By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Sony gave away $1,349.29 worth of software on PS+ in NA in 2015

starcraft on 13 December 2014
riderz13371 said:
starcraft said:

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.

Yes, let's throw logic out the window and let you determine that "many of the games were no good". Shit lets throw reading out the window and not look at the OP where he clearly posts that the average monthly metacritic ranking of the games given away on PS Plus was a 79.

I do not know if the study is reliable - maybe it is. Lets say that it is. Do you play averages Riderz?

Does the fact that you got Bioshock Infinite (again, much later when you could have sourced it elsewhere for WELL below RRP) one month mean you're going to enjoy playing a couple of games in their 60's a few months later? Of course not.

There is really no need for sarcasm at all. I listed a series of reasons why the figure in the OP is nothing short of laughable, surely you don't truly disagree with many (or even any) of them.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
BHR-3 on 13 December 2014

so thats why there werent no $30 psn plus subs this BF? still waiting on a deal before holidays is up still got till march to renew



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

naruball on 13 December 2014
starcraft said:
naruball said:
 

1. Who determines what's good? There are people who prefer "silly indies" over AAA games because if they are interested in an AAA game, they it before it's offerered on ps+. ps+  also exposes people to games they never would have given a chance otherwise. 

2. I don't get this point. Surely what's important here is that most ps+ subscribers have a ps4 and most likely a ps3. The majority of ps3 owners don't have ps+  anyway.

3. You don't exxactly own it forever. If it gets damaged, lost, given to a friend who never returns it, etc, it's gone for ever. The same can't be said about digital dowloads. I recently moved to a new country and couldn't take my over 100 ps3 physical copies, but just with my ps3 and a decent internet connection, I can have access to an insane number of games I've received from ps+

There are occasional people who prefer indies over AAA games. But PS+ doesn't have a specific focus on indies. You're arguing that because a small portion of the population might play a game they wouldn't otherwise have played, it is reasonable to simply tally the RRP of all games and determine that to be the value of PS+ for all subscribers.

There is some truth to the notion that a lot of PS+ subscribers are PS4 owners. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue the studies are dubious), it has been suggested that a large proportion of PS4 owners did not buy a PS3. But as I said, the best value of the program would be drawn from someone who owned all three platforms - in other words a tiny portion of the population.

3. People who move country would be a statistically insignificant portion of PS+ subscribers (I am sure you realize this). Further more, paying $60-100 (depending on country) per year in perpetuity to play your games is not something that can be reasonably compared to the possibility you might accidentaly misplace your entire games collection.

Again, I am not saying PS+ doesn't offer value. I am saying Sony gave nothing away, and that the value listed in the OP is ridiculous.

Sigh. I don't understand why you're not addressing my main points. 

3. You said when you buy a game you get to keep it forever. That was my point. Not me moving to another country. That's one example. It's not yours forever if you lose it, it gets damaged etc.

2. What do you mean by population? What's relevant here is not the population or the ps3 owners but the 8(?) million ps+. Everything else is irrelevant. We don't know how many of those have  the ps3-psvita-ps4 combo but even those that don't have it may have plans to buy a system they don't own and see value in getting these games. (example): I don't have a ps4 but when I buy one I will play some of those ps4 games I've been getting.

1. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that the only fair (but not perfect) way to determine the quality of the games offered is by using metacritic. There is no other way to determine whether these games are good or not. A game that you personally hate (indie or not) may be great for someone and a game that you like, others may not care for. You can speak for yourself but for anyone else (i.e. "these games are bad").

I, and I'm sure everyone else on this thread, is well aware that not a single person felt that they saved $1,349.29. Some saved 400, other 100 and so on. 



starcraft on 13 December 2014
naruball said:
starcraft said:

There are occasional people who prefer indies over AAA games. But PS+ doesn't have a specific focus on indies. You're arguing that because a small portion of the population might play a game they wouldn't otherwise have played, it is reasonable to simply tally the RRP of all games and determine that to be the value of PS+ for all subscribers.

There is some truth to the notion that a lot of PS+ subscribers are PS4 owners. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue the studies are dubious), it has been suggested that a large proportion of PS4 owners did not buy a PS3. But as I said, the best value of the program would be drawn from someone who owned all three platforms - in other words a tiny portion of the population.

3. People who move country would be a statistically insignificant portion of PS+ subscribers (I am sure you realize this). Further more, paying $60-100 (depending on country) per year in perpetuity to play your games is not something that can be reasonably compared to the possibility you might accidentaly misplace your entire games collection.

Again, I am not saying PS+ doesn't offer value. I am saying Sony gave nothing away, and that the value listed in the OP is ridiculous.

Sigh. I don't understand why you're not addressing my main points. 

3. You said when you buy a game you get to keep it forever. That was my point. Not me moving to another country. That's one example. It's not yours forever if you lose it, it gets damaged etc.

2. What do you mean by population? What's relevant here is not the population or the ps3 owners but the 8(?) million ps+. Everything else is irrelevant. We don't know how many of those have  the ps3-psvita-ps4 combo but even those that don't have it may have plans to buy a system they don't own and see value in getting these games. (example): I don't have a ps4 but when I buy one I will play some of those ps4 games I've been getting.

1. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that the only fair (but not perfect) way to determine the quality of the games offered is by using metacritic. There is no other way to determine whether these games are good or not. A game that you personally hate (indie or not) may be great for someone and a game that you like, others may not care for. You can speak for yourself but for anyone else (i.e. "these games are bad").

I, and I'm sure everyone else on this thread, is well aware that not a single person felt that they saved $1,349.29. Some saved 400, other 100 and so on. 

3. Fair enough, I misunderstood. To some people who are particularly inept, or for whom money is no object, I agree they could misplace their games. Just as PS+ subscribers could misplace their consoles.

2. You pointed out that the vast majority of PS+ holders are PS4 owners. I pointed out that based on 'evidence' released by Sony, many of these people will not have Vitas or PS3's, thereby only a small proportion of the population of PS+ owners could extract anything like the value listed in the OP (and again, none of them will come even close by virtue of the other reasons listed in this thread).

1. That is not how I read your post, but I agree with what you have now written. Ultimately it is reasonable (but as you say, not perfect) to expect that a game that receives a low ranking on metacritic, is a game a very large proportion of the gaming community will not love. Arguing that some people will love it is a truism, but its also irrelevant to the fact that gamers on the whole would have been better off had Sony rented them a more universally praised game in each instance.

On your last point we agree, with the caveat that I would wager the vast majority of gamers were far closer to the 100, than the $1349. Though of course, no one has a tangible way to prove this in either direction.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Burek on 13 December 2014
vkaraujo said:
Why talk about "play online value" when this results are based in the PS3? The online is free here.

Problems with the article:
- It uses prices in the PS store to determine the value.
- Maybe you already own/played those games. This brings the value down from the player PoV.
- Maybe you don't like that game/genre. This just brings the value down to zero.

While I see the value in the program, i get really uncomfortable for buying something before knowing what it is.
Even more when i look to PS4 free games. I would be very disappointed with PS+ by now if i only had a PS4.

I'd rather have free online. =/

I agree with you, especially in the point #3 - The games offered just don't interest me. I find it unfeasible to pay $50 upfront, then pray each month that they decide to "give away" something I might like that I haven't played already. It's like paying upfront in a grocery store for a sealed bag of random groceries.

I rather keep my money and use it to purchase games I am actually interested in.



Around the Network
riderz13371 on 13 December 2014
starcraft said:

Yes, let's throw logic out the window and let you determine that "many of the games were no good". Shit lets throw reading out the window and not look at the OP where he clearly posts that the average monthly metacritic ranking of the games given away on PS Plus was a 79.

I do not know if the study is reliable - maybe it is. Lets say that it is. Do you play averages Riderz?

Does the fact that you got Bioshock Infinite (again, much later when you could have sourced it elsewhere for WELL below RRP) one month mean you're going to enjoy playing a couple of games in their 60's a few months later? Of course not.

There is really no need for sarcasm at all. I listed a series of reasons why the figure in the OP is nothing short of laughable, surely you don't truly disagree with many (or even any) of them.

I did this just to for you. Six straight months of PS Plus games with their Metacritic rating.

June 2014

Trine 2 (PS4) - 84 Meta

PixelJunk Shooter Ultimate (PS4) - 82 Meta

NBA 2K14 (PS3) - 84 Meta

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time (PS3) - 75 Meta

Terraria (PSV) - 85 Meta

Mutant Mudds Deluxe (PSV) - Can't find enough PS Vita reviews. Will be using the lowest meta (61 PC) just to help you out, cause it's not looking good so far for you =). Highest meta was 84 (Wii U + IOS)

June 2014 Meta Average - 78.5

July 2014

TowerFall Ascension (PS4) - 87

Strider (PS4) - 77

Dead Space 3 (PS3) - 76

Vessel (PS3) - Not enough reviews. Will use PC (81)

Muramasa Rebirth (PSV) - 78

Doki Doki Universe (PSV) - 66

June 2014 Meta Average - 77.5

August 2014

Road Not Taken (PS4) - 70

Fez (PS4) - 90

Crysis 3 - 77

Proteus - 71

Metrico - 68

Dragon's Crown - 78

August 2014 Meta Average - 75.8

September 2014

Velocity 2X (PS4) - 86

Sportsfriends (PS4) - 82

PS All Stars (PS3) - 74

Hoard (PS3) - 75

Joe Danger (PSV) - Not enough reviews. Will use lowest (86).

TxK (PSV) - 84

September 2014 Meta Average - 81.2

October 2014

Dust: An Elysian Tail (PS4) - 79

Spelunky (PS4) - Not enough reviews, will use lowest (83)

Batman: Arkham Asylum (PS3) - 91

Dungeons & Dragons: Chronicles of Mystara (PS3) - 83

Pix The Cat (PSV) - 74

Rainbow Moon (PSV) - 70

October 2014 Meta Average - 80

November 2014

 The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth (PS4) - 87

Steamworld Dig (PS4) - 82

Frozen Synapse Prime (PS3) - Using lowest (84)

Luftrausers (PS3) - 80

Escape Plan (PSV) - 71

The Hungry Horder (PSV) - Not enough reviews but no other platform. 3 reviews average = 58

November 2014 Meta Average - 77

Total Average Over 6 Months - 78

So, you say does the fact that we get a 90 meta + game mean we have to play a couple 60 meta games months later? Well, as I have shown you here, over a six month range PS Plus released FOUR games that were 69 Metacritic or under. Yes, FOUR out of 36 games.

Do I play averages? Sure, as I have proved to you here, the AVERAGE game released on PS Plus is a good game well worth your time. You seem to think that one 90+ meta game will outweigh the majority of 60 meta games, but as I have proven to you here PS Plus releases on a consistent bases very good games.

Please, if I have made a mistake in my calculations inform me of them and I will fix it immediately.



Sentient_Nebula on 13 December 2014

PS+ is amazing! The value of all the "free" games (And extra discounts during sales) is simply indisputable. That's why I was completely indifferent when it was announced that PS+ would be required for PS4 multiplayer; I would still have PS+ anyway, makes no difference for me!



"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Samuel Clemens

NobleTeam360 on 13 December 2014

I'll enjoy it more when PS4 starts getting games I like on PS+



CavemanCavan on 13 December 2014
MoHasanie said:
LordLichtenstein said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Pure cost doesn't represent value though. That could easily have been just a large amount of poor games (I think it has been recently actually).

Bioshock: Infinite
DMC: Devil May Cry
Metro: Last Light
Tomb Raider
Batman: Arkham City
Puppeteer
Skullgirls Encore
NBA 2K14
Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time
Dead Space 3
Crysis 3
Dragon's Crown
Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Injustice: Gods Among Us

Its great value if you've never played any of those games. I've played 5 of those games and out of the others, I'm only interested in 3 more. So for me personally, $50 a month to play 3 games isn't that great value. Its still much better than terrible games we get with Xbox Live gold though. 


Please tell me you don't think plus is bought for 50 a MONTH.

 

This is all moot.  Inflated prices?  Rental?  You're getting 1330 for 50.  Plus beta invites and discounts.  Everyone forgets those.

No matter how you look at it, paying 50 bucks for 1300 is great.  Sure you lose out if you stop subbing.  But I know I personally got 800 out of my first year of plus, why would I stop that service?



KLXVER on 13 December 2014

Actually they rented out those games for 49.99$ a year...