PS Plus Adding New Rules to Balance Instant Game Collection Releases

[StewShearerOld]

PS Plus Adding New Rules to Balance Instant Game Collection Releases

Sony has announced plans to limit monthly PS Plus Instant Game releases to two per console.

At the risk of sounding like an advertisement for Sony, I'm going to go ahead and say that PlayStation Plus is a pretty danged good deal that nets you a lot of nifty stuff, especially on the games front. Heck, just this past month PS Plus subscriber were privy to solid titles like Pupeteer, Skullgirls Encore and Limbo, among others. That being the case, Sony has recently announced that it will shortly be taking a new approach to its monthly PS Plus offering.

Speaking in <a href=http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014/05/29/playstation-plus-2-titles-per-month-for-ps4-ps3-ps-vita/#sf3102261>a blog post, the company revealed that it will be instituting new rules that it hopes will lead to a more even standard when it comes to the service's monthly Instant Game Collection releases. Whereas in the past the composition of each month's PS Plus offerings were pretty much random, Sony will now be releasing two games total on each of its gaming platforms. It's the company's hope that this will lead to "a more balanced set of games" that PS Plus subscribers can enjoy regardless of which PlayStation platform they own.

In addition to this change, the company will also be modifying how and when it releases new Instant Game Collection titles as well as how long they'll be available. Rather than sticking to the staggered releases that PlayStation Plus currently employs, new additions will now be made available all at once on "the first Tuesday of the month." They'll then be removed from circulation on the first Tuesday of the month following. These changes will launch this July.

Taken altogether, I can get behind this plan. While it does stink a bit that entries into the Instant Game Collection will be a tad more short lived than they were in the past, I can definitely see the value behind titles being more evenly spread between the three current PlayStation platforms. It takes away those weird months where one console gets a ton of games and another gets none and makes it so that no matter what you play on you can count on having something new to try. What do you guys think? Is this an improvement over current policies or is this a bad a move on Sony's part?

Source: <a href=http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014/05/29/playstation-plus-2-titles-per-month-for-ps4-ps3-ps-vita/#sf3102261>PlayStation Blog


Permalink

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm okay with the game cap, I guess. I don't know. I haven't been paying attention to the ratio before, but four games (based on my two devices) a month still seems like a good haul.

What does bug me is that they'll be removed one month later. I hated this about Games With Gold (though that was every two weeks, so this is a little more lenient), and I think it's bad here, too. The six month window was good for new players, and is one of the things that drew me into Plus. I had six months of back games the minute I redeemed my code. And since you have to be a subscriber to even play the games, it's not like this is significantly open to abuse like people have argued for GWG's "it's yours once you download it."

 

[weirdee]

It sounds like a solid plan. Sure, the duration might be shorter, but...first off, if you see something you want, Sony wants you to actually subscribe sooner rather than later, and secondly, with a faster rotation, you'll get to see many more games, so it's not a one sided tradeoff.

 

[superguin200]

I was planning on getting PS+ eventually, but this finally made me decide to just forget about it. I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them. The only appealing factor of this program for me was the number of free games available; there was always at least one relatively good item in the collections I saw. It's a pretty stupid move on Sony's part, even if it does mean fewer free games they have to give away, which has a pretty obvious upside on the business side of things.

*insert overused and possibly "ironic" PC master race joke here*

 

[Xman490]

I was planning on getting PS+ eventually, but this finally made me decide to just forget about it. I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them. It's a pretty stupid move on Sony's part, even if it does mean fewer free games they have to give away, which has a pretty obvious upside on the business side of things.

*insert overused and possibly "ironic" PC master race joke here*

The service has stuck to a one-game-per-week rate recently, so this means slightly more will come out, particularly for the PS4. Even on one platform (Vita for me so far), it provides a good value from year-old games like the new Sly Cooper (PS3), Terraria (Vita), and Trine 2 (PS4) along with 3 others this month alone.

Speaking of the PC master race though, Origin's jumping on this "free games" bandwagon without any subscription fees: Battlefield 3 this weekend only and Plants vs Zombies 1 for a couple more weeks. The service seems alright, despite having hardly any sales besides bundles.

 

[Covarr]

I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them.

Then honestly the new plan is probably BETTER for you than the old. Before, there would be 1-2 PS3 games, 1-2 PS4 games, and a ton of indie games for Vita. Now, there's a guaranteed 2 PS3 games, which at worst is about the same as it had before, and at best is better. Months with 3 or more PS3 games were really rare.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Ipsen]

I was planning on getting PS+ eventually, but this finally made me decide to just forget about it. I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them. The only appealing factor of this program for me was the number of free games available; there was always at least one relatively good item in the collections I saw. It's a pretty stupid move on Sony's part, even if it does mean fewer free games they have to give away, which has a pretty obvious upside on the business side of things.

*insert overused and possibly "ironic" PC master race joke here*

Guess you didn't have very solid plans, then.

The money-eating-kicker to PS+ is that you'll have to be subscribed for a while in order to build up a 'collection' you might think worth it. Hell, you have to stay subscribed just to play the games (you've received for free).

But the negatives give way to the positives. Varying sub models might make it worth it to pick up PS+ for even just one month. Among the 13 games I currently see free for just PS3, Puppeteer is normally 39.99 (variably cheaper elsewhere, but probably not by much). If you wanted to play this game, whether try it out, or blow through it, or even just take your time, a 1 month sub ($10US) or a 3 month sub ($18US) would give you access to ANY of your preferences.

OT: This is...a more organized move, I guess. Like Zachary A said, it sucks that games get the cutoff MUCH sooner, but one of the points of appeal with IGC was that a varied selection of games continued to fall into the format. Hell, as long as you DON'T sub on the 1st of the month, it looks like you could catch 2 month's worth of IGC access with a 1 month sub (but less time to play).

As long as the access function of PS+ remains unchanged, I find it worth keeping PS+ up.

 

[erbkaiser]

I'm happy with the new plan. I've been a PS+ member since the start, and since you can "buy" all games they offer even for platforms you do not own (yet), when I finally got a Vita I already had about 10 games for it for free thanks to PS+.

Basically what this new plan will mean to me is that I am assured of 24 games per platform per year from now on... how could I say no to that?

 

[bluegate]

Fixed days for updates and 2 games for each platform each month? Can't see how anyone would be mad at this.

 

[superline51]

So besides the release time and how long each game will have the "Free" status in the store, I don't really see much difference in the "new" plan from the old. Even after the month is up, the games you "bought" are still yours to play for all of eternity (as long as you are PS+), unless they decide to make you pay for it after the month is up. They could be up for one day for all I care, as long as you get in on time and download it.

 

[Chinchama]

I think this is great. I only have a PS4 and it sucks to see anywhere from 2-5 titles for PS3 and at least 2 for Vita get released (one or more of which is a AAA title or was a big hit) and on PS4 there is one game and its has typically been some sorta of indie/arcade shooter. It will be nice to see some possible big hits and variety make their way to PS4 on the gold membership.

 

[superguin200]

I was planning on getting PS+ eventually, but this finally made me decide to just forget about it. I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them. It's a pretty stupid move on Sony's part, even if it does mean fewer free games they have to give away, which has a pretty obvious upside on the business side of things.

*insert overused and possibly "ironic" PC master race joke here*

The service has stuck to a one-game-per-week rate recently, so this means slightly more will come out, particularly for the PS4. Even on one platform (Vita for me so far), it provides a good value from year-old games like the new Sly Cooper (PS3), Terraria (Vita), and Trine 2 (PS4) along with 3 others this month alone.

Speaking of the PC master race though, Origin's jumping on this "free games" bandwagon without any subscription fees: Battlefield 3 this weekend only and Plants vs Zombies 1 for a couple more weeks. The service seems alright, despite having hardly any sales besides bundles.

Oh, okay. I thought this meant two games per platform per MONTH, not two games per platform each week with each deal lasting a month. That definitely makes me less hostile towards the decision.
The Origin free games thing is pretty cool, free Battlefield 3 is the only reason I have Origin on my computer. (I'm not a fan of Spunkgargleweewee, but hey, it's free and it's always good to broaden your horizons)

 

[Lightknight]

Hah, I came in here thinking that this meant I'd have to choose only two available games each month across all three of my platforms but now they're promising two games a month for every console and giving the time that they'll be released?

I'm much happier with that. I'd grown tired of having to check so regularly because of deals that showed up and disappeared regularly.

 

[Schadrach]

I was planning on getting PS+ eventually, but this finally made me decide to just forget about it. I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them. The only appealing factor of this program for me was the number of free games available; there was always at least one relatively good item in the collections I saw. It's a pretty stupid move on Sony's part, even if it does mean fewer free games they have to give away, which has a pretty obvious upside on the business side of things.

*insert overused and possibly "ironic" PC master race joke here*

You can download Vita games on the PS3 when they're on plus, and transfer them over via USB if/when you get a Vita. What I did, only reason I have Soul Sacrifice and Gravity Rush from PS+ but didn't get a Vita until fairly recently.

As for the number of free games, they're mostly just saying that they're going to cycle games through PS+ faster, and backing slightly away from PS3.

Also, you don't lose the PS+ free games when they stop offering them, so just download them when it's their month and play when you feel like it.

On the upside, if it's 2 per system period, it means they'll be doing one more PS4 game and occasionally (but not always) one less PS3 game.

I wonder how Cross Buy titles fit into this?

 

[Lightknight]

I was planning on getting PS+ eventually, but this finally made me decide to just forget about it. I don't have a Vita or PS4, and I'm not planning on getting them. The only appealing factor of this program for me was the number of free games available; there was always at least one relatively good item in the collections I saw. It's a pretty stupid move on Sony's part, even if it does mean fewer free games they have to give away, which has a pretty obvious upside on the business side of things.

*insert overused and possibly "ironic" PC master race joke here*

You can download Vita games on the PS3 when they're on plus, and transfer them over via USB if/when you get a Vita. What I did, only reason I have Soul Sacrifice and Gravity Rush from PS+ but didn't get a Vita until fairly recently.

As for the number of free games, they're mostly just saying that they're going to cycle games through PS+ faster, and backing slightly away from PS3.

Also, you don't lose the PS+ free games when they stop offering them, so just download them when it's their month and play when you feel like it.

On the upside, if it's 2 per system period, it means they'll be doing one more PS4 game and occasionally (but not always) one less PS3 game.

I wonder how Cross Buy titles fit into this?

You actually don't have to download them. You just have to purchase them and can cancel the download. Then it is marked as purchased from then on as long as you're a PS+ member. I do this all the time with games I'm interested in but have no intention of playing any time soon. Just make sure the game says purchased in the store.