Now you are jumping into conclusions. For me, the only title to be acquired day-1 is Dark Souls 2. Until then and hence forward, I have a big PS+ backlog to spend time with, so I won't be buying anything else, anytime soon. I can't think how that doesn't hurt the industry.

I think you've got my point. A slight disagreement though: PS+ titles are not 2-3 years old. That is what I used to believe as well. It is usually several months old.

To help the conversation move past the barrier of "not really that great titles" and tread to the actual topic at hand, I make a list of some of the games I've got through PS+ in the poast couple of years:

• DmC
• Borderlands 2
• Remember me
• Farc Cry 3
• Assassin's Creed 3
• NFS Most Wanted
• Kingdoms of Amalur
• Dragon's Dogma
• Hitman:Absolution
• Deus Ex:Human Revolution
• Batman Arkham City
• Bioshock 2
• Mortal Kombat
• Red Dead Redemption
• Infamous 2
• LBP 2
• Uncharted 3
• and of course Catherine

That is just you (and some fellas).

Relax. PS plus is great for all. Those games wouldnt have been there had 3rd party companies like 2K, EA etc. had worries like yours.

And if they arent worried (its their job to check industry trends), then so should we.

Your argument can also be used in a similar fashion to say that if I wait a year and two and not buy a game day one, then I'll be rewarded for my patience by being able to buy the game for 50-75% reduced price. If everyone followed that same train of thought, there would be no day one sales because why would you pay double or triple the price when you can just wait a while?

The point of PS+ is that by giving away a plethora of games at low cost, there is a chance that one of these older games will become your new personal favourite for which you'll buy DLC or the sequel. Personally, I would have never bought a game like Soul Sacrifice, but because PS+ gave it away, I now am hooked and will buy whatever sequel comes out day one, expanding the market for an otherwise unappreciated game.

I agree with you. It can certainly go that way too. That's why (answering to the friend above you as well), I've put a hypothesis in the thread. We can't know which way it will evolve. People may rest assured that every month they will have their programmed "game-refuelling" and avoid any extra costs. Apart from the games they are crazy about of course and they need to get day-1.

No not at all.

Blockbuster has been doing this for years.

Sony renting you some games is not GIVING you a free game.

Or are Blockbuster giving you a free game everytime you rent from them?

On the flip side, Microsoft give 2 free games a month. The latest including Sleeping Dogs. Still £14.99.

This year Microsoft start it with Xbox One. Meaning the games we get free and KEEP are not even a year old.

Games like sleeping dogs are not selling anymore so giving them away for free will probably end up people buying it's dlc and gaining money that they otherwise wouldn't...

The games coming to PS Plus for free are games which everyone who wanted to buy bought at the time of release.

They come for free to users who wouldn't buy them even at a budgeted price. Which I would think undermines the used game market.

I think its a good move for the publishers and the platform holders. It means that the publisher can generate interest in a game to users who may have had no interest in that game previously and it also means the publisher could make profit on the DLC of a game that is distributed freely.

Not necessarily true. Check the list above. Many games out of that list I wanted to buy, but postponed it for reasons of economical nature. Keep in mind, that the whole thread is based on a hypothesis. A "what if..." situation. That is "what if many people acted like this and postponed day-1 buys, until - several months later - they got the game for free via PS+?". 

Would it not hurt the industry? Would it not bring losses to devs and publishers, since their product was not sold for 60-70$ but for a mere fraction of the 50$ annual membership fee?