Are you happy for PS+ Games to be referred to as 'free'?

[SnowNinjaRaccoon]

How about option 3: "Why would anyone care?"

Only on psnprofiles you can find people discussing for 5 pages about something so unimportant that it needs an extra thread discussing the discussion.

 

 

[AnonymousPLC1898]

I use my friends account for PS Plus so I get free PS Plus and free games ? 

[Dreakon13]

11 minutes ago, JediKnight_327 said:

Cambridge Dictionary definition of 'Free':

"Costing nothing, or not needing to be paid for"

 

My friend wants the PS+ games for free. If you can tell me how he can download them by "Costing nothing, or not needing to be paid for", I will accept that they are free games.

 

This is going to be a long, uphill battle for you, friend.  Almost nothing out there labelled "free" is actually free with zero strings attached.

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

This is going to be a long, uphill battle for you, friend.  Almost nothing out there labelled "free" is actually free with zero strings attached.

 

 some folks can't grasp that 'free', as a label, is a relative concept.

 

? - imagine what would happen to them if they look into how much sugar is in a 'sugar-free' tic-tac....

[KillLaGil]

when i describing "free" ps + game to someone im using rent term

[Wuthg21]

Why is this even a discussion jeez

[KillLaGil]

Just now, Wuthg21 said:

Why is this even a discussion jeez

too much free time i guess

 

[PixelHelix]

What a strange argument.

 

Of course they are not free. Is there anyway of getting the monthly games without paying money for PS+? No.

 

You might as well argue that the Online MP component is free and the cloud saves are free too.

 

I mean, I don't care if you wanna call them free if that makes sense to you, but they simply aren't.

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by PixelHelix

[diskdocx]

22 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

The only correct response is totally and utterly indifferent.  I see someone say it, I think about it only long enough to get whatever modicum of context is needed for the rest of the post, and I move on.  The whole process takes less then half a second from reading it.

 

The people saying it... are aware they are paying money for something, regardless of their phrasing.  They are, by textbook definition, wrong.  But the word "free" gets used a lot of ways these days, and it's not a crime for people to see it their own way.

 

The people contesting it... are just trying to pick a fight, probably have an axe to grind with PS+ costing money in general, and see pointing it out without any real provocation as some form of fighting "the man" by working against what they perceive as their misleading advertising at work.  It's petty to derail a conversation because what they believe to be the "wrong word" was used in an irrelevant part of it.

While it doesn't really bother me if people use the word free, there are always folks that will derail the Plus discussion threads about announced games with 'people need to stop complaining, the games are free, so much entitlement...'

 

So in that context, it isn't about people just simplifying the term but realizing that the games are part of a subscription. It is literally the point of their argument - the games are free and anything other than absolute gratitude is whiney.

 

On the other hand, I have never heard anyone say online play was free. But it is. As long as you sub to Plus, playing online is free. But no one simplifies it that way.

 

So I see your point, but I think the point of the thread is more that the argument 'but the games are free' shouldn't be used to defend the quality of the product.

[Dreakon13]

27 minutes ago, diskdocx said:

While it doesn't really bother me if people use the word free, there are always folks that will derail the Plus discussion threads about announced games with 'people need to stop complaining, the games are free, so much entitlement...'

 

So in that context, it isn't about people just simplifying the term but realizing that the games are part of a subscription. It is literally the point of their argument - the games are free and anything other than absolute gratitude is whiney.

 

On the other hand, I have never heard anyone say online play was free. But it is. As long as you sub to Plus, playing online is free. But no one simplifies it that way.

 

So I see your point, but I think the point of the thread is more that the argument 'but the games are free' shouldn't be used to defend the quality of the product.

 

It's a matter of perception IMO.  Most people are obligated to pay for PS+ to play online, and that's the main reason they get it.  Most people don't need free games, but you need to pay for PS+ to play with your friends and access parts of the games that you do own.  It's a requirement of owning the console for a lot of people, and they see it as baked into that cost.  So I can understand why people view the bonus games... as an extra, a bonus, "free" with the cost of the console.  Something they don't expect to get, or necessarily even want, but are included in the package.

 

EDIT: That's why I think people simplify it one way, and not the other.

 

EDIT 2: And since this thread is a direct response to a thread destroying a game that spiraled after happening to refer to it as free innocuously, I don't think it's about using the cost as a defense.  Though we see things the way we want to sometimes, right?

Edited February 4, 2021 by Dreakon13

[ThatMuttGuy]

33 minutes ago, SnowNinjaRaccoon said:

How about option 3: "Why would anyone care?"

Only on psnprofiles you can find people discussing for 5 pages about something so unimportant that it needs an extra thread discussing the discussion.

 

 

 

For real. PSNP is really starting to get on my nerves. The forums are really awful for this very reason. 

[GT__Jedi]

Definitely.  I mainly use PS+ for MMO and streaming, so the games are just an added benefit.

[Carol]

56 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

This is going to be a long, uphill battle for you, friend.  Almost nothing out there labelled "free" is actually free with zero strings attached.

This is true.

 I recently won a game in a contest on PlayStation Portugal’s YouTube channel. Obviously, I was extremely happy that PlayStation chose my participation as the winner, especially because I had already tried to participate before with no luck, but I am not naive to think that PlayStation does these contests out of their generosity: they do it for publicity and subscribers.

[A_93juantheone]

1 hour ago, SnowNinjaRaccoon said:

How about option 3: "Why would anyone care?"

Only on psnprofiles you can find people discussing for 5 pages about something so unimportant that it needs an extra thread discussing the discussion.

 

 

The most salient point in this forum. There are so many other things to talk about instead of tripping over something like this. 

[StacFace92]

I think people are misunderstanding the difference between "the games are free" and "I got these games for free".

 

The first obviously isn't true, because you pay for a ps+ subscription to get them. The second can be true, if you buy plus for the other features, and would still pay the same for plus without the games. The games are free to you.

[JediKnight_327]

1 hour ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

This is going to be a long, uphill battle for you, friend.  Almost nothing out there labelled "free" is actually free with zero strings attached.

 

If the counter-argument is "a dictionary definition doesnt really mean anything", then its not really an uphill battle for me is it?

 

Also have you ever wondered where the phrase "theres no such thing as a free lunch" comes from?

 

You dont have to dilute the definition of a word just because it doesnt exist. Thats how you end up with a plank on 2 wheels being called a 'hover'board.

[Joe Dubz]

Yeesh, didn't know this was such a sore spot for so many peeps. I voted yes but only because saying they are free is easier and more simplified. I know they are not technically free, per se. 

[scemopagliaccioh]

Before, it was renting, now, just an appetizer for people accepting a scummy business practice.

But you're free  to think otherwise.

[diskdocx]

1 hour ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

It's a matter of perception IMO.  Most people are obligated to pay for PS+ to play online, and that's the main reason they get it.  Most people don't need free games, but you need to pay for PS+ to play with your friends and access parts of the games that you do own.  It's a requirement of owning the console for a lot of people, and they see it as baked into that cost.  So I can understand why people view the bonus games... as an extra, a bonus, "free" with the cost of the console.  Something they don't expect to get, or necessarily even want, but are included in the package.

 

EDIT: That's why I think people simplify it one way, and not the other.

 

EDIT 2: And since this thread is a direct response to a thread destroying a game that spiraled after happening to refer to it as free innocuously, I don't think it's about using the cost as a defense.  Though we see things the way we want to sometimes, right?

It doesn't really bother me either way, and certainly not the hill I am prepared to die on.

 

It is funny though, that online play used to actually be free. You bought the console and game, and paid for internet access, but actually playing a multiplayer game with other people actually cost no extra money.

 

When Plus came out, online was not at all part of the service

 

The fact that people now view online play as a premium service that you have to pay for, and accept that without question, is a testament to how effectively Sony was able to shift consumer opinion over a single console generation.

[Fr_0zt]

Oh God, you lot actually took it to the next level and made a poll. ?

 

And where is the "don't care, lower the fuken price!" option? 

[Dreakon13]

23 minutes ago, JediKnight_327 said:

 

If the counter-argument is "a dictionary definition doesnt really mean anything", then its not really an uphill battle for me is it?

 

It's an uphill battle in terms of finding the audience that might actually listen to someone riff about the definition of the word "free" in any context it might be used, which I assume you care about just as much as the "free" PS+ games.  And there are a lot of those contexts.  Good luck.

 

 

13 minutes ago, diskdocx said:

It doesn't really bother me either way, and certainly not the hill I am prepared to die on.

 

It is funny though, that online play used to actually be free. You bought the console and game, and paid for internet access, but actually playing a multiplayer game with other people actually cost no extra money.

 

When Plus came out, online was not at all part of the service

 

The fact that people now view online play as a premium service that you have to pay for, and accept that without question, is a testament to how effectively Sony was able to shift consumer opinion over a single console generation.

 

I would argue it was more Xbox Live Gold charging for online play that standardized it.  Sony was just going along with the market.

 

And frankly it's a good example of how easy it is for Microsoft and Sony to throw their weight around in the console ecosystem.  If they both do something, gamers don't have much option but to deal with it or jump ship completely.  And why, as good as a value as something like Game Pass is, it shouldn't be taken for granted how quickly and easily the price, accessibility and quality of the service could change.  Especially as physical games start to disappear and you're locked into the digital ecosystem.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Dreakon13

[Valkirye22]

My only hope at the time was that there would be enough pushback for Sony to offer a PS+ options as this one (discounts, free [tbd] games etc.)

and one where if they absolutely had to would charge something in the range of $10 for a year's worth of 'access to their network and online play' wouldn't even care about the discounts or anything. For me it's mostly paying for the privilege of playing online with an odd game here and there (85% of which I played and bought full price on release) to replay maybe twice a year.

 

 

[AgentSmiz]

They're free* with the asterisk being "Provided you have a PS subscription". You don't pay extra for them but some money has to be paid somewhere in order to be applicable for them. So I can see why people say they're not free but equally, I can see why people say they're are. The games are free, the service needed to get them is not. They're both free and not free. They're Schrödinger's Games.

It's semantics - people are going to argue about it regardless.

[Dr_Mayus]

2 hours ago, Neef-GT5 said:

Why make things complicated when they could be so simple?

 

I’ll keep calling these games free even though it’s not technically right, because it’s a simple way to do so and because everyone here understands what it refers to...

 

Yes, basically this.

 

They are not free...but everyone knows what you mean if you say free.

[Dreakon13]

Just now, Dr_Mayus said:

everyone knows what you mean if you say free

 

That doesn't seem to be the case.