PlayStation Plus and Xbox Live being required for online play is often dismissed as not a big deal by console players. There are various justifications used, but the most common one is that the 'free' games you receive each month for subscribing to these services are more than make up for the cost. To any console players, would you subscribe to Xbox Live or PS Plus if they weren't required for online play?
Would you subscribe to PS Plus/Xbox Live if they weren't required for multiplayer?
- Thread starter CJTreader
- Start date
GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR
Probably not, but I'd be tempted if the cost was a bit lower than $60 per year and if there were more interesting indie/early-gen (discount) titles. Although, I think that prospect might be a bit impossible if the service didn't implement the ability to vote on a wider range of options. Personally, I'm a big RPG/Open-World/FPS nut on consoles.
I'm not aware of how well the Xbox Live handles its service at the moment, but I see PS Plus frequently gives out walking simulator/adventure games that I really don't feel like investing my time into. Some of them are really good (love TWD games from Telltale), but I can't see them making a service that appeals to everyone every single month. I can say that I like the Humble Monthly more often than I do the PS Plus free games, but I did appreciate getting MGSV:GZ and TPP, that was pretty sick.
I'm not aware of how well the Xbox Live handles its service at the moment, but I see PS Plus frequently gives out walking simulator/adventure games that I really don't feel like investing my time into. Some of them are really good (love TWD games from Telltale), but I can't see them making a service that appeals to everyone every single month. I can say that I like the Humble Monthly more often than I do the PS Plus free games, but I did appreciate getting MGSV:GZ and TPP, that was pretty sick.