Nope, I don't play online.
I would rather they do a 20 USD plan only offering the PS+ games and discounts.
But I just want to point that Sony would never do it (neither online only, free games only)
When PS+ was only about getting free games and discounts they had about 2M subs on 80M consoles, now with MP behind paywall they have 35M subs.
So they charge 60 because people pay it and use the discount and free games as only an "excuse" for justify the price, so making it 20 for the online only they would only lose money. The subs wouldn't become 3x higher, their cost wouldn't become 3x lower or nothing similar. So why would they do it?
I can quite understand why 33 of the 35M would jump to it in a heartbeat, but no reason for Sony to do it.
Last edited by DonFerrari - on 18 September 2018
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
