Sony Demands Cash For PlayStation 4 Online Play

[WeepingAngels]

I am not quite understanding you, but i can't stand the new Ps4 online costs because the Ps3 let you play online for free, new consoles should add more things rather than take them away, if the Ps3 required you to pay to play online, i (probably) wouldn't be very upset about this

I play games online often enough that this affect me, but no often enough that i may be getting my money's worth, i don't know if it a logical reason to not like this, but it might not be since i am not exactly on good terms with logic(i was once cutting carrots with a sword, it didn't end well)

The ps3 straddled a generation of gaming where online console gaming became more of a norm than the exception. Thanks to Halo, COD, and several other shooters, the cost of server farms to process them skyrocketed and is likely the reason why Sony implemented the ps+ program to try and defray those costs to make it out of the generation. This is why the Xbox has always had this. They knew what they wanted Halo to be and were ahead of the game. Had Sony predicted the move, they may very well have done the same back then.

If you do not play multiplayer games, do not become a ps+ member. It's only necessary for multiplayer sessions. If you do, then understand that you are using a road and so you're paying taxes to maintain that road. The bigger/better the road, the faster you can get from point A to point B and the less crowded (lag) it feels. Demanding that Sony maintain current gen servers at a loss when the game has quite literally changed is pretty unrealistic.

You make it sound like paid online gaming is the norm. It's not, up til now it was only Microsoft charging for online play.

 

[Lightknight]

You make it sound like paid online gaming is the norm. It's not, up til now it was only Microsoft charging for online play.

The volume of traffic and the demands on the network (such as constant security) has never been anywhere close to this. All this stuff is exploding. I don't know if you were on the FPS scene before Halo 2 and such but we suffered through some much laggier stuff before Microsoft changed a lot of that. So no, I didn't make it sound like it's the norm. Microsoft has been doing it for some time though.

Wow, these online leaderboards must be really expensive to maintain.
Poor console peasants :'(

Do you perhaps have any information on exactly what online services Microsoft and Sony do or do not provide? It's my understanding that the Sony servers are the hub through which all things pass.

 

[WeepingAngels]

You make it sound like paid online gaming is the norm. It's not, up til now it was only Microsoft charging for online play.

The volume of traffic and the demands on the network (such as constant security) has never been anywhere close to this. All this stuff is exploding. I don't know if you were on the FPS scene before Halo 2 and such but we suffered through some much laggier stuff before Microsoft changed a lot of that. So no, I didn't make it sound like it's the norm. Microsoft has been doing it for some time though.

I don't play online but I have watched my son play Halo 2 online on the PC, didn't seem laggy and it doesn't cost anything extra.

 

[Lightknight]

You make it sound like paid online gaming is the norm. It's not, up til now it was only Microsoft charging for online play.

The volume of traffic and the demands on the network (such as constant security) has never been anywhere close to this. All this stuff is exploding. I don't know if you were on the FPS scene before Halo 2 and such but we suffered through some much laggier stuff before Microsoft changed a lot of that. So no, I didn't make it sound like it's the norm. Microsoft has been doing it for some time though.

I don't play online but I have watched my son play Halo 2 online on the PC, didn't seem laggy and it doesn't cost anything extra.

It came out on the pc (2007)several years after it came out on the Xbox (2004) and was only playable on Window's Vista (unless you ran a 3rd party patch). I hardly think the pc servers were hit anywhere nearly as hard as the Xbox ones were. Please understand, significantly more traffic changes the demands proportionately.

I'm also honestly not so sure those servers aren't one in the same, with Xbox accounts subsidizing the pc version. But that last bit is just nonsense speculation. I don't know who hosted the servers or where.

 

[WeepingAngels]

You make it sound like paid online gaming is the norm. It's not, up til now it was only Microsoft charging for online play.

The volume of traffic and the demands on the network (such as constant security) has never been anywhere close to this. All this stuff is exploding. I don't know if you were on the FPS scene before Halo 2 and such but we suffered through some much laggier stuff before Microsoft changed a lot of that. So no, I didn't make it sound like it's the norm. Microsoft has been doing it for some time though.

I don't play online but I have watched my son play Halo 2 online on the PC, didn't seem laggy and it doesn't cost anything extra.

It came out on the pc (2007)several years after it came out on the Xbox (2004) and was only playable on Window's Vista (unless you ran a 3rd party patch). I hardly think the pc servers were hit anywhere nearly as hard as the Xbox ones were. Please understand, significantly more traffic changes the demands proportionately.

I'm also honestly not so sure those servers aren't one in the same, with Xbox accounts subsidizing the pc version. But that last bit is just nonsense speculation. I don't know who hosted the servers or where.

LOL @ Xbox accounts subsidizing the PC version. What about PC games that don't have an Xbox counterpart, how are those subsidized?

It's ok though, keep making excuses for having to pay extra for online play, I don't mind.

 

[Lightknight]

LOL @ Xbox accounts subsidizing the PC version. What about PC games that don't have an Xbox counterpart, how are those subsidized?

It's ok though, keep making excuses for having to pay extra for online play, I don't mind.

Name the ones that didn't have significant lag until this current generation. I remember lagging the hell out of 1942, Tribes, and a few other games that didn't make it to the console. Didn't matter where you were, from your home if you had decent internet to the gaming cafes that sprung up across the country for a bit there that had a speedy connection and powerful machines.

You have a kid and you're on a gaming site, so I at least assume you were aware of some of these games at the time. Can you think of any particular FPS games that didn't have a console counterpart but never had a regular lag/disconnect problem?

To be entirely fair to you, there are several modern games that don't have console counterparts but appear to be doing reasonably well. Like Chivalry. It's got it's problems and yes it does lag out of control sometimes, but it performs better than the games I mentioned did.

But again, PC gaming does not have the volume that consoles do. In cases where the volume is the same, it's either a game from a developer that IS already being propped up by the console version or they are known for having massive servers like WOW (and WoW occasionally made me step away from my computer for months because of the lag). You can think of these as "excuses". But at the end of the day you don't have to buy it. So don't.

You say you watched your son played a FPS a few times and felt like the lag wasn't so bad and that this observation makes you a resource on the subject as a whole. That's your prerogative to think and I'm not Sony's PR. If you genuinely think that Sony is just making a money grab just because they can and not just trying to stay competitive with their online services then don't give them money. At least that's one person sticking to the morals on something these days. I think you're wrong, but that doesn't really matter.

 

[Black Reaper]

I am not quite understanding you, but i can't stand the new Ps4 online costs because the Ps3 let you play online for free, new consoles should add more things rather than take them away, if the Ps3 required you to pay to play online, i (probably) wouldn't be very upset about this

I play games online often enough that this affect me, but no often enough that i may be getting my money's worth, i don't know if it a logical reason to not like this, but it might not be since i am not exactly on good terms with logic(i was once cutting carrots with a sword, it didn't end well)

The ps3 straddled a generation of gaming where online console gaming became more of a norm than the exception. Thanks to Halo, COD, and several other shooters, the cost of server farms to process them skyrocketed and is likely the reason why Sony implemented the ps+ program to try and defray those costs to make it out of the generation. This is why the Xbox has always had this. They knew what they wanted Halo to be and were ahead of the game. Had Sony predicted the move, they may very well have done the same back then.

If you do not play multiplayer games, do not become a ps+ member. It's only necessary for multiplayer sessions. If you do, then understand that you are using a road and so you're paying taxes to maintain that road. The bigger/better the road, the faster you can get from point A to point B and the less crowded (lag) it feels. Demanding that Sony maintain current gen servers at a loss when the game has quite literally changed is pretty unrealistic.

You have a point, i still hate it, but you have a point

I just realized this, but the Vita is the only next-gen console i like, the Pc looks superior to both the Ps4 and Xbone, i might get a Wii U, but if my Wii is any indication, i will barely use it
The only things the consoles have going for them is it seems Japanese devs like them more, and i like Japanese games