Sony labelling PS Plus games as “free” is a genius piece of marketing spin

[oni-link]

Whenever people discuss the whole paid online issue, often one of the first things people bring up in its defence is all the free games you get

This is genius from a marketing perspective, because it convinces customers to both pay for something and then perceive the thing they are paying for as being something they get for free

In literal terms, you pay for a subscription and this gets you access to some games. Games which you can continue to access as long as you continue to pay, but these are by no means "free"

But wait, "you're paying for online play and servers and this funds the service and it would be impossible to play games online without a subscription" you're all preemptively replying.

I think this is a weak argument because (and please do correct me if I'm wrong because I may well be wrong) there are 31.5m PS Plus members, and if we assume they all paid at full price, which in the UK is £39.99, then that comes to £1.25bn, a year.

Even if we say I'm off by half, that would still be £600m. A year

I just don't think the PS3 or Wii U or even PC platforms would be able offer online play at all if the cost of running servers was so vast. I'm sure they do cost money to run and maintain, but are Sony (and Microsoft) really spending up to a billion pounds a year running them, or is this mostly just profit? Do they use this to fund/offset first party development?

I think the free games marking spin is such a stroke of genius because it turns the perception around, you're not paying for online, you're supporting servers and getting free games"

(If any of my points or assumptions are wrong, then I'm more than happy to be corrected)

Spoiler

If anyone here likes, they can subscribe to oni-links free game subscription service, if you PayPal me a mere £100 a month I will give you access to 2 FREE Steam games of your choice, each month

 

[5taquitos]

Of course it's mostly profit. And Microsoft uses the exact same language for GWG.

 

[Expy]

They are PS+ free games, not FREE games.

The marketing is 100% accurate, and yes there is some sense that an end-user may think these games are free, when they are in fact paying for PS+, but the games are always advertised as PS+ free games (you get these games free on top of PS+).

 

[Dreamboum]

that the gaming press would tag along and claim they're also free games using the same words as Sony verbatim is the most baffling thing to me.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Doesn't the label say 'Free with PS+' ?

 

[kennyamr]

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Meaning that using your logic, nothing should ever be called "Free" really.
Most commercial companies in the world would be guilty of that.
That's how it works.

 

[Lumination]

Paid online has always been horseshit, but different platform, different ecosystem.

PS+ games help pretty up the horseshit a bit, and it works. I've played many games for free that I wouldn't have played otherwise. You get a list of games a month and probably can find 1-2 that interest you. No one is under the illusion that the games are no-strings-attached free.

 

[____]

This is every "discount with sub" program ever.

 

[Deleted member 26104]

I've said as much for years, but the zealots gonna defend their multibillion dollar favourite plastic box maker.

If you pay for it it's not free. All the shows on Netflix aren't free. All the songs on Spotify aren't free. PS+ and GwG games are not free.

 

[Kalentan]

Doesn't the label say 'Free with PS+' ?

Click to shrink...

It does.

 

[oni-link]

Doesn't the label say 'Free with PS+' ?

Click to shrink...

On the store page they have a yellow sticker on the games that says FREE on it, even if they do on occasion say "Free with PS+" people generally still consider them to be and refer to them as free games

You can see examples of this in any thread where people debate PS Plus

 

[Arthands]

Can you imagine Humble Bundle utilizing the same tactic?

"spend $12 for God Eater 2 Rage Burst, and you get Mafia 3, God Eater, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, and 8 other games FOR FREE!"

 

[Hardvlade]

Of course it's mostly profit. And Microsoft uses the exact same language for GWG.

Click to shrink...

Indeed, but the Xbox 360 are yours to keep even after the sub lapses. The Xbox One games you don't get to keep.

 

[Innuendo84]

Yes. And we are all suckers for paying them this online tax.

Especially when games are bloated with dlc and iap.

So you got Bloodborne for "free"? Kinda, but you got to dish out some money for the dlc.

 

[Soony Xbone Uhh]

It's not like Sony came up with this genius PR move. It is very old.

Free with* is the phrase...

 

[Lumination]

On the store page they have a yellow sticker on the games that says FREE on it, even if they do on occasion say "Free with PS+" people generally still consider them to be and refer to them as free games

You can see examples of this in any thread where people debate PS Plus

Click to shrink...

Because free is shorthand for "free with PS+". It's pretty much universally understood, so why bother qualifying it every time? How many people do you think Sony is actually bamboozling with this terminology?

 

[benzopil]

They are free for subscribers

 

[violent]

Subscription-based game licenses. It's like Netflix for games without the choice of what to play.

 

[Deleted member 643]

It's like when people talk about "free health care" as if taxes aren't being paid

 

[KoopaSwitch]

Wait. if I un-subscribe from Netflix I know longer can see those movies "for free"?

 

[oni-link]

Because free is shorthand for "free with PS+". It's pretty much universally understood, so why bother qualifying it every time? How many people do you think Sony is actually bamboozling with this terminology?

Click to shrink...

Again, see any thread where people debate paid online and see how many people talk about all free games you're given

My point is that it's spin, it makes people think that way, when I'm sure logically most people know they are not free games, but its a spoonful of sugar that helps to make paying for online more palatable

 

[EvilBoris]

There's nothing genius about it.

Next you'll be saying that the 20% extra isn't free in your packet of Oreos because you have to buy the other 80%...

 

[LycanXIII]

Of course it's mostly profit. And Microsoft uses the exact same language for GWG.

Click to shrink...

Games Pass as well.

 

[semiconscious]

well, it's just another word for 'nothin' left to lose', right? :) ...

 

[808s & Villainy]

How is this differently marketed from any other subscription service? It's not "genius" because there's nothing unprecedented. People understand how subs work. It's not a new idea

 

[jay]

Everything is free if you pay for it.

 

[Van Bur3n]

This is not a new concept. I don't know why it would make Sony a genius.

People have deluded themselves into thinking the price of admission with subscription based services is the standard and so have fallen under the illusion that everything offered to them through such services is without a price (as they ignore the monthly/yearly fees that drip from their bank account).

 

[cakely]

PS+ "Instant Collection" and Xbox Live "Games With Gold" are marketed in the exact same fashion.

They've been out for years now, consumers have figured out the language.

 

[Sangetsu-II]

I like it when sometimes their servers glitch and actually give me some of their games for free. I have resogun and some other small games still when my sub lapses. Hopefully no ninjas are listening...

 

[ghibli99]

Yes. And we are all suckers for paying them this online tax.

Especially when games are bloated with dlc and iap.

So you got Bloodborne for "free"? Kinda, but you got to dish out some money for the dlc.

Click to shrink...

This is one of the worst possible examples given the high quality and value of the expansion.

 

[Lumination]

Again, see any thread where people debate paid online and see how many people talk about all free games you're given

My point is that it's spin, it makes people think that way, when I'm sure logically most people know they are not free games, but its a spoonful of sugar that helps to make paying for online more palatable

Click to shrink...

I think the assumption made there is that most people pay for PSN or XBL for long stretches of time, like any subscription. ISPs market their modems/routers as free and take them back when you cancel, but the contract there is understood. I agreed that it's a spoonful of sugar, but I don't think you're educating the blind masses here.

PS+ "Instant Collection" and Xbox Live "Games With Gold" are marketed in the exact same fashion.

They've been out for years now, consumers have figured out the language.

Click to shrink...

I thought GwG was actually permanent ownership though? I could be wrong, but I remember being fairly impressed when they announced it.

 

[night814]

Xbox does a similar thing with it's free gold games and game pass games, they slash the price out and say it's free with whichever service necessary to get the game.

 

[Zelas]

Such brilliance. I can't believe no one else has ever done the same thing before.

 

[Korigama]

This is one of the worst possible examples given the high quality and value of the expansion.

Click to shrink...

With said DLC having been on sale for less than half of its usual price at the time, I saw little reason not to get it.

 

[Sapo84]

I think the "free game as marketing genius" has already been discussed in the past, for examplehere.
Oh wait, it was your post.

I'll never understand the need to cyclically hate on Microsoft and Sony for paid online.
It sucks, we all know it, but they will never say no to free money.

 

[Deleted member 1003]

They aren't the first or last company to do this.

 

[Deleted member 31873]

I'm pretty sure Sony aren't allowed to use the word "free" in some regions. The UK store says "Monthly Games" and the blog post for April's games never uses the word "free".

 

[Lothars]

I thought GwG was actually permanent ownership though? I could be wrong, but I remember being fairly impressed when they announced it.

Click to shrink...

GwG 360 games are free because they don't have a system to lose the license when the sub expires but all xbox one gwg are the same as PS+ games where they are valid for the length of a subscription.

 

[Kirblar]

This is not a new concept. I don't know why it would make Sony a genius.

People have deluded themselves into thinking the price of admission with subscription based services is the standard and so have fallen under the illusion that everything offered to them through such services is without a price (as they ignore the monthly/yearly fees that drip from their bank account).

Click to shrink...

People did not delude themselves. They saw the difference between Xbox and PSN online quality in the prior gen and understand why companies are charging for it. You get what you pay for.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

most things I buy are free once I exchange money for them, don't see the issue here

just kidding, it's stupid. doubly so because you have to keep paying for your sub to continue accessing the games. that's the worst for me and why I just don't give a shit. if I like a game I'll just pay for it and own it. comes out cheaper than paying however much money per year for however many years I feel like accessing the game and the having it go poof when I'm done.

 

[Arthands]

I think another genius marketing spin here is that they lock bunch of features (that are free on platforms like mobile and PC such as cloud storage and online) behind paywall, and make the subscription looks feature richer and better.

 

[number8888]

Don't know what's so special about what Sony is doing.

As someone that have already subscribe to PS+, I don't have to pay extra to get the games, hence free. It's an additional benefit to other features like playing online (which of course has its own issues).

It's not even a marketing spin. It's just how things are. It's exactly the same as the "buy one get one free" promos. The stuff you get free comes with a condition.

 

[vodalus]

I mean, isn't your argument a bit disingenuous? There is no one who believes these games are actually free.

 

[adrem007]

All of you saying that it's obvious are wrong, just look at any ps+ games thread - you will find plenty of people saying "how dare you complain about games being shit when THEY ARE FREE"

 

[oni-link]

I think the "free game as marketing genius" has already been discussed in the past, for examplehere.
Oh wait, it was your post.

I'll never understand the need to cyclically hate on Microsoft and Sony for paid online.
It sucks, we all know it, but they will never say no to free money.

Click to shrink...

I don't hate them for it, it's not mandatory, so people are free to ignore it, and based on the number of PS4s sold I think most of them do opt to ignore it

But there are people who defend paying based on getting free games and running server costs, and neither of these things are really happening. Unless I'm mistaken and servers do cost hundreds of millions to run a year (when they're not turning them off after a year, see Gravity Rush 2) and free games are not really free games

Maybe they use all that extra money to fund first party development, and I think that would probably make people happier about paying, but it's not strange that people are a little miffed about paying for it, more so if they also play on PC, where the charge is absent

All of you saying that it's obvious are wrong, just look at any ps+ games thread - you will find plenty of people saying "how dare you complain about games being shit when THEY ARE FREE"

Click to shrink...

Basically this. I'm happy all the smart cookies made it to this thread though, pats on the back all round

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

All I know is I get more games with PS+ than I would reasonably pay for, so the terminology makes no difference.

 

[P-MAC]

They are Free games for PS+ subscribers. It's pretty rare I see anyone refer to them as Free Games with no further qualifier, but you can assume people that do are a member, and consider themselves to be paying first and foremost for online multiplayer, which means for all intents and purposes the games are free. It works the same way that films on Netflix are "free", if you're a member. You pay for access to the library which means you are technically paying for the movies on netflix but if you're watching one movie per month it costs 6.99 per movie whereas if you're watching several per night they cost irrelevant pennies. The cost is technically for the service not for the individual pieces of media that it sometimes offers you.

Besides your point only stands if you register for Plus purely for the games. I'm willing to bet the vast majority do it to play online, and the games are a pleasant bonus for those people. In that situation they are also effectively free. Not literally free but the outcome is the same. You don't know what games will be on plus in 4 months but you know what games you already have and whether or not you want to play them online. So you'd be paying the same amount per year for plus if they didn't offer games, and would still be happy with the value if you enjoy playing online.

It's equivalent to a free gift in a magazine essentially. There is no way the manufacturer of that free gift has thrown it in for free. You are paying for it through the price of the magazine. So the gift is technically not free, but you'd be buying the magazine either way and the price would be the same either way, so it's not different to being free in any way worth pointing out.

I will agree though the whole concept behind the free PS+ games is marketing genius. Makes the online multiplayer subscription more valuable, offers devs of games like Rocket League a way to get their game out to a large audience without having to spend a ton on marketing, and the financial cost to gamers is small enough to be not worth considering.

Like, once a couple years back I'm sure I saw a list of games released on Plus in the previous 12 months, and it worked out that if you bought plus for that year at full price, and downloaded every one of the games, the total cost to you per game would be something like $0.12. I don't remember the exact number and can't find the article but it was as essentially nothing as that. And that's without even taking the server costs and actual online infrastructure into account, making the cost per game even lower.

Like, you're getting dozens upon dozens of games, and the online service, for the price of one game, at the end of the day. That's as close to free as it's possible to get without being 100% free.

 

[JoRu]

I'm pretty sure Sony aren't allowed to use the word "free" in some regions. The UK store says "Monthly Games" and the blog post for April's games never uses the word "free".

Click to shrink...

Correct. Compare this US blog post and this EU one. I don't care if Sony isn't the first or the only ones (I care in that it makes it even worse, of course) or that customers have seemingly accepted this for years, it's dodgy as hell to throw around the word "free" for something that's objectively not free. That goes for every company that does this. The promise of games every month is part of the subscription, and as such it's not free. They know how it affects customer's perception (subconsciously or not), otherwise they wouldn't use it, and otherwise they wouldn't be disallowed to do this in the EU.

It's equivalent to a free gift in a magazine essentially.

Click to shrink...

Those shouldn't be allowed to be called "free" either.

 

[ElNino]

But there are people who defend paying based on getting free games and running server costs, and neither of these things are really happening. Unless I'm mistaken and servers do cost hundreds of millions to run a year (when they're not turning them off after a year, see Gravity Rush 2) and free games are not really free games

Click to shrink...

I don't understand your point here. Yes, the servers and operation support does cost a lot of money. I can't say how much it would be, but based on my work (fintech) it wouldn't surprise me if they were at least tens of millions a year.

Regarding the games, they are free to play for any current subscribers. How much that costs Sony (or Microsoft) to obtain those is unknown, but it certainly costs them something which would make the game "free" to subscribers.

 

[Deleted member 2226]

I don't hate them for it, it's not mandatory, so people are free to ignore it, and based on the number of PS4s sold I think most of them do opt to ignore it

But there are people who defend paying based on getting free games and running server costs, and neither of these things are really happening. Unless I'm mistaken and servers do cost hundreds of millions to run a year (when they're not turning them off after a year, see Gravity Rush 2) and free games are not really free games

Maybe they use all that extra money to fund first party development, and I think that would probably make people happier about paying, but it's not strange that people are a little miffed about paying for it, more so if they also play on PC, where the charge is absent

Click to shrink...

If it's not worth it to you, it's not worth it to you. These threads are just people annoyed that others find value in a service and don't understand that people have different preferences.

I get more than $50 worth of "free" games out of my XBL sub, so it pays for itself. You can disagree, but that doesn't invalidate my value proposition.