PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription

[Raggedstar]

To be honest, there were 2 games on PS3 that I used multiplayer on: Portal 2 and Journey. Other than that, I play alone. While it does kinda suck that it's not giving me the option of doing the rare multiplayer game when I feel like it, I'm not TOO fussed about it. At least PS+ gives a lot back and I heard nothing but good things about it.

Does make me wonder how this would affect games (like Journey or Dark/Demon's Souls) who have a more unique, "passive" form of multiplayer. I guess it just uses functions as if you're offline?

 

[FoolKiller]

I never wanted Plus before, and I still don't. Free games aren't free as long as they go away the moment you quit paying.

No they aren't. But it is the exact same model as Netflix and everyone thinks that is good. While you pay you get access to lots of content (worth well over $5).

Considering the love people had for 360, this is perfectly fine as long as the rest of the stuff doesn't change.

Oh... and Sony. Please continue to have region free games. This is one of the main reasons I have your console. I can play Japanese games here in Canada.

 

[The_Echo]

I have zero problems with this. I mean yeah, free multiplayer becomes paid multiplayer. But I don't play online very often at all (and I think the same goes for many PS players), so whatever.

The PS4 is $100 cheaper than the Xbone, and as far as I know, XBL Gold is actually becoming more expensive in the next generation. (By the way, those free games for Gold apparently stop when the Xbone launches.)

But even if they were the same price, PS+ offers a hell of a lot more.

Call me the optimist here. But, this little tidbit did show up on a video that basically burned microsoft pretty hard. So who's to say that isn't just another subtle stab at microsoft again?

Dude. Now I hope that turns out true, solely because it'd be fucking hilarious.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

I'm actually not too upset by this news.

Most of the games I play on console I play single-player, so having to pay like £3 a month to play online is no big deal.

Playstation Plus is such a good deal anyway that it still sounds better than Microsoft's Xbox Live subscription thing.

 

[kuolonen]

I am strangely ok with this. I mean you still get free games, and it is optional, so if you don't have a great love for multiplayer, it is not necessary.

Most likely the reason for being this ok is linked to the fact, that a console that requires you to offer 3 of your fingers as sacrifice would still seem better than xbone.

 

[JSoup]

I don't see it as that bad, really. PSN+ costs about as much as one new release game and lasts the whole year, all the while providing you with a few hundred dollars in free games. I've had it for two years and have gotten a lot out of the service.

 

[NickBrahz]

So Microsoft has a subscription to use multiplayer and everybody grabs pitchforks and calls them the devil but as soon as Sony introduces a subscription to use multiplayer, suddenly nobody cares? that sure is a biased double standard.

 

[Spacewolf]

Not exactly suprising since the higher ups will have told the designers to put in something to make money for Sony on top of the usual stuff. Still abit of a shame though since I bought the PS3 because it didn't ask for me to pay for online, probably sick with that until the PS4 is a few years old.

 

[Yopaz]

That sucks :/ You'd have thought Sony would have left it as free as it would have been another selling point over Microsoft.

At least they're not gating services that I already fucking paid for behind it.

Yeah, I find this to be a slight disappointment due to the fact that I will not need PS+ to use Netflix. I always hated how Microsoft started charging more when they announced Netflix (despite that it wasn't available in Europe).

I guess this should be expected and that they want to squeeze their customers a little since we have accepted Microsoft's policy for so long, but this did disappoint me. It should be said that I prefer my online multiplayer on PC so this isn't as big a deal for me as for others, but still...

 

[Phrozenflame500]

That 5 dollars a month is cheaper then xBox Live, but it's still a bit of a dealbreaker for me. Ah well, I suppose I'll always have Steam <3

 

[MrMisfit]

People keep saying this isn't as bad as what Microsoft is doing but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It's basically what the 360 is doing now with the gold membership for XBLA. This is what bothers me about this upcoming console generation. Everything being featured feels like it's a step backwards rather than forwards. I may be wrong about all this but as things stand now, I'm passing on the PS4.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well, I was looking forward to have free multiplayer when I buy the PS4, so Im somewhat dissapointed. But, it still is a better deal than what Microsoft offers now, and in the future.

 

[Colt47]

The real question is if Sony will keep the good deals flowing with the PS+ service into the future once it is mandatory. My thoughts are as long as Microsoft keeps charging for their service, Sony will keep the benefits packages rolling.

 

[suitepee7]

if i were going to get a ps4, i would have got this anyway tbh. its not hugely expensive, and they put a lot of good games up for free anyway. that being said, it is unfortunate, but i never really played online on my console anyway, i play online with my IRL friends, who are also mainly PC gamers

 

[Simple Bluff]

Call me the optimist here. But, this little tidbit did show up on a video that basically burned microsoft pretty hard. So who's to say that isn't just another subtle stab at microsoft again?

I'm pretty sure other sources have confirmed it even before this video went up; a quick google search should verify it. I'm still holding on to the slim hope that all this just a big build up to a joke where they pretty much go "lol jk". And then wiggle their arses mockingly at a caricature of Major Nelson.

But even if it is true, I don't blame them. I certainly don't like it, but I don't blame them. Sony has taken a few financial hits since the PS3 emerged, and now they're selling the PS4 for relatively cheap. But at least they're making the effort to soften the blow with free games and beta access and stuff.

 

[Simple Bluff]

I bought the PS3 because it didn't ask for me to pay for online, probably sick with that until the PS4 is a few years old.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I have the impression that the new policy will also apply for the PS3 once the PS4 launches.

 

[hutchy27]

Well at least it has more benefits to Xbox Live like free games, so I guess it's fair enough. Just wish it was an option though. :/

 

[Norrdicus]

The real question is if Sony will keep the good deals flowing with the PS+ service into the future once it is mandatory. My thoughts are as long as Microsoft keeps charging for their service, Sony will keep the benefits packages rolling.

Could be, at least it looks like they're using PS+ to give some incentives to early adopters. You'll get Drive Club PS Plus Edition, Don?t Starve, Outlast, and Secret Ponchos free on launch with it, and you probably get other things shortly after, perhaps one of those streamed PS3 games they've been talking about

 

[kael013]

So Microsoft has a subscription to use multiplayer and everybody grabs pitchforks and calls them the devil but as soon as Sony introduces a subscription to use multiplayer, suddenly nobody cares? that sure is a biased double standard.

Microsoft: pay to access multiplayer, pay for desktop themes, pay for group chat, pay for 2 free games monthly [i/]that they choose[/i] (as in, they choose 2 games a month that we could DL, there is no catalog), and pay for Netflix. Beyond that, we have DRM (for example, updates that we may not want, but if we don't DL it we get kicked off LIVE and can't play co-op or multiplayer for that game until we do) and region locked games. All that for $10 a month plus having to deal with ads everywhere.

Sony: Dicounted games, cloud saves (which LIVE also has, so not that big of a selling point), automatic game updates (see above for my view, hopefully we can regulate that without being kicked offline), early access to betas, free games [i/]collection[/i] (i.e. we get to choose from more than 2 a month), and multiplayer. Desktop themes are free, group chat is free, Netflix is free, there aren't ads everywhere (at least, there don't seem to be, so if there are they aren't overt), and games are region free. All that is only $5 a month.

Now, [i/]objectively[/i], which one is the better deal?

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Not a fan of monthly payments at all, I'm the kind of guy who likes to pay just once and get the whole package without any strings attached (which reminds me: adult life sucks).

...Then again I haven't played a game online since Modern Warfare 2 - and even then I only played it for about four weeks.
So, yeah, I guess this won't really affect me.

By the way, with all the hype of "still plays second hand games", "doesn't have to go online every 24 hours" and "Kingdom Hearts 3", am I the only one who is just really happy that you can still switch out the HDD with any 2.5" SATA drive? And the fact that the controllers still have a built-in lithium battery?