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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are the PS+ "free games" the crack that will bring down the industry?

jonathanalis on 05 January 2014

evergreen games would be hurted.
So, nintendo would crack first, if they adopt this.
For ps games, i think that there is no problem.



Around the Network
lucidium on 05 January 2014
kabamarutr said:
lucidium said:
Let's pretend you dont pay for PS+ until a game you want is offered... you buy PS+ and have have access to that game for the period of time you subscribed for.

You are then, renting an old game for the sake of paying less despite said game being available, second hand or through standard rental services for cheaper.

The thread makes no sense.
The games are not free, you are paying to rent them, it is a rental services nothing more nothing less.


Or, we may not pretend and consider real, actual ways to use the service. Try not pretending, then the thread will make sense to you.

Since we can now take not pretending, as the status quo, we can consider a person that pays for the annual subscription (the 50$ mentioned, time and again). He or she gets 13 games every month for every platform the service applies to. That makes it roughly 150 games per year, most of them being games several months old and of great reputation and value, like RDR, ACIII and Uncharted 3. 

Now this person starts thinking: "why the heck should I buy Black Flag, since it most likely hit PS+ in a few months from now? Why not wait to get it for free?" Should it happen, wouldn't that hurt Black Flag sales? 

Now let's take it a step forwards... PS4 does not have a strong games library, through which one might choose the next PS+ "free" game. What would that be in six months from now, given the fact that one game is being offered each month? Could it be Killzone Shadowfall? Possibly. So, the person above gets to keep his/her subscription and avoid buying any game he can resist not to. 

To conclude, a potential buyer of Black Flag, or Killzone, or whatever is lost. The profit made through him is instead substituted by what percentage of the 50$ subscription applies to each of the games above. If more and more people act thusly, will it not hurt the industry in the long term and developpers mostly?

I hope it makes sense now. I guess it was soundly described in the first place, but I also guess you wanted to skip it all. All the arguments, for or against, all the replies, just to post your off-topic agenda of PS+ games not being truly free, but instead rented, old games one could get otherwise.

Congrats on missing the point entirely.

You do not have any garuntee a particular game will be released on PS+ and even if/when it is, you are essentially renting the games only not owning them permanently.

 

If you buy it outright or a physical copy used then you can play it all you want, "free" games are rentals that depend on the network, and an active subscription.

The "free" games they offer cannot be played if your subscription has ended.

 

Rental services allow you to rent brand new games the day they come out and it didn't impact the industry, so why would the rental of games that are no longer new? Fact is they don't and the use of the word "free" is wrong.



umegames on 05 January 2014

plus is a big reason i just wait for games. i really wanted to play bioshock and devil may cry, but there were other games at the time of launch. then black friday it was $20, i still didnt. now, they're free on plus. this isnt the first time this happened, my patience pays off, so im at the point this year, if its not 1st party, ill just wait and enjoy what plus gives me in the mean time.



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbchUmHiEvZ1m3b9HgW5syg

VIDEO GAME MUSIC MASHUPS

kabamarutr on 05 January 2014
lucidium said:
kabamarutr said:
lucidium said:
Let's pretend you dont pay for PS+ until a game you want is offered... you buy PS+ and have have access to that game for the period of time you subscribed for.

You are then, renting an old game for the sake of paying less despite said game being available, second hand or through standard rental services for cheaper.

The thread makes no sense.
The games are not free, you are paying to rent them, it is a rental services nothing more nothing less.


Or, we may not pretend and consider real, actual ways to use the service. Try not pretending, then the thread will make sense to you.

Since we can now take not pretending, as the status quo, we can consider a person that pays for the annual subscription (the 50$ mentioned, time and again). He or she gets 13 games every month for every platform the service applies to. That makes it roughly 150 games per year, most of them being games several months old and of great reputation and value, like RDR, ACIII and Uncharted 3. 

Now this person starts thinking: "why the heck should I buy Black Flag, since it most likely hit PS+ in a few months from now? Why not wait to get it for free?" Should it happen, wouldn't that hurt Black Flag sales? 

Now let's take it a step forwards... PS4 does not have a strong games library, through which one might choose the next PS+ "free" game. What would that be in six months from now, given the fact that one game is being offered each month? Could it be Killzone Shadowfall? Possibly. So, the person above gets to keep his/her subscription and avoid buying any game he can resist not to. 

To conclude, a potential buyer of Black Flag, or Killzone, or whatever is lost. The profit made through him is instead substituted by what percentage of the 50$ subscription applies to each of the games above. If more and more people act thusly, will it not hurt the industry in the long term and developpers mostly?

I hope it makes sense now. I guess it was soundly described in the first place, but I also guess you wanted to skip it all. All the arguments, for or against, all the replies, just to post your off-topic agenda of PS+ games not being truly free, but instead rented, old games one could get otherwise.

Congrats on missing the point entirely.

You do not have any garuntee a particular game will be released on PS+ and even if/when it is, you are essentially renting the games only not owning them permanently.

 

If you buy it outright or a physical copy used then you can play it all you want, "free" games are rentals that depend on the network, and an active subscription.

The "free" games they offer cannot be played if your subscription has ended.

 

Rental services allow you to rent brand new games the day they come out and it didn't impact the industry, so why would the rental of games that are no longer new? Fact is they don't and the use of the word "free" is wrong.

Again, you insist.

This is not about games being bought or rented. If you will, it is about not needing to buy the game, since you play it because of PS+. Check the answer below yours to see what is talked here.

Again, please spend some time reading the rest of the posts to understand the spirit of the conversation.



This, I stole from grandpa...It's called soap.

platformmaster918 on 05 January 2014
kabamarutr said:
platformmaster918 said:
kabamarutr said:
platformmaster918 said:
Devs agree to it so it must be profitable...


Yes, they agree, since it helps keep their games in the market for a little more time. Maybe earn them a couple of bucks through DLCs. But what will they think if it starts "cutting" off them some day-1 sales?

I guess it hasn't because it's been years and it still hasn't given any a sour taste.  Also Sony's strategy is smart.  They normally give away a game like BF3, SR3, or Borderlands right before the sequel comes out to build some interest for said sequel.  It gives a ton of people a taste of the series and even if 90% of the newcomers don't like it you're getting a good boost.

So, what you say is that it can't happen?

I don't think it is and if we discussed every potential doom for the industry we would be here for an awfully long time.  I don't think there's any sign of it happening and I don't think the current model poses any real danger.  I also don't think it's any more likely than other potential dangers to doom the industry so it doesn't warrant discussion at this time.  Yeah there's like a .0001% chance it can happen.




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Around the Network
kabamarutr on 06 January 2014
platformmaster918 said:
kabamarutr said:
platformmaster918 said:
kabamarutr said:
platformmaster918 said:
Devs agree to it so it must be profitable...


Yes, they agree, since it helps keep their games in the market for a little more time. Maybe earn them a couple of bucks through DLCs. But what will they think if it starts "cutting" off them some day-1 sales?

I guess it hasn't because it's been years and it still hasn't given any a sour taste.  Also Sony's strategy is smart.  They normally give away a game like BF3, SR3, or Borderlands right before the sequel comes out to build some interest for said sequel.  It gives a ton of people a taste of the series and even if 90% of the newcomers don't like it you're getting a good boost.

So, what you say is that it can't happen?

I don't think it is and if we discussed every potential doom for the industry we would be here for an awfully long time.  I don't think there's any sign of it happening and I don't think the current model poses any real danger.  I also don't think it's any more likely than other potential dangers to doom the industry so it doesn't warrant discussion at this time.  Yeah there's like a .0001% chance it can happen.


OK, thank you.



This, I stole from grandpa...It's called soap.

d21lewis on 06 January 2014

Having been a PS+ subscriber for the past month (free trial), I think the thing has been greatly exaggerated. True, I missed out on the big titles and there's no option to go back for them. Anyway

-For one thing, most of the "Free Games" are from Sony themselves.
-With the exception of Borderlands 2 and Grid, the non-Sony titles aren't what I'd consider heavy hitters
-Many of the same games have been available for two months
-Many of the games are already heavily discounted or were just a few dollars to begin with.
-It's only on Sony consoles. The PS3 is mostly effected. PS4 hasn't gotten started yet. Vita's userbase is so small, it doesn't matter.

Here's the list of free games available right now:
Grid 2 ($59)
Borderlands 2 ($29)
DYAD ($14.99)
Binary Domain ($19.99)
ibb & obb ($9.99)
ico ($19.99)
Shadow of the Colossus ($19.99)
Poker Night 2 ($9.99)
Galaga Legions ($9.99)
Uncharted 3 (???)
Xcom Enemy Unknown ($39.99)
Little Big Planet Karting ($39.99)

Vita
Urban Freestyle ($9.99)
Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed ($29.99)
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath HD ($14.99)
WipEout 2048 ($17.99)
Uncharted: Golden Abyss ($35.99)
Gravity Rush ($35.99)

Now looking at the savings, there's a ton of great content there. Reality is, aside from Sony giving away some of their best content, especially on Vita, there's really only a couple of big names there and one of those was at half price already. Plus quite a few of those titles were December titles, too.Maybe even earlier than that. The industry is safe.

Be honest with yourself. How many of the non-Sony titles listed was own your Christmas wish list? One month and I've not downloaded a single free game. If games like GTAV, Assassins Creed, or Call of Duty were among the titles, I could see being a little concerend. These games? Pfft.



LiquorandGunFun on 06 January 2014

No OP.