PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Well that sucks. At least it's a hell of a lot better than Live in terms of value. I don't play multiplayer, but I imagine this will really piss off a lot of people, and hiding it in the fine print of a video is really shitty on the part of Sony.

Eh, I'll just stop paying for Gold and start paying for PS+

Besides, PS+ looks like it provides more bang for its buck compared to XBL, so that's nice.

Adam Jensen:
I expected this. $5 a month isn't really a lot for what they're offering.

Considering it says "around" 5 dollars a month in the article, I'm thinking that it means it will be five a month if you buy a whole year, similar to Xbox Live. I bit the bullet a few months ago, and got a full year of Live to round out what I believe will be the end of my use of my 360 doing online play, and that was 60, so 5 dollars a month. Before that I occasionally would do a three month thing, but that was a little over 8 dollars a month at 24.99. I also remember that if you only did one month it was 9.99 a month.

So as I said, I'm thinking with the wording of the article, I betting that that will be the similar system of subscription. Really, it comes down to that if people can afford a 60 dollar shot only once a year, then that is the way to go, because beyond that it becomes highway robbery.

CrazyCapnMorgan:

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.

The thing is, though, that even though they're taking that step to do that, you still get all of the freebies and discounts that came along with it on the PS3. If anything, they one-upped Microsoft again on that front. The only thing that MS can do on that front is match Sony's deal; which, given current circumstances, is highly unlikely due to the amount of anti-consumerism attitude they've taken with the XBone.

Not to mention that:

It's worth noting that you will not require PlayStation Plus to watch Netflix, and it will continue to offer the current PlayStation Plus benefits such as free games. If you're already a PlayStation Plus subscriber, your membership will carry over from the PS3 and PSVita to the PS4.

Also, the benefits of PlayStation Plus are nothing to scoff at. Sony isn't offering the bottom of the bargain bin for its free game catalog, but new releases and best sellers like XCOM and Uncharted 3.

And you know something else? I'd rather throw money at this practice rather than what MS offers. Sony just gained this consumer's attention and money, should the good news continue.

Exactly! I'd far rather pay for PS Plus, get free games for my PS3 and hypothetical PS4 than just pay the 50 bucks for the right to downloaded demos and use multiplayer on the Xbox 360. Microsoft even seems downright afraid to fully commit to matching this. I mean, seriously, Halo 3 and ACII? Very few people who didn't want either of those games don't have them by now.

Norrdicus:

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

I think online game streaming using server side installs is a fad idea that is going to play out fairly poorly, which is pretty much what Gaikai is. The better benefits are the free downloadable games that can be run locally. The good thing about Sony attempting to use Gaikai technology is that it at least acknowledges they understand the need some people have for backwards compatibility to play older ps3 games, even if they can't necessarily provide it on a software or hardware level.

I called this years ago, if true.
My words exactly from around 2010/2011;

"When they release the next Playstation, I bet they'll make PS+ mandatory to catch up with Microsoft. It already offers quite a bit more and most people buy into it anyway. If Sony has managed to make them justify subscribing into something that is additionally offered for free, I imagine they'll be able to make it required rather easily next time around".

Still isn't a good thing, though.
Smart for business, bad for consumers.
In the rose that is apparently Sony's E3, the thorn has been revealed.

Not a great news. But I'm not too upset about it. I rarely play online and if I'm paying for ps+ it's for "free" games

Well... at least it doesn't bar me from playing single player games.
Guess I'll be getting a lot more of those next gen.

I wasn't too much into multiplayer anyways.
Going to miss some small things, like if they were to release a new Dragon's Dogma and I couldn't use the pawn system.

But at least it's only for PS4 games.

Adam Jensen:
I expected this. $5 a month isn't really a lot for what they're offering.

Plus (no pun intended), if they keep their current deals going then you only have to pay around $50 for a year subscription, $70 in Australia.

OT: I had a feeling that they were going to do something like this to be quite honest and I don't mind it, especially since it's a) cheaper than Live, b) gives you more content and doesn't lock you out of Netflix, and c) it is only mandatory if you play multiplayer games which is not what the majority of the PS4's game library is.
Really for this I can go with or without PS+ since I mainly don't play multiplayer games which is perfect. Really though if you use this as a choice between the Xbox One or the PS4 then I don't see why as this has way better face value.

Sony have won the first round and second round of this generation. This little cost won't bother anyone really, half my ps3 friends have the sub already, i'll probally pick it up for ps4. Sony have hit the nail on the head all the way this generation, microsoft must be wetting there pants... although by no means do I think they're out for the count.

My flatmate will by an xbox1 as a fanboy, don't think he can let go of the massive gamerscore or friends list, microsoft have a core of players they'll live on but the question is how much will the loose and how much will they be prepared to do to get back as the top dog this generation?

I wonder if they did it to undercut MS' pure console price.

so they manage to do a lot of things that we should have expected of them ANYWAY, and they make online multiplayer locked behind a paywall. Man our standards have DROPPED

That's a little bit of a shame, but it's not too bad. I'll probably only pay for PS4 online when I get my own place but I'll still have a 360.

At least they offer free games and hopefully the customer service will be better cos a few have told me its a bit pants right now. Hopefully they'll have some great deals like the xbox does.

Also I hope our PSN accounts are the same, so I can play the Ps3 and PSX games I bought.

Aiddon:
so they manage to do a lot of things that we should have expected of them ANYWAY, and they make online multiplayer locked behind a paywall. Man our standards have DROPPED

Wait... We should expect to be given free games and discounts? We should expect early access and beta trials?

Background:360 owner who has been using Steam for older and lower-tech games recently.

So I've been pretty much decided not to get an Xbox One -- the few advantages that console gaming had over PC just don't remotely cut it with all the anti-consumer nonsense Microsoft is just assuming consumers will just accept. So I had been thinking I would be getting a slightly higher grade PC- I don't need any high-end gaming rig, I'm happy lowering graphics settings as long as things run smoothly.

It had never occurred to me before though to get a Playstation 4 -- but now that we know its 1 not in need to check in 2 not trying to intervene in the usage of used games 3 $100 cheaper and 4 the Xbox One doesn't have backwards compatibility anyway I might give it a look. Buying used copies of newish game on Amazon is still more expensive than Steam obviously, but I can still use Steam for older and simpler stuff like I do now and get used PS4 games (after like 3-4 weeks a AAA game can frequently be found for 40-ish bucks on Amazon and you don't really know if a game is good right after launch anyway) And besides, some PC games are going to be Origin exclusive anyway and those hardly ever get anywhere near Steam prices no matter HOW old the game is so I might not always save money on new games on PC.

So, having been using Xbox Live Gold, I don't really have an issue with the subscription fee - as long as Sony can show that their security problems are sorted out, that's fine by me.

Since neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have backwards compatibility, there's no cost to me for switching brands.

Depending how many 360 owners are thinking like me, Microsoft's entertainment division might be in trouble. Just assuming that all 70 million people that had a 360 will buy and Xbox One and will just swallow their absurd presumptions to own games even after you've bought the games already is foolish. Brand loyalty is earned, and Microsoft has done very little to earn it. I'll keep an eye on the PS4 as I make a PC/PS decision.

As someone already willing to pay for Xbox Live Gold, I've gotta say that $5 a month for multiplayer isn't that big of a deal for me. It's made even less of a concern seeing as how Sony did so many things right with their announcement and console. Everyone was wondering how/if Sony would capitalize on all the ill-will towards MS that the XBone brought up, turns out all they had to do was say "Everything our competitor is doing that you all really don't like? Yeah, we're NOT going to be doing that."

And really that's all they HAD to say.

I've always liked my 360 and was looking forward to MS's new console seeing as how the "big reveal" event for the PS4 was rather lack-luster. I'd actually be willing to pay the extra $100 if MS had put out something I even half-way wanted. But mandatory Kinect? Murky-at-best restrictions on used games? Built-in DRM? I want absolutely nothing to do with any of that stuff. So it looks like I'll be heading back over to Sony for this next generation.

Spot1990:

Aiddon:
so they manage to do a lot of things that we should have expected of them ANYWAY, and they make online multiplayer locked behind a paywall. Man our standards have DROPPED

Wait... We should expect to be given free games and discounts? We should expect early access and beta trials?

I was referring to the no DRM business. People have forgotten that should be STANDARD, not a premium.

CrazyCapnMorgan:
A fair point, and one I can't really argue against. However, all things considered, I say, though that is somewhat of a downgrade, it's still not much of a blemish against Sony and the PS4. Especially when compared to their competitors.

which competitors. because both Wii and PC dont have this. only Xbox does. So majority (2 out of 3) competitors dont provide such restrictions. Not sure what OUYA will bring and it can be even considered competitor (then why not add the Nvidia handheld too? and mobile phones, gets kinda pointless), but i doubt it will use such tactics either looking at how they treat such things.

MeChaNiZ3D:

One of my problems is that it is single-account, and I have multiple accounts in order to make more characters on RPGs and more mechs in Armored Core. That's all I do. I would much rather it apply to all accounts on the system, like DLC does.

do you use all of those online? because online you wouldj sut need one of them unless you need multiple different accounts online for different characters online (which is kinda like a MMO?), in which case thats how its done anyway. still i think ahving character limit in singleplayer games is extremely stupid idea to begin with and came due to lack of power of current outdated consoles.

Well, this sucks. It doesn't cost money to hand my friend a controller, to hop online on a computer and play with a buddy and the PlayStation being free to use something basic like multiplayer in a game that you pay full price for lets say, multiplayer was why I went with it and not Xbox. I'm okay tossing 5-10$ here or there for extra stuff, but a basic game component should NOT be an extra stuff. I'm not really impressed with any of this generations consoles, they all feel desperate and gimmicky.

KoudelkaMorgan:

Hopefully I won't need a Plus subscription just to use the PSN store. It would be silly to make someone pay you for the chance to buy your stuff.

Nah, stuff like Netflix and the Store are free, I believe.
-
I personally find this ok, since the benefits are pretty cool and I imagine they'll be using sub money to tighten up security and improve performance, but even if I don't get it, I'm still alright. Many of my favourite PS3 games I never really used multiplayer or they didn't have it, such as the inFamous games.
I wasn't even planning on getting a console before this, now I'm re-evaluating that decision...

PS+ seems like a good deal, I have a ps3 but have never used it. Thinking of starting, one question though:

I know that when you subscribe any free games are only yours to play whilst subscribing. Say you stop paying for a month or two since for some reason you cannot afford it, I know while not paying you lose access to those games.

My question is, does it give you access back to those games you've had in the PS+ past allowing you to re-download them if deleted (I know the games you get free change) when you start paying again, or do you only have access to the freebies from the later subscription and each after as long as you keep paying.

It's amazing how much people are willing to accept as long as it's delivered slowly, step by step.

What gets me is why nobody's thought of this - Instead of charging for multiplayer, how about PS+ players being the only ones able to establish private servers instead? Then it's either have to deal with the rabble, or be able to host your own and watch the rabble deal with you!

Zac Jovanovic:
It's amazing how much people are willing to accept as long as it's delivered slowly, step by step.

Like I said, our standards are getting lower

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.

Normally I'd be annoyed, but when the console itself is going for 100 less than the Xbone (which is still keeping its Xbox LIVE subscription) then I can dig it.

That's unfortunate. I was hoping Sony wouldn't pull a move like this. Still, + is fucking awesome and generally a good idea to have. I'm on 1 year subscription and don't regret it, and I'll keep having it as long as it's worth it. But, I'm still sad they're forcing it.

Something people don't seem to realize, is that they are moving to a pay model because they are upgrading their servers substantially, and it costs money to keep them maintained. Now I've been paying for Xbox live for a while, and I don't mind because it has been of wonderful quality. Now if the playstation is also getting this quality, with the better system, and the better services, and now better quality online, then I don't mind paying. Plus, they already do deals, for example, everytime you buy a year, you get 3 months free.

If it takes a $5 a month subscription to bring PSN's matching and chat services on par with the competition, then that's a fair trade off. We've always known that SONY gave away a little too much for free with PSN. Heck they outright told us this 2 years ago. $5 for PS+ ($4 if you buy annually) seems fairly reasonable. They sweeten the deal with freebies and deals, and really it is focusing the cost on those that use the service. It sucks a little. But if that's what it takes for infrastructure for things like Elder Scrolls online?

I guess they had to give EA something to get them to abandon the Online Pass. At least they're not walling off Netflix, or HuluPlus behind PS+.

Well then, this changes... absolutely nothing for me. Carry on!

(I did expect more anger from the masses over this though. Disappointing.)

While that kinda sucks, at least you get free games and other goodies, thereby making it infinitely better than XBL.

Aiddon:

Spot1990:

Aiddon:
so they manage to do a lot of things that we should have expected of them ANYWAY, and they make online multiplayer locked behind a paywall. Man our standards have DROPPED

Wait... We should expect to be given free games and discounts? We should expect early access and beta trials?

I was referring to the no DRM business. People have forgotten that should be STANDARD, not a premium.

Oh yeah totally right. I've said before that it's sad that we support the company that screws us the least. If the Xbox One started glassing us in the eyes we'd thank Sony for not physically harming us. I just think in regards to multiplayer I wouldn't say it's good, it just comes with so many perks it's hard to call it bad. I have PS+ and I will on PS4, I'll play very few multiplayer games though. But I can see why it would bother people. You buy a game for 60 bucks you assume you can play it online. You might not want to play it online AND get a free copy of Kingdoms of Amalur(maybe you have it already or maybe you'd happily sacrifice getting it to save a fiver), or maybe you just straight up don't have 5 bucks a month. I guess it's good for people who like it and bad for those who don't. Especially nowadays if you buy a used game then have to pay to play online modes then have to pay again to actually get online.

JEBWrench:
Well then, this changes... absolutely nothing for me. Carry on!

(I did expect more anger from the masses over this though. Disappointing.)

Well, the PS+ Service has been attractive enough to at least consider getting on board in the past. I'd always waffled on it and just decided not to get it. So having to get it isn't some significant money dump.

Considering the increase in network use that this generation should require it makes sense for them to do this. We are buying the console and we are buying the games, but if someone uses multiplayer heavily then they're leaning on a network in a way that does cost Sony money to provide. I've always been a bit surprised that they haven't charged anything. The newer games will demand more server-side processing in multiplayer environments and so they're looking at potentially significant infrastructure updates.

Being mad at this would be like saying, "I bought a car (game), I bought gas (internet/power) for the car to work and I bought a house (console) to drive to, why the hell am I paying taxes to help build and repair roads (network infrastructure)?!"

The way I see it, it was inevitable that Sony was going to implement SOMETHING to get a cash boost from the PS4 without pissing people off or turning away new customers or Xbox converts - This is the best one they could have picked

I definitely would be more upset if they'd made the console more expensive, or taken some publisher dick in their wallet-hole by adding DRM.

Steven Bogos:
It is a little harsh to be calling this "bad news", considering that Sony's main rival Microsoft has been doing this for years, but it is the one little scratch that tarnishes Sony's otherwise flawless press conference.

The gating off of features in a game you already paid for behind an unrelated subscription fee is always bad news for the consumer.

Now I would say that Playstation Plus is actually worth the subscription fee on it's own without withholding multiplayer, so it's not nearly as bad as the crap Microsoft pulled for years with Xbox Live, but that the service itself is worth it doesn't make the multiplayer aspect suddenly perfectly fine for consumers. If you pay $60 for a game that includes multiplayer, that should be all you pay. Getting nickel and dimed beyond that is not acceptable.

Xbox Live set an absolutely horrid precedent years ago and it's disappointing to see Sony follow suit.

 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