Would you subscribe to PS+ if it wasn't required for online?

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by SolidGame_basic (18649 posts) -

I know I would . I get great discounts on digital games which more than makes up for the money I spent on membership. Sony also hooks me up with games to play each month. Also, you can usually get PS+ for $40 a year if you look online or wait for a sale. Last Black Friday it was going for $30. For the most part, I finish playing these games before my subscription ends. What about you, SW? Do you see the value in PS+? Or you simply see it as an online membership fee now?

*forgot, we also get into Betas too and other exclusive shizzle

Bonus question - anyone here subscribe to Best Buy's gamer's club unlocked? Amazing program if you ask me.

#2 Posted by Netret0120 (2255 posts) -

I mosy certainly would at $40-50 a year. I too finish games before the year is out and it lets me try out games i normally wouldn't ever buy. I don't buy many games a year so it gives me 4-5 free games during my barren periods where i don't buy games.

No i don'f subscribe to Best Buy's gamer club as there is no best buy in Austria:-)

#3 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

No, I would not. The idea of paying for multiplayer gaming is insulting, sets a terrible precedent, and demonstrates how gullible shooter console kids are. Now that shooter console kids have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for online play, you can expect prices for it to rise and benefits for it to decrease (Xbox live). Now I hear you even have to put up with advertisements on your console UI. That's worse than paying for cable TV and having to watch advertisements. You should be getting these free games and online play for the advertisements you are forced to host on your console.

#4 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8565 posts) -

I I joined ps+ almost 2 years ago for free and discounted games.

I am subscribed to best buy gamer unlocked. It's very nice because I can get brand new 60 dollar games for 48 at launch plus some offer an extra 10 dollars of credit with it.

#5 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (28197 posts) -

If I had a PS3, yes in a heartbeat. If I had a PS4 no it ****ing sucks.

#6 Posted by Snugenz (12284 posts) -

@blue_hazy_basic said:

If I had a PS3, yes in a heartbeat. If I had a PS4 no it ****ing sucks.

Pretty much.

#7 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (7595 posts) -

No. The PS3 games they give away are always old enough that if I want them, I already own them. The Vita games would probably make the service worth it if the cost of the media for storing digital data wasn't so ungodly expensive.

I would have probably purchased a PS4 at launch if online play were not tied to PS+, though.

#8 Posted by Animal-Mother (26987 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

No, I would not. The idea of paying for multiplayer gaming is insulting, sets a terrible precedent, and demonstrates how gullible shooter console kids are. Now that shooter console kids have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for online play, you can expect prices for it to rise and benefits for it to decrease (Xbox live). Now I hear you even have to put up with advertisements on your console UI. That's worse than paying for cable TV and having to watch advertisements. You should be getting these free games and online play for the advertisements you are forced to host on your console.

You did read the thread title right?

It's basically asking would you have PS+ even if it wasn't pay to play like it is now.

#9 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

@farrell2k said:

No, I would not. The idea of paying for multiplayer gaming is insulting, sets a terrible precedent, and demonstrates how gullible shooter console kids are. Now that shooter console kids have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for online play, you can expect prices for it to rise and benefits for it to decrease (Xbox live). Now I hear you even have to put up with advertisements on your console UI. That's worse than paying for cable TV and having to watch advertisements. You should be getting these free games and online play for the advertisements you are forced to host on your console.

You did read the thread title right?

It's basically asking would you have PS+ even if it wasn't pay to play like it is now.

Which is also why I mentioned the "free games" for the fee.

#10 Posted by Blabadon (27631 posts) -

Yep. Between the PS3 and Vita it gives me lots of games (I use it as the former's source of games) and it has its uses on PS4 too

#11 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25825 posts) -

It makes zero difference to me. I never play online anymore, the only times I may do that on PS4 for an extended period is with Bloodborne (assuming it carries on from the Souls series online component) and a few F2Ps.

#12 Posted by Animal-Mother (26987 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@Animal-Mother said:

@farrell2k said:

No, I would not. The idea of paying for multiplayer gaming is insulting, sets a terrible precedent, and demonstrates how gullible shooter console kids are. Now that shooter console kids have demonstrated that they are willing to pay for online play, you can expect prices for it to rise and benefits for it to decrease (Xbox live). Now I hear you even have to put up with advertisements on your console UI. That's worse than paying for cable TV and having to watch advertisements. You should be getting these free games and online play for the advertisements you are forced to host on your console.

You did read the thread title right?

It's basically asking would you have PS+ even if it wasn't pay to play like it is now.

Which is also why I mentioned the "free games" for the fee.

Touche Touche.

Unfortunately that's not the world we live in :( it's sad though but everything's becoming subscription base which is kind of nice ( some not so nice).

You eventually just put up with it

#13 Edited by LustForSoul (5904 posts) -

If I had a PS3/4, yeah I would. I also own a Vita so I'd get double the games.

#14 Posted by TheEroica (14094 posts) -

I have ps3/4/vita.. hell yes it's worth it. One month worth of free games covers it.

Dragons crown on vita next month. Yay!

#15 Posted by Blabadon (27631 posts) -

@TheEroica: You up for co-op? I know you already beat it but when I get my Vita back I'd like to try it.

#16 Edited by Lionheart08 (15479 posts) -

@blue_hazy_basic said:

If I had a PS3, yes in a heartbeat. If I had a PS4 no it ****ing sucks.

+1

I have it for my PS3. Got to play Saints Row the Third, Tomb Raider, and will be downloading Dragon's Crown.

#17 Posted by TheEroica (14094 posts) -

@Blabadon: yes sir. Let's chat. Coop dragon crown is so fun.

#18 Posted by HitmanActual (412 posts) -

Since the PS4 has been out the service has become garbage, the games on offer are mostly shit I have no desire to play or already have. Waste of money for me atm.

#19 Edited by freedomfreak (41873 posts) -

Never paid for it to begin with.

I don't think I would though.

#20 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

Seems like a ripoff compared to Netflix for instance. Netflix costs more and you don't own the programming but you instantly get access to thousands of movies and tv shows. To try to be fair though lets just compare the new July offerings from both services. Please note that access to all PS + content requires the purchase of about a $1,000 worth of hardware.

Netflix

-“The Keys of the Kingdom” (1944)

-“Funny Face” (1957)

-“Patton” (1970)

-“Don’t Look Now” (1973)

-“Cheech and Chong’s Up in Smoke” (1978)

-“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1979)

-“Gandhi” (1982)

-“Best Defense” (1984)

-“The Karate Kid” (1984)

-“American Ninja” (1985)

-“The Karate Kid II” (1986)

-“Can’t Buy Me Love” (1987)

-“Eight Men Out” (1988)

-“Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” (1989)

-“The Hunt For Red October” (1990)

-“Boyz n the Hood” (1991)

-“My Girl” (1991)

-“Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country” (1991)

-“Basic Instinct” (1992)

-“Body of Evidence” (1993)

-“The Dark Half” (1993)

-“Philadelphia” (1993)

-“Blue Chips” (1994)

-“Legends of the Fall” (1994)

-“My Girl 2” (1994)

-“The Babysitter” (1995)

-“Crimson Tide” (1995)

-“Dead Man Walking” (1995)

-“Primal Fear”(1996)

-“Croupier” (1998)

-“Madeline” (1998)

-“Phantoms” (1998)

-“Ararat” (2002)

-“City of God” (2002)

-“Halloween: Resurrection” (2002)

-“People I Know” (2002)

-“Bad Santa” (2003)

-“Under the Tuscan Sun” (2003)

-“Jersey Girl” (2004)

-“Mean Girls” (2004)

-“Winnie the Pooh: Springtime with Roo’” (2004)

-“Fever Pitch” (2005)

-“Venus” (2006)

-“A Raisin in the Sun” (2008)

Starting July 4:

-“Knights of Sidonia” (2014)

Starting July 9:

-“Homefront” (2013)

-“Out of the Furnace” (2013)

Starting July 11:

-“The Battered Bastards of Baseball” (2014)

-“Hemlock Grove” Season 2 (2014)

Starting July 14:

-“The Master” (2012)

PS Plus

Towerfall Ascension

Strider

Dead Space 3

Vessel

Muramasa Rebirth

Doki-Doki Universe

#21 Posted by Wasdie (50359 posts) -

Nope. Deals aren't good enough for me and I don't play my PS4 enough to justify it.

Sadly it's required so I have no choice. Just the price of owning a console I guess.

#22 Posted by Heil68 (46127 posts) -

Yes, the games are worth it.

#23 Posted by cainetao11 (18303 posts) -

I did. I subscribed since about a month after it started.

#24 Posted by Alcapello (1061 posts) -

It should be automated really.

#25 Posted by coasterguy65 (6116 posts) -

I subscribe to PS+ for the games, and the discounts on games. I've probably paid for the $49 fee just in discounts alone.

#26 Posted by WeepsForFools (551 posts) -

cows: "sure i'd pay $40-50 for a rental service provided by sony"

cows: "lems getting suckered for having the option of a $30 rental service provided by EA"

#27 Posted by Wiiboxstation (338 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn: jut

How is PlayStation+ for "free" games. You have to pay for it! Therefore it's included. If they were free Sony wouldn't charge for it at all.

#28 Posted by lostrib (40000 posts) -

I already do since I don't have a PS4

#29 Posted by blackace (21228 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic: Yeah, it's still a good value. I can play and beat about 30-50 FREE games a year on 3 different platforms for just $50 a year. Nothing wrong with that.

#30 Edited by lostrib (40000 posts) -

@blackace said:

@SolidGame_basic: Yeah, it's still a good value. I can play and beat about 30-50 FREE games a year on 3 different platforms for just $50 a year. Nothing wrong with that.

...you have too much time on your hands

#31 Posted by commonfate (12590 posts) -

I don't pay for it to begin with. I hated the idea of paying for online w/Live and I'm suddenly not gonna look the other way just because Sony is doing it.

#32 Posted by RR360DD (12298 posts) -

Most people wouldn't. Thats why Sony put the multiplayer behind a paywall. Subscriptions to the service shot up significantly.

#33 Posted by SambaLele (5447 posts) -

@blackace said:

@SolidGame_basic: Yeah, it's still a good value. I can play and beat about 30-50 FREE games a year on 3 different platforms for just $50 a year. Nothing wrong with that.

This. Though it's still a much better value on PS3 than PS4. I simply can't finish 20% of the games I got with PS+ for the PS3. There's no time. With PS4, value is about ok. But since I don't have to pay separately for each platform, the result is still one heck of a great deal.

#34 Posted by sirkibble2 (870 posts) -

No. As much as I like the free games, I only like them because I'm subscribed. And once I'm not, those free games are gone. So they're more like glorified rentals.

#35 Posted by SolidGame_basic (18649 posts) -

@TheEroica said:

I have ps3/4/vita.. hell yes it's worth it. One month worth of free games covers it.

Dragons crown on vita next month. Yay!

Dragon's Crown for Vita was great and I paid retail for it. Hopefully there will be a ton more people to play with now that it's on PS+.

#36 Posted by darkangel115 (1937 posts) -

The answer for most people is no. the PS3 sold 80 million consoles and yet had less then 2 million PSN+ subscribers. The PS4 has sold roughly 8-10 million and has about 4-5 million PSN+ subscribers. In other words, most people didn't care about the free games, and mind you the PS3 free games are way way better then the PS4 ones.

#37 Posted by Senor_Kami (8437 posts) -

I would and do. I've got it for PS3. It's definitely worth it. I've gotten so many good games from it. Definitely more than $40 or $50 worth per year.

#38 Posted by TheEroica (14094 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic: played it through on ps3... will most definitely coop it with anyone on vita.

#39 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1761 posts) -

Nope. The free games are nice, but i wouldnt pay for it.

#40 Posted by Zelda187 (1008 posts) -

@Cranler said:

Seems like a ripoff compared to Netflix for instance. Netflix costs more and you don't own the programming but you instantly get access to thousands of movies and tv shows. To try to be fair though lets just compare the new July offerings from both services. Please note that access to all PS + content requires the purchase of about a $1,000 worth of hardware.

Netflix

-“The Keys of the Kingdom” (1944)

-“Funny Face” (1957)

-“Patton” (1970)

-“Don’t Look Now” (1973)

-“Cheech and Chong’s Up in Smoke” (1978)

-“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1979)

-“Gandhi” (1982)

-“Best Defense” (1984)

-“The Karate Kid” (1984)

-“American Ninja” (1985)

-“The Karate Kid II” (1986)

-“Can’t Buy Me Love” (1987)

-“Eight Men Out” (1988)

-“Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” (1989)

-“The Hunt For Red October” (1990)

-“Boyz n the Hood” (1991)

-“My Girl” (1991)

-“Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country” (1991)

-“Basic Instinct” (1992)

-“Body of Evidence” (1993)

-“The Dark Half” (1993)

-“Philadelphia” (1993)

-“Blue Chips” (1994)

-“Legends of the Fall” (1994)

-“My Girl 2” (1994)

-“The Babysitter” (1995)

-“Crimson Tide” (1995)

-“Dead Man Walking” (1995)

-“Primal Fear”(1996)

-“Croupier” (1998)

-“Madeline” (1998)

-“Phantoms” (1998)

-“Ararat” (2002)

-“City of God” (2002)

-“Halloween: Resurrection” (2002)

-“People I Know” (2002)

-“Bad Santa” (2003)

-“Under the Tuscan Sun” (2003)

-“Jersey Girl” (2004)

-“Mean Girls” (2004)

-“Winnie the Pooh: Springtime with Roo’” (2004)

-“Fever Pitch” (2005)

-“Venus” (2006)

-“A Raisin in the Sun” (2008)

Starting July 4:

-“Knights of Sidonia” (2014)

Starting July 9:

-“Homefront” (2013)

-“Out of the Furnace” (2013)

Starting July 11:

-“The Battered Bastards of Baseball” (2014)

-“Hemlock Grove” Season 2 (2014)

Starting July 14:

-“The Master” (2012)

PS Plus

Towerfall Ascension

Strider

Dead Space 3

Vessel

Muramasa Rebirth

Doki-Doki Universe

I don't see any good movies listed here besides Patton, Bad Santa, City of God and maybe the first Karate Kid. LOL

That's Netflix's problem. Half of their movie catalogue consists of a bunch of terrible, low budget shit that no one has ever heard of then when you finally find something good...it disappears after a couple of weeks.

They no longer have South Park episodes, Married with Children episodes, etc.

It's turned into a total shit service over the last 3-4 years.

Amazon instant video offers all of the same stuff for the same price with the added benefit of Amazon Prime free 2 day shipping.

#41 Posted by bbkkristian (14967 posts) -

Hell no, and I wouldn't even pay for it now. Thank gawd they half half a brain to allow MMOs to bypass it otherwise I would trade in my ps4 immediately and join the PC master race. Seriously the only game that has been worth my while on the ps4 is ffxiv.

#42 Edited by Zelda187 (1008 posts) -

@WeepsForFools said:

cows: "sure i'd pay $40-50 for a rental service provided by sony"

cows: "lems getting suckered for having the option of a $30 rental service provided by EA"

They're both stupid

I love when console fanboys talk about how expensive it is to game on PC, but then you're all so willing and eager to pay for stupid subscription shit like PS+ or XBOX Live on top of your normal cable and internet bill. Not to mention paying an extra $10-20 for new releases.

Console gamers get nickeled and dimed constantly and seemingly have no problem with it.

And now they're going to pay for internet, XBOX Live Gold, AND some silly ass EA subscription...just to play games online.

Lolz

#43 Posted by onewiththegame (4260 posts) -

No

#44 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10078 posts) -

I've been a member of PSN+ for 4 years now.... its great.

But i'll be honest i wouldnt get it on PS4 if it didnt have the online requirement (not that it matters cuz my PS3 membership also transfer over to the PS4 either way). I would wait to get it on the PS4 (again, it I didnt already have it and it wasnt a online requirement).

#45 Posted by SolidGame_basic (18649 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

@WeepsForFools said:

cows: "sure i'd pay $40-50 for a rental service provided by sony"

cows: "lems getting suckered for having the option of a $30 rental service provided by EA"

They're both stupid

I love when console fanboys talk about how expensive it is to game on PC, but then you're all so willing and eager to pay for stupid subscription shit like PS+ or XBOX Live on top of your normal cable and internet bill. Not to mention paying an extra $10-20 for new releases.

Console gamers get nickeled and dimed constantly and seemingly have no problem with it.

And now they're going to pay for internet, XBOX Live Gold, AND some silly ass EA subscription...just to play games online.

Lolz

how is $40-$50 a year a rip off when we get tons of games and deep discounts too? my subscription always pays for itself and more.

#46 Posted by aroxx_ab (10540 posts) -

48 free games each year for me...so yeah sure

#47 Edited by BldgIrsh (2886 posts) -

So it went from hating on digital cause touching discs is a must to "Hey look at all the digital games we get for subscribing! Great deal."

#48 Posted by lostrib (40000 posts) -

@aroxx_ab said:

48 free games each year for me...so yeah sure

Yes, "free" games

#49 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16956 posts) -

I have not bought one single vita game ever since I've been subscribed to PS plus.

Service is totally worth it.

#50 Posted by silversix_ (15260 posts) -

Nope. The fact that sms is slower with ps+ on ps4 than on ps3 without is kinda laughable as well.