Only £960?

Should be £1k at least.

Sony getting so arrogant and complacent right now it is unbelievable

Yeah you do not actually own them. But I get to play so many great games and it saved me lots of money :D I need to upgrade to 1TB for my PS3 just for PS+.

HAHA as somebody said you can pay for 70 years of PS PLus which would cost $3500. Within 3 years you'd have gotten value for money and after that you basically get more free games than you can play till the day you die.

That is what you call a bargain. And if SOny is around in 40 years time still making playstations the price of plus will likely have gone way up due to inflation and us becoming richer. Now that I think about it, I might actually invest this weeks wages into it.

I already have 2 years paid off from now so it's actually only about 68 I need to buy :)

Do you ever go to theatres? By your logic, I pay any amount above $0 to see a movie and no matter how enjoyable it was I should feel as though I've simply thrown away money because I don't own the movie.

Yes but when you rent a game, can you keep it for years? Can you keep hundreds of games for years and play them whenever you want as long as you have a subscription? Pretty sure no such renting service exists.

At the end of the day, I wanted to buy DMC, I got it for free so I saved at least £15 on that alone. And if I want to play it next month, I can. But if it was a renting service, I would have no way to play it again unless I ordered it and paid extra.

Saying that it's a rental is somewhat deceitful as there's no set expiration for any single item. You pay for a single pass that gives you unlimited access to everything in the park. I don't know of any PS+ users that plan on unsubbing. For them, they might as well own it.

The prices they're using are the price of the items at the time they were added to PS+.  January has $123. If they were launch prices, two of those games alone would be $120 and today all of the games combined can be bought for a little over $70.

Not sure if serious.  Yes if you played all the games for free you would be getting a ton of value for free.  You wouldn't get the full value of owning and being able to transfer the game, but you are still getting a lot of value by consuming it.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

I don't think he is saying it isn't a good deal, I think he is pointing out the ridiculousness of assigning that value and suggesting Sony 'gave it away.'

I believe that to someone who owned a PS3 (probably not someone who owned soley a PS4 or Vita) PS+ was a good deal this year.

But Sony gave nothing away. We PAID for a rental service. A good rental service, yes.

If we threw logic out the window and assumed that Sony did give something away, then that figure would be silly, as many of the games were no good, many were on systems the vast majority of PS3 owners cannot access, and many are available at far cheaper costthan their original RRP (and to own forever at that).

Of course we could go one step further, and point out that Sony's costs were virtually nothing for the dowloads, and then whatever they paid publishers for games, averaged over the number of PS+ users.