220°

Get PS Plus Free With These PS3 Games On Amazon

GamerXChange: "Amazon is offering a little treat for those thinking about getting some new PlayStation games;" A PlayStation Plus trial subscription.

Free games, huge discounts, and great exclusives are just some of the member benefits of PS Plus. Check out some of the titles that go along with the offer.

Read Full Story >>
gamerxchange.net
GraveLord4452d ago

Great deal for new and even old PS3 owners!

Spitfire_Riggz4452d ago

There are some really good PS3 games there too, no tricks here

moparful994452d ago

Dang thats a really good deal.. There's not much in the way of free content this month on psn but the simpsons arcade game is a good one and they have a couple of new minis... They might still have some stuff on the last chance tab as well... The only downside is that if someone gets this deal thinking they can get some free games and then move along just remember that once your ps+ membership expires if you don't renew you will lose access to that content that you downloaded...

darthv724452d ago

"The only downside is that if someone gets this deal thinking they can get some free games and then move along just remember that once your ps+ membership expires if you don't renew you will lose access to that content that you downloaded"

That isnt a downside for sony. Its obvious that the loss of the free stuff is incentive enough to keep from lapsing on the membership. Or so they hope.

moparful994452d ago

I agree its incentive for someone to keep paying but I just dont want a situation where someone buys into this only to find out you have to keep paying for ps+ to access your content and go on some rant about how sony are crooks and yada yada yada..

Me personally, I have no reason to stop subscribing so its a no brainer for me

After seeing just how motivating it is losing access to content I better understand why people pay for live.. I'm just glad sony didn't make it to where you have to have plus to play online...

rezzah4452d ago

The files remain, you just can`t play the game. So whenever you get a new membership you can play again.

moparful994452d ago

Yea I know lol I was just posing it from the standpoint of someone that isn't aware of that catch and I don't want them to start another anti sony movement over it lol.. Just educating the masses :)

darthv724452d ago

"After seeing just how motivating it is losing access to content I better understand why people pay for live"

Its nice to see someone finally gets it. People paying for live dont do it specifically because of competitive play. There are plenty who do so to get in on the gold member perks besides online play. When that membership isnt there they obviously cant do those things anymore.

Sony has studied live and found a way to create a need out of something that starts off as an option. Its like once you are a member you dont want to lose that membership because of the perks you get from being the member.

Now this part is interesting: "I'm just glad sony didn't make it to where you have to have plus to play online" that is not so far off. One thing sony has stated is the core of online would be free. They never said anything about exclusive levels for plus members. Or games that you get free that have online play but you have to be a member to play.

Sony is in this for the $$$ just like MS. Difference is we knew MS was a paid service from the beginning. Sony has added an optional paid service with the potential to be a requirement if the game designates it.

despair4452d ago

Except this is all conjecture on your part, not to mention what is offered by PS+ and what is offered by XBL gold are fundamentally different and not really comparable.

Also if anyone ever thought that either Sony or MS were in it for anything other than money, then they're more naive that ever.

The whole of PS+ is not necessary or mandatory for users and it was definitely smart for them to set it up for us to keep coming back if we wanted to keep the majority of the content. But with XBlive its something that people have a need of, its almost mandatory to have gold because of the sheer amount of content you will not get.

Just because you know what you're getting doesn't mean its better than something introduced later on. Gold is just ripping people off and forcing us to pay for something that should've been free years ago, if the other services are so enticing then why not offer them alone for gold and put online play as free. They can't do that because the majority of subscribers will vanish.

Deluding yourself into thinking Gold is a good thing or in any way or reason justifiable is wrong. There is no real defense for it. As for PS+ there is definitely the possibility of Sony adding some exclusive stuff or requiring payment, but I see that as slim to negligible by the current trend.

And considering what they have given so far for Plus and the fact that the normal service is not getting shortchanged either, I don't see how you can even project a pay to play future for Sony online.

darthv724452d ago

nice comment but i think you are missing out on something. New features being added to the PSN (sorry SEN) are being offered to the plus members first. If they do become available to the free members then so be it but sony is obviously taking a queue from MS on this one.

Cloud storage, auto sync, auto patching and downloads, etc. All of that stuff is available if you are a paid member. It may not be something people will specifically pay for but you have to figure that to make plus relevant to the members they would need to keep adding things to it to differentiate it from the free side.

It only makes sense that sony would restructure their service to cater to the paid members because they are the ones paying. If the same features were available to the free side then what would be the point of being a member? Its like I said before. MS was not hiding anything when they made Live a paid service from the beginning.

sony was basically stuck at making something of value (online play) free to start with because their online service was nowhere near as structured as live. What many dont seem to understand is that they WILL make it a requirement to get the "full" enjoyment out of being a PS3/Vita user.

No different than on the PC. There are plenty of games that can be played online for free but there are also "members only" games that require a fee to be part of that game. If you arent a paid member then you could still play but be limited to how much of the experience you get to enjoy. For some thats ok, others will pay and these companies know that.

Will MS offer a free online for silver members? If they did then it would come with limits such as how many hours per month or something like that.

Will sony start charging to pay to play online? My assumption is yes because it is too much of a cash cow to NOT take advantage of.

That is just an assumption and the way they 'could' go about it is via exclusive content that is only available to plus members. That is not such a hard thing to fathom. Especially considering that sony has lost $$$ and will need to review new avenues to make some of that back.

Its either that or open the games themselves to internal advertising. By which you would have to watch ads prior to playing the games like movie studios have done with dvd/bluray movies.

Advertising revenue can outweigh consumer revenue depending on the conditions. I'd hate to have to watch an ad before playing an online game but that may be the new direction console gaming could head. It is already on PC and there is usually a trickle down effect.

lashes2ashes4452d ago

In the USA. On ps plus this month there is over six free games including a full blu ray game download. I be leave on the 21th

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4452d ago
Tommy3344452d ago (Edited 4452d ago )

Had me all excited its only a 30 day free trail

230°

20 Years of Guerrilla: The Story of a PlayStation Studio

The Amsterdam-based studio reflects on its humble beginnings, beloved franchises, and growth through the years.

Read Full Story >>
blog.playstation.com
SullysCigar345d ago

Up there with the top tier in the industry. Love Guerrilla Games - Horizon Burning Shores is simply STUNNING.

1Victor345d ago

Can’t wait for their next franchise

SullysCigar345d ago

Same. They nailed it with Horizon. The trouble is I also want a new Killzone! Can't I just have it all?!

jznrpg344d ago

I’m with you I want Horizon 3 , Killzone and new IPs

badz149344d ago

I have yet to play Burning Shores as I just started Forbidden West (bought at launch, just unwrapped last weekend LOL) and playing on PS5.

man...I still can't believe the graphics especially now I'm playing it on my LG OLED. that graphics and with stable performance backing it up, GG really is the master of their craft!

Vengeance1138345d ago

32.7M sales in the Horizon franchise! With 8.4M coming from Forbidden West alone! Truly a hugely successful game and franchise as a whole. Looking forward to Horizon III

Shane Kim345d ago

That's kind of a huge drop though. It's only been two games.

VersusDMC345d ago

One year after realease HZD sold 7.6 million.

https://www.noobfeed.com/ne...

So not a drop off.

Unless you're saying a HFW should have sold as much now as HZD sold in 5 years?

Vengeance1138345d ago

It's been 3 games, this includes Call of the Mountain. Also no, its a great improvement over HZD.

solideagle345d ago

lol you are comparing:

HZD: 28 February 2017 - May 2023 (6 years+)

HFW: 18 February 2022 - May 2023 (1 year+)

We will see if it surpass original number.

Phoenix76345d ago

@shane, 2 full main games, 2 DLC add ons, 1 VR spin off game, oh and a an official LEGO set.
Not too bad for an ip that's only been on market for 6 years

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 345d ago
REDGUM344d ago

Wow, very impressive. I didn't know the numbers were so high for Forbidden West. Still playing through it myself

thesoftware730345d ago (Edited 345d ago )

Yooo, when I first saw that Killzone 1 footage at E3, my friends my brothers and I were like, Holy shit! When it came out, it didn't look exactly like it, but we sunk so many hours into 1 & 2.

I even liked Killzone: SF, it was a spectacle to look at, and even today it looks good. I hope they make a new one. Can you imagine how that will look, and they can get some modern FPS pointers from Bungie.

blacktiger344d ago

thank you fps lover, I'm with you

talocaca345d ago

Such a wonderful studio. They deserve all their success.

The Decima Engine is absolute 🔥 I'm just mad they have abandoned Killzone.

OzzY-waZZy345d ago (Edited 345d ago )

Kinda wish they move on from Horizon tbh.

potatoseal344d ago

They are probably working on mutiple projects. One of them is Horizon 3, but another is a multiplaer game and probably somehting else.

Imalwaysright344d ago

There were rumours that they were working on a Socom reboot.

Show all comments (47)
160°

Analyzing 'Uncharted: Drake’s Deception' – Wait, What is The Game About?

Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception has a lot to live up to as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is an incredible and near-perfect game.

Read Full Story >>
goombastomp.com
Profchaos897d ago

It's about retirement...oh wait

UNCHARTED2FANATIC897d ago (Edited 897d ago )

I cant even say what the point was its easily the worst story in the series. The online was a whole lot of fun though but overall doesn't come even close to 2

porkChop897d ago (Edited 897d ago )

It was a step back for sure. Personally, I thought even the MP was way better in U2. Solid game, glad I played it. I just think they didn't push as hard as they did with U2.

UNCHARTED2FANATIC892d ago

Yes both the online and story was better in 2 no doubt

Flewid638897d ago

The "young Drake" portion was pretty top notch, story-wise. But yeah, everything outside of that I felt was inferior.

DanielEndurance897d ago

Villains were all over the place in this… one second they wanted Drake dead, the next they needed him, then they want him dead again, then they coulda killed him, but poisoned his friend instead, then coulda shot him again, but had brunch with him, then needed him alive, then coulda mowed him down, but decided to kill him by fire and let him escape… Uncharted 2 was way better. 😅😅

slowgamer897d ago

=D Sounds crazy. I don't remember any of that. Played it on ps3 and I remember thinking that why was this game so bashed compared to second one. I liked it.

Chocoburger896d ago (Edited 896d ago )

Another thing that annoyed me about UC3 events was the agent Talbot teleporting around Turkey. It just felt off to me, and made no sense.

Also, for about one third of the game, you go on a wild goose chase to rescue Sully, who wasn't even there to be rescued, and you end up back where you started again. There was simply no pay off for all the events you go through, so it fell flat in that regard as if they couldn't figure out how to make the game longer, so they decided to side-track you to do something with no pay off, hoping you wouldn't notice due to all the incredible action set pieces they made.

Overall though, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the game.

TheEnigma313897d ago

This was actually my least favorite in the series. Didn't have that same impact that part 2 set.

Flewid638897d ago

Uncharted 2 is the pinnacle of the series (to me).

Granted, 4 had the best story in my opinion, but 2 was the overall best game.

Show all comments (12)
210°

Uncharted 3 Anniversary Retrospective: Shackled By Its Precursor's Legacy

A decade after its release, how does Uncharted 3 fare today? Does its story still work? Was its precursor’s legacy a bedrock or quicksand for its own aspirations?

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
898d ago Replies(2)
SullysCigar898d ago

When arguably the weakest game in the series is still awesome and more fun than most games today, you know you're onto a winner!

coolbeans898d ago

I'd extend "arguably" before awesome too. Many technically demanding scenes were jaw-dropping for the time, but it's tough to ignore the sub-par context propelling the action forward.

SullysCigar898d ago

Tough for you, perhaps, and that's fine. I enjoyed it very much. Perhaps a little less than the others in the series, but then the bar is extremely high.

I remember being blown away by the water and sand tech in U3 for the time too. It certainly was a visual treat!

LucasRuinedChildhood897d ago (Edited 897d ago )

It is very good, but when I originally played Uncharted 3 it was the most disappointed I'd ever been in a video-game because Uncharted 2 was just that good. I enjoyed 3 much more when I replayed it in the Nathan Drake Collection though. I could just enjoy it for what it is and accept that it's not Uncharted 2 - it's not a roller coaster, and it doesn't balance and rotate between action, puzzles, platforming and set-pieces in the same way.

Uncharted 3's gameplay is a bit more compartmentalized and focused on one thing at a time. I'm not surprised the scrapped version of Uncharted 4 was going to have no gunplay for the first half. It's also paced much differently - it takes a long time to get to the notable set-pieces. Uncharted 2 is insane from Nepal onwards which is about an hour into the game. haha.

I did like the introduction of chase sequences, and I love first hour (bar fight, young Drake) and from the airplane sequence onwards but I just think the rest of it just sort of meanders along without as much purpose as 2.

When it comes to the script, you can feel the absence of Neil Druckmann and Josh Scherr (writer on every other console Uncharted game). Drake gets hit in the face, and the game goes on a random side plot for an hour to give you some boat set-pieces. He then washes up on a beach close to where Elena is staying to get you back to the real plot. Drake just says "How convenient" to try make you laugh off how sloppy the plot got.

In retrospect, I'm not sure if Naughty Dog were ready to work on 2 different games at once. 3 clearly had production issues that 1 and 2 didn't have, and Hennig's version of 4 didn't work out. They had to crunch so hard to get the rebooted version done on time that Bruce Straley gave up making video-games.

coolbeans897d ago

I'll give you some props for the extra analysis. I remember Druckmann climbing his way to a writer spot in UC2, but wasn't aware of Josh Scherr. I didn't know that was the reason for Straley's departure either. That's pretty damn rough.

GhostofHorizon898d ago

They had to make some weird choices as far as story went because the actor for Cutter had to bail which left a few holes in the story.

Uncharted is one of my favourite series and while the leap from 2 to 3 was not nearly as big as the leap from 1 to 2, I think it was an amazing experience none the less.

coolbeans897d ago

Graham McTavish's departure wasn't easy, but I don't think that would fix many holes tbh. Because the main issue to consider is the precarious mindset Naughty Dog was operating on: an increased emphasis in set pieces that HAD to go in and worrying about the context later.

Petebloodyonion898d ago

I really liked part 3 ( Among Thieves is still the best in my opinion) My only complaint was the interactions with the villains and how they were a missed opportunity, Linda MacMahon (Marlowe) was an interesting antagonist due to the history with Sully and Nate but it fails basically flat especially with her ending. And I couldn't care about Navaro 2.0.

What I did love and made me care was Cutter, in the short time he was in the game you could feel that the guy was a good treasure hunter for example when he pulled his own notebook with the clues he founds so the team can escape a room.
It was a small touch that add a lot to the character.

Good-Smurf898d ago

Marlowe was played by Rosalind Ayres.

MadLad898d ago (Edited 898d ago )

I have mixed feelings on the series. I still own all of them on the PS3, and the collection for PS4, but I didn't truly "love" any of the games until 4.

They're good games, but they always stumble on some element.
The first is good, but the climbing mechanics weren't exactly fine tuned with the first showing. Not to mention the spongey enemies if you played on anything past normal; but you're then faced with a fairly unchallenging game experience.
The second mostly fixed the climbing, but added in a pretty clumsy stealth mechanic.
Three was just two with a new story.

Four got it right though.
I don't remember once getting annoyed by any mechanic had in the game.

I know that everyone has a soft spot for 2, and 3 is sort of the black sheep of the series; but they did, overall, get progressively better. Which doesn't always happen.

Show all comments (28)