I own most of the consoles, PS3, XB360 and Wii U and do have a habit of buying the new ones on release day.

I have had 2 3DS consoles, one on launch and another a few months down the line when Mario Kart came out. Though I never got much use out of either so sold them on.

I also got a Vita on launch day, but with few games seemingly worth looking at it got less use than the 3DS and went on eBay. But now I want another one, but not because of any specific game that has come out. Being a PS+ member I get alot of free games, and I noticed recently I have about 5 free games I could play on the Vita if I get one. To list them and how I acquired.

Uncharted (free from Plus)

Mortal Kombat (free from Plus)

Gravity Rush (free from Plus)

PS All-Stars Battle Royale (I got the PS3 version which gives you the Vita version for free)

Jet Set Radio (alsmot bought it for PS3, but Vita version is given away on Plus!)

It feels like if I get the console I would have lots of games to play with more coming and wont even need to buy any! the Cross Play on certain games is also attractive. Just to add PS+ seems like one of the best things in console history, for a single payment over 12 month the amount of free games I get seems almost ridiculous to not have it!

But isnt this a problem in the long term for Sony? I love the idea of getting free games, but if thats my main reason for wanting the console and I dont see myself ever buying many games in the future, if more people took that route how can the Vita be a financial success? they sell the console for a loss (I believe) which is the norm in the industry, though the companies rely on the future of sales of software in order to make money. With the games you can get for free from Plus, and buying the PS3 version you can get the Vita for free, how do they recoup the money that they wouldnt be getting from the same of said games?

Because in order to keep those "free" games from PS+, you have to pay a subscription fee?

Well, yes. You pay 50 bucks for free games.

Lulz you silly goose, you always have to pay for free stuff.

Microsoft has free online confirmed.

You pay for a ps+ sub and because of that you are interested in buying a piece of sony hardware. Sounds like sony would be pretty happy about that.

Mind = Blown.

If you're using your vita like this it's safe to say you have a 32 gb memory card, one win for Sony and long as they keep you playing the vita you will eventually come cross a few games you want, second win for Sony, also the cross play feature if sly cooper on ps3 didn't come with a free downloadable vita version as well I don't think I'd be buying the game, third win for Sony.

I think you miss the mark slightly. After all, once a game is completed and rinsed of whatever joy it holds, very few people really need, or even want, to 'keep' a game. And, if someone desperately did want to 'keep' a title for whatever odd reasons may be imagined, the game can just be bought, often at a PS+ discount. But I've never felt the need to do this, and I doubt many others will.

That aside, as far as I can see the point being made above is slightly different. In short: for the cost of a single game you can play about 20 or so games a year on Vita (as well as other services), so why bother buying any more games for it?

It's a very good question. I have a Vita, and I see no need to buy games for it because I'm on PS+ already from the PS3. Every month new games arrive. I play them for a while, then typically delete them to make space for what comes next. It's a spiffy service, and I'm very pleased with it, primarily because I get to play tons of games and it's costing me no more money than I was already spending. For me, it really feels like a 'free' service on Vita because I paid for the PS+ sub for PS3.

As I'm sure can be seen, Sony gets very little money out of me from the Vita, even though I game on it a lot. Is that a problem for Sony? I dunno. You'd have to ask them. Certainly not a problem for me, though. I spend no more cash and get a shed-load of games. Brilliant.

Hint: if it were, they wouldn't do it. Sony isn't exactly renowned for having the best business acumen, but it's a pretty good bet that they're not cutting their own throats here. It could conceivably become a problem, I suppose, if people stopped buying software altogether and waited for it to come out "free" on PS+. But since most of the games they put up there are either way old or were games that already bombed, I think games that would have been successful at full price will continue to sell more or less as they would have if PS+ didn't exist.

If someone feels like they're ripping off Sony by buying their struggling handheld, an expensive memory card, and paying a subscription fee in order to access "free" games of Sony's choosing, then I can only say, "Good for Sony." But one might as well ask how companies can afford to sell you a hard copy of a game that you can keep forever for a one-time payment of $59.99 (which is something that genius Michael Pachter has actually asked, come to think of it). Or how Valve and devs can afford to sell you games for $2 a pop on Steam. These are just different ways of doing the same thing.

I got my PS Vita for the same reason. I already had access to some of it's best games through PS+ and then I even saw a bundle with another highly recommended game for it for a reasonable price and I didn't regret buying that one at all, although on the horizon there currently is only one game I would outright buy at day 1, which is Tearaway. In the mean time Sony will throw more games at me through PS+ and up until now their selection was very good in my opinion.