download and play them. Who say's I wanted those games? Maybe I want different games. Subscribers are paying for access to these "free" games regardless of if they get any games that interest them.

If PSN+ was more like Netflix, meaning that you pay a monthly fee to access 1 or 2 games a month but have access to the entire catalog of games, I could at least see the value. But as the service is right now, I just don't want to spend money on access to games Sony picks for me and sales on stuff I may not want.

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".


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 the same way. There was a 3 month deal for I think $18 around E3 and I did it for Saints Row 2, LBP2, Infamous 2, played through them and was going to just let it run out after, but auto-renew was on.

Like someone else said, in order to have a large catalogue at your disposal, the price would need be higher. Would you pay if it were say $20/month?

Permanent games just isn't feasible. People would wait until it's a "good" month and download every permanent game offered that month and be done with it.



Jaywood2010 on 05 December 2012

People on this site is trying to hype up this service so much but it still stands that the mass does not care about this service. Until they tie in online with PS+ people will not care about it. You were using you as an example of your reasons which is one person. But if that is the case then me and my friend both played the beta of sony all stars and we decided not to buy it because of that beta was not fun....




       

theprof00 on 05 December 2012

The masses dont care which is why ps+ subscriptions are up 300%



kayoss on 05 December 2012

1



kayoss on 05 December 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
PSN+ does not interest me in the slightest. I'd much rather just get random sales than pay for a subscription to "free" games that I'll lose if I end my subscription.

To me games are not a service. They are products for me to purchase and I don't want o purchase anything temporary. It's more like an extremely limited rental service.

The "free" games on PSN+ are more like rentals. But you don't get to pick them out. Sony picks some games and allows you to download and play them. Who say's I wanted those games? Maybe I want different games. Subscribers are paying for access to these "free" games regardless of if they get any games that interest them.

If PSN+ was more like Netflix, meaning that you pay a monthly fee to access 1 or 2 games a month but have access to the entire catalog of games, I could at least see the value. But as the service is right now, I just don't want to spend money on access to games Sony picks for me and sales on stuff I may not want.

 

I guess its a choice... but yeah you can go ahead a pay xbox live so that you can "rent" the internet to play online which you already paid for through your internet provider. Oh yeah you can also pay to "Rent" netflix, which is aslo a rental service that you already subscribed to. You know whats the great thing about the PSN+??? its optional... its not a requirement in order to play online. Maybe PSN+ is a "rental" service as you claim but honestly I'm paying $50 to rent 16 games at a little over $3 per game for an entire year this is not including cloud storage and great discounts (be it that some of these game i may not want or have the need to play). Where as Netflix you pay a monthly fee of $8, thats about $96 a year and most of the movies on there i will never watch... but here's the punch line, you lose all those movies if you dont pay your monthly fee... you lose multiplayer if you dont pay your xbox live, so why is it ok for Netflix, xbox Live, Hulu, to have Rental services?