So Sony have received a ton of backlash over the free games with psplus this month.. For those that don't know the 2 free games are

Farming Simulator 19
City Skylines.

There's even a petition for them to get to change the games although honestly speaking i doubt anything will change.


Personally the games don't actually bother me because most of the time i own the games they give out for free. So at least this time i actually get 2 games i don't have... Will i play them probably not.. but it's something right?

I'd much rather they provide niche titles than the general stuff they put out that i always own.. that's for sure.

I actually love that the free games are random ones like that. They have value, but they are also games that I personally would never buy.

What's the point in giving everyone God of War, for example. Everyone who actually wanted to play it, owns it, and the amount of people who would try it, that had no interest before, are probably minimal in comparison to those who now get Farming Simulator and City Skylines (both of which are fantastic games worth playing!)

I find 90% of the people who b**** on the internet about the free games each month are teenagers or people without jobs. They pay 50 dollars a year in the vague hopes they will get a handful of games they would love to play, and whine whenever it's not a AAA title. There's an easy solution... you want a different game? Get a job and f***ing buy it yourself.

The PS+ games are a BONUS for SUBSCRIBING to PSN. They don't have to give you s*** at all.

This is unsurprising, it's the cycle of Sony. First they offer a bunch of crap, then come back triumphantly with great content. It's probably to stir up publicity.

IDK, If I didn't already have Cities: Skylines for multiple systems I would have loved this. I would never play a farming game but Skylines is one of the best city sims out there and it's rarely under $30 so I don't why so many people are complaining, especially considering IT'S FREE.

legacyme3 : Considering the high pricing of PS+ is in part justified through the games, I think it's fair for people to complain about it in some cases.

With that said I also agree with it being stupid that people react this way every time there's a niche title. There's been times when Sony has put out very small indie titles of questionable quality and/or value. In those cases I can see the criticism being warranted compared to other similar services. However these are two good value games that have been quite well received.

Either way, one would think Sony should be able to figure out that they would get this kind of reception from having 2 simulator games. It's not exactly the most eye-catching genre.

Zlinqx : I mean it depends how you think about it. I've seen some people angry that they didn't get a triple A game for basically nothing so swings and roundabouts i suppose.

Also it wouldn't surprise me if both the simulator games had decent sales as well. I know they're both kinda popular to a small degree with the people that actually want to play them.

Also let's not beat around the bush... it's like £3.50 a game... and if your like me and buy your ps plus subscription yearly (and sometimes it's even discounted more) I'm literally paying £2.09 for each game. That's literally less than any sort of postage for a physical copy of any game.

Also i personally wouldn't consider ps plus as highly priced. but that might just be me.

sonicmcmuffin : There's a lot of people acting entitled for sure, but if services like Microsoft's Games for Gold can provide games at a better value consistently then there's no reason why Sony can't up their offering either, they just don't want to. I'm not saying they have to either, nobody is forcing people to buy a Playstation and PS+ but it's clear that they would be able to without it denting them much financially.

It's highly priced considering what it's supposed to be, an online pass. If people could buy a basic version that doesn't include the games for a lower price then I wouldn't have a problem with it. In stead they're forcing people to pay more and using the games as a justification for it, in which case it's natural that people would fuss about what games they're getting. Overall Sony is still making money on these deals since many developers want the exposure.

Zlinqx : Well yeah of course their making money... I find it weird that people expect companies to not make money on things... Also it sometimes gives indie games the exposure they need.

Also just because a competitor can do something cheaper/better doesn't mean other companies have to..

I'm not defending Sony here really... I just don't know what people expect. Also just looked at xbox gold's games.. and they're even worse than sony's this month.. welp

sonicmcmuffin : The point being: They could address this without much of a difference in their moneymaking potential. Because they're a company that's acting in their own interest that doesn't shield them from being criticised for said behavior in my view.

In terms of price Games with Gold is a better value by far, the combined price of the 4 games are more than double that of the PS+ offerings and this is generally the trend between the two. Subjectively you can make the case that PS+ is better but I think most people would prefer the Games with Gold options any given month.

Zlinqx :

It's 50 dollars for a full year. Or less if you catch it on one of the many sales they do all year. I know some people who spend 30 dollars per year.

That's a good price for an online membership when it comes to home consoles.

XBox Live Gold costs 60 dollars per year (or you can get Game Pass which is 10 dollars per month). Switch Online is a steal at 20 dollars per year, but comes with the caveat of having the WORST online of the big three consoles.

PS+ is a better value than XBox Live Gold while retaining high quality online, unlike Switch Online. And then they have the nerve to give away hundreds of dollars of games every year.

In the past calendar year, games given away through PS+ include: DIRT Rally 2.0, Uncharted Collection, Uncharted 4, BioShock Collection, The Sims 4, Shadow of the Colossus, Nioh, Titanfall 2, MLB 19 the Show, Last of Us Remastered, Batman: Arkham Knight, Detroit: Become Human, Borderlands: The Handsome Collection, Sonic Mania, Sniper Elite 4, Darksiders 3, and Overcooked!

That's a phenomenal list of games, which more than justifies the annual cost of PS+, when you consider you also get high quality online fidelity (internet services applying).

If someone wants to complain about getting two games they otherwise would not purchase (which again ARE REALLY GOOD GAMES), they should probably get some perspective. You pay for online, and get some games as a gift for your continued subscription. The longer you are a member, the larger your library becomes. They've put out some incredible titles on plus over the past year in particular.

EDIT - No sooner than I say this do I find a sale for PS+ at 35 dollars for the year

legacyme3 : The same goes for Xbox Gold, you can find it on sale for a similar price. PS+ have had some good games on show, I won't deny that but for every good game they've had, they've also had several months with poor low budget games. Especially so in the early years of the console. In that respect you could say they have improved somewhat but they still fall quite short in comparison with competitors.

You could argue PS+ games have been better but based on getting the most game for your money (as in prices of the games before being included) Xbox Gold beats them by a mile. Many of the same games that have been on PS+ premiered on Games with Gold much earlier as well.

Personally I prefer Switch online to either because even though their retro game offerings pale in comparison, it's much cheaper. Another notable aspect is that you also get access to all of the game library rather than just getting games for a particular month which means that for most people who are more casual gamers and not paying for it yearly, it's probably still going to be the better value. It's the closest alternative there is to simply paying for the online service.

Ultimately I would still agree with you if they gave people an option to opt out of the games and just pay for the online. They really don't have to charge that much to maintain the servers and it's very likely (though the information is not made publicly available) that they actually earn more money than they lose from buying licenses to include these games in the PS+ offerings. In a lot of cases developers want their games to be included which likely means they take little payment from Sony if any. These factors considered, I feel that it's only fair that the games included are subject to scrutiny.

legacyme3 : Yeah, even though it is normally $60 per year, I only paid $35 for it this year. I was very pleased.

While I definitely think that the games for this month (and last month) are a little underwhelming, not bad games- just not AAA stuff, I don't really mind it and have them in my library. Will I play them any time soon? Probably not, but these are games that I don't exactly see people lining up to buy at the stores with their money. I think it's cool to occasionally see random oddball games you wouldn't think twice about buying normally as the PS+ games. As leggy said, big AAA games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, and Spider Man are games that are already dirt cheap now (pretty sure you can get each of them for less than $20). It doesn't make sense to spend $30-40 (and definitely not the full 60) and expect to see big playstation hit titles as the PS+ for the month. It's just a waste of money and time. You could be waiting months for games like that vs dropping $20 to play it immediately. People that wanted those games already have them and people that don't can easily do so for cheap instead of blaming PS+.