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

[Euphoria14]

JayWood2010 said:

Euphoria14 said:

JayWood2010 said:

Not here to argue on which is better, he asked for the features and services so there they are.

You said that PS+ should add Online play to make it more enticing and I bring a substantial counterpoint to that claim. That is why I did not make it a PSN vs LIVE conversation, but rather a LIVE vs Industry Standard conversation.

It is part of my counterpoint for why making Online play a pay for service is a very bad move for Sony. I brought my argument in earlier, but you ignored it.

 

You brought it up.

JayWood2010 said:
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....

 It's just that as it went on I saw a large list of what exactly is included along with Online play, so I thought to mention how those are free everywhere else across the industry, which only adds to my counterpoint about how your suggestion was a bad idea and how your suggestion could very well end up being the big disadvantage for Live going forward. You saw it as a "This is better than that" when it was in fact a well laid out proposal for why leaving it as it is (offering all these same things for free) will in fact MAKE people care more about it, especially when heading into a new generation when people are much more likely to jump to new consoles.

It was all in relation to what you initially brought up, so don't act like i'm off point or anything.

Well I see you decided to make this into a debate regardless if that is what I wanted. Look. 1st off what I've said about the mass and PS+ is true at this moment.  people don't see it as being worth it.  I never said XBL was better, he wanted a list so there it is.  Yes that stuff is free else where but as far as online goes Ill stick with XBL and Steam because they do have better online features.  Not services, but features and yes exclusive games are in my opinion features.  I like that PSN is free but I've never had a need to use it personally other than when I was playing KZ2.  

The whole comparison PS+ vs XBL is in my opinion irrelevant right now since both are different services.  XBL will appeal to gamers more because they want to play online, yes it costs money but it is also a good service and I dont think anyone can argue with that wether you agree with the price or not.  PS+ is not an online service and why people are not lined up to pay for it.  I don't need PS+ because the games I want I get, and if I really want to rent I can do that else where.  Tell me something that PS+ does that isn't already out there, and tell me how it does better. All I'm hearing from you guys is it gives you free games which isn't true in the slightest since you pay for the service in its self. I can rent games (the ones I want) for just as good of a price.  Now how is this appealing to the mass audience?  How is this going to attract people?  

As I said, my post wasn't intended to be seen as a "Why this is better than that". It was a retort for your suggestion of adding Online Play to PSN+ as being a good way for people to see value in it, with my argument being why it isn't and how leaving it as is can be seen as a greater way for people to see value in it during the transition to a new generation of consoles.

You are clearly reading it wrong. I have already mentioned how I meant for it to come across. Live only came up because it is the only one to go against the current industry standard that seems to have been put in place across all other gaming enabled devices, which is "Free Online Gaming".

 

You ask how does it attract people? I already mentioned that. For people purchasing the console they see it as a service that gives them a steady flow of games to choose from and play. Like said before, my argument was purely in terms of people purchasing the next iteration of gaming consoles and how they may percieve "value" at THAT time. You say people don't see the appeal, yet the amount of subscribers are growing, which shows the appeal is obviously there. You can not prove that it isn't. We only have one number to go by and that is the ~297% increase from the same perios last year.