In news that's seemed inevitable for a long time now, Sony will be changing how PlayStation Plus works starting next year. Since the PlayStation 4 launched in 2013, Sony has been gifting subscribers PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, and Vita titles each month. This will no longer be the case from 8th March, 2019.
From that point on, the PlayStation Plus games lineup will consist only of PlayStation 4 titles. In other words, Sony's ditching PlayStation 3 and Vita games. Again, this shift in focus has been coming -- the PS3 and Vita offerings have been considerably weaker for a while.
Sony notes that this will not have any impact on PS3 and Vita games that you've already downloaded or added to your library through the subscription service.
About time? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
[source blog.us.playstation.com]
Comments 49
I think most of us expected this years ago😂
RIP Vita
Yeah it's definitely time, and it's good that they're giving everyone a year to decide if they want to continue or not.
Hopefully this is the start of some overall improvements to the service, as while it's still brilliant, I think it does need a bit of a spring clean and a refresh.
At least they have given everyone a years notice. It will be interesting to see how they handle those systems IGC game collection as I assume they would still need a PS+ subscription and online access to verify their licence. It could mean that both of these consoles are going to be turned off completely from online and those games would no longer work in anycase.
It would be interesting though to see how many are paying for PS+ without owning a PS4 as they are the ones who will be most affected.
To me it also points to Sony announcing their PS5 and releasing it before the end of 2019. By clearing away the old, they are making way for the new...
Not Vitaaaa!
This explains the mega line up for March. It was too good to be true.
EDIT: Ninjaed by @BAMozzy. My thoughts exactly. Think this points to the PS5 being a 2019 release.
I thought its march 2018..
It's time to ditched ps3 and psvita to give us better game for ps4.
It's fair enough to be honest, I've STILL not finished playing all the PS3 and Vita games I've claimed on PS Plus. They've had a spectacular run and there might be some excellent titles appearing as the service draws to an end, hopefully. And if the PS4 offerings keep going like they are this month then again, fair enough.
Atleast they gave a years notice thats the only positive I can see here. I do not think it will mean we get two more PS4 games though to replace the ones we are losing. But I might be proved wrong. I am unclear on whether you will still need to have the plus to access the PS3/vita titles after the 8th march next year.
@BAMozzy
I'm still thinking 2020 but 2019 isn't a longshot now, especially if Sony has somehow managed to get hold of info that suggests MS will force the its hand by releasing an 'Xbox Two' in 2019.
Still not sure this decision had to be made though. Maybe getting rid of the Vita games makes sense, but you do have to be aware of your competition and MS still gives out 360 games as part of Games with Gold so unless Sony plans to start offering more and more of the better PS4 titles, this does weaken the service. And we still don't know what Nintendo is going to do when it gets its online membership plan together.
Alas. My PS4 activity is and will likely always be dwarfed by my Vita one, so it's naturally a bummer, but this was bound to happen someday. At least there are eleven more months (thus 22+ titles) to go.
What are they going to do next March, zi wonder - actually dish out six PS4 titles instead? Or just cut the monthly lineups down to size? The latter seems more likely, although a bigger monthly roster would still allow Vita owners to place hopes and bets on some Cross-Buy here and there. XD
Yeah, a shame but inevitable. I haven't downloaded the free PS3 game for a long time, even when it's one I'd probably play.
Doing this next year is pretty late/overdue
@wiiware I don't think there's much of a connection. AAA titles (the apparent moon sugar of most vocal commenters on the subject) will likely still be older ones like they are now, because I don't picture many publishers greenlighting such deals for fresh releases. Kung Fu Pandas (I don't mind the game, but just to pick a commonly dramatized example) will likely happen regardless, too. So what exactly is there left to realistically improve?
2019, the last year of PS4's life according to some spectators, and honestly if you'd asked me a couple of years ago I'd probably have agreed. Even so, the next generation of PlayStation can't be much further beyond 19, can it?
to be honest i expected them to do this well before then, still we all knew it was coming and i got some great games on the PS3 through PS+ so i'm still more than happy
Ok. It makes sense, particularly in the case of the PS3. And a year gives the vita time to wind down. I just hope they send it out with a bang, not a wimper over the next 12 months.
What concerns me is that Sony have been quick to say what thwy are taking away but very careful not to say what they are adding (if anything). Will we get an extra PS4 game? A couple of things for PSVR a month? This needs to be clarified
Makes sense. We knew that was coming eventually.
Also I disagree about this pointing to PS5 in 2019. I still think that's a 2020 thing. Honestly though, I'm not sure the market is ready for next gen consoles yet. Feels too soon despite the PS4/XB1 releasing five years ago.
I'm fine with no more PS3, PSVita games. I always add them to my collection but with the exception of PS4 games I've not downloaded a single one in years.
What I hope is that SONY redirect resources. An extra PS4 and a VR game every month. Or just two extra VR games.
Also I notice no new VR game this month. PSVR needs some Plus love on a regular basis as soon as they drop the PS3 and Vita games. If SONY are genuinely 100% behind supporting VR they really should get some good VR Plus games out as an incentive to buy PSVR. It's been out for what 16 months now?
@Get2SammyB Will we be able to keep our PS3 and Vita IGC games if we keep the service after the cut-off? I'll have a PS4 Slim or Pro by then, but I always go back to my previous systems to play games from time-to-time so it'd be nice to keep my collection of free games since I have no plans on letting my service lapse.
@ReanSchwarzer7 Yes, you keep everything as long as you're still subscribed.
On that note I'll be pretty peeved if Sony does strip us of those games since about 20% of my PS3 library and 50% of my Vita library are IGC games. Many of those games I had interest in so if Sony does snatch them up they'll need to at least offer them at a HUGE discount as many of us could have purchased any of those games outright for 80-90% off at some point after they were offered on PS+. Maybe do something like the Wii to Wii U virtual console discount. If we're forced to pay full price, that'd just be cruel lol.
Sorry for the rant! xD
@Get2SammyB Ah thanks! Disregard the rant above then lol. xD
I'm happy that they're choosing this direction since -like what you said- a lot of the free Vita and PS3 they have offered were very lackluster. Of course, this means that the chance of getting games that are yet to recieve the PS Plus treatment, like Soul Sacrifice, Red Dead, etc. is unlikely.
Btw if Sony releases the PS5 in 2019 like I'm reading here, they'll be doing a huge mistake imo! They can still squeeze the PS4 a lot with some more killer exclusives!
Late 2020 reveal 2021 release would be the perfect date!
@Gamer83 I'm hoping 2020, but the telltale sign is Sony's end of year predictions. The fiscal year ends on March 31st & they're expecting PS4 sales to fall off. Not long now, but I hope the PS4 exceeds expectations and they push the PS5 into 2020.
@Gamer83 @DLB3 Its no secret that I would prefer a 2018 release but Sony are renown for releasing a new console after 6yrs (which would point to a 2019 release). 2020 seems too long away for Sony to actually join the 4k era of gaming. I know you may say the 'Pro' but that is not a '4k' gaming console but a HD console that can boost resolution to ~1440p (average) but still keep HD settings. OK so it can stream 4k media too.
The PS4, as good as it is, is still seeing a decline in the average visual quality as games become more complex. I know its 'better' equipped for HD than the XB1 - which is also seeing a 'drop' in visual standards. Point is though that games are 'growing' and the current gen is seeing a decline in standards (not game-play - but visual settings to get the games running at a certain performance standard). A year is a long time in gaming but 2.66yrs (to get to Nov 2020) is exceptionally long. The Pro wasn't built to extend the PS4's life but be a small step for those early 4k TV adopters and to deliver a more consistent VR.
I find it very funny that at the start of the generation, people were complaining that the consoles were too weak for HD - especially where the CPU is concerned. People still complain that games have trouble delivering a locked 30fps, have pop-in, can't deliver a full 1080/60 - even devs have criticised the CPU in these but the mention of a console to replace the 6yr old hardware with a very weak (comparatively) CPU is too 'soon' Historically, consoles only last 5-6yrs on average - its only last gen they lasted a bit longer - but even those had a much better CPU to GPU balance. The Pro is NOT built for the 4k era - not even close and I think Sony will want to offer their fanbase a console for this era. A Nov 2019 release is more for the 2020+ market anyway - just releasing before Xmas to hit that busy sales period.
I know Sony fanboys may be upset that I am criticising the Pro and to a degree the PS4 but the truth is, neither is built for the 4k era. I would much prefer to be playing games like God of War, Days Gone, Last of Us2, Ghost of Tsushima etc at a full 4k and hopefully at least 60fps with 'High' quality visual settings, great draw distances, no pop-in etc but if I have to settle with 30fps, low/medium settings, ~1440p (and that includes 1800-2160p CB as these are around the same ball park pixel count) because Sony haven't yet bothered to look ahead and give us a console to deliver standards befitting our 4k screens, then so be it. The Pro is the equivalent to a 720p console for the HD era but some games will still be 540p (Tekken 7, Dirt or some of the 60fps/enhanced visual modes). A game like GT Sport runs at the equivalent of 2x450p for HD TV's to give a 900p CB image and H:ZD is the equivalent of 2x540p to give a 1080p CB image - of course with textures etc built for 540p. Its the equivalent of having a DVD player and only 3.1 audio too but able to stream 1080p media. That would be considered a very poor HD console....
Sony has NEVER abandoned the old generation within a short time after the new gen launches. All those worrying that a PS5 would make their PS4 obsolete have nothing to worry about. Sony continued to make the PS1 right up until a year before the PS3 launched, the PS2 continued to be made right up until a year before the PS4 launched. The PS3 has been discontinued for a year already....
If I get 6 free PS4 games a month, I will be happy. It’ll also put a lite more on pressure because it’ll look like it’s offering a lot more than gold does. I don’t see MS upping to 6 games a month either.
@BAMozzy
I'm not saying Pro is a great option for anything, I actually think it was a mistake, but Sony could still extend the life to 2020 if it wanted. I don't care either way, if PS5 is Nov. 2019 or earlier, I'll get it even if I still don't have a 4K tv. Better be backwards compatible though.
I think this strongly hints at a late 2019 PS5.
Oh well. I haven't downloaded any of the PS3 titles for at least a year.
@get2sammyb +1 really need freshen it up. plus ps3 vita games been poor a lot of the months. Mind you been getting some baragins in Swiss gamestop for ps3. So far all played in english on ps3.
@DLB3 @Gamer83 I never said the Pro was a 'bad' console either. It is IF you wanted a full 4k Console but I don't believe that's what Sony built it for. Its built as a 'half way' step because there are 'early' adopters of 4k TV's and they also wanted to boost VR. Its clearly not built to go the full 4k but that could impact on the PS5 too - at least games will look like a big step up visually. If they had built it with a 4k HDR Bluray, Atmos and delivering 2160p high quality visuals, the PS5 wouldn't seem like much of an upgrade at all - maybe the only difference is some of the games run at 60fps but games like CoD, Fifa, Battlefield etc already offer 60fps so wouldn't seem like much of an upgrade.
It is very much an iterative console. Its still very much a PS4 in the same way the Expansion Pack in the N64 was still very much a N64 console. I wasn't criticising it but merely saying its NOT a console for the 4k generation...
"Update: A representative for Sony told Polygon that after February 2019, the monthly PlayStation Plus lineups will consist only of two free PS4 games."
Ah nuts.
@Gamer83 I'm torn on backwards compatibility for PS5.
Pro - it means people buy 1 sooner so catch up on cheap and PS+ PS4 games so it sells faster following launch.
Con - as BAM points out, even Pro isn't a "true" 4k console, just a pretender, so no BC means Sony can sell TloU2, GoW and H:ZD 4k editions, just like they did with GTAV and TLoU (during your 2 years of complaining.)
Now they had an excuse going from PS3 to PS4 NOT to have it, we all know what a beast Cell was, so playing PS3 games on PS4 wasn't going to happen. But if PS5 is just a souped up PS4 Pro, well what's their excuse this time?
So I'm torn on guessing. BC means they sell more old games and maybe more consoles, no BC means they sell more ports and maybe have a more expensive and weirder hardware system. BC is the obvious pick for consumers, but maybe not for Sony's pocket book.
Compromise solution - PS4 games play exactly like PS4 games on PS5 w/ BC, no upres or anything of the sort, (see Wii games on Wii U) but they can still sell PS5 4k versions of those games w/ better visuals. Not sure who would buy them, but I'm not sure why anybody bought a PS4 Pro or X1X either, but people did.
On topic - March 2019 is a year away, so good for Sony giving the long heads up since some Vita and PS3 only owners may still be buying PS+ subscriptions in 1 year increments, so this gives them a chance not to renew. And even better Sony still did right by PS3 and Vita owners -
"Sony notes that this will not have any impact on PS3 and Vita games that you've already downloaded or added to your library through the subscription service."
I'm not sure this means PS5 reveal in March 2019 and launch holiday 2019, but I've thought that the last 2 years anyway, no reason to change my mind now.
@BAMozzy
Yeah, clearly not built for 4K. And I do think that's important. I look at releasing a new console though and you need to go in with a good, solid plan. I don't think anybody would argue the entire first year of PS4 was pretty damn weak, the best games being simple remasters. Obviously I don't know what's going on behind the scenes but I don't see the point in releasing PS5 in 2019 unless it's going to do two things. First, it has to be a significant step up over the Xbox One X and at a reasonable price as well (doable on both counts, but not easy) and it also needs a library worth a damn. If the entire first year is going to be remasters again with nothing good in the way of exclusives that's a problem. Now if say Ghost of Tsushima, The Last of Us Part II and Horizon 2 could all be launch window, with one being a launch day exclusive now you've got something. Also has to at the very least be fully backwards compatible with PS4 right out of the gate. I agree PS5 is needed, just not confident Sony could make it work for 2019 and when PS4 is going well, you might as well roll with it for as much as you can. I don't think I'm as far off from your line of thinking as you believe though. If the cards are played right, 2019 would be as good as the timing could get.
@rjejr
I don't think there needs to be a compromise. Like with every system there will be people who buy a PS5 who didn't have a PS4. You can still sell ports to them and if the port has some added content you can maybe get repeat buyers in addition to new buyers. And allowing people who already own PS4 games to play them in a higher quality on PS5 builds good faith in the customer which is a lot of what helped PS4 sell early on. This should be something that's very easy but these companies almost never do the easy thing until they learn a lesson from going the stupid direction.
@IceClimbers yeah, when ps4 came out, it was definitely time for a new console. Ps4 certainly doesn't seem to be running out of steam at the moment.
But I'm not sure it will be that way two or three years from now. It's only March 2018, we'd have two and a half years if ps5 releases November 2020. That may be pushing it.
The fantastic March ps plus lineup helps this news go down easier.
As someone who still games on psvita, this isn't great news. But tbh, I have so many vita games already that it'd take years to play all the ones I've bought and never had the chance to play. So no biggie.
PS5 in 2019 then. Backward compatible, with PS Plus offering PS5 and PS4 games for the next system.
@Gamer83 The biggest issue as I see it is if Sony do come out with a 4k console in 2019, MS could use the specs to build a nextbox to beat it in 2020. Of course then Sony could release a PS5 Pro in 2022... Essentially trade blows.
That is of course if what each other is doing is the 'main' reason to build/release a console. From my perspective, it should be about being able to deliver the games at the standards the community expects/wants but also for the 'foreseeable' future. We know that games are built to much higher standards than console gamers ever get to play them. The devs of Kingdom Come: Deliverance actually stated the game was built more for the future GPU's rather than being able to run at Max settings on a the most powerful GPU's today. I have no doubt that even games built for PS4/Pro are built at much higher standard but have to turn down settings/resolution etc to run at the standard they want. Naughty Dog stated they were aiming for 60fps with U4 but couldn't deliver that with the campaign. Sucker Punch weren't 'complimentary' about the CPU and said that trying to work with its limitation was very hard work and the main cause of bottlenecks with Infamous. The most recent that I recall was Bungie being critical of the CPU in this gen consoles and why they cannot offer 60fps - considering how 'easy' it is to run the game at 1080/60 on PC. Its not just the PS either as the Xbox also uses the same CPU - even reducing the image size down by a quarter isn't enough to double the frame rate consistently in Rise of the Tomb Raider - a game that runs 'perfectly' at 4k/30 can't run at a locked 1080/60.
So many complained that the Pro couldn't do 1080/60 instead of UHD resolutions. That is down to the CPU. I know that some games may offer 60fps modes but rarely do they run at a solid 60fps - even if you halve the resolution to try and double the frame rates.
You talk about 'need' and whilst you can argue that there isn't necessarily a need for 4k itself and for that matter, if people are still happy to play at 30fps - even with a few 'drops' down from that, then there isn't a need at all. It hasn't stopped the Switch from selling. You talk about beating the X - again its not that difficult if they go for a better CPU and 'slightly' better GPU (although they could easily go to 8tflops - a whole 33% more) - the fact that games like RDR2 'could' run at 4k/60 compared to 4k/30 would be a 'big' difference even if visuals were not so radically different. It could still be as different as the 900 vs 1080p on XB1 vs PS4 but with the better CPU, you also get 60 vs 30.
As far as Library goes, Sony could have any of its announced library as PS5 games - especially again as virtually all will be 30fps on PS4. That along with full BC would give the PS5 a massive library from day 1. Point is, Library isn't necessarily an issue - less of an issue I think than not offering a 4k era console....
@Gamer83 "until they learn a lesson from going the stupid direction."
But then they don't learn a lesson from being too successful, and PSP brings Vita, Wii brings Wii U, Xbox360 brings X1. The pendulum just keeps on swinging gen to gen it seems.
I do like the compromise - hadn't really thought of it until that long post. But what reason do they have to go back to BC? PS4 doesn't have it, sold well. Switch doesn't have it, just another next gen port machine, selling better than PS4 in some cases. So where's the impetus for BC and slowing, if not entirely dropping, the flow of ports?
I'd be happy w/ a compromise machine that could play PS4 games at 900p and 30fps (whatever they are now) and had 4k ports for $40 that did 4k and 60fps. But how does Sony explain the lack of improvement in older games besides "cash grab"? That's the real stumper. And if PS5 does improve PS4 games, doesn't that just make it a "New PS4 Pro"? Where's the differentiation between a PS4 Pro and PS5 then? Well besides the obvious it plays PS5 games, duh.
Also, PS Now is a thing. If they want people to subscribe and pay monthly to pay PS4 games on PS5 they can't have BC. I know MS is giving it away w/ their subscription game service and years later BC, but I think PS Now will keep going.
You know, I'd bet money Sony doesn't know yet. I'll bet the hardware could, but they're probably still discussing it. They waited until E3 to drop the camera from PS4, that was always meant to be in there at launch. They may wait to see what MS does, both with hardware and software.
I know if it does have BC I'll likely pick one up much sooner than if it doesn't, it will be another 2 years after launch for me if all I can play is ports and H:ZD2. Though I may be done gaming by then, I'll be 55, how much longer can I go? Good thing I have kids.
I'm not that sad about this, despite I still own and use my PS3 and Vita, but mainly for some quick trophies mostly from PS+ games.
I do hope that we'll receive something worthwhile instead.
I haven't touched any of the PS3/Vita games for months. Years even.
@JoeBlogs I don't think so. They are not making a high-end PC in a box but making a games console and in 1months time, the prices of hardware will drop. Sony won't be paying the prices we get charged for a Ryzen CPU for example, they will be paying cost+ a small profit direct to manufacturer cutting out the profits of retailers, middlemen etc and whilst it will be based on Ryzen architecture for example, it won't be an off the shelf Ryzen CPU but built into an APU. No doubt that APU will be the most expensive component but a lot cheaper than you or I could buy the equivalent CPU and GPU separately.
When Sony released the Pro, people were assuming that the specs of the X would make it a $600+ because it was a whole PS4 more powerful, 50% more RAM, 4k HDR bluray and vapour cooled too. I doubt it will be as powerful as a Titan TI for example with an i7 CPU but with a better CPU, it could easily do 60fps.
Maybe if these AAA games have so much physics based destruction for example, things that really tax a CPU, then we may still see a few 30fps games. Games are broken down into 'tasks' and as long as all those tasks can be done within a certain time - including the render of the image, the game can hit 60fps. Most games are too complex for the weak CPU to do its tasks within enough time to allow the GPU to render the frame and get it out in 16.6ms or less. That's why a lot of games that reduce the 'render' time by reducing the size for example, still can't manage to hit 60fps because the CPU is still the bottleneck. If the CPU is taking 15ms to do its tasks, dropping the render time from say 15ms (which is perfect for 30fps gaming) down to say 5ms because its a lot smaller still isn't saving enough time to hit that 16.6ms window to deliver 60fps. You would also need to either reduce the number of CPU tasks OR increase the capability of the CPU so it can carry out those tasks in a lot less time.
I am fine with this I still own a PS3 and they do have decent sales for digital games but I would probably be able to get games I never played on it in the bargain bins. But I do ask since the price hike in the UK what will we get if the decent games each month keep coming that's great, I do wonder if PS Now will be merged in they could like maybe give so many days free a month maybe or maybe merge it with PS4 sub that lets you stream PS3 games over Now
This will surely lead to some sort of new features for PS Plus, maybe even a big announcement at E3 though realistically what they could do to add to its value is limited, they may announce a sort of backwards compatibility feature, maybe just digitally where on top of the two PS4 games, each month they allow you one or two games for free of PS1/PS2/PS3 games of your choice.........but i could be being too hopeful on this with Sony's attitude to BC lol but PS Now exists too so who knows ?
vita means life
@TheIronChimp that's a good question, you would assume so as you would still have the use of previous ps plus games. I hope so as I use it a lot when playing games on my ps3 at home and at my girlfriend's
If there is nothing to compensate the ps3/vita games being removed then a price drop should happen IMO
Tap here to load 49 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...