I don't know...I mean the PS3 was my tertiary console and the only one I didn't (don't) own was (is) Dead Nation.

It is my main console that I've owned for a year and a half and I own none of them plus I've owned a PSP far longer then that and own none of those either. Individual examples don't prove much one way or the other.

Why would you want them now?

Sadly I already own the entirety of the welcome back list!

Cause I still fall under the category of poor college kid. Which means I didn't necessarily not buy them cause I didn't want them. Just I had other games I wanted more.

LBP2 would have been good!

I guess I'll go with SuperStarDust HD and Wipeout?

good that it seems to be back up , however its an uninteresting list and I wont be logging back on to psn

What's the download size for LBP and InFamous?

I only have a 40 GB PS3 so I might not be able to get any of them.

I think I saw somewhere Infamous is 6.88GB. Not sure about LBP

Of course Germany gets its own teen friendly list without Infamous and Dead Nation... but I cannot complain this time because I already have all those games and so I can get Ratchet and Clank : QFB and Hustle Kings

Purchase the game you like so you can keep it in your PSN history as purchased.
That way you can download it whenever you want or have room in your HDD.

The offer will not last forever.

The games are too limited. The blog replies shows lots of people having those games, and besides, if you don't like any of those games, even if you don't have them it's a pointless offering. A gift isn't good because it's a gift. You wouldn't expect a vegetarian to be pleased if given a $50 veal steak just because it's free $50 of meat. What is the purpose of this PSN gift? To generate good will. In which case you have to give folks something they'll actually value. I don't see why they left out a wider range of titles like Flower and PixelJunk Shooter 2. Well, PJS2 is left out as they still expect sales of that, and they're only giving old games. But still, there's a big catalogue there and Sony could have given a wider selection to cater for everyone, instead of this selection that excludes their more loyal fans who have spent more on their games.

For myself, there's certainly nothing I particularly want. As I said to them, this fiasco cost me about £5 worth of redundant internet access that I bought on holiday in order to get Under siege when it came out. The only fitting 'sorry' gift would therefore be £5 off that game. Sony can't just credit accounts because of multiple user accounts (perhaps one reason to limit the game selection) but they could offer discount codes on future titles. "Use this code to get £5 off your next PSN checkout."

As for Japan refusing PSN, that could perhaps be an issue with payment security, which hasn't been enabled yet and doesn't affect online gaming, but which the Japanese government could be being restrictive on. I wouldn't say just because the Japanese government is holding Sony back for security reasons, that they are valid reasons. They may be, but then again it may be political maneouverings for PR points.

Yeah, out of the tens of millions of PSN users entitled to the free games the 200 in the world who happen to own them all are all complaining on the PSN Blog (and every other forum on the internet) right now. You can't extrapolate that noise to the userbase at large. But they're not really a gift anyway. They're a good will offering. If people want to be entitled dicks about it, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't confuse that with popular sentiment, or anyone actually being owed anything.

I'd love to know what your definition of a gift is if a goodwill offering doesn't count. I also didn't extrapolate the internet noise to the population at large. Sony's offering may very well please 80% or more of its userbase. However, it's most loyal customers, the ones who buy the most games and invest the most time on PSN and so lost the most from this outage, aren't getting much from this "goodwill gesture that isn't a gift". The response Sony wanted from this gesture was, "wow Sony, that's great!" For some, possibly loads and loads, the offering is great, but for others it isn't, and that could have been simply solved just by extending the offerings. Add to those five games Flower, Fat Princess, PixelJunk Monsters, PixelJunk Shooter, and some others. Heck, Sony can look at what games have been bought the least and ensure they have on offer titles that are both quality but didn't get massive recognition. What's so bad about offering a little more choice to please more people that you'd rather Sony didn't?

There have to be limits, though. You can always say the list wasn't big enough, it should have included this or that, but you're always going to have some tiny number of superfans who already own everything. Of course Sony has the numbers. We could probably also look at sales of the included games and conclude the number of owners who own every single one is already statistically insignificant. We can conclude that based on Dead Nation's sales alone. Let's be generous and say it sold 500K, against an installed base of 50 million worldwide? That is 1% of PS3 owners. Now what fraction of that 1% also happens to own every single other game on the list? We aren't talking about 80% being covered here, we're well over 99%. And even those super-loyal customers are still getting extensions on their PS Plus accounts and free movie rentals and stuff, so they aren't really "getting nothing".

I already own LBP, Q4B and Infamous. I don't care for Dead Nation or Wipeout. Sony should have offered at least one choice that would be useful for everyone, regardless of which games they own.

Yes, if Sony had this imaginary game with universal appeal that miraculously no one owned, they should have offered that. Point conceded.

How about some PSN store credit, I buy what I want. Is that really so difficult to think of?

Everything give away now is Sony trying to get off easy. It's really old stuff that no longer sells in any decent amount. It's almost worthless to them.

If they want do a proper "welkom back" they should try harder.

Yes, Sony, the victim of a criminal attack on their network that has already caused tens of millions of dollars in damages to their business is trying to get off easy when they offer a good variety of free games to tens of millions of customers for their minor inconvenience. At this point if you aren't pleased with the lengths to which Sony has gone to extend an olive branch to affected customers...

Precisely, and IMO the limit was set too low.

And going by that reasoning alone, this is a valid selection. Very few people will have all those games, so everyone will be getting something for nothing. However, if the games a person gets aren't games they enjoy, then the gift is without value, and that's the issue here. The two games on that list I'd be interested in, I bought, because I was interested in them, and that's got to be the same for most people. So the selection is too limited to offer value to everyone, even if it offers an unowned game to everyone. Yes, the limit had to be set somewhere, but at five games it strikes me as too limiting. 10 games would have provided a lot more scope for variety. It'd encompass more situations where a person was interested in a game but never bought it because there were other games or they were unsure (like Flower), so this freebie would be a welcome chance to explore things people don't own. A voucher would have meant everyone got something they valued, although that'd cost a lot to Sony so I can understand not going that route.

That'd cost too much money. $5 for each account (not customer) would cost in excess of $350 million. By offering only Sony published games that Sony have already paid for and which are old enough that not many people would still be interested in buying new, Sony aren't losing anything on this offer. When you factor in all the other costs associated with this episode, I don't see Sony as having any other choice, and this is the best anyone can fairly expect, except they should have offered a wider range of titles from their library IMO.

I think Cornsnake means enough titles that there is one of value for everyone, and not one title that serves everyone.

I have to agree that Sony has shown an amazing service guarantee and amazing planning for such a huge incident. It shows their professionalism and serious dedication.
Their compensation plan idea is very good.
I dont think anyone should complain that Sony has ignored the consumer or tried to trick him because I see the opposite. But I can understand some disappointment with the free game selection list. Not because offering games to choose from a list of 5 is bad (it is actually a great idea and move from Sony), but that the selection chosen may not appeal to a great deal of people either because they have already bought the games they are interested in or that they are too niche to interest a larger group.
There is some room to improve the list. Motorstorm 2 and some PSOne games are good candidates

I would have liked Mod Nation Racers for PS3 instead of PSP version.
Infamous is the only game in that list for PS3 that I don't own, and that's already a pretty good compensation for me, plus 2 months free PSN+.
I would have liked the second PS3 game too, however. PSP games I don't really care, as my old PSP is currently out of battery.
Will the free Home items be for EU too (not that I care much)?

Though I actually own everything on that list I'm not that bothered. If we have a months worth of Qriocity for free and maybe some film rental then I'm good. Sony's made a goodwill gesture. It says more about the people who complain about getting free stuff than it does about Sony.

I'm more impressed by the actual speed in which they've got a such a complicated service back on its feet. Good job Sony!