Is PS Plus worth it?

[Celli 4,337]

Just now, Discordian said:

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.

Steam won't charge for online because PC gamers would flip and make a bad name for steam, and either force them to back off like GFWL, or make them fade into obscurity and go to another PC game service.

So, it's not really happenstance.

Also, I still don't like that, I should at least have access to the free games. 

But most of all I don't like being charged for an online that barely functions. And now Nintendo is going to charge and their online is notorious for being terrible.

[Discordian 6,015]

I think it's more likely that PC gamers would buck up and pay for it anyway because Steam is still a better service than most other places you can buy games on PC.

 

And actually it's specifically PS+ that makes you lose access to games when your subscription runs out. Xbox's games are always downloadable as long as it was downloaded at least once while Gold was active.

 

Also, Nintendo charging for their service will most likely improve it. It worked for Sony. Sony used to be completely free but their online was absolutely shitty. Whatever benefit there was in it being free was negated by the fact that it would constantly disconnect, constantly have lag and generally made playing online not worth the time which is how the Xbox 360 dominated the online community and drew in so many customers.

[Celli 4,337]

15 minutes ago, Discordian said:

I think it's more likely that PC gamers would buck up and pay for it anyway because Steam is still a better service than most other places you can buy games on PC.

 

You don't really have much experience with the PC gaming crowd, huh? Valve tried to do paid game mods for Bethesda's games last year, in conjunction with Bethesda. Guess what happened? PC gamers didn't buck up. They fought back and told Valve how they felt about paid mods. Valve gave in and canceled the idea. PC gamers don't take shit. Valve knows not to charge for online because they know they'll get backlash, and they don't want to lose their monopoly on the PC gaming market. I've been in the PC gaming community for over 2 years and I've learned a lot.

[Discordian 6,015]

The paid mods system didn't work because there was no quality control on them though, wasn't it? People were getting ripped off by paying for unfinished product.

 

Really, though, Valve could have easily just kept it going. There'd be initial outcry maybe but people would quiet down about it and things would go back to the way they were.

[Celli 4,337]

3 minutes ago, Discordian said:

The paid mods system didn't work because there was no quality control on them though, wasn't it? People were getting ripped off by paying for unfinished product.

 

Really, though, Valve could have easily just kept it going. There'd be initial outcry maybe but people would quiet down about it and things would go back to the way they were.

It wasn't quality control, it was charging for working mods that members of the modding community made. Mods are free, and should stay that way.

You don't know the PC gaming community. Microsoft tried charging PC gamers for Games for Windows Live. That didn't end well, Microsoft got backlash for it, and they ended up backing off of that as well.

[Megas 27,565]

Do you like the free games? Then go for it, if not don't unless you really care that much for online