Sony Demands Cash For PlayStation 4 Online Play

[Necrofudge]

And for a second I almost considered buying a console for the new generation. With the increased reliance of "online features" in newly released titles, this seems like it's going to be more... mandatory than it was on the Xbox 360.

Thanks, Sony! Thanks for convincing me to stick with my PC. I might just buy a new motherboard and CPU with that money I would have wasted.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

As an Xbox 360 user, this does not discourage me from preparing to buy a PS4. What does discourage me is that these next-generation consoles are becoming more and more alike. If Xbox drops the Kinect, then I will have no idea what to do.

 

[Covarr]

I'm sorry, but Sony's biggest claim to console war dominance was never free online multiplayer; it was, at least in my opinion, its exclusives. This won't change that.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

Free online play was the reason I was going to switch consoles dammit! Has anyone heard how much it will cost......

 

[Church185]

Free online play was the reason I was going to switch consoles dammit! Has anyone heard how much it will cost......

From what I have read it will still be $50 a year like it is now, but it will count towards all 3 Sony consoles (provided you have all 3). This means if you have a Vita and a PS4, you'll gain free games and discounts for both systems for the price of one subscription.

 

[Jaden Kazega]

Then don't pay for it...? I really don't see what the huge fuss is over all of this. Is 50 dollars over the span of an entire year really that crippling? That's roughly the price of one meal of fast food a month, even more, depending on where you're eating at. I can list off so many other things that they could be doing with this, but aren't, and all you have to do is look at Microsoft: Sony won't wall you off from Netflix or Flixter because you're not PS+, they'll still allow online features of games to work without PS+, truly F2P titles like Planetside 2 and Elder Scrolls Online won't require PS+, all of which Microsoft does and will do if you aren't paying for Xbox Live Gold.

Then again, I used to grow up on MMO's, so a $4-5 monthly fee doesn't sound all that bad to me, considering the old pay-to-play MMO model was $15 a month.

Which is on the PC platform, might I add....

 

[Bluestorm83]

Paying for internet twice is something im just not willing to do. Going to stay pc.

You're not paying for the system's online capability, just paying for their servers that handle all the Multiplayer crap. You'd still be able to go online or watch Neckflits or peruse the Hulules or whatever you young kids do these days.

 

[Irridium]

It should be worth noting that free-to-play games and MMO's WON'T require PS+.

Free online play was the reason I was going to switch consoles dammit! Has anyone heard how much it will cost......

$50 a year. So $10 cheaper than XBL and it offers way more value.

 

[KeyMaster45]

This was all explained at E3 two weeks ago, so how is this news?

 

[Tanakh]

And once again I am impressed at how well Sony PR team is handling this launch, a declaration like this

Too paraphrase Yahtzee.

Micro$oft did most of the work for them

No, it really didn't. MS created the opportunity but it was Sony that took the initiative to punish hard; from the info after E3 we can see that Sony wanted to push online much more aggressively and had a higher price with an integrated camera, they modified their whole product/pitch in a very short lapse of time.

To use a fighting game analogy, MS did an unsafe move, but it was Sony that took the maximum damage punish to win the round.

 

[nevarran]

Simply put: Providing stable, online gameplay is expensive.

Really? Who's providing it on PC, and why aren't they complaining about how expensive it is?...

 

[Quiotu]

Funny, none of the PC games I buy that are cross console release feel the need to charge me extra for online play... Sounds like some serious bullshit to me, but console gamers are welcome to it if they are so eager to gobble it up.

I was considering getting a PS4 for the next gen (to play games from developers that are too retarded to figure out how to release a game on PC) before they announced this. Guess I will just hold off on any next gen consoles and wait for them to drop in price and get a few decent condition used consoles out.

This is a bad comparison, and you should feel bad for bringing it up. Are all PCs made by one manufacturer? Are your games' multiplayer servers being kept by your PC manufacturer?

Microsoft beat Sony in the online department last generation by having people pay for online, which gave them the money to provide and upkeep their own servers. Their online is faster, more reliable, and publishers don't need to use their own servers for Xbox 360 multiplayer. Sony went with the PC style and had the publishers upkeep their own servers, but Sony still needs servers for the store, the cloud, and for patches. And their servers are pretty awful because it's a free service and upkeep cost were eaten by Sony until now.

If you want to blame someone for this change, blame console gamers who preferred Microsoft's paid reliable online versus Sony's free terrible online. Gamers wanted better service, publishers wanted better service, so Sony's hands were tied on the issue really.

 

[Daymo]

Funny, none of the PC games I buy that are cross console release feel the need to charge me extra for online play... Sounds like some serious bullshit to me, but console gamers are welcome to it if they are so eager to gobble it up.

I was considering getting a PS4 for the next gen (to play games from developers that are too retarded to figure out how to release a game on PC) before they announced this. Guess I will just hold off on any next gen consoles and wait for them to drop in price and get a few decent condition used consoles out.

You know that it's individuals or game groups that pay for the servers on the computer. Every single server on TF2 I went on asked for donations, not mandatory or anything, but people are still paying for servers, it's just not you paying for it, but someone else.

 

[Hagi]

The whole subscription includes free monthly games right?

If so then I'd say this falls into the Steam category of things.

Just like steam is DRM but offers such good deals and convenience to make it worth it to me, the consumer, as long as you get something back that makes it worth paying for, instead of just paying twice for your internet, then it's cool.

 

[Quiotu]

Funny, none of the PC games I buy that are cross console release feel the need to charge me extra for online play... Sounds like some serious bullshit to me, but console gamers are welcome to it if they are so eager to gobble it up.

I was considering getting a PS4 for the next gen (to play games from developers that are too retarded to figure out how to release a game on PC) before they announced this. Guess I will just hold off on any next gen consoles and wait for them to drop in price and get a few decent condition used consoles out.

This is a bad comparison, and you should feel bad for bringing it up. Are all PCs made by one manufacturer? Are your games' multiplayer servers being kept by your PC manufacturer?

PC games also don't have a cut going to a hardware manufacturer either.

They already get a damn good bit of money for each console game that is released on their hardware, god forbid they use some of that money to keep their servers going well and supporting the game..

They do, but it doesn't last forever. Big publishers like EA shut down servers after a while because the upkeep isn't worth it anymore. Sony's servers starting with the PS4 are going to be responsible for streaming, patching, digital downloads, game multiplayer, live chat, and a myriad of other services. You ask them to use the cut of profits to keep the services up, but what if Sony's losing money out of the deal?

Sony has three choices then. Match a subscription Microsoft's already doing, except Sony's is cheaper and offers more. That's what they're actually doing. The other choices would be to increase the cost of the hardware itself, which is only a one-time cost, isn't optional, and the effects would be negligible. Or they increase the cost of the games themselves, creating a stream of profits to help, but it also isn't optional, and lets Microsoft undercut their game prices.

No one's saying PC's system isn't better, but the PC's situation is vastly different than consoles, and Microsoft proved that the console market isn't ready to shift to PC's market practices.

 

[talideon]

Paying for internet twice is something im just not willing to do. Going to stay pc.

You're not actually paying twice. The fee your pay to your ISP doesn't cover the cost of the servers, CPU time, bandwidth, power, cooling, rackspace, security, network engineer time, and system administrator time on the other side. If multiplayer working in a completely peer-to-peer fashion, you'd have a point, but it doesn't.

I work for a hosting company, so I'm all too aware of the costs involved. Somebody has to bear the cost. On PC, if it weren't for people paying for a colocated or dedicated server in some datacentre somewhere, and thus subsidising your gaming experience, then there wouldn't be free servers for you to play on. Also, if you're not paying for it, there's no way you can expect a quality service.

It's cool that you're sticking with gaming on PC, but keep in mind that the quality of multiplayer on PC outside of subscription services is dependent on the generosity of others, and isn't covered by the fact that you have a broadband connection.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I find it funny that PS3 fans laughed at the dumb 360 getting raped in the wallet to play online. Now PS4 is doing the same thing, you dont hear a peep out of them. Bunch of hypocrite fanboys. There are no complaints or moaning or anything, they just say "Thats fine" and bend over. lol Sorry, but i find that funny.