"Free games on PS+ aren't free."

#421xfactorPosted 12/7/2012 9:06:55 PM
LitCandlez posted...
MegaMettaur posted...
If I can go into the place and get an oil change for free, then it's free. If I have to pay for something in order to receive the "Free" oil change. It's not free.


Actually, it is free. You are paying for the 1st oil change, but you are getting the second one at no cost. None of your money went to the second one. Pretty simple to see this.


Actually it is not. You have to pay for the 1st oil change before you get the 2nd one, so it comes down to paying for both oil changes, just at a cheaper rate.

Now if the 1st oil change is free and they charge for the 2nd (optional) oil change, that will be a different story.
---
www.capcom.co.jp/bio6
#422liammiller18Posted 12/7/2012 9:29:23 PM
Honestly, I know we're at page 43 so it's really a moot point, but it's like four dollars per month. I don't work a super well-paying job, but I still get just over $1,600/month. Four dollars is SUCH a negligible amount. It definitely costs money, but at the price you're paying for what you're getting, it's a tremendous service with tremendous value for every user. I legitimately do not understand how any person can actually think it's a bad service.

Also I didn't read past page 1, so I don't know if my argument is even related to present discussion, but seriously, put things in perspective and look at the value versus the cost.
---
Bacon, RPG elements and cute girls, what more could you want?
#423king_maddenPosted 12/7/2012 11:08:13 PM
xfactor posted...
LitCandlez posted...
MegaMettaur posted...
If I can go into the place and get an oil change for free, then it's free. If I have to pay for something in order to receive the "Free" oil change. It's not free.


Actually, it is free. You are paying for the 1st oil change, but you are getting the second one at no cost. None of your money went to the second one. Pretty simple to see this.


Actually it is not. You have to pay for the 1st oil change before you get the 2nd one, so it comes down to paying for both oil changes, just at a cheaper rate.

Now if the 1st oil change is free and they charge for the 2nd (optional) oil change, that will be a different story.



whichever one you dont pay for is the free one. you guys are taking the entire purchase and rating whether or not its free. free just pertains to one item. its receiving one item without paying its price for it. in all these cases you come out with. you pay for something different, and the other item is free.

just because you break it down differently and say "oh its not free im just splitting the cost". no where does it say that but in your head. before the deal its one price, after the deal its the same price, but for some reason during the deal you feel its reduced.

again i would have to ask, if they were using the word incorrectly a lawsuit wouldve come out by now dont you think?
#424MegaMettaurPosted 12/7/2012 11:14:59 PM
liammiller18 posted...
Honestly, I know we're at page 43 so it's really a moot point, but it's like four dollars per month. I don't work a super well-paying job, but I still get just over $1,600/month. Four dollars is SUCH a negligible amount. It definitely costs money, but at the price you're paying for what you're getting, it's a tremendous service with tremendous value for every user. I legitimately do not understand how any person can actually think it's a bad service.

Also I didn't read past page 1, so I don't know if my argument is even related to present discussion, but seriously, put things in perspective and look at the value versus the cost.


Yeah the value is amazing. I don't think anyone here is calling the service bad. Nothing wrong with paying $50 for an amazing service like this.

But the whole thing escalated to people thinking you're getting something for free by paying for it.
---
Now Playing (VITA): Ragnarok Oddysey, DJ Max Technika Tune (soon) PSN: Roksor.
Now Playing (PC): TalonRO
#425MetalZoicPosted 12/7/2012 11:21:49 PM
It will be a shame if this topic doesn't hit 500 at this point.

liammiller18 posted...
...
I legitimately do not understand how any person can actually think it's a bad service.

Also I didn't read past page 1, so I don't know if my argument is even related to present discussion, but seriously, put things in perspective and look at the value versus the cost.


The debate is really about the use of the description "free". Very few people have said it was a bad deal, although a few have mentioned that it is a deal that doesn't interest them.


king_madden posted...
...
again i would have to ask, if they were using the word incorrectly a lawsuit wouldve come out by now dont you think?


According to the FTC they are using the term "Free" legally (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/free.htm). However that doesn't mean they are using it correctly by definition.

And that is what makes this debate fun! Both sides of the argument can be seen, and argued, as correct!
#426BlazakenkiPosted 12/8/2012 9:45:01 AM
Im surprised this has hit page 43.

I mean, the minute money changes hands something ceases to be free right? If it was free you just walk in and take it.

I think the line between "free" and "amazing deal"(regarding the PS+) has been blurred to the point people can't tell the difference. And THAT is what this debate is about.

...However moot it may be.

ALSO WHO HAS P4G?!
---
PSN ID:CrownClown_
Add me so we can play =). English & Francais.
#427shampoowarriorPosted 12/8/2012 10:14:34 AM
RD_21 posted...
But since you like to use analogy and I just thought of one to give you thoughts material, if a company offer free meal for people 65 and up, is it still not free since it's not available to everyone?

Because the main argument as to why you can never EVER consider PS+ games to be free or else you are an imbecile of the worst kind, is that if it was free, it would be free without a subscription. So if the 65 and up (PS+ subscribers) can get a free meal, why couldn't you accept the term "free with a PS+ subscription"?


If you want that to be really analogous to this situation, you have to assume that people 65+ are paying the company for the privilege to be that old.

I don't know why you're trying to equate being old with paying Sony $50 a year or where you got the idea that people think PS+ games aren't free because they aren't free to everyone. PS+ games aren't free because they aren't free to anyone.

No matter how you want to break down the money in your mind, the fact at the end of the day remains that unless you pay money, you don't get the games. Unless you pay money, you don't get the oil change. Unless you pay money, you don't get the second game "free" in a BOGO sale.

If you don't pay money, you don't get anything. Nothing that you get only after paying money is really free, no matter what you tell yourself. Again, great savings can surely be had. But it isn't free.


Magoichi posted...
I will partially agree with the end of your post. It doesn't make it equally valid with reality, but that's not the only thing that's being argued as people are free to have their own disposition. In fact that's the ultimate point here, you have the realistic approach and you have the fantastical appreciation of a term being used beyond its literal meaning simply to exaggerate a deal.

It's like saying that I consider Italian and Chinese to be the same language because, personally, I can't understand either one. I can consider anything I want, no matter how imbecilic and removed from reality, it doesn't make it a perspective equally valid with reality.

I know you're not the only one, in fact both sides are guilty of it, but I don't feel that these analogies strongly prove the dissenting opinion to be what you say they are (because you can point out that there are far more differences than there are similarities). To me it comes off as taking the few shared aspects and turning them into a mocking insult, and this is all presented in a conceited effort to make your views seem better. This method of rebuttal typically doesn't strengthen an argument besides with people who share the same myopic views (from either perspective).


I agree people are free to have their own disposition. The sentiment of "I pay for PS+ for X feature, so the games are a bonus" seems perfectly legitimate to me. But that is not the same as declaring that every feature apart from the one you care about is free. It might as well be free to you but that doesn't make it free. It's semantics, but it is semantics that I think ought to be known by a reasonable person.

As for the bit about the language, it wasn't meant to apply to the situation as a whole, just the "because I believe it makes it so!" aspect of some arguments. Again, disposition and belief are different. If someone said "Italian and Chinese might as well be the same for all the differences I can see," it is a much different statement than "Italian and Chinese are the same because I can't tell the difference."
---
Official Alice of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board
http://backloggery.com/shampoowarrior
#428EffectAndCause(Topic Creator)Posted 12/8/2012 11:20:14 AM
"Im surprised this has hit page 43."

50 posts per page or bust, man.

Basically if i'm giving someone 50 bucks, and they're giving it right back to me via a 50 dollar savings, I haven't spent any money.
---
http://i50.tinypic.com/2hdruqq.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/wqr38o.gif
#429MagoichiPosted 12/8/2012 1:56:17 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#430MagoichiPosted 12/8/2012 1:57:01 PM
It's semantics, but it is semantics that I think ought to be known by a reasonable person.

I don't know, the way you were mocking people with those analogies, do you really think someone would view you as a reasonable person with that attitude? I know this is the internet but sometimes people do respond appropriately to those that treat them with tact and a more neutral attitude in general. They're just going to keep fighting back so long as the other side throws at least one insult in there, and some will no matter what, but I have seen other people in this thread recognize that both sides have decent points, while still acknowledging that one is clearly the technically true one (that money has to be paid no matter what, minus trial exploits as some people have done).

If someone said "Italian and Chinese might as well be the same for all the differences I can see," it is a much different statement than "Italian and Chinese are the same because I can't tell the difference."

That "might as well be" version is kind of what the marketing version of free actually means, and what I also suggested in my post about it being a shortened version of an informal phrase. Since many beliefs are just opinions or intentionally skewed perspectives to support a premise that makes a person feel better, I related disposition to it because someone's attitude about life in general could be much more optimistic than another's, and personally I don't see anything wrong with that regarding matters like this.

The belief that something is free because it's not the primary reason to pay money in a package deal is an acceptable way of treating things in my own opinion. My actual stance I have over the bonus games is that I know if I unsubscribe that I lose what I've paid for and all, but at the same time it is nice to sometimes see something I definitely wanted like Double Dragon Neon pop up as "Free" the same day as its release. It doesn't mean I believe it to be a total gift, but for that brief moment, if I want to highlight the "Free" aspect of it, does that really not make me a reasonable person anymore?