Because its a decision made by Sony it CANNOT be wrong.

1 or 2 games each for PS3, PS Vita and PS4 seemingly every month. That is why. Playstation Plus may be required for online gaming on PS4 but with all those free games you can hardly complain. I honestly have no idea how Sony makes any money from Playstation Plus with all the games we get from it. It seems to be a good strategy for a subscription as Xbox has taken note.

I mean i don't play on getting PS4 for a few years yet but i'm gonna stay subscribed to PS+ just so i can get to play so many different games. This is my choice, since PS3 and PS Vita multiplayer remains free anyway. Sony was just smart about getting people to pay up. 

But Games with Gold is about giving free games to XBL subscribers. It's doesn't take time to decide "Maybe it's a good idea to give gamers games that are in recent memory instead of 5 or 6 years old games that aren't even on retail shelves anymore". How hard was it to choose Gears of War 1 over, say, Gears of War 3, for example. Now, what should be a no brainer is being used as an excuse "it takes time to get better". If you're building something, yes, it takes time to get better. But Games with Gold and a feature of PS+ is giving gamers free games that are already out. PS+ has done it in spades since its inception. GwG, on the other hand, could have offered a game like Forza 4 (a game that is 2 years old, so it's retail sales are all but finalized, but still recent enough that people would be interested in it) at the click of a button. There's no engineering, coding, programming, building, etc. that "takes time to get better" behind a decision like that. You just decide "should I give out F4 or something else?" and they chose something else....Crackdown. A game that's 6 years old and no one cares about anymore.

And if you want to argue that the first PS+ games were PSN games, or "lower" retail games, PS+ just started in 2010. As in 0 users. So it may not have been wise to release Uncharted 2, for example, in that time. Something like that takes time to get better because they really are building a base. But even still, with 0 users, they came out the gate offering free games. XBL has been out for years, and has over 46 million total subscribers. Surely with that many people (although not all of them are Gold members, the overwhelming majority are), they could easily give more recent games than Gears of War 1?

I never said nothing about the offering. All I said is that they sometimes screw up (by giving Gears 1) but they sometimes do great offers (like giving Iron Brigade). My point is, give them time. Better late than never is what I say.

PSN isnt free? Then how come I can play free on PS3 and Vita?

well i never complained,if i was an xboxer i'd have paid for gold because you get the most out of your machine,

Sony had to keep the paywall at bay for the PS3 otherwise it would have been even worse than it was but now they are all at the start line together again,subscriptions are the future of everything,i've said that so many times now but it is true

Because we can't simply go to the competitor with our complaints, that's why. Microsoft's version is even more expensive and offers less :S

No one is complaining because you get free games and discounts. Online gaming is also free on PS3 and Vita which have sold around 90 million compared to the yet small installbase of PS4.

Many people coming from PS3 and having PS+ will not even realize they're paying for online on PS4.

I am complaining that it is no longer a choice to go PSN+ - I choose to go for it, but for people that don't want it they shouldn't be forced to pay for tacked on shitmodes to proper games, or to play games where you only have abysmal single player and you buy for online anyway.

You're basically implying that Sony designed a program that would later remove basic rights (free online) from their customers without them even realizing. That's called brainwashing