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.

 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.

I think you mean, missunderstanding my post, not breaking it down.

Then you should mention that to me and counter my points and make your post more understandable.

You mention you think they should have all games able to be downloaded, not just a select few.

You then also say you would like them to allow you to keep them. 

You mention that if you miss a payment then you're SOL, which isn't true.

You say you have to subscribe to get sales, and I showed you how that is false and that subscribing only brings greater savings than you would normally get from those sales.

You went in so many different directions, so misunderstanding is easy to do. Not to mention that anyone reading it is going to look at those "options" you would like with the current $50/year price tag hanging over them, and some of them are just not going to happen at that price tag.

Only one I can see I maybe misunderstood is when I lumped the "All games accessable" and "Keep them permanently" together when in fact I should have kept them seperate. Possibly the "Exclusive I can't get anywhere else" as well, but if they do offer Timed Exclusive on some PSN titles for Plus users, same with Betas, 1-hour full game demos, etc...

For all others I debated them individually and brought up reasons for why they would work or why they were in fact of great value at the programs current price. For the "Entire catalogue" point I even pointed out that it would require a higher price tag and brought up a perfect example why.

Please inform me on where I misunderstood.

Ok, but I said I wasn't going to derail this thread any more so I'm going to keep this brief since I've said this so many times already.

"Lower your expectations.  You are only paying $50/year for (15) pre-selected titles that rotate, overall giving you ~(22-24) full titles per year. An average of $2/year for a year long rental (If you do not resubscribe). That is ~730 times cheaper than what it would cost you to rent each game at Redbox for an entire year at their current $2/day price. It's incredible value."

Those 15 titles are picked by Sony. I may not want any of them. I don't want to pay for temporary access to only what Sony allows me to play and not keep. If I got to pick those 15 temps I might be interested. Or if got to keep Sony's picks forever I might be interested. But 15 temporary Sony picks has no value to me. Also, Rebox is a very poor comparison. Why would anyone rent a game for $2/day for a year when services like Gamefly let you keep it for as long as you want and let your choose from their entire library of games for all systems?

"Selection of (15) titles for free throughout the length of your subscription is better than no games, am I right?"

Only if you want those 15 games. If you don't care about the games that Sony picks or if you already own them then they have no value.

"No you do not. If you miss a month the games can no longer be started up from the XMB. However, once you resubscribe those titles are again enabled for you to play. I am fairly positive this is how it works."

I'm not talking about missing a payment. I'm talking about games made available in months or years past. If Uncharted becomes available and you don't download it when it's on PS+ then you can't get it unless Sony decided to make it available again. You have to check every month and download everything when it's available or you'll miss out on a deal. You are paying for a rental of a rotating list and if you forget or if you are on vacation and a game comes and goes you are S.O.L.

"Many sales are available to non-Plus users. The difference is that a normal PSN user will see a $20 game reduced to $15 for the duration of the sale while the Plus user will get the same game for $5-$10."

If you are paying for a sale then it's not a real sale. The guy without PS+ who buys a $20 game on sale for $15 just saved $5. PS+ subs pay for their lower price.

"For $50/year you're expecting way too much. Something like that would need to run you at least $20/month. You should sign up for GameFly @ $17/month for 1 rental at a time."

"Once again, you are expecting way too much. Download any and all games for $50/year and you keep all games? How would SONY make any money that way? People would buy a console, pay $8 for one month of Plus and download the entire library and then cancel."

"That goes for any console does it not? PSN has plenty of exclusive titles and PS+ users often get heavy discounts on them."

I said "One of the following" not all of it. I've already explained why I don't want to pay for select games of Sony's choosing. If the games were perminatly mine or if I got to choose from the entire catalogue then the service might have some value to me. The only reason Sony won't let you keep playing the games after you stop paying for the subscription is to tether you to the service so they can keep getting $50/year for stuff that has no tangible value anyway. As for the exclusives your talking about. I wasn't talking about PSN exclusives, I was talking about PS+ exclusives. The service would obviously have more value if it offered games not even available on PSN. Or at the very least offered them as an early timed exclusive before wider release.

Nothing wrong with that. I am in the same boat and am waiting for a selection of titles that interest me before I dive in.

From your last comment I can see that you need to see value before you invest. That's good. That means you are smart with your money.  Nobody should dive in without full consideration. If the service doesn't have the games you want then it's not worth your money, no matter how "free" the games seem or how "cheap" the sales apear. If you pay for something you have to want what your buying. PS+ has yet to convince me that it's worth buying.

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?  

Let's please not let this turn into a LIVE vs PSN argument.

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.

Its free everywhere else and on multiplats the online is exactly the same. The only differences in speed come from software and hardware specs, thats all not the premium nature of any online. 

Gotcha. I was just trying to figure out what he believes to be a worthy service. I believe if Sony and Nintendo follow suit with Microsoft this would spell bad things for the entire industry.