Sony: Keeping PSN Free on PS4 Would Have Been Too "Hard"

[MrHide-Patten]

Never play online multiplayer myself but I've got PSN+, the free games and the extra functions make it worth it for me. Just so long as they keep adding games to the instant game collection then I'd say it would almost definitely pay off over time. And they've probably been doing the poorest financially out of the big three, so if an extra $70 goes towards keeping my favorite boat afloat then I'm fine with it.

But then I have money and I hate online multiplayer, so I'm not the market they need to worry about.

 

[The_Echo]

Considering PS+ is a great service... it kind of pays for itself, between all the free games and discounts and stuff.

I almost never play online, but if I could afford it I would still get PS+ just because it's really fuckin' good.

And at least it's only multiplayer locked behind a paywall. On Xbox just about every online service is locked into Live, including things you might already be paying for. And I believe free-to-play games won't require PS+ either.

So... could be worse.

But of course the resident mustard race has to smug it up as usual.

 

[immortalfrieza]

OK, then get ready for more expensive games

No, I'm going to get ready for games that cost the same as they always have and for Sony to drop this B.S. online fee. If that doesn't happen, then screw those guys.

I don't even PLAY multiplayer, I'm pissed about this solely on principle. They really think that their customers are too stupid to know when they're being scammed, the sad thing is that there's probably going to be plenty of blind fans that prove them right, judging by a number of the comments here that say something akin to "what's the big deal?" This kind of "I don't give a crap no matter how much they screw me" attitude is the reason why the industry has been going down the toilet the last few years.

 

[Something Amyss]

To put this article simply, Sony wants to charge for a once free feature solely out of greed but they don't want to admit it to everybody because it would show what Sony really thinks of their customers: as nothing more than gullible walking wallets.

To be fair, gamers have demonstrated they'd pay for online and even a paywall on the PS4 has been no significant deterrent to the console's sales.

Maybe they will start treating us like something other than walking wallets when we stop acting like something other than walking wallets.

I mean, surprise! A corporation wants more money. We're supposed to guard against such things as consumers.

 

[immortalfrieza]

To be fair, gamers have demonstrated they'd pay for online and even a paywall on the PS4 has been no significant deterrent to the console's sales.

Maybe they will start treating us like something other than walking wallets when we stop acting like something other than walking wallets.

I mean, surprise! A corporation wants more money. We're supposed to guard against such things as consumers.

Exactly, but most of what I've been getting here is "stop your griping" or "they're justified" or "so what?" for being one of the few who's not willing to put up with this blatantly exploitative crap.

 

[clippen05]

Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

$4 a month so $48 dollars a year, so $240 every five years. $240 every five years can buy me a graphics card to play PC games with that DON'T charge for multiplayer and already cost less.

Just because its $4 makes it okay to charge for features that are given for free elsewhere? (Steam, WiiU) Just because your okay with being nickel and dimed to death does not make it okay.

 

[Sarge034]

So unless the PSN gets a complete overhaul to make it on par with Live (gold) Sony is full of shit. If they leave the PSN as is then all they wanted was to tap into a previously untapped money source. How do you do that when free games aren't convincing everyone to make the jump? Why you put multiplayer behind a pay wall of course. If the standard of service increases however, then it is an acceptable cost.

 

[Annihilist]

The Xbox Live Service is $80 annually - and that's the inflated AUD price. It amounts to almost nothing in the long run. But what it does is create an incentive to keep the service running, and running well. The PSN could be the most hideously designed online service on the planet, and they wouldn't have any obligation to amend it because no one paid for it. It creates accountability.

As well as this, it makes people less likely to create ~ten accounts, which is more than a little annoying.

It doesn't cost that much, so get over it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Exactly, but most of what I've been getting here is "stop your griping" or "they're justified" or "so what?" for being one of the few who's not willing to put up with this blatantly exploitative crap.

Unfortunately, that's par for the course with bad consumerism. People try and justify making bad choices by yelling at others for thinking they're bad choices.

Just because your okay with being nickel and dimed to death does not make it okay.

Well, your leaving out a part of his vary post. His okay with it in part because they are deal gives him a bunch of games, a feature added before it was mandatory. Plus does offer some suite deals, including decent free games. This presents a positive argument in favour of PS Plus. Does it warrant or justify the mandatory nature? Know, but you are response seems to leave out the primary advantage being offered. Granted, the 'quit you're bitching' was holy uncalled four, but that doesn't seem to be the part you took issue with.

For the record, I'm a subscriber to Plus because the game lineup is worth the 4 bucks a month. I still object to the compulsory portion for the Playstation For.I think it wood be better to make it optional and let the pros speak for themselves.

 

[Annihilist]

Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

$4 a month so $48 dollars a year, so $240 every five years. $240 every five years can buy me a graphics card to play PC games with that DON'T charge for multiplayer and already cost less.

Just because its $4 makes it okay to charge for features that are given for free elsewhere? (Steam, WiiU) Just because your okay with being nickel and dimed to death does not make it okay.

Then buy your graphics card and play PC games. You can spend your money on that, while we spend our money on console online gaming where we don't need to buy graphics cards and other expensive hardware.

Gaming will always require financial maintenance of some kind, it seems. Whether you trade of one for another is a matter of personal preference, and therefore irrelevant. If you don't want it, don't buy it.

 

[Something Amyss]

The Xbox Live Service is $80 annually - and that's the inflated AUD price. It amounts to almost nothing in the long run.

I hear your minimum wage is like twice ours.

But what it does is create an incentive to keep the service running, and running well.

Huh. That's strange. They shut down the Xbox servers, which were paid. They spent the first five years of Live for the 360 with annual outages. Were we just not paying enough?

The PSN could be the most hideously designed online service on the planet, and they wouldn't have any obligation to amend it because no one paid for it.

They did amend many problems without said obligation, so maybe this is a bad argument.

It creates accountability.

BANK accountability.

As well as this, it makes people less likely to create ~ten accounts, which is more than a little annoying.

Which is it? Is the fee for online services trivial, or is it prohibitive?

Besides, this simply hasn't worked on XBL. Why would we assume it would work on PSN?

It doesn't cost that much, so get over it.

I'll remember this the next time an Aussie complains about game prices. I do appreciate the honesty, though. That's the crux of your argument: you don't mind paying for it. the rest is just pretense.

 

[Something Amyss]

You can spend your money on that, while we spend our money on console online gaming where we don't need to buy graphics cards and other expensive hardware.

Except buying overpriced consoles that underperform, and overpriced peripherals, and more expensive games....

But hey, I support freedom of choice for consumers. If you want to rock an overpriced quasi-PC because you don't have to buy "expensive" hardware like graphics cards, by all means. Come December, we'll both be playing on two year old hardware. the difference is that mine will run better and not be locked to specs from two years ago.

You know, I really hate sounding like one of the "PC Gaming Master Race," but seriously. This is a bad argument.

 

[Caiphus]

I'm probably not going to sign up for the service, even when I eventually get a PS4. Just don't play multiplayer enough for it to be worth it. And I don't want to lose the free games when I eventually unsubscribe.

I'd say it'd be a rip-off if not for the free games. That's actually a decent bargain, and probably worth the $5 per month. If it wasn't for that, then shady business. But yeah, giving out a free game every month would be hard if they didn't get to charge something for it.

 

[Saltyk]

$4.17 a month (or $0.14 a day) doesn't seem that bad for online multiplayer, especially since you get 5+ games a month out of it spread across 3 systems. It's not just ancient or bad games either, just in the last 4 months I've got Uncharted 3, Battlefield 3, XCOM, Hitman: Absolution, Saint's Row 3, Kingdom's of Amalur plus a ton of Vita, PSP, indie games. That doesn't even include the sales...

Petty much this. I was going to upgrade to PS+ sooner or later, at this point, anyway. Making it a requirement for online play only gave me an addition incentive. I have zero problems with this change. I only wish I had upgraded sooner, as I missed out on a few games that I could have gotten free.

I don't, just kind of itching for Friday. *eye twitch*

You and me both. I got permission to go into work 30 minutes early to leave 30 minutes early just so I could get a better number for the Gamestop release at midnight.
I don't have a problem. You have a problem! *strokes copy of Killzone*

 

[RicoADF]

Do you work for Sony? (I'm only half joking, this sounds more like a press release than anything else)

The improvements to mp seem minimalistic at best, I don't find it particularly difficult to join friends games or make parties within games so that's a non issue as far as I'm concerned. The only slight improvement is the new new voice chat system but I would argue that that is something they should have had since the PS3 and not a good enough reason for these new costs.

That bit at the end seems to be Sony's entire argument - "we're shafting you but at least we're not shafting you so hard you'll never walk again (like Microsoft)". Not charging to be able to use the PS4 for Netflix (for example) should be a given and presenting it as some kind of luxury only makes me suspicious and irritable about Sony's intentions for the future. It's an argument that does not make plus sound any better and is clearly only meant to make alternatives sound worse.

Like I said Plus is a good service and I have no issue with it as it stands for the PS3 and if I ever get a PS4 I will most certainly maintain my plus subscription but this annual fee for multiplayer just doesn't seem right to me. The PS4 should last about 10 years give or take, if you buy a console at launch and get plus purely because you want multiplayer and none of its other features you will essentially end up paying double for your console over those 10 years. It just strikes me as a money grab, with Sony realising that the 360 got by despite people not being happy about this system and assuming that means they should also be doing this.

On the PS3 it was the publisher that provided the servers to run the game's MP which is why the online was questionable quality at best, where as the PS4 Sony has decided to step in and run the servers themselves. This adds extra costs and they have decided to charge the customer for the better quality of multiplayer service. You can argue that Steam can do it for free so why can't Sony and I would agree that they probably could technically have done it, but Valve also doesn't have R&D of the system to pay back, Sony does and so they have higher costs from the get go. Running servers isn't cheap, and last gen we saw what happens when you do it badly (PS3/PSN outage), honestly I can't blame Sony for deciding to bite the biscuit and doing what Microsoft has done but better.
If you don't want to play online then theres no loss, everything else online works, their just charging those that will incur that extra cost to them. I think some people have been too spoiled over the years.

 

[GAunderrated]

Why people are bitching about Playstation+ boggles my mind.

You're paying to get free games every month.

Bro do you even listen to yourself? I mean damn I didn't even make it to the second sentence before you contradicted yourself. lol

 

[GAunderrated]

Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

$4 a month so $48 dollars a year, so $240 every five years. $240 every five years can buy me a graphics card to play PC games with that DON'T charge for multiplayer and already cost less.

Just because its $4 makes it okay to charge for features that are given for free elsewhere? (Steam, WiiU) Just because your okay with being nickel and dimed to death does not make it okay.

Then buy your graphics card and play PC games. You can spend your money on that, while we spend our money on console online gaming where we don't need to buy graphics cards and other expensive hardware.

Wait what? I'm trying to wrap my head around the bolded area. The guy you quoted was stating that the $240 you pay in order to get a service you are already paying for elsewhere, you could instead buy a nice luxury item to get a better experience. He actually gets value out of his $240 while you are paying for permission to use something you already payed for.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

I would assume that the whole reason behind the new cost is to either help maintain online servers, recoup manufacturing costs, or something along those lines.

I mean, the OBVIOUS assumption is that Sony is just grasping for money here, but if they were doing that, they'd have thrown that restriction on the PS3 a long time ago. Methinks that there's something about the PS4 (probably its manufacturing costs) that requires Sony to bring in some extra revenue to get an acceptable profit margin.

 

[legendp]

Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

I don't care. That's what we pay internet for. That's what I payed $60.00 for the game for.

I'm not going to dish out $4.00 a year for something that was free last year.

It could be a $1 a year and it would still be a problem, most my xbox live freinds have stopped bothering whith online play because they simply can't be bothered, they have the money, but it just doesn't seem worth it to them for there 1 hour monthly (if that) of online gaming I would have played with them, now I don't play games with any of them because no one really wants the hassle. I don't care if almost all other online features are disabled without a payed membership, just let me play online whith my freinds for free, I'll even use skype for talking to them, as long as playing the game is actually free online.