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

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Or one could get a PC and play online for free. As a bonus you also get emulators to play older generation console games, backwards compatibility stretching back two decades, the ability to use cheats & mods, your choice of web browser and the rest. You also get RTSs, your choice of resolution, Humble Bundles, F2P online games, DVD burning and the only real loss is splitscreen coop.

 

[synobal]

It's always amusing to come to these threads and watch console players justify paying for something I've got free since forever, on the PC. I mean it's like you've all drank Sony's marketing coolaid.

interesting, when did you got saint rows 3, uncharted 3 and plenty of other games on PC for free. cause i want them too.

You aren't getting the game for free, lets be clear there. You're getting games as part of your subscription to PS+, a part you lose entirely if you let your subscription lapse at all.

I got Saint's Row 3, as part of the THQ humble bundle though and paid less for it than you did a month of PS+, and I don't have to keep any sort of subscription going to play it.

So why is it, that all these different venues can afford to operate without a monthly service fee and Sony can't? Why do they think its okay to sucker their customers into paying a bullshit fee? Because Microsoft got away with it for 7 years.

Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner you hit the nail right on the head. Sony's doing it because they saw that revenue stream for MS and said "hmm sure wish we had that" especially since Xbox customers didn't seem to mind it and a large number of people didn't think free online play was that great of a selling point.

So now and forever playstation, and Xbox users will have to pay for online play. Something everyone else gets for free.

 

[Lightknight]

Sony is not providing a service

Wrong. The free and inferior network they provided in the previous generations was maintaining an obligation. The new and improved server is a service. This is pretty much the point they made. That keeping it free would have required they sustain sub-par service but upgrading the service to a competitive level costs money.

So I repeat. The question isn't whether or not this is a service or whether they should be compensated for it. The question is how much it cost to make and what a fair compensation would be.

I'm merely pointing out that this is a service and that it does cost them money to maintain. Even the free one did. But as network traffic becomes more and more robust as it has since the ps3's inception then it's going to cost more to maintain. If it cost them $100k (likely a low number), then it's something they should have swallowed. A $100m though with significant annual recurring fees? Sure, they can collect a fee for that but the network had better sing me to sleep and tell me what a good boy I've been for that kind of investment.

Until we know that answer then we don't know if this is fair or greedy. Anyone already out and ranting with a pitchfork/torch/length of rope just doesn't understand that businesses aren't obligated to swallow costs, those costs are always passed on to customers in the price of the product or it's a bad business model if it's not a non-profit. That's hard to do when you can't raise the price of your games since that would put you at a competitive disadvantage and when your console gets bought once and maybe not again while still being used for 6-7 years.

Besides, for an entire console generation Sony has managed to provide multiplayer for nothing, and there's plenty of MMOs, free to play online games, and so forth that have been free for everything from day 1, that at most live off of advertising dollars.

Look, if you really want to claim that their network was legit then there's two things you've got to account for. 1. That they got hacked because the right security investments hadn't been made. and 2. That comparing the networks between Sony and Microsoft, Microsoft's was MUCH more reliable and everything from online gaming to basic downloads benefited. Ever compare a 10GB download from Live vs PSN? Stark.

$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.

Steam does not provide the same extent of what Sony's network provides. Steam is just a store front that manages your game library. In the pc arena, costs of maintaining games are squarely on the developer's shoulders. There is nothing providing a safe and secure connection between the two like you have on consoles that filter everything and make sure the content isn't going to damage your console.

The WiiU isn't going to support most multiplayer items. Hell, even 3rd party developers aren't including multiplayer for WiiU games: Batman Origins on the WiiU the only one missing multiplayer [http://www.joystiq.com/2013/09/28/report-multiplayer-less-batman-arkham-origins-to-cost-50-on-w/]

So, you are literally telling me that the company that doesn't provide that service and the company that provides the poorest network imaginable And have actively claimed that online multiplayer isn't a focus of their this generation [http://kotaku.com/miyamoto-online-multiplayer-isnt-our-focus-1452295638] don't charge for it. Yes, that is correct. Companies not providing any service or providing a subpar/non-existing one are indeed giving it away as part of the package.

 

[clippen05]

Sony is not providing a service

Wrong. The free and inferior network they provided in the previous generations was maintaining an obligation. The new and improved server is a service. This is pretty much the point they made. That keeping it free would have required they sustain sub-par service but upgrading the service to a competitive level costs money.

So I repeat. The question isn't whether or not this is a service or whether they should be compensated for it. The question is how much it cost to make and what a fair compensation would be.

I'm merely pointing out that this is a service and that it does cost them money to maintain. Even the free one did. But as network traffic becomes more and more robust as it has since the ps3's inception then it's going to cost more to maintain. If it cost them $100k (likely a low number), then it's something they should have swallowed. A $100m though with significant annual recurring fees? Sure, they can collect a fee for that but the network had better sing me to sleep and tell me what a good boy I've been for that kind of investment.

Until we know that answer then we don't know if this is fair or greedy. Anyone already out and ranting with a pitchfork/torch/length of rope just doesn't understand that businesses aren't obligated to swallow costs, those costs are always passed on to customers in the price of the product or it's a bad business model if it's not a non-profit. That's hard to do when you can't raise the price of your games since that would put you at a competitive disadvantage and when your console gets bought once and maybe not again while still being used for 6-7 years.

Besides, for an entire console generation Sony has managed to provide multiplayer for nothing, and there's plenty of MMOs, free to play online games, and so forth that have been free for everything from day 1, that at most live off of advertising dollars.

Look, if you really want to claim that their network was legit then there's two things you've got to account for. 1. That they got hacked because the right security investments hadn't been made. and 2. That comparing the networks between Sony and Microsoft, Microsoft's was MUCH more reliable and everything from online gaming to basic downloads benefited. Ever compare a 10GB download from Live vs PSN? Stark.

$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.

Steam does not provide the same extent of what Sony's network provides. Steam is just a store front that manages your game library. In the pc arena, costs of maintaining games are squarely on the developer's shoulders. There is nothing providing a safe and secure connection between the two like you have on consoles that filter everything and make sure the content isn't going to damage your console.

The WiiU isn't going to support most multiplayer items. Hell, even 3rd party developers aren't including multiplayer for WiiU games: Batman Origins on the WiiU the only one missing multiplayer [http://www.joystiq.com/2013/09/28/report-multiplayer-less-batman-arkham-origins-to-cost-50-on-w/]

So, you are literally telling me that the company that doesn't provide that service and the company that provides the poorest network imaginable And have actively claimed that online multiplayer isn't a focus of their this generation [http://kotaku.com/miyamoto-online-multiplayer-isnt-our-focus-1452295638] don't charge for it. Yes, that is correct. Companies not providing any service or providing a subpar/non-existing one are indeed giving it away as part of the package.

What is this safe and secure connection crap you are spewing. No seriously, what do you mean even mean? Filter everything out? Filter what out? Make Sure the content isn't going to damage your console? What does that even mean, are you implying that PC games are all filled with viruses? You do realise that Steam has its own anti-hacking and anti-cheating program that is built into an increasing number of games. Yes, not all games, but I have not once been "hacked" through whatever lack of filter you are implying.

And you do realise that Sony doesn't handle individual game servers, developer do that just like on PC...

What does Sony's network provide that Steam doesn't provide? Profiles, leaderboards, stats, achievements, screenshots, videoclips? Check. Party Chat? Check. Digital Download store? Check. I'd even argue that Steam has more features with all the community groups and forums built in aswell as Steam workshop. Are you talking about all the netflixs? You mean the stuff I already have to pay to use? Yes, I'm so gracious that I can pay to access things I already have to pay for, especially when considering Nintendo does it for free and I can already access it on PC for free.

Sure, Nintendo doesn't offer as much in the way of achievements and profiles and such, but that's what makes it less popular as an online system. That doesn't make it any less valid as an example. It still doesn't charge people to play the game they already paid for; whether developers include multiplayer in it or not is irrelvant. Because you are treating multiplayer like a service, its not, its a product-feature. Playstation+, that is, the discounts and free games part, is a service, sure. But multiplayer and achievements and the like are all productfeatures... When I buy a game on the back of the box it says, "Online multipayer 2-24 players." This is listed on the back of a product, ergo, it is a product feature. Again, who pays for game servers? Not Sony, but the devs. And do you think this money goes to support them? Of course not. Then how can you justify multiplayer as a service? Because SEN is the way you access multiplayer? I access multiplayer through Origin just fine for $0. Explain to me what benefit I'm being provided with by paying for PS+ as a service for multiplayer.

You still haven't proved one reason why I should have to pay for something that is done for free elsewhere.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Sony is not providing a service

Wrong. The free and inferior network they provided in the previous generations was maintaining an obligation. The new and improved server is a service. This is pretty much the point they made. That keeping it free would have required they sustain sub-par service but upgrading the service to a competitive level costs money.

So I repeat. The question isn't whether or not this is a service or whether they should be compensated for it. The question is how much it cost to make and what a fair compensation would be.

I'm merely pointing out that this is a service and that it does cost them money to maintain. Even the free one did. But as network traffic becomes more and more robust as it has since the ps3's inception then it's going to cost more to maintain. If it cost them $100k (likely a low number), then it's something they should have swallowed. A $100m though with significant annual recurring fees? Sure, they can collect a fee for that but the network had better sing me to sleep and tell me what a good boy I've been for that kind of investment.

Until we know that answer then we don't know if this is fair or greedy. Anyone already out and ranting with a pitchfork/torch/length of rope just doesn't understand that businesses aren't obligated to swallow costs, those costs are always passed on to customers in the price of the product or it's a bad business model if it's not a non-profit. That's hard to do when you can't raise the price of your games since that would put you at a competitive disadvantage and when your console gets bought once and maybe not again while still being used for 6-7 years.

Besides, for an entire console generation Sony has managed to provide multiplayer for nothing, and there's plenty of MMOs, free to play online games, and so forth that have been free for everything from day 1, that at most live off of advertising dollars.

Look, if you really want to claim that their network was legit then there's two things you've got to account for. 1. That they got hacked because the right security investments hadn't been made. and 2. That comparing the networks between Sony and Microsoft, Microsoft's was MUCH more reliable and everything from online gaming to basic downloads benefited. Ever compare a 10GB download from Live vs PSN? Stark.

$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.

Steam does not provide the same extent of what Sony's network provides. Steam is just a store front that manages your game library. In the pc arena, costs of maintaining games are squarely on the developer's shoulders. There is nothing providing a safe and secure connection between the two like you have on consoles that filter everything and make sure the content isn't going to damage your console.

The WiiU isn't going to support most multiplayer items. Hell, even 3rd party developers aren't including multiplayer for WiiU games: Batman Origins on the WiiU the only one missing multiplayer [http://www.joystiq.com/2013/09/28/report-multiplayer-less-batman-arkham-origins-to-cost-50-on-w/]

So, you are literally telling me that the company that doesn't provide that service and the company that provides the poorest network imaginable And have actively claimed that online multiplayer isn't a focus of their this generation [http://kotaku.com/miyamoto-online-multiplayer-isnt-our-focus-1452295638] don't charge for it. Yes, that is correct. Companies not providing any service or providing a subpar/non-existing one are indeed giving it away as part of the package.

What is this safe and secure connection crap you are spewing. No seriously, what do you mean even mean? Filter everything out? Filter what out? Make Sure the content isn't going to damage your console? What does that even mean, are you implying that PC games are all filled with viruses? You do realise that Steam has its own anti-hacking and anti-cheating program that is built into an increasing number of games. Yes, not all games, but I have not once been "hacked" through whatever lack of filter you are implying.

And you do realise that Sony doesn't handle individual game servers, developer do that just like on PC...

What does Sony's network provide that Steam doesn't provide? Profiles, leaderboards, stats, achievements, screenshots, videoclips? Check. Party Chat? Check. Digital Download store? Check. I'd even argue that Steam has more features with all the community groups and forums built in aswell as Steam workshop. Are you talking about all the netflixs? You mean the stuff I already have to pay to use? Yes, I'm so gracious that I can pay to access things I already have to pay for, especially when considering Nintendo does it for free and I can already access it on PC for free.

Sure, Nintendo doesn't offer as much in the way of achievements and profiles and such, but that's what makes it less popular as an online system. That doesn't make it any less valid as an example. It still doesn't charge people to play the game they already paid for; whether developers include multiplayer in it or not is irrelvant. Because you are treating multiplayer like a service, its not, its a product-feature. Playstation+, that is, the discounts and free games part, is a service, sure. But multiplayer and achievements and the like are all productfeatures... When I buy a game on the back of the box it says, "Online multipayer 2-24 players." This is listed on the back of a product, ergo, it is a product feature. Again, who pays for game servers? Not Sony, but the devs. And do you think this money goes to support them? Of course not. Then how can you justify multiplayer as a service? Because SEN is the way you access multiplayer? I access multiplayer through Origin just fine for $0. Explain to me what benefit I'm being provided with by paying for PS+ as a service for multiplayer.

You still haven't proved one reason why I should have to pay for something that is done for free elsewhere.

Beat me to it, very well done Clippen. Worst of all, this article specifically states that the ONLY thing that Sony is locking out beyond a pay wall is the online multiplayer, which is the one thing out of everything they could have that should be provided free. I mean, I don't really mind if they throw in advertisments and that sort of crap to pay for it if they really need to, but online multiplayer is a feature of the game and thus it is Sony's responsibility, not the customers to provide and pay for it.

 

[Rheinmetall]

quite honestly Sony it's hard not to be greedy bastards, like everyone else is in this business.

 

[Nickolai77]

Charging to use multiplayer has put me off getting the PS4. It is frustrating having to pay for something that I can already get for free on the PS3 which perfectly meets my needs. I can understand why other people like free games, but that just doesn't appeal to me personally. I am annoyed at being locked out of the very basics of what I expect from a 21st century electronic device.

I'll be laughing playing BF4 online for free on my PS3 whilst others have to pay a fiver a month for a very similar experience to mine. Of course, the player base and number of PS3 titles will gradually depreciate over time so I may have to resign myself to getting the PS4...But by that time comes around I may well be in a situation to invest in a proper gaming PC.

 

[weirdee]

the thing about comparing it to steam is that since steam doesn't have the crazy overhead costs involved with a console operation attached to a larger company, it can afford to do all that for free anyway...

we can stop pretending to compare their models as equivalent operations in order to paint one as money grubbing, and turn our energy back towards ramming PC and console heads together

bap bap bap bap

 

[The White Hunter]

That really sucks because I play online games for free all the time. Not really sure I want to pay for a feature I get free elsewhere...

 

[thewatergamer]

Honestly it may not cost very much but I'm sorry I can't go along with the idea of paying for something that was free in the past, call me cheap or hypocritical but thats just the way I am, granted if I did get a PS4 I would almost never use online multiplayer, but for me its the principal of the thing, I get it PS+ grants you all sorts of free stuff and I guess that is fine, but multiplayer is an advertised part of the game and charging for it simply doesn't sit well for me

So yeah I probably won't get a PS4 since I am quite happy with my PS3, I maybe would have bought one a little later if PSN remained free but now... I think I'll pass

 

[Strazdas]

It's always amusing to come to these threads and watch console players justify paying for something I've got free since forever, on the PC. I mean it's like you've all drank Sony's marketing coolaid.

interesting, when did you got saint rows 3, uncharted 3 and plenty of other games on PC for free. cause i want them too.

You aren't getting the game for free, lets be clear there. You're getting games as part of your subscription to PS+, a part you lose entirely if you let your subscription lapse at all.

I got Saint's Row 3, as part of the THQ humble bundle though and paid less for it than you did a month of PS+, and I don't have to keep any sort of subscription going to play it.

You claim that we paid for games that you got for free. It is true we paid for the games i mentioned, so you claiming it was free made me want to find out where you did get them free. apperently you actually didnt get them free.
Yeah, humble bundles are a good thing even though i only bought a few of them (part of that is my own stupidity of forgetting to check on new deals). You do have a point with being able to pay them afterwards.

What is this safe and secure connection crap you are spewing. No seriously, what do you mean even mean? Filter everything out? Filter what out? Make Sure the content isn't going to damage your console? What does that even mean, are you implying that PC games are all filled with viruses? You do realise that Steam has its own anti-hacking and anti-cheating program that is built into an increasing number of games. Yes, not all games, but I have not once been "hacked" through whatever lack of filter you are implying.

There were PC games where automated patching would mess up your windows to the level where you would have to reinstall the system. Then again, same can be said about Sony. Im not aware of anything like that on Xbox, though microsoft definitely likes to crash people PCs with their windows update from time to time.

And you do realise that Sony doesn't handle individual game servers, developer do that just like on PC...

Except that, they do now.

What does Sony's network provide that Steam doesn't provide? Profiles, leaderboards, stats, achievements, screenshots, videoclips? Check. Party Chat? Check. Digital Download store? Check. I'd even argue that Steam has more features with all the community groups and forums built in aswell as Steam workshop. Are you talking about all the netflixs? You mean the stuff I already have to pay to use? Yes, I'm so gracious that I can pay to access things I already have to pay for, especially when considering Nintendo does it for free and I can already access it on PC for free.

You can acess netflix and other stuff without playstation plus.

The difference your looking for coudl be dedicated servers. Then again i heard steam also did this (can anyone confirm?)

 

[Silva]

If Sony does not go back on a model that forces you into a premium service then I'm never buying their console. It's that simple.

Some of us are simply not interested in adding upkeep costs to an already difficult economic situation at home. We keep hearing about how these massive, money-infested companies are "hurting", and how "hard" it is for them to get their products to us consumers.

It's a load of bullshit, and every consumer knows it. The scary thing is that Sony thinks enough people will buy this nonsense for them to not lose money as a result of the implied insult to our intelligence.

That tells you just how ignorant many of their share holders are. This, just like DRM, is a way for Sony to look like they're running a business to their share holders, and the attitude is: "screw the consumer", because we supposedly don't know better.

Well, I for one do know better, and that means I will be providing $0.00 to Sony and MicroSoft through their consoles and games this coming generation - unless some real change comes in and soon.

I strongly suggest to every gamer, do not buy a console in this next generation until both the main contenders start to reduce costs and provide free basics as Sony used to on this matter. Consumer power can make a difference in this - it may be tough, and may fail, but it is better to try, and in this way send a message that gamers prefer PC as long as PC gives the better option.

They can stop with the bullshit rhetoric about difficulty as well. These companies have had it easy and their cartels have us jumping from place to place just to avoid supporting their ridiculous notions of good design and their attitude that the consumer is always wrong.

We should do everything we can to increase competition and reduce monopolies in the gaming industry, or we will face these awful standards becoming the only standards. That includes for PC, because if I was MicroSoft right now, I'd start using the Windows OS monopoly, relationships with ISPs and corporate buyouts of game companies to phase in paid standards on all online gaming as soon as it becomes apparent that people won't buy Xboxes just to avoid it.

At that point, paid-only services and intense DRM become the norm, and people begin to accept these things over time. That is a cartel, and it is what we all should be extremely careful of if we love games designed for gamers, not for share holders.

 

[Zeterai]

So.. man. I've stayed out of the whole console thing for like.. the better part of a decade, but actually seeing some of these arguments gives me a headache. Let me just put what I comprehend of it all down right now.

1. Sony has been bleeding money to PlayStation Network ever since it launched

2. Sony has significantly overhauled and improved their PSN service for the PS4 launch

3. Sony has taken ownership of most of the server costs, rather than individual developers

4. Sony is introducing a small fee monthly to try and cover some of these enhancements

5. Sony isn't charging for anything but multiplayer, but that's not all you get for your subscription

6. Microsoft's been doing this for years, in a significantly less consumer-friendly manner (such as charging for services they have absolutely no hand in)

7. Sony is being demonized for this change.



That's.. that's pretty much it, right? And there's someone comparing the PSN+ thing to Steam, as though they think that's even remotely fair given the absurd profit margin that Valve reaps from that service acting as the premier online marketplace? Never compare anything to Valve in terms of money, it's not a fair thing to do.

 

[FreePSNPS4]

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

Boggles my mind every time I see someone say this.

 

[FreePSNPS4]

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.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I would have loved to buy a PS4 sometime down the line, but now that won't be happening. Because Sony thinks that they can charge money for a service that should be free; that's why I'll be 100% PC for next-gen... it's not something I'm doing out of personal preference of paying $250 dollars in one lump purchase than $4 every month, its because when I spend that $250 I am buying a well-needed product for PC gaming: I can justify that purchase. But when I have to pay $4 a month for Sony to "Update and maintain PS4," I cannot justify that purchase. I'm arguing that their cost for online is not fair; they are just finding a way to milk the customer out of everything they have inorder to recoup the losses from their failing electronics division.

Again, Steam doesn't charge for all the same services: Voice chat, digital store, profiles, messaging, multiplayer, etc. I'm not sure WiiU has exactly all of that, as I don't have one. And don't feed me bullshit about the netflix and those other serices you have to PAY to access so you can PAY AGAIN to use... I know for a fact that those are free on Wii and WiiU. And on the subject of the free games... what if I don't want them? Just because they are giving you a bunch of old games I could get for a reduced price anyway does not make me anymore inclined to pay. What if I just want my free multiplayer back from PS3 where Sony didn't think it was "too hard."

My phone doesn't charge me a fee to maintain Android and update it every few months. My F2P mmos don't charge me a fee every month to maintain their servers and update content. Steam, Origin, Wii, WiiU, 3DS, don't charge me money for this either. So why is it, that all these different venues can afford to operate without a monthly service fee and Sony can't? Why do they think its okay to sucker their customers into paying a bullshit fee? Because Microsoft got away with it for 7 years.

Great Post! I've been saying this for months and months. People like to throw around the fact that PS+ "gives" you free AAA games. 1st of all the games are not free if you have to pay for the service to access them and 2nd of all who cares what rating the game is. Just because the game has a high rating doesn't mean I'll like it. In fact I'm not interested in most games. The amount of games I've put alot of time into on my PS3 I can count on one hand. That's want kind of gamer I am. I find a game I like and I play it for years and years, so I don't care how many games you throw my way, I'm not going to play them. So what PS+ winds up being for is simply paying for online, something I swore off doing on XBOX and damn sure won't accept on PS. I'm OK with things like cross game chat and Gaikai being behind paywalls because those are advanced features, but I think everyone can agree this day and age that online MP is clearly a basic feature and should not be behind a paywall. If PS+ was such a great service Sony wouldn't have to put online MP behind a paywall to bait people into paying for it, they would willingly do so and would provide Sony enough revenue to cover the new costs they claim they have. When people say PS+ is ok because Live exists, there essentially saying MS has been milking their customers for years, so now Sony is allowed to milk theirs. Apparently two wrongs make Sony right.

 

[FreePSNPS4]

If Sony does not go back on a model that forces you into a premium service then I'm never buying their console. It's that simple.

Some of us are simply not interested in adding upkeep costs to an already difficult economic situation at home. We keep hearing about how these massive, money-infested companies are "hurting", and how "hard" it is for them to get their products to us consumers.

It's a load of bullshit, and every consumer knows it. The scary thing is that Sony thinks enough people will buy this nonsense for them to not lose money as a result of the implied insult to our intelligence.

That tells you just how ignorant many of their share holders are. This, just like DRM, is a way for Sony to look like they're running a business to their share holders, and the attitude is: "screw the consumer", because we supposedly don't know better.

Well, I for one do know better, and that means I will be providing $0.00 to Sony and MicroSoft through their consoles and games this coming generation - unless some real change comes in and soon.

I strongly suggest to every gamer, do not buy a console in this next generation until both the main contenders start to reduce costs and provide free basics as Sony used to on this matter. Consumer power can make a difference in this - it may be tough, and may fail, but it is better to try, and in this way send a message that gamers prefer PC as long as PC gives the better option.

They can stop with the bullshit rhetoric about difficulty as well. These companies have had it easy and their cartels have us jumping from place to place just to avoid supporting their ridiculous notions of good design and their attitude that the consumer is always wrong.

We should do everything we can to increase competition and reduce monopolies in the gaming industry, or we will face these awful standards becoming the only standards. That includes for PC, because if I was MicroSoft right now, I'd start using the Windows OS monopoly, relationships with ISPs and corporate buyouts of game companies to phase in paid standards on all online gaming as soon as it becomes apparent that people won't buy Xboxes just to avoid it.

At that point, paid-only services and intense DRM become the norm, and people begin to accept these things over time. That is a cartel, and it is what we all should be extremely careful of if we love games designed for gamers, not for share holders.

I agree I will be sticking to my PS3 as long as possible, hopefully in the coming years Sony will drop the fee, but that is highly unlikely. The majority of gamers welcome this, so now paid online MP is set in stone on Playstation and Microsoft systems. There is a petition as well. It doesn't have many sigs but like you said it may fail but it's better to try. http://www.change.org/petitions/sony-computer-entertainment-don-t-require-playstationplus-for-online-multi-player-on-playstation-4

 

[FreePSNPS4]

Honestly it may not cost very much but I'm sorry I can't go along with the idea of paying for something that was free in the past, call me cheap or hypocritical but thats just the way I am, granted if I did get a PS4 I would almost never use online multiplayer, but for me its the principal of the thing, I get it PS+ grants you all sorts of free stuff and I guess that is fine, but multiplayer is an advertised part of the game and charging for it simply doesn't sit well for me

So yeah I probably won't get a PS4 since I am quite happy with my PS3, I maybe would have bought one a little later if PSN remained free but now... I think I'll pass

Yes it's the principle not the price. I could easily purchase PS+, I don't lack the funds to do so. I just will not support this because I will not contribute to a policy I despise.

 

[Evil Smurf]

On PC I can play online for free, this is one reason why I can't take shit like this from companies.

 

[Edl01]

I don't really care about Playstation Plus being required. Sony is a business, they want my money. It's the same with every other company in the world. Being angry at a company for being greedy is like being angry at Yahtzee for criticising, it's just kind of what they do. The second that you expect anything more from a company in when you will get dissapointed.
If a business are spending out money to uphold servers it only makes sense to me they don't want to be making a loss on it. This especially doesn't suprise me considering Sony's current financial situation, as they quite recently cut their predicted profit for 2013 down by 40%.

 

[likalaruku]

I think I remember reading that Rockstar said it would be too hard to port Red Dead Redemption to PC. Months later I saw Youtube videos advertising that it had been unofficially ported to ROM. PC gamers felt justified because the game wasn't even offered to them without the substantial fine of having to buy a console just to play it. So it would be no surprise to me if some angry jobless guys with a lot of free time on their hands find a way to emulate PSN. I could be pulling this out of my ass though, because I don't really know what PSN is or how it works. I also remember Sony having some kind of pole with demand for multiplayer coming in almost dead last, so the point is probably mute anyway.