Support NeoGAF

[mejin]

Plus has better offering than GwG for the simple fact MS wants you to get gamepass too.

Quantity is something they can easily fix too.

 

[jshackles]

Only the 360 ones not sure about ogxbox.
for Xbone you dont get to keep anything.

The OG Xbox games are also yours to keep forever.

The Xbox One games you get to keep as long as you're subscribed to Gold, this is no different than ALL PS+ games.

 

[Jigsaah]

Plus has better offering than GwG for the simple fact MS wants you to get gamepass too.

Quantity is something they can easily fix too.

Sooooo....Sony doesn't want you to get PSNow?

Explain yourself.

 

[mejin]

Sooooo....Sony doesn't want you to get PSNow?

Explain yourself.

I think they're taking their sweet time. Few countries have this service and they don't have any insane promo like MS usually do for people to know gamepass.

Anyway, Gamepass is a better service than psnow imo

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Games with gold is giving away Metal Gear Rising this month. That alone should make it better then PS+ to you.

So you are telling me that Metal Gear Rising is better than Bloodborne ?

 

[Xenon]

I'm not so sure that's true. It's impossible to prove either way though. So I'll just leave it at that.

Question though, Microsoft trying to become the Netflix of gaming...going to all devices...is that a product of Sony as well in your opinion because they had PSNow on Samsung TVs and Sony phones and PC?

I ask because it's a similar principle.

Also, is nobody considering the possibility that Sony stopped offering PS3 and vita games because they want to include these games as PSNow offerings next gen?

I think MS and Sony are both looking for more service based offerings. It's hard to say games for gold was as a direct response to PSNow, I think it was more about adding value to their platform due to the limited number of strong exclusives and being behind Sony in market share. But I'm sure PSNow was also a consideration.

This doens't really work and leans more toward wars.

The thread is talking about amount of give away games, and the 360 being more active with users, but most importantly, allowing BC with Xbox One, are amng the primary reasons Xbox is still giving away a larger number of games. with PS3 basically dead, Vita being dead in the west for like 3 years, and no BC, Sony really can't do more than two unless they want to give away 4 PS4 games which is a bit silly.

I mean they COULD do that but it's clear they don't want to. Even MS doesn't give away 4 Xbox One games they have the 360 take up the other slot, or the original Xbox.

I just thanked Sony for offering the games in the first place since I believe that it was directly responsible for MS creating the games for gold program and also pointed out that the extra value CB added.

Which is yet another way Microsoft has the superior program. The BC games they give away with Gold are permanently tied to your account, and can be played even if your subscription lapses.

I totally forgot that BC titles were owned if you downloaded them. God bless the quirkyness of the 360 legacy store. It sucks that you need a valid credit card but getting games for good is a nice trade off.

 

[Jigsaah]

I think they're taking their sweet time. Few countries have this service and they don't have any insane promo like MS usually do for people to know gamepass.

Anyway, Gamepass is a better service than psnow imo

Hold up...to be clear, I'm asking how is Sony giving a better offering due to Microsoft wanting people to sign up to Gamepass. I don't understand the basis of your logic when you say this. How do GWG and Gamepass this relate?

And what does it matter if Gamepass is the better service? I'm lost.

 

[jshackles]

So you are telling me that Metal Gear Rising is better than Bloodborne ?

Well, "better" is a pretty subjective term. Both games cost $19.99 digitally so the value proposition between the two is equal.

 

[Kagey K]

So you are telling me that Metal Gear Rising is better than Bloodborne ?

To the user I was replying to it might be. I don’t know his tastes, and not everyone is a fan of the soulsborne games.

 

[Jigsaah]

Well, "better" is a pretty subjective term. Both games cost $19.99 digitally so the value proposition between the two is equal.

On it's face, yes...but Metal Gear Rising is a game from last gen. The fact that it's still 19.99 should be taken into consideration. Not saying it's a better game. Matter of fact, I pretty much would have to doubt that it is. However, the value proposition is different. I think, for the time it became available, Bloodborne was the better deal because of the time between its original release and it's availability on PS+.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

To the user I was replying to it might be. I don’t know his tastes, and not everyone is a fan of the soulsborne games.

According to this argument then we could say the same about EVERY game and conclude that as long as Sony gives 4 games each month it doesnt matter which titles are, from Flower to Uncharted 4. Because, hey, its subjective.

Pretty funny, considering that Sony was giving VR games for several months in a row and I never read any appreciation for that aside the VR crowd.


But in any case it's obvious Microsoft has the better service. Of course, that is their MAIN proposal of value. Neither Sony nor Nintendo revolve around services as a main purchasing factor.

 

[jshackles]

On it's face, yes...but Metal Gear Rising is a game from last gen. The fact that it's still 19.99 should be taken into consideration. Not saying it's a better game. Matter of fact, I pretty much would have to doubt that it is. However, the value proposition is different. I think, for the time it became available, Bloodborne was the better deal because of the time between its original release and it's availability on PS+.

I agree with you there, but another thing to consider is that Metal Gear Rising is free this month and you get to keep it forever. Your ongoing costs to access the content are $0, but your ongoing costs to continue to access Bloodborne is the price of your Plus subscription ($5 a month or whatever it works out to).

 

[Nymphae]

Yea I don't think it's so much about the sales as I believe they want to increase the value of what they would offer on PSNow for next gen.

There is also one other explanation but it's a super longshot. They figured out BC and are going to start offering games for PS3 and Vita for purchase...but even then, you can buy PS3 games and vita games on PS4 now can't you? I've never actually bought a ps3 game on my PS4 and I don't own a Vita so I actually don't know how this works. Do you buy it and then have to plug in your PS3 to play it?

I don't think you can buy PS3 content on your PS4, not 100% sure though. Pretty sure you need to purchase stuff on the console you want it on, or through the website.

 

[Jigsaah]

I agree with you there, but another thing to consider is that Metal Gear Rising is free this month and you get to keep it forever. Your ongoing costs to access the content are $0, but your ongoing costs to continue to access Bloodborne is the price of your Plus subscription ($5 a month or whatever it works out to).

Good point. I forgot that because its Sony this is basically one of the many carrots hung in front of you to keep you running on the PS+ treadmill. If Metal Gear Rising was a current gen game though...it would fall to the same pretense right? You'd have to keep paying for Xbox Live to keep playing it. If so, then I guess techically it would depend on how much you plan on staying with the respective services.

In my case, I've been an Xbox Live subscriber for 15 years...since day one, playing Mechassault the day it came out. Ive never had a lapse.

Sony's service was free until relatively recently, and I was playin all my multiplayer (multiplat) games on Xbox Live even back then. I wasn't going to pay for 2 services at once when ps4 came out, but I have bought stints of PS+ to play certain games for a month or two.

I guess my point is, since I pretty much never plan on ending my Xbox Live subscription the value is greater for their offerings because I have Xbox Live for so many other reasons having nothing to do with GWG. On my PS4, I don't play many multiplayer games and so PS+ innately has less value for me.

 

[mejin]

Hold up...to be clear, I'm asking how is Sony giving a better offering due to Microsoft wanting people to sign up to Gamepass. I don't understand the basis of your logic when you say this. How do GWG and Gamepass this relate?

And what does it matter if Gamepass is the better service? I'm lost.

quality of the titles offered on GwG is worse thanks to GS. you are free to disagree.

 

[Punished Miku]

Yeah, Sony is arrogant and is objectively behind on services and value offered at this point.

They have far better exclusives and better studios, but that's about it right now. They also have frequent, good sales on digital games which I do like.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yeah, Sony is arrogant and is objectively behind on services and value offered at this point.

Both quite subjective and not something I can really ageee with honestly, especially the “arrogant Sony” meme like one.

 

[Punished Miku]

Both quite subjective and not something I can really ageee with honestly, especially the “arrogant Sony” meme like one.

Well, it is a bit of a meme at this point. But they are objectively taking away content and not lowering any prices to compensate. The mindset is, "they will buy it anyway."

What else do I call that?

 

[Jigsaah]

quality of the titles offered on GwG is worse thanks to GS. you are free to disagree.

Ahhhhh ok I see where you're coming from now. Maybe...but I would think to have a game offered on game pass would be a significantly bigger deal that to offer it on GWG. So I think they would pick and choose which games go where. But I see your point and lack the knowledge to really be able to tell if thats the case or not. I mean Metal Gear Rising is a pretty good game. That's just one example though.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Well, it is a bit of a meme at this point. But they are objectively taking away content and not lowering any prices to compensate. The mindset is, "they will buy it anyway."

What else do I call that?

I think that it is fair to say that somewhat, but the post PS3 and PS Vita free titles support in 2019 is a bit of a different issue for something that is still well priced.

It is fair also to say that for tons of customers the extra was something they were not taking advantage of I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt the service will keep improving past this and not raise prices (I might be wrong, but I do not think the PSN+ prices have varied much in the last few years despite them offering tons of content).

Any corporation is at that point arrogant and anti consumer when they make a profit or try to grow their profit margins at all if you want to take it to the extreme.

Sure, value for money may still be good for some people (and it can change over time, some people have reasonable hope, but not good for others.
Back when PS3 launched with user swappable bigger HDD (cheaper for consumers to replace / upgrade too), WiFi and Ethernet built-in (as opposed to proprietary add-one), one of the best Blu-Ray players on the market, SACD support, CF/SD/MS reader, full PS1 and PS2 discs compatibility, and selling consumers something worth a LOT more than they were asking them to pay, etc... they were apparently the arrogant ones .

 

[jshackles]

(I might be wrong, but I do not think the PSN+ prices have varied much in the last few years despite them offering tons of content).

The price of PS+ in the US rose from $50 a year to $60 a year in September of 2016, so about two and a half years ago. That has been the only price increase here since the service began in 2010. Other areas worldwide have had similar increases, notably Europe in late 2017 (just a few months before they announced they would be dropping PS3 and Vita games from PS+).

So it's easy to see why people, especially those gamers in Europe, would see this as less value for more cost.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The price of PS+ in the US rose from $50 a year to $60 a year in September of 2016, so about two and a half years ago. That has been the only price increase here since the service began in 2010. Other areas worldwide have had similar increases, notably Europe in late 2017 (just a few months before they announced they would be dropping PS3 and Vita games from PS+).

So it's easy to see why people, especially those gamers in Europe, would see this as less value for more cost.

Fair, but overall even in Europe a single modest increase (considering we would be getting PS4 titles... and titles are getting costlier to make and to give away too I bet) in like 10 years from $50 to $60 is not like a royal rip off either...

 

[Verdanth]

Lol I wonder why MS is giving twice the games...

 

[DeepEnigma]

The price of PS+ in the US rose from $50 a year to $60 a year in September of 2016, so about two and a half years ago. That has been the only price increase here since the service began in 2010. Other areas worldwide have had similar increases, notably Europe in late 2017 (just a few months before they announced they would be dropping PS3 and Vita games from PS+).

So it's easy to see why people, especially those gamers in Europe, would see this as less value for more cost.

They were just matching the competition. Hue Hue Hue.

But I do think they need to step something up as an incentive, if not more games, then another creative perk.

I wonder what they do have cooking.

 

[Clear]

You don't wanna have this discussion with me, you will lose every time.

Well, you're right about the first part of that statement (it'd be a derail), but the second... Don't think so.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

2 X 0 = 0
Sony doesn't give their games away they just let you borrow them as long as you have PS+.

This is also true

 

[Kagey K]

Lol I wonder why MS is giving twice the games...

As do I. Care to enlighten the rest of us? I have some thoughts, but I would love to hear yours first.