If there is no crossplay it'll probably flop unless it goes F2P. Skyrim was so popular though its hard to tell.

Idk about all that but there are games on there with metascores below 70.

do any of the games with gold have multplayer? will the multiplayer suddenly be free if you stop paying for gold  like a real actual free game or are you only getting single player for "free"

and trying to say it's from steam is really a strech since it's hard for them to reward current subscribers with games when steam does it for free.

So how do they compare, they are paid subscriptions on video games consoles that are offering you games at no cost beyond the subsription. does sound preyy similar. Though in one case there have been games at no extra cost since the service started until now, with the service only getting good with the instant game collection. With there now being hundereds of games to the long term subsribers.  In the other there haven't been any games until recently and the long term subscribers have just as many games as those who signed up when the program started.

Mmmm... PS+ xD I thought the term was PSN and PSN+ xD

You're getting the whole game for free. Whether you want to use MP or not is up to you. And I know Steam does what it does for free. My post said as such.

The only thing being compared in this thread are the games subscribers get. And one side gets rentals, the other side gets actual free games they can keep as long as their console works whether they are still a customer or not. World of difference. I could see people crying about MS gamers needing to thank Sony if they were also getting random rentals chosen for them but that's not the case.

I'm sorry but is this honestly a problem for anyone?  I mean who is getting all these games and saying "I think I'll stop subscribing"?  Seriously, who the eff is this guy?  95% customer satisfaction.  I haven't heard one bad thing about Plus since it started from people who actually use it except maybe that European gamers get better games than NA ones (which is true).  When I tell non fanboy Xbox friends from my real life they all gauk at how many games I'm getting and ask "So you get to keep them?" and I say "Yeah as long as you stay subscribed."  They then moan about how they're paying more just to play online.  Sorry but I haven't met anyone who regards this as a problem or talked to any Plus subscribers who view it as one.

Who said it's a problem? It seems per usual, you are lost on the context because you're too quick to defend.

*sigh* of course.  Because you didn't imply any problem in that post.  Just because you don't outright state something doesn't mean you can't see the tone of most of these posts.  I just wish you wouldn't try to act like you're being super neutral all the time.  Sony's a big company they don't need me to, nor do I care to, defend them.

You're right, I didn't imply a problem. I simply stated what makes the approaches different and pointed out that I think both are flawed and have better alternatives. I hope that helped.

so you can still play the multiplayer in those free games if you are not a subsrciber? if not you're getting half a game for free. Like most the multiplayer game on the 360 part of the game is for "rent".

and for calling them rental, I don't know any other service that just keeps getting more and you never have to send any back. Titles can come an go on streaming sites. Renting physical you can only have so many at a time. PS+ the library keeps growing.  I'm sure that if MS has done a system like plus you'd be very happy with having such a nice libraryof games even if "only rental"
"