Sony gave away $1,349.29 worth of software on PS+ in NA in 2015

[starcraft]

naruball said:

starcraft said:

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. 

3. Fair enough, I misunderstood. To some people who are particularly inept, or for whom money is no object, I agree they could misplace their games. Just as PS+ subscribers could misplace their consoles.

2. You pointed out that the vast majority of PS+ holders are PS4 owners. I pointed out that based on 'evidence' released by Sony, many of these people will not have Vitas or PS3's, thereby only a small proportion of the population of PS+ owners could extract anything like the value listed in the OP (and again, none of them will come even close by virtue of the other reasons listed in this thread).

1. That is not how I read your post, but I agree with what you have now written. Ultimately it is reasonable (but as you say, not perfect) to expect that a game that receives a low ranking on metacritic, is a game a very large proportion of the gaming community will not love. Arguing that some people will love it is a truism, but its also irrelevant to the fact that gamers on the whole would have been better off had Sony rented them a more universally praised game in each instance.

On your last point we agree, with the caveat that I would wager the vast majority of gamers were far closer to the 100, than the $1349. Though of course, no one has a tangible way to prove this in either direction.