Plus Points: Sony's PS Plus humiliates the game industry


Recommended Posts

Sony has made a lot of mistakes over the years, and I've cheerily called the publisher out on many of them. For all its hubris, however, and for all its missteps, the PlayStation brand owner is prone to having some really quite brilliant ideas now and then, proving itself surprisingly savvy and innovative when the need arises.

Among these ideas, PlayStation Plus is undoubtedly one of its best, though I was cynical towards the idea of a subscription-based PlayStation Network service at first. Early propositions made it sound quite undesirable, and given Sony's other attempts at aping rival Microsoft -- Trophies spring to mind -- I expected something pointless and poorly implemented.

That's not what we got. Instead, PlayStation Plus is one of the most consumer-friendly, convenient, and worthwhile ideas to hit the PlayStation 3. More importantly, in an industry where publishers are trying to take more money than ever for less content, Sony's the guiding light in how to draw a steady payday from users in a way that makes everybody happy.

01-620x.jpg

PlayStation Plus is a subscription-based service that offers free games, major discounts, and exclusive downloads to customers for $49.99 a year. Every week, the service offers new freebies and cheap titles, giving away not just classic PlayStation games, but current-gen titles including big hitters like inFAMOUS and The Walking Dead.

In keeping its commitment to offering free online play, Sony had to work extra hard to ensure PS Plus was worth paying for, and the results can be measured in numbers. The company recently revealed Plus' discounts and giveaways amounted to a cumulative $2,472 in 2012. While it's unlikely a customer downloaded absolutely everything required to get these savings, it would be quite easy to at least make back the $50 entry fee in content.

It sounds almost ridiculous to say it, but Sony has been pioneering the practice of giving stuff away in exchange for consumer loyalty. Yes, it seems like a no-brainer tactic, but the idea seems to have eroded in so many areas of the industry that Sony's remarkable for doing it. You give Sony money, and Sony gives you stuff in return. It doesn't unlock stuff that was gated off, it doesn't provide what the competitor was already providing, it just gives you things. It's almost crazy to see that now, especially on consoles.

And yes, it's true that PS Plus doesn't let you keep the free content once you unsubscribe, but if you weren't getting your money's worth while still tied to it, then frankly, you have nothing worth missing. Even as a "rental" service, it's a killer deal, and the discounts are nothing to sniff at.

02-620x.jpg

Compare this to Microsoft, a company struggling more and more to justify its subscription service with a straight face. The Xbox 360 owner has systematically worked to hold its content to ransom in an increasingly futile bid to make Xbox Live Gold look worth its fee. The biggest feature is, of course, online play -- something available for free on PS3, Wii U, and PC. The company took something that was already a given, and held it back.

It's done this with practically every feature on Xbox Live Gold. Netflix, Amazon Video, and (before retirement) social apps like Twitter and Facebook all require Gold subscriptions to use, despite these items being freely available on almost every electronic device on the market. Hell, my television can access Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and a Web browser, and they're all better than the Xbox 360 versions -- they browse faster, they stream more consistently, and their search functions blow the 360's pathetic offerings out of the water.

This is the reality of Xbox Live Gold, a service I believe only continues to thrive due to the habitual nature of consumers, and one that I don't think can sustain itself indefinitely. Xbox Live Gold has never offered the consumers anything. It's never actually exchanged a feature outstanding enough to justify an outstanding payment. All it does is take away. Even demos are held hostage, given a delayed release for Xbox Live Silver users in a fantastic example of just how desperate Microsoft is to create the illusion of worth instead of providing actual value. Xbox Live Gold is all smoke and mirrors -- a delayed feature here, a withheld app there, a carefully constructed facade. So carefully constructed, in fact, it may have been less effort to actually give consumers something.

Oh, and let's not even get started on the ads Xbox Live run on its paid service.

03-620x.jpg

There's a strong sentiment in the games industry that the consumer should be the load-bearer for a publisher's problems. Game budgets running out of control? Charge $60, regardless of quality, and take content out to sell as "downloadable" content later. Piracy is a perceived problem? Shovel in a load of DRM as a placebo, which only really has the affect of controlling those consumers who already paid you fair and square. Used games a potential threat? Lock online play in a cage and make used gamers pay a direct fee, while those who bought it new waste time inputting a code to show their fealty.

Sony's not above some of those practices itself, of course, but at least when it comes to PS Plus, the company truly did its loyalest consumers a solid.

It's disgraceful that Sony's PS Plus philosophy is such an anomaly in the videogame industry, that choosing to reward, rather than punish, the customer is downright unique in contrast to Sony's closest rivals. The idea that a subscription service legitimately exchange content for cash should not be something so extraordinary as to be praised, but that's the situation we're in. PlayStation Plus really shouldn't be considered excellent, it shouldn't be applauded for going above and beyond. It is though, and while that's a damning indictment on the rest of the industry, it certainly makes Sony the good guy -- in relative terms, if nothing else.

04-620x.jpg

I love PlayStation Plus. I fully admit I thought it'd work out terribly, and thrilled to say I was wrong. PS Plus stands as a shining example of how you deliver a compelling, rewarding videogame service, and exposes the competition as nothing more than a glorified seller of snake oil.

Now ... if it can get the PlayStation Vita Plus services kicking as much ass as the PS3 one, I'll be doubly impressed.

Read more at http://www.destructo...eH3gkblUcPhe.99

Source: http://www.destructo...iX4XcgRv4DZr.99

It really is a amazing service with no other service like it out there. The options through the years have only gone up. It started off weak, but now we are getting really good titles for "free". Not to mention the discounts on other games.

I just subscribed for another year, my sub was due up in Feb. It's a no brainer.

Even if I don't intend on playing them right away I always "buy" the games on demand stuff because it means I can download them again later once the games have disappeared from PS+ freebie list every month.

That's even before you get to the 10%+ discounts on games.

Unless Sony goes pay to play for PS4 I think Microsoft is going to find it increasingly difficult to justify their Gold service for Durango.

Seems like they're offering a great deal. I've never really been impressed with Xbox live I feel it's pretty poor value. Not that I'll be leaving PC gaming any time soon but credit to sony for trying to offer a better service.

This reminded me that my gold membership was about to expire.. good thing amazon has it for $35 today!! j/k

While not a Ps+ member I read the threads enough to know that the "free" game variety is broad enough to eventually offer something for everyone. If I could justify the purchase (I dont use my PS3 at all anymore) I would certainly be a ps+ member just for the chance to try out so many games.

I don't pay for Xbox Live Gold but I pay for PS+. The irony being that I don't need to really pay anything to maximise my use of my PS3. It's just the offers and added value you get are too good to miss.

PS+ is great. I've been a member since the beginning as well. I have to delete stuff off of my 500GB hard drive to make room for new stuff. And while I don't have one, when I do get a PS Vita, I'll already have quite a few games that I can load up without paying any extra.

  • Like 2

I've noticed that while the game selection has increased, the themes have not.... And I really enjoyed the new themes we would get. Now it seems like no new themes have been added in about 6 months. But I always looked forward to a new look on my ps3 each month.

i never thought i'd like PS+ but ive had it for 2 years now. i love it. i dont download every free game or even buy games all that often, but every now and again something will be free or very cheap that interests me. Also, having PS+ carry over to the Vita was amazing. i downloaded 3 of the initial 'free' games.

I subbed for PS+, but unsubbed because they kept giving me free games that I already beat long ago and long forgot about.

Having used both PSN And XBL there's no way you can with a straight face say PSN is better, you get what you pay for and that shows in the live gold service. Plus I work so $4 a month is nothing even if I don't play for a while.

Though I don't have it, there are many features I've been told about it that I do like, cloud game saves etc... I especially like and wished I had that when my first (I don't know how old it is, I boought it as a Killzone 2 bundle) ps3 died last month. Oh well, live and leearn.

But I am thinking of getting it even if just as an insurance policy for my saves. (Not to mention syncing across multiple consoles etc...)

I subbed for PS+, but unsubbed because they kept giving me free games that I already beat long ago and long forgot about.

Having used both PSN And XBL there's no way you can with a straight face say PSN is better, you get what you pay for and that shows in the live gold service. Plus I work so $4 a month is nothing even if I don't play for a while.

Actually this article is about +, and not the PSN, and what a great service + is for the money.

But if you want to talk about which service is the better FREE service, key word being free, not sure how you can say with a straight face the free version of Live is indeed better then the free version of the PSN. And I have been on each service since Day 1.

Yes, when you PAY for Live, it is a hell of a service, no one can dispute that fact with a straight face as you put it, but if you are just going to compare the free services both offer, then yeah, PSN is just as good as live, if not in fact much better.

And honestly a lot of the features people point out as to why Live is better, some people just do not care all that much about. Cross game chat for example. That is something that does not appeal to everyone or is a just have. So it really does very much come down to opinion and need at that point in time.

BOT, I like + alone just to the automatic updates and increased cloud storage. The free games are a great bonus. I just downloaded Ninja Gaiden Sigma on my Vita last night, a game I would have never checked out otherwise. I have also learned since becoming a + subscriber, to not necessarily purchase games right away anymore. Great example is The Unfinished Swan. I held off on getting it, and just was able to get it for $3 I think it was last week thanks to my + subscription, and I own it outright as well. So th discounts for being a + subscriber also pay off. I honestly think if anyone uses their PS3 on a somewhat frequent basis, + is a must have service at this point.

  • Like 2

Actually this article is about +, and not the PSN, and what a great service + is for the money.

But if you want to talk about which service is the better FREE service, key word being free, not sure how you can say with a straight face the free version of Live is indeed better then the free version of the PSN. And I have been on each service since Day 1.

Yes, when you PAY for Live, it is a hell of a service, no one can dispute that fact with a straight face as you put it, but if you are just going to compare the free services both offer, then yeah, PSN is just as good as live, if not in fact much better.

And honestly a lot of the features people point out as to why Live is better, some people just do not care all that much about. Cross game chat for example. That is something that does not appeal to everyone or is a just have. So it really does very much come down to opinion and need at that point in time.

BOT, I like + alone just to the automatic updates and increased cloud storage. The free games are a great bonus. I just downloaded Ninja Gaiden Sigma on my Vita last night, a game I would have never checked out otherwise. I have also learned since becoming a + subscriber, to not necessarily purchase games right away anymore. Great example is The Unfinished Swan. I held off on getting it, and just was able to get it for $3 I think it was last week thanks to my + subscription, and I own it outright as well. So th discounts for being a + subscriber also pay off. I honestly think if anyone uses their PS3 on a somewhat frequent basis, + is a must have service at this point.

Like I said I did have +, but everything I was given was either old and forgotten or had already on other systems. Cloud saves I already had on 360 and the + free games were games I finished and forgot about.

I was going to reply to his with just, " Opinions are neat." But you always say it much more elegantly.

Nowhere in my comment did I say no one should use + or that + sucked. No **** it was an opinion. Glad you were able to figure that out in just one line though congrats to you.

Like I said I did have +, but everything I was given was either old and forgotten or had already on other systems. Cloud saves I already had on 360 and the + free games were games I finished and forgot about.

Nowhere in my comment did I say no one should use + or that + sucked. No **** it was an opinion. Glad you were able to figure that out in just one line though congrats to you.

oo hit a nerve. calm down man. no reason to get bent of out shape. Maybe if this topic brings rage to you, you shouldn't visit it....

oo hit a nerve. calm down man. no reason to get bent of out shape. Maybe if this topic brings rage to you, you shouldn't visit it....

no rage here.

I can't comment on the value of PS Plus, but I can comment on th value of Xbox Live Gold vs PSN.

I believe part of the reason Live Gold has it's value and the cost behind it is, Microsoft does a lot of the server

management, on the PSN that's all left to the publisher, which is why you see far more server shutdowns than on XBL

there are exceptions, ones I think publishers like EA and 2k are abusing and MS needs to do whatever they can do get

out of whatever contract they made with them that allows them to manage their own services for XBL, they've proven

themselves incapable of doing it properly and fairly.

I can't comment on the value of PS Plus, but I can comment on th value of Xbox Live Gold vs PSN.

I believe part of the reason Live Gold has it's value and the cost behind it is, Microsoft does a lot of the server

management, on the PSN that's all left to the publisher, which is why you see far more server shutdowns than on XBL

there are exceptions, ones I think publishers like EA and 2k are abusing and MS needs to do whatever they can do get

out of whatever contract they made with them that allows them to manage their own services for XBL, they've proven

themselves incapable of doing it properly and fairly.

Besides mentioning EA I think you really need to back that up?

Sony 1st party/exclusive servers do really well, Warhawk, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and Demons Souls are still up to name a few old titles.

Besides mentioning EA I think you really need to back that up?

Sony 1st party/exclusive servers do really well, Warhawk, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and Demons Souls are still up to name a few old titles.

I second this. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any games, outside of EA published games, that have had their matchmaking servers taken down.

Besides mentioning EA I think you really need to back that up?

Sony 1st party/exclusive servers do really well, Warhawk, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and Demons Souls are still up to name a few old titles.

I second this. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any games, outside of EA published games, that have had their matchmaking servers taken down.

The most recent I can think of would be Ghostbusters: The Game, but overall they're mostly EA and 2K games, an example of an EA game though, Mercs 2

That's shutdown on PSN/PC but not XBL. I could probably come up with more if I searched, but I am pretty lazy and don't really feel the need to justify my statement.

i never thought i'd like PS+ but ive had it for 2 years now. i love it. i dont download every free game or even buy games all that often, but every now and again something will be free or very cheap that interests me. Also, having PS+ carry over to the Vita was amazing. i downloaded 3 of the initial 'free' games.

I think you should start the downloads of content you don't think you'll want because if you don't and those games get taken down and new ones put up you can re-downlaod them from your download list.

I already have and beat Bioshock 2, but I already started the download and cancelled it just in case in the future I do want to download it for some reason.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!