Support NeoGAF

[toythatkills]

Can't believe I pay $2.50 a month for PS+ and Sony aren't giving me a constant stream of brand new $60 titles for free which I could just go to a shop and buy if I wanted them that badly.

Cunts of the highest order, they should be ashamed.

 

[Hoje0308]

Please consider going back to xbox, thanks.

 

[OnPoint]

I read a bit of this thread after my previous post, and some of the posts make me kind of sad, and a little angry.

I can totally understand people having different tastes. Some people are more into AAA games, some people are more into indies. Some people like both. And that's fine, you're allowed to have your personal preference.

I can also understand the AAA fans being a little upset that they haven't received much in the way of support, especially given the offerings on PS3's version of the program. Expectations were set.

That said, what bothers me is the outright dismissal from either camp of the style of game they don't prefer. Both types of games have a place in this industry and are full of value, and both sometimes produce crap. I'll never understand why some people make it their mission to attack the other camp as a whole. It's like the console wars but on a whole different scale.

Those who are feeling underrepresented: It sucks, and you should be better represented. But you not getting what you want doesn't automatically mean what is being offered is crap. If you're unsatisfied with the service, send a message and cancel your subscription. Fill out feedback surveys and forms. Send emails. Truth is that it's been this way for almost two years now, and while expectations were set, time has shown that maybe the service just isn't meant for you anymore.

 

[IvorB]

Nothing wrong in there being a bit more balance to the offerings,imo.

No, there really isn't. I don't know why people can't just accept that rather than working so hard to persuade people to like the things they like. Those that are getting what they want don't lose anything if Sony also caters to the other crowd.

 

[SmokedMeat]

The sense of entitlement by some people in here is disgusting as fuck.

Expressing your opinion on the quality of the game offerings is not entitlement.

 

[KURDISTAN YPG]

indy games don't go with my taste so i never bothered with them @ all.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Can't believe I pay $2.50 a month for PS+ and Sony aren't giving me a constant stream of brand new $60 titles for free which I could just go to a shop and buy if I wanted them that badly.

Cunts of the highest order, they should be ashamed.

toythatkills
Corporate Lickspittle
(Today, 04:43 PM)

 

[toythatkills]

No, there really isn't. I don't know why people can't just accept that rather than working so hard to persuade people to like the things they like. Those that are getting what they want don't lose anything if Sony also caters to the other crowd.

The problem is that there's no reason they should have to. If Sony have decided that PS+ on PS4 is a service to showcase indie games, then that's what it is. They've certainly never once claimed it's something other than that. There's no reason they should have to dish out retail games just because that's what they did on PS3 - especially when they've actually continued to do that on PS3.

Personally I don't care what comes out on PS+, be it retail or indie, I'll try anything. Sure I prefer indie stuff but I've hated most of the shit Sony have put on PS4, just as I'd have probably hated most of the retail stuff they could have put on there.

It'd just be cool if people could accept the service for what it is instead of bitching because they had totally unrealistic and unfounded expectations of what it should be.

 

[RuneFactoryFanboy]

For me it’s not just PS4, but really the service in general.

As the OP pointed out, the awesome games we used to get on the service don’t happen much anymore. My time is too valuable to waste it playing indie games.

I’ve been frantically trying to finish everything in my PS+ backlog from when the service was amazing. I don’t plan to renew this December when my sub expires.

 

[Kalor]

I've enjoyed most of the games for the PS4 PS+. I don't understand the comparison between PS3 and PS4 because the PS3 has a whole generation of games to choose from while the PS4 is more limited in choice. As time goes on publishers will be more willing to put more of their games on it once sales die down.

 

[Apathy]

I read a bit of this thread after my previous post, and some of the posts make me kind of sad, and a little angry.

I can totally understand people having different tastes. Some people are more into AAA games, some people are more into indies. Some people like both. And that's fine, you're allowed to have your personal preference.

I can also understand the AAA fans being a little upset that they haven't received much in the way of support, especially given the offerings on PS3's version of the program. Factually, that's true. There's been less and I'm sure it kind of sucks to not get what you want out of a paid program, especially given how things were done previously.

That said, what bothers me is the outright dismissal from either camp of the style of game they don't prefer. Both types of games have a place in this industry and are full of value, and both sometimes produce crap. I'll never understand why some people make it their mission to attack the other camp as a whole. It's like the console wars but on a whole different scale.

Those who are feeling underrepresented: It sucks, and you should be better represented. But you not getting what you want doesn't automatically mean what is being offered is crap. If you're unsatisfied with the service, send a message and cancel your subscription. Fill out feedback surveys and forms. Send emails. Truth is that it's been this way for almost two years now. Maybe the service just isn't meant for you.

But see, indies isn't a genre and neither is AAA. To like only AAA games is liking a game only because of the amount of money it took to make it, not the quality of the substance of a game. The same is true for indie games, as some are bad. The fact that a game had a retail release and cost $60 has no actual relation to whether it is good or bad. The fact that the majority of the indie games released for ps+ for the ps4 are amazing games shouldn't be put down or ignored because they aren't AAA games.

 

[benicillin]

I've enjoyed most of the games for the PS4 PS+. I don't understand the comparison between PS3 and PS4 because the PS3 has a whole generation of games to choose from while the PS4 is more limited in choice. As time goes on publishers will be more willing to put more of their games on it once sales die down.

I predict we'll see a whole lot of retail games go on PS+ when it's finally time for some sequels to start coming out. Most of the reason PS3 was able to secure so many big games for PS+ was because publishers would use it as an opportunity to sell you on sequels or sell you on DLC - we're still really early, comparatively, in the PS4 life cycle, and the sequels/DLC just really aren't there yet. Why do you think Tomb Raider is free on GWG on X1? Because the sequel is coming out.

 

[Bluenoser]

I read a bit of this thread after my previous post, and some of the posts make me kind of sad, and a little angry.

I can totally understand people having different tastes. Some people are more into AAA games, some people are more into indies. Some people like both. And that's fine, you're allowed to have your personal preference.

I can also understand the AAA fans being a little upset that they haven't received much in the way of support, especially given the offerings on PS3's version of the program. Expectations were set.

That said, what bothers me is the outright dismissal from either camp of the style of game they don't prefer. Both types of games have a place in this industry and are full of value, and both sometimes produce crap. I'll never understand why some people make it their mission to attack the other camp as a whole. It's like the console wars but on a whole different scale.

Those who are feeling underrepresented: It sucks, and you should be better represented. But you not getting what you want doesn't automatically mean what is being offered is crap. If you're unsatisfied with the service, send a message and cancel your subscription. Fill out feedback surveys and forms. Send emails. Truth is that it's been this way for almost two years now, and while expectations were set, time has shown that maybe the service just isn't meant for you anymore.

It's not so simple for AAA to be offered up at the rate at which indies are though. It's like going to a restaurant where kids eat free, and demanding that adults eat free as well. Some things are doable within a budget, while others aren't, so the free games they give you access to are a bonus for having to pay for an online gaming subscription. They don't have to do it at all. MS happily took people's money for 9 years without giving anything back, and they only created games with gold because they looked like greedy fucks next to PS+.

That said, sure it would have been nice for a AAA or two from 2013 to be made available. I was actually pleasantly surprised when Injustice came out since it was still somewhat new.

People can bitch and moan about PS+ not offering value, but at the end of the day it's so damn subjective, that it's really not worth arguing about. GwG would be useless to me for example... I already own TR: DE. and AC Black Flag doesn't interest me. There goes their value proposition (for ME). Still some others are obviously tickled pink that they get these AMAZING games with their sub.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

The problem is that there's no reason they should have to. If Sony have decided that PS+ on PS4 is a service to showcase indie games, then that's what it is. They've certainly never once claimed it's something other than that. There's no reason they should have to dish out retail games just because that's what they did on PS3 - especially when they've actually continued to do that on PS3.

Personally I don't care what comes out on PS+, be it retail or indie, I'll try anything. Sure I prefer indie stuff but I've hated most of the shit Sony have put on PS4, just as I'd have probably hated most of the retail stuff they could have put on there.

It'd just be cool if people could accept the service for what it is instead of bitching because they had totally unrealistic and unfounded expectations of what it should be.

Was it specifically stated that psn + woould only offer indie titles? If it is a decision they've taken, then it should be communicated to consumers explicitly.

 

[ComputerBlue]

I think it's about time we do get some full retail games in there to get some balance so everyone gets a bit of what they want, I don't expect one every month to have fairly new AAA games as there really aren't that many compared to what's available on PS3. But so far we've had one retail game, Injustice and that was back in Dec. (GZ doesn't count)

One in 2 years is pretty bad. People cannot defend the lack of AAA games on it anymore.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

I predict we'll see a whole lot of retail games go on PS+ when it's finally time for some sequels to start coming out. Most of the reason PS3 was able to secure so many big games for PS+ was because publishers would use it as an opportunity to sell you on sequels or sell you on DLC - we're still really early, comparatively, in the PS4 life cycle, and the sequels/DLC just really aren't there yet. Why do you think Tomb Raider is free on GWG on X1? Because the sequel is coming out.

Yeah, it's a marketing tool as well. God of War 3 Remaster will probably be on Plus before IV comes out for example.

 

[Future]

Game companies kind of want you to buy their games you know.

Maybe they got you an the allure of free games (which exist), but really you are paying for online services in games following Microsoft lead. Free games is a perk and mainly a sales tactic to get some developers attention. Not so you can avoid paying for games

 

[toythatkills]

Was it specifically stated that psn + woould only offer indie titles? If it is a decision they've taken, then it should be communicated to consumers explicitly.

They stated explicitly that they would provide two games a month for PS4, which they have done every single month since then, often offering even more than that.

Can't really argue that they're not holding up their end of the deal, if you're looking at the facts.

 

[Donos]

Still a rather new PS4 player but when i had a PS3, PS+ was worth 10 times the fee. I always was someone who bought very little games and only rented them for PS3 so PS+ gave me a ton of games i would never have bought and maybe even not rented. A lot of them suprised me (Sleeping Dogs, Binary Domain etc.). Add the huge amount of "AAA" they gave away for PS3 and PS+ was really fantastic.

As a PS4 user i can see why some complain (about indi hipster gameZ but once the library is big enough, they are probably going to add more retail games. And if not, i really don't care anymore. I have just to many games anyway and a little kid is on the way (imalreadydead.jpg).

 

[TheSlySoul]

I predict we'll see a whole lot of retail games go on PS+ when it's finally time for some sequels to start coming out. Most of the reason PS3 was able to secure so many big games for PS+ was because publishers would use it as an opportunity to sell you on sequels or sell you on DLC - we're still really early, comparatively, in the PS4 life cycle, and the sequels/DLC just really aren't there yet. Why do you think Tomb Raider is free on GWG on X1? Because the sequel is coming out.

Yeah, I can see Watch Dogs being offered when 2 comes out.

 

[IvorB]

The problem is that there's no reason they should have to. If Sony have decided that PS+ on PS4 is a service to showcase indie games, then that's what it is. They've certainly never once claimed it's something other than that. There's no reason they should have to dish out retail games just because that's what they did on PS3 - especially when they've actually continued to do that on PS3.

Personally I don't care what comes out on PS+, be it retail or indie, I'll try anything. Sure I prefer indie stuff but I've hated most of the shit Sony have put on PS4, just as I'd have probably hated most of the retail stuff they could have put on there.

It'd just be cool if people could accept the service for what it is instead of bitching because they had totally unrealistic and unfounded expectations of what it should be.

I actually agree with you. I've said before that Sony should just come clean and let people know what they should expect be it small scale games, so-called AAA games or whatever then everybody knows where they stand. The problem comes when Sony has set an expectation for the service with the PS3 offerings and then completely shifts to something different without any communication of what is happening.

 

[ComputerBlue]

Game companies kind of want you to buy their games you know.

Maybe they got you an the allure of free games (which exist), but really you are paying for online services in games following Microsoft lead. Free games is a perk and mainly a sales tactic to get some developers attention. Not so you can avoid paying for games

What? It was ONLY about games for years, and the games they offered were generally very varied, from small indie games, PS1 classics and big budget AAA games. There was no allure about it, there was no online paywall, it was just about the games.

 

[OnPoint]

But see, indies isn't a genre and neither is AAA. To like only AAA games is liking a game only because of the amount of money it took to make it, not the quality of the substance of a game. The same is true for indie games, as some are bad. The fact that a game had a retail release and cost $60 has no actual relation to whether it is good or bad. The fact that the majority of the indie games released for ps+ for the ps4 are amazing games shouldn't be put down or ignored because they aren't AAA games.

Then "genre" was the wrong word, but that's semantics at this point. I'm an indie dev and former indie games journalist, so believe me, I am aware budget does not denote quality, and that quality can be good or bad regardless of price. If you've ever read my post history or seen my body of work, you'd never question that.

That said, I don't know what you're arguing from my post. Nothing you said really applies to what I said.

It's not so simple for AAA to be offered up at the rate at which indies are though. It's like going to a restaurant where kids eat free, and demanding that adults eat free as well. Some things are doable within a budget, while others aren't, so the free games they give you access to are a bonus for having to pay for an online gaming subscription. They don't have to do it at all. MS happily took people's money for 9 years without giving anything back, and they only created games with gold because they looked like greedy fucks next to PS+.

That said, sure it would have been nice for a AAA or two from 2013 to be made available. I was actually pleasantly surprised when Injustice came out since it was still somewhat new.

People can bitch and moan about PS+ not offering value, but at the end of the day it's so damn subjective, that it's really not worth arguing about. GwG would be useless to me for example... I already own TR: DE. and AC Black Flag doesn't interest me. There goes their value proposition (for ME). Still some others are obviously tickled pink that they get these AMAZING games with their sub.

I get that it's not that simple. But I can sympathize with the AAA camp feeling shortchanged. Regardless, I feel like some people will never be happy with indie games just because they are indie games. There's clearly a bias.

 

[toythatkills]

Yeah, I can see Watch Dogs being offered when 2 comes out.

"Watch_Dogs_____2 today saw the highest number of pre-order cancellations in the history of our industry, after Watch_Dogs was released as part of Sony's PlayStation Plus program."

 

[Voysa Reezun]

I would like retail games (for the folks saying "Just buy KZ: SF," the point is that why buy when I think I can get it for free if I hold out? Also, for something like KZ, multi will pick up again when LOTS of people all get it at once).

HOWEVER, because there is at least one good game every couple months, and that game likely retails at $15-20 without PS+, this service pays for itself in about four months at the earliest. I have a PS4 and Vita, so actually, this service pays for itself in about a month or two of the year-long subscription.

I do think there is something to be said for variety. I think that a majority of the indie games we get are platformers, puzzlers, and shmups with a smattering of arcade sports. All genres I like, but yes, I would like to get retail games that tend to cover other genres (FPS, TPS, open-world, etc.).

But that complaint is minor and overall, I think that the PS+ game selection kicks ass.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Was it specifically stated that psn + woould only offer indie titles? If it is a decision they've taken, then it should be communicated to consumers explicitly.

It's clearly not a decision they've taken when lots of the games they've offered aren't indies.

 

[longdi]

I think Sony could rotate AAA games. Giving away 12 AAA games per year is hard these days, but 4-6 titles in a year should soften their financial burden. It looks better to have 1 free AAA games a month and good for new PS+ joiners who would have missed certain games otherwise. KZ, Infamous and Knack all should be free by now.

To be fair, even on Steam, 75% of the games population are Indy theses days. I feel the burst of Indy games are losing their novelty and for companies like Sony, allows them to close an eye and let them through as PS+ games. Certain Indy games should stay as Vita/Portable/Mobile games. It makes no sense to play them on large 50" HDTV comfy sofa or 6-8TFLOPs PC!

 

[autoduelist]

People are still just buying their PS4s in great numbers, and to them even the launch games are 'new'. Don't expect a ton of AAA games on the service for awhile yet, but they'll come (when sequels to already this gen titles start dropping, most likely).

This idea of 'balance', though, is ridiculous. Oh, we need balance! So balance $15 games with $60 games equally! That's not how this works for your paltry $2.50 a month.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I don't really get why the year PS+ was originally introduced is important here. Sure, it came out multiple years into the PS3's, life.. and when it first hit, it fucking sucked. But they revamped it at E3 2012 which basically acted as a relaunch of the service, where it'd not be crap. From that point onwards the service routinely saw games being offered within under a year from their initial release. It's not like there was always some inherent 4+ year buffer between any full price retail offering and its appearance on PS+. You can also look to the Vita for another example. As soon as the service started on that device roughly 6 months after launch, it was already receiving games the likes of Gravity Rush, WipEout 2048, Uncharted etc. The difference in service for PS4 isn't a result of how long the machine has been around (as there are now tons of retail games that would fit the previous PS+ model from the PS3). The difference is that now they don't need those sorts of offerings in order to get people to pay the subscription, so it makes a lot less sense to go after them, rather than cheaper alternatives.

I'm going to get back to you on this one. For the most part, I agree but that's not the reason why this thread exist.

 

[GodofWine]

As a day one ps4 buyer, I'm pretty eased overall with the games, but if you bought one a month ago I can see the issue. I wouldn't be terriy upset if they put Resogun, Ground Zeroes, and Don't Starve, the infamous title, back up for new owners to grab them.

I do expect the holiday season to bring out some bigger titles.

 

[Wickerbasket]

What games are people expecting on the service? They'd have to be at least a year old and we've already had Injustice: Gods Among Us and MGS4: Ground Zero.

Do people really want Knack and Killzone that bad? Because that's the games they'll be getting.

The library of year old games isn't big enough yet to give away good AAA games. If they released the AAA games they could, people would complain that Sony were putting crap games on PS Plus.

I'd much rather have a newly released game than any of the launch titles.

 

[perfectsil]

I remember people here were saying just wait a year and we will have retail games, we are about 2 years in now

I would not have subscribed if it were optional

 

[toythatkills]

It's also worth noting that this isn't a one-way thing. As well as Sony wanting to put AAA games on the service, publishers also have to want to have their games on the service.

With the Vita, you're going to get retail games because Vita games sell like shit and so a publisher is going to make more money on Plus than they would otherwise soon after release. In the short period towards the end of the PS3's life when it was receiving the highest concentration of AAA games, likewise - people were moving onto the PS4 and so PS3 games had a very very short shelf-life and releasing them on Plus would make you more money than not. With the PS4 though, games are releasing and they're still selling, so there's currently no need for publishers to offer them on Plus - they're making more money in sales.

Over time this will change and the PS4 will receive more AAA titles, but this may be closer to the release of the PS5 and then we can have these threads all over again when Sony offer nothing but "indie trash" on Plus for PS5 and "we're getting stuff like Phantom Pain on Plus for PS4!!"

Basically, there's more at play here than just "SONY ARE RIPPING ME OFF I PAY FOUR DOLLARS FOR THIS."

 

[Roshin]

I let my PS+ suscription go out recently and was surprised by how little I missed it. The only game I actually missed was Pix the Cat, which I could pick up for a pittance. Honestly, if it wasn't for multiplayer, I wouldn't bother with it.

 

[OuterLimits]

Rayman Legends, Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition (all for Xbox One).

I'd vastly prefer an older retail game and an indie instead of two PS4 indies per month like we usually get...

That isn't bad. Wasn't aware Microsoft had improved in last few months.

So far I really love Rocket League and Skulls of the Shogun. Although I did buy and play Skulls some on 360 years ago.

The indie games are decent, but a bigger budget game every few months at least would be nice.

PS3 was outstanding. Although I don't own a Vita, it appears to have received a good selection over the last couple years as well. Although I do have a PSP and in the past, Sony did include some PSP games in their Vita category which was good for me.

 

[twobear]

The problem is that there's no reason they should have to. If Sony have decided that PS+ on PS4 is a service to showcase indie games, then that's what it is. They've certainly never once claimed it's something other than that. There's no reason they should have to dish out retail games just because that's what they did on PS3 - especially when they've actually continued to do that on PS3.

Personally I don't care what comes out on PS+, be it retail or indie, I'll try anything. Sure I prefer indie stuff but I've hated most of the shit Sony have put on PS4, just as I'd have probably hated most of the retail stuff they could have put on there.

It'd just be cool if people could accept the service for what it is instead of bitching because they had totally unrealistic and unfounded expectations of what it should be.

It's not really 'unrealistic and unfounded', it's what they did and continue to do with PS+ on PS3.

 

[Flandy]

I agree OP. PS+ was outstanding on PS3 and Vita before the PS4 came out. Now that the PS4 has released theres only been a handful of games that have interested me. I don't play online on PS4 at all so I probably won't be renewing when the time comes

 

[Afrodium]

It's fine to be disappointed in the PS+ offerings thus far, different strokes and all that, but posts like this bum me out:

For me it’s not just PS4, but really the service in general.

As the OP pointed out, the awesome games we used to get on the service don’t happen much anymore. My time is too valuable to waste it playing indie games.

So many people in this thread aren't willing to even download something and play it for five minutes to form an opinion on it. If it hasn't been plastered over IGN for the last month then it must be bad.

 

[DrkSage]

Im at work and bored as F but this thread is making it worthwhile cause this thread is gold.

Spoiler

xbox live

gold I tell yeh!

On topic: saying ps4 PS+ game have been disappointing since day 0 is a major in hyperbole from the university of hyperbole.
From the top of my head there has been games like dont starve, outlast, rouge legacy, velocity, STFU, transistor, resogun, driveclub ps+

Spoiler

lol

, binding of Isaac rebirth, dust Elysian tale, olliolli2, spelunky, strider, and the most badass game of all Rocket league.

 

[ViolentP]

The sheer number of free games I have received due to PS+ is more than enough to make me happy with the service. I have played so many games I would have otherwise skipped over and to me, that is of greater value than getting games I know I want for free.

 

[toythatkills]

It's not really 'unrealistic and unfounded', it's what they did and continue to do with PS+ on PS3.

I'll never understand why one period of time of less than one year at the end of a dying console's life is held as representative of the quality of the entire five-year life of PlayStation Plus, as if the rest of it never happened. It's like people specifically want to be convinced it's something it's not so they can be outraged.

But I won't push it, I appreciate that we both agree that Plus offers more value than before so it seems silly arguing with you.

 

[DrkSage]

The only worthwhile game that's come out on ps4 ps+ was rocket league. I didn't spend $400 on a system to play indies that my old toaster of a PC could play.

My joke detector must be broken, because if you're serious and threw away 400$ just to buy a sub and get free games uuuuffff.

 

[binarymelon]

Im at work and bored as F but this thread is making it worthwhile cause this thread is gold.

Spoiler

xbox live

gold I tell yeh!

On topic: saying ps4 PS+ game have been disappointing since day 0 is a major in hyperbole from the university of hyperbole.
From the top of my head there has been games like dont starve, outlast, rouge legacy, velocity, STFU, transistor, resogun, driveclub ps+

Spoiler

lol

, binding of Isaac rebirth, dust Elysian tale, olliolli2, spelunky, strider, and the most badass game of all Rocket league.

There are very few people saying that. Most just want a few more styles of games represented. Maybe some sports, open world or shooters. These are some of the most popular genres in gaming.

 

[ViolentP]

My joke detector must be broken, because if you're serious and threw away 400$ just to buy a sub and get free games uuuuffff.

And if Binding of Isaac: Rebirth isn't considered worth it, the user needs to reevaluate the offerings.

 

[Shadow_FFVI]

You have to remember that you got all those games like Red Dead and Ratchet because the PS3 had been out for quite some time. The PS4 library isn't really up there yet, and what is good in terms of big games are still big enough that they are trying to get a bit more real sales out of it. I give it near the end of Year 3/Star of Year 4, that's when you'll probably start to see retail games popping up commonly on the PS4 like you did on the PS3.

This should have been obvious since the beginning.

 

[MegaSackman]

So... what happened with Vote to Play or whatever it's name was? It was a one time thing?

 

[toythatkills]

So... what happened with Vote to Play or whatever it's name was? It was a one time thing?

It's an irregular thing, they'll do it now and then.

 

[Family Fry]

So... what happened with Vote to Play or whatever it's name was? It was a one time thing?

From PS blog.

To be clear, Vote to Play will not be a monthly feature, but will take place at regular intervals throughout the year. We’re really excited to launch this new exclusive feature and we hope you enjoy it!

 

[Synth]

I'll never understand why one period of time of less than one year at the end of a dying console's life is held as representative of the quality of the entire five-year life of PlayStation Plus.

June 2012 onwards. It wasn't one year, and it wasn't only after the PS4 came along.

 

[Steel]

Resogun, Rocket league and their ilk have had great value for me. Owning a vita on the side has made PS+ even more lucrative. Hell, they even had a few premium games on PS4.