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

#71MarkCohenBrosPosted 11/24/2012 7:11:10 PM
Caliaztec posted...
MarkCohenBros posted...
Caliaztec posted...
Was subbed before the Instant Game Collection. Like Nnamz says grasping at the they are not free, and you don't own them is really grasping at straws. If someone is subbing for PS+ for the games that is their perogative but that does not classify this service as a rental service at all.


It's has always been a premium service package since it's Inception a couple years back. They gave out free games before the instant game collection ever came to fruition. I got FFV for PS1 free over a year ago and it has the same warning.
The games are free, they were added onto the service of features already established at no additional price. Meaning every PS+ user got those games for free for signing up as a bonus it was never originally part of PS+. I do hope most of you are just feigning ignorance at the expense of trolling.

It's just like when your Cable provider adds new channels to your plan at no cost. Those are new channels given to you for free because your existing package cost does not increase. Meaning all new content that Sony adds to PS+ is additional free content added to your existing subscription.

The more you know.


I understand what you're saying and Nnamz is right, it's an issue over semantics and technicality, but technically, you are now paying less for each channel. It's not free, but of course it feels like it. Most people don't care about how costs are passed down and don't take time to do math on how much things really cost them, that's why I mentioned earlier that "free" is all but a marketing term. The correct way to look at things is with full costs of everything.

Just trying to be technical here.


That's not correct at all. That's doing as you just said using semantics they are the same thing. If a provider adds content to an already established package at no added cost that content is free. Plain and simple. You may not own it but you are given access to it for free as long as you keep your package current.

You are paying for a service, not an actual product. You are paying for access just like you cable, phone, or any other service. Their are absolutely no difference.


It's not the same thing. One is the "marketed" way of looking at things and the the other is the true way. Like DaSituation has been desperately trying to argue, this is actually an economic concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL). You can't call an established method incorrect. New customers will not be seeing the added channels as free, they come in the package. At one point, that package probably had 10 channels, so all those extra channels are free now? No, just that the price per "unit" is lower. Total price/# of units = price per unit. You're just getting a better deal now.
#72kcypher2000Posted 11/24/2012 7:14:38 PM
Wow some people here need a lesson in economics. You might consider it a great deal but its not free. Free means you pay nothing. Test this. Never pay Sony and see if you can play them. Wait you cant. Ps+ is a leasing service with other features. It might be worth it to you but you do not own the games and you are paying for them.

Btw you get better discounts and betas and trials to all games plus espn and other programs on live plus it works a lot better than Psn.
#73DaSituationPosted 11/24/2012 7:15:30 PM
Branc00 posted...
DaSituation posted...
Branc00 posted...
DaSituation posted...

Branc00 posted...
Remember guys, Gamefaqs isn't free. You're only renting it as long as you pay your monthly internet fee.

No, you are doing exactly that. Paying to use gamefaqs unless you get free internet access.

It surprises me how basic Economic concepts go over people's heads.


You're paying for internet service. Gamefaqs is a free to access site on the internet. I didn't pay anything to sign up here.


Apparently you don't get it. You pay for access to the internet. Gamefaqs is merely a site on the internet. You don't pay for selective internet access, you pay for all of it. Whatever you use, you obviously paid for the access.

It's like getting a hotel room and going "The room comes with free bathroom access".

Which is stupid.


That analogy doesn't work since while no (decent) hotel will charge for bathroom access, there are sites on the internet that charge for access.


Of course the analogy works. All sites are included as is bathroom access. On the other hand, PPV, hotel WiFi, etc is not included with the room, but you still paid for access to the room which gives you access to actually pay more to access PPV and WiFi. Just like the internet.

At the end of the day, like people have pointed out, I am merely arguing technicality (I don't even know why I am, people here live in too much denial). The only reason I keep arguing it is because people are outright denying these basic concepts and looking at things EXACTLY how corporations want you to. B2G1 does not mean you get a free game. You get three games for lower prices.
---
Promoting a grenade-free America!
#74king_zettaPosted 11/24/2012 7:16:20 PM
TJSpyke posted...
Those games are not free, you are literally just renting them (as u lose access to them one you end your subscription). I don't like that whole idea, Sony is just lending you the games, not giving them to you.


Well much like renting a game, your done with it by the time you return it.
#75CaliaztecPosted 11/24/2012 7:23:03 PM
MarkCohenBros posted...
Caliaztec posted...
MarkCohenBros posted...
Caliaztec posted...
Was subbed before the Instant Game Collection. Like Nnamz says grasping at the they are not free, and you don't own them is really grasping at straws. If someone is subbing for PS+ for the games that is their perogative but that does not classify this service as a rental service at all.


It's has always been a premium service package since it's Inception a couple years back. They gave out free games before the instant game collection ever came to fruition. I got FFV for PS1 free over a year ago and it has the same warning.
The games are free, they were added onto the service of features already established at no additional price. Meaning every PS+ user got those games for free for signing up as a bonus it was never originally part of PS+. I do hope most of you are just feigning ignorance at the expense of trolling.

It's just like when your Cable provider adds new channels to your plan at no cost. Those are new channels given to you for free because your existing package cost does not increase. Meaning all new content that Sony adds to PS+ is additional free content added to your existing subscription.

The more you know.


That's not correct at all. That's doing as you just said using semantics they are the same thing. If a provider adds content to an already established package at no added cost that content is free. Plain and simple. You may not own it but you are given access to it for free as long as you keep your package current.

You are paying for a service, not an actual product. You are paying for access just like you cable, phone, or any other service. Their are absolutely no difference.


It's not the same thing. One is the "marketed" way of looking at things and the the other is the true way. Like DaSituation has been desperately trying to argue, this is actually an economic concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL). You can't call an established method incorrect. New customers will not be seeing the added channels as free, they come in the package. At one point, that package probably had 10 channels, so all those extra channels are free now? No, just that the price per "unit" is lower. Total price/# of units = price per unit. You're just getting a better deal now.


No average consumer looks at subscription packages like that. And with good reason. No one looks at their cable bill and says oh I pay .13 cents a channel per day, and with the new 10 sports channels that brings it to .11 cents a channel. Or I pay .53 cents for every minute on my cell phone plan.

PS+ is a package of services, one of which happens to be free games constantly added. You are given access to them for free with the subscription to PS+.

What is so hard for people to understand about that. That is how it is advertised and always has been as such. No smoke and mirrors, no bait and switch. Late Spring last year Sony said hey let's add new games monthly that PS+ users are able to download on top of the premium services that people sub to PS+ for. It's a bonus to entice people to opting for the premium services. You are not renting squat.
---
Playing Need for Speed: Most Wanted on Vita add me!
PSN: Caliaztec
#76CaliaztecPosted 11/24/2012 7:27:09 PM
I can rent plenty of movies and shows on PSN. Still waiting on game rentals so I can cancel Gamefly.
---
Playing Need for Speed: Most Wanted on Vita add me!
PSN: Caliaztec
#77bigt3224Posted 11/24/2012 7:30:49 PM
I love Playstation Plus, and i've had it since it came out. I've gotten dozens of games for "free" after paying the 50 dollars, so its great. A few weeks ago I got Resident Evil 5 for free, and in the past year I got Infamous 2, Warhammer, Littlebigplanet 2, and a ton of other great games, as well as some awesome deals on others. 50 bucks is nothing in comparison.
---
PSN: bigt5478
#78MarkCohenBrosPosted 11/24/2012 7:34:20 PM
Caliaztec posted...
No average consumer looks at subscription packages like that. And with good reason. No one looks at their cable bill and says oh I pay .13 cents a channel per day, and with the new 10 sports channels that brings it to .11 cents a channel. Or I pay .53 cents for every minute on my cell phone plan.

PS+ is a package of services, one of which happens to be free games constantly added. You are given access to them for free with the subscription to PS+.

What is so hard for people to understand about that. That is how it is advertised and always has been as such. No smoke and mirrors, no bait and switch. Late Spring last year Sony said hey let's add new games monthly that PS+ users are able to download on top of the premium services that people sub to PS+ for. It's a bonus to entice people to opting for the premium services. You are not renting squat.


Did you read what I linked? Because you're arguing everything explained in that and I already said I was speaking technically and technically speaking, how I laid it out is how it is.

Plain and simple. All you're confirming is how stupid people actually are. You don't have to look at the sub package like that, ITS JUST HOW IT IS. Like were you even paying attention to what I'm saying? We're not talking about how people perceive it, we're talking about actuality and cost. The person who says "look I got 2 free channels" is actually wrong and there's no other way to look at it.

Why is it so hard for you to understand how economics functions? I love PS+. I have it. It's great that you love it too, but why you gotta look at it in such a half-assed, unintelligent manner?

PS+ is a package of services, one of which happens to be free games constantly added. You are given access to them for free with the subscription to PS+.


Dude, seriously, you need to brush up on your economics. Don't think you even know what free really means with this part of your post right here.
#79nedrithPosted 11/24/2012 7:38:25 PM
They are free. Free with a paid subscription to the service. but when I got gravity rush for free is a lot different from when I paid 19.99 for borderlands with all the addons when it was 39.99. A big difference from a free game to a discounted game.

Sure it doesn't change the fact that I own borderlands and I don't "own" gravity rush, but I don't have any chance really unless something catastrophic happens that I'll cancel PS+. Even if I do I'm not losing much. I can also guarantee you that the majority of the free games I got I don't care if I lose, I've also beaten them and they are mostly in genres of games that I don't care as much about that I would only buy games from when they are already very cheap. The ones I care about were the ones I bought when they were $40-$60.
#80CompassPosted 11/24/2012 7:42:32 PM
DaSituation posted...
At the end of the day, like people have pointed out, I am merely arguing technicality (I don't even know why I am, people here live in too much denial). The only reason I keep arguing it is because people are outright denying these basic concepts and looking at things EXACTLY how corporations want you to. B2G1 does not mean you get a free game. You get three games for lower prices.

Yep, I noticed that a while ago. Marketing can be extremely effective on weaker minds, and you don't have to look any further than threads like these for ample evidence of that...