If true then I am so glad I've kept putting off buying Watchdogs over the past few months.
bma1445
Time to trade in my copy of watch dogs!
... for £2? Totally worth it
This should placate the "bloody indies" mob
Time to trade in my copy of watch dogs!
I actually liked watchdogs, almost got platinum for it, those drinking games were too hard, I liked the hide and seek/hacking thing when invading other peoples games.
darkspace100
Not sure what your talking about. Obviously people feel ripped off after … Not sure what your talking about. Obviously people feel ripped off after how Sony gave AAA games on PS3 literally every month around 2012 to 2013 and did a bait and switch when PS4 released. I'm a person who is willing to play any game as long as its good and some of my favourite games are indie like Guacemole and hotline miami but i like my AAA games as well. I'm not saying we should have AAA games literally every month on PS4 as that would be unreasonable but every now and again we should get AAA games.They don't even need to be the latest PS4 games. Just give us a few PS3 remasters like Saints Row 4.
I'm of course not referring to you specifically.
Certainly those who have been dissatisfied with the recent PS Plus IGC titles have made it very obvious why they're dissatisfied, but if you're implying that their dissatisfaction is justified - well, I respectfully disagree. A game's 'worth' shouldn't be focused around whether it most closely fits with the label "indie" or "AAA" - there are many much more important things to consider!
It's £3.33 ish a month IF you pay full price for it. In my book that's value for money pretty much regardless of what games they choose to give away. Is it as good as it used to be?? No. Does it sux reel bad ... No.
I bet half the people that complain probably waste more than that a day on over priced coffee, fags, alcohol, burgers, mobile phones etc.....
Watch Dogs though, let's be honest...it's bleedin awful.
It's going viral now, websites around the world are using this forum as a news source, awesome!!
Don't care, 2h 16m till Alienation. See you in a few months
darksideby182
Cheapest place for 12month ps+ its always around 35-40 buckeroos
O2 Sim. Get 2 free sims, top up one by £11, the other by £10. O2 give you £10 free credit each sim, so spend £21 get £41 O2 credit applied to that phone number (combine the credit to one of the sims) so you have £41 on one phone number.
Use that phone number to pay for PS Plus. £39.99 + 1 network text of 10 pence....£40.09 covered by your £41 O2 credit for £21. (edited)
darkspace100
I would cancel except your missing one small detail. Multiplayer being … I would cancel except your missing one small detail. Multiplayer being locked behind a paywall so yes they are forcing people to pay for it as if you don't you will end up not being able to play half of the games you own.
In which case, you're getting from PS Plus the main thing that you want it for. If, however, you don't view the ability to play online mutiplayer games as sufficient to justify the price, I refer you to my earlier suggestion.
I'll just leave this here...
Tropico 5 (PS4) Table Top Racing: World Tour (PS4) Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 (PS3) LocoRoco Cocoreccho! (PS3) Switch Galaxy Ultra (PS Vita, PS4) God of War: Ghost of Sparta (PSP, PS Vita)
I'll just leave this here...Tropico 5 (PS4)Table Top Racing: World Tour … I'll just leave this here...Tropico 5 (PS4)Table Top Racing: World Tour (PS4)Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 (PS3)LocoRoco Cocoreccho! (PS3)Switch Galaxy Ultra (PS Vita, PS4)God of War: Ghost of Sparta (PSP, PS Vita)https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2016/04/27/coming-to-playstation-plus-in-may-tropico-5-table-top-racing-and-more/
Pleased as a kitty basking in a sun spot with table top racing Tis fun, much rather have that than Watchdogs. Sorry everyone else.
watch dogs nice.. sony have leaked there hand lets see what microsoft can do. (edited)
joetootell
watch dogs nice.. sony have leaked there hand lets see what microsoft can … watch dogs nice.. sony have leaked there hand lets see what microsoft can do.
Leaked their hand? I suspect this is their response to MS's typically better (not every time, but typically) lineup, and in particular last months Sunset Overdrive!
FantasyDeals
My god, a half decent line up!
I can only see Watch Dogs and Tetris? (_;)
Gutted to be honest, no Shadow Fall
rumour so far. not difficult to create a fake image such as that one. no harm in waiting until the announcement.
Is Watch Dogs the good Triadie game or the crap hacking one?
andypearce543
Is this including the watch dogs DLC?
No PS+ games never include DLC, after all this is a good reason for publishers to include games in PS+ as there is an opportunity to sell additional DLC that they otherwise wouldn't have had, on top of whatever Sony give them for including the game.
moved to misc until confirmed , thanks
Cepultura
Err HUKD is not the source. It was of course, Neogaf, as per usual that … Err HUKD is not the source. It was of course, Neogaf, as per usual that broke the news like 4/5 hours ago im pretty sure.
no, but that website is citing HUKD as the source
Author
Cepultura
Are you really gonna say that the thread on neogaf that a few of us are … Are you really gonna say that the thread on neogaf that a few of us are commenting on, saying Dead Rising 3 could possibly be on it to coincide with a DR4 release, as a rumour? oOThats a first, ive been quoted on a big website!
Don't know read it off Twitter don't visit NeoGAF normally a bunch of grown ass men crying 90% of the time
Don't care, 2h 16m till Alienation. See you in a few months
Invisible, Inc. (last week's "Launch Party" release) has similar potential.
moneysavingkitten
I'll read tomorrow when I'm a bit calmer, too excited right now :)I did … I'll read tomorrow when I'm a bit calmer, too excited right now :)I did have quick scan and noticed he ranks Grow Home at 6 and Galak-Z at 3 and I didn't really get on with either of them though :/I'm more willing to take your word for it that it is that decent
Yeah a bit of a strange list, one of those "out there because we want to be different" lists.
No Bloodborne means that I can't take it seriously.
Futureshark
It's going viral now, websites around the world are using this forum as a … It's going viral now, websites around the world are using this forum as a news source, awesome!!Shack News
Typical gutter journalism. Can't be bothered to credit the original source.
cicobuff
Are you forgetting something vitally important here....regardless of the … Are you forgetting something vitally important here....regardless of the titles given on PS Plus, PS Plus is a necessity for online gameplay. Unlike with the PS3 whereby it was free Sony do not need any bait and switch with game titles.
Whats your point? Either they should give better games or make multiplayer free. They are taking gamers for a ride and laughing all the way to the bank.
cicobuff
My point I thought was pretty obvious.....With the PS3 you did not … My point I thought was pretty obvious.....With the PS3 you did not require PS Plus for online play. Therefore to entice membership purchase they had premium titles.With the PS4 it is essential for online play to have PS Plus....therefore there is no need for premium title persuasion, hence no need for a bait and switch...Comprendé?
No. The bait and switch was when PS4 released.
darkspace100
No. The bait and switch was when PS4 released.
As it is required for online gaming, there is no bait and switch, they do not need to persuade with premium titles, and rather than looking at Nintendo they are following what Microsoft are doing by making PS Plus compulsory. Unless you class charging for online gaming bait and switch, and then really they do not even have to provide any games at all. The bait is in paying for online gaming not the game titles. (edited)
And some people seem to have an emotional investment in calling out these companies which in fact many people are genuinely quite happy with. In fact it is the 'unhappy' people that love to crop up in threads for which they have no apparent like at all just to tell everyone how bad it all is when they should be off doing whatever in life they find better value for money and stop trying to save us all from the bad men ...
darkspace100
Jeez it was a bait and switch. Thats the reason they were giving AAA … Jeez it was a bait and switch. Thats the reason they were giving AAA games on PS3 for free as they were trying to sweeten the deal up and get people to accept paying for a subscription so when they finally revealed multiplayer was behind a paywall, very subtly I might add, no one called them out as people expected AAA games on PS4 as well. Microsoft and their dirty DRM tactics just made it even more easy for them without it getting noticed as people were too busy raging at Microsoft to worry about Sony subtly forcing multiplayer behind ps plus.
How can it be bait and switch when Sony implemented PS Plus way back in 2010 on a machine that did not need PS Plus for multiplayer. It's bait back then for purchase of PS Plus was the titles. There were many PS3 to PS4 owners that did not pay for a subscription to PS Plus as they were happy to play multiplayer for free and not be tempted by a game subscription.
Once again PS4 it is mandatory for multiplayer, Sony do not need game titles as bait, the multiplayer aspect is enough bait. 50% of PS4 owners as of 2014 (don't know the figure now) subscribe to PS Plus..many a PS4 owner either did not own a PS3 or came from a Xbox 360 background.
Definition of bait and switch :
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods
(edited)
darkspace100
I would rather "waste" that 3.33 a month on overpriced food or … I would rather "waste" that 3.33 a month on overpriced food or electronics than the junk they give us for "free".
Ironically, when mutliplayer was free on the PS3 there were those criticising that they would happily pay for a business model like with Xbox Live due to how rudimentary a platform it was with no party chat. Xbox 360 owners were quite happy shelling out for their subscriptions.
Add party chat to PS4, and now a business model that requires subscription for gameplay, and then you get yourself and others whinging about the lack of quality titles.
Flynn_Lives
Crap hacking one. The good triad one is Sleeping Dogs which is AWESOME!
Yes, that's it. Played it for an hour or so for PC, very nice game - what I played. Bought Watch Dogs at launch, traded it roughly 3 days later, bloody awful.
cicobuff
I already read your previous reply. There is simply no bait and switch … I already read your previous reply. There is simply no bait and switch because that definition does not apply regardless of yours, mine or anyone elses dissatisfaction with one particular element of what PS Plus offers.
By the legal definitions there is definitely no bait and switch. However it could be argued a constructive expectation was formed about what PS+ would contain. In the PS3 "glory days" there was one top tier game, a big name full price retail game between 6 and 18 months old, a mid tier game which was often a retail name but not as big a name and again usually 6 to 18 months old. The third title would then a download title, i.e. an indie game. PS Vita titles were also added and frequently included big name titles.
Once the PS4 was released the PS4 titles were download titles, i.e. indies which to be fair was perfectly reasonable and to be expected. The PS3 titles however nose-dived and we've now seen titles that are 7-8 years old being included, as well as older titles than the ones given away in the "glory days" despite it now being a few years on.
After the first year of PS4 Sony announced two bigger name titles would be included in the next two months, Injustice and Infamous:First Light which would have made people expect bigger name titles would now be coming and resubscribe to PS+ on that basis. However those bigger titles never arrived.
Legally Sony have done nothing wrong, but I do think people have a right to be distinctly unimpressed. When Sony were behind Microsoft PS+ was amazing, now Sony are far out in the lead they have been far less generous in their offerings.
darkspace100
Actually it is the case. I am open minded when it comes to games and as … Actually it is the case. I am open minded when it comes to games and as long it s fun i'm happy but indies for the most part are crap plain and simple.
I think that we may have to agree to disagree on this.
In any case, we get the message - you don't like PS Plus. If you're that averse to it, just don't renew your subscription and leave it for those who don't always need 'AAA' games to enjoy their gaming time.
cicobuff
Then they will whinge they cannot play console exclusives!
True, but that's always the case unless you buy the lot
136 Comments
sorted by... for £2? Totally worth it
I'm of course not referring to you specifically.
Certainly those who have been dissatisfied with the recent PS Plus IGC titles have made it very obvious why they're dissatisfied, but if you're implying that their dissatisfaction is justified - well, I respectfully disagree. A game's 'worth' shouldn't be focused around whether it most closely fits with the label "indie" or "AAA" - there are many much more important things to consider!
In my book that's value for money pretty much regardless of what games they choose to give away.
Is it as good as it used to be?? No. Does it sux reel bad ... No.
I bet half the people that complain probably waste more than that a day on over priced coffee, fags, alcohol, burgers, mobile phones etc.....
Shack News
O2 Sim. Get 2 free sims, top up one by £11, the other by £10. O2 give you £10 free credit each sim, so spend £21 get £41 O2 credit applied to that phone number (combine the credit to one of the sims) so you have £41 on one phone number.
Use that phone number to pay for PS Plus. £39.99 + 1 network text of 10 pence....£40.09 covered by your £41 O2 credit for £21.
(edited)
In which case, you're getting from PS Plus the main thing that you want it for. If, however, you don't view the ability to play online mutiplayer games as sufficient to justify the price, I refer you to my earlier suggestion.
Tropico 5 (PS4)
Table Top Racing: World Tour (PS4)
Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 (PS3)
LocoRoco Cocoreccho! (PS3)
Switch Galaxy Ultra (PS Vita, PS4)
God of War: Ghost of Sparta (PSP, PS Vita)
blog.eu.playstation.com/201…re/
Pleased as a kitty basking in a sun spot with table top racing Tis fun, much rather have that than Watchdogs. Sorry everyone else.
(edited)
Leaked their hand? I suspect this is their response to MS's typically better (not every time, but typically) lineup, and in particular last months Sunset Overdrive!
I can only see Watch Dogs and Tetris? (_;)
Gutted to be honest, no Shadow Fall
No PS+ games never include DLC, after all this is a good reason for publishers to include games in PS+ as there is an opportunity to sell additional DLC that they otherwise wouldn't have had, on top of whatever Sony give them for including the game.
no, but that website is citing HUKD as the source
Don't know read it off Twitter don't visit NeoGAF normally a bunch of grown ass men crying 90% of the time
what will you do with the 50 pence?
uk.webuy.com/pro…816
£2 cash
£4 voucher
X)
Invisible, Inc. (last week's "Launch Party" release) has similar potential.
Yeah a bit of a strange list, one of those "out there because we want to be different" lists.
No Bloodborne means that I can't take it seriously.
Typical gutter journalism. Can't be bothered to credit the original source.
Whats your point? Either they should give better games or make multiplayer free. They are taking gamers for a ride and laughing all the way to the bank.
No. The bait and switch was when PS4 released.
As it is required for online gaming, there is no bait and switch, they do not need to persuade with premium titles, and rather than looking at Nintendo they are following what Microsoft are doing by making PS Plus compulsory. Unless you class charging for online gaming bait and switch, and then really they do not even have to provide any games at all. The bait is in paying for online gaming not the game titles.
(edited)
In fact it is the 'unhappy' people that love to crop up in threads for which they have no apparent like at all just to tell everyone how bad it all is when they should be off doing whatever in life they find better value for money and stop trying to save us all from the bad men ...
How can it be bait and switch when Sony implemented PS Plus way back in 2010 on a machine that did not need PS Plus for multiplayer. It's bait back then for purchase of PS Plus was the titles. There were many PS3 to PS4 owners that did not pay for a subscription to PS Plus as they were happy to play multiplayer for free and not be tempted by a game subscription.
Once again PS4 it is mandatory for multiplayer, Sony do not need game titles as bait, the multiplayer aspect is enough bait. 50% of PS4 owners as of 2014 (don't know the figure now) subscribe to PS Plus..many a PS4 owner either did not own a PS3 or came from a Xbox 360 background.
Definition of bait and switch :
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods
(edited)
Ironically, when mutliplayer was free on the PS3 there were those criticising that they would happily pay for a business model like with Xbox Live due to how rudimentary a platform it was with no party chat. Xbox 360 owners were quite happy shelling out for their subscriptions.
Add party chat to PS4, and now a business model that requires subscription for gameplay, and then you get yourself and others whinging about the lack of quality titles.
Yes, that's it. Played it for an hour or so for PC, very nice game - what I played. Bought Watch Dogs at launch, traded it roughly 3 days later, bloody awful.
By the legal definitions there is definitely no bait and switch. However it could be argued a constructive expectation was formed about what PS+ would contain. In the PS3 "glory days" there was one top tier game, a big name full price retail game between 6 and 18 months old, a mid tier game which was often a retail name but not as big a name and again usually 6 to 18 months old. The third title would then a download title, i.e. an indie game. PS Vita titles were also added and frequently included big name titles.
Once the PS4 was released the PS4 titles were download titles, i.e. indies which to be fair was perfectly reasonable and to be expected. The PS3 titles however nose-dived and we've now seen titles that are 7-8 years old being included, as well as older titles than the ones given away in the "glory days" despite it now being a few years on.
After the first year of PS4 Sony announced two bigger name titles would be included in the next two months, Injustice and Infamous:First Light which would have made people expect bigger name titles would now be coming and resubscribe to PS+ on that basis. However those bigger titles never arrived.
Legally Sony have done nothing wrong, but I do think people have a right to be distinctly unimpressed. When Sony were behind Microsoft PS+ was amazing, now Sony are far out in the lead they have been far less generous in their offerings.
I think that we may have to agree to disagree on this.
In any case, we get the message - you don't like PS Plus. If you're that averse to it, just don't renew your subscription and leave it for those who don't always need 'AAA' games to enjoy their gaming time.
True, but that's always the case unless you buy the lot