Sony calls this “part of our normal content refresh” as if adding new games to PlayStation Plus isn’t enough. Apparently, you have to also remove some games to make the store feel fresh. Xbox also does this with Game Pass, whenever contracts with publishers expire or licensing deals interrupt its ability to offer certain games. But none of those things apply to Marvel’s Spider-Man. It’s a first-party title that Sony owns, and it’s not getting pulled from digital stores. It’s only leaving the service because Sony thinks it can make a couple of extra bucks in the lead up to Spider-Man 2.
The sequel is expected to launch sometime in the fall, which means those that missed the original may be interested in checking it out now. It’s common to see a spike in sales of old games every time a sequel comes out. Hell, eventhe old Super Mario movie has become an Amazon best-sellerthanks to the success of the new one. Having Marvel’s Spider-Man on PlayStation Plus right now adds a lot of value to the service, but the bean counters at Sony decided they could make a little more money if people had to buy it, so it’s gone.
You’d think driving people to the recently-revamped PlayStation Plus would be a priority for Sony, but apparently it would rather capitalize on an opportunity, even if it means devaluing its own service. Given Sony’s recent track record, it isn’t an entirely surprising decision. We saw the company nickel-and-dime its customers ahead of the PlayStation Plus relaunch, when it devised aconvoluted voucher conversion planto ensure that no one could exploit the new PS+ by buying extra months of the old one.
Ahead of the Horizon Forbidden West launch, we saw Sony play semantics to try to weasel out of giving PS5 players the free next-gen upgrade they were promised, and even once it acquiesced, it still managed toobscure thingsenough that it got away withovercharging millions of people for the PS5 version of the game. Cutting Spider-Man from PS+ isn’t a scam – Sony has every right to do whatever it wants with its own games and services – but it’s the most recent example in a long history of anti-player decisions.
