Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 59,364
- Location
- Surrey
I do wish PS+ offered a tiered system, it kind of feels like I'd be paying for Vita games I don't want.
Games with Gold: Now an Ongoing Benefit for Gold Members on 360 and Xbox One
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
How in the holy F can people complain about this!?
THis is a brilliant thing for me personally, as im rather fixed in the range of games I play, though I like the look of some other styles I just can't see me paying for them, so as a G-Subscriber, this is a great way to try different genres!
First download being Assassins Creed and all the DLC, really enjoyed it, and has got me looking at future titles in the range...to buy....see how that works?..notice a lot look to be games with upcoming sequels.
THis is a brilliant thing for me personally, as im rather fixed in the range of games I play, though I like the look of some other styles I just can't see me paying for them, so as a G-Subscriber, this is a great way to try different genres!
First download being Assassins Creed and all the DLC, really enjoyed it, and has got me looking at future titles in the range...to buy....see how that works?..notice a lot look to be games with upcoming sequels.
Cant argue with free games, but personally I would have preferred something more recent. By recent I mean 12mths. I've still added them all to my download queue, even the ones I have, like Halo 3 and Rainbox 6 
But free is free, good to see MS are continuing this
But free is free, good to see MS are continuing this
You rent the games from Sony, thats why, they are not yours to keep.
Stop your PS+ service, you lose those games.
Quite easily.
A very simple check tells you the latest offerings are Halo 3 for the 360 which was released in 2007, Far Cry 3 on PS+ was released late 2012.
They are two direct, competing online services so people quite validly compare them. The PS+ games are far more enticing to those on the 360, does anyone actuallu disagree?
Yes it's free, but it could be better and that's what people are saying. It's as simple as that.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 59,364
- Location
- Surrey
But Halo 3 has much higher review scores so you could just as easily argue that MS are giving better games? Age isn't massively relevant, there's still a huge chance people have played them.
I think they're both inherently flawed systems if you try to look at value. The value to you is entirely random and unpredictable based on the systems you own and the games you've played. I'd much rather they had some sort of system where you could choose one/two games a month from a selection, that way it's likely there will be something that interests you.
I think they're both inherently flawed systems if you try to look at value. The value to you is entirely random and unpredictable based on the systems you own and the games you've played. I'd much rather they had some sort of system where you could choose one/two games a month from a selection, that way it's likely there will be something that interests you.
Yes but as of now with PSN you are ONLY paying for the games, Xbox live you are paying for the service and get the games free as a bonus.
If it wasnt for the games why would you get PSN+ for a ps3? When that changes on next gen and PSN+ is required to play online there will be a shift.
Some pople will always complain about MS stuff no matter what they do, even when they change their track to what (some) people wanted people complain about that as well, its all very petty.
I have paid nothing for these games I wasnt expecting them when i bought my live and now ill get free games for ever more even if they are old I dont care its a bonus.
I wouldnt sign up to a game rental service without a choice in game id get or when id get it for £5 a month.
I would pay £15 a month to rent 2-3 games at a time like I used to to lovefilm but thats gone now.
If MS brought out a rental service for games I would be interested, especially if it was as good as the old Zune Music system they got in the US.
If it wasnt for the games why would you get PSN+ for a ps3? When that changes on next gen and PSN+ is required to play online there will be a shift.
Some pople will always complain about MS stuff no matter what they do, even when they change their track to what (some) people wanted people complain about that as well, its all very petty.
I have paid nothing for these games I wasnt expecting them when i bought my live and now ill get free games for ever more even if they are old I dont care its a bonus.
I wouldnt sign up to a game rental service without a choice in game id get or when id get it for £5 a month.
I would pay £15 a month to rent 2-3 games at a time like I used to to lovefilm but thats gone now.
If MS brought out a rental service for games I would be interested, especially if it was as good as the old Zune Music system they got in the US.
I get to keep Halo 3 for as long as I want.
You only have Far Cry as long as you hold the account.
All the games so far are games I never would have picked up but very happy I have got to play them for no extra charge and, keep them.
this is great games for free, I tend to buy very similar games most of the time so this has shown me some I missed, realy enjoyed crackdown and never got round to dead rising 2. having halo 3 installed to play when I want is always a bonus to. cant see how people can think any game free is a bad thing, yes different people will have different tastes but its still free!!!
Long may it continue
Long may it continue
Well looking at the list of PS+ games at the start of when that released and the games don't set the world on fire.
So how about you give it time to mature?
Not strictly true, PS + allows for a very handy cloud backup (came in very good use when the GF decided to delete a few game saves accidentally). It also auto downloads game patches so saves a bit of time when going back to a game you haven't played for a while. They also offer discounts, BETA and 1st play demos as well as free themes and avatars (if you're bothered).
When the PSN network for multiplayer is to the same level of quality as Live, then you could make a better argument, I would still take Live without free games but spot on online functions over some pretty big problems with PSN mutiplayer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
This is a pretty new service MS are offering so I would expect it to get better over time. PS+ has been doing this for years, so partnerships have been built allowing them to offer newer games etc.
Just like when PSN launched the online stuff was years behind live but they have along the years brought it up to par or almost on par.
Just like when PSN launched the online stuff was years behind live but they have along the years brought it up to par or almost on par.
The simple fact is that none of that would worth the £50 a year you have to pay for PSN+ it sells based on the game rental structure and TBH its luck of the draw if you get something you want.
Sonys "free online play" structure was a big plus for PS3 even if i didnt like the system and if it did have its share of issues over the years, but thats going away for PS4 and they are moving to an Xbox like system, things are going to change.
I have always been happy with the service i pay for from Gold and TBH extra games no matter how old are a plus.
Tbh PSN ain't that bad, considering it's free. The only thing I miss is party chat.
You have to admit its easier to organise games over live than it is on PSN.
GT5 always stood out as a shinning example of bad lobby and game set up compared to 360 titles.
When i had to call a freind on the phone to play killzone with him and when it was easier to have a 360 party chat running while playing on the PS3 you know something isnt right.