Poll: Would you pay $ 59-$119/year for All PS4 Sony games, PS+ included?

Nah.

Nope. I prefer to buy my games and owning them on a physical format so I can play them whenever I want and not having to rely on maintaining a subscription.

Definitely not; I buy the games i want, and hardly play the ones I receive for "free". But for someone who likes to play the newest release i guess it is a pretty good deal.

I already have Netflix

I picked definitely only based on the past. I doubt the games would be as good as they are on a service like MS gamepass. I'd rather pay $60 for a God of War quality game, which if we got for the $119/year, then yes.... But I doubt that'd happen.

physical all the way, unless they are digital exclusive

Nope. I'll always buy my games physical until the option is taken away.

No, I prefer owning my games.

No, I don't think I'd get my money's worth out of it.

I've already played every PS4 game I am interested in, and I doubt I'd play anything on the PS3.

As for new PS4 games...outside of Yakuza Kiwami 2, I don't see anything particularly exciting on the horizon.

So it's a pass from me.

Seems a bit high for movies.

Maybe? I spend way more than $120 a year on PS4 games already...

Hell no. I don't want to rent games. I like to buy the games that I care about so that I own them.

And if this kind of games as a service crap ever became the only way to play new games, I think that would be the end of my days playing new games and I would just focus on playing games on all of my old retro consoles.

Just a hypothetical but the PS4 games would include the typical highly rated AAA Sony games like TLoU/GoW/HZD, etc. Will soon include TLoU2/Tsushima/Spiderman.

The budgets for future Sony AAA games shouldn't really be affected negatively because this sub would be optional and if the responses from the thread here can be something to go by, there'd still be quite some people that'd prefer to pay for the separate physical/digital.

I already have Plus and have a Gamefly sub so this kind of sub won't likely be for me.

No. I think it is important for the industry that people choose which games get paid for.

That's an interesting thought though. On a side note, I think other statistics like reviews, playtime, ratings, downloads, etc. can also determine which ones should get/get more funding in the future.

Wait does this mean we can keep the games if we are temporarily offline or not paying? Or at least a guarantee that if the service stops running, the games will be permanently available?

Otherwise I am hesitant... Since game preservation would become even more tricky.

But it does sound interesting.

While I am not a part of Sony I think that they won't allow us to keep the games upon subscription's end similar to PS+. I just meant that if you've already downloaded a game before during your earlier subs, then you stopped the sub for a while, then a non AAA software is pulled from the sub, then you sub back, you still will be able to access that game you've already downloaded before. New user/subscribers won't.

Definitely.

Owning games is overrated. Playing games is what it's about and this would allow me to play way more games than I could actually afford.

And I have no interest in having rows and rows of games on shelves.

So the only things that are scary to me about such a system would be:
If it became the only way to access some games, what if they are no longer part of the service/the service ends? Then those games would be lost forever? (Castlevania The Adventure ReBirth on the Wii eshop comes to mind.)
If it became the only way to access some games, it would kill off the ability to buy the game secondhand... Which would make it harder to get people to boycott games. (Right now if people can't stop themselves from buying a game (because of peer pressure for example), we can ask them to buy the game secondhand which would at least lower the money the publisher makes on the sell.)

So I suppose that as long as there are alternatives, I would be pretty OK with it?

Ideally I would love to see a system much like Humble Bundle where you pay for the service, and a certain share of the money goes to Sony by default. But then you can choose how you divide the rest between the publishers that partake in this service. So a much bigger service with games from other publishers too that gives the consumer more agency. For example: If the service would cost $180 and $30 would go by default to Sony, you could say give $80 to CD Projekt, give $40 to ChuckleFish and the remaining $30 to the rest. That would be the fairest system for the consumer.

I barely play 4 hours worth a month these days and that's on pc. I would likely lose interest in gaming altogether if subs became a thing.

This would kill AAA games, so no

Why, you can get'em all free on YouTube. :P

I'm ready for games to be Netflix... I don't buy physical anymore and I don't get a ton of time to play, so I wouldn't mind having it all for a flat rate.

I pay 130 a year for the MLB package, so this wouldn't phase me much.

No. I don't support games as a service. When I look back on my decades of gaming, there's a fond realization that at least on PC I can relive my favorite games and try ones I missed. Replaying Zork Grand Inquisitor right now. Fantastic freaking game. I'm not paying some monthly package price for "our library of retro classics" or some shit like that on PlayStation. As it stands, I already refuse to pay for ps+

Nope.

Nope

Hell yea. That $119 would negate all other money that I spend on games tbh

Paying for something that you don't own baffles me.

I can do the same thing on PC but without the paying part, although PS4 is hacked now so its an option there as well.

@ten_pints: I mean, I also said "nope", but have you never rented an apartment and/or do you not have a netflix or hulu account?

No, the actual quality of the games would vastly decrease due to small budgets... I don't want an Xbox One situation on my favorite console.

NOPE !

My games belong on my shelf, not a hard drive or cloud.

I'm sorry, but am I the only person that thinks getting an entire current gen 1P console library for $120 year doesn't sound like a very conducive strategy to get great major titles? It just doesn't seem like a sustainable business model to me. I already wonder if it'll work out for MS with GP. But I'm with everyone else, I rather own my games.

I have all the game's I want on Game Pass.

I am surprised there are so many "no" responses here. 120 dollars is the cost of two games (less, actually, after taxes). If you're not playing more than two games per year, what are you doing playing games in the first place?

I mean are you really going to play God of War and some other game...and that's it?

1. You never own a game these days with the way the EULA's are written. Even if you physically possess a game, you don't actually own it. You simply bought the rights to play it.

2. People lease cars and rent apartments/homes all the time. It really should not baffle you.

I thought the whole point of owning a physical copy of a game is to re-sell it in the future.

Wouldn't the whole "any game you want" sort of pay for itself after playing like 10 games? I mean you're buying a game for 60+tax, then reselling it for what? 10 dollars? So yeah I guess after the eighth game it would pay for itself (the subscription, I mean).

I mean 120/year or whatever it comes out to is cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeap. That's a great deal!

...and music belongs on records and movies belong on cassettes! Rabble rabble!

I'm on PC so I am sort of in the middle ground. I mean, I haven't bought a physical copy since like 2005 or shortly after Steam came out. But at the same time, we can still download the game and put it on the hard drive just like a physical copy. I can play it offline if I have to. I can mod it, edit the files, make changes to it, and so forth just like I could.

Netflix comparisons scare me, however. I enjoy Netflix as well, and they put out a few good shows and movies. But at the same time, they also put out a whole bunch of garbage.

Maybe it's needless worry but the quality of games might suffer.

On the flipside, AAA games have become absolute garbage in the past few years. Their budgets are too big, their gameplay lacking, and the presence of long cutscenes, gimmicks, and so forth really makes me think that them being put on a budget (i.e. they only make so much from a game, so they need to watch how much they spend) in order to improve the quality of their games.

I mean there are tons of great-but-unknown voice actors out there, did we really need Josh Duhamel in the recent Call of Duty for god-only-knows how many millions of dollars? Did his voice really lend that much to the game?

If Far Cry 5 and God of War are the best "AAA" gaming can do, then maybe it is time for a change.

@mrbojangles25: **** EULAs, they’ve never stopped me from playing my old games in the past. I go back to my old 20 year old systems and I play my old games. I wanna be able to do that with games today 20 years from now. I hate subscriptions and I want to own my games physically like I’ve always done. I buy some games digitally but for games I really care about I prefer owning physical copies. The day we switch to a subscription only service for gaming is the day I quit gaming.

what about digital only? Doesn't have to be subscription.

Also I don't think they are doing away with physical or digital copies, right? Subscription is just an option, yes?

I hate digital only with a passion as well. The day we go digital only is also the day I quit gaming.

I buy digital for certain games but games I really care about I prefer physical. I like to be given the option to go physical or digital, forcing me to go digital only will piss me off.

I dont fallout with the concept, games becoming like Netflix is fine by me. I voted no as there arnt any Sony games(bloodbourne aside) that interest me, not this generation anyway. I wouldnt be able to play Bloodbourne at 30fps anyway.

How does it work on console? I've never owned one. I mean if you have a digital copy, is that copy tied to your account? And in that case, can you play it on any capable system provided it has the hardware to play it (i.e. can you play a PS3 game on the PS4?)?

I've been digital only for well over a decade at this point, I think the last physical copy I bought was Crysis: Warhead and that was a rare hard-copy purchase. I honestly enjoy it more than physical copies because of the price, convenience, and how well it has been implemented. Steam is awesome, and with Good Ol' Games you can purchase the games without DRM, meaning you can download and save them to a physical disk or usb stick. Hell, even EA's Origin is doing it well, with their generous return policy and free games and such.

I'm not arguing with you, btw, just trying to see why some people are so opposed to the idea.

Absofreakinglutely. This would save me so much time and money.

I would truly hate that. :(

I prefer us having both choices; physical and digital. I am weary of the future of the former though with the supposed digital trend.

On consoles, physical games aren't tied to any accounts or any system for that matter. You just pop in the disc and play your game, it's simple.

The reason I'm opposed to digital for games I really love is the fact I like to amass a collection of games on my shelf. I also like the option of trading in games I dislike which digital robs me of the ability to do. Like Destiny for example, I bought that game on Bungie hype believing it would be a classic like their Halo games only to find out it was a turd. I can't trade it in since I bought it digital, and it's forever in my digital library reminding me of how I wasted my money on the turd.

The final reason I like owning games digitally is in case for some reason Sony or one of these corporations lose the license to have a game on their store I'll still have the physical copy to play. That happened with P.T. demo Sony had in their store. Konami decided to cancel the game and Sony was forced to pull the demo from their store and you had people selling PS4s/HDDs with the demo for ridiculous prices on Ebay. I know it's a demo but the same kind of scenario could happen to a full game in a digital only future.

Then take your ass over to PC and xbox side and you'll have all the shitty, early access, low budget, buggy and broken games you could ask for.

Why are you even asking this question of PS4 games if you don't like the games?

You asked us what WE think and we collectively told you and now you're hitting back with the most idiotic counter trying to question PS4s AAA games?

So then why are you begging for PS4 AAA games to be on this shitty service?

You said yourself that this was an MS inspired question from xbox's Games Pass. Well LOOK at the quality of games MS is offering to you with that service State of Decay 2 and Sea of Thieves!

But you come to us suggesting it's time for a change when we don't want the shitty games as a service idea MS came up with even though we have games like God of War on PS4?...GTFOH

Kick rocks and take your silly question back to xbox/PC and stop asking about PS4 games since you there's an issue with Sony's AAA games.

@mrbojangles25: Why would you think that the only reason to buy physical copies of games would be to resell them later? I keep the games that I purchase. I like having physical copies of games as a collection. I never said that I want to have any game that I wanted, I said that I wanted to play any game that I had any time that I wanted without having to maintain paying a subscription fee. Sure it might be cheaper in the sense that I could have access to more games but I’d rather to pay more and purchase my games for a one time cost per game, add it to my collection, and play it at any time I wish to.

Calm down, your fanboyism is showing.

I am on PC, and I've proudly spent hundreds of hours on single early-access titles because of their innovative game design, work ethic, and so forth. I mean Factorio? Man that game is like crack. Same with Hearthstone. Stellaris might be low budget, but god damn that game can be played forever.

With that said, you're taking it out of context, bud:

First, I'm discussing this in the context of gaming in general. PS4 might be the topic here, but it's not the only relevant argument to be had.

Second, as to my Far Cry 5 and God of War comment: I wasn't posing that scenario ("the best they can do...") to be facetious, troll, or give anyone a hard time; I was just saying that they're good but not that good. Far Cry 5 was fun, but the only reason I still have it installed is because I was foolish enough to buy the season pass and I'm waiting for a Blood Dragon-quality DLC. God of War is also fun, but let's be real; no one will be playing or talking about it shortly except for people who missed out on it. Hell, it's only been a few weeks, and it's already happening.

It's like FF XV. When it came out, people were shitting their pants b/c it was allegedly good. Then it comes to PC and I ask people "Should I buy it?" and they're all critical of it; I was confused because when it came out, people were all over it; then, you know, a while later and suddenly it's not a good game (and, surprise, it's not a good game).

Horizon Zero Dawn is another example. Fun game, but I don't expect it to be on too many people's "top 50" lists. I don't even hear it mentioned much now in gaming, which is sad because a truly great game is often relevant in most gaming discussions.

People still talk about Half-Life. They still talk about Mario. They still play Donkey Kong for competitions. The most popular e-sport games have all been out for years.

Lastly, I'm not criticizing PS4 games, I'm simply asking a question as to the necessity of services like this to gaming in general. Yeah this might be specific to PS4 right now as far as the topic goes, but it's relevant to all of gaming. So that's why I am here.

Relax, dude, I'm not talking smack about your precious PS4. This is all just philosophical discussion as far as I am concerned.

I guess the TL;DR version of it is this: if the glory days of gaming are behind us, and if AAA gaming's best new games are Far Cry 5 and God of War, then maybe it's time for some change, some innovation.

@Archangel3371: I said that because, most of the time, that seems to be the main reason.

But I get the collection aspect of it, I have three massive cardboard boxes filled with hard copies of games since I started playing games nearly three decades ago.

But when you move around a lot, it's really nice not having those boxes to worry about.

You're very wrong about this. People will be talking about and playing GOW 20 years from now. It's shallow MP games and generic Battle Royale games like PUBG that people won't remember years from now when their popularity fades.

People still talk about the 1st GOW game and that came out in 2005. Classics like GOW never fade into obscurity, they remain permanent footnotes in gaming like Zelda, Mario, Sonic, MGS, etc.

Long after people have forgotten about their killstreaks they had in PUBG and Fortnite people will still be talking about the stories and experiences in those games. I've been gaming for over 30 years and I've seen many trends come and go but classic games like Zelda BOTW, Mario Odyssey, GOW, etc. are the only type of games that have endured the years and remained relevant.

@mrbojangles25: For me I prefer to have my games and gaming paraphernalia displayed on shelves instead of stuffed away in boxes. I don’t move around a lot either however even if I did I’d still prefer having a large gaming collection to where having to move it wouldn’t bother me enough to the point where I wouldn’t want one.

Yeah if I owned my home or had a "game room" I would totally display that stuff. Shelves upon shelves of games stacked up like books.

Unfortunately I rent :(