Sony Demands Cash For PlayStation 4 Online Play

[Oskuro]

Maybe it's my age speaking, but there was a time where games with online functionality did not depend on the publisher maintaining online servers. You could create your own or search for other player-created servers for free.

I already pay for my internet connection, I see no reason to pay extra to use said connection.

But, as is their longterm plan, since younger people have come aboard in a time where publisher-controlled online features is the norm, this isn't seen as the insulting attempt at consumer control it has always been... Because now it's "normal".


I'll keep hosting servers to play decades old games online with my friends, thank you very much.

 

[JetFury]

If they could make it cost 5 dollars a year just for online use I would give them respect for it

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I don't play online games so this doesn't affect me, yay!

Seriously though, it seems most of the vitriol surrounding gaming these days stems from some form of exploitation of internet connectivity. I'm so glad that I don't feel the need to bother with any of it.

 

[Kahani]

The reason? Simply put: Providing stable, online gameplay is expensive.

And yet for some reason I don't have to pay a PC manufacturer to go online. Because that would be stupid. I pay for my internet connection, whoever hosts the game server pays for theirs, and the person who made the hardware I happen to be using has absolutely fuck all do with anything. This is what happens when you voluntarily lock yourself inside a walled garden - the person who owns it will take every opportunity to fuck you over.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

(big Post)

Can I play Journey? Or Destiny? Or The Division? Or Armored Core Verdict Day? If yes then I will more than happy to switch to a PC because those are games that I actually want to play, not Deus Ex or Prince of Persia. If not, then don't try and convince me to shell out $500 of well earned money for some lousy hardware that I will probably never use.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries and World of Tanks from time to time, but I rarely play them because I play consoles more.

Technically you can't play Destiny or Division anywhere yet. And such things as "Ah, yeah, we're actually also making a PC version" do appear prior to game's release.
You can play Planescape, Fallout, DayZ, Dota 2, the real Team Fortress 2, Hard Reset, Natural Selection 2
Lemme tell you something, pal: early this year I made a move I regret and instead of upgrading my PC bought a piece of lousy hardware I barely use. Fucking PS3.

I ain't your pal, and I would feel the same if I bought a bunch of upgrades for my crummy PC, which I'd barely use for gaming.

Plus, you forgot Journey and Armored Core, two console only games. If I can't play those on a PC, sorry I'll pass because none of the games your suggesting interest me.....

Look it all boils down to personal preference. I prefer console game because I am most familiar with consoles. Plus, I'd rather spend $50 a year and be able to get it all back quickly than $500 and not be able to make it all back quickly

 

[SpAc3man]

I gaze down from my lofty heights and I pity the lowly who must suffer.
They see my power and shake their fists in a fit of envy, rage and fear. Fear of the power of freedom.

Master Race FTW.

 

[Whytewulf]

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....

Agreed.. I am not sure why everyone wants something for free these days and then they complain about the quality. It's one thing if you can't access Netflix, which you pay a monthly online service fee already. But getting the online benefit of most games, probably does cost them money. And they do add other things. But in the end.. if you want to play online, with high quality $50 a year, should be ok.

 

[theApoc]

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

No it isn't. It is exactly the same. Saying PSN is more value than XBL is laughable. At best they are the same, at worst XBL is FAR superior in terms of service, quality and content.

And for people complaining about the prices of XBL and PSN, this is the ONLY pricing scheme that makes sense with these two companies. Get on their butts about how expensive games are, not about a minimal fee to be an entertainment hub.

 

[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.

Mildly strange that they pass the cost onto the consumer instead of the people making the games >.>.

I wonder if the back of the games will say "Costs additional fee to use multiplayer."

I don't really care since I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, play multiplayer online.

But it is a little strange. Just a smidge.

Oh, I get what you're saying, 100%. But it's just a fact of the industry at the moment that major game studios pay WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much to make their games already. It's why the new Tomb Raider sold almost 18 trillion copies (Fake Number, but it DID sell a huge amount) and was considered a failure because the money they brought in didn't justify the expense. At the same time, a game like Dark Souls sold only 6 copies (Another fake number, but their sales were less than 1% of the Tomb Raider sales if I remember correctly,) but it only took them around a buck sixty four to make that game, so they made way more than they needed to start work on the sequel.

As such, the publishers, who hold all the power in the console world, say "We can't cover the cost of multiplayer services without a fee." Last generation, Microsoft was smart enough to unify it all in their service, for a fee that was still less expensive than my WoW subscription, but Sony left everyone to their own devices. Some games took the initiative and covered the cost themselves, hoping that the added multiplayer functionality would drive more sales. Others asked for their own separate registrations and fees, hoping that the quality of the product would coerce people into paying it.

The only way that this will ever end is with the growth and metamorphosis of the internet itself. When the internet is bigger, faster, more convenient, available everywhere, free, and somehow also not Skynet, THEN we can get 100% free multiplayer services. But at the moment in the non-star trek present things still cost things. And things only come from things. That's one of Newton's Laws, right? Like he said, sitting back with a bottle of scotch in his hand, and blowing Cigar smoke from his lungs, "Shit gotta come from somewhere, *****, so it might as well come from you."

 

[Lightknight]

Translation: Servers that are capable of carrying the load that today's online games require cost enough money to put a company without online service charges at a significant disadvantage. Like before playstation plus when the online games were a lot laggier. The ps+ gave them some breathing room but this move is going to solve the problem. It was a necessary move and not even an evil. At least this is something we'll actually benefit from and not just an arbitrarily decided move that reeks of greed to hurt consumers.

 

[Black Reaper]

I hope hack and slash titles, jrpgs, fighting games and plataformers become more common on Pc one of these days, i would hate to miss out on them
This new generation looks like shit, the thing i liked more about the ps3 was that you could use the internet for free, and the d-pad and shoulder buttons were better(the xbox bumpers were about as durable as the early 360s)
Previously, ps+ looked appealing, it actually looked like a good deal(unlike xbox-live), but now it is turning into the same thing i hated last gen

 

[Lightknight]

Previously, ps+ looked appealing, it actually looked like a good deal(unlike xbox-live), but now it is turning into the same thing i hated last gen

? It's still the same deal? Does it being necessary somehow change the content?

 

[Covarr]

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

No it isn't. It is exactly the same. Saying PSN is more value than XBL is laughable. At best they are the same, at worst XBL is FAR superior in terms of service, quality and content.

And for people complaining about the prices of XBL and PSN, this is the ONLY pricing scheme that makes sense with these two companies. Get on their butts about how expensive games are, not about a minimal fee to be an entertainment hub.

Oh snap, Xbox Live gold costs $5 a month now. They used to charge $60 a year, I wasn't aware they'd changed it. My bad.

At any rate, this isn't just PSN access. This still has everything PS+ already had, namely a shitload of games, and discounts on the PSN store. Yeah, the basic online service is mediocre at best, but I get the impression that's exactly why they're charging for it now; presumably, this'll help them to bring it up to XBL Gold quality. Even if it doesn't reach that point... it's still got all the PS+ stuff it already does, and is therefore still a better deal.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Black Reaper]

Previously, ps+ looked appealing, it actually looked like a good deal(unlike xbox-live), but now it is turning into the same thing i hated last gen

? It's still the same deal? Does it being necessary somehow change the content?

Before, it looked attractive because it was completely optional, it didn't affect the games you already owned, now if you don't have it, all your multiplayer games will suffer for it
I didn't completely understand your reply, so mine might not make much sense

I think this just applies to Multiplayer, you can still buy things on the store without having PS+ unlike Xbox Live.

You can buy things from xbox live without having a gold membership

 

[scorptatious]

So I'm not 100% sure on this, does this apply to going to the Playstation Store and buying stuff off of there as well? Or does it just apply to multiplayer? I do remember XBOX Live had a Silver membership that was free which allowed you to access other online features that wasn't multiplayer.

If that's the case, I'm okay with this. I don't really play online multiplayer all that much anymore besides Skullgirls.

 

[Roxas1359]

So I'm not 100% sure on this, does this apply to going to the Playstation Store and buying stuff off of there as well? Or does it just apply to multiplayer? I do remember XBOX Live had a Silver membership that was free which allowed you to access other online features that wasn't multiplayer.

If that's the case, I'm okay with this. I don't really play online multiplayer all that much anymore besides Skullgirls.

I think this just applies to Multiplayer, you can still buy things on the store without having PS+ unlike Xbox Live.

 

[Dendio]

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.

Ill remember to thank EA for my "free" mass effect 3 multiplayer then

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Not that big a deal, really. Surprised it hasn't happened sooner, though I'm glad it didn't.