PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription

[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?

 

[Lightknight]

I guess this was bound to happen as server useage got ever more demanding. They didn't over-price it and the playstation+ service has been pretty nice so far (free games, better game demos, etc). We'll see how it plays out but if this is the only negative of the ps4 then I couldn't care less.

When their competition is Microsoft who has done this since the Xbox, this isn't a risky move for them.

 

[Eiv]

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.

To my knowledge, both consoles are region locked.

EDIT: Scratch that, just seen that the PS4 was region free.

 

[luvd1]

I should be more fussed at this but psn+ gives you free games and discounts for the same price as gold which I had been paying for 10 years. I say get plus anyway just for the freebees and stuff.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

It sucks but at least PS+ comes with more benefits.
It might also have been done to help subsidise the whole "we allow used games" thing.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I guess Sony just really wants everyone to have PS+...?

This is a silly move for Sony, but I can't say it'll negatively impact the goodwill they've accrued. PS+ was already a service worth defacing oneself for (so many free games ohmygod sogood), so if they keep that up, the subscription wouldn't dent the wallet at all. ($5 a month is better than the $10 a month or whatever it is Microsoft charges, in Australia at least.)

If a month of PS+ is included out-of-the-box, that'd probably persuade me to renew.

 

[hornedcow]

Well that sucks. At least it's a hell of a lot better than Live in terms of value. I don't play multiplayer, but I imagine this will really piss off a lot of people, and hiding it in the fine print of a video is really shitty on the part of Sony.

 

[Irridium]

Eh, I'll just stop paying for Gold and start paying for PS+

Besides, PS+ looks like it provides more bang for its buck compared to XBL, so that's nice.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I expected this. $5 a month isn't really a lot for what they're offering.

Considering it says "around" 5 dollars a month in the article, I'm thinking that it means it will be five a month if you buy a whole year, similar to Xbox Live. I bit the bullet a few months ago, and got a full year of Live to round out what I believe will be the end of my use of my 360 doing online play, and that was 60, so 5 dollars a month. Before that I occasionally would do a three month thing, but that was a little over 8 dollars a month at 24.99. I also remember that if you only did one month it was 9.99 a month.

So as I said, I'm thinking with the wording of the article, I betting that that will be the similar system of subscription. Really, it comes down to that if people can afford a 60 dollar shot only once a year, then that is the way to go, because beyond that it becomes highway robbery.

 

[Parakeettheprawn]

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.

The thing is, though, that even though they're taking that step to do that, you still get all of the freebies and discounts that came along with it on the PS3. If anything, they one-upped Microsoft again on that front. The only thing that MS can do on that front is match Sony's deal; which, given current circumstances, is highly unlikely due to the amount of anti-consumerism attitude they've taken with the XBone.

Not to mention that:

It's worth noting that you will not require PlayStation Plus to watch Netflix, and it will continue to offer the current PlayStation Plus benefits such as free games [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124562-Deus-Ex-Human-Revolution-Goes-Free-On-PlayStation-Plus]. If you're already a PlayStation Plus subscriber, your membership will carry over from the PS3 and PSVita to the PS4.

Also, the benefits of PlayStation Plus are nothing to scoff at. Sony isn't offering the bottom of the bargain bin for its free game catalog, but new releases and best sellers like XCOM and Uncharted 3.

And you know something else? I'd rather throw money at this practice rather than what MS offers. Sony just gained this consumer's attention and money, should the good news continue.

Exactly! I'd far rather pay for PS Plus, get free games for my PS3 and hypothetical PS4 than just pay the 50 bucks for the right to downloaded demos and use multiplayer on the Xbox 360. Microsoft even seems downright afraid to fully commit to matching this. I mean, seriously, Halo 3 and ACII? Very few people who didn't want either of those games don't have them by now.

 

[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.

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

I think online game streaming using server side installs is a fad idea that is going to play out fairly poorly, which is pretty much what Gaikai is. The better benefits are the free downloadable games that can be run locally. The good thing about Sony attempting to use Gaikai technology is that it at least acknowledges they understand the need some people have for backwards compatibility to play older ps3 games, even if they can't necessarily provide it on a software or hardware level.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I called this years ago, if true.
My words exactly from around 2010/2011;

"When they release the next Playstation, I bet they'll make PS+ mandatory to catch up with Microsoft. It already offers quite a bit more and most people buy into it anyway. If Sony has managed to make them justify subscribing into something that is additionally offered for free, I imagine they'll be able to make it required rather easily next time around".

Still isn't a good thing, though.
Smart for business, bad for consumers.
In the rose that is apparently Sony's E3, the thorn has been revealed.

 

[mysecondlife]

Not a great news. But I'm not too upset about it. I rarely play online and if I'm paying for ps+ it's for "free" games

 

[KOMega]

Well... at least it doesn't bar me from playing single player games.
Guess I'll be getting a lot more of those next gen.

I wasn't too much into multiplayer anyways.
Going to miss some small things, like if they were to release a new Dragon's Dogma and I couldn't use the pawn system.

But at least it's only for PS4 games.

 

[Roxas1359]

I expected this. $5 a month isn't really a lot for what they're offering.

Plus (no pun intended), if they keep their current deals going then you only have to pay around $50 for a year subscription, $70 in Australia.

OT: I had a feeling that they were going to do something like this to be quite honest and I don't mind it, especially since it's a) cheaper than Live, b) gives you more content and doesn't lock you out of Netflix, and c) it is only mandatory if you play multiplayer games which is not what the majority of the PS4's game library is.
Really for this I can go with or without PS+ since I mainly don't play multiplayer games which is perfect. Really though if you use this as a choice between the Xbox One or the PS4 then I don't see why as this has way better face value.

 

[LordMonty]

Sony have won the first round and second round of this generation. This little cost won't bother anyone really, half my ps3 friends have the sub already, i'll probally pick it up for ps4. Sony have hit the nail on the head all the way this generation, microsoft must be wetting there pants... although by no means do I think they're out for the count.

My flatmate will by an xbox1 as a fanboy, don't think he can let go of the massive gamerscore or friends list, microsoft have a core of players they'll live on but the question is how much will the loose and how much will they be prepared to do to get back as the top dog this generation?