Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'PS4 - Games & Content' started by GameWinner, Nov 8, 2013.
"Yes, yes, try it for free... and pay forever!"
I'm on to you, Sony.
Heh heh heh...
Nobody chortles at Microsoft's Xboner.
Games for Gamers
Music for Musicers
Entertainment for Entertainmenters
If you own a current PS console and dont have PS+ there is a good chance you have brain damage.
There's a trick here, when is music not free?
Why? it's $50 to rent games for a year, then again every year until you stop then you lose all those games. Not interested in a rental service sorry, but then again now you need PS+ for online multiplayer so there's not much of a choice. The discounts on digital exclusive games (only digital games i buy) are nice but not nice enough.
Ok, thats fine, i'll keep all of my games.
yes who in their right mind would pay $50 for all this
I guess i'm insane, I wouldn't pay $50/yr to rent those games. The mass amount of those games are old as shit and can be found used for $10. First and foremost i prefer to actually own my software call me bat shit crazy. Anyway it's a moot argument because PS+ is required for multiplayer on the PS4 so i'll be getting it anyway.
>Implying you "own" the software
>Year Of Our Lord 2014
Considering the list stretches back to 2012... duh?
And, for the sake of argument, let's use your number. Buying each of those games separately at $10/game would cost $640. 1 year of PS+ costs $50. I think you can do the math here.
I own a 2600 with a bunch of games i play occasionally do i not own that? i have the physical cart and the physical console. I can play when i want, where i want, i own it. All you're semantics don't mean shit.
I wouldn't purchase 1/4 of those games even at $5 or $10 dollars, in any form let alone rent them. Any other arguments as to why my opinion of PS+ is wrong?
You own the physical cartridges and the console, sure, but the software? Nope, not even back in the days of Atari.
If you only purchase 3/4 of the 64 games (since you said you wouldn't buy 1/4 of them), at $10/game you'd still be paying $480. Even at $5/game, you're still paying $240. $240>$50.
Let's turn it around. Let's say you only purchase 1/4 of those games, at $10/game, you're paying $160/game. At $5/game, you're paying $80. $80>$50.
Either way, PS+ is the better value.
I mean, if you want to scoff at a great service, be my guest, but don't get offended when people tell you that's silly.
I could be wrong, but my impression was that he'd purchase fewer than one quarter of the games.
And so his post demonstrates the importance of semantics. It's sorta like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid... I'm sure there's a word for that.
It's also worth noting that the hypothetical numbers are major lowballs. Take February's games. Outlast is $20, Metro: Last Light is $20 on Amazon, Payday 2 is $30 or so on Amazon, Remember Me is $18 or so, Modnation Racers is $16 on Amazon right now, and Street Fighter x Tekken is $22 on Amazon. All together, PS+ users are saving $76 or so for just one month. All of the games might not appeal to everyone, of course, but that's certainly nothing to sneeze at.
let me spell it out for you...
"I wouldn't purchase 1/4 of those games even at $5 or $10 dollars, in any form let alone rent them" means: I don't give a fuck about those games