GameZone writes, "The core difference between PlayStation Plus and Games with Gold is in the definition of “free” games. PlayStation Plus offers games for free as long as you download them when they’re being offered and you then maintain a membership. Stop paying and you lose access to the games, but you can always starting paying again later to get your games back. With Games with Gold, as long as you have a Gold account when the game is available and you download it in that timeframe, you keep the game forever, whether your account lapses or not."
This looks like a great way to play.
Rocksmith+, the award winning music-learning app that teaches you guitar and piano with thousands of hit songs, is coming to PlayStation and Steam on June 6, and is available to wishlist now on both platforms.
Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson stated in a recent EA Earnings Call, that the next Battlefield "it is going to be another tremendous live service.”
Another? ANOTHER?
Is he honestly trying to make out like the last Battlefield was a huge success, not just as a game but as a live service game? I'm sure these guys live in their own echo chambers, they are so far removed from reality or they just like talking out of their arse trying to rewrite history.
Also why say such a tone deaf statement when you know the state of live service games at the minute and how many gamers feel about them. Bigging up the next BF game as live service does not give me any excitement or hype.
Already on Steam with some of the finest review shouts you'll ever likely see, Amanda the Adventurer is soon coming to all major consoles
Playstation Plus: It Only Does Everything.... Better.
I think the game with gold idea is to get people to renew their subscriptions for the next year. Then they are slightly more compelled to by the One as their next console if you are on the fense (which I assume a lot of people will be). It is relatively uncostly move for them so why not and it could generate some good PR (for people who do not go here for news and opinions)
The PSN+ thing will be an issue in the first year of the PS4. I would assume/hope Sony has this planned out though. They could offer indie games for free or somehow bring some PS3 games to the PS4 through an emulation of some kind
"There’s a catch, though: emulation. The PlayStation 3 doesn’t read PlayStation 2 discs (at least not anymore), but it can play PS2 games via the PlayStation Store in an emulated environment. Yoshida concedes that this is possible for PlayStation 4 supporting legacy PlayStation consoles as well. Indeed, the Gaikai presentation during PlayStation 4’s reveal touched on this “everything, everywhere” mentality. But for now, downloaded PS3 games won’t work “unless, somehow, some games work on emulation. And the easiest thing, technically, would be to make PSone games work on PS4 with emulation. But we’re not talking about our emulation plans as yet" from http://uk.ign.com/articles/...
I assume they will/need to discuss this issue at TGS or Gamescom because this is a big unanswered question for me. The could easily stick two fingers up at us and we have to wait a year or so before we really benefit from PSN+
You get more games with PS+ and even if you go a year without PS+ when you resub you have all your games back.
You also only need 1 PS+ account for PS4,PS3 and the Vita.
Ps4 = Free new games.
Xbox1 = Free old games.
Gave up Xbox Live over 5 years ago. PS+ all day every day for me, even if the games are not truly "free". I subscribed to PS+ because I saw the value in it for me, not because of the Sony loyalist gushing over it. If Xbox Live ever offers equal value to me as far as the content goes then maybe I will subscribe to it again.
@ Cmk0121
Xbox Live Gold = better service. PS+ = better overall value.