Was PlayStation Plus a Trojan Horse?

When the PlayStation Plus service launched, it didn’t have much going for it. The service was only available on the PS3, and had relatively basic games on offer. These offerings slowly improved over time, but the biggest and strongest weapon in Sony’s arsenal came during E3 2012, in which they announced the Instant Games Collection. This all changed earlier this year. So was the initial offer of big blockbuster titles on the service a Trojan Horse?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Malice-Flare1385d ago

not Sony's fault that 3rd parties don't want to give their game for free on the service. besides, i got Tomb Raider and Arkham City from PS+, but according to the article, they aren't blockbuster hits...

xHeavYx1385d ago

That's what happens when you give great games for free, people expect more and more instead of just being happy about getting stuff for free

jambola1385d ago

free? since when was ps+ free?

Septic1385d ago

Why is expecting continuity in the quality of titles delivered a bad thing?

DualWielding1385d ago

the thing is that on PS3/Vita games were not free, people paid specifically for the games so Sony had to deliver with great games or people woudl stop subscribing.... now the model has changed, people are forced to subscribe if they want to play online and the games are just an afterthought, Sony doesn't care if people like the games or not because they won't stop subscribing eithe rway

fonger081385d ago

Nothing is free within PS +, they are just additional perks. That being said I do agree with your statement, however, when it starts out so unbelievably well, it's hard to maintain that level/quality of output over time. They are a victim of their own success.

pompous1385d ago

You're right on the money with that Heavy....

And Septic??? The quality is still there it's just people are being gluttonous with the service now. Sony has to diversify the lineup and that's what they are doing. And anyone who expected AAA for ps4 when the library isn't there yet is just being the same. The AAA games will come to ps+ we just have to give the library time to grow. The 1st year games are going to SELL because the library isn't there so people eat that shit up. Why can't you people accept the fact that Sony is diversifying the lineup of games and that not everything is going to be to your liking.. This time next year if nothing has changed then all your arguments will hold weight, but as of right now your arguments are nothing more than hot air.. Fucking patience people..

miyamoto1385d ago (Edited 1385d ago )

to all the dim wits down there
@ the haters

we paid for ps+ not the free games themselves, okay?
we paid for the service to get the FREE games

if your saying the games are not free how come we downloaded them without paying for them?

and if you combine the cost and value of all these games we downloaded from PSN they are now around thousands of dollars yet we did not pay a single cent for them.

keep twisting your minds to suit your hatred and unwillingness to understand. its your brains not ours.

Highlife1385d ago

I will say it again.

It's a network service with a bonus of free games not the other way around.

Know what you pay for!

testerg351384d ago

miyamoto, if we don't download the "free" games then what do we get with PS+?

njitram20001384d ago

Exactly, before it included the paywall for online play, the instant game collection was the reason you got PS+. Cloud saves, background updates and a few savings here and there are not worth the fee. When it was announced that PS4 needed PS+ for online I thought "Ok, I don't mind. The IGC is great so I'm on board". Not so anymore.

And to the excuse that the total value of the indie games surpasses the subscription fee, you're forgetting one detail: we don't get to choose the games! That choice being taken away significantly reduces the value of what is offered in the service and why I buy games on release when I want them then and there.

Death1384d ago

What service do you pay for with Plus? Online multiplayer on the PS3 was free. No one paid for Plus to play online on the PS3. Plus was an optional subscription that offered games for download at no additional charge as long as you were a subscriber. You also received discounts, demos and beta access for some games.

When Plus was optional, Sony needed to have games that people wanted to justify the $50 a year or they wouldn't subscribe. It is no different than EA Access is today with the exception games weren't restricted to a single publisher.

With the PS4 the choice is gone. If you want to play online it is mandatory that you pay for the game subscription service. The quality of games offered don't need to be as high since opting out also kills online multiplayer.

If Sony wants to change what the service is, they need to disclose it. Fans claiming they have always paid for Plus as an online service with the perks of free games is a joke since that was the only thing you received besides the discounts. Online was and still is free for PS3 and Vita owners.

Kivespussi1384d ago (Edited 1384d ago )


So at the PS3 era we paid for the games. Now that more stuff is added behind the paywall the games they give away are only "perks" and not the main focus therefore they can be lesser quality than before?

Besides, I hardly play multiplayer anymore. Still I pay for PS+. The games' quality might not be important to you but they're for me the reason I keep paying for PS+

donthate1384d ago

I said it before, when Sony opened the flood gates for games to be free like this, it devalues games.

I have held of buying many games on both Xbox 360/One and on PS 3/4. In some cases I have gotten them much cheaper.

I subscribed to EA Access as well, and got BF4, PvZ: Garden Warfare and a host of other games for free.

I have enough games so I now buy less games. Thanks Sony and later MS!

I hope the industry doesn't implode from this!!!

u4one1384d ago (Edited 1384d ago )

Its not free. You are paying for the platform that brings them to you. And if you stop paying for PS+ you can't play those games anymore. You are basically leasing them.

gangsta_red1384d ago

Sony offered free multiplayer for PS3 in direct response to Xbox 360 and it's lead in the video game market.

It was a marketing PR ploy pure and simple.

They needed to lure gamers back to the playstation brand and emphasizing free multiplayer was one of their ways. When they realized the high cost of maintenance for online service, not to mention how MS was raking in extra cash to re-coup losses on their consoles from Live, Sony also decided to offer a premium service for their PS3, that would be +. can you get people to pay for a service that is offered for free? You lure them in with free games. The 'ol carrot on the string trick. I'm sure the old games Sony offered probably cost them pennies compared to the subscriptions they were getting from plus. And even still a good number of gamers on PS3 were not going for it.

That is exactly why it became mandatory for PS4.

But of course most can't see that as they think Sony did all this out the kindness of their heart or they were "for the gamers" the whole time. It was all business, all to get people to pay for their online service, now that it's mandatory and their in the lead, why try as hard as they did before to get your business?

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1384d ago (Edited 1384d ago )

To be fair, the games that come with PS Plus aren't exactly free. You do have to maintain a 50 dollar per year membership in order to have access to games that are available across 3 Sony platforms; Vita, PS3, and PS4. I have know idea how many games I have downloaded on both my PS3 and PS4, but I do know that Sony has allowed me to play more than 50 dollars worth of games per year so objectively speaking, the service actually does pay for itself after a couple months, especially if you have 2 or more Sony platforms.

miyamoto1384d ago (Edited 1384d ago )

" The Verdict
Between free games, discounted games and DLC, Avatars and Themes, demos and Full Game Trials, PlayStation Plus has posted 286 separate pieces of content. And just between the free games, discounted games and discounted DLC, your maximum savings in PlayStation Plus' first year amounts to $881.57. That's approaching 18 times the cost of a 12-month subscription to PlayStation Plus and doesn't take into account Avatars, Themes, Full Game Trials or demos.

Is the premium subscription worth it? I think so. I've been a loud advocate of what I think PS+ offers for a year now "

Now this is my true intentions for PS+ I pay money to get free money many times over $50 with the value of games I get to play on my PLayStation systems.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1384d ago
Neonridr1385d ago (Edited 1385d ago )

I think that's what the article is getting at. You were getting massive games for free with PS+, but look at the month of November. Even on the PS3 you aren't getting anything more than some indie games.

I don't own a PS3 (only a Vita and PS4) and while some of the games I have gotten free have been great (Outlast, Dead Nation, Don't Starve, Contrast, Resogun), lately the games have been a little lacking in my opinion.

@xHeavYx - no matter how you want to slice it, the games are not free. You have to pay for a service to get them, so they still cost you something. As soon as you stop paying, you lose your ability to play them.

xHeavYx1385d ago (Edited 1384d ago )

You pay for the service, the games are free.
You can even say that Sony is giving you money, because of the money you save with those games adds up to more than the $50 (or $30, if you get deals) that you pay for a year of PS+

For all the ones who are so hurt that they just hit the disagree button without saying why, here is an IGN article showing that you could have saved up to almost $900 with PS+ on the first year

Death1384d ago


That only applies if the games offered are games you want. Hundreds of dollars in free games I already own or am not interested in isn't worth $50 to me. Everyone has a different opinion on what value is. If you find value in the service that is great. As an optional service it caters to all people. If you don't see the value, then what are you paying for?

xHeavYx1384d ago

You try too hard, $900 of free stuff and you can't find something to make up for the $50 you spent? Yeah, right

Death1384d ago

It's a fair question Heavy. Let's break down the $887.57

For $50 you had the potential to save $453.87 if you bought all the items offered on discount the first year. Sony didn't give $453.97 in games, that was the value of the discounts when purchasing games.

If you bought all the discounted DLC, you could have saved $78 more dollars. Once again, you weren't given $78, you saved $78.

The value of the "free" games was $349.51. It comprised of 21 mini's, 17 PSN games and 11 PSOne Classics. You don't own any of the games you downloaded. Do you think it's impossible to not have wanted all $349 worth of the games available the first year? Do you think it's impossible to have already owned many of the two generations old games offered? How unlikely is it to be able to find some of these games in the bargain bin at Gamestop for well under $50?

Year two of PS+ was a much better value. That is when we seen retail releases offered for both the handhelds and PS3. I happily subscribed up until earlier this year when my sub expired. Not much has released that I felt the need to resubscribe. The games I lost I already played and realistically could have purchased used and actually owned them. At the very least it would have been much cheaper to rent them.

On the PS4 I have seen nothing on Plus that I have wanted. Driveclub was the only thing I was looking forward to and that was only 20% of the game or about $10 worth. Instead I choose to take the money for the sub card and buy the retail release and am happy with my choice.

Neonridr1384d ago

@XHeavYx - I don't disagree with what you are saying.. yes the sheer dollar value of the games you have gotten free is staggering. But AS SOON as you stop paying Sony for PS+, you can't play those games any more. So you aren't getting free games, you are merely renting them so long as you are a PS+ subscriber.

And like Death is saying, it's not like I get to choose what games I want. Sure some games like Outlast and Dead Nation I may have bought on my own. But no way in hell I was buying Stick it to da man or Pixeljunk Shooter. The only reason I am downloading them is because they are free... I haven't even played half of those indie games I downloaded each month.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1384d ago

Heavy, don't bother. He doesn't have a PS4 or PS3 so he has no idea what types of games are being offered. He doesn't even understand that most of the games being offered across 3 platforms, (Vita,PS3,PS4) aren't indies.

Neonridr1384d ago

@IGiveHugs - care to elaborate at the November games on PS+?? I would like to know which of the games being offered aren't considered indies.

Sharky2311384d ago (Edited 1384d ago )

Here's the deal! I paid 35$ for 1 year of ps plus. I've got a PS3, ps4 and the vita. I get six games per month for free! Shut the hell up and try some of the indie games on ps4. They are well worth the money. I swear some people are never happy no matter what. Granted some months are better than others but you can't expect sony to get it right every month. If they get it right half the time I think thats pretty good!

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1384d ago
gaffyh1385d ago

3rd parties get paid a lump sum amount to put their game on the service. Just the amount of big games like you mentioned, Tomb Raider and Arkham City, have reduced massively lately.

nick3091385d ago

There are several games published by sony that they can just put on ps plus.

VegasDawg1385d ago

You have no clue what your talking about. Nobody is going to give their game away for free, this is just fanBOY fantasy. Sony has/had to pay for each title and now it looks like they did it just to get people to join. I would wait till after the holidays to see if this is true.

turdburgler10801385d ago

Has every one noticed the mood shift lately? N4G's top articles lately have been ps4 problem articles. It seems to indicate a massive problem because when you have a website like n4g that allows random articles about gaming to be posted and those articles are predominantly angry or against sony it tends to indicate that ps4 and sony are in a world of hurt right now. Sony needs to step it up because they are acting like the arrogant sony of past.

heliotropic1384d ago

I'm fairly new to the site so I can't tell if this is a recent change or if it has always been a cesspool. Either way, it seems like less of a place to come for gaming news and more of a place to come and gripe.

SoapShoes1384d ago

How are they being arrogant? They've released more games throughout the year and have more announced games than the competition. They just got done adding tons of new features and are working on more as we speak.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1384d ago

Fanboys don't rule gaming, consumers do...


Blaze9291385d ago (Edited 1385d ago )

Before, you needed reason for people to sign up and pay $49.99/year for PS+. So that reason was great value and awesome games.

Now that you have to pay for it either way on PS4 if you want to play online - that reason isn't needed anymore. Plain and simple.

And the PS3/Vita audience is no longer their main concern when it comes to PSN...or at all. Many PS3 subscribers could end their subscriptions today (which they probably anticipated for). But get on PS4? No choice.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1384d ago
DualWielding1385d ago

I don't know it was a deliberate Trojan horse or not but that's what it turned out to be, nobody complained about PS+ becoming mandatory for online because people loved PS+ on PS3 and would have never stop subscribing, if PS+ had been a service only about indies on PS3 there would have been more of an uproar......

Now what I think happen is Sony just saw that Microsoft had a much better subscription rate by charging for online with no added value than they did by offering and awesome service...... so they copied the more profitable Microsoft model......I hate that decision as a customer but I would have done the same if I was Sony..... look at subscription rates now that the service is mandatory for online + indies vs the subscription rates when plus was not mandatory for online but gave awesome games every month

VegasDawg1385d ago

It's MS fault Sony tricked you? lol. Pretty sure MS copied Sony's free game thing first, now your saying Sony is coping the MS structure before it copied Sony's. Wow you are out there.

bleedsoe9mm1385d ago (Edited 1385d ago )

my opinion son'y offering fell off the moment they saw titanfall didn't sell as many xb1's as expected . major reason nobody (even if you never planning on buying a xb1) should complain about ms dropping console prices , competition will make both consoles a better deal for consumers . sony had to fight tooth and nail to get even on the ps3/360 , now its ms's turn . good for everyone that plays games .

Unarmed_Civilian1385d ago (Edited 1385d ago )

Was this article a clickbait?

theshredded1385d ago

I read a rumor that Wolfenstein will be in the IGC

SteamPowered1385d ago

Lucky you, if its true. Wolfie:NWO is a true gem.

1385d ago Replies(2)
Show all comments (66)
The story is too old to be commented.