| Hapimeses said: Also, to be fair, the games offred on the Vita service are not at all as you describe (the italicised part of your post above). And does anyone think they are 'ripping off Sony' by paying for a subscription service? Really? |
Well, yeah, of course. But it's a special case. The Vita is scarcely even a year old. And, sure, those are some of the best (and best-selling) games on the system. But that's a relative thing. The system itself is a terrible flop, so those games have hardly lit the world on fire. Now they're just trying to get something going for their ironically-named handheld. Since a price cut wasn't in the cards, and it will take time if they're ever going to get system-selling games for the thing, leveraging some of the popularity of PS+ was a cheap and easy enough thing to try. The best way to get attention for that is to slap some of the very best stuff up there, and since they're all first party games anyway, that's just what they did.
And since I keep seeing people here, on NeoGAF, and elsewhere referring to games they pay for as being "free games", yes, I do think that some people really do feel that these are, in fact, free games. If people keep asking, "How can Sony afford to do this?" then it kind of indicates a failure to appreciate the fact that Sony is for the most part just finding a way of monetizing old games (most of which have a lot of DLC) and those that have bombed. So good for Sony.
