Bolivar687
Banned
The games are so bad that I don't even check them anymore. Blows my mind to learn Sony still isn't giving away AAA games, three and a half years into the generation.
-
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.
PlayStation Plus update: Sony planning big changes
- Thread starter Eylos
- Start date
funkystudent
Member
I wonder if they could do a cheaper "pay for online" sub for sub 30 then do a games subscription service ala that thing Xbox has that has proper retail games as well as downloadable as 2 different services and also offer 1 mega sub that is both for a discount.
It's nothing personal. Just the fact that it's the Express, which belongs to British yellow press. I mean, just look at their "source" for the article and the article itself, which is basically a whole lot of nothing.
ArtificialIntelligence
Member
I am definitely not going to renew my subscription, I'm sick of their policies and indie games... I hope they show up something good at E3 about PS+
Fushichou187
Member
I think highlighting a separate sub for online only would only exacerbate the poor optics of paying for online pay. At least having games-- whether you like them or not-- and deeper discounts during sales attached to the service makes it easier for many to look past the proverbial elephant.
I think adding a VR title into the mix would be really smart and help push people to adopt PSVR in greater numbers. Not gonna lie, the main reason I bought my Vita was because I already had a large library from day 1 because I flagged PS+ Vita offerings even when I didn't own one.
Perhaps something not gaming related as well? Like a few free streaming rentals each month?
They raised the price of PS+ relatively recently. That doesn't sound like something you'd do if you were struggling for subscribers. They could always go even further and just put more things behind the PS+ paywall to make gullible people think it's more valuable. Why stop at mulitplayer access.
Devilgunman
Member
"Here, have some in game currency. We cool? "
How about some free PS Now playtime with unused hours roll over to the next month?
How about some free PS Now playtime with unused hours roll over to the next month?
I think the problem with Plus is that Sony can't take a wide audience. I mean, how many top-down shooters they gave away?
How many triple A games?
I'm not saying they need to give a triple A game each month, but if you give one title here and there you can at least satisfy many users...and PS4 is full of titles sold for pretty much nothing in stores, see Dragon Age Inquisition, Mirror's Edge, Infinite Warfare (those three can be find for 10 or less, new, here in Italy).
Even indie titles can be good, but sadly they focus on one genre and give you similar games for 2-3 months one after another. And if you are a PC user, there's a very good chance you already own those games from a 1$ bundle.
When they gave Isaac Rebirth, it was a great thing.
Same with Furi, but those are isolate cases and it's clear now Sony doesn't want to spend money to license good titles...I mean, see the XBox Live offer for this month.
I think Ubi games (and a note, I HATE collectacon from Ubisoft) are relatively cheap to license, but they would bring some satisfaction for some users at least, the one asking for triple A.
The only triple A titles Sony users got are Ground Zeroes and Infamous First like, both are just stand-alone "expansions"...Lords of the Fallen wasn't a triple A game, but I think it was a 70 game at launch at least.
In the end, I'm not saying "no" to indie games, since 99% of what I play ARE indie games, but you need to bring some fresh air in the catalogue, even platform exclusive indies like Bound, in example, could be a good incentive to subscribe.
PS3 got pretty much all crappy games lately, ancient titles and not even good ones...there are still amazing gems you can licensefor PS3, like Resonance of Fate, Dead Rising games, Resident Evil titles and so on.
How many triple A games?
I'm not saying they need to give a triple A game each month, but if you give one title here and there you can at least satisfy many users...and PS4 is full of titles sold for pretty much nothing in stores, see Dragon Age Inquisition, Mirror's Edge, Infinite Warfare (those three can be find for 10 or less, new, here in Italy).
Even indie titles can be good, but sadly they focus on one genre and give you similar games for 2-3 months one after another. And if you are a PC user, there's a very good chance you already own those games from a 1$ bundle.
When they gave Isaac Rebirth, it was a great thing.
Same with Furi, but those are isolate cases and it's clear now Sony doesn't want to spend money to license good titles...I mean, see the XBox Live offer for this month.
I think Ubi games (and a note, I HATE collectacon from Ubisoft) are relatively cheap to license, but they would bring some satisfaction for some users at least, the one asking for triple A.
The only triple A titles Sony users got are Ground Zeroes and Infamous First like, both are just stand-alone "expansions"...Lords of the Fallen wasn't a triple A game, but I think it was a 70 game at launch at least.
In the end, I'm not saying "no" to indie games, since 99% of what I play ARE indie games, but you need to bring some fresh air in the catalogue, even platform exclusive indies like Bound, in example, could be a good incentive to subscribe.
PS3 got pretty much all crappy games lately, ancient titles and not even good ones...there are still amazing gems you can licensefor PS3, like Resonance of Fate, Dead Rising games, Resident Evil titles and so on.
hanspampel
Banned
Sounds to me like this is just about the games. No big changes on the service itself.
Would love some moves and risks from Sony. They're kinda quiet on this since becoming the market leader
Would love some moves and risks from Sony. They're kinda quiet on this since becoming the market leader
Fushichou187
Member
I wonder if at least some of the sting would be lessened if they offered a remastered or HD version of a PS2 game every other month, or even quarterly? 2 PS4 titles and then a mix of some of the following: PS3, Vita, PSVR , or an HD "retro" title.
The only way they can "enhance" it is by removing the multiplayer paywall and go back to when they had inFamous 2, LBP2 and Motorstorm Apocalypse as permanent games on top of monthly ones. That's how you attract people. That, or mix it with PS Now somehow.
Make people want to subscribe, don't fucking force it down their throats with a ridiculous paywall.
Make people want to subscribe, don't fucking force it down their throats with a ridiculous paywall.
At this point I would be OK with them phasing out PS3 games and even deemhapsize Vita.
Fushichou187
Member
I think those are certainly coming, don't know which will disappear first between PS3 and Vita though; probably PS3 since I still see a decent number of titles-- indies primarily-- being launched on PS4 and Vita, so at least there's a slowly growing library there that they could pull from.
But I think having a PS+ offering that highlights "only on PS4" titles will be where it needs to head eventually. PS4 games, PSVR titles, and a "remastered for PS4" retro title would be my guess.
chrisPjelly
Member
They still haven't bothered putting year one 1st party ps4 games that are regularly on sale for $5 on the service. Not gonna get my hopes up.
Regarding phasing out the PS3 or Vita; there's still A LOT of niche PS3 titles that could really use the exposure on the service and help those developers gain publicity for their current games. Tired of seeing all these vita otome games and indie games I'd much rather play on the big screen
Regarding phasing out the PS3 or Vita; there's still A LOT of niche PS3 titles that could really use the exposure on the service and help those developers gain publicity for their current games. Tired of seeing all these vita otome games and indie games I'd much rather play on the big screen
Jason Frost
Member
Maybe we will be able to access all previous PlayStation Plus titles without having the need to "buy" them.
I cannot imagine having the thought, "AAA = good."
PS3 was 6 years old when they started to give away AAA every month.
I have no idea why I still pay for PS+ anymore. The "free" games are crap and I rarely if ever play online. The only reason I was planning on renewing was for RDR2's multiplayer when the game comes out, but since the game has been pushed back to next spring I'll probably cancel it. I'll wait to see what Sony says at E3 before I make my decision. I'd like something along the lines of PS now being free with a memebership, but I doubt that will happen.
Abzu and Tales from the Borderlands are both great. It's your loss if you passed on those.
I agree with phasing out PS3 in favor of PSVR. There's not much life left in PS3 and no b/c means I probably won't play the plus games for it.
Rellik
Member
Just buy a month or two when RDR2 comes out.
Nitty_Grimes
Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
One free PSN name change each month.
Mr. Phellps
Member
Disregarding this joke of an article, I hope Kaz's quote is a genuine intention on Sony's part. I really don't mind the indie games showing up on PS+, but I would also like to see much more AAA titles.
Yeah, I thought of that. I usually buy PS+ cards in bulk on Black Friday, but I may just skip doing that this time and only buy a month to try it. Man, I wish RDR2 was for PC.
Firestorm ZERO
Member
If I were Sony I would...
1 - Make sure every game is able to be pre-ordered before release
2 - Add a discount for pre-ordering with PS+
I currently use PS+ more for the sale discounts than the online and free games. And with Amazon Prime I saved a lot with buying retail and collector editions.
1 - Make sure every game is able to be pre-ordered before release
2 - Add a discount for pre-ordering with PS+
I currently use PS+ more for the sale discounts than the online and free games. And with Amazon Prime I saved a lot with buying retail and collector editions.
Neuromancer
Member
That was then. This is Knack.
That's a really good idea. I don't know if they would match the 20% of Amazon and BB, but even 10% would go a long way in membership retention, and hell, it might convince me to go all digital.
I Wanna Be The Guy
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
And Vita was 9 months old.
The age of the console has nothing to do with it, and PS4 still wont be getting that kind of lineup in 3 years time. The fact is that the reason Sony don't do this anymore is twofold. Firstly, the games aren't the driving force behind subs anymore. People pay to play online, so there's less incentive to make as much of an effort with the games given away. And secondly, because of the online requirement, Sony have a LOT more people subscribing. This means games aren't being given away to a small userbase anymore. They're being given away to millions and millions. Big publishers are a lot less willing to give their games away to a big userbase and lose potential sales like that. The asking price from third parties for games to go on Plus has no doubt gone up a ridiculous amount and Sony doesn't consider it worth it. Putting big games on the service is most likely just a much harder sell for what Sony would see as litte gain.
RedAssedApe
Banned
Drop PS3 and vita games outside of crossplay and include psvr and access to games through psnow. 
Discounted psvue pricing.
Discounted psvue pricing.
pretty done
Member
Please drop Vita/PS3 and start giving PS4 users better value for their money.
enixbelmont
Member
Smart move would be to transition out Vita/PS3, not drop them. Switch to 4 PS4 games and 1 PS3 and 1 Vita game, I think it'd keep people happy
KiefbladeMaster
Member
My sub has been lapsed for going on a year now, not planning on paying again until they actually make it worth the money. Still can't even change your username, lol, it's a joke.
Brat-Sampson
Member
Wait, this article's from the Daily Express?
Holy shit, GAF, please, *nobody* should be treating this as a respectable news source.
For those unfamiliar with the British Tabloids, the Express is essentially the Daily Mail's less popular (and possibly even more xenophobic) awkward cousin.
It should be ignored entirely.
Holy shit, GAF, please, *nobody* should be treating this as a respectable news source.
For those unfamiliar with the British Tabloids, the Express is essentially the Daily Mail's less popular (and possibly even more xenophobic) awkward cousin.
It should be ignored entirely.
ComputerBlue
Member
Lee Chaolan
Member
First reply wasn't Knack.
You guys are slipping.
You guys are slipping.