• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Dunan

Member
Jun 11, 2018
1,148
I'm new to PS+ but have been enjoying it so far. Hollow Knight was amazing (I had had no idea) and I'll be grabbing FF7 tonight.

But as for automatic downloads: my console's hard disk only has so many gigabytes on it. I wouldn't want to have to delete all the games that I have no interest in.

What I would appreciate is the chance to mark an upcoming game in advance and then have it be downloaded when it becomes available. But AFAIK Sony doesn't list them in advance; we just hear about them through the media.
 

KC-Slater

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,293
Toronto
Having to manually redeem the "free" games that you paid for in your subscription feels like buying drink tickets in one location, then having to go to a different bar to redeem them. It's unnecessarily bureaucratic.

At the very least there should be an option to auto-redeem.
 

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122
You're paying for it. Why can't it just auto redeem? Maybe you have a busy life and turning on videogames every month isn't something you want to even do?
If they can auto renew your subscription, they can auto redeem your "free" games.

You're paying for the opportunity to redeem them. If they autoredeemed, the number of redemptions would go up and they'd either have to charge more or offer worse games that cost them less to do deals for.

Same as "unlimited" gym memberships, mobile data plans, etc. Everyone using them less than average is subsidizing those who use it more. If everyone went to the gym every week, memberships would cost more.
 

Polioliolio

Member
Nov 6, 2017
5,396
You're paying for the opportunity to redeem them. If they autoredeemed, the number of redemptions would go up and they'd either have to charge more or offer worse games that cost them less to do deals for.

Same as "unlimited" gym memberships, mobile data plans, etc. Everyone using them less than average is subsidizing those who use it more. If everyone went to the gym every week, memberships would cost more.

Alright, I didn't know that.. But paying for online play is already a scam, the price doesn't need to go up to just give the free games to people. I mean Epic Game store just gives games away at no cost to players. Yes, I get on someone's end it's costing money, but on the subscriber's end, it ought to be just added to the account. If the 'free' games are the selling point for you especially, why are there extra steps?

There's going to be a point where autoredemption is a thing, and all of these defending arguments as to why that sort of thing can't or shouldn't happen, aren't going to matter.
 
Oct 25, 2017
16,262
Cincinnati
I think I can take the 5 minutes or so that it takes to redeem them and live. They clearly have reasons as to why they aren't automatic, especially since both companies do it, so it is what it is. Almost anti consumer...smfh.
 

MDR

Member
Jun 21, 2018
192
Yes, sometimes you have a very busy month and games are the last thing you think about. It happened to me a few times.
 

Musubi

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
23,611
They didn't. You can't buy games that you redeem from PS Plus.

Yes you can. Its only for more recent PS+ offerings but they've absolutely changed it. I checked several games I've redeemed through PS+ and I can still buy the base game on the store.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,806
Yes you can. Its only for more recent PS+ offerings but they've absolutely changed it. I checked several games I've redeemed through PS+ and I can still buy the base game on the store.

People keep saying this and they're mistaken. They point out the cases where there's a unique version because of PS Plus but even games as recent as Greedfall cannot be bought after you redeemed it.
 

kamineko

Linked the Fire
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,508
Accardi-by-the-Sea
Fruit bats are the real anti-consumers

image_2319e-Lesser-short-nosed-fruit-bat.jpg


I mean, just look at it
 

PLASTICA-MAN

Member
Oct 26, 2017
23,583
It's better this way tbh. Some games offering just the base versions will lock you later from getting Deluxe Editions or the game in a pack especially in discounts. In this case now, better not claim FF7R at all since it may present a lot of problems in the future since they never fully explained its situation.
 

aspiegamer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,460
ZzzzzzZzzzZzz...
The PS5 periodically prompts you to check new PS+ material in general, and the pressing the PS button will pop up said content in the store. I greatly prefer it the existing way since I don't want the crap I'm 90% disinterested in clogging up my library. If I want exaggerated libraries of stuff I'll open up steam.
borderline anti-consumer
No, no it is not.
Am I just being lazy and entitled
Yes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,399
I think it's the metric based on how they pay out to the game's publisher so kind of makes sense. It's based on engagement and all that.
 

MistaTwo

SNK Gaming Division Studio 1
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
2,456
Missing the point completely, really. Sure it would be more convenient for the user, but they want to give you a reason to start up the store
and get your eyeballs on the other sales, promotions, and new releases that are on the store.
 

TsuWave

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,979
An option would be cool, sure. But I wouldn't want it to auto-redeem, sometimes I like buying games outside of Plus, to support the dev and whatnot and/or if I decide to let Plus expire
 

Iztok

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,134
They want to give you a choice.

Some people don't want some games.

Also, they are hoping people forget to redeem.

I get the second part, but I never understood the "don't want them" bit.
It just flags them as owned, which part of that is undesirable, honestly it makes no sense.
 

JFoul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,783
I thought for sure this was an option early on with the x360 and games with gold.

Maybe it was free demos or something.
 

Cheesebu

Wrong About Cheese
Member
Sep 21, 2020
6,176
Games have ratings. Children have ps+ and gold. How is this even a question?
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
I get the second part, but I never understood the "don't want them" bit.
It just flags them as owned, which part of that is undesirable, honestly it makes no sense.

Personally, I don't want my library to be cluttered with games I'm never going to play. That's why I don't usually redeem sport and PVP games, or platformers, aside from few exceptions.

EDIT:
I actually purposefully don't redeem games I have no interest in so they don't clog up my library.

This. What's the point of having them there just because they're free, when you have absolutely no interest in them. It's like putting everything on your Netflix watch list, eventhough you couldn't be less interested in some genres.
 

City 17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
913
I get the second part, but I never understood the "don't want them" bit.
It just flags them as owned, which part of that is undesirable, honestly it makes no sense.
Yup, this "But I don't want to clutter my library" is some next level bullshit, if you don't want the game there should be an easy option to remove it from your library (just like Steam), not making the whole thing a hassle.

But we know the real reason behind it, they use this mechanism to force the users who sub to take a look at the store, so that maybe something else got their attention too, with the "pay for p2p online plus rentals" tactics printing even more money.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
Yup, this "But I don't want to clutter my library" is some next level bullshit, if you don't want the game there should be an easy option to remove it from your library (just like Steam), not making the whole thing a hassle.

Adding games I actually want to play is by far a better option, than removing games I don't want to play on a regular basis.
 

City 17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
913
Adding games I actually want to play is by far a better option, than removing games I don't want to play on a regular basis.
You don't need to do that on a regular basis though, do it at your own leisure, be it once a year, or whatever.
What they force people to do on the other hand is a hassle on a regular basis.

It's quite funny actually... like some folks enjoy being played by the companies. Paying for nonexistent servers, paying for rentals with a hassle, paying for super limited cloud saves... no wonder console manufacturers can get away with it.
 

Myself

Member
Nov 4, 2017
1,282
I agree. It's always been such an annoyance. We all can guess why they do it (Contract payments would be tied to it), but it totally sucks. I mean we have to keep subbing anyway to keep the games (360 aside from what I hear) so why not?
 

Iztok

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,134
Personally, I don't want my library to be cluttered with games I'm never going to play. That's why I don't usually redeem sport and PVP games, or platformers, aside from few exceptions.

EDIT:


This. What's the point of having them there just because they're free, when you have absolutely no interest in them. It's like putting everything on your Netflix watch list, eventhough you couldn't be less interested in some genres.

Maybe your tastes change, maybe you have a child or a partner who might like it at some point in the future, who knows.
Seems odd to me to intentionally limit yourself.

It is "just" videogames, in the end, so it doesn't really matter. If you want a game you can always buy it later. It's just not how my mind works.

Also, this is nothing like adding everything on your Netflix watch list. Those shows don't become unwatchable if you don't put them on your watch list within a month.
 

BashNasty

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,896
You're paying for the opportunity to redeem them. If they autoredeemed, the number of redemptions would go up and they'd either have to charge more or offer worse games that cost them less to do deals for.

Same as "unlimited" gym memberships, mobile data plans, etc. Everyone using them less than average is subsidizing those who use it more. If everyone went to the gym every week, memberships would cost more.

Yep, this is it, I'm actually surprised more people here don't realize this. Sony has to pay (something) for each free copy that's redeemed, same with the Epic store's free games. If these games were auto-redeemed, either the quality would drop or the service would cost more.
 

ioriyagami

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,364
I think it should be an option. I personally prefer to choose which games I want to add to my library so I'd leave it off. There are games that I know I am never going to play and I don't want to "pollute" my library with them
 

Sems4arsenal

Member
Apr 7, 2019
3,627
Business decision. Probably helps with their analysis to guage interest as well.

These companies aint giving stuff for free.
 

BashNasty

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,896
They should at least give us the option to redeem automatically.

Sony needs to maintain some friction in downloading the PS+ games to make sure that not too many people download them. As counterintuitive as it sounds, this is actually a good thing for the people who really care about these games (many, many people don't, and only use PS+ for access to online multiplayer). If it became too easy to just flip a switch and have your console redeem all the free games, too many people who have no intent of ever playing those games would redeem them, Sony's backend costs would increase, and either the quality of games would go down or the price of the service would go up.

The fact that PS+ games are not added to your account automatically is good.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
You don't need to do that on a regular basis though, do it at your own leisure, be it once a year, or whatever.
What they force people to do on the other hand is a hassle on a regular basis.

It's quite funny actually... like some folks enjoy being played by the companies. Paying for nonexistent servers, paying for rentals with a hassle, paying for super limited cloud saves... no wonder console manufacturers can get away with it.

Well, I would have to do it on a regular basis, as it would be much more of a hassle to do it annually. Adding three monthly games is objectively less of a hassle, than having to search the library for games to remove.

Anyways, offering an option for auto-redeem would be nice for those who find it useful, but I'd be very much against it being the only option.

Are you seriously trying to downplay a point of view that differs from yours as some kind of defense force?


Maybe your tastes change, maybe you have a child or a partner who might like it at some point in the future, who knows.
Seems odd to me to intentionally limit yourself.

It is "just" videogames, in the end, so it doesn't really matter. If you want a game you can always buy it later. It's just not how my mind works.

Also, this is nothing like adding everything on your Netflix watch list. Those shows don't become unwatchable if you don't put them on your watch list within a month.

I'm 45, so my tastes are very unlikely to change, and my partner doesn't play games, nor are we ever going to have children. It's not limiting yourself, when you know what you like and dont like. I do add games that might interest me, but something like sports games and real-time PVP (I prefer co-op, and asynchronous PVP, like it's in Let It Die) are never going to be of interest to me.

A month to redeem content should be more than enough for everyone. It's beyond me how anyone could forget to redeem them during that time. It's a routine for me to check them out in the beginning of the month. That's why the worry about missing them just seems completely absurd to me. Do you also forget to check out what new content is in Netflix before it disappears? After all, there have been some movies, that were only available for a limited time.


EDIT:
Yep, this is it, I'm actually surprised more people here don't realize this. Sony has to pay (something) for each free copy that's redeemed, same with the Epic store's free games. If these games were auto-redeemed, either the quality would drop or the service would cost more.

Good point. Never thought about it that way, like many others it seems.
 

City 17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
913
Well, I would have to do it on a regular basis, as it would be much more of a hassle to do it annually. Adding three monthly games is objectively less of a hassle, than having to search the library for games to remove.

Anyways, offering an option for auto-redeem would be nice for those who find it useful, but I'd be very much against it being the only option.

Are you seriously trying to downplay a point of view that differs from yours as some kind of defense force?
Again, why would you wanna do that on a regular basis? Do it whenever you liked.
Also if the games don't interest you, maybe not pay for the sub altogether? I mean p2p online and limited cloud saves are definitely not worth a damn either. Paid rentals is console manufacturer's last saving grace for all this.

You're in the absolute minority for calling an easy removal option a hassle. Auto-adding the games HAS to be the default option, if anyone was like you, they should be able to opt-out or whatever, but the vast majority of those X millions subs redeem all those games anyway.
 

F4r0_Atak

Member
Oct 31, 2017
5,516
Home
Not sure for Xbox, but if you redeem a game for free on PS Plus, doesn't it prevent you from buying it down the line? 🤔
 

headspawn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,605
What if you don't want the game?

There have been a few stinkers that I don't want to even see, even for free.
 

adit

Member
Oct 29, 2017
941
tonja
its not a big deal for me, it's literally just 1-2 clicks

i also don't want some of that games, even though it's rare occurrence

also, PS store is basically a webpage, so the more people access that, it could increase ranking on google search
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
Again, why would you wanna do that on a regular basis? Do it whenever you liked.
Also if the games don't interest you, maybe not pay for the sub altogether? I mean p2p online and limited cloud saves are definitely not worth a damn either. Paid rentals is console manufacturer's last saving grace for all this.

You're in the absolute minority for calling an easy removal option a hassle. Auto-adding the games HAS to be the default option, if anyone was like you, they should be able to opt-out or whatever, but the vast majority of those X millions subs redeem all those games anyway.

Because removing them later on would be too much a hassle, when you don't remember anymore what games of no interest were released each month. To my knowledge, you can't even remove anything from there currently, which is annoying when it comes to demos and betas.

Where exactly did I say none of the games interest me? 1-2 interesting monthly games (Shadow of the Tomb Raider & GreedFall in January, Control & Concrete Genie in February, and FFVII & Maquette now), cloud saves (where I've never reached the limit), discounts, and the Plus Collection on PS5 are worth the subscription fee for me. I don't play online, aside from Let It Die which is FTP, so that portion of the service isn't meaningful to me. I already paid for the service on PS3, when online play was free.

I'd like to see receipts of the vast majority preferring auto-redeem, especially when the monthly PS+ threads and comment sections in social media have often been filled with complaints about the games being shit. Why would those people want to auto-redeem something they consider unworthy of their time?

Plus this:
Not sure for Xbox, but if you redeem a game for free on PS Plus, doesn't it prevent you from buying it down the line? 🤔
 

City 17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
913
Because removing them later on would be too much a hassle, when you don't remember anymore what games of no interest were released each month. To my knowledge, you can't even remove anything from there currently, which is annoying when it comes to demos and betas.

Where exactly did I say none of the games interest me? 1-2 interesting monthly games (Shadow of the Tomb Raider & GreedFall in January, Control & Concrete Genie in February, and FFVII & Maquette now), cloud saves (where I've never reached the limit), discounts, and the Plus Collection on PS5 are worth the subscription fee for me. I don't play online, aside from Let It Die which is FTP, so that portion of the service isn't meaningful to me. I already paid for the service on PS3, when online play was free.

I'd like to see receipts of the vast majority preferring auto-redeem, especially when the monthly PS+ threads and comment sections in social media have often been filled with complaints about the games being shit. Why would those people want to auto-redeem something they consider unworthy of their time?

Plus this:
All you've said is about the lack of options (no option to remove, no option to automate the process, no option to easily find the added games, no option to buy the said games, no option to not pay for online, no option to not pay for freaking limited cloud saves), i.e. it sucks, and I have to deal with it... Well, that's what I'm saying, it does suck big time. But thank to corporate apologists it's all fine.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
All you've said is about the lack of options (no option to remove, no option to automate the process, no option to easily find the added games, no option to buy the said games, no option to not pay for online, no option to not pay for freaking limited cloud saves), i.e. it sucks, and I have to deal with it... Well, that's what I'm saying, it does suck big time. But thank to corporate apologists it's all fine.

It is what it is, and in its current state auto-redeem would inarguably be more of a nuisance.

You have the option to buy the said games, and not to pay for online and cloud saves; don't subscribe to the service, or move to PC. Put your money where your mouth is. The situation is how it is thanks to people who don't vote with their wallets.
 

Coi

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,808
I want to have control of my gaming library, I don't want sony to make decision for me putting games on my console/archive without my consent.

Also, that "borderline anti-consumer" lol
 

MrMiyamoto

Member
Oct 31, 2017
124
I think it has to do with licensing and remuneration. I think the publishers probably get paid based on how many downloads the games get over the course of the month, so there is incentive for Sony/Microsoft to only offer them to people who actively want them enough to add them to their libraries. I'm just thankful Sony made it "Add to Library" now instead of making you instantly download the games.