Support NeoGAF

[OléGunner]

Dust was a very nice free game, as was Don't Starve, outside of that Sony hasn't given me anything super great that I wanted. I'm shocked we are going into the third holiday and pieces of full games weren't given away for free. Why not give out killzone single player free? Knack?

I'll ask this question again. If you want those titles so badly why not just buy them considering how old they are and dirt cheap?

If its an old ass AAA title you keep wishing for to pop up on Plus why not just dive in and experience it for yourself today?

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

Be disappointed, I'm enjoying my games.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Indeed. Your username reminds me that I need to start planning out our live action Fallout video this week. I'll try to think about it as I fall back asleep and do my best to not focus on this thread too much.

Actually, your explanation seemed like the more complicated one in this case . But good luck with that Fallout video!

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Your subscription also cover the PS+ games, they're not free and people have all the rights to complain if what they rented is disappointing.

While true, if you can't find at least *one* game out of the 3 or 4 PS4 ends up getting each month that appeals to you, I'd argue you don't actually like videogames very much, or have very narrow tastes.

The cost is low enough that even a single solid title every few months is still better than buying that game outright outside of PS+, so I just can't wrap my head around people feeling like they're not getting their money's worth here.

 

[travisbickle]

PS4 owners need PS+ to play online. Sony doesn't need to incentivize subscriptions like they did on PS3. So one of your free games every month is some piece of shit that started life on the app store, then got ported to Vita and uprezzed to 1080p. That's the new normal.

Is there even one example of PS4+ game that started as a phone game?

 

[Dangansona]

OP do you try these games? Or do you look at the cover art and notice a lack of gritty soldiers facing the camera and decide it's not "premium" enough? This goes for all the "indiestation" detractors. Fun games are fun games. If you had built your argument around a lack of a certain type of game rather than a type of budget then I would have begrudgingly understood.

 

[Srey Plaughtered]

PS+ or: How I learned to stop worrying about AAA and love the Indies.

For reals though, if it wasn't for PS+ I never would've even given a chance to Binding of Isaac or Transistor and those I rate those two games above 99% of the AAA games out there. It's a bit disappointing sure but we're also paying for online play.

 

[Bubba77]

PS+ and Xbox live are up and down. Plus gave me Resogun which is still the best game on the system(imo) and Rocket League. It also promised us Driveclub ps+ edition and eventually got around to giving that to us.....

I usually end up paying around 40 bucks for both services each year. Most times I feel like I at least got my money's worth.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

Amazes me people expect premium PS4 games for free right out of the gate on a regular basis.

PS3 had a lot of years worth of games before PS+ was a thing

EXACTLY, people seem to forget the for the first year or two of PS+ we got 2 games a month and one would be a PS1 game. I thought that was completely fine.

 

[TheSlySoul]

As evidenced by the age most PS3/Vita retail games have been upon hitting the IGC, publishers are reluctant to give away games they used to sell for $60 for free unless they're >2 years old, and obviously the PS4 doesn't have any of those.

Pretty much this. AAA Publishers are not going to want to put any games up on PS+ that are still making money. We got Ground Zero because it stopped making money.
The smaller budget philosophy is different in that putting them on PS+ can spread the word for them which is worth more than any potential profit.

Look at Club Nintendo, what was the most rewarded stuff? VC and eShop titles. It was not until years later we got Kid Icarus Uprising. They were not putting up Nintendo Land up as a reward.

Also people saying XBL Gold rewards were good make me laugh. I don't have a 360 so I never used my 3 month card yet.

 

[outunderthestars]

EXACTLY, people seem to forget the for the first year or two of PS+ we got 2 games a month and one would be a PS1 game. I thought that was completely fine.

God. I would love to have a free ps1 game every month again.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

At about 4 months ago my PS Plus subscription expired. I confess that my PS4 is turned off for a while for personal reasons, but I don't intend to subscribe again even when I turn it back on, expect if I intend to play a multiplayer based game (maybe for Uncharted, who knows).

I don't really think the Plus games are being worth the subscription for me... Yeah, I know if I sum up all the free offers, it will for sure make up for the subscription price, but it doesn't mean anything to me if I am not interested in 90% of their titles, and the ones I'm interested in are, most of the times, games I'm just slightly interested (so I could just wait and buy them pretty cheap later).

 

[blastprocessor]

Yes we have:
Injustice: Gods Among Us – Ultimate Edition
InFamous: First Light
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris

Great not.

 

[Griss]

The 'it's only been two years' argument doesn't fly with me. Look at these amazing releases from PS+ 2012.

Motorstorm Apocalypse: Released 16th March 2011; On PS+ 6th Jun 2012
Infamous 2: Released 2nd June 2011; On PS+ 6th June 2012
LittleBigPlanet 2: Released 18th January 2011; On PS+ 6th June 2012
Deus Ex: HR: Released 23rd August 2011; On PS+ 4th July 2012
Dead Space 2: Released 25th Jan 2011; On PS+ 1st Aug 2012
Batman Arkham City: Released 18th Oct 2011; On PS+ 5th Dec 2012

That's 6 amazing AAA games released within a year and a half of release in just 6 months of plus. One a month on average. I could go through and choose more. I'm not suggesting they were all this soon, but we had a steady feed of recent AAA games. The PS4 is now 2 years old. The library has filled out. Launch games are no longer selling. If they wanted to deliver recent AAA games from 12-24 months ago like they did for PS3 and Vita in the past they could, but they're clearly not willing to do that.

Note that ALL of those games were games I couldn't afford to play on release, but really wanted. Getting them with PS+ was a godsend. Without it I'd have played about a quarter of the AAA games I was able to last gen. I really, really depended on it to provide the big budget 3D games that I personally love. That was the very reason I subscribed.

If you understand where I'm coming from, you have to understand why I and many others think it has significantly declined. I loved Rocket League, Spelunky, Don't Starve. But we get nothing like the list above anymore.

Far Cry 2 was released on PS3 Oct 2008, it was on PS+ 3.5 years after release. So if you want PS+ now to be as "great" as it was then you'll just have to wait till 2017 for 3rd party AAA titles. If we have launch 3rd party titles on there this Christmas, it will be 2 years since release.

No, this is a poor example. Look at my examples above. Most AAA games weren't more than 2 and a half to 3 years old, many just a year and a half old.

PS+ was that good for PS3 because Sony wanted the core players paying for their subscription before starting to charge for online with PS4. Meaning that the offer was always a bit too good to be true in the long run.

There is no incentive anymore for Sony to put out lucrative titles on PS+ since those that originally paid for PS+ are most likely renewing their subscriptions for online play anyways. And those starting to subscribe with PS4 won't really know what they missed out on anyways.

I suspected this would happen the moment the carrot was replaced with the stick with PS4's introduction. The PS3 PS+ line-up was never meant to be something sustainable in the long run.

We all suspected it. Their coup over Microsoft at that E3 was the perfect moment to slip the trojan horse under the radar. I hated it at the time and I hate it now. Paying for Xbox Live was always my biggest issue with the 360. I can't give Sony a pass, especially when their online services and customer support are so poor.

I don't think people are getting PS+ specifically for the games. However there are the odd great game thrown in - such as the Binding of Isaac and Rocket League.

Well there are tons of us who started with the PS3 and Vita who get it for exactly that. There are tons of people who don't play online (like me) for whom the games are the entire raison d'être of the service.

What I'd love to see is online play decoupled from the free games. Then we'd see who's really interested in what. Because as you say, at this stage I think most people are just PS4 owners paying for online, which allows Sony to get away with whatever PS+ games they feel like as that part isn't going to hurt their subscription numbers as much. If the games had to stand on their own again, the quality would shoot up.

I disagree, games like Rocket League and Resogun are better than most AAA games, but then I'm not a big fan of most AAA games.

Well I agree with your first point, but I am a big fan of AAA games. Those aren't exclusive viewpoints. I like big 3D worlds to explore - that's my thing. The fact that I love Rocket League and Resogun or that I think Spelunky is one of the greatest games of all time doesn't change me wanting those big experiences too. Obviously if you're not a fan of AAA then PS+ is great for you right now. But why not both?

I enjoyed Rebirth of Isaac, The Swapper, Rogue Legacy and Don't Starve. Apart from that it's been a waste of money, and I resent being forced to pay a sub just to play online. Microsoft used to get endless criticism for their live paywall, I don't know why Sony haven't been as well.

Only reason I can think is 'Because we're used to it', and yes that's a shitty excuse.

 

[Suzushiiro]

Pretty much this. AAA Publishers are not going to want to put any games up on PS+ that are still making money. We got Ground Zero because it stopped making money.

Actually, I'd say we got GZ because it was free advertising for Phantom Pain. Better than free, really, since Konami was paid to put it on there.

 

[Scrawnton]

I expect things will get better for PS4 when they decide to cut giving free PS3 games in 2017

 

[TheSlySoul]

I don't really think the Plus games are being worth the subscription for me... Yeah, I know if I sum up all the free offers, it will for sure make up for the subscription price, but it doesn't mean anything to me if I am not interested in 90% of their titles, and the ones I'm interested in are, most of the times, games I'm just slightly interested (so I could just wait and buy them pretty cheap later).

Mostly the reason I keep mine is because with most sales you save an extra % per game you buy with Plus discount. So it paid for itself during 1 year worth of sales.
Now my main problem is having time to play my catalog. Makes me glad 2015 release schedule kind of sucks now that most of my titles got delayed.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

I agree with you OP. There just hasn't been much for me. I feel like games with gold has done a lot better.

 

[Synth]

As evidenced by the age most PS3/Vita retail games have been upon hitting the IGC, publishers are reluctant to give away games they used to sell for $60 for free unless they're >2 years old, and obviously the PS4 doesn't have any of those.

This was not the case with PS+ last gen (from 2012 onwards at least). I sometimes wonder if the people claiming that the games aren't old enough to be offered have simply forgotten what games they used to get. The retail games being over 2 years of age was the minority since the IGC was relanched at E3 2012.

 

[Rflagg]

Even with the fact that some months have me not "purchasing" the game I feel like the games overall have been worth the cost. The discount has been a nice bonus as well, but I mostly buy games on disc.

 

[montopolis]

I agree with OP as well. I will not re-new the yearly subscription anymore. As a mostly singleplayer gamer, I cant see its value anymore.

 

[Comet]

Amazes me people expect premium PS4 games for free right out of the gate on a regular basis.

PS3 had a lot of years worth of games before PS+ was a thing

Who expected that out of the gate? It's almost been 2 years. The PS3 PS+ would often times release retail games from the previous 18 months.

The reasoning has nothing to do with timing of released content but the fact that Sony has no incentive to provide greater value to the service now that people subscribe just to be able to play online.

 

[Dangansona]

This was not the case with PS+ last gen (from 2012 onwards at least). I sometimes wonder if the people claiming that the games aren't old enough to be offered have simply forgotten what games they used to get. The retail games being over 2 years of age was the minority since the IGC was relanched at E3 2012.

I'd say it's less the age of the games and more the age of the console and quantity of triple AAA games period that people are arguing. You notice on that list above of ps3 games half of them are Sony owned exclusives. I feel like the PS4 doesn't have much more than those that are exclusive from over a year ago.

But yes, we should soon be seeing Knack and Shadowfall.

 

[outunderthestars]

I agree with OP as well. I will not re-new the yearly subscription anymore. As a mostly singleplayer gamer, I cant see its value anymore.

I am struggling to see the value myself these days. Party chat killed any fun for me in multiplayer, and the game selection isn't as interesting as it used to be.

 

[Sangetsu-II]

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...

We actually always get like 4-5 indies games do to PS4 cross-buy with other systems though, so you are wrong on that side, plus why would people who bought the XB1 in the holiday be happy with a GWG title that came in a the AC Bundle last fall?

 

[Astarte]

I rarely play games that are given to me in ps÷. I could not give a shit about most of the games really

 

[alexandros]

great post

Well said. You supported your argument well and adopted a critical stance against anti-consumer practices. I have no opinion on the PS+ matter but I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading the post.

 

[Griss]

Another thing that people need to recognise when not understanding why some are unhappy with the recent PS+ slate is that indie games tend to be, by their nature, very niche and divisive games. AAA games are safe and bland because they have to sell to a wide audience to have any hope of recouping the dev money. They depend on being safe and bland. Indies need to appeal to a very specific audience to stand out from the crowd to have any hope of selling at all.

But what this means is that far more people will be able to enjoy your average 'bland' AAA game than your average indie game when those games are given out blind to a random distribution of gamers (such as PS+). Therefore when you're giving nothing but indie games you're far more likely to disappoint someone entirely for the month.

I'm very open about the games I play and try everything on PS+ for at least an hour (except for PS3 which I've now moved on for.) But even for me, for every Rocket League, Don't Starve, Spelunky, Resogun, OlliOlli that I play and completely fall in love with, there's a highly rated game like Binding of Isaac, Velocity 2x, Fez, Soundscapes, Towerfall Ascension that I don't just dislike, but that I can find absolutely nothing to like about at all - that I can't stand. Such is the marmite nature of a game with a laser focus. This almost never, ever happens to me with AAA games because it's basically designed not to happen. Less revelatory than a fresh indie experience, but less divisive.

Then you add the fact that my favourite type of gameplay (exploring huge 3d worlds) just isn't present in most smaller / indie titles and you can see why getting indies is great, but NOT getting any AAA games is not so great.

Well said. You supported your argument well and adopted a critical stance against anti-consumer practices. I have no opinion on the PS+ matter but I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading the post.

Thanks man. I just feel like people write off any criticisms of PS+ as crybabies demonising indie games and I don't feel like it's about that at all, and wanted to get that across.

 

[Briarios]

This thread: you don't give me a $60 every month for the subscription I pay $4 a month for, so it's worthless. I'm not renewing.

If it's not a good value for you, you shouldn't renew -- but, don't pretend it's not a good deal. Between the discounts and games, it's awesome for most PS4 gamers.

 

[Bluenoser]

Well said. You supported your argument well and adopted a critical stance against anti-consumer practices. I have no opinion on the PS+ matter but I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading the post.

Not sure how it is "anti consumer" to offer indie games instead of AAA games. It may not suit everyone's taste but it's certainly not anti consumer. If you want an example of anti consumer, how about paying for gold just to get access to netflix, and online play on the 360? Oh wait, it was totally worth it back then right?

 

[Forearm Star]

Free games I never would have thought of buying > Old games I passed on when they released.

Seriously for me I've played and enjoyed games like Resogun, Don't starve, and Valiant hearts while I still haven't taken Assassins Creed Black Flag out of the plastic. I actually downloaded it free on Xb1 and still haven't fired it up.

Everyones taste is different, but seriously give the games you are getting for a free a try. Worse case scenario, delete it.


Edit: I just realized this is one big contradiction. I should really give black flag a try

 

[AmFreak]

Or, you know, less than two years worth of game releaaes exist for the PS4 and its still selling well around the world, meaning people are buying games from the past two years for it, so it doesn't make sense to suddenly give away larger games that people still buy or poorly reviewed / mediocre titles over new or well reviewed ones.

No matter what, the incentive for Sony just isn't close as big.
PS4 has probably over 10 times the subscribers the ps3 ever had.
Bringing a game to the service just hasn't close to the same impact in growing the service it had last gen when the huge majority (>90%) pays for online in comparison to last gen where 99% paid for games and every game had a chance of growing the service (visibly).

 

[Fonds]

Great points

Hear hear.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yea, it's been quite poor in terms beyond the indie games. The expectations were higher.

 

[benicillin]

Crazy talk, between sale discounts and a wide variety of free games of all different kinds (some of which even launch free!) PS+ pays for itself many times over, even more so if you also have a PS3 or a Vita.

 

[10k]

I think it is about time we had retail games more regularly, especially from the launch titles.

AC: Black Flag and Killzone,

Spoiler

and Knack

should be on there by now.

Those were the three games I was gonna say.

Xbox Games with Gold is outclassing PS+ in free retail games right now for me with ACIV and Tomb Raider DE being the highlights.

 

[Dragon Puncher]

PS+ on ps4 alone has given me:

Resogun
Binding of Issac: Rebirth
Pixeljunk Shooter: Ultimate
Strider
Spelunky
Apotheon
Rogue Legacy
Valient Hearts
Never Alone
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
Rocket League
Sound Shapes
Limbo
Grow Home

All great games that I hadn't played before and enjoyed immensely. So I really can't say that I agree OP. It would be great with some AAA titles, but I know form my time with PS+ on ps3, that I would much rather have a good indie game that a mediocre AAA game, that I'm never going to play anyways.

 

[alexandros]

Not sure how it is "anti consumer" to offer indie games instead of AAA games. It may not suit everyone's taste but it's certainly not anti consumer. If you want an example of anti consumer, how about paying for gold just to get access to netflix, and online play on the 360? Oh wait, it was totally worth it back then right?

I'm sorry, I should have explained I meant the online paywall, not the indie games. My Steam library is maybe 80% consisted of indie games, but that's because I love turn-based games and there aren't a lot of high-budget ones of those.

 

[cyba89]

This thread: you don't give me a $60 every month for the subscription I pay $4 a month for, so it's worthless. I'm not renewing.

Umm. Nobody here said something like that. Not even close to.

 

[piratethingy]

PS+ was that good for PS3 because Sony wanted the core players paying for their subscription before starting to charge for online with PS4. Meaning that the offer was always a bit too good to be true in the long run.

There is no incentive anymore for Sony to put out lucrative titles on PS+ since those that originally paid for PS+ are most likely renewing their subscriptions for online play anyways. And those starting to subscribe with PS4 won't really know what they missed out on anyways.

I suspected this would happen the moment the carrot was replaced with the stick with PS4's introduction. The PS3 PS+ line-up was never meant to be something sustainable in the long run.

Yup. Bait and switch. I love Rocket League as much as the next guy, but it seems clear to me that they offered more than they could sustainably offer in order to 'warm-up' people on the idea of paying for PS online services. Once they finally force you to pay for multiplayer, all the great retail games dry up! Coincidence? Probably not.

Not that I blame them.

 

[Griss]

This thread: you don't give me a $60 every month for the subscription I pay $4 a month for, so it's worthless. I'm not renewing.

If it's not a good value for you, you shouldn't renew -- but, don't pretend it's not a good deal. Between the discounts and games, it's awesome for most PS4 gamers.

If you're talking about monetary value, it's impossible to disagree unless you genuinely dislike almost every free game and either feel like you shouldn't have to pay for online or don't use online. I still find it amazing value, and still get some amazing games, so there's no way I'm unsubscribing. I'm still very happy with the service.

But all I'm saying is that happiness is now slightly reduced because of very real issues that I don't think should be ignored, and that it's okay to raise them and ask for improvements. The issues:
a) That we're paying for online when we never had to before;
b) That we don't get AAA games when that's what the service was built on and got many of us to subscribe; and
c) That the online infrastructure hasn't been improved like we anticipated with all the extra PS+ subs.

Whereas when PS+ came out it felt so good I was almost ashamed to be 'robbing' Sony every month. I knew that couldn't last forever, and I know it's still a good deal, but I can't pretend that it hasn't declined from its glorious heights.

 

[Afrodium]

Who expected that out of the gate? It's almost been 2 years. The PS3 PS+ would often times release retail games from the previous 18 months.

The reasoning has nothing to do with timing of released content but the fact that Sony has no incentive to provide greater value to the service now that people subscribe just to be able to play online.

PS3 games were given away within 18 months of launch towards the end of PS3's lifecycle. At that point the library was so large that titles depreciated in value much quicker. When a console is 2 years old there is a smaller library and therefore games retain their value. Every PS4 title is brand new to someone just buying the system today.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

This thread: you don't give me a $60 every month for the subscription I pay $4 a month for, so it's worthless. I'm not renewing.

If it's not a good value for you, you shouldn't renew -- but, don't pretend it's not a good deal. Between the discounts and games, it's awesome for most PS4 gamers.

But no one is saying that!


The problem with PS Plus, for some (including me) is something like buying blindly a bunch of games on a big sale, but having no interest at all in most of them, and having just slightly interest in all the other games. It just means you're definitely getting much more for very cheap compared to buying them with the usual price, however you're still wasting money.

 

[Griss]

PS3 games were given away within 18 months of launch towards the end of PS3's lifecycle. At that point the library was so large that titles depreciated in value much quicker. When a console is 2 years old there is a smaller library and therefore games retain their value. Every PS4 title is brand new to someone just buying the system today.

This has definitely been an excellent point since launch, and was the reason that I wasn't expecting any AAA games for the first year and a half. But I feel like its relevance is declining now as the PS+ library has filled out and matured, and as most hardcore gamers are already on PS4 (or XB1) as evidenced by the sales split of MGSV.

If you look at the price of launch games now, they've pretty much cratered. No one's buying those games any more. On top of that, there's a whole bunch of sports games and annualised franchise games that have been usurped by the next yearly edition, where no one will be buying the old ones.

Of course, that just raises the next issue - we used to get sports games and annualised sequels but these days I feel like all publishers want their own PS+ like EA created with EA Access and therefore there's no way they're giving their games to Sony.

I used to really, really look forward to getting sports games on PS+. That dream is pretty much dead. And I really did expect to see Assassin's Creed Black Flag by now out of all the annualised series games. We've gotten AC on PS+ before. But even thinking about that raised yet another issue. Games improve so little these days from year to year, and take so long to beat, that perhaps Ubisoft would be worried that Black Flag, rather than driving sales of their next AC games, would simply satiate gamer's thirst for that kind of game for a year on its own? Just one more reason NOT to put your games on the service, I guess.

 

[Darkangel]

Why would Sony want to give away expensive games when people are already forced to subscribe for online multiplayer? That's basically what it comes down to.

As it stands PS+ is pretty much an Indie promo service.

 

[otakukidd]

PS3 games were given away within 18 months of launch towards the end of PS3's lifecycle. At that point the library was so large that titles depreciated in value much quicker. When a console is 2 years old there is a smaller library and therefore games retain their value. Every PS4 title is brand new to someone just buying the system today.

Pretty much what I was going to say in a better articulated way.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yes we have:
Injustice: Gods Among Us – Ultimate Edition
InFamous: First Light
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris

Two of those games aren't retail releases.

And yes, I've been disappointed as well. But it's not just Sony, Microsoft has been just as bad with Gold's One offerings.

We've had a slew of indie games, and the quality of most of them has been poor. I realize it's still early, but damn it's been boring for the most part.

I've no more use for Plus, and won't miss it one bit when it expires this Winter.

 

[Rezae]

On the one hand, it's obvious Sony did some sort of bait/switch when transitioning to the PS4 and what they are offering. I do understand though that you simply can't offer a AAA game every single month this early on. You could do that with PS3 and it's massive library 5+ years in. You can't do that with a relatively smaller and newer library.

But, on the other hand, I hate most AAA games. So for me personally I don't have a problem with the titles, but I can see how many others do.

I'm probably not renewing next month though. I hardly play online and some of the recent titles just haven't done anything for me. The thought of paying for online, regardless of the carrots, has never sat well with me.

 

[lyrick]

Amazes me people expect premium PS4 games for free right out of the gate on a regular basis.

PS3 had a lot of years worth of games before PS+ was a thing

These games are not free, they are part of a service that has a subscription cost.

If Netflix only offered straight to DVD and indie movies, for two years straight people would bitch about that too.

 

[Synth]

I'd say it's less the age of the games and more the age of the console and quantity of triple AAA games period that people are arguing. You notice on that list above of ps3 games half of them are Sony owned exclusives. I feel like the PS4 doesn't have much more than those that are exclusive from over a year ago.

But yes, we should soon be seeing Knack and Shadowfall.

Both the "age of the games" and "age of the console" arguments are flawed. The console argument has the Vita to disagree with it (PS+ launched 6 months into its US life, and carried Gravity Rush and Uncharted in the first month alone), and the age of the games has far too many PS3 examples to list out. It's also not simply a case of "half of that came from Sony" either. Lets take a look at another random period of titles.

DmC: Devil May Cry - Jan 2013 (PS+ Dec 2013)
Borderlands 2 - Sept 2012 (PS+ Dec 2013)
Metro: Last Light - May 2013 (PS+ Jan 2014)
Bioshock Infinite - Mar 2013 (PS+ Jan 2014)
Tomb Raider - Mar 2013 (PS+ Mar 2014)
Pro Evo 2014 - Sept 2013 (PS+ Apr 2014)
Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time - Feb 2013 (PS+ Apr 2014)
Payday 2 - Aug 2013 (PS+ Apr 2014)
Puppeteer - Sept 2013 (PS+ Apr 2014)
NBA 2K14 - Oct 2013 (PS+ Jun 2014)
Dead Space 3 - Feb 2013 (PS+ Jul 2014)
Crysis 2 - Feb 2013 (PS+ Aug 2014)

You can do this with pretty much any time period from June 2012 (the revamped IGC reveal at E3) all the way through to Fall of 2014, at which point the offerings on PS3 begin to deteriorate as well (which shouldn't be the case because the machine is older... right?). Of the 12 games listed above (which were offered back to back), only 2 are Sony published, and 0 are over two years of age. Many aren't even a single year old as of the time they hit the service. The whole "it's only been two years" stuff, is basically BS, with no prior history to base that being the reason on.