Heckler456
Banned
Oh god, who fucking cares. It's not misleading, everyone knows what it means, so what the hell is the problem?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So... PS+ games still listed as "Free" in US but not in EU
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Real_Madrid
Member
PS EU and other regions are separate beings. They have different stores, sales, deals, ...
Why couldn't they say that you get Just Cause 3 and Freedom Cry for free with PS+? It's the truth and everyone knows what it means.
If you have PS+ you get Just Cause 3 and Freedom Cry at no extra cost, thus for free. That it's with a license and conditions is normal. Every digital purchase comes with a license and conditions.
Heckler456
Banned
What? I'm not saying I don't care. I'm commenting on the uselessness of the argument in and of itself. Questioning the validity of the argument can be part of the argument, you know.
It's a forum to express your views, are only allowed to comment if you're as outraged as you?
SomedayTheFire
Member
I can't believe people still argue about this nonsense.
Real_Madrid
Member
I've read this here for years, some people really get irritated when you call PS+ games free, for some reason.
Well I guess the argument can be made about which is service and which is incentive, but colloquially speaking I don't think anyone can genuinely argue about feeling misled. We all understand the distinction, some people are just choosing to take issue with it.
Well, you implied that nobody cares about that. Seeing all the answers, I'd say that a lot of people care. But I misinterpreted your first line so it's my fault.
Don't put words in my mouth, he answered that no one cares about that because everyone knows what it mean. I never said that he should care.
I do think that people are misled by thinking, with a certain reasoning, that something is free. You see it a lot in some threads where people defends a corporation or simply talk about their backlogs and say stuff like "I played all of these for free !". If it was only a genuine error, no big deal. But very frequently people are arguing the opposite, that they're only paying for a part of the service or whatever. It's not an accurate description of the situation, partly because people use Sony's (or any company) marketing wording to talk about online services.
yeah, we're not talking about "colloquially speaking" though, we're talking about wording used in advertising, and there's regulations in place.
I'm not gonna jump on you when you say "Just Cause is free this month, yay!", but consumer protection and advertising regulations are a whole different monster, and i appreciate what the EU is doing here.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
This. It's a legal requirement.
It's a matter of understanding. The marketing translates because the understanding is the same. If an accountant offers to review your books for a rate and offers an incentive or a security firm offers to watch your business but throw an alarm on your house for free, the principals of commerce don't change. Arguing digital versus physical in this instance is just pedantry because all of us understand exactly what is meant buy "FREE".
MemoryHumanity
Member
Different laws.
Fbh
Member
From a legal standpoint I understand the importance of this issue.
Still find it silly how people lose their mind on GAF when someone talks about free PS+ games because ltierally everyone understands what the person is saying in context.
Like, someone will say they don't mind Ps+ so much since they enjoy the free games, and instead of countering with a good argument like the fact that you can't choose which games or that you could spend those $60 on several smaller games you actually want, or you can't play them anymore when your subscription runs out .... They have a mini outrage because someone used the word free.
I don't know.
I was in London for the first time last week and got a London Pass for a few days since it was cheaper than paying the entry to all places separately.
Every attraction you could visit with the London Pass was marked as Free in both the website and the guide they give you.
Still find it silly how people lose their mind on GAF when someone talks about free PS+ games because ltierally everyone understands what the person is saying in context.
Like, someone will say they don't mind Ps+ so much since they enjoy the free games, and instead of countering with a good argument like the fact that you can't choose which games or that you could spend those $60 on several smaller games you actually want, or you can't play them anymore when your subscription runs out .... They have a mini outrage because someone used the word free.
I don't know.
I was in London for the first time last week and got a London Pass for a few days since it was cheaper than paying the entry to all places separately.
Every attraction you could visit with the London Pass was marked as Free in both the website and the guide they give you.
King Gilga
Member
It'd be easier to justify calling them them 'free' if you didn't lose access to the games as soon as your sub lapsed.
No extra cost is not the same as free. I cant believe so many people, like yourself, fail to grasp this. Free is free. No extra cost is not free, it means no extra cost on top of what you've paid. Big difference.
Likw when I break down, my insurance company gives me a courtesy car for no extra cost. Is it free to use? No. I don't pay extra for it but you can be damn sure the cost was covered in my massive annual payment.
This!
There's a reason Tidal doesn't advertise "Get Jay-Z's 4:44 Free" and Netflix doesn't advertise "Get Stranger Things Season 1 Free." They're streaming services, the catalogue of titles is included with the fee. Similarly, Playstation Now doesn't advertise FREE The Last of Us.
But the Playstation Plus titles are advertised as free (in the US, at least) despite the fact that your access to them is contingent upon a continued subscription. Why? Because they're downloaded to your system instead of streamed? Because most music streaming services (including Tidal, Spotify, and Apple Music) allow you to download songs to listen to offline that you lose access to once your subscription lapses, just like PS+ games. Netflix also allows this with many titles (and I think Amazon Prime does as well).
I'm a PS+ subscriber on two different accounts (US & JP), as well as an XBL subscriber. I enjoy both services. It's still bullshit marketing though.
But the Playstation Plus titles are advertised as free (in the US, at least) despite the fact that your access to them is contingent upon a continued subscription. Why? Because they're downloaded to your system instead of streamed? Because most music streaming services (including Tidal, Spotify, and Apple Music) allow you to download songs to listen to offline that you lose access to once your subscription lapses, just like PS+ games. Netflix also allows this with many titles (and I think Amazon Prime does as well).
I'm a PS+ subscriber on two different accounts (US & JP), as well as an XBL subscriber. I enjoy both services. It's still bullshit marketing though.
Shifty
Member
So if I take a hacksaw to the supermarket and chop the "25% extra free" bit off a bottle of shampoo, I get to take it home without paying, right?
You're not getting anything for free. It's marketing designed to contextualize a product's value relative to its competitors. (Or trick you into thinking you're getting a better deal than you really are, depending on your perspective.)
Given that it ultimately does affect purchasing decisions, having it legislated is a good thing.
And all you people with the "everyone knows what it means" narrative can geddouttahere. That shit really is the 'git gud' of consumer rights threads, just because something is the norm doesn't mean it shouldn't be scrutinized.
You're not getting anything for free. It's marketing designed to contextualize a product's value relative to its competitors. (Or trick you into thinking you're getting a better deal than you really are, depending on your perspective.)
Given that it ultimately does affect purchasing decisions, having it legislated is a good thing.
And all you people with the "everyone knows what it means" narrative can geddouttahere. That shit really is the 'git gud' of consumer rights threads, just because something is the norm doesn't mean it shouldn't be scrutinized.
RyanHardy101
Banned
People should care that things that aren't free are listed as free.
hydrophilic attack
Member
EU actually has consumer protection laws worth a damn
I am surprised Sony hasn't gone for a Netflix model (yet). The fact that you have to "buy" your PS+ games to attach them to your account is silly imo. Just let me access the full library of PS+ games when I subscribe.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
It's like a coupon deal. If you buy a large drink you get a free hamburger. It's a "free with..." deal. It's not like Netflix because Netflix is a streaming license. Access to movies on netflix is dependent on your subscription. Once you stop paying, you no longer have access to the movies. With PS+, the part that's like netflix is specifically services like the online multiplayer for example. Once you stop paying, you no longer have access. That isn't the case for games you get while subscribed to PS+. If you buy a game at a big discount, you don't suddenly owe the remainder after you stop the service. If you get the game free, you don't lose the game once you stop paying. Once you get it, it's yours. Your subscription to the PS+ service got you a reduced price. What PS+ is is a multiplayer license that additionally offers reduced prices on games (up to 100%). Ending your PS+ account simply stops you from receiving future deals.
Edit: Nevermind, I was so wrong and feel horrible... and am kinda pissed, I thought the free games were mine to keep. Damn.
anothertech
Member
Way I see it, I was getting ps+ to play online. The free games I add to my library each month. When I stop paying for ps+ do I still have access to those games?
No, you need to keep paying to have access to them.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Edit:
What the heck??? I thought they were yours forever. Holy crap... Nevermind.
In this specific instance, why should we care? What is the actual effect of referring to the PS+ games as "free" vs listing it in some other way. How is the average PSN consumer in the U.S. worse off than in other countries that list it differently?
elaborate?
When your PS+ subscriptions runs out, you cannot play these games anymore.
when something is free, it is implied that you receive ownership without having to pay. - you're essentially purchasing it for $ 0.00.
If you buy a free app on iOS or the Google Play store, that app is yours (unless it's removed from the marketplace altogether, something that basically never happens) - and, at least on iOS, even if it gets pulled from the store, you can still download it.
If you "purchase" a "free with PS+" game - the moment your PS+ subscription runs out, your license to play that game gets revoked.
It's like ... it's not a "gift" if the other person eventually wants to have it back.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
I'm stupid and was ill informed?
Absolutely no one is confused by that point just because of how it is listed on the store. And how does the way the EU lists it make that point any clearer?
Did you miss the very poster above you thinking the games were theirs forever?
Also, "this month on PS plus" more strongly implies it's part of your PS+ subscription.
"free" implies you're making a purchase.
Neither wording is perfect. Both require some small print. But the former is definitely less misleading as saying "free"
That doesn't disprove anything.
And I don't think "this month on Ps Plus"implies that at all." If anything, it implies you only have access for a month.
Edit - ah, so I see you edited in a disclaimer that admits I'm right. Your apology is accepted.
If you say "absolutely no one" and i point out that right before your thread a conversation happened where a person had been confused vis-a-vis their ownership of their PS+ games, i feel that disproves it.
what an absolutely charming way to have a conversation.
What proof is there that he was confused by the "free" listing? Why should I be "charming" toward someone who is being willfully obtuse. If anything, the way it is listed in the EU is more confusing, while doing nothing to inform of the fact that you lose access when the sub runs out.
Similar threads
- Locked