ganoncrotch said:
|
Why are you making excuses for them? That didn't stop Sony from giving out games
ganoncrotch said:
|
Why are you making excuses for them? That didn't stop Sony from giving out games
| selnor1983 said: No Id prefer to have the game. I dont want a rental service. |
Until you get a "rental service" from games with gold and then you'll praise it to no end. Hand Down PSN+ > Games with gold. There's no question. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. Plus it's not like you'd ever stop subscribing anyway.
I think the whole reason why Sony invented this on consoles was because they had almost no subscribers. Microsoft had a huge amount on 360 so that they didn't have to offer something like Sony to increase the numbers. That's why you got only really old games on 360, Microsoft didn't have to offer newer games to give people a reason to pay for Gold but they still thought that they have to have at least something because of PS+. Sony had to go this way because asking to get money to play online wasn't really an option when many bought a PS3 because it was free there.
Now with PS4 and Xbox One it is different. Sony has to offer it because people are used to it on PLaystation and people don't really accept to get less on new systems. It has to be always more as before and Microsoft doesn't already have a huge amount of Gold users on Xbox One so that they have to offer something better as on 360 or some who don't know which console to buy could decide to buy a PS4 because of that.
Mmmfishtacos said:
|
Don't even bother replying to a troll comment like that lol.
I'd take a rental service that gives me games like Borderlands 2, Uncharted 3 Far Cry 3, Arkham City, Just Cause 2 etc Vs. one that lets me keep games like Defence Grid Awakening and Tomb Raider Guardian of the Light...
But hey, that's just my personal preference.
| crissindahouse said: I think the whole reason why Sony invented this on consoles was because they had almost no subscribers. Microsoft had a huge amount on 360 so that they didn't have to offer something like Sony to increase the numbers. That's why you got only really old games on 360, Microsoft didn't have to offer newer games to give people a reason to pay for Gold but they still thought that they have to have at least something because of PS+. Sony had to go this way because asking to get money to play online wasn't really an option when many bought a PS3 because it was free there. |
While I agree % 100 with what you said, xbl still needs to have a comparable offerings to stay competitive especially at a 20% higher cost. When CokeaCola released vanilla coke what did Pepsi do ? You bet your ass they released a similar flavor. Sony unleased pandoras box with free games and now XBL needs to match it or they will lose even more consumer support
Mmmfishtacos said:
|
true.
I usually subscribe but here is my problem with that. I have 2 360's. If I purchase a game it gets registered to one or the other. So for the game that the purchase isn't licensed to I have to be online in my profile to open the game. Sometimes the internet is out, other times I might take my game over to a friend or a relative, those games are then unplayable.............it gets annoying.
there are pros to both services though.
ps+ more recent games, I wouldn't say better games but more recent.
gwg = games you keep, There have been some high quality games offered that survives the test of time. skyrim, fable etc.......
I wouldn't consider either a selling point though.....the game I really want to play I'd probably have to buy anyways.
Mmmfishtacos said:
|
That's exactly what i thought when i read his comment :p Considering the unlikeliness of him cancelling his Gold sub, you'd think he'd prefer to be given newer or more popular titles than stuff the competing service was giving out almost a year ago.
I'm sure GWG with improve over time, but currently it's barley even worth comparing to PS+. It doesn't supply even a fraction of the value. The US PS+ is currently providing Uncharted 3, Tomb Raider, Payday 2, Bioshock: Infinite, Remember Me, XCOM, LBP Karting, Borderlands 2 and a couple of other titles just for signing up :/ That's before you even considering the monthly games and deals you get. It's no wonder everyone loves PS+.

EB1994 said:
You do realize Ps Plus doesn't JUST offer triple AAA games right? There's always an indie title or two thrown in there. It's usually one big AAA game with a bunch of smaller/cheaper games. Like this month, Arkham City and Sly cooper Thieves in Time on PS3. But alas, you haven't even experienced PS Plus before so how would you know? |
I know you don't have only AAAA games but I did compare both offering and FACT is I would have DLed less games on PS+ than I did on GfG....and trueI won't ever know how PS+ is since I won't be getting a Playstation.... but what I'm saying is I don't want GfG to become more like PS+.... I'm not against amelioration but a compromise between the two might be a better solution.... at least for me....

Personally I think anyone with a PS+ or XBL Gold sub should be able to download any game in the PSN / XBL library that is more than 3 years old. If a game hasn't profited after 3 years then it isn't going to, and the few dollars each game earns from the PS+ / XBL subs that go with every download will add up.
Clearly the quality of games that you get to keep even when you end your subs will be lower than the quality of games that you can only play while your subs are active. I prefer the rental service, because I just got myself Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite for my instant game collection. 2 GOTY contenders for 2013! Oh, and Borderlands 2, LBP Karting and Brothers. That's such great quality, excpt maybe for LBP Karting.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix