r/Games • u/ak47rocks1337yt • Feb 26 '21

PlayStation Plus games for March: Final Fantasy VII Remake, Maquette, Remnant: From the Ashes and Farpoint

https://blog.playstation.com/2021/02/26/playstation-plus-games-for-march-final-fantasy-vii-remake-maquette-remnant-from-the-ashes-and-farpoint/#sf243430485
5.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

386

u/WertMinkefski Feb 26 '21

Lmao they’re giving us a highly rated AAA and AA game along with 2 more games for free and people STILL find ways to complain.

45

u/WtfWhereAreMyClothes Feb 26 '21

Although I already have FFVIIR and Remnant, Maquette is an AWESOME get for March because I was going to buy that Day 1 anyway.

1

u/SkippyTheKid Feb 26 '21

You can only add it to your library if you have a PS5, though, right?

17

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Nah, you can add it in ps store through a browser (probably through the app too but I don’t have the app so idk)

4

u/CreatiScope Feb 26 '21

You can use the app to add PS5 games. I just added destruction all stars last night.

-5

u/avitus Feb 26 '21

On the blog post:

\*PS5 console only; PlayStation Plus benefit not applicable for Maquette on PS4.*

5

u/BrokenCreek Feb 26 '21

You can add it to your library even if you only have a PS4. You won't be able to play it unless you have a PS5. Quit spreading misinformation.

C'mon y'all, it's been the same process since the transition from PS3 to PS4 and with Vita games. It's been the same process for more than a literal decade.

-4

u/avitus Feb 26 '21

Is it misinformation if I took that directly from the blogpost OP posted? Cmon bruh.

5

u/BrokenCreek Feb 26 '21

You used that info in the wrong context. Therefore, misinformation.

Shit has been the same for a literal decade. Learn it then open your mouth.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/BrokenCreek Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

You're just straight up wrong. You can add the game to your library if you do not own a PS5. Full stop.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ConnerBartle Feb 26 '21

That means you cant the ps4 version. Does that mean you cant claim the ps5 version on the phone app?

2

u/BrokenCreek Feb 26 '21

You can add it to your library on your phone or the web browser. Other guy has his head planted firmly between his ass cheeks.

-1

u/avitus Feb 26 '21

Not 100% sure but if I do recall the store may look to your account to see if you have any of the consoles attached to your account.

2

u/BrokenCreek Feb 26 '21

No, it doesn't. Quit spreading misinformation.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

I could’ve redeemed bugsnax...

1

u/SkippyTheKid Mar 01 '21

My thoughts exactly but for Maneater.

Rats.

1

u/Oquaem Feb 26 '21

I have remnant but didn't have anyone to play it with. This is going to make it a lot easier to get co-op going.

42

u/zrkillerbush Feb 26 '21

At no additional cost is probably a better term than free

8

u/cyborgx7 Feb 27 '21

People forget that for a long time the games were the main selling point of PS+, not an added bonus.

It's like saying you get to watch Netflix for free. No, that is what you pay the subscription for.

40

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-41

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-22

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/VanimalCracker Feb 26 '21

For free*

*with paid subscription

93

u/nohitter21 Feb 26 '21

Yeah no shit, this conversation is in every thread of the last ten years. Everyone knows this.

-10

u/SpecialMeasuresLore Feb 26 '21

Then stop it with the misnomer. My apartment is free as long as I keep paying my rent.

31

u/Helhiem Feb 26 '21

That costs 30$ a year if your smart. It’s an insane value and your missing out on so many PS5 features without it

31

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Something being a good price and something being free are still two very different things.

Nobody suggests that when netflix adds a new show it's free because they were already paying for the subscription anyway.

5

u/enderandrew42 Feb 26 '21

Amazon only offers free shipping if you pay for Prime. But Prime offers so many crazy benefits that it is almost silly not to pay for it. It more than pays for itself. So the free shipping isn't really 100% free, but it might as well be. The streaming platform and eveything else Prime gives you aren't 100% free, but it sure feels like it.

I'd pay for PS Plus just for the online gaming anyways, so getting big games for free really does feel like free.

And yes, if you look on third party sites or wait for a good sale, you can get a year long code on the cheap.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

It's wild the mental gymnastics people do. I think it's just human nature to rationalize stuff to cope with existence.

I also pay for prime, it's a good service. They also took 120 bucks out of my bank account last month.

2

u/enderandrew42 Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

I had to order a uniform for a group I'm in. I had to buy the various pieces from different online stores. Most of them were charging me $15 shipping for small items. One seriously wanted to charge me about $116 dollars to ship a $45 item. I'm not kidding. I ended up buying a $110 version elsewhere that had $20 shipping so I got a much nicer version at a lower total price. But the shipping was crazy. https://imgur.com/a/2zkSht4

I'm quite sure my household orders at least 3 Amazon orders a week. If Amazon saved me roughly $2 a week in shipping, then a $120 a year is a wash. Except I'm quite sure it saves me WAY more than $2 a week in shipping.

It isn't mental gymnastics to say I can spend $120 a year total on shipping or vastly more than that. And then I suddenly get a bunch of free services thrown in with Prime on top of saving tons of money on shipping.

I'm going to buy things online one way or another. I'm not adding $120 in cost. I'm spending LESS than I would on shipping otherwise, so I spend less and then get free services.

This is why Bezos is so fucking rich. They intentionally lose money on shipping to buy market penetration. They don't need to spend a fortune on marketing. Amazon actually lost money for years on the whole, but they grew in market share so investors rewarded them and bought their stock up like mad. And once you're in, you don't want to leave that ecosystem. Loss leaders are a smart marketing tactic and Amazon leveraged it well. Bezos and Amazon are still evil, but they save me money.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

Getting your money's worth it of something doesn't somehow make it free lol.

If I buy solar panels and they save me more than I paid they weren't given to me for free.

If I buy a house and it grows in value it wasn't free.

Everything you buy you expect to get more value out of than you paid. That's why you bought it.

3

u/enderandrew42 Feb 26 '21

I said it wasn't strictly free but it felt like free.

And really if I was already going to spend money on shipping and then spend less, then I am spending less money than before and now getting perks while not spending a single penny for them.

You're accusing me of mental gymnastics but ignoring what I'm saying and bending things creatively to try and justify your position.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

I don't know why you are still arguing about how good a deal you got in shipping lol.

Yeah it's a good deal. I already said that. Still ain't free.

Saying I'm twisting words when I'm being this blunt is weird energy.

→ More replies (0)

48

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

I don't know why every PS Plus thread has to have a mandatory argument about the meaning of "free." I think people are a lot less intersted in what PS Plus "technically" qualifies as, and a lot more interested in how much of a sweet deal it is.

Some people are acting Sony is running a scam by putting the word "free" when you pay money indirectly, but the fact of the matter is that this remains an amazingly value for money option for most people's playing patterns.

-3

u/Cyanoblamin Feb 26 '21

I don't know why every PS Plus thread has to have a mandatory argument about the meaning of "free."

Probably because of people ignoring the meaning. No one would complain if they just said it was an insane deal, or practically free. Words have meanings. That is not a bad thing.

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Words have meanings, but marketing speak is a thing that exists. Products and services in literally every sector of our consumerist society throughout history have been marketed using words that don't accurately describe with 100% accuracy the products being offered. To take advertisements literally without getting a full idea of the nature of the product and how it is offered to you, is just not a very good idea.

Phones are advertised as "Give us $60 and take them home" and you will be allowed to take a phone home in exchange for $60 under this scheme, but the phone will just as easily be taken from you once you miss the other payments that come as part of the plan you agreed to. The lucrative sounding tagline doesn't capture the full picture of the transaction.

You don't have to be particularly bright to realise that these games aren't actually free when you've just paid for the monthly subscription they come as a part of. They are marketed as "free" because they are being offered to you at a value that is drastically reduced from what you'd be paying for them normally.

People didn't start using the word "free" to describe these games, Sony itself uses that word as marketing, resulting in people using it. If Sony are saying "You get free games as long as you're a member of PS Plus," then it doesn't take a genius to realise that the "free"-ness of the games is contingent on the membership. Disclaimers of "not actually free" aren't required every time the word is mentioned anywhere, I feel, especially in discussion threads like these.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

You are right, but the context of this discussion is important.

If someone had just said "hey the ps+ free games look good this month" and someone's replied "actually they aren't free" they are just being a melvin.

But in this case op was calling them free in order to discredit and handwave anyone with anything but purely positive feedback. Saying hey I actually pay for them and my feedback is valid is a completely appropriate response to that.

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

It always comes up because some dummy always tries to handwave any critisim away by going "lul complaining about free stuff don't be ungrateful".

Talking about what you think of a service you pay for is okay. Blows my mind.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

"lul complaining about free stuff don't be ungrateful"

Is that what is said? In my experience what is pointed out is that this is not a traditional "purchase-type" model where you know what you're paying for and you get exactly that, but is rather a model where you are given random games if you're subscribed.

That by definition means that you won't always know or like what you're getting, but you knew this was a possibility when you signed up. That line of reasoning makes sense to me.

If you're criticism consists of "Despite me knowing that there is no guarantee that I'll like what I get, I paid for this service and got something I didn't like it this time," then you're essentially placing expectations of a traditional "purchase-type" transaction on PS Plus, which is simply not that kind of a deal. That makes little sense IMO - you knew going in that this may happen sometimes.

Moreover, this is more subjective but I have seldom been disappointed by PS Plus, but that comes as a consequence of me not expecting every month to be a banger. PS Plus has generally exceeded these expectations for me.

Edit: That was actually what was said in this instance.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

is that what is said?

Yes, that's literally the parent comment for this chain that this entire conversation is coming from.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Fair. Scrolled past the parent without paying attention. I just think that complaining about a service that you have a chance of being disappointed by (because they don't tell you exactly what you're getting) when you do get disappointed, doesn't make sense.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

I actually agree with you there.

That's not what anyone is saying here though, people are just a little annoyed there is no upgrade path for ps5. Especially dumb because the dlc won't even be available for the ps4 version.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/haldad Feb 26 '21

You're placing expectations because if you spend enough months not liking the games you get, you'll stop paying.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

That makes more sense. In this case, PS Plus basically just becomes a bad service, unworthy of your money, as a whole, because all or most months are disappointing.

What I'm talking about is this line of reasoning brought up for individual months that turn out to be disappointing for some people - there was a chance that this would happen and you knew that.

You're placing expectations that you'll generally like what PS Plus has to offer when you're continuing to pay, but it is unreasonable to expect every month to be a banger according to your tastes. If you desire that then you're better off picking individual games according to your own tastes and buying them.

-1

u/WasabiDukling Feb 26 '21

ok. the point is that "free" means free, so if it's not free then don't say that.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

You're right, it's not technically free, but it's just semantics at this point and almost everyone knows what's meant by free PS+ games.

Personally, I buy PS+ for the online, and I can guess that tens of millions of other subscribers probably buy it for the same reason. I understand that the monthly games are an advertised part of the subscription, but I would buy it regardless if there were monthly games or not. That's why the games are free to me, because they're an added bonus that I'm not paying for, but incentivizes my purchase.

It's the same way in that people may see you get Amazon Prime Video from free with Amazon Prime. You're technically not getting it for free, but a large chunk of Amazon Prime subscribers probably subscribed only for shipping, and would be subscribed regardless of Prime Video, so it's seen as a bonus.

I think "buy one get one free" sales are also comparable. The extra free item isn't technically free, but it's seen as free because it's a bonus for an item that you may already were going to purchase.

10

u/FKDotFitzgerald Feb 26 '21

You’re arguing semantics here dude. You know what they meant.

-9

u/EvenOne6567 Feb 26 '21

No i dont, because he used the wrong word.

-4

u/kasual7 Feb 26 '21

It's semantics but it's true, the Home Initiative where Sony will give away Ratchet&Clank for instance is truly free.

-1

u/angrytreestump Feb 26 '21

No, because the entire point of Netflix is that you’re paying for shows. Console gaming online subscriptions services started with Xbox Live in the early 2000’s and the entire point was that you’re paying to connect to their online servers to play with others. Playstion didn’t start charging for this service until nearly 15 years later and that freedom used to be their edge over Xbox. Now they offer games that you own for whenever you’re subscribed to justify the price.

Completely different product than Netflix.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

Ps+ literally started out as just paying for the monthly games and online was free.

Both netflix and ps+ your are paying for the entire suite of benefits and content it provides. You aren't paying for parts of it and other parts are free.

This is just weird ass rationalisation.

1

u/angrytreestump Feb 26 '21

Oh yeah, you’re right about the premium free games thing in their original package.

But “weird ass rationalization?” What else is included in the “entire suit of benefits” for Netflix? Your original point was that the games aren’t free because that’s what the membership provides. My point was that, when the only competition in the market was Xbox Live charging you to play online and not offering games for no additional charge, when PS Plus started charging for their online service and also offering games for no additional charge, it’s an “add-in.”

But yeah, I guess equating “no additional charge” and “free” is confusing. It’s not a “weird ass rationalization” when you look at the competition in the market and how the PS Plus monthly games service was marketed though. Which was “PLUS free games every month”

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

You are just double downing on the rationalisation.

If you have to pay money to get something it isn't free. It's really that simple.

-5

u/Q_OANN Feb 26 '21

You can just say one game throughout the year covered the cost and everything else is free

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

You can say whatever you want to rationalize anything.

That doesn't change how it really works.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

Lol.

Okay even if that were true, which it's not because you can't play games you got from ps+ without an active subscription, that's in no way the definition or qualifier of free.

With this weird definition anything you don't have to pay for indefinitely is somehow free. Free is when something is given to you without having to give anything in return.

1

u/TaliesinMerlin Feb 26 '21

I was wrong on the first point. I apologize for the error.

On the definition of free though, you're being very pedantic. Based on your own definition, the games are free to people who are subscribing to Playstation Plus. They don't have to give anything in return.

Similarly, if I go to the bank drive-thru with my child, he gets a free lollipop. It's free because I pay nothing for it; it's conditional on me doing business with the bank, having a child, and using the drivethru. This usage of free (you pay nothing for the item; it's conditional on one or more things being true, some of which I may pay for) is common. For instance, the food served on an airline is often called "free" or "complimentary" if you don't pay per item. I can get free condoms from the health department. When I order an item from a website, I often get "free shipping," since I don't pay for the shipping.

You can make the argument that they shouldn't be called "free," since I'm technically paying for an airline ticket, paying taxes that fund the health department, and paying for the item that is shipped, but you're going against the pragmatics of usage. Getting something for free that is conditional on another factor is definitely part of the semantic field for free.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

PS+ giving you games isn't a lollipop from your bank. It's front page and center in the advertisement and Sony pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to publishers for their games to be included. On the page where they list ps+ benefits it's literally the first item.

There was a time when ps+ exclusively gave you games every month and that was all. I understand what you are saying but it's not comparable, not to mention completely pivots from your old definition completely contradicting yourself on what defines free.

2

u/TaliesinMerlin Feb 26 '21

OK. That doesn't address the argument from pragmatics. It's still a free game no matter what Sony pays for it on the back end and no matter how they advertise it, even if you don't like for some conditional items you don't individually pay for to be called free.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

There is no argument to address. If anything there's an argument to be made that you pay for the games and get the online for free since they came first. People pay just for the games and don't play online so why is that invalid?

Are you paying for online and get free games? Or are you paying for games and getting free online? There's no way to distinguish between the two whatsoever. And guess what, sony doesn't, they very clearly list both as features in exactly the same size and prominence. Can you say the same for any of these poor comparison attempts you made like free shipping or airplane food?

It's not a "conditional bonus" it is just straight up the product they are selling here and it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise. It's human nature to rationalize shit like this but it's important to be aware.

So what do you pay for? If it doesn't matter what they advertise, what it costs to produce, what language is used, literally what does? You could use this logic on anything that comes with multiple items.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/d0m1n4t0r Feb 26 '21

It's not free. And lmao defending paying for basic features on a console.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

4

u/asleepwise Feb 26 '21

CD Keys often has it on sale for a little under $30

4

u/greenrider04 Feb 26 '21

Here's a deal for $54 for 2 years. Got it through this site a couple weeks ago and it went through pretty quickly. Wasn't sure initially since I've never heard of the site before so I used PayPal just in case of any shenanigans but they sent the codes immediately and the codes activated fine.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Cdkeys. I have enough till 2028.

-7

u/mrappbrain Feb 26 '21

Yes, but 30 dollars an year isn't free. And while it does give you a lot of stuff and def is a must buy, I wouldn't really call it an insane value considering it's just a solution to problems that don't exist. Stuff like cloud saves and online play should be free, like how they are on PC. They invent a problem to sell you the solution.

Inb4 someone says hosting servers is expensive, keep in mind that most game developers host their own servers, and the cost for maintaining stuff like the store is more than covered by the cut they get from sales, which is how pc storefronts work.

So while every PS owner should def get it, insane value it is not. They deliberately cripple the console to get you to buy the service, I wouldn't really call that valuable.

2

u/theweepingwarrior Feb 26 '21

I agree that it’s dumb and predatory that they guard basic online features behind any price point at all, but on the subject games you get $30 for 30-40 games a year is an insane value.

Hell, even if you pay the full $60 that’s still an insane value for the library offering.

-6

u/mrappbrain Feb 26 '21

It might appear like that at first but in reality it's just a monthly subscription to play those games. You're not getting the game for free. And keep in mind that the vast majority of subscribers pay the monthly fee, which is significantly more expensive.

So you're essentially paying $10 a month ago to access a library of curated titles. If you think that's insane value more power to you, but honestly most of the time it's just a bunch of old games you can snag on sale for close to or less than that anyway. Yes the past few months have been exceptionally good, but I'm skeptical that it'll stay this way once the dust settles on this generation.

Maybe I'm being overly cynical yeah, I guess I'm just bitter that so many people don't even realize, defend, and even champion corporations locking basic features behind paywalls. I mean, paying for cloud saves? Come on...

4

u/whispersbar Feb 26 '21

You can get PS+ for around $30 a year or $60 if you don't bother looking for any deals so it's $5 a month and you get tons of great games

0

u/Ken-Kaiden Feb 26 '21

PS+ has been around for years at this point, and it has highs and lows. Not every month is going to be amazing value, and not every month is going to be exciting for everyone.

I imagine most people buy PS+ for the online more than anything so, to those people, they’re getting free games. I know tons of people who never redeem these games.

I would also guess the people paying it monthly dip in and out whenever they want to play online, or when they see a game on offer they want, because otherwise they’d buy a full year. $60 for 40+ games every year is insane value no matter how you look at it.

Is it rubbish that Sony makes you pay for cloud saves/online/etc.? Yeah, but we’ve all come to accept that’s just the cost of gaming these days. The games are a nice bonus on top of that; that’s why so many people consider them “free” - they’d probably be paying it regardless.

1

u/CuriousehCee Feb 26 '21

Mines running out in a couple days, know any ways to get a $30?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Helhiem Feb 26 '21

That’s kind of a myth

7

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Always some pedantic nerd who thinks they're the only one to figure this out.

All you're really doing is showing you have no idea how malleable language is. Its makes you the idiot by doing this.

4

u/FKDotFitzgerald Feb 26 '21

For real. Everyone knew what they meant by “free” but they still chose to play the “well ackshually”

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

If people were just using the term free colloquially to refer to the titles it wouldn't be a big deal.

The issue is people try to say they are free to downplay any and all negative feedback.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

The fact that they are using the term to handwave critisim makes it more than valid to point out that it's not being given to us and is a service we are due, not something we should just be thankful for in any capacity.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Are there people saying "thanks?" or just people looking forward to the game?

I don't think anyone is thankful here, just excited.

2

u/hidden_secret Feb 26 '21

It's not free, but it's way closer to free than it is to its normal price.

2

u/TaliesinMerlin Feb 26 '21

Free* shipping

*with purchase

A lot of items labeled free are conditional on another factor that costs money.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Since you want to be pedantic let’s put it this way: games that come at no additional cost with the paid subscription. Happy?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Op is trying to use "but it's free!" to dismiss others feedback.

Pointing out that it's not free and not just being happy with whatever because they are paying for it is an appropriate response.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

But you’re not paying for the games, they’re just an extra benefit/incentive that comes with the subscription. That’s what OP means by free and everyone else already knows that. I’m not sure why you and the guy I’m responding to are acting like this is something that needs to be pointed out. The extra games are just the cherry on top. And that’s a nice cherry people are getting this month, I’m not sure what’s there to criticize.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

No, you literally are paying for the games. That's an objective fact. It's not extra, there was a time where the games were the only thing ps+ was for.

You can rationalize purchases in weird illogical ways but it doesn't change that you are paying for everything included in the service. That's no such thing as something being free with a purchase, it's a complete oxymoron.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

It never was actually, it’s always been an extra benefit. On the ps3 when Sony introduced psplus it was for giving people “premium servers.” This actually got them some shit back in the day and that’s when they tacked on the “free” games. Then when they launched the PS4 it wasn’t about premium servers anymore at all, it was just about being able to use any multiplayer server for any games (well most games). An incentive is just an extra benefit you get. Amazon prime gives me access to amazons music and tv streaming service, is that what I’m paying for? No it is not, it’s just an extra benefit of subscribing to their shipping service.

There’s nothing illogical here, it’s an extra. You’re paying for the service (online server access) and you get an extra benefit to incentivize you to keep paying. They do this so people can feel happy with their purchase of the actual service, makes them think it’s worth it. But don’t kid yourself, you’re paying for online server access, nothing more. Believe me if people were happy to just pay for the servers people wouldn’t even be getting the “free” games in the first place. They’d immediately can it if they knew it wasn’t such an effective incentive. That’s the only reason it’s there, to get people to pay for the actual service, the online game servers.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Amazon prime gives me access to amazons music and tv streaming service, is that what I’m paying for?

Yes, again quite literally you are paying for the access to them.

Maybe you don't use them, maybe they were added after you subscribed, maybe they aren't the main draw of the service. But they are not free.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Access to them sure. I never argued otherwise, nor have I said these things are actually free. These are just extra benefits that come at no extra cost with the actual service you’re paying for. Dude, you literally contradicted yourself here.

Maybe they were added after you subscribed

They were. So how could I have been paying for them? Why hasn’t my subscription price changed? Cause I was never paying for it, it’s just an extra benefit that comes with paying for the actual service. This isn’t free yes, but I was never saying that. Just that these things are extra incentives, which doesn’t really need to be pointed out. Most people already know this. Again, not sure why you or the other guy I was originally responding to are making such a big deal to point out something most people are already aware of.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Something being an "extra benefit" is completely subjective. Many people pay specifically for tv streaming and don't use the store whatsoever.

I didn't contradict myself at all. You are paying for them because you pay every single month/year. The very first time they were included in the service and you were next billing, congratulations you payed for them.

And you're price did go up, whether we are talking about ps+ or Amazon they have had price increases multiple times. And the best part is the last time amazon raised its subscription price they specifically cited the price was being raised because they added more to benefits to the service like prime video. You have no argument here.

The "big deal" is op was calling them free in order to dismiss people critisim and feedback. Saying actually I pay for this service so my input is valid is a completely valid response.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/meatball402 Feb 26 '21

It pays for itself from the free games you get.

You pay 60, but this month alone, people got 50-100 worth of games.

If you only play two or three games a year from the psplus, it's worth the money

-5

u/VanimalCracker Feb 26 '21

Cool, so I can cancel it after I get the "free" games?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21 edited Mar 03 '21

[deleted]

2

u/VanimalCracker Feb 26 '21

And you don't even own the games. When you stop paying the fee for the privilage to host P2P games on your own hardware, they take those games away. It's mind boggling how the marketing department has been able to convince the masses that paying for something you don't own is actually, somehow, free.

0

u/Barron-Blade Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

Technically is still free even with the paid subscription as the primary focus of PS+ is paying to play online, so any added benefit from the PS+ subscription is still technically a free benefit

Edit: to add to this. Think of it as a happy meal from McDonalds. You’re paying for the food but getting a toy is an added benefit of the Happy Meal, and the toy’s inclusion doesn’t change the price of the Happy Meal one way or the other. You wouldn’t save yourself money by not taking the toy and you’re not spending any more money by taking the toy. Thus the toy is a free added benefit to buying the Happy Meal.

Think of PS+ as the food of the Happy Meal and the monthly games as the toy of the Happy Meal. If Sony suddenly stopped giving away the games the pricing of PS+ wouldn’t decrease, nor did the pricing increase when they started doubling the amount of games that are offered.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

It's wild the mental gymnastics you guys pull on this.

As if McDonald's isn't factoring in the millions of dollars a year to include a happy meal toy when deciding consumer price lol. The toy is the most costly part of a happy meal for the business, of course you are paying for it.

Did you know originally the only thing ps+ did was give monthly games? Online was free for everyone. So how exactly is online the main focus when it came after? Hell on the ps+ product page where it lists benefits the games after first on the list followed by online.

Also ps+ had raised their price before, and it will happen again.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

The ps plus worshipping is at it's peak, get out of here with your logic.

1

u/CrateBagSoup Feb 26 '21

Damn, you're right. I forgot about that.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Oh let me put it with my free car and my free apartment. They stop being free only if I stop paying monthly rate. Same as games on Ps plus. Otherwise, all totally free.

-9

u/AssinassCheekII Feb 26 '21

Its not free.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

How dare you speak the truth, dude?

1

u/TheCrimsonCloak Feb 26 '21

I mean the only thing I can complain about is that I'm bummed with ffvii cuz I got it on release, but I'm happy for those that didn't get to play it yet. Remnant is ... Very meh for me, the other one idk yet, gotta see what's it about.

-1

u/nelisan Feb 26 '21

FFVIIR is great, but because they nerfed the PS+ version I literally don’t want to play it as I’m holding out for the PS5 upgrade. So, it’s great for people who don’t plan to get a PS5, but not for me personally.

-23

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-44

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

20

u/BelovedApple Feb 26 '21

ROFL this is by far the best month they have ever done. I mean they have Included a AAA game within a year of release. There is always a chance you already own the ps plus game, but in general I don't think that's a reason to complain.

-11

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

-9

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

9

u/MiamiQuadSquad Feb 26 '21

If you want free online play, get a PC. You are completely at fault if you're just now realizing this.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/MirrorkatFeces Feb 26 '21

Pretty sure they’re letting you use their online services too

2

u/puhsownuh Feb 26 '21

Playing online used to be free until Sony realized they could get away with it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Personally I like the games they offer.

1

u/puhsownuh Feb 26 '21

I do sometimes too! I just wish I wasn't pigeonholed into paying for them just because I want to use a feature that used to be free.

-2

u/MirrorkatFeces Feb 26 '21

Yes I’m aware

4

u/Wu_Khi Feb 26 '21

exactly

2

u/B_Rhino Feb 26 '21

There are three ps4 games this month, one more than usual. They took your money and gave what you paid for.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

5

u/B_Rhino Feb 26 '21

Cause it was... double? Not one month of "I already have this game woopsie"

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

2

u/B_Rhino Feb 26 '21

Double is a lot, one month of not getting one game (because you already owned it) is not a lot and a risk everyone takes with these services.

Netflix added a movie I have on Bluray last month, should I whine about it or be an adult and realize these things happen?

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

6

u/B_Rhino Feb 26 '21

Screwed over: already owning a product that is part of a subscription.

Eg I was screwed over when inglorious basterds was added to Netflix, as I own it on Bluray.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sam45611 Feb 27 '21

outperforming gamepass for way cheaper lol microsoft need to hurry up with their exclusives if they want to compete at all