Let's take a look at how both Xbox One and PlayStation 4 delivered on the free games front this past year.
How many more articles about game value do we need? Lol I can see them doing an end of the year comparison, but that should really be it. On topic: I've enjoyed all that PS+ has to offer since the start many years ago. Edit: Never mind, I can see why they did the comparison I skipped over that last paragraph. It's been a year of Xbox Games with Gold and they're comparing it to PS+ since last year. My bad.
It... is an end of the year comparison haha
Yeah I started reading it and it read as all of the other articles I've seen on this lol I caught it at the very end when I re-read the article. You're very right!
Do we need an article like this every month?!?
And this isn't including vita and PS3 games (although some in the PS4 list were cross buy). I have all 3 PS platforms and for $70 a year (Australians are always getting jipped) it's an insane amount of value. My backlog is ridiculous and almost a little depressing lol.
I love PS + you get so many great games, it's awesome
Never Alone is so much fun with two player co-op. But PS+ on PS Vita is awesome too.
Definitely a must have if you have all three of the supported PS systems. Wish they had PS+ when I was in college and mostly broke. I spent my money on WOW subs, because it was just cheaper than console gaming.
Yeah it does offer great value.
Who cares about these so-called freebies as none of them on both sides seems interesting. The only few games on the list that I even bother downloading are Rayman, Limbo, D4 and Crimson Dragon on XB1 and Justice league, stider, and the infamous DLC on PSN plus. It is always about quality and not quantity and both service has terrible offering thus far on the new consoles. There is really nothing to brag about. The Xbox 360 imo has the best freebies out of all the consoles as I downloaded Witcher 2, Fable 3, Crackdown, AC II, Dead Rising II, Halo 3, Gears of War, AC IV, Bioshock infinite, Tomb Raider, and many others and the games are actually free even when your subscription is up.
Lol, you say "who cares?" And then contribute to the topic. I guess you care.
I know this revelation will be hard on your ego but....in this big wide world...not everyone likes the same things as you. I enjoy about half the games that get released, but unlike a lot of people who want to bash it all the time, I actually do try every game they put out to see if I like it before I say how terrible it is. I've come to like quite a few games this way. I got into Bioshock because I put my dislike of FPS aside to try it out on the PS3.
Where do you subscribe to Games with Gold for $60? I get it free with my Live subscription. Live has been a match making service since 2000. It wasn't until the last couple years games were part of the paid subscription. Playstation Plus is a game rental service and has nothing to do with online match making. It wasn't until the PS4 released that Sony blocked access to online gaming without a game rental subscription. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Have you been living under a rock the past decade?
Funny, I was the reverse of you, I had been subing to ps+ for the games and then they added on multiplayer. But what your point is is that Xb1 games are not a rental service because multiplayer was offered first? Have you looked up "splitting hairs?"
Is it comparing apples to oranges when both services are essentially the same type of service, with pretty much the same selling points nowadays? It was apples to oranges last gen before it was mandatory for online on the PS4, but we still saw plenty of comparisons...and if I recall correctly, I even did call you out way back when for trying to compare them when they were different services. Now, about the only way to really compare the two is with the games they offer with the service. Who cares who was first, or what was what when. We're comparing it as of today, not what it used to be.
That is the dumbest comment I have read all week, and that's saying plenty. PS+ is simply the paywall to the online components, as is Xbox Live Gold. "Gold" is in the freaking title of "Games with Gold", FFS...you are trying WAAAAAAAY too hard to make the XBL paywall sound better than the PSN paywall.
I am not claiming the paywall is better. For 15 years it cost $60 to play online on an Xbox. Live has always been a match making service. Comparing a match making service to a rental service just because Live started giving games away twists what is actually being bought to fit an agenda. No one is subscribing to Live just for Games with Gold. They subscribe to play online. Games with Gold is an added benefit to the service along with discounts. For 15 years I have paid $60 for Live. Never was it for the games. On the PS3 I subscribed to Plus 100% for the games offered on the service. I didn't auto renewal for Plus since I didn't always like the games being offered. That was my choice. With Xbox One we have seen more added to Live along with many things being removed from behind the paywall. With PS4, the quality of games have lacking to this point and online gaming was hidden behind the rental subscription. Today we are paying more since it is no longer optional, we are getting less and people are bragging about how they get more indies with the rental service over the match making service? I'm sorry, but when I pay for Live I expect zero games since that isn't why I subscribe. When I pay for Plus, I really think there should be higher quality games available since that is all the service provides.
Death . Online for PS3 is still free.. Perspective mate.
@Death your comment over there is the ultimate example of FANBOYISM! NO! you didn't pay $60 for 15 years. it was $50 and only raised to $60 a couple years back. NO! Gold is not matchmaking service, it's an online gaming service because without Gold you can't play online. NO! PS+ has never changed in price. it was and still is $50 and NO! we are not getting any less but even more contents since the released of PS4. it used to offer contents for PS3 + Vita, now the PS4 too. How the hell is THAT getting less?? please stop spinning facts to fit your personal agenda. I heard Greenberg is worrried sick that you might take for his position at MS with the amount of spin you're making right now!
"I'm sorry, but when I pay for Live I expect zero games since that isn't why I subscribe. When I pay for Plus, I really think there should be higher quality games available since that is all the service provides" The fact remains that they both provide online services AND other perks. The reason why you personally subscribe is completely and entirely unimportant to what the services are and what they provide.
"The fact remains that they both provide online services AND other perks." Playstation Plus gives access to the Instant Game Collection, discounts, online save storage, game beta access and full game trials. The only difference between the PS3 and PS4 versions of Plus is access to online gaming which is handled by PSN is blocked on PS4 unless you subscribe to Plus. Plus and PSN are completely different services. Live has always been access to online multiplayer gaming on the Xbox. If you have owned an Xbox, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, to play online you paid for Live. Live members also received discounts as part of the paid subscription. Just because Games with Gold was added to the service doesn't make Live a game subscription service like Plus. Live is still Microsoft's online gaming service for Xbox. If you feel the need to justify the quality of games offered on Sony's game subscription service by comparing it to Microsoft's online gaming subscription service that is on you. You are comparing a service created for the sole purpose of providing games to subscribers to a service whose primary purpose is to provide access to online gaming. Nothing you can say will change that since this is how each service has been sold to gamers. The only thing that has changed is Sony no longer offers free access to PSN for online gaming with the PS4 and Microsoft has started giving away games as part of their service. They have also been removing access to features that have previously been behind the Live paywall.
Newsflash: People now need to subscribe to PS+ if they want to play online with the PS4, if that is the main reason to pay for PS+ they will see the games as a freebie. I never subscribed to PS+ when it was just for games when I only had a PS3, since I have a PS4 I have to subscribe to PS+ in order to play games online. So yeah, the games are indeed a freebie to me
My gosh, there is so much wrong with this comment I don't even know where to begin. I think I'll just leave this video and move on. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Imagine if Nintendo offered a similar service with their platforms
I just want a choice of indies, or start seeing more of a mix with AAA. Most of the indies offered haven't been something I would regularly play. Out of the year round list of indies, I only picked up: Trine 2 (bought before it was offered on PS plus) and Transistor. They did include some mix of AAA content this year, which I liked with Injustice and Infamous Firstlight. Just want to see a bit more this year and going foward. While I get not everything is gonna appeal to everyone, would have atleast been better to have a choice of a selection of indies instead of just picked by someone. I'm still technically paying for the "free selection" every-other month that I didn't get something. If you also have a PS3 or Vita then this is probbaly a non-issue, but for alot of people that only have a PS4 as a primary console, it's pretty limited. I see alot of people here make the argument that because it's indie and the metacritic score is good or decent everyone should like the selections or they or some hater, lol. Some stuff just isn't interesting.
I think it's getting to the point where people are really expecting more AAA titles on the service. I didn't expect a lot of them the first 12-16 months, but realistically, given how many we got on the PS3, and Vita, people have come to expect more from the service. I like a lot of the games they put out on it, indie or not, but I do know Sony set the bar pretty high last gen with their offerings. Even now, the PS3 and the Vita get a lot of great games, although I will admit the frequency and number of AAA titles has lessened except at times when they flood PS+ with it.
I look at it like this, people mainly pay for the service for the Online "access" not the free games, but when the online access(servers to run games) costs sony nothing, since that is handled by mostly third party developers and publishers. Then all Sony really pays for are licenses to give away indies every month. Given that, it would make sense for them to at-least offer a wider selection of choices, instead of just a hand picked selection of indies. Theres a reason PS Plus is so profitable for Sony as a statement from House shows : "House further explained that while PlayStation Plus is one of the higher margin businesses for the company, if not the highest margin one, there are implied costs related to it, especially due to content acquisition (IE: securing the games that will be given for free)." http://www.dualshockers.com... Sure they throw in nice little perks like 10% discounts and cloud saves for MB's of data from games. But the main thing that costs Sony anything isnt even the main thing people buy into the service for, which is online access to multiplayer games(mostly third party). I'm sure if they had split PS plus into a seperate premium service that dosen't charge for online multiplayer and those other perks were a paid service separate from online, no one would be complaining, but bundled up as a requirement is why people expect more. It's like an unwanted cable package for some. Especially if your tied to only one of the three consoles Sony offers, of course this is mostly a case for PS4-only owners then those who own even PS3/PS4. But when the PS3 stops receiving support, more attention will shift to what sony is offering PS4 subs.
I think that it could be that some people have it for the MP services, and others have it for the games. I'm in the latter camp, and have had the service since it was first offered. I can say that the content on the PS4 isn't anywhere near what it was on the PS3/Vita. I'm not disappointed in the content. THere are plenty of good games, and I wasn't expecting a lot of AAA games on the PS4. If people have it for the MP, then they should be complaining about having to pay for MP. If people have it for the games, I can understand why they would be upset, but I also think they kind of set their own expectations on what they'd be receiving, although there was good reason to have high expectations.
In every article their is always those persons that want AAA for the month. The ps4 is 1 1/2 years old it doesn't have a big catalog to choose right now. It is also up to the developer of the game if they want it in the IGC. What they do is try to get the most from their product before putting it as a ps plus game. Down the line we will see more AAA games.
This is just another J A that don't have anything to write about expect causing strife between gamer. If you are happy with what you own, don't worry about what other people have.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.