While that kinda sucks, at least you get free games and other goodies, thereby making it infinitely better than XBL.
PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Well, the PS+ Service has been attractive enough to at least consider getting on board in the past. I'd always waffled on it and just decided not to get it. So having to get it isn't some significant money dump.JEBWrench said:
Considering the increase in network use that this generation should require it makes sense for them to do this. We are buying the console and we are buying the games, but if someone uses multiplayer heavily then they're leaning on a network in a way that does cost Sony money to provide. I've always been a bit surprised that they haven't charged anything. The newer games will demand more server-side processing in multiplayer environments and so they're looking at potentially significant infrastructure updates.
Being mad at this would be like saying, "I bought a car (game), I bought gas (internet/power) for the car to work and I bought a house (console) to drive to, why the hell am I paying taxes to help build and repair roads (network infrastructure)?!"
The gating off of features in a game you already paid for behind an unrelated subscription fee is always bad news for the consumer.Steven Bogos said:
Now I would say that Playstation Plus is actually worth the subscription fee on it's own without withholding multiplayer, so it's not nearly as bad as the crap Microsoft pulled for years with Xbox Live, but that the service itself is worth it doesn't make the multiplayer aspect suddenly perfectly fine for consumers. If you pay $60 for a game that includes multiplayer, that should be all you pay. Getting nickel and dimed beyond that is not acceptable.
Xbox Live set an absolutely horrid precedent years ago and it's disappointing to see Sony follow suit.
I think this is a rather justified cost, running servers to play on is not cheap. Even though a lot of PC-users will never pay this cost but renting a dedicated server for your online shooter can set you back up to a dollar per player per month and this for only one game and you don't get anything besides it. Online play was never actually free to begin with so it seems fair to me.
I've got the feeling they are doing this for logical reasons and aren't doing it to just make more money (which is what Microsoft has been doing with all the advertising on their system that is view-able from the front end of the dash board). They are allowing indies to self publish, meaning there's no licensing fee they have to pay Sony in order to put their games up. In addition, they are doing server upgrades, which likely means better voice chat and other features that were semi-ignored on the PS3.Spot1990 said:
I totally understand people who don't like having to pay a fee to use the internet enabled features of a game they purchased, though. We want to be able to choose where we spend our money, and being forced to pay a fee for something that is likely an essential function of a system isn't fun.
While I don't have a problem with PS Plus (I have it already for my PS3, free games are never a bad thing), this is a disappointment. Then again, I don't plan on purchasing any of the new consoles anyway. To many features that I don't want, not enough of the stuff I do want. Getting ready for the building of a PC beast!
The topic of next week's Jimquisition has been decided I think.
PS+ at least gives good value for money but I'm still not pleased to think that the business practices of MS are infecting the other consoles.
But now I must say: OMG P$4 RUINED!!!!! CHANGE IT NAOO!!!!!1
There, maybe now they'll reverse this decision before release.
PS+ at least gives good value for money but I'm still not pleased to think that the business practices of MS are infecting the other consoles.
But now I must say: OMG P$4 RUINED!!!!! CHANGE IT NAOO!!!!!1
There, maybe now they'll reverse this decision before release.
I avoided paying for xbox live since the xbox 360 came out and I bought one. Never even used my free month. Why? Well back then it was $15 a month if I remember right (at least for month to month) and that just seemed crazy. I had a Ps3 and it was free on that system, so I got my multiplayer games on the Ps3 and was happy.
Many years later (actually fairly recently, like a year ago, I signed up for Playstation plus. Why? Because of all the free games. I have paid I don't know...maybe $60? All together.....for a ton of good games.....paying way less then $5 a pop for games I actually played and enjoyed. I also got free backup cloud save games (no clue if xbox does/did that), and auto-updates etc. I have been very pleased with what I have gotten for my money.
So going forward the fact that it's required to play online games (which btw...isn't 100% confirmed. There are multiplayer MMO type games that could require ps +...while many normal games may still have free multiplayer online support like now....Sony as far as I know has not made an official announcement about this yet) isn't going to affect me. I have oh about 2 years worth of paying for PS+ with NO MORE free games before I would even start to consider it a bad deal....and well, I'm pretty sure they are going to keep releasing them.
Also, I'm curious if the PS3 games we have gotten so far from PS+ will run on our PS4s? Allowing for backwards compatibility to some degree. Imagine if all those games we have gotten for free (or at a discount) will still be available on the Ps4 now? That would freaking rock.
I'm glad Xbox eventually dropped to $5 a month, but to me, it's STILL $5 a month for basically nothing (just being able to play games online/multiplayer..which I rarely do anyway). Sony's system on the other hand gave me way more bang for my buck game wise then I could have gotten buying used games even in bargain bins. I never felt cheated at all, and I just don't see that changing anytime soon.
Many years later (actually fairly recently, like a year ago, I signed up for Playstation plus. Why? Because of all the free games. I have paid I don't know...maybe $60? All together.....for a ton of good games.....paying way less then $5 a pop for games I actually played and enjoyed. I also got free backup cloud save games (no clue if xbox does/did that), and auto-updates etc. I have been very pleased with what I have gotten for my money.
So going forward the fact that it's required to play online games (which btw...isn't 100% confirmed. There are multiplayer MMO type games that could require ps +...while many normal games may still have free multiplayer online support like now....Sony as far as I know has not made an official announcement about this yet) isn't going to affect me. I have oh about 2 years worth of paying for PS+ with NO MORE free games before I would even start to consider it a bad deal....and well, I'm pretty sure they are going to keep releasing them.
Also, I'm curious if the PS3 games we have gotten so far from PS+ will run on our PS4s? Allowing for backwards compatibility to some degree. Imagine if all those games we have gotten for free (or at a discount) will still be available on the Ps4 now? That would freaking rock.
I'm glad Xbox eventually dropped to $5 a month, but to me, it's STILL $5 a month for basically nothing (just being able to play games online/multiplayer..which I rarely do anyway). Sony's system on the other hand gave me way more bang for my buck game wise then I could have gotten buying used games even in bargain bins. I never felt cheated at all, and I just don't see that changing anytime soon.
This is hardly the kind of news that will kill Sony. Does it suck considering PS3 currently doesn't do it? Yes. But let's face it, PS+ is a lot more than just MP access. Free games every month, beta access to new games, full game trials, discounts, cloud saves, and auto system updates...worth it.
I see a few questions that will need to be answered regarding the multiplayer gate. For one, does this mean that Sony's providing their own servers for multiplayer? I would assume so, as the reason they never charged for multiplayer was that it was the publisher's job to provide the servers up until now. My guess is this was another point that publishers and developers wanted to change, and it offers indie developers an easy way to make an online game without having to worry about server upkeep. This also has the potential bonus that Sony's in charge of when online is cut off for games... sadly I'm guessing publishers like EA or Ubisoft will still use their own servers, but you never know. It'd be nice if Sony had say on when servers were shut down rather than having major publishers make it a surprise.
The other question I have is whether the MMOs coming out with be part of the plan as well. Most MMOs that come out wouldn't normally have a subscription nowadays anyway, but knowing that you have access to all MMOs with the PS+ service as well would be another perk to the unfortunate change.
The other question I have is whether the MMOs coming out with be part of the plan as well. Most MMOs that come out wouldn't normally have a subscription nowadays anyway, but knowing that you have access to all MMOs with the PS+ service as well would be another perk to the unfortunate change.
Well, not exactly free games. Netflix isn't free movies. My question is, will we still get current big budget games and all that for the same price after they get all the online gamers and MS refugees? If they know people are going to pay anyway, just to play, they may not be okay giving away games they can sell for some hay. Sorry, I was channeling Roadblock there for a sec.Viper114 said:
The shame of it is that it was one of the main reasons I got a ps3 over a 360. Christ, you don't think the ps3 is going to incorporate a rrod too, do you? That was the other thing that had me running from the 360...top speed.
The surprisingly positive attitude of this comment thread really shows the good will Sony has earned from their e3 conference. I agree that requiring it kind of sucks but its only for online games. If I wasn't already a ps+ subscriber for the benefit of free games and cloud sync then I wouldn't have gotten it on the ps4 because I never play online. Xbox Gold on the other hand is needed for basic features like using Internet Explorer and they charge it on top of dashboard advertisements
Maybe this kind of charge is actually needed to maintain online servers but I don't know, I never use xbox live so I don't know how its online compares to psn but I hear its "better"
Maybe this kind of charge is actually needed to maintain online servers but I don't know, I never use xbox live so I don't know how its online compares to psn but I hear its "better"
I don't mind it if it still includes all the perks PS+ offers now.
Sony said not long after PS3 came out that their next console would more than likely require a payed subscription for online play.
Nothing really beats free but if they offer a reliable connection then I don't mind paying $5 a month.
Sony said not long after PS3 came out that their next console would more than likely require a payed subscription for online play.
Nothing really beats free but if they offer a reliable connection then I don't mind paying $5 a month.
I would think being able to download, play and hold onto a bunch of games without needing to pay anything extra constitutes being "free". It's PS Plus that costs $50 for a year, while the games themselves are given away free of charge. But that's just semantics at this point.GonzoGamer said:
Bottom line is, PS+ is worth it.
I'm willing to pay for online so long as I feel that I'm getting my monies worth. And with free games every month (and not shovelware either) along with the other stuff I'm happy to shell out $5 a month for PS+
It's still a hell of a lot more appealing than the Xbone.
It's still a hell of a lot more appealing than the Xbone.
Free is free. It's not like you get to keep the games after the subscription expires. Plus is like netflix for games: a monthly fee to get instant access to games. It's a better value than netflix or gamefly (right now at least) but it's not Xmas.Viper114 said:
Is it worth it? If you get enough time to play, sure. That's the thing, some people don't have enough time to make use of something like Plus to make it worth anything more than multiplayer access.