Borderlands 2 is free on PSN tomorrow for PS Plus users.

#61ServantOfErieosPosted 12/10/2013 4:19:27 PM
Compass posted...
CronoDyne posted...
There's other users who are actually saying that the term "free" is an ever-evolving term, and can be used to define something you're paying money for.

lmao. Leave it to ponies.


Nope
---
Lord Erieos is coming...
#62CompassPosted 12/10/2013 5:04:48 PM
Infernus93 posted...
ManjiMidou posted...
how big a d/l is borderlands 2?

It says 5.3 GB on the PS Store.

CronoDyne posted...
The problem with this is that PS+ is more than a rental or streaming service. I have it for the discounts. I know people who have it for the online save storage. PS4 owners need it for online multiplayer (this is more a detriment than a bonus, haha).

And? What does the other features of PS+ have anything to do with whether or not the games offered in the IGC are free or not?

I understand why people like to jump in and say "It's not free!" but, at the same time, those people know damn well what someone means when they say it is

Except that's not what some people mean. Re-read the posts in this topic, and head over to the PS3 board and to the same in other PS+ topics. There's several users who are honestly trying to justify the term "free," convincing themselves that they're actually getting something for "free." There's other users who are actually saying that the term "free" is an ever-evolving term, and can be used to define something you're paying money for. It's maddening, and it borderlines blind loyalty of Sony. These are the people I respond to, and who I responded to in my original post in this topic.

Point one: I was arguing that PS+ is not really comparable to Netflix or the other streaming services, not that the games are or are not free.

Point two: I seem to have missed that statement here, but it is pretty goofy. I don't frequent the PS3 board (and am not going to start). If we're going to bring up things that were said elsewhere, I'll add something I've said in a different topic: People get too hung up on the IGC (and the notion of it being "free").

Both points: Some seem to legitimately believe the IGC is all anyone gets PS+ for, or that the IGC is all PS+ offers. That can be pretty maddening, too, and is why I addressed the comparison to Netflix and others. Occasionally I enjoy the IGC, but it's not what I subscribed for. With six months remaining, I'm already ahead in what I paid because of discounts (most of it is Sony exclusives and digital only content, 'cuz honestly there's better deals elsewhere on nearly everything else even after the PS+ discount sadly). Online save storage was great when I swapped out my HDD, and will be nice should it ever die. The IGC, while not technically free, does not feel like something I am paying for (but I know I am).

Forget "technically," it's not remotely free. If you actually kept the games after your subscription ended, you'd get to use the word "technically." As it stands, they are nothing more than long-term rentals.
#63Megaman OmegaPosted 12/10/2013 5:14:22 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#64Lefty128kPosted 12/10/2013 5:32:51 PM
Compass posted...
Forget "technically," it's not remotely free. If you actually kept the games after your subscription ended, you'd get to use the word "technically." As it stands, they are nothing more than long-term rentals.


Remove that signature, Compass.

Only asking once.
#65siberian142Posted 12/10/2013 5:41:49 PM
Why do people continue to argue about this? People refer to them as free because that is the way that Sony has cleverly worded it; you get benefits for subscribing to Plus, and this includes free games at no extra cost. I am fairly certain that both sides realize that having access to these games is not free. Topics shouldn't be constantly side tracked because people argue the technicalities.
#66CompassPosted 12/10/2013 5:55:30 PM
Lefty128k posted...
Compass posted...
Forget "technically," it's not remotely free. If you actually kept the games after your subscription ended, you'd get to use the word "technically." As it stands, they are nothing more than long-term rentals.


Remove that signature, Compass.

Only asking once.

This is the second time you've asked unless PMs don't count?

lmao.
#67FKRW4LifePosted 12/10/2013 6:08:47 PM
Compass posted...
Lefty128k posted...
Compass posted...
Forget "technically," it's not remotely free. If you actually kept the games after your subscription ended, you'd get to use the word "technically." As it stands, they are nothing more than long-term rentals.


Remove that signature, Compass.

Only asking once.

This is the second time you've asked unless PMs don't count?

lmao.


I dont like you much but Id be honored if I was quoted by a fellow poster. Shame Lefty has a problem with it.

Still you shouldnt be rude to him if he asks you not to though. Id like to think you are better than that (and be proven wrong about you for once)...
---
Before you comment remember this "It is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
#68Infernus93Posted 12/10/2013 6:19:59 PM
Compass posted...
Forget "technically," it's not remotely free. If you actually kept the games after your subscription ended, you'd get to use the word "technically." As it stands, they are nothing more than long-term rentals.


No, I get to use the word technically as it applies (or however I please, really, though there's always the risk of incorrect usage; either way, try to stop me~). By all formal interpretations (legal or by strict definition), they are not free. That is what "Technically, they are not free" means. By frequent interpretation, and as per (and likely because of) how they are advertised by Sony, they are free* (though the asterisk is rarely included), however wrong that may be.

To be fair, it's a lot shorter than saying "Free to play so long as you're a subscriber and until such time when we deem it necessary to remove the provided content from our servers, remove the benefit from our service, or we go out of business." It's probably better for sales, too. I mean, no one reads that stuff anyway, right?

w
---
Bow down to a true Pokemon-Amiiie!
#69ck920Posted 12/10/2013 6:38:48 PM(edited)
The games are "free" for PS+ members because there is no additional cost.

If you have PS+ and get:
none of the "free" games: $50/year
all of the "free" games: $50/year

The games are not completely free but PS+ is still a good deal.
---
PS3 and Vita: ck920_muffins -- 3DS: 1263-6655-1676, Pokemon Y
Platforms: PS3, PS2, Vita, PSP, Wii(BC), 3DS, DS, GBA, GBC, PC
#70CronoDynePosted 12/10/2013 11:04:17 PM
Point one: I was arguing that PS+ is not really comparable to Netflix or the other streaming services, not that the games are or are not free.

Except I was specifically referring to the IGC. IGC content is on a subscription basis, just as Netflix or Hulu or even Gamefly. You pay a certain amount to get games delivered to you with Gamefly, yet nowhere do I ever see anyone refer to these games as "free." The comparison is identical; we're paying a subscription to access content.

If we're going to bring up things that were said elsewhere

Read the post above this one, and read other posts in this topic. It's not just elsewhere, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. I'm furthering the context by pointing out the continued use.

Some seem to legitimately believe the IGC is all anyone gets PS+ for, or that the IGC is all PS+ offers. That can be pretty maddening, too, and is why I addressed the comparison to Netflix and others. Occasionally I enjoy the IGC, but it's not what I subscribed for.

Again, this entire discussion arose from the use of the term "free" when referring to a game specific to the IGC. I don't see how discounts or trials or what have you have anything to do with the discussion.

The games are "free" for PS+ members because there is no additional cost.

"No additional cost" implies an original cost. No additional cost =/= free.
---
Goodbye Chewy. You were the best friend I could ask for. Rest in peace, buddy.