News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

[rockaman]

If you've only room for a 6 oz steak at $10, what good is buying a 12 oz steak for $15 even if it's better value? You just waste $5 on food that's going in the trash. Hence no matter what value PSN+ offers, it's a waste for me, and it's not a case that I'm 'not all there.' Quite the contrary, it's because I'm all there that I know not to spend money on something that's no value to me.

The difference is videogames don't spoil

A gaming laundry list doesn't mean you have to complete each game, but for the ones you do want to play, PS+ is a bargain (I have played through several SP experiences from games I got through PS+ including Uncharted GA, Gravity Rush, Super Street Fighter IV AE, Bioshock 2, Quantum Conundrum, and more... and this is on less than a year's worth of games provided). and really it makes Xbox Live look like highway robbery...

Next we are getting Uncharted 3 (which I have bought previously) and XCOM (which I have not played yet).

Just because you have excess doesn't mean you haven't used any of it. There's no mandate to use PS+ as little or as much as the player wants to.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just because you have excess doesn't mean you haven't used any of it. There's no mandate to use PS+ as little or as much as the player wants to.

But if it's to prove value for money, you have to get some use out of it. If someone pays £25 or whatever for PSN+ for a year and gains access to 500 games but doesn't have time to play any of the games, is that really good value?

 

[upnorthsox]

But if it's to prove value for money, you have to get some use out of it. If someone pays £25 or whatever for PSN+ for a year and gains access to 500 games but doesn't have time to play any of the games, is that really good value?

If you don't have any time to play games then you probably shouldn't get a game console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you don't have any time to play games then you probably shouldn't get a game console.

Let's say someone has 2 hours a week to spend playing games, which isn't unrealistic for some. Let's say they want to play FIFA or COD, which isn't unrealistic. Is a console necessary and of value? Yep. What value is PSN+ to them? Zero. that's a singular specific hypothetical case, but I can come up with more for persons with a particular interest in games that don't get representation on PSN+ or gamers who want to get a game when it's new and lively instead of waiting a year or two.

Ergo, DJ12's comment:

Anyone not already paying for plus is not all there anyway.

...is unfair. PSN+ is not great value for absolutely everyone, and you don't have to be somewhat stupid to not buy into it. PSN+ is great value. PSN+ is ideal for many gamers. It is not good value for all users of PlayStation.

 

[Kb-Smoker]

I haven't much time for games. What's the point in paying for PSN+ for me then? And with little time for games, the fact I don't get taxed to play Starhawk or Uncharted 3 online on those rare moments means I still get to enjoy them. If I had to shell out a significant fee for a feature I'll use sporadically, I may as well not bother.

IMO monetising online should be about getting people online and then selling them stuff. Like the F2P model, if it's free to enter you'll engage with the most potential customers.

Well if you don't have much time to game PS+ is very helpful in keeping the console updated. Also I would say the less you game the better the service is because it very unlikely you will own the games. Like myself I'm very busy and I don't buy that many games because I don't have that much free time to feel I got $60 out of a game.

With the web store you can do all this with out even turning on the console.

 

[DJ12]

I may have been slightly unfair Shifty, but only slightly.

Even you would benefit. Like I said there are several games I would never have bought that I thoroughly enjoyed, so much so I then bought all the DLC on offer.

I used the example of Sleeping Dogs before, I had no idea what type of game it was, I played the demo and thought it was some sort of crappy beat-em-up in the mould of final fight, but to my surprise it's a fairly decent GTA type open world game.

Anyway, to get back on topic, if PSN+ is the same on PS4 and it's communicated well (most people I know didn't know about PSN+ until I started selling them my disc games that I had received for free - All of them have it now) along with voice chat which some people care about then it's a guarenteed winner.

 

[Cjail]

Shifty if you don't have PS+ I can give you a 30 days free trial.

To go back on topic I think that Sony should allow everyone to access cloud storage.
Given the emphasis on connectivity on PS4 to me it makes sense to make clouds storage a basic service and add something else to PS+

Edit
Now that I think of it automatic software updates will be the basic on PS4 so probably PS+ as we know it toady won't exist on PS4.
Probably PS Cloud will take its place and will be the premium service on PS4.

 

[rockaman]

Let's say someone has 2 hours a week to spend playing games, which isn't unrealistic for some. Let's say they want to play FIFA or COD, which isn't unrealistic. Is a console necessary and of value? Yep. What value is PSN+ to them? Zero. that's a singular specific hypothetical case, but I can come up with more for persons with a particular interest in games that don't get representation on PSN+ or gamers who want to get a game when it's new and lively instead of waiting a year or two.

Ergo, DJ12's comment:

...is unfair. PSN+ is not great value for absolutely everyone, and you don't have to be somewhat stupid to not buy into it. PSN+ is great value. PSN+ is ideal for many gamers. It is not good value for all users of PlayStation.

Shifty we're not going that extreme, but you're going the opposite way. It's a good deal, maybe not "for you." But heck, it's still a good deal, particularly for people just starting out with a PS3 or Vita.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But if it's to prove value for money, you have to get some use out of it. If someone pays £25 or whatever for PSN+ for a year and gains access to 500 games but doesn't have time to play any of the games, is that really good value?

If the games you get and play, exceed the value you paid for PSN+, then yes
Otherwise no. Unless you really, really like software updates.

 

[dagamer]

Let's say someone has 2 hours a week to spend playing games, which isn't unrealistic for some. Let's say they want to play FIFA or COD, which isn't unrealistic. Is a console necessary and of value? Yep. What value is PSN+ to them? Zero. that's a singular specific hypothetical case, but I can come up with more for persons with a particular interest in games that don't get representation on PSN+ or gamers who want to get a game when it's new and lively instead of waiting a year or two.

Ergo, DJ12's comment:

...is unfair. PSN+ is not great value for absolutely everyone, and you don't have to be somewhat stupid to not buy into it. PSN+ is great value. PSN+ is ideal for many gamers. It is not good value for all users of PlayStation.

Eh.. Considering PS+ is the equivalent cost of a bit less than one game per year, I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone which it didn't benefit. More importantly, if you had limited funds, you are going to get way more out of it than you could ever get from a single game.

Don't forget that variety has some value too.

 

[rockaman]

I just realized NA accounts also got Deus Ex HR this month.... been wanting to play that game for a while... really enjoyed it when I tried it on PC another place.

 

[-tkf-]

Now that would be the Sony we've come to know and moan, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Haha perfection.. they are just to lazy to pick up their stuff when they drop them, like pencils and world domination.

If Plus continues , and still is a PS3,PS4,VITA thing i will hang on to that and should get online thanks to that. But in my book it's a crap move to paywall basic gaming stuff like multiplayer. Want to watch netflix on your $400 console? Subscribe to Netflix, and then Subscribed to "PSN" so you can actually access the internet..

 

[Arwin]

Eh.. Considering PS+ is the equivalent cost of a bit less than one game per year, I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone which it didn't benefit. More importantly, if you had limited funds, you are going to get way more out of it than you could ever get from a single game.

Don't forget that variety has some value too.

I was about to agree with Shifty that if you don't need it, then any money spent is a waste. But if you have even just one or two days in the year extra that you can and are willing to devote to trying out some games, and you can be bothered to once a month click on the 'buy' link for the Plus games you are interested in, then it can be pretty amazing value. The auto-patch and firmware update downloads and cloud saves are icing on the cake. So I agree in theory, but it becomes harder to imagine in practice.

Still hope that basic online play stays free though.

 

[patsu]

The cheapest way to do it is to wait for the game you want to appear in PS+, then subscribe for a month. You'll get the instant game collection plus the free or discounted game you want.

Within certain time limit, the game you downloaded should remain there when you resubscribe next time for another game.

I'm too careless and too kind to optimize the subscription this way.
But if you're like my wife, yeah you can probably save money and still retain a fair bit of control over your spending and gaming time.

 

[DJ12]

Problem with that is when your subscription runs out your free games will stop working (although I have noticed there are a few exceptions with psn games).

Your discounted game that you purchased will keep working though.

 

[dagamer]

Problem with that is when your subscription runs out your free games will stop working (although I have noticed there are a few exceptions with psn games).

Your discounted game that you purchased will keep working though.

The good thing is that when you sign up, you get access to those games again when a new subscriber wouldn't, which is why once you sign up for PS+, it's pretty hard to see a reason to quit.

PS+ only decreases in value if you end up buying a lot of games that eventually become free on the service anyway, which is a pretty ironic scenario: Sony's most fervent fans get the least value out of it.

 

[patsu]

Yes, I only play most of the games once. Didn't complete many of them.

In that sense, PS+ doesn't really limit me. I get to try a lot more games and some genra I wasn't sure.

Your mileage will vary.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Change the name of this thread to 'Convince Shifty to buy PS+'

 

[patsu]

Oh I am sure he has other priorities ! Doubt our views will change his consumption pattern.

It's more for understanding PS+. The service may be crucial for Sony (Tie in with digital distribution, multiplatform gaming, used game policies, Gaikai and what not -- all from one gamer's perspective).

 

[wco81]

I haven't bought PSN Plus either. How much is it? I guess it would be okay to get games like Uncharted 3, though by now, how much is that game worth?

But no way I would pay for online. If Sony pulls that shit, no next gen consoles then.