Jim Sterling says PS+ humiliates the game industry

[Stainlesssteele4]

I just don't like the idea that PS+ removes the idea of ownership, in place of a psuedo-rental system. To me it feels like putting too much power in the hands of the software distributor.
I guess Digital Distribution isn't much different, but to have physical expiration dates attached to games, with the threat of their cancellation just perturbs me.
I guess if I could get passed that notion, the idea is fairly cool.

Although... Steam doesn't charge me a monthly fee to get discounts on games.

The FREE game are the only ones that expire if you drop PS+. Any games you buy with a PS+ discount are yours permanently. Steam may not charge to get discounts but Steam also doesn't give away as many games as PS+.

I'm fully aware. The core reason most pick up PS+ is for the free games. The discounts certainly couldn't justify the monthly cost alone.
The Steam bit is a separate thought.

You DID read the OP, right?

There's around $2.5K in savings per month. You could easily justify a $50 payment for access to that.

You have to spend far more to get those discounts. Saving 2.5 thousand means nothing when you have to spend 3 thousand to do it. The free content might justify it, but that 1) Requires hard drive space, and 2) Requires interest in the free titles themselves, unless the person likes trying out new content (in that case, it would benefit them). The discounts, however, are for games that you might not want anyway, and still require a purchase. So why would I want to pay a monthly fee to get discounts on games?

If PS+ was as perfect as it appears, then Sony wouldn't be making anything off it.
I'm not saying it some 'Evil corporate control scheme from outerspace!', just that I personally (opinions, what are those?) can't rationalize using the service.

 

[BrotherRool]

You have to spend far more to get those discounts. Saving 2.5 thousand means nothing when you have to spend 3 thousand to do it. The free content might justify it, but that 1) Requires hard drive space, and 2) Requires interest in the free titles themselves, unless the person likes trying out new content (in that case, it would benefit them). The discounts, however, are for games that you might not want anyway, and still require a purchase. So why would I want to pay a monthly fee to get discounts on games?

If PS+ was as perfect as it appears, then Sony wouldn't be making anything off it.
I'm not saying it some 'Evil corporate control scheme from outerspace!', just that I personally (opinions, what are those?) can't rationalize using the service.

Yeah I haven't bought it yet (although this thread is making me think about it) so I wouldn't know how good those deals are compared to the standard deals but it doesn't seem like the best reason to get it. I would treat it as a perk that comes with the opportunity to try out and play such a wide selection of games for free.

 

[Treblaine]

@Treblaine - I hope this may dissolve some of the craziness involved here. You are right. Steam is a better service overall than anything on a console. PS+ is not giving away free games, it is a service renting you games for a limited time and enabling larger discounts on some games. I am not sure "PS+ humiliates the game industry" was actually written by Jim Sterling, but instead by whoever posted the article on Destructoid. The actual title of the article smees to be "Sony Shows Subscription Services How It's Really Done." That right there eliminates Steam from the conversation, because it's not a subscription service. You don't pay for it, as you have stated numerous times.

Saying that, as a SUBSCRIPTION service, PS+ pretty much blows everything else out of the water. For $50 a year, (and this is my first month of my subscription) I have been able to download/rent Gravity Rush, Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Retro City Rampage (Vita/PS3 both), Darksiders, Payday: the Heist, Mega Man 9 + 10, Anomaly and I think some other things. Many of these are PS exclusives, and are not available on any other platform. Additionally, if I had money (which I don't anymore), I could have purchased the Unfinished Swan which is a PS3 exclusive for $3.50, instead of the $15 it normally is. I tried the demo for this game and liked it a lot. And that game would be mine to keep, not a rental, as long as I have it on my PS3. So would any other game I actually spend money on.

Any avatars or themes that are free for PS+ subscribers can be used if the subscription expires. I don't really care all that much about this part, TBH, but other people may. PS+ is a great service if you have a little extra money and want to expand your options on your PS3. I feel Sony really is rubbing it in Microsoft's face. "What, you want people to pay you for services? Here's how you do it!"

Well maybe if you start that thread then I won't be making the same posts, but the thread topic is what it is.

And sorry, but even with the contrived limitation of "subscription" it doesn't fly.

For one, why limit to subscription? As the saying does "Fifty bucks is Fifty bucks" you can't jsut compare what you get with a $50 subscription but where else a $50 sum may be spent in a year.

You can go on by how a few games can be played for a short time for $50, well all the sales in a year, what can you get for $50?

And the problem is it's such a small selection of games and after a month they are gone, and if you ever stop paying the Playstation Plus you lose it.

This inherently puts it on a low comparison for the lack of CHOICE! You only get a few games per month available. Compare to other rental services:

http://www.lovefilm.com/help/dyn_faqs.html?faq_cat=billing&editorial_id=10705

The first result I get for game rentals. Seems a lot more competitive. Considering you get a much much wider selection to pick any game at any time and keep for much longer than a single month. And it's flexible, you don't have to go all-in $50, you can just get a few credits and rent two at a time.

Frankly the game rental is the ONLY fair part of Playstation Plus, promotional discounts only applying for Playstation Plus subscribers is a pointless form of promotion. I have no reason to EVER EVER EVER brows the Sony Store as there will never be any sales I can get.

Unfinished Swan which is a PS3 exclusive for $3.50, instead of the $15 it normally is.

Ditto for PC exclusives, the difference is they start from an even lower base price, have 75% off way more often and you don't need to be party to any special premium subscription to take advantage of such promotional discounts.

The thing is how many PS3 EXCLUSIVES are there with such discounts? Enough to justify the price of PS-Plus? Or are these carefully selected examples.

Any avatars or themes that are free for PS+ subscribers can be used if the subscription expires.

But on steam you can use ANY image as your Avatar as well as have any in game "spray".

 

[Epona]

I just don't like the idea that PS+ removes the idea of ownership, in place of a psuedo-rental system. To me it feels like putting too much power in the hands of the software distributor.
I guess Digital Distribution isn't much different, but to have physical expiration dates attached to games, with the threat of their cancellation just perturbs me.
I guess if I could get passed that notion, the idea is fairly cool.

Although... Steam doesn't charge me a monthly fee to get discounts on games.

The FREE game are the only ones that expire if you drop PS+. Any games you buy with a PS+ discount are yours permanently. Steam may not charge to get discounts but Steam also doesn't give away as many games as PS+.

I'm fully aware. The core reason most pick up PS+ is for the free games. The discounts certainly couldn't justify the monthly cost alone.
The Steam bit is a separate thought.

You DID read the OP, right?

There's around $2.5K in savings per month. You could easily justify a $50 payment for access to that.

You have to spend far more to get those discounts. Saving 2.5 thousand means nothing when you have to spend 3 thousand to do it. The free content might justify it, but that 1) Requires hard drive space, and 2) Requires interest in the free titles themselves, unless the person likes trying out new content (in that case, it would benefit them). The discounts, however, are for games that you might not want anyway, and still require a purchase. So why would I want to pay a monthly fee to get discounts on games?

If PS+ was as perfect as it appears, then Sony wouldn't be making anything off it.
I'm not saying it some 'Evil corporate control scheme from outerspace!', just that I personally (opinions, what are those?) can't rationalize using the service.

I don't understand how it costs $3000 to get PS+ for a year. PS3 costs $300, PS+ costs $50. $350 is a far cry from $3000. I am obviously missing something?

1) PS3's come with a HDD, not like the WiiU where you have to buy your own. If you run out of space on your PS3 HDD, delete games and redownload them when you want to play them again.
2) Every service being compared here requires internet service, I don't think you can include that in the cost of PS+ without including it in the cost XBLG and Steam.

I certainly don't get $2500 worth of games out of PS+ but I do get my $50 out of it.

 

[Korten12]

snip

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

 

[Treblaine]

PSN has free to play games too and those have nothing to do with PS+. PS+ gives you games that AREN'T free in the first place. I just downloaded a F2P game (Dust 514) yesterday.

Does Steam give away games that are not F2P?

What? Do they give away games... that aren't free??! Err, that's a contradiction in terms.

There are free games on Steam that have no micro-transaction element, if that is what you mean. Though they are still in the Free To play category because they are Free... and you play them:
-Alien Swarm
-Moonbase Alpha
-TrackMania Nations Forever (one of the better racing games BTW)

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=851573

Not to mention all the Source total conversion mods like Black Mesa and Minerva: Metastasis that only need the Source SDK, which is free.

Also at the moment, the only Dust 514 is free to play on PS-Plus, but it's not clear that it is in there because it is a beta, or because it will always be behind that pay-wall. It CANNOT be called a "Free to Play" game if any subscription is required to join, even if "PlayStation Plus has nothing to do with it". It does because it blocks it.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

But why would anyone not want to be?!!?

Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily.

As far as I can tell people have been utterly lied to and severely misled by what PC gaming entails, not surprising considering the marketing budgets and the console wars that have fostered.

 

[Epona]

PSN has free to play games too and those have nothing to do with PS+. PS+ gives you games that AREN'T free in the first place. I just downloaded a F2P game (Dust 514) yesterday.

Does Steam give away games that are not F2P?

What? Do they give away games... that aren't free??! Err, that's a contradiction in terms.

There are free games on Steam that have no micro-transaction element, if that is what you mean. Though they are still in the Free To play category because they are Free... and you play them:
-Alien Swarm
-Moonbase Alpha
-TrackMania Nations Forever (one of the better racing games BTW)

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=851573

Not to mention all the Source total conversion mods like Black Mesa and Minerva: Metastasis that only need the Source SDK, which is free.

Also at the moment, the only Dust 514 is free to play on PS-Plus, but it's not clear that it is in there because it is a beta, or because it will always be behind that pay-wall. It CANNOT be called a "Free to Play" game if any subscription is required to join, even if "PlayStation Plus has nothing to do with it". It does because it blocks it.

No, my son played it (Dust 514) yesterday on his non PS+ account. Dust 514 is free to everyone. Are those games you mentioned normally not free but Steam gives them away or were they always free?

 

[Korten12]

snip

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

But why would anyone not want to be?!!?

Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily.

As far as I can tell people have been utterly lied to and severely misled by what PC gaming entails, not surprising considering the marketing budgets and the console wars that have fostered.

Did you even read who you just quoted? You quoted me but I am not any of the people you have debated with. In fact that was my first post in this thread.

Also to answer the question, I am both a PC gamer and a Console gamer. Got a high-end PC with a 360, PS3, and a Vita. A lot of times I like my simplicity that comes with consoles.

I love PS+ because I get games for my Vita and PS3. The Price of the games would be a lot more alone. Sure I can't keep them if I stop subbing. But currently there isn't any reason to not continue to sub. It's awesome to be able to play games I might have otherwise skipped or couldn't afford at the time.

 

[Epona]

snip

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

But why would anyone not want to be?!!?

Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily.

As far as I can tell people have been utterly lied to and severely misled by what PC gaming entails, not surprising considering the marketing budgets and the console wars that have fostered.

Ok, PC is better and consoles charge more. Happy? Good, now please stop the PC vs Console war.

 

[flarty]

And if Sony starts fucking you around, what are you going to do? Oh yeah, nothing, because there are no alternatives to the Sony store and your games are locked to PS3. If you don't play by their rules they ban your from PSN, they've essentially ripped out your wireless card as your machine then can't do anything on the internet.

If Steam doesn't give me a good deal I will go to Gog.com and nothing is stopping me.

Damn you are one angry person. But this did make me giggle, all your steam games are locked to a steam account so if steam wanted fuck around you would lose all them games to. If by fuck around you mean start charging silly prices, then console owners have the options of shopping else where also. say amazon? It just means they will have to use a disc instead of their internet connection.

Now dont get me wrong i love steam and gog, My accounts split between the 2 amount to thousands of ££££ mostly on steam. But its not really the same thing, the pc is an open platform and steam could lose your custom in a heartbeat due to the alternatives out there. Console users don't have that freedom, so when one company charges just to access online play and another company charges for some handsome extras to go alongside free online play, which one deserves the credit and praise?

Steam really doesn't enter into this comparison. Steam is competing in an open market and has to be more competitive. Sony and microsoft can charge what they want as long as consumers are willing to pay it

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are quite simply two things that keep me from using my Playstation. The first is easily fixed: I don't care for the controller. Killzone 2 for example caused intense pain in my hands after an hour or so. The second is that none of the people I know play games on the device. The latter is what keeps me from going out and picking up the different form factor controller.

The other issues I have with the device are self-solving or largely irrelevant. The irritation I feel at the updates would be greatly mitigated if I turned on my PS3 regularly. I do not view trophies as something worthy of even the slightest consideration. Getting a trophy in a game does not offer even a moment's satisfaction while doing the same on the 360 does. I'm not sure why that's the case since they're both arbitrary and useless rewards.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

snip

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

But why would anyone not want to be?!!?

Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily.

As far as I can tell people have been utterly lied to and severely misled by what PC gaming entails, not surprising considering the marketing budgets and the console wars that have fostered.

There are lots of reasons. From simplicity (consoles have the edge) to the ready availability of used games at dozens of locations in major cities, to initial cost of ownership. Yes, there are advantages to the PC; those advantages don't appeal to everyone.

 

[Treblaine]

Are those games you mentioned normally not free but Steam gives them away or were they always free?

Does it matter if they are free on Steam? They are free on PC and on PC you can use Steam or any number of competing networks and services.

This isn't about "service vs Service" TO HELL WITH THESE CORPORATION WARS! This is about what's good for the consumer.

Ok, PC is better and consoles charge more. Happy? Good, now please stop the PC vs Console war.

So we can have a console war instead?!?!? That is far worse.

And this isn't a "war", this is isn't about bloody corporation's interests, this is abotu consumer interests. Or do some people need to disclose certain conflicts of intererests, liek Sony or Microsoft stock they are investing in?

Damn you are one angry person. But this did make me giggle, all your steam games are locked to a steam account so if steam wanted fuck around you would lose all them games to. If by fuck around you mean start charging silly prices, then console owners have the options of shopping else where also. say amazon? It just means they will have to use a disc instead of their internet connection.

Now dont get me wrong i love steam and gog, My accounts split between the 2 amount to thousands of ££££ mostly on steam. But its not really the same thing, the pc is an open platform and steam could lose your custom in a heartbeat due to the alternatives out there. Console users don't have that freedom, so when one company charges just to access online play and another company charges for some handsome extras to go alongside free online play, which one deserves the credit and praise?

Steam really doesn't enter into this comparison. Steam is competing in an open market and has to be more competitive. Sony and microsoft can charge what they want as long as consumers are willing to pay it

I'd like to see how you are after having to deal with such things.

all your steam games are locked to a steam account so if steam wanted fuck around you would lose all them games to.

No, because the ball is entirely in my court to crack my steam account and move to the competition with a few clicks of my mouse. And valve know that and couldn't get away with a small fraction of the shit consoles do because of that. I stay with Steam by carrot, not by stick.

pc is an open platform and steam could lose your custom in a heartbeat

Yeah, that is ENTIRELY HOW CAPITALISM WORKS. How can you not know such basic things, even cite it as a negative that consumers have free unrestricted choice to go to competition?!?!

Steam really doesn't enter into this comparison.

Of course it does... is there some law saying if someone bought a console game they are barred from spending any of their money on anything to do with PC gaming?

it's still oyur money, you can - you know - decide not to spend your money on PS3, subsidising Sony's silly ventures like selling Bravia TVs at a loss.

 

[Epona]

Does it matter if they are free on Steam? They are free on PC and on PC you can use Steam or any number of competing networks and services.

This isn't about "service vs Service" TO HELL WITH THESE CORPORATION WARS! This is about what's good for the consumer.

1) If a game is free already then Steam giving it away for free is not a big deal.

2) Actually, this is about "service vs service".

So we can have a console war instead?!?!? That is far worse.

And this isn't a "war", this is isn't about bloody corporation's interests, this is abotu consumer interests. Or do some people need to disclose certain conflicts of intererests, liek Sony or Microsoft stock they are investing in?

You must be getting upset, your spelling is suffering, happens to me too when I get upset. We aren't having a console war, this is about which subscription is better.

Most people agree PC>consoles so why are we still comparing PS+ to Steam? Steam is not a subscription service.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Ugh 4 $ a month isn't much , people spend more than that in coffee in a day . Plus i find XbL has a better internet connection than PS3, so if i'm paying 4$ a month to have a better connection with online games , i'll gladly pay.

Since when has that been the case? I have owned both in the past, and they each had equal internet connections.

For as often as I've complained on these forums about my consoles being unable to connect to the internet, I've had the most luck with the PS3 back when I had one on hand. I couldn't engage in TF2 round-after-round but I wouldn't get booted every few minutes on the PS3.

If Microsoft wants to survive next generation they will absolutely have to do away with the Xbox Live gold, or at least remove the fact that a person cannot play games online and use the free online apps without it. If it des limit online access well that will be the last time I ever touch a Microsoft console again.

The next Microsoft console will upgrade everyone to a free Gold subscription...but if you want a really good deal Microsoft will introduce Xbox Life Platinum or something.

---

just for the sake of the topic: I agree with the article. I feel like I've mentioned something to that effect on a few threads around here as well in past.

 

[flarty]

No, because the ball is entirely in my court to crack my steam account and move to the competition with a few clicks of my mouse. And valve know that and couldn't get away with a small fraction of the shit consoles do because of that. I stay with Steam by carrot, not by stick.

So why cant console users not hack their consoles and play pirated games? Surely this nullifys this argument

Yeah, that is ENTIRELY HOW CAPITALISM WORKS. How can you not know such basic things, even cite it as a negative that consumers have free unrestricted choice to go to competition?!?!

Really? Your rage has blinded you to the point i was trying to make. I advise you deal with your raging hormones and meditate on how i wasn't stating it as a negative fact and what my actual point was.

Of course it does

Really it doesn't. Buying an optional ps+ subscription off a device that only has one store for consumers to purchase from, is not the same as a consumer making the decision to buy something from steam or origin or any other numerous DD service. You would have a better time comparing it with apples app store.

 

[Treblaine]

Did you even read who you just quoted? You quoted me but I am not any of the people you have debated with. In fact that was my first post in this thread.

Also to answer the question, I am both a PC gamer and a Console gamer. Got a high-end PC with a 360, PS3, and a Vita. A lot of times I like my simplicity that comes with consoles.

I love PS+ because I get games for my Vita and PS3. The Price of the games would be a lot more alone. Sure I can't keep them if I stop subbing. But currently there isn't any reason to not continue to sub. It's awesome to be able to play games I might have otherwise skipped or couldn't afford at the time.

Yes I did, and No, YOU did.

You butted in with:

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

That very first post I directly replied to, I asked WHY!

A lot of times I like my simplicity that comes with consoles.

Except PC has become so much simpler and the bullshit has piled on with consoles. Consoles are supposed to be simple, but more often they jsut screw me around.

For example, there is no way I can set my PC to an output resolution where I cannot read the screen and hence cannot change it back, but that IS the case with consoles. I can set it to 1080p, move it to another 720p screen and it won't display the screen AND I CANNOT NAVIGATE THE TOE MENU TO CHANGE IT.

I love PS+ because I get games for my Vita and PS3. The Price of the games would be a lot more alone.

Circular logic.

You are still having to PAY to get promotional discounts. Other companies... give better prices... more often... for no fee.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.

But why would anyone not want to be?!!?

Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily.

As far as I can tell people have been utterly lied to and severely misled by what PC gaming entails, not surprising considering the marketing budgets and the console wars that have fostered.

I wouldn't want to, for fear of becoming a shadow of my former self. Doomed to visit game forums to only rant and rave about how people are being taken advantage of, cite corporatism versus capitalism, and take issue with anyone who seems to enjoy something I don't. On a more serious note; maybe the games people like don't get released on the PC, maybe their friends are on a console, there could be a number of reasons on why people choose what they choose. The question you should be asking, is what makes you so damned superior to yell at everyone. If you could get off your high-horse for a moment you might notice you're the only one here causing problems... WHICH ARE YOUR PROBLEMS. The most noticeable being something you posted back on page 3.

What pisses me off is you go on about that but reject PC services that offer the same for free. Acknowledge but reject them.

People do things, it's a fact of life. People are free to choose, something you don't want to acknowledge apparently. You ***** about how Live/PSN is closed to the console while the PC has Steam/GoG/Origin/Etc, what you fail to understand is that not everyone is you... fucking deal with it. People can make their own decisions, we don't need to fall in line and be herded around by some loud-mouth like you. You're not doing any PC player a service by acting like an asshole and failing to understand that some people like different things. Take a Xanax and calm down.

maybe the games people like don't get released on the PC

All five of them?

There are less and less console exclusives every year. And how do they know they wouldn't like all the PC exclusive games?

maybe their friends are on a console,

This is self-fulfilling. Your friends list will always fill up on the platform you use. If this was true no one would ever move to a new platform because they would lose their old friends list. But they do.

Friends aren't dependant on being able to kill each other on a certain corporation's network. Your friends are your confidants who you care about, not the people you "must shoot in a game".

, there could be a number of reasons

You couldn't even come up with three reasons... yet implied there many be many more...

what makes you so damned superior to yell at everyone.

I don't know, why don't I let you answer this:

WHICH ARE YOUR PROBLEMS

Ahh, there you go. Turns out you certainly aren't above using block capitals, so it must not be a superiority thing.

I personally resort to block capitals when people reply to my comment asking a question that I answered in the comment they quoted, so I clearly have to type it in much clearer text that they are more likely to read it and have it actually sink in.

People do things, it's a fact of life.

What and irrelevant platitude... could justify any action.

People can make their own decisions

That's my whole point, they don't have a choice. Only Sony Store and Sony network is available on PS3. Making the choice to leave all that is too great a leap.

You're not doing any PC player a service by acting like an asshole and failing to understand that some people like different things.

How can I understand when console gamers refuse to explain, they have nothing but platitudes and circular logic.