Is PS Plus worth it?

[CastletonSnob 3,074]

I'm thinking about buying a year's subscription for PS Plus. Is it worth it?

[reader8363 1,281]

Yes it is worth it, but I do the month one

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

PS+ is to Sony as Xbox Live is to Microsoft. A paywall.

[Mae Borowski 356]

1 hour ago, Vulon Bii said:

PS+ is to Sony as Xbox Live is to Microsoft. A paywall.

hes right...but i just pay for a years worth and boom free games every month

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

8 minutes ago, Mae Borowski said:

hes right...but i just pay for a years worth and boom free games every month

But if you're paying $60, are the games really free?

[Mae Borowski 356]

Just now, Vulon Bii said:

But if you're paying $60, are the games really free?

nothing in life is free

after all the first law of physics states that anything fun costs at least $8

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

1 minute ago, Mae Borowski said:

nothing in life is free

after all the first law of physics states that anything fun costs at least $8

So they're not free?

[Mae Borowski 356]

Just now, Vulon Bii said:

So they're not free?

nothing is free free is an illusion

[Discordian 6,015]

6 hours ago, Vulon Bii said:

But if you're paying $60, are the games really free?

The money for subscriptions goes toward server costs and improving online performance.

 

The games are utterly superfluous and you will save hundreds of dollars from not having to buy those games.

 

There are also massive sales every few months where some games cost much less than you ever will spend on them otherwise. 

 

PS+ is worth it for games you've yet to play, or at the very least for trying out games you might not have otherwise spent money on at all.

[joanro 247]

Are you talking for PS3 or for PS4(or Vita)? I don't know if it would be worth it for PS3. By now you have probably bought a lot of games for the PS3 and you might already have the free games they are giving you with PS Plus.

For PS4, it depends. Do you play online multiplayer games? Or do you prefer playing single player games offline? If you play online multiplayer games then I would say yes, go for it. If you don't then I would say probably no, unless you are interested in those free games you get with PS Plus.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

9 hours ago, Discordian said:

The money for subscriptions goes toward server costs and improving online performance.

 

The games are utterly superfluous and you will save hundreds of dollars from not having to buy those games.

 

There are also massive sales every few months where some games cost much less than you ever will spend on them otherwise. 

 

PS+ is worth it for games you've yet to play, or at the very least for trying out games you might not have otherwise spent money on at all.

True, servers cost money to maintain, but "improving online performance" is something I never experienced, even before I had ever bought a PS4, where PS+ is forced if you want to do anything.

Are the games they offer each month quality games? Looking at the ones for July doesn't seem like much. I also never seen ones I really wanted when I had PS+.

So does everyone else.

Steam allows refunds if you owned it for less than 2 weeks, and have less than 2 hours of play time. Steam is also free.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Vulon Bii

[Discordian 6,015]

1 hour ago, Vulon Bii said:

True, servers cost money to maintain, but "improving online performance" is something I never experienced, even before I had ever bought a PS4, where PS+ is forced if you want to do anything.

Are the games they offer each month quality games? Looking at the ones for July doesn't seem like much. I also never seen ones I really wanted when I had PS+.

So does everyone else.

Steam allows refunds if you owned it for less than 2 weeks, and have less than 2 hours of play time. Steam is also free.

 

Depends on the month. This month has a number of games I've wanted to play so it's worth it to me.

 

Steam refunds are mostly worthless when you don't even get to a game for months, possibly years.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

I wouldn't consider two on the PS4, two on the PS3, one for Vita, and another for Vita and PS4 to be "a number of games". And as far as buying a game on Steam, not playing it ever, and deciding you don't want it is your fault.

[Discordian 6,015]

5 hours ago, Vulon Bii said:

I wouldn't consider two on the PS4, two on the PS3, one for Vita, and another for Vita and PS4 to be "a number of games". And as far as buying a game on Steam, not playing it ever, and deciding you don't want it is your fault.

It stacks up over time. Eventually you have a lot of games to play.

 

I've never wanted a refund on a game because I don't buy games I won't play. Just saying that buying stuff while it's cheap but not actually getting around to it at first because there's already way too many games to play and not enough time to play them negates the usefulness of the refund policy.

 

Also, how did Steam even come into this? Steam is irrelevant to consoles.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

42 minutes ago, Discordian said:

It stacks up over time. Eventually you have a lot of games to play.

 

I've never wanted a refund on a game because I don't buy games I won't play. Just saying that buying stuff while it's cheap but not actually getting around to it at first because there's already way too many games to play and not enough time to play them negates the usefulness of the refund policy.

 

Also, how did Steam even come into this? Steam is irrelevant to consoles.

The games are only free for that month, and I doubt anyone is filling up their HDDs for the free games you paid $60 for.

One example I will use is Rocket League. For a short time after it was released on PS4 and PC, it was "free" if you had a PS+ subscription, but if you gave money to Sony to unlock the paywall, then is it really free?

I brought up Steam because it's a digital distribution service, like PSN or Xbox Live, or even Origin, GOG, and (ugh) Uplay. Not to mention the additional services I included are also free.

[Discordian 6,015]

1 hour ago, Vulon Bii said:

The games are only free for that month, and I doubt anyone is filling up their HDDs for the free games you paid $60 for.

One example I will use is Rocket League. For a short time after it was released on PS4 and PC, it was "free" if you had a PS+ subscription, but if you gave money to Sony to unlock the paywall, then is it really free?

I brought up Steam because it's a digital distribution service, like PSN or Xbox Live, or even Origin, GOG, and (ugh) Uplay. Not to mention the additional services I included are also free.

As long as you've activated the download it's always free on your account when PS+ is active. You can redownload it even if it's years down the line. Don't even have to fully download it, it just has to be "purchased" at least once on that account.

 

What you're paying for is for the ability to play online. The games themselves aren't a part of that and are nothing more than an added bonus.  The ultimate point is you save a great deal of money by using the PS+ service. $60 a year gets you hundreds of dollars worth of games, and potentially hundreds more in sales at the very least. In the bounds of what this topic was asking then it is absolutely worth it. For a Playstation owner getting PS+ is a good money investment even if you don't play games online at all.

 

Steam might give you good sales but almost no games will ever go completely free unless they were released that way in the first place. PS+ can have a range of free games from indie to big budget games. Until Dawn is one of the PS4 games this month and that's by no means a smalltime game.

[Celli 4,337]

20 hours ago, Discordian said:

The money for subscriptions goes toward server costs and improving online performance.

 

Actually, it doesn't. The subscription fees go right in Sony and MS' pockets. Devs like Treyarch, Naughty Dog, Bungie, etc, pay for server costs themselves. There is literally no reason for online to have a subscription fee whatsoever. 

[Discordian 6,015]

6 minutes ago, Celli said:

Actually, it doesn't. The subscription fees go right in Sony and MS' pockets. Devs like Treyarch, Naughty Dog, Bungie, etc, pay for server costs themselves. There is literally no reason for online to have a subscription fee whatsoever. 

Even so, you're paying for a service they provide. They aren't required to make it completely free. Whether that money goes to profits, maintenance or employees it's more money for them to put elsewhere.

 

In fact, looking into it I don't think they've ever specifically said what the money for PS+ is used for but it's likely the same that all of their revenue goes into: A giant pool of money that gets allocated where it's needed.

 

You have to pay for internet to keep that service running too. PS+ is no different.

[Celli 4,337]

1 minute ago, Discordian said:

Even so, you're paying for a service they provide. They aren't required to make it completely free. Whether that money goes to profits, maintenance or employees it's more money for them to put elsewhere.

 

Well, charging for online with little incentive is scummy. I already pay $70 a month for internet, why would I want to pay another $10 a month just so I can use online functionality that barely works? And the games aren't a good incentive. What if there's a game that month that I don't like? Well, there goes any incentive.

I'm sorry, but especially as a PC gamer I see zero reason to pay for online. If it really went towards server costs, the service would work much better. Microsoft and Sony are greedy corporations that already make enough money. They can live without an extra $60 a year. And the only reason it's still a thing is because they can get away with it. PC gamers would never stand for that.

[Discordian 6,015]

20 minutes ago, Celli said:

Well, charging for online with little incentive is scummy. I already pay $70 a month for internet, why would I want to pay another $10 a month just so I can use online functionality that barely works? And the games aren't a good incentive. What if there's a game that month that I don't like? Well, there goes any incentive.

I'm sorry, but especially as a PC gamer I see zero reason to pay for online. If it really went towards server costs, the service would work much better. Microsoft and Sony are greedy corporations that already make enough money. They can live without an extra $60 a year. And the only reason it's still a thing is because they can get away with it. PC gamers would never stand for that.

If you don't like the games for one month you just wait for the next set of free games. They change literally every month and rarely repeat.

 

Just because a company can live without an extra $60 per customer doesn't mean they should have to. They're well within their rights to charge for it.

[Celli 4,337]

Just now, Discordian said:

If you don't like the games for one month you just wait for the next set of free games. They change literally every month and rarely repeat.

 

Just because a company can live without an extra $60 per customer doesn't mean they should have to. They're well within their rights to charge for it.

You should watch this video, I think it explains the whole thing pretty well.

 

[Discordian 6,015]

He didn't say anything we don't already know. Like he said though: If you feel the price is justified, and I certainly do, then that's okay. So is the inverse.

 

The beauty of capitalism: You put your money where you want it. Where you think it should go and to whoever deserves it.

 

I'm not going to miss $60 a year. It's the price of a single brand new game.

[Prospekt 11,018]

I don't own a PS3, PS4, or a Vita, but if I did I would gladly go for this. $10 per month for access to a set of "free" games seems fine to me. Sounds like Netflix except the lineup changes often. And $60 per year is an amazing value when your average brand new non-handheld game costs about as much.

[Celli 4,337]

Just now, Discordian said:

He didn't say anything we don't already know. Like he said though: If you feel the price is justified, and I certainly do, then that's okay. So is the inverse.

 

The beauty of capitalism: You put your money where you want it. Where you think it should go and to whoever deserves it.

 

I'm not going to miss $60 a year. It's the price of a single brand new game.

I just can't justify charging sub fees for no reason. But I guess that's just the nature of the console market. It's a closed market and the consumers can't really do anything about it. 

And part of why I can't see myself owning a new console anytime soon, at least for online gaming. It's a scummy practice, and just shows me that Sony and Microsoft are greedy.

Also, if I recall, you lose those free games if your subscription ends.

[Discordian 6,015]

You don't lose them, you just lose access to them until your subscription is renewed. Then you can access all the games you "purchased" (activated the download for) from the past as well as any current ones. Even if your PS+ is inactive for a year the moment it comes back online you can redownload and play any game again.

 

I don't really see a problem with a company charging for their service. The way I see it, places like Steam could just as easily charge but they don't. It's happenstance and little else. It's a wonder Skype doesn't require you to pay to use the calling functions.