It's less that they're crap and more that it's not what works on PS+. All these random smaller downloadable titles already have a low barrier of entry in terms of cost, hell Grim Fandango has regularly gone on sale for less than $5, it's $3 right now on Steam. Decembers PS+ games for PS4 are currently $8 and $1 on steam, November's are $6 and $6.25 etc. If i'm interested in these games I would just buy them because they're so damn cheap every time they go on sale. It would be nice if PS+ offered older retail games purely because I'm not paying $20-40 to try a game I might like, whereas I'm pretty okay with spending less than $10 on that chance.
You do understand Sony has a budget when trying to acquire games for ps+ right? We're paying, what, $4 and change a month per person, and they need to acquire 6 games as well as support infrastructure and turn a profit.
Think about that -- they need to spread $4 of your money across 6 games... while turning a profit. So expecting to get games that would currently cost you that $20-40 just to try seems a bit wild, right? I mean, $40 is almost the entire year's sub price!
Speaking on my behalf, it's not about the offering of smaller titles, i still would love them to be on the service, but what about both? Balance these offerings so we can have both "smaller" games and AAA.
'Balance' makes no sense.
They can't just wave a magic wand and 'balance' it.
Let's say you go out to eat 10 times. Usually it's cheap, but 1 out of those ten is a fancy expensive dinner. You can't just decide to 'balance' it and do 5 cheap meals and 5 expensive meals without completely destroying your budget.
Likewise, Sony can't just decide to randomly 'balance' smaller games and expensive AAA games. They have a budget, just like you do.
