I rant a bit about the PS Plus service since its delayed April announcement, and the now-finally released April games lineup that has annoyed some gamers that feel the offered indie games aren’t good enough.
I thought it would be an opportune moment to discuss Sony’s premium service so far in regards to its PS Plus games and general value to PS4 owners who bought into the service for the “Free” games and multiplayer.
Not everyone can take full advantage of PS Plus, so why are they paying the full amount?
This boils down to one simple question: If you only play on PS4 what do you really get for your $50 a year subscription?
If you are like me, you only have a PS4 (for me it was due to both my PS3 and Xbox 360 overheating). I’m pretty sure with all the new Xbox, Nintendo and PC only converts and even new casual gamers, I’m not alone in that situation. It’s a little less generous to be a PS Plus subscriber. If you don’t have a PS Vita or PS3 you are pretty much only getting half of what PS Plus is offering, therefore halving your value for the same price, or typically 1/3 if you only count the games.
With the days of PS3 free multiplayer gone, one has to wonder what we are getting for our $50, if we are only interested in access to multiplayer and have minimal interest in the “free” games.
So I’ve been wondering for a while now, what does Sony do to justify charging for online access this new console generation? To my understanding, it is the publishers and developers who pay the tab on the server hosting for their games. Sony seems to be acting as an odd middle man stiffing people who come up to the door demanding payment, for services not rendered nor desired.
Also, consider this statement by DualShockers in November of 2014 in an article quoting Andrew House, the President and CEO of Sony’s gaming division:
… shifting PlayStation Plus to being required for online gameplay multiplied the number of subscribers by four since the launch of PlayStation 4.
And this….
PlayStation Plus is one of the higher margin businesses for the company, if not the highest margin one
To be fair, he does mention content licensing to be the most costly part of their expenses. And yet the cynical side of me can’t help but think the indies can’t be that expensive either if their margins are so substantial. But looking at Sony’s progress from a company hemorrhaging money in 2014 to a company recovering with lower losses in 2015, it seems like Sony is using this newfound revenue as part of its overall recovery. Or, could it be that Sony still feels they know best and are waiting for a more mature library before doling out the AAA titles?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Why not split PS Plus as a tiered service? ex: one fee specifically for online multiplayer and nothing else.
So why not at least split payment for specific services? Charge $30 a year for online multiplayer access instead of $50 and save the extra $20 as a higher tier package for people who want those “Free” games offered every month, discounts, etc…. It would clarify things immensely and would drastically undercut what Microsoft offers its subscribers by an even larger margin.
Some gamers assume people who dislike indie offerings are casuals
Indies in general are also by definition niche titles, so why are so many gamers surprised when others have no interest in them?
Some gamers online seem to think anyone who doesn’t like indies is some sort of casual, not even allowing them credibility in their viewpoint since it’s not viewed as a being a “real gamer” or whatever that means.
This feeling is even more present in the new console generation where some PlayStation fans seem to take great offense to any negative opinion on indies, even for somewhat lame indies like old school retros that have been overdone by now, that are very much subjectively niche. Of course, indies in general are also by definition niche titles, so why are so many gamers surprised when others have no interest in them? Or in the case of PS Plus annoyed that others complain about only having those games as options for PS plus offerings.
I get it. Indies can be great, but they are still niche and the tastes are subjective.
And to those that defend PS Plus offerings, I get it. Indies can be great, but they are still niche and tastes are subjective. While I appreciate indies like Outlast or Dead Nation that bring an atmospheric and unique experience that I don’t see in most big budget games. A lot of times I also feel most of the indies offered are… meh. And I pass them over even if they are for free. Until more ambitious games like Outlast, No Man’s Sky, or even Star Citizen (if it even gets ported over) start coming out, gamers will still bemoan about indies being too retro or not interesting enough especially when that is all that they are given in PS Plus offers.
“IndieStation”
Which brings me to this months games collection and the generally viewed “indie-ness” of the PS4 and its PS Plus games.
The April games collection has finally arrived and with all offerings, yet again, being indies, it does not bode well for the general perception from some PS4 gamers that the PS4 is too indie-centric and dosen’t offer enough well-known “AAA” titles. At least theres no Woah Dave! on the list… Looking at what’s released for PS4 so far, including multiplats, it’s kind of hard to believe Sony was in any short supply of traditional games to offer subscribers at least every other month, in addition to the indies.
But, I’ll leave that up to others to ponder.
So far all of PS Plus offerings have been chosen for us ever since the service began, but what if it could be like what Humble Bundle does for PC games with offerings where we pick the games we would like bundled with PS plus monthly offers, both indie and traditional retail games? (and no I’m not talking about voting for it) Such simplicity! But that would make WAY too much sense.
What do you guys think? Have you been satisfied with the indies offered so far? Or do you think the PS4 has a mature enough library to start including some more AAA games?
Published: Mar 29, 2015 08:43 pm