PS+ April: PS3 gets 3 games including Arkham City, PS4 gets... Mercanary Kings...

FrozenLaughs

New member
Sep 9, 2013
321
0
0
If you are trying to get people on board a new console launch, as well as a new subscription service you should at least balance your attention between the two systems, yes?

PS4 is still lacking on quality titles and market content almost 5 months after launch. People still on PS3 seem to be getting way better content and support.

Thoughts?
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
Except, the ps4 isn't old enough to give the ps4 games out for free. So as of now we have, free indie games. That being said, the ps+ is only required if you want multiplayer, so if you are not interested in multiplayer, you lose nothing. If you do want multiplayer, you get multiplayer, and a few little extras each month. I can't say it's a bad deal.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,319
1,472
118
I thought Killzone and the new inFAMOUS looked pretty good. But I agree the PS4 is far from enticing so far, on its own anyway.
 

Dominic Crossman

New member
Apr 15, 2013
399
0
0
I am an early adopter of the ps4 and annoyingly I've bought more ps3 games then ps4 games in that time.
On the other end, people are complaining about ps+ but EVERY game that has been released on PS4 ps+ is one I've not previously played, inversely I can't remember the last time a ps3 ps+ game wasn't I've previously owned or at least played.
 

FrozenLaughs

New member
Sep 9, 2013
321
0
0
I'm not complaining about the quality of what is offered, I guess its more the balance of it. I feel like Sony isn't focusing on the PS4 early adopters. If PS3 gets 3 games, why doesn't the PS4? Im not knocking the quality of the indie games, I've enjoyed Zombie Nation quite a bit.

I guess after years of seeing 4 or 5 games a week added to everyones catalogs I expected Sony to pump out more ports and indie content to keep everyone's hopes high.
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
FrozenLaughs said:
I'm not complaining about the quality of what is offered, I guess its more the balance of it. I feel like Sony isn't focusing on the PS4 early adopters. If PS3 gets 3 games, why doesn't the PS4? Im not knocking the quality of the indie games, I've enjoyed Zombie Nation quite a bit.

I guess after years of seeing 4 or 5 games a week added to everyones catalogs I expected Sony to pump out more ports and indie content to keep everyone's hopes high.
I get it, and i certainly understand you stance. People always said before the consoles launched, " wait a year before buying a console" , and this is why. Games take time to make , about 2-4years . Considering the ps4 came on in november 2013 , games would have been in developpement since at the very least 2011, for a console that, in 2011 wasn't even announced. How do you make a game, for an unnanounced console with unnanounced specs?

Launch games never show the true potential of a console at launch for this very reason. And it's also the reason people say to way. 20 years ago, games took 3-6 months to make , now they take 3 years. It's why , in my opinion, there were many more, quality games ( reletive to technology at the time ) closer to launch. We might have to wait a year or two before we start to get amazed at the games being produced ( not to say we aren't going to get astonishif games before that.

Anyways, i'm not tech savvy so take what i say with a grain of salt.
 

Aluwolf

New member
Apr 1, 2014
16
0
0
FrozenLaughs" post="9.846263.20863758 said:
If PS3 gets 3 games, why doesn't the PS4?
/quote]

Because like you said the consoles been out for not even half a year. From what you want the ps4 would have already given out 15 free games. I don't see that as a fair number at all. What would be nice however is if they would start giving discounts to new games for people who have it, since the bundled ps+ is probably expired for a lot of people and they want an incentive to get it.

An example would be 1/3 off the new infamous game, or maybe 25% off ground zeroes.

PS+ was about more than free games, a big focus used to be on getting digital copies for less than the retail version.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Still a case of wait and see, but one of my misgivings about mandatory PS+ was that there'd be no incentive to keep up the value once (virtually) everyone had to get it.
 

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Still a case of wait and see, but one of my misgivings about mandatory PS+ was that there'd be no incentive to keep up the value once (virtually) everyone had to get it.
Except it's not mandatory and nobody has to get it?

I won't be getting a PS4 for at least two years, but when I do pick it up I have no plans to sign up for PS+ because I never play online and I already own most of what they give away on the PS3 and have most of the indie PS4 titles on Steam.

Even if they do start giving away PS4 games for free, by that time I'll be able to pick up the ones on offer for about a fiver, second-hand, so I see no reason to shackle myself to a subscription model.

That being said, I still think PS+ is a really cool thing/good value; I just don't understand why people get upset when it's something they willingly opt into.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
rob_simple said:
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Still a case of wait and see, but one of my misgivings about mandatory PS+ was that there'd be no incentive to keep up the value once (virtually) everyone had to get it.
Except it's not mandatory and nobody has to get it?

I won't be getting a PS4 for at least two years, but when I do pick it up I have no plans to sign up for PS+ because I never play online and I already own most of what they give away on the PS3 and have most of the indie PS4 titles on Steam.

Even if they do start giving away PS4 games for free, by that time I'll be able to pick up the ones on offer for about a fiver, second-hand, so I see no reason to shackle myself to a subscription model.

That being said, I still think PS+ is a really cool thing/good value; I just don't understand why people get upset when it's something they willingly opt into.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the majority of gamers do view online play as part of the experience, and that is increasingly true as games blur the line between single player and multiplayer. Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls for instance integrate online play into their games to the extent that it is a fairly central mechanic. You can't get certain things in each game without playing online. It's not a separate mode, it augments the single player mode. Armored Core V and Verdict Day, part of a series which I would say is my second favourite, are practically crippled without online play despite the series being traditionally very good single player experiences with a basic multiplayer mode. You're just one of the few who don't care for multiplayer, which is good, because it means you don't have to waste money on it. I don't know if it's just your choice of games that allows that to be the case. But for many of us it isn't really a choice, and I don't appreciate Sony trying to sweeten the ultimatum with things I didn't ask for to provide a service they provided last gen for free.
 

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
MeChaNiZ3D said:
rob_simple said:
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Still a case of wait and see, but one of my misgivings about mandatory PS+ was that there'd be no incentive to keep up the value once (virtually) everyone had to get it.
Except it's not mandatory and nobody has to get it?

I won't be getting a PS4 for at least two years, but when I do pick it up I have no plans to sign up for PS+ because I never play online and I already own most of what they give away on the PS3 and have most of the indie PS4 titles on Steam.

Even if they do start giving away PS4 games for free, by that time I'll be able to pick up the ones on offer for about a fiver, second-hand, so I see no reason to shackle myself to a subscription model.

That being said, I still think PS+ is a really cool thing/good value; I just don't understand why people get upset when it's something they willingly opt into.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the majority of gamers do view online play as part of the experience, and that is increasingly true as games blur the line between single player and multiplayer. Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls for instance integrate online play into their games to the extent that it is a fairly central mechanic. You can't get certain things in each game without playing online. It's not a separate mode, it augments the single player mode. Armored Core V and Verdict Day, part of a series which I would say is my second favourite, are practically crippled without online play despite the series being traditionally very good single player experiences with a basic multiplayer mode. You're just one of the few who don't care for multiplayer, which is good, because it means you don't have to waste money on it. I don't know if it's just your choice of games that allows that to be the case. But for many of us it isn't really a choice, and I don't appreciate Sony trying to sweeten the ultimatum with things I didn't ask for to provide a service they provided last gen for free.
Well I can understand why you would be upset, but what do you have to back up the statement that the majority of people prefer online play as part of their experience? You could be absolutely right that I'm in the minority, but all I have to go on is anecdotal evidence so if you have hard data to back up your statement I'd be interested to see it.

Also, just for the record: Borderlands 1 & 2 are two of my favourite games and I only played them online for half an hour to get the online trophies; the rest of the time I went pure single player and had a blast. I've played plenty of games with online aspects and I just ignore them and enjoy what's there for single players. Truth be told, it does annoy me when games like Dead Space 3 lock half the games content behind a friend-wall, but it's the choice I've made so I played what parts of the game I could and then got rid of it.

At the end of the day, there is plenty you can do with video games without the online portion, and saying that games you would have otherwise liked are crippled without access to the online elements is like me complaining that I can't access all of Resident Evil's content because the higher difficulty levels are too hard for me.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
rob_simple said:
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Well I can understand why you would be upset, but what do you have to back up the statement that the majority of people prefer online play as part of their experience? You could be absolutely right that I'm in the minority, but all I have to go on is anecdotal evidence so if you have hard data to back up your statement I'd be interested to see it.

Also, just for the record: Borderlands 1 & 2 are two of my favourite games and I only played them online for half an hour to get the online trophies; the rest of the time I went pure single player and had a blast. I've played plenty of games with online aspects and I just ignore them and enjoy what's there for single players. Truth be told, it does annoy me when games like Dead Space 3 lock half the games content behind a friend-wall, but it's the choice I've made so I played what parts of the game I could and then got rid of it.

At the end of the day, there is plenty you can do with video games without the online portion, and saying that games you would have otherwise liked are crippled without access to the online elements is like me complaining that I can't access all of Resident Evil's content because the higher difficulty levels are too hard for me.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-02-72-percent-of-gamers-play-online-npd

But feel free to discount that, I haven't found the original report so I don't know how the survey was delivered or what games featured or any of that. Who is in the majority doesn't really come into it, they're both large populations.

The games I happen to like are heavily linked to online whereas you like games that happen to be perfectly functional single player. But saying paid online is like harder difficulty is like saying earning an item is the same as paying for it. The difference is that your access to online has nothing to do with how much effort you put into the game, which is ideally how everything should be earnt once you purchase the game, and the other difference is that online elements don't require extra effort so aren't even something that it makes sense to earn and should be a free option accordingly.
 

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
MeChaNiZ3D said:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-02-72-percent-of-gamers-play-online-npd

But feel free to discount that, I haven't found the original report so I don't know how the survey was delivered or what games featured or any of that. Who is in the majority doesn't really come into it, they're both large populations.

The games I happen to like are heavily linked to online whereas you like games that happen to be perfectly functional single player. But saying paid online is like harder difficulty is like saying earning an item is the same as paying for it. The difference is that your access to online has nothing to do with how much effort you put into the game, which is ideally how everything should be earnt once you purchase the game, and the other difference is that online elements don't require extra effort so aren't even something that it makes sense to earn and should be a free option accordingly.
Thanks for the link, it wasn't that I doubted you, I just like to research these things. It is worth pointing out, though, that the lion's share of online gamers in that report apparently game on PC, which was going to be my follow-up suggestion if PS+ really grinds your gears.

This is the thing I'll be really curious to see over the course of the year is how many people continue to play online with PS4 now that it's a paid service, because I have a suspicion --just a suspicion, mind-- that a lot of people who played PS3 online only did it because it was free and either won't be that bothered about not being able to do it anymore or will switch to a platform where it's free (i.e. PC).

And you're right, my example was dumb, I guess my real gripe with console online gaming --that, from what I've read, isn't as big an issue on PC-- is that the online portions of games are extremely hit and miss, and can become virtual ghost towns within months; assuming the studio doesn't shut the servers down first. Certainly, I know that despite attempting it several times the week it came out, I only ever managed to get one online game of Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage 2.

These are restrictions you don't necessarily have on PC, (I understand that people are still hosting multiplayer servers for the original Doom and Quake,) so really I suppose the reason I don't understand the furor is because I don't get why anyone would choose a console for online play when PC appears superior in almost every way.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I thought Killzone and the new inFAMOUS looked pretty good. But I agree the PS4 is far from enticing so far, on its own anyway.
I'm really excited for the new inFamous, I loved the old ones and it sounds like the new one is only an improvement. I feel like I could pretty confidently buy a PS4 now if I chose to. It's got momentum and third-party support and it's still got its strong first party developers. If I buy one then I'm pretty confident it will have solid games for the years to come. You should never be buying a console for the games available now (unless it's last-gen console). This cuts both ways of course, if you love MGS4 it's still not worth getting a PS3 until your sure it's going to continue to receive great games. If you bought a Xbox One for Titanfall, when Titanfall 2 almost certainly isn't going to be exclusive...

But even if Killzone and inFamous are great it's still not enough games for them to be able to supply a solid PS+ experience. I think Sony are being pretty fair considering the games currently available and I wouldn't feel cheated yet.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
A free game is nothing to be sniffed at at all. Resogun, Dead Nation, Don't starve have all kept my attention. Plus, I don't think a days gone by where my PS4 hasn't been powered on since I bought it at launch. Been a great acquisition for me so far.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Because it's still new. We won't be getting multiple PS4 games for free until the console has been out long enough to have a large selection.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
FrozenLaughs said:
If you are trying to get people on board a new console launch, as well as a new subscription service you should at least balance your attention between the two systems, yes?

PS4 is still lacking on quality titles and market content almost 5 months after launch. People still on PS3 seem to be getting way better content and support.

Thoughts?
My thoughts are it's been 5 months since launch and it's much too early to be giving away any major AAA titles for free. The PS3 has a multitude of games that are a year or more old which can be included because there's still plenty more titles out there for people to buy that aren't being given out for free, and some good games that may have stopped selling much on consoles can bring in some more money by being included in PS+.

Why would anyone assume that there would be AAA big budget titles getting released free to PS+ users not even half a year after launch? What titles would you even suggest? One of the two or three major ones that are probably still selling really well, and better off not being part of the services free titles financially?

And if your complaint is related to the volume of releases, then the answer is even simpler: If they released as many free titles on PS4 as they do on PS3 right now, there'd be almost nothing for people to actually buy. Sony can't just "pump out more ports and indie content." Ports take months, and they have no control over how quickly indies develop titles by definition. Give it a year before worrying too much about this stuff.