What? You don't make any sense...the author is calculating savings? Why would he count how much you spend? When you have PS+ you get a discount and save a certain amount of money rather than buying it without PS+. It's how much you save, not how much you spend. You're trying too hard to find flaws, mate. Not everything is lost when you lose your subscription, and even if you cannot use the content after PS+, what's your point? You paid for the subscription, not the free content, the content is included IN the subscription. As long as you have the subscription, you have the free content. Why don't you go ahead and complain about losing the "online" after you paid for Xbox LIVE, the online is part of the service, and you pay for the service.
XVision84
My point is it's a ****ty article. The question of whether or not PSN+ is worth the money is far more complex than totalling up the maximum possible discount: there's the issue of how much of the free content is actually worthwhile (and not, say, some crapware no one in their right mind would spend money on otherwise), there's the issue of how deep the discounts are relative to the normal price of their products, and there's the question of how cancelling your subscription (and therefore lose access to much of the free content) will affect the overall value one recieves from the $50/year they spent. When discussing value one has to consider the cost-benefit, not just the benefit.
Instead of delving into those genuninely interesting questions, the author (on what's supposed to be a major source of gaming news and analysis) just rhymes off how much money you could potentially save per year like Ron Popeil ranting about how you're getting over $800 worth of products for one low, low payment of $49.99. Not exactly journalism at its finest.
Log in to comment