By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
naruball on 13 December 2014
Edit Thread
starcraft said:
naruball said:
 

1. Who determines what's good? There are people who prefer "silly indies" over AAA games because if they are interested in an AAA game, they it before it's offerered on ps+. ps+  also exposes people to games they never would have given a chance otherwise. 

2. I don't get this point. Surely what's important here is that most ps+ subscribers have a ps4 and most likely a ps3. The majority of ps3 owners don't have ps+  anyway.

3. You don't exxactly own it forever. If it gets damaged, lost, given to a friend who never returns it, etc, it's gone for ever. The same can't be said about digital dowloads. I recently moved to a new country and couldn't take my over 100 ps3 physical copies, but just with my ps3 and a decent internet connection, I can have access to an insane number of games I've received from ps+

There are occasional people who prefer indies over AAA games. But PS+ doesn't have a specific focus on indies. You're arguing that because a small portion of the population might play a game they wouldn't otherwise have played, it is reasonable to simply tally the RRP of all games and determine that to be the value of PS+ for all subscribers.

There is some truth to the notion that a lot of PS+ subscribers are PS4 owners. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue the studies are dubious), it has been suggested that a large proportion of PS4 owners did not buy a PS3. But as I said, the best value of the program would be drawn from someone who owned all three platforms - in other words a tiny portion of the population.

3. People who move country would be a statistically insignificant portion of PS+ subscribers (I am sure you realize this). Further more, paying $60-100 (depending on country) per year in perpetuity to play your games is not something that can be reasonably compared to the possibility you might accidentaly misplace your entire games collection.

Again, I am not saying PS+ doesn't offer value. I am saying Sony gave nothing away, and that the value listed in the OP is ridiculous.

Sigh. I don't understand why you're not addressing my main points. 

3. You said when you buy a game you get to keep it forever. That was my point. Not me moving to another country. That's one example. It's not yours forever if you lose it, it gets damaged etc.

2. What do you mean by population? What's relevant here is not the population or the ps3 owners but the 8(?) million ps+. Everything else is irrelevant. We don't know how many of those have  the ps3-psvita-ps4 combo but even those that don't have it may have plans to buy a system they don't own and see value in getting these games. (example): I don't have a ps4 but when I buy one I will play some of those ps4 games I've been getting.

1. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that the only fair (but not perfect) way to determine the quality of the games offered is by using metacritic. There is no other way to determine whether these games are good or not. A game that you personally hate (indie or not) may be great for someone and a game that you like, others may not care for. You can speak for yourself but for anyone else (i.e. "these games are bad").

I, and I'm sure everyone else on this thread, is well aware that not a single person felt that they saved $1,349.29. Some saved 400, other 100 and so on.