PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Must admit, I went PS3 over XBox360 due to the lack of paying for online. Despite that, it seems to me that the subscription cost may be subsidising the price of the console new somewhat. And seeing as despite my logic for going for PS3 I still never played games online...well...it might be that this is of great benefit for me, as it only makes it cheaper.

Too bad really, they're still a damn sight better than Microsoft but whilst I don't use multiplayer on my console it is still a real shame that they're going in that direction.

you know what, i've been considering getting PS+ for a while, it's a good service with lots of extras, it does suck that online is being put behind a pay wall, but it think the extras more than make up for it.

This isn't even necessarily as bad as it sounds (and it doesn't sound that bad at all, really). In all likelihood, they're using the fact that they'll get this increased long-term revenue, and using that to justify having a lower price for the main console - they'll make their large profits in the long term rather than short term, but the price differential is going to lead to a higher rate of adoption over Microsoft, as if that wasn't going to happen already. If they hadn't done this, the PS4 might have come in at a slightly higher price bracket, so really, it'll likely only cost you more money after 6-12 months or so - not to mention you get the free games. I mean seriously - the WiiU costs, what, $350? Sony's got to be getting that $400 price tag from somewhere. That or Nintendo are just morons... which, actually, is not out of the question, now that I think about it.

Of course, I could be wrong, and they could just be fleecing us, but you know what? It's a better service than XBL, what with the EXTENSIVE free games library and all, so anyone making the decision based on online stuff should still come down on Sony's side. It's better for Sony to edge out Microsoft on all fronts than to seriously outpace them in only a few.

I say let them have it - they've earned it, by managing to not shoot themselves in the foot like Nintendo and Microsoft, and as a 360 user, it's a dynamic I'm already familiar with.

And of course if you're still in this for the single player or local co-op only, as long as getting all your DLC or demos or trailers etc, doesn't need PS+ then I don't see how you can lose as a Sony customer.

Call me the optimist here. But, this little tidbit did show up on a video that basically burned microsoft pretty hard. So who's to say that isn't just another subtle stab at microsoft again?
If true though, the benefits of ps+ outweigh all of the oh noes in my opinion so I'm sold on it either way.

Eh I'm not too fussed. Hardly play multiplayer games as it is, and when I do it's usually just local multiplayer.

I'd rather put up with this instead of idiotic DRM though.

To be honest, there were 2 games on PS3 that I used multiplayer on: Portal 2 and Journey. Other than that, I play alone. While it does kinda suck that it's not giving me the option of doing the rare multiplayer game when I feel like it, I'm not TOO fussed about it. At least PS+ gives a lot back and I heard nothing but good things about it.

Does make me wonder how this would affect games (like Journey or Dark/Demon's Souls) who have a more unique, "passive" form of multiplayer. I guess it just uses functions as if you're offline?

KoudelkaMorgan:
I never wanted Plus before, and I still don't. Free games aren't free as long as they go away the moment you quit paying.

No they aren't. But it is the exact same model as Netflix and everyone thinks that is good. While you pay you get access to lots of content (worth well over $5).

Considering the love people had for 360, this is perfectly fine as long as the rest of the stuff doesn't change.

Oh... and Sony. Please continue to have region free games. This is one of the main reasons I have your console. I can play Japanese games here in Canada.

I have zero problems with this. I mean yeah, free multiplayer becomes paid multiplayer. But I don't play online very often at all (and I think the same goes for many PS players), so whatever.

The PS4 is $100 cheaper than the Xbone, and as far as I know, XBL Gold is actually becoming more expensive in the next generation. (By the way, those free games for Gold apparently stop when the Xbone launches.)

But even if they were the same price, PS+ offers a hell of a lot more.

nightmare_drone:
Call me the optimist here. But, this little tidbit did show up on a video that basically burned microsoft pretty hard. So who's to say that isn't just another subtle stab at microsoft again?

Dude. Now I hope that turns out true, solely because it'd be fucking hilarious.

I'm actually not too upset by this news.

Most of the games I play on console I play single-player, so having to pay like 3 a month to play online is no big deal.

Playstation Plus is such a good deal anyway that it still sounds better than Microsoft's Xbox Live subscription thing.

I am strangely ok with this. I mean you still get free games, and it is optional, so if you don't have a great love for multiplayer, it is not necessary.

Most likely the reason for being this ok is linked to the fact, that a console that requires you to offer 3 of your fingers as sacrifice would still seem better than xbone.

I don't see it as that bad, really. PSN+ costs about as much as one new release game and lasts the whole year, all the while providing you with a few hundred dollars in free games. I've had it for two years and have gotten a lot out of the service.

So Microsoft has a subscription to use multiplayer and everybody grabs pitchforks and calls them the devil but as soon as Sony introduces a subscription to use multiplayer, suddenly nobody cares? that sure is a biased double standard.

Not exactly suprising since the higher ups will have told the designers to put in something to make money for Sony on top of the usual stuff. Still abit of a shame though since I bought the PS3 because it didn't ask for me to pay for online, probably sick with that until the PS4 is a few years old.

Hazy992:
That sucks :/ You'd have thought Sony would have left it as free as it would have been another selling point over Microsoft.

At least they're not gating services that I already fucking paid for behind it.

Yeah, I find this to be a slight disappointment due to the fact that I will not need PS+ to use Netflix. I always hated how Microsoft started charging more when they announced Netflix (despite that it wasn't available in Europe).

I guess this should be expected and that they want to squeeze their customers a little since we have accepted Microsoft's policy for so long, but this did disappoint me. It should be said that I prefer my online multiplayer on PC so this isn't as big a deal for me as for others, but still...

That 5 dollars a month is cheaper then xBox Live, but it's still a bit of a dealbreaker for me. Ah well, I suppose I'll always have Steam <3

People keep saying this isn't as bad as what Microsoft is doing but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It's basically what the 360 is doing now with the gold membership for XBLA. This is what bothers me about this upcoming console generation. Everything being featured feels like it's a step backwards rather than forwards. I may be wrong about all this but as things stand now, I'm passing on the PS4.

Well, I was looking forward to have free multiplayer when I buy the PS4, so Im somewhat dissapointed. But, it still is a better deal than what Microsoft offers now, and in the future.

The real question is if Sony will keep the good deals flowing with the PS+ service into the future once it is mandatory. My thoughts are as long as Microsoft keeps charging for their service, Sony will keep the benefits packages rolling.

if i were going to get a ps4, i would have got this anyway tbh. its not hugely expensive, and they put a lot of good games up for free anyway. that being said, it is unfortunate, but i never really played online on my console anyway, i play online with my IRL friends, who are also mainly PC gamers

nightmare_drone:
Call me the optimist here. But, this little tidbit did show up on a video that basically burned microsoft pretty hard. So who's to say that isn't just another subtle stab at microsoft again?

I'm pretty sure other sources have confirmed it even before this video went up; a quick google search should verify it. I'm still holding on to the slim hope that all this just a big build up to a joke where they pretty much go "lol jk". And then wiggle their arses mockingly at a caricature of Major Nelson.

But even if it is true, I don't blame them. I certainly don't like it, but I don't blame them. Sony has taken a few financial hits since the PS3 emerged, and now they're selling the PS4 for relatively cheap. But at least they're making the effort to soften the blow with free games and beta access and stuff.

Probably this has been said a bundle already, but at least this means games like Dark Souls will have to rethink their approach of forcing MMORPG mechanics into single player formats.

I also hope this means Sony will be managing the servers instead of publishers. It's criminal that game servers should ever go down. It should be the console people's job to keep them running forever with a consistent experience (even if that makes cross platform multiplayer less straightforward or not worth reaching for it would be an improvement)

Spacewolf:
I bought the PS3 because it didn't ask for me to pay for online, probably sick with that until the PS4 is a few years old.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I have the impression that the new policy will also apply for the PS3 once the PS4 launches.

Well at least it has more benefits to Xbox Live like free games, so I guess it's fair enough. Just wish it was an option though. :/

Colt47:
The real question is if Sony will keep the good deals flowing with the PS+ service into the future once it is mandatory. My thoughts are as long as Microsoft keeps charging for their service, Sony will keep the benefits packages rolling.

Could be, at least it looks like they're using PS+ to give some incentives to early adopters. You'll get Drive Club PS Plus Edition, Don't Starve, Outlast, and Secret Ponchos free on launch with it, and you probably get other things shortly after, perhaps one of those streamed PS3 games they've been talking about

NickBrahz:
So Microsoft has a subscription to use multiplayer and everybody grabs pitchforks and calls them the devil but as soon as Sony introduces a subscription to use multiplayer, suddenly nobody cares? that sure is a biased double standard.

Microsoft: pay to access multiplayer, pay for desktop themes, pay for group chat, pay for 2 free games monthly that they choose (as in, they choose 2 games a month that we could DL, there is no catalog), and pay for Netflix. Beyond that, we have DRM (for example, updates that we may not want, but if we don't DL it we get kicked off LIVE and can't play co-op or multiplayer for that game until we do) and region locked games. All that for $10 a month plus having to deal with ads everywhere.

Sony: Dicounted games, cloud saves (which LIVE also has, so not that big of a selling point), automatic game updates (see above for my view, hopefully we can regulate that without being kicked offline), early access to betas, free games collection (i.e. we get to choose from more than 2 a month), and multiplayer. Desktop themes are free, group chat is free, Netflix is free, there aren't ads everywhere (at least, there don't seem to be, so if there are they aren't overt), and games are region free. All that is only $5 a month.

Now, objectively, which one is the better deal?

Not a fan of monthly payments at all, I'm the kind of guy who likes to pay just once and get the whole package without any strings attached (which reminds me: adult life sucks).

...Then again I haven't played a game online since Modern Warfare 2 - and even then I only played it for about four weeks.
So, yeah, I guess this won't really affect me.

By the way, with all the hype of "still plays second hand games", "doesn't have to go online every 24 hours" and "Kingdom Hearts 3", am I the only one who is just really happy that you can still switch out the HDD with any 2.5" SATA drive? And the fact that the controllers still have a built-in lithium battery?

I guess this was bound to happen as server useage got ever more demanding. They didn't over-price it and the playstation+ service has been pretty nice so far (free games, better game demos, etc). We'll see how it plays out but if this is the only negative of the ps4 then I couldn't care less.

When their competition is Microsoft who has done this since the Xbox, this isn't a risky move for them.

FoolKiller:

KoudelkaMorgan:
I never wanted Plus before, and I still don't. Free games aren't free as long as they go away the moment you quit paying.

No they aren't. But it is the exact same model as Netflix and everyone thinks that is good. While you pay you get access to lots of content (worth well over $5).

Considering the love people had for 360, this is perfectly fine as long as the rest of the stuff doesn't change.

Oh... and Sony. Please continue to have region free games. This is one of the main reasons I have your console. I can play Japanese games here in Canada.

To my knowledge, both consoles are region locked.

EDIT: Scratch that, just seen that the PS4 was region free.

NickBrahz:
So Microsoft has a subscription to use multiplayer and everybody grabs pitchforks and calls them the devil but as soon as Sony introduces a subscription to use multiplayer, suddenly nobody cares? that sure is a biased double standard.

Actually as someone who has a PS3 and a 360 I'm really not biased. I got my 360 first too because at launch the PS3 was an overpriced bullshit machine. The reason people are ok with sony doing it is the exact same reason lots of people are saying their ok with Sony doing it. They're not gating off all online functionality, you get free games every month (damn good games at that), you get discounts on games, access to beta trials, access to free game trials and other nice perks. It's not a double standard if one company is offering an objectively better service. With xbox I have to give Microsoft 5 bucks to get access to my Netflix account I already paid 7 bucks for. And indeed some people are upset by it, those of us who aren't have legit reasons not to be. I'm a PS+ subscriber anyway and I very rarely play online multiplayer. I subscribe because it's a damn good service.

Honestly, this sucks but it's far from a deal breaker.

As long as PS+ continues to prove to be worth it independent of online play then I won't mind.

I should be more fussed at this but psn+ gives you free games and discounts for the same price as gold which I had been paying for 10 years. I say get plus anyway just for the freebees and stuff.

It sucks but at least PS+ comes with more benefits.
It might also have been done to help subsidise the whole "we allow used games" thing.

I guess Sony just really wants everyone to have PS+...?

This is a silly move for Sony, but I can't say it'll negatively impact the goodwill they've accrued. PS+ was already a service worth defacing oneself for (so many free games ohmygod sogood), so if they keep that up, the subscription wouldn't dent the wallet at all. ($5 a month is better than the $10 a month or whatever it is Microsoft charges, in Australia at least.)

If a month of PS+ is included out-of-the-box, that'd probably persuade me to renew.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here