So you’re a gamer that can only have one “premium” gaming service active at any given time, and you want to know which has the most “BANG” for your buck, right? Fear not my intrepid readers, I’m going to break down the pros and cons of each service so you can decide for yourselves which to get. Obviously the preferred choice is to get both, but not everyone has the resources for that, so which should you leave as the standard free service, and which should you go ahead and upgrade?
Plenty of unforgettable games have completely messed up their players throughout the years, all the way back from the PS1 days to the dark recesses of the modern internet.
Gary Green said: Namco Bandai heard the call of many fans asking for the PlayStation release of Tales of Graces which was originally released seemingly exclusively for the Wii back in 2009. If you’re acquainted with the Tales series then Graces f won’t be something entirely new to you, yet if you’re a newcomer then you’ll find a plethora of gameplay mechanics and nuances that distinguish this series from other JRPGs. While the game finds itself following the traditional archetype of JRPGs, such as a somewhat clichéd story, Graces has something to offer to both veterans and newcomers alike.
Huzaifah from eXputer: "Sleeping Dogs from the early 2010s is one of the best open-world games out there but in dire need of a resurgence."
You say "yet" as if it's even possible anymore. United Front Games is gone, along with anyone that made this game what it is
That’s what happens when games sell poorly. And I’ve seen people wonder why people cry when a game sells badly… this is your answer.
Sleeping Dogs was a sleeper hit back then. It was fantastic. It actually still is. Would love a sequel to this, or at least a revive of True Crime series.
PSN Plus won. I agree with the author, so many free games, discounts for games and DLC, and I'm loving their monthly sales. Cloud saving is sweet as well. I really really wish Microsoft offered some type of online play for Silver members.
I don't see how PSN+ is better when more people are willing to pay for XBL. Sounds like another PS fanboy comparison, but this is N4G so no surprises there.
I like PSN+ for what it is, but Sony did absolutely nothing to improve the actual PlayStation Network when they instituted PlayStation Plus. I actually pay more for PSN+ $50 a year, than Xbox Live, which I always get for $35 a year.
The games that PSN+ let you borrow while you have a subscription are nice, but a lot of the time they are just the bottom rung of games that nobody really wants. This last batch that were announced at E3 were pretty solid though, I dig both services, but Xbox Live is more for online play and social aspects, easy to find friends, game competitively and things like that, while PSN+ is just like a discount service and some games to borrow while you are enrolled.
not paying to play online when i'm already paying my cable subscriber, so for me PS+ is the better value. its an option and thats perfect for me.
Content goes to PS+.
Service goes to Live Gold.
PS+ for me because I get the stuff I care about.