PS4 NewsAre Gamers Really That Miffed About Plus Being A Requirement? - PS4 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Are Gamers Really That Miffed About Plus Being A Requirement?

I've been wondering about this ever since it was confirmed.

As we all know by now, avid gamers will be forced to purchase a PlayStation Plus subscription in the new generation. Without one, you won't be able to play games online when using your PlayStation 4.

Sony has explained why this move was essential, and it makes sense. Personally, I think Plus is a great service and it offers far more than Xbox Live offers in terms of perks and bonuses. So, even though I really don't play online that often, I'm not too annoyed that I have to shell out $50/year to be a member. I mean, at about four bucks a month, I'm not sure we should be complaining for what we get. Of course, I'd still like to be able to keep the games I get through Plus; Sony needs to fix that ASAP.

But anyway, I thought I'd see a bit more fallout concerning this move. I thought everyone would be up in arms, complaining bitterly that they now have to pay to play online. But maybe it's just because the majority of the population is used to online fees of all kinds; there's Live, there are fees for MMOs, there are fees everywhere you look, really. The PlayStation Network was basically the last free-of-charge online service on the planet, if you really think about it. And as Sony said, they can't continue to deliver that kind of content without getting something for it.

I understand it. But do others...? I think they do, because while a great many are indeed pissed, I haven't seen a ton of Sony hate articles spring up due to this issue. Maybe it's just because the PS4 has gone over so well, that one little drawback isn't enough to deter any gamer at this point.

Tags: playstation plus, plus subscription, next gen, next generation, next gen consoles

8/6/2013 10:43:45 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (149 posts)

iwillbetheone
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 @ 11:06:01 PM
Reply

"The PlayStation Network was basically the last free-of-charge online service on the planet, if you really think about it."

Umm, ever heard of Steam? Has much more to offer, and is still free.

Agree with this comment 16 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:59:02 AM

If I could give you 10 thumbs up, I would.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:04:21 AM

Yeah, but PC is funny.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

sirbob6
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:09:18 AM

Well, you basically summarized what I was going to say. Steam is pretty awesome and free.

Last edited by sirbob6 on 8/7/2013 1:11:26 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:14:34 AM

Here's the top 10 Steam game's played today by it's members.
1) Dota 2
2) Team Fortress 2
3) Sid Meier's Civilization V
4) Skyrim
5) Gary's Mod
6) Borderlands 2
7) Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
8) Football Manager 2013
9) Counter-Strike
10) Warframe
This list was derived from over 5 million users who logged on today.

GO for #1 FOOTBALL MANAGER 2013!
Uncharted sucks so bad compared to it
=p



Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/7/2013 1:15:09 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:16:51 AM

Steam is completely different in a LOT of ways.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:17:37 AM

eww. wait. that's FOOTball, as in the Soccer kind of football. BOO!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:27:42 AM

I take it Ben you weren't part of the 2,386 member peak who played FFVII today on Steam?

Go character booster!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:28:59 AM

That quote would only make sense if we only talked about consoles.

The rest of the online services on the planet are essentially free-of-charge.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Phoenix
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 5:53:56 AM

With no BC, and now having to pay a fee to go online ( sure it's only 50/year, but still ), I'm just going to take my gaming over to PC full time.

Plus never seemed like it was worth it when it first came out, and I still feel that way about it today, just not worth it, of course, come PS4 it wont be a matter of is it worth it, it's a matter of do I want to play online, and with games these days focusing heavily on the online aspect, they are forcing it on the customer base.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:02:58 AM

I have Steam. I don't see the big deal.

I bought FFVII off Steam, but I don't use it properly. I modded the crap out of it. lol Long and short... Steam never knows when I play it.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Mounce
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 9:00:08 AM

Yea....I'd definitely argue with that and against Ben.

Both are - Summed - A Digital distribution network.

That is their core, that is their service that is the point of the PSN Store outside of 'The place you download demos at and DLC'. You have to think about it outside the Original Purpose of what it did before Full games were purchasable to be fully downloaded on your HDD.

It is infact, exactly like steam and is turning into another Steam.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:11:28 AM

Until Steam gives me what ps+ gives me, Im gonna have to go with the fact that you guys are straight up crazayzay. Lol :p

But seriously... i have both and the only usefulness i get from steam is an online marketplace and interesting but useless stats. Also people telling me what is good and what isnt... often i disagree anyways.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:38:27 AM

Underdog, Plus is a *great* service for many - but not EVERYONE. That's the problem. It's the mandatory requirement of a service with a fee that is the entire issue here.

But if you want to do a comparison with Steam don't forget that Steam has cross game text chat, cloud storage, non-restricted number of downloads, trophies ("achievements"), "Greenlight" with member votings, there's community forums, message system, community hubs for each title, "Steam Workshop" where you find community created content, and so forth. And, of course, some *amazing* sales.

The major difference with Plus is that rental of some games are included in the monthly fee.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:07:45 AM

"Underdog, Plus is a *great* service for many - but not EVERYONE."

That's true of any service. Including Steam. And if you honestly think the only difference with Plus is your last comment, you don't know very much about it.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2013 11:17:33 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:01:45 PM

Indeed it is Ben, and that is why the paragraph you quote from continues with, "It's the mandatory requirement of a service with a fee that is the entire issue here."



Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 12:03:43 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

iwillbetheone
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:05:23 PM

Okay, tell me what PSN/Plus(except the free games part, for which you are essentially paying rental) has, but Steam doesn't have. If you look at the other side, then there are many features of Steam that PSN doesn't have, as Beamboom pointed out.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:21:20 PM

Steam doesn't have Playstation games.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

iwillbetheone
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:28:50 PM

And PlayStation doesn't have Steam games, so what? It's not like you are paying for your disc-based games when you pay for PSN. It's for network-specific features that you are paying, and which I am asking to compare.

Last edited by iwillbetheone on 8/7/2013 12:34:32 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 2:48:14 PM

I'm paying for those "free" games which include PS games, and the servers that run them.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:35:57 PM

Okay, so everyone here who thinks steam is a bad comparison this is the down low.

To play any games online on steam is free, whether the game is peer to peer, or has servers official or user owned.

PS+ forces you to pay money to play console games online, most of which use Peer to Peer connections and matchmaking services. Aside from getting "free" games with the service you are basically paying for something that should be free.

Now if the Playstation game has servers then they need to be maintained but the money needed should be easily covered in the box price for the game unless its an MMO or a game that requires some elements of persistence.

Bottom line is, Live and PS+ on the next gen consoles are both still a rip off. You should be able to play games online without paying a dime because in the case of most games that use peer to peer matchmaking well to be frank it isn't costing the devs or sony a lick of money, in fact its costing you broadband.

This is the thing people dont understand about the whole thing that irks me. I get that steam is apparently not for everyone, although a completely free service with easy to find free to play games, and wildly discounted games seems hard for me to fathom not liking it.

But there is no way that paying 60 bucks a year just so you have the privilege of playing online is something that I will never get. The servers wont be better if the game is even using dedicated servers which almost all console games right now do NOT use because servers are servers, but most importantly the point here is that most console games are probably going to still be using Peer to peer matchmaking and if they aren't then it still doesn't matter because Steam games have official servers for games that are 10 years old still up and running, and people can make their own servers with a crappy laptop providing they have the internet.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:58:48 PM

Now that I read xenris post, I wish Sony remains the free online playing on the PS4.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 8/7/2013 4:59:33 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 5:29:38 PM

"should be free" is an opinion, the money paid in makes other network goodies possible like the games, like the gaikai streaming, like Home software, like social networking, like games that aren't peer to peer, etc.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 7:57:42 PM

xenris, Plus is about more than online. You're not paying $50/year to play online. You're paying for far more than that. You're paying for early access to demos, cloud storage, free games, beta access, and an "always-on" discount for anything on the Store. Every week, there's something new going on with Plus.

You can not care about any of it, if you wish. Doesn't mean you're allowed to discount it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:30:33 PM

The point is Ben, that you HAVE to pay for it. Even if you don't want those "free" games and discounts. If you just want to go online and play games which costs Sony pretty much nothing and in some cases absolutely nothing, well you have to pay that is my problem with it. They should at least give you options, but they wont because if they force everyone to pay and Xbox already makes you pay then people are going to suck it up and buy it.

Steam has cloud storage too, massive discounts, free to play games, early access, beta access, and demos too. So they sound pretty similar to me.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 9:54:26 PM

are Steam users ashamed of their top 10 daily peaks list or something?
Not proud of Gary's Mod, two versions of Counter-Strike and Football Manager?

Shouldn't that be like Whoa, sweet THUMBS UP Temjin. Those games rock. Thanks for giving it to them straight with our list of hottest games!

=p

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:04:01 PM

Seriously discounted games... yeah... if I log on religiously to check and inundate my screen with ads and a seriously pain in the ass always running in the background Steam service.

I've had a steam account for 3 years and I've yet to see a "killer discount" for something I would want to play on PC. I've bought a few games. Most notably, the older ones I miss (like some older Civilization games or Age of Empires, for example)

Certainly Steam has it's notables, but it is not the be-all-end-all PC enthusiasts declare it to be. It just isn't. And cross game... text chat? Big whoop. If I'm on PC I can do voice with anything using a voip... I can use a messaging system like Google hangouts... facebook chat... msn... whatever. Just gotta play windowed mode or hook up another screen.

It just... is an ok service... yes I think PSN should be free still... but it offers so damn much that the 7-8$ a month I'll be paying will be used extremely well. Steam doesn't give what PS+ will. It just can't compete.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:15:42 PM

Underdog if you put a game on your wanted list if it ever goes on sale you get an email. I dont see the problem you have with steam. Its always running sure but its not CPU intessive

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:36:18 AM

If I put a game on my wanted list, it'll be purchased. I don't exactly have a 10+ game list. I get PC games in passing... like if I'm bored and am looking for something new without going to the store. There is nothing on my most wanted list of games that includes a PC game.

I don't really like playing with a keyboard/mouse... if I want a controller I have my games... and my TV is a whole friggin' lot bigger than my PC monitor. And my monitor isn't bad, either. Also, my couch is far more comfortable than any gaming chair. :p

Agree with this comment 0 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 10:53:43 AM

Underdog you can hook your PC up to play through your TV and you can use an Xbox and/or a PS3 controller with your PC.

Just passing by? The witcher 2 was exclusive to the PC and is the best RPG to come out since the original Baldurs gate games and I even put it above those games.

There are a lot of PC exclusive games that are worth checking out, or games that are just better on the PC and better with a mouse and keyboard like shooters.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 11:39:13 AM

Unfortunately, moving my PC around to the tv or vice versa sounds like a terrible chore for me.

I have a respectable adult home. I'm not carting my PC around the house, nor am I going to cart around my tv around the house just so I can enjoy something from Steam. I might have back when my entire belongings were in my bedroom, a la dormatory or my room when I was in high school... but not now that I'm a home owner and my PC is in my office and my entertainment center is in my entertainment center.

As for the witcher 2, I might get it someday, but I'm in no rush. I don't have time (sadly) to play everything I want to play, and I'm definitely not hurting. I'm drastically behind, if anything. Steam will be there for me to pick up once it's cheap and I actually feel like I have time for it.

Like I said, Steam has it's uses. I like occasional PC games. But I simply don't see steam as that big of a deal. It's just another online marketplace with loads of advertising. It also doesn't help that I don't know many people with gaming PC's, admittedly. So the social features are useless (as I'm sure PS4's share functions will be useless to me).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:04:50 PM

The advertising is on one page, its not obnoxious, its not a pop up, in fact you can start up steam and go directly to your library if you want and bypass the store page entirely.

Also I'm not going to get into detail but there are very easy ways to hook your TV up to your PC, either remotely or with an HDMI cable.

Either way it is possible, and thats my point, your excuse is you can't move stuff around now, before you were saying how you don't like mouse and keyboard and you like TVs, I just illustrated how both of your original problems could be remedied.

The witcher 2 is regularly on sale on steam for 5 or 6 bucks has been for a while so yeah it will be there whenever you want to check it out.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 @ 11:20:45 PM
Reply

I've always thought stuff like Xbox Live was 'worth it' if online appealed to you. I still think this now and for this new PS Plus requirement. The thing is, for me, while it may be worth it there is always the competition to consider. I do have 2 PC systems that can play games, and play games easily better than anything made on the current gen. I also look at the next-gen as one that will drive more gamers to PCs. This is in part due to the radically changed development landscape of x86 standardization, and secondly this is due to the commonality and 'cheapness' of the core hardware powering the next-gen.

Much development for the next-gen is now looking to begin on PC and is then ported down to the consoles. This makes sense now that the core underlying architecture IS a PC on both the XboxOne and the PS4. It's only the closed nature of the respective platform's that significantly distinguishes them. My point is that the time it will take for PC multiplats to meet and eclipse the next-gen appears to be on day 1. That is, it's already been revealed AC4 will look best on PC, as other games like Watchdogs are looking this way as well.
And to assume it will take ridiculous amounts of cash to make such a computer is false. The next-gen uses middle of the road LAPTOP hardware, hence why it's so low-voltage and lesser heat producing. The whole focus of AMD and INTEL going forward is these APU's or "System on a Chip" designs. Basically, low cost MASS PRODUCED, hardware for the mainstream. Essentially, even the middle of the road laptop PC's will easily have the 'power of the XBoxOne' within little time.

Anyway, I'm keeping my self on the down low with it all. Biding my time to see how stuff unfolds. I'll be logical about it all and not let emotional attachments cloud my judgement for what's best for my gaming needs.

Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/6/2013 11:22:23 PM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 7:11:58 AM

Your observations around the hardware are, in general terms, correct. But you do the same mistake as many (most?) others do in these kind of discussions: You only look at the numbers like they lived in an isolated world, forgetting all the other elements that makes up the whole picture.

While it is true that the games will be developed on PCs (really, hasn't they always been) many of them will still be designed FOR consoles, and then ported down to the PCs (yes, "DOWN"). Let me explain:

Game development for PCs today is much like developing apps for Android: It's an extremely fragmented user base in regards to system specs, and there's no time (read: budgets) to write specific code for all those various configurations.

So the developers end up writing for the minimum spec requirements, with the engines "brute forcing" additional effects and eye candy for those who own the graphic cards to support it. That's essentially what PC game development is all about.

So while the upcoming consoles might be called "mainstream hardware" the SOFTWARE who runs on it can be written for spec that's miles above the minimum requirements they are forced to write for to the PC platform.

In other words; They can now on their devkits write code for eight cored, 64bit architecture, 4-5gb *available* RAM and write the engines particularly for this specific graphics chipset.

And THEN, to make the PC versions, they need to do the needed alterations in order to make them run also on 32bit, single core machines (or at best, dual core). See? Downgrade.

There are none - and I repeat, NONE - of the PC games today who fully use the specifications of a high-end PC. And this point is significant, and often forgotten when the new console hardware is discussed.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 7:32:08 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:29:45 AM

I'm sorry Beam but Ive missed your point. I understand the elements of some evidence you've pointed to though.

A PC version is made scaleable by nature. Ive read that some high profile devs are creating their games with high end pc in mind and then scaling back graphic quality to meet a given console spec. I dont have anything more or less to say than that concerning it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:46:04 AM

That's the graphics, Temjin. *Just* the graphics. The simplest thing in the world is to scale down the graphics. But a game is more than just that.

Let me make some simplified examples.
Let's take an open world game. Now if you write a game that must be able to run on a machine with 1gb ram, that simply is a restriction you can not overcome. You can't write a game that uses 4gb ram and then scale down the maps for those who don't have the memory.

Or if you make a real-time strategy game with some *serious* heavy-duty AI utilizing four CPU cores. That is parallel CPU processing a single core can not cope with. If you *need* to make your game playable on a single core system, you simply *must* hold back.

You can easily scale down the graphics, but not the complexity.

And no matter how high end PC you got there's never been written games that fully and reliably depend on eight cores. It's simply not done before. Nor does it exist any high end PC with a CPU who has had access to RAM at the speed of the gddr ram we got with the PS4. Such a machine simply does not exist.

PC software must be scalable, but it *must* also be able to run on the minimum requirement specs. And those requirements are way, waaaay lower than the upcoming consoles. That is essentially my point here.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 10:51:35 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:15:02 PM

I'm still not certain how that directly relates to what I've stated.
"Ive read that some high profile devs are creating their games with high end pc in mind and then scaling back graphic quality to meet a given console spec."
Are you claiming that AC4 and Watchdog's and that social driving game (not Drive Club) won't be better than the PS4 version, even though some who have experience directly related to these projects have already suggested they will?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:50:28 PM

No - hehe - that's not what I am suggesting.
Those games are extremely likely not written to fully use the new console specs at all.

Hmm - let's store this conversation in mind and pull it out again in a year or two, shall we? Then I think you'll much better understand what I mean.
Either that or take it to the forums, where there is more room to elaborate in more detail. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 1:51:52 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:00:42 PM

hey, you're writing the novels man ;)
Why would I want to store anything away to an argument I never made? I still don't get what you're getting at. So in two years PC's magically won't be capable of what the XboxOne can do?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:18:30 PM

I can only suggest to either read my first reply again and see if you make more out of it, or take it to the forums and continue there. This is no place for very long texts - especially on something that I suspect most will consider to be simply "walls of text" here.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:22:34 PM

I read it and saw so many false attributions going in every direction I've had to constrain myself from unleashing on your derivative meddling. You should read about how a single threaded, effectively 6-core (2 reserved for OS), low cost processor is more or less what we're looking at for the next-gen. A dual threaded 4-core i5 is more than enough to trump the next-gen CPU right now.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:36:31 PM

"A dual threaded 4-core i5 is more than enough to trump the next-gen CPU right now." Counted in pure CPU capacity, indeed it is!

But, to quote myself in this context:

"Game development for PCs today is much like developing apps for Android: It's an extremely fragmented user base in regards to system specs, and there's no time (read: budgets) to write specific code for all those various configurations."

Ergo, games today are not written to fully utilize these high end capacities - they *need* to be runnable on minimum spec requirements. See? And those requirements are *far* from a dual threaded 4-core i5. See where I am getting at?

To scale down the graphics is no big deal, it really is the most scalable component of the entire game. But to scale down program complexity, (ergo, CPU tasks) are NOT as easy, not by a long shot. (I refer to the two examples I wrote in these regards)

Ergo, there are no games today who fully use that insane power of high-end PCs. When you say "Much development for the next-gen is now looking to begin on PC and is then ported down to the consoles" this is what I address.
I believe we will see it go the other way around - with games being designed for the console capacities, and then scaled down to PC - and follow me now - BECAUSE THEY NEED TO HAVE THE GAMES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (not meant to scream or insult, but to emphasize).

But please, I love this subject but it's so so hard to use this comments field for these kind of discussions.

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 4:50:23 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:48:06 PM

"I also look at the next-gen as one that will drive more gamers to PCs. This is in part due to the radically changed development landscape of x86 standardization, and secondly this is due to the commonality and 'cheapness' of the core hardware powering the next-gen. "
My first point supported with why.
"My point is that the time it will take for PC multiplats to meet and eclipse the next-gen appears to be on day 1"
My next point, supported by what immeaditly preceded it.

Beam, you went in directions from what I stated that just aren't about what I stated. I don't disagree with what you're saying about having to create a scaleable game. Nor do I disagree with this:
"I believe we will see it go the other way around - with games being designed for the console capacities, and then scaled down to PC"
You were so bent on trying to prove something to me that I never suggested or tried to imply.




Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/7/2013 4:48:29 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:54:36 PM

No, I'm afraid we are talking past each other. You are focusing only on the capabilities of the hardware, while I am talking about the software that runs on it and the challenges the developers face in these respects.

"My point is that the time it will take for PC multiplats to meet and eclipse the next-gen appears to be on day 1"

This is what I disagree with, and has tried to explain why with great efforts now. :D

But oh well. I am pretty sure I could have expressed myself better, no worries. English is not my native language. :(

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 5:26:21 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SaiyanSempai
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 @ 11:35:32 PM
Reply

I definitely think it's worth it. I'm already a plus member and if this gets more people into plus and helping Sony with the much needed resources to improve their online services then I'm all for it. Current gen PSN has been a huge operating loss for Sony.

One of my friends, however, is completely upset about the move - and he's also a plus member! Go figure...

Also, Ben, you mentioned that the PSN was the last free-of-charge online service, but PC gamers don't have to front that online fee. But how are PC games able to pull that off? Servers are incredibly expensive to build and then costing millions of dollars a year to maintain. How does the PC infrastructure do it?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:47:52 AM

Isn't that what part of the original game cost is for? To cover overhead like the online servers?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:35:02 AM

"Servers are incredibly expensive to build" - what's incredibly expensive to build and maintain is the mmorpgs type servers. That's why they have fees.

The other type of servers are in fact incredibly cheap both to create and run - that's why it remains free everywhere else but in the console world.

In typical multiplayer games the matchmaking is the only thing that is done on a central server - and that's roughly as complicated and expensive as running a website - everything else is hosted by one of the players, or on a dedicated server that someone set up.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 3:35:25 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Warukyure [Power User]
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 @ 11:50:21 PM
Reply

If people can't see the benefit of Plus, and you're angry at Sony for forcing you to get it. That's like getting angry at the Sun for being hot in Summer...

Let's be real for a second, if one was to go out, buy a PS4, for $400, maybe a few games at $50~60 a pop, and some accessories. Why can't one get Plus?

For the price of ONE game, you can get up to 60 free games in a year. That right there seems like a much better deal for any online membership system available right now. If I like the game, download, done. If I don't I'll pass on it. It's not like what Sony offers is by any means "ancient" in terms of the games they offer (Microsoft... Dead Rising 2 and Crackdown... Seriously, Obama wasn't even President when Crackdown came out.)

Been a Plus member since April, while I am picky with some of the games, I still downloaded 8 games since I started, it isn't much, but it still saved me like $200 so far.

P.S. Xbox jab, Sorry

Agree with this comment 5 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

FM23
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 @ 11:55:20 PM
Reply

It doesn't matter really since nothing is free in life. Sony is smart to charge. Do I like this move??? eeehhhhh, I don't have/take "advantage" of Plus nor do I play online often enough to justify shelling out $50. But $50 isn't leaving a empty void in my pocket. So in the end, I could really careless.

If $50 seems too high for you, might be time for you to find a better job. If you can afford it, but feel Sony isn't being greedy; maybe you should look in the mirror and realize businesses need money to run their networks. Sony is no different.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:38:14 AM

Thing is, it adds up. If you plan on keeping this console for up to 8 years, that's another $400 on top of the $400 you pay for the console, and all of a sudden that console in effect costs $800 - albeit on a down-payment plan - before you even bought a single game.

It might still be nothing to you, but I do understand those who see it differently.

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 8:38:50 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:09:16 AM

Hey Beamboom, you know what adds up? The cost of buying and keeping a gaming-quality PC functioning at a GAMING-QUALITY level of 8 years. THAT'S what adds up. And I'm fairly certain it's about eight trillion times that of being a Plus subscriber for the same length of time.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2013 11:09:45 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:22:19 PM

Burn.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:06:13 PM

uhm, ok... It's also quite expensive to build your own flight simulator cockpit complete with hydraulics, but I don't see how either is of any relevance to what I am saying.

I am merely stating that a mandatory monthly fee adds up to the total cost of this console. That's just a simple fact that is easy to overlook.
I'm not saying it makes it the most expensive gaming machine in the world, or something.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 1:11:46 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Geobaldi
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 2:19:02 PM

Don't forget to add the important part of the puzzle, the game prices. Console games are normally $10-20 more expensive then their PC counterparts, minus the major developer releases Now add that up over those 8 years, and now that console gaming cost goes up even higher.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:33:30 PM

The point, Beamboom, is that it's ridiculous to talk about Plus being expensive and Steam being "free," when you're completely ignoring the start-up and maintenance costs for both forms of entertainment.

If Steam was on consoles, you'd have something. But it isn't.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:39:40 PM

Most of popular steam games or valve games can be run on Old rigs that cost maybe 500 bucks and this is a PC that can do about 100 more things than a console. Couple this with the fact that Steam games are dirt cheap and your argument falls through the floor Ben.

Dota 2, totally free. Counterstrike: GO 15 bucks and regularly on sale for 5. TF2 Completely free. I could go on steam and give you a mammoth list but you wouldn't care anyway.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:53:35 PM

Again, I am not comparing anything Ben. If I did, I would be a lot more thorough in doing so than to hint things between the lines.

All I am saying is that this mandatory cost adds to the price of the console - a factor that may, to some, mean something. That is really all.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:37:43 PM

I've spent $900 on PS3 hardware this gen to get me through 7 years =p
Thanks ylod. 360 users probably spent a lot more between RRoD and Xbox Live fees. It would've been great to just pop off the console case and replace the part myself.

Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/7/2013 4:37:59 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 7:53:48 PM

An old rig that costs as much as a next-gen console, on which I wouldn't be able to play anything but old games. That would be ONLY for Steam and it still cost me a minimum start-up of $500, and any other additions over a span of 8-10 years that I'd need, just to keep it FUNCTIONAL for games.

Explain to me how anything "falls through," xenris. The insane bias of PC elitists continues to defy all logic, apparently.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2013 7:54:23 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:50:05 PM

Because most people already have a computer that can play all the games I just listed. In fact I could probably build a gaming rig for about 800 bucks that could play top of the line games decently. I was saying that if you had nothing you could buy a 500 dollar laptop and play these games and even some new games too but at lower settings.

What do you mean keep it functional for games. I kept a PC that I got in highschool functional for over a decade and that was with one video card upgrade and doing hard drive formats every year. The one video card was only like 120 bucks if I recall.

Its not really bias, its just facts. Most people who have a computer have a computer that can play steams most popular games. Those games are at the very least 1/3rd the price of console games, and there are a lot of excellent well done Free to play games with not Micro transaction BS.

If you had no computer and just wanted to play steam games as well as maybe some new games at higher graphics then you could spend 300-800 dollars on a rig depending on what exactly you wanted from it.

The truth is gaming PCs are becoming more and more available as technology prices go down. I mean the computer I have right now that I can play any top of the line game at high or higher graphics if I bought it now would be about 600 dollars a bit more if you wanted to put an extra 2 gigs of ram in it which I'm going to do soon, so like 640.

I fail to see how 640 dollars for a good gaming rig is unreasonable, its only a bit more than the PS4, and you get all of steam, plus all the other free service that are out there on the internet. You can skype for free, watch movies, and do everything. You can even hook it up so your PC plays through your TV when you are playing games. Plug in a controller and the experience is identical.

What falls through is the fact that PC games are cheaper on average even AAA titles, and steam does HUGE discounts on games so you end up saving a lot of money there. You can repair them easier, upgrade them if you want etc.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:05:23 PM

"Because most people already have a computer that can play all the games I just listed"

and that scenario will only become greater as the Jaguar APU tech floods the middle to lower end spectrum of laptops, as they're set to. Basically, hardware in gaming is becoming irrelevant and it's now all about the games you want to play and how and where.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:29:31 PM

No, most people dont

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:01:37 AM

By most people dont do you mean you dont? Because those are two completely different things. Everyone I know has a computer that can run Source engine games, the one person I knew who didn't had a laptop from like 1998 or something and it was poorly maintained. Guess what they did? They bought a new one, because everyone needs a PC these days and why not spend a bit more cash and get one that can play games too?

All that aside I just stated that you can get a gaming rig for under 700 bucks, a rig that will run new games really well and high settings. Sure that is more than a PS4 but you get all the perks of having a PC, like cheaper games, free online services, Steam and all its stuff, f2p games(the good ones) and all the stuff you can do with computers like coding if you want, graphic design, art, music making, web browsing etc.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:38:44 AM

Most people definitely don't have PC's capable of gaming the games you listed. Definitely don't. I am the only person I know that does. Everyone I know owns laptops like macbooks or whatever. And the PC owners I know have relatively new PC's (5 years), but they weren't designed for gaming then... and they are definitely not designed for it now.

Those PC's still cost $300+ too.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 10:42:56 AM

The one thing in the PC arguement that is almost always overlooked is that you also need to be literate with the tech. I am a moron when it comes to computers, so regardless of all the arguements you PC players have made you lose when it comes to me, plain and simple. Not everyone out there is educated or comfortable with them.

An example from my life is I bought a computer in 2000 and picked up a Janes Combat Simulator game that was a year or two older then the system, and to this day I have only got the game to play one time. So for me the console world will always trump the computer world in every way. Now if they finally create a computer that can work like a console I may change my mind, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. Let alone you will always have less hackers/cheaters on consoles vs. computers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 10:58:26 AM

So this must be a matter of where in the world you live because everyone I know has a computer that can play source engine games.

Not to mention Valve is making all there games run on Mac, and linux so thats not an excuse now either.

Rogue, I get that some people aren't tech savvy and PCs are hard to understand etc. But really you just have to do a little bit of research to be able to get a computer that can handle games. You can min max specs all you want but thats for the tech geeks and not gamers per say. Also Valve is working on a console like PC so maybe soon you will get what you want :P

I do see the appeal of console games though, they are easy, and you can play with friends in the same room easily. Although that feature seems to be dying as time goes on :(

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Riku994
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:04:03 AM
Reply

I'm disappointed, but it makes sense.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:11:23 AM
Reply

I do see it as a bit unsettling. They way games are going, almost every game has online components nowadays. Now you charge for online, that means that for a lot of games to "get your monies worth", your gonna have to pay the subscription fee for Plus.

Now that might not seem a big deal for people who already pay for the service. But some don't want to have to "pay to play". Is something to keep an eye on, for sure.



* If you go by the idea that games will soon all have online components, then the idea that you can be required to have online to play a game isn't that farfetched. And in that case, remember to when all the flack that Microsoft Xbone got when it was announced......

The saying about the frog and the boiling water applies. As does the one about asking for forgiveness over asking for permission.

Last edited by wackazoa on 8/7/2013 12:14:52 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:13:44 AM
Reply

The reason it hasn't been a big deal is that MS fans can't poke us in the eye by saying "Ha you gotta pay for your online" because well, you know.

I think what would be cool is at the end of the year they should offer you a small fee to keep the "free" games currently in your list instead of having to have PSPlus in perpetuity.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:56:15 AM

That's my main issue with PS Plus. I can subscribe and pay for years but as soon as I stop paying then all those games I got as part of my subscription disappear.

If they had some nominal fee you could pay, and I mean REALLY nominal, to keep the games permanently after a while then that would be a good thing. That way in 10 years time if you wanted to boot up your PS3 and play some retro late 2000's game you paid for with your subscription then you could, even if that online service is no longer available.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:13:51 AM
Reply

Im actually pretty upset about it. But my feelings are void considerimg it didnt stop me from pre ordering my PS4. So its hard to complain, when its not hindering my purchase any.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 8/7/2013 12:14:32 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PC_Max
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:18:42 AM
Reply

I have been on plus for almost a year now and renewal is coming up soon. I like the fact it backs up my saved files currently, some good discounts on games for plus members (not too many games to my tastes), and free games both big and small for members (again not many for me). Overall a good deal for the money.

Many of the games are not to my tastes but I am sure plenty for others. My hope is the game library free or discounted will get better and better as the library continues to grow and the increase the number that remain free for members and more discounts, be they new or old games.

This all helps to pay for the maintenance of the servers as well the costs involved with maintaining the multiplayer/social services.

Keep playing!
Keep playing!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:04:26 AM
Reply

the fact that you get driveclub ($60) for being a ps+ member ($50) really softened the blow

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:12:04 AM
Reply

Well, if you already have an internet connection and planning to buy a ps4 you should get the ps plus. It's just 50 dollars a YEAR. So you can get more out of your internet subscriptions. While you're playing on Steam, chatting, downloading torrents, watching porn or youtube, you're PS4 is downloading some games. And of course the multiplayer. It's not like Sony is going to be like Microsoft always need to be online even in disc based single player campaign.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 2:00:47 AM
Reply

PS Plus for online multiplayer doesn't effect my directly as I don't play online however I have sympathy for those who do. In my mind a fraction of the game price should go to pay for this online service rather than funding it seperately.
Isn't that the model used by the PC and it works perfectly well?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:41:29 PM

It is how PC games do it and it does work. There is no reason to charge for it, its just a way to make more money especially when most games use peer to peer matchmaking.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PlatformGamerNZ
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 2:23:10 AM
Reply

look i thought um okay...
i wasn't really thrilled but i'll go with it if i had to.
still not really happy.

happy gaming =)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:41:09 AM
Reply

I will now need to pay a monthly fee to access something that *should* be free - and is free everywhere else but on consoles. That is my problem.

Here's my case:
I am a coop gamer. Online access is a core component for me. Secondly, I am the kind of gamer who buy the games I want to play reasonably soon after they are released. Thirdly, I am a gamer that hardly have time to play the games I *do* buy, let alone waste time on "freebies" that didn't interest me enough to buy when they were new.

Ergo, The Plus club, for me, is just a cover charge to enable me to do what *should* be free to do: Hook up with a buddy and host a game, on MY console, using MY bandwidth.
And *that* pisses me off. This is milking. This is force feeding me something I do not want.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:59:19 AM

You and I are on the same page, man.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:14:00 AM

Nobody's force-feeding you anything. Just don't do it. How exactly is it Sony's responsibility to understand your personal gaming preferences and cater specifically to them?

For YOU, it might not be a good deal. That doesn't make it a universal "milking" issue. For me, I hate playing games on a computer and I don't have a PC that's good for that, so Steam is worthless. Doesn't make one jot of difference if it's free or not.

Plus is useful for me in a lot of ways, and I will almost NEVER use it to go online. For the most part, I despise online playing, anyway. Doesn't make Plus a good thing for everyone, though, and I get that. You seem to think Steam is just grand for all and that the Plus requirement is representative of Sony's greed (which it absolutely is not, as the Network and Steam are completely DIFFERENT in terms of structure and cost, and you know that).

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2013 11:15:16 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:32:03 PM

@Ben;
I don't understand... I am just sticking to the topic of this article and you respond... Like this?
I don't get it.

It's not a good deal for ME, no. I state that multiple times. I've not been a Plus member up until now, and I don't like being forced to becoming one. That does indeed feel like milking, and most definitely is forced. Yes.

Good for you that you feel differently, but I already knew that from reading your article. I am merely explaining why it's not a good deal for *me*.

This is my one, single gripe with the PS4. As you know I am overly excited about every single other thing in regards to this machine.

I'm not sure what has given you the impression that I believe Steam is grand for all, but let's put that to rest right away: I do not believe *anything* is grand for all. No product, no service, no solution. And that includes Steam.

But if you feel like explaining how PSN and Steam are so completely different in terms of structure and cost please do, cause I don't see what you mean? Unless this is just intended to be some sort of bickering, then I humbly ask to be spared that.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 1:46:05 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:36:28 PM

You've been pushing Steam from the start, Beamboom, as you so often push PC gaming. You may not be aware of it, but that's how it comes across.

It comes across that way because you ignore the basic facts, which is that PC gaming is still vastly more expensive overall, regardless of whether or not Steam is free. I know it's not crazy expensive if you're some computer wiz and you build your own stuff. Even THEN it's not as cheap as consoles, but I get the idea.

What I can't understand is why you feel "milked" by something you don't need, and you're perfectly fine with dealing with the relatively high cost of PC gaming just to take advantage of something you say is free...when to many, it doesn't feel free at all. I don't think you're reading people's replies very closely, as evidenced by your complete misinterpretation in the LGBT article.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2013 3:37:18 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:01:58 PM

I must say it is pretty natural that many mention Steam in this discussion. As a service it's an obvious comparison, but while pretty much everyone here that's slightly miffed about this do mention Steam, I just want to underline that I myself have not talked about Steam one single time here other than in reply to what *others* have stated about Steam.

My focus is on Plus, and why it doesn't sit well with me. To cite you: "I thought I'd see a bit more fallout concerning this move." Well, here you have it.
I'd feel like a hypocrite if I now all of a sudden should be all for paying for this, after making fun of the Xbox fees for like five years straight.

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/7/2013 4:22:57 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 5:38:30 PM

Steam can't do shit for me no matter how free it is but PS Plus is going to do wonders for my PS4.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:06:30 PM

World sums it up.

It's not like the Live vs PSN debate at all. Steam doesn't do much. Free... for whoop-de-doop very little. But IZ FREE UNDERDOG! IZ FREEEEEE!!!

So is eating grass off my front lawn... doesn't make it a hearty meal.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:19:44 PM

"I will now need to pay a monthly fee to access something that *should* be free - and is free everywhere else but on consoles. That is my problem".

Is Playstation 4 exclusive MMO's whatever is free to play online everywhere else?

And by the way Playstation 3 multiplayer online will always be free to play until the end of it's console life. The Plus mandatory is only implemented on the PS4. And again not ALL games in PS4 that has online play requires PS+. It's up to the publisher whether they put it or not inside PLUS. That's why DC Universe Online, Warframe and Planetside 2 is still free and do not require a PS+ to play. And it's confirmed.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:41:31 AM

Beam, I have regularly mocked XBOX live because it doesn't really offer anything extra to PSN free. In the regular XBOX days when PS2 was out, I owned an XBOX and gladly paid for Live because it was a unique service. But as time went on, PSN offered essentially what Live did, but for free. That's why I laughed, personally. That's why most did... including you.

But when the paid services evolve into something much greater than other free services, it changes. And like Homura said... it's up to the devs to decide to use PSN or not.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 5:55:49 PM

Ben the problem with your argument is that you are saying that PC gaming is more expensive than console gaming. To be honest its probably equal, I demonstrated how my computer right now which can play all games on the market at high settings which looks better than and PS3 multiplat game only costs about 650 bucks. Thats 250 more than a PS4 and 350 more than a PS3. So its more expensive right? Not really, because PC multiplat games are usually 10 bucks cheaper, Steam offers insane deals on games, and yes even within the first two months of the games launch, steam is free, it has free cloud storage, and you have free MMOs, shooters etc.

Consoles are cheaper by 250 bucks, but when you buy another controller thats 50 bucks, a game that is an extra 70 bucks, and you buy live and that is another 50 bucks. That means you are only saving about 90 bucks, on top of that, you need a good TV to enjoy HD gaming which are way more expensive than good monitors.

Point is you seem to be trapped in this way of thinking that PC gaming is uber expensive, when in fact it isn't. Temjin explained this, I explained this twice now.

Does this mean I dont like consoles? No I preordered a PS4 I like the couch co op and exclusives on consoles. But the gap is starting to close in how different console and PC gaming is, especially considering you can hook your PC up to an HDtv and plug in a PS3 or Xbox controller.

On the topic of feeling miffed. Well it SHOULD be free to play games online, because most games do not cost Sony any money, even if they have servers for shooters the cost for these is very small, and steam does this for free which is why people are comparing the two.

Its being forced into it, because some people want to play games online, not just SP games like you Ben, but they don't care about the free games so why isn't there an option that lets them just play their games online for free with like barebone social features?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 9:45:38 PM

xenris: PC gaming is more expensive.

And you're also apparently ignoring the fact that you HAVE to upgrade. You have to. It's not an option. You really think you won't have to upgrade a $650 machine in the 8-year span of a console generation? And you think those upgrades are cheaper than an extra controller or something? Give me a BREAK.

There's also no reason whatsoever why everyone is expected to buy games new. Saying consoles games are more expensive is meaningless unless you buy every single game in the generation new. You also seem to think Steam is cheaper, when it's not. Any games on Steam are the same price as they are on consoles, as far as I can tell. Other games, fine. Guess that's the only ones I'd be able to use my $650 PC for, anyway.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/8/2013 9:47:00 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 3:41:30 AM

Ben, why can't you trust what those of us who game on both platforms say? We don't just make up these things.

Games *are* cheaper on the PC. Many releases are 10-15% cheaper already on day one, and they drop *much* faster in price. Ergo, the prices on Steam, as they are for the PC versions, *are* typically lower than the console version of that game. You can't just say "bah it doesn't mean anything, just wait with buying the console games until they are in the bargain bin and you're fine". What kind of argument is that?

That doesn't mean I am saying PC gaming is cheaper overall. And it most definitely does not mean I am saying that PC gaming is universally "best". But this attitude that *nothing* is better than on consoles is so tiresome.

Every platform has their advantages and disadvantages. I can easily make a list of disadvantages for both PC and PS, there's plenty!


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/9/2013 3:42:32 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 4:50:53 AM

So it's best to build a $500-700 PC just to play STEAM EXCLUSIVES AND NEXT GEN MULTIPLATFORM GAMES WITH ONLINE MULTIPLAYER FOR FREEEEEEE? Rather than paying $50 a year for PLUS to play PLAYSTATION 4 EXCLUSIVE GAMES WITH MULTPLAYER ONLINE AND ALSO MULTIPLATFORM NEXT GEN GAMES WITH MULTIPLAYER ONLINE WITH ALL OF THE PERKS AND BONUSES ALONG WITH THE PROMISE OF NEW WAY AND IMPROVED ONLINE GAMING BY SONY.

I'm glad I'm not that stupid.

Last edited by homura on 8/9/2013 4:51:42 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 8:43:30 AM

*sigh*... You need to include the cost of the console into that calculation of yours too, Homura.

But to quote what I *just* wrote:
"That doesn't mean I am saying PC gaming is cheaper overall. And it most definitely does not mean I am saying that PC gaming is universally "best". But this attitude that *nothing* is better than on consoles is so tiresome."


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/9/2013 8:44:15 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 9:59:59 AM

Okay, I repeat. If I already have a PS4 worth $400. It's still best to build a $500-700 PC just to play NEXT GEN MULTIPLATFORM GAMES WITH ONLINE MULTIPLAYER FOR FREEEEEEE ALONG WITH STEAM EXCLUSIVES? Rather than paying $50 a year for PLUS to play PLAYSTATION 4 EXCLUSIVE GAMES WITH MULTPLAYER ONLINE AND ALSO MULTIPLATFORM NEXT GEN GAMES WITH MULTIPLAYER ONLINE WITH ALL OF THE PERKS AND BONUSES ALONG WITH THE PROMISE OF NEW WAY AND IMPROVED ONLINE GAMING BY SONY?

Beamboom:
My main reason in buying a PS4 is because of the exclusives. And the thing is you keep on
arguing that gaming online should be free because it's free everywhere else and that's where STEAM comes and PC Gaming.

But my point is Sony has the right to charge for the online play on the PS4 just like Microsoft for the 360 and xbox1 because they are the ones providing the service and just because it's free on the PS3 and everywhere else doesn't mean they have to be in the PS4 and Sony did explain why they did this.

And just to play the next gen multiplatform games with multiplayer online for FREE you need to have a PC. That's what i'm getting from the PC lovers here.

Because you hate the fact that Sony is now charging you to play online that you think should be free. And that's what I'm arguing you about. Sony is not obligated to you to make it free. But if you've just said "Sucks! it's not free anymore but I understand why Sony did this" I will not argue with you. But you insist that it's should be free because it's free everywhere else. That's why I disagree with you. Sony has the right in the very beginning to charge you even it's only peer to peer. And again they are not force feeding you. If you don't like it, go somewhere else for online gaming.

Last edited by homura on 8/9/2013 10:57:43 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 10:25:28 AM

And you are ignoring the fact you had to buy an expensive TV when the PS3 first launched if you wanted your games to look next gen.

Ben, you might have to upgrade a 650 dollar machine for example lets take my computer. I can play everything on the market right now and I got my computer 3 years ago and I HAVEN'T upgraded it at all since I got it. Now if I do want to upgrade I built my computer so that I can pay 40bucks to put in more ram and buy a second video card which my video card is now down to about 100 bucks. But I don't even have the need to upgrade right now because I can play ALL NEW GAMES ON THE MARKET not just old steam games. So over three years I could pay roughly the same price as PSN+ and get new hardware but I dont even need to, so that means next year if I upgrade upgrading my computer is cheaper than 4 years of PSN+ service and I don't care if you get free games with PSN+ we are talking about the ability to play games online.

I thought you hated the used game market Ben? I thought it was ruining the industry? I'm almost certain you wrote an article on the problems with used games before.

But I'll ignore that and say what if you bought every game new? I certainly do, and I'm sorry but a lot of multiplat games on steam ARE 10 dollars cheaper plus they have a preorder bonus which drops the price even more.

For example, The new Xcom game is 49.99 ten bucks cheaper than it is on consoles, on top of that if you preorder you get 10% off that price so the game is 15 dollars cheaper, and there is no tax on this. What you see is what you pay.

So yes Ben GAMES ARE CHEAPER this is a fact not something that we are just thinking up.

Now some games that are multiplat or even PC exclusive are 59.99 but that is purely up to the developer of the game and not Valve.

You see Steam is so appealing to devs because unlike retail stores which take 70% of the money and give the company 30%, Steam does it opposite, Steam takes 30% of sales, and gives the rest to the devs, so they are making way more money off of steam and there is no worry of second had sales because you can't trade steam games which is an obvious downside to digital but is remedied by the fact games within a year a launch are usually so dang cheap it costs the same price as going to the movies for an evening.

Also what part about my 650$ PC being able to play everything on the market right now did you not understand? My PC is 3 years old, and hasn't been upgraded, it was 1100 bucks when I bought it with all the tax, but now if you built the same computer today it would be about 650.

So yeah, I think that PC gaming and Console gaming in terms of expense are pretty much equal.

Homura we aren't saying what is "best" we were trying to illustrate the misconception that PC gaming is a rich mans thing.

But even still your points are ridiculous, because that PC will be able to play some next gen titles, I know I will be able to play Watch Dogs for example. But even still price wise you haven't factored in how much PS4 exclusives will cost, when I can guarantee that PC exclusives are going to be cheaper either immediately out the gate, or definitely within a year in a steam sale.

Last edited by xenris on 8/9/2013 10:28:08 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Saturday, August 10, 2013 @ 12:42:50 AM

Xenris,

You also ignoring the fact that you can also use pc monitors to play ps3 and you also have to buy an expensive TV for your PC to make it look like next gen.

Also PS3 is 600 from launch (7 yrs ago), your PC is worth 1100 (3 yrs ago).

"Also what part about my 650$ PC being able to play everything on the market right now did you not understand?"

Can it play PS3 exclusives? Which of course why I brought the PS3 from the first place. And PS3 is still free to play online even in multiplatform.

And yes of course you can play Watchdogs in PC, with free multiplayer online. But I'm not buying the PS4 just for that. It's because of the PS4 exclusives. So if I don't have a PC rig and already got a PS4. And I want to play Watchdogs multiplayer online. Which will you recommend I do? Build a $700 PC rig? or subscribe to plus for $50 a year?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Saturday, August 10, 2013 @ 9:48:59 AM

I'm not really ignoring the fact you can use PC monitors for the PS3, but its really going to make the image look like crud from that distance. Likewise I know you can hook your PC up to a TV but considering how close most people sit to their PCs this isn't something most people do.

I'm aware you can spend tons of money on a PC, I was just stating that you don't have to to play great games.

My PC of 1100 dollars 3 years ago is way more powerful than the PS3, which can be proven with any multiplat game I run on it. Further more I firmly believe that most PS3 exclusives would look better on my PC because it is newer hardware, of course they would have to reprogram it depending on how much they relied on the Cell and Bluray etc.

Homura we aren't talking about exclusives, this was a matter of price and value, and whether or not PS+ is worth it. The argument is that we shouldnt have to pay for it to play games online because Steam does this for free and offers almost the exact same things except for free games. However that is remedied by crazy good sales, and a huge Free to play catalog.

No you buy a PS4 for the games you want it for, which is what I am doing, I have one preordered. But if you have neither then I personally would get a PC until I can be shown that I need a PS4 for the exclusives. Reason I preordered one now is because I have a wicked PC.

In your case 50 bucks is obviously the right choice no one was saying to buy a PC instead. Most of the debate here is coming from overall Value and the misconception that PC gaming is only for the rich, also clearing up that steam has a lot of the features that PS+ will have except for free games.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Sunday, August 11, 2013 @ 1:32:14 AM

I know that online play can be free but it doesn't mean it should be free. And your argument is that it should be free.

For example:
Education. Two schools are offering the same curriculum, exactly the same. The other is free but the other one has a fee. And the other school reasons are they have free meals, free uniforms, air conditioned rooms and etc. And one student is complaining that education should be free because in the other school it's free, and all he want is education, none of that free meals, free uniforms, air conditioned rooms etc. None of all that bullshits. And he's still complaining that's it's a rip off, and it's forced to him. But that school didn't forced that student to enroll on that school. If that student wants free education, just free education then he can go to that other school who offers it.



Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Sunday, August 11, 2013 @ 3:01:54 PM

The school analogy is flawed. It should be free isn't just an opinion it in most cases doesn't cost them any money to have me play a game online or if it does its very cheap and covered in the box price of the game. So it is a matter of them trying to make profits on everything they can because of the way that the video game industry is becoming largely corporate and the gamers become prey to the flaws in the way corporations function which frankly is not good for gamers and it never will be.

Second the problem with the school analogy would be better off saying that you are going to school and everything is free, and then all of the sudden they start charging for all the stuff that used to be free the example here is PS3 PSN to the PS4 PSN.

The other reason why the analogy fails is because people do want the PS4 exclusives and people want to be able to play some of those online, and if the ones they do want to play online are peer to peer matchmaking then it shouldn't force PS+ on the gamer.

Further more according to you and Ben and other people PC gaming is too expensive which it isn't but lets go with that idea. So you are saying its fair for all the people who want to buy a PS4 or can only afford a PS4 to have to pay 50 bucks a year in order for the privilege to play games online?

I mean I see why you guys think there is value to it, I'm just trying to say that underneath all of it you are really paying for a service that has been free on the PC for a long time. Also I don't see any value to it because I understand at a fundamental level that it doesn't cost them much money to do this stuff and in some cases costs them nothing at all so I see it for what it is...and in my eyes its a corporate cash grab.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 5:42:57 AM
Reply

"it's the publisher's decision whether they put it inside or outside of PS Plus." Yoshida.

DC Universe Online, Warframe and Planetside 2 will not require PS Plus to play.

For me paying 50 dollars a year to improve the services of online play like in Drive Club or Sony exclusive titles with multiplayer with free games every month is a great deal.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 5:46:30 AM
Reply

paying for MP has always been a sore subject, and its a pill allot of people will have trouble swallowing.
eh, just another reason why PC gaming is the best out there!
hell even the portable / mobile does not charge you to access parts of a game YOU ALREADY PAID FOR!
go figure.......

bit that pisses me off most though is $onys piss poor pathetic excuse for it though.
they say you need to pay for MP now because they have drastically imrpoved the service, and added new features, and that has cost them bundles.
so the ps3, and vita are not going to be improving at all then?
just seems a bit of a kick in the teeth to say to your fans thanks for your 7 years of support, thanks for buying the vita and putting up with the lack of games, thanks for supporting us and buying the ps4, then smack right to the teeth.
im sorry but if you can go for 7 long years iterating and improving the services available, and adding countless new ones, without charging a cent, than you can go another 7+ long years!

why $ony is forcing + for MP is simple.
greed!
there not getting the subscription numbers they would like to see, its costing them too much to keep offering the instant game collection, that there adding in the MP requirement so they can see the sub numbers go through the roof!
not to mention hey the competition does it, so why shouldent we?
oh well, at least ninty does not nickle and dime their customers!

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 7:29:23 AM

"Considering the cost, to try to keep such a service free and consequently lower the quality would be absurd. We decided that if that's the case, then it would be better to receive proper payment and continue to offer a good service."

It's not a piss poor pathetic excuse. Sony is not a charity. They want to make money. Is that bad? And again, this is a new gen. The multiplayer will be much more bigger and wider in scope, so it will also be much more costly to maintain it. And again, it's up to the publisher whether they put it inside plus. But the magic question here is 50 dollars a year worth it? Yes it does with all that perks and bonuses. And if you don't like it even it will just cost you 50 dollars a year. Just like the above comments, go on PC gaming next gen. Damn! that is why I'm disappointed when the PS4 goes for the x86 architecture.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 7:35:55 AM

and since when have they been lowering the quality because it would be too expensive?
exactly what i said above, the fact that PSN has been free for 7+ years and has seen the improvements and growth it has, makes it VERY hard to believe its going to grow more in 7 years now it has a forced paid model.
only thing that will justify forcing plus for MP is if they get gaikai running flawlessly, offer a massive catalog of ps1,2 and 3 games, offer them for play on the vita, and include that in the plus subscription.
they wont though, ill be very shocked if gaikai services are free for plus members no more to pay.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:40:19 PM

"The main pillar for the PS4 will be online play. We're developing many new ways to play and connect which requires a large investment of resources," Yoshida said.

"Considering the cost, to try to keep such a service free and consequently lower the quality would be absurd. We decided that if that's the case, then it would be better to receive proper payment and continue to offer a good service."

And of course free games every month.

Last edited by homura on 8/7/2013 12:40:50 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 8:55:26 AM

nice way to regurgitate the post and completely ignore what ive said.
sure theres advancements to the online services in the ps4, but advancements much greater than what the ps3 saw, thus justifying the charge?
hell no!
look at steam, hell even the ninendo e shop.
both have gone leaps and bounds since release, and guess what?
THERE FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 10:43:00 AM

Do they offer PS4 exclusive online games? And PS3 online is still free. Steam and Nintendo doesn't have PS4 games. And PSN is still free for the PS4, it's the PS PLUS that's required for some PS4 games to play online.

And have you seen all the advancements in the PS4 online?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 7:48:35 AM
Reply

boooo im switching to microsoft on windows 7

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ninja_WafflesXD
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 9:00:05 AM
Reply

I wasn't that distressed at PS + now being a requirement (due to having it already), but I do see why people would be annoyed.

In terms of the value of the service....I have apprehensions about that.
Now, PS + is a great service! Lots of value for your money.
But now that it's practically compulsory to a large majority of people's gaming experience, will we still receive the same perks? And at such a consistent rate?

This is the only thing I'm on the fence about. That, and the fact that I look over to Steam, where they offer crazy deals left and right and it makes me feel a bit disappointing that consoles are charging for online.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Cuetes
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:38:30 AM
Reply

I've had Ps+ for almost two years. It was the best game based decision I ever made. If it continues to grow and give out games like it has then I'm all for paying a little extra to get a better overall experience.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:23:46 PM

Nice avatar!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

telly
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:33:17 AM
Reply

$50 a year for what will (presumably) be a fantastic online service is not merely a good deal -- it is fair. It takes resources to create and maintain online gameplay services, and it's frankly a bit refreshing to see so many gamers imply they understand the service has value, and that such value is worth paying a mere $50 per year.

And you get tons of free games, demos, sale prices, and more, too! And the service applies to ALL of your PlayStation devices!

Unlike the other big video game companies, I think Sony has done a great job not making its customers feel like they're being nickeled and dimed. That's a real credit to them.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Geno
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 11:51:56 AM
Reply

I don't even see the big deal about it, people pay for xbl with no problem so what the heck is the big deal. I have a Ps3 I plan to get a PS4. PS+ is a good thing to have plus Sony is aiming to improve on things for the better. Gamers of PS need to relax. PS+ pays for itself. You get so much from it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 12:26:22 PM
Reply

It's worth the money. Having a console's fully supported ecosystem on your side is completely up to you. PC haters can just stay in that world where their hardware upgrades are apparently free. Instead of hardware upgrades we pay for a service, big deal.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 1:24:53 PM
Reply

the thing is that with xbox live, the only thing youre basically paying for is the multiplayer, thats it. you pay 60 dollars to unlock the online play for a game. thats the reason i didnt renew my live sub. with plus, it will be more worth while to renew. you get cloud saves, free games every month, huge discounts on items, auto update, one hour game trials, an instant game collection, and playstation plus across sony platforms. that makes plus alot more attractive than live. sure live is starting to give out free games, but theyre nothing compared to what plus gave away. paying for online gameplay doesnt seem like a big deal given all youre getting.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:24:32 PM
Reply

Somehow this entire discussion seems to have become a "pc vs console" battle where everyone jump into each their trenches and start shooting.

The discussion here is if we are miffed or not about Plus being a requirement. Some are, others are not. But no need to let it escalate into one of those stupid platform wars, is it?

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:37:45 PM

Kerpow kapow bang!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 6:22:34 PM

*pops out from trench*

*headshoots voice of reason*

*both sides resume firing*

xD

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:42:16 AM

*wins because mice suck*

Anywho, as for me, I'm hardly against PC gaming as I do so myself. I just think Steam is extremely "meh"... and no one has given me any reason to think why it would be better than plus, thus ridiculous for plus to not be free. That's my issue, Beam.

I only really mock PC to get a long response from Temjin or you.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/8/2013 12:45:39 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 4:00:51 AM

To be honest, Underdog, I don't really believe you can have done much gaming on your PC because you don't seem to know the Steam service much at all. And to mock something is such a waste of time - everyones time. If you wonder about something, just ask!

Noone is saying one service is "better" or "worse" than another. It simply is not the point. The point is that Sony will now start to charge me a monthly fee to use MY bandwidth to host coop games on MY hardware with MY friends. And if I don't play one month Sony will STILL charge me that monthly fee.
That's the entire problem here.

For many Plus is a great service. Let them have it. Enjoy! But I don't want any of that other stuff. Plus is simply not for me. I want to buy the games I want to play, and play my games with my friends when I feel like it. Period. That's what I want the console for. End of line.

And to PAY a monthly FEE for that?! It sucks!


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/8/2013 4:03:52 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 5:01:49 AM

There's a $10 for a month subscription option for PS PLUS.

And because PS3 has a free online multiplayer doesn't mean it will be the same for the PS4. Spoiled much?

PS3 online games is different from PS4. PS4 online games is going to be more ambitious. It's up to you if you're gonna believe them or not. And because of a $50 a year or whatever type of subscription you choose you're gonna deprive yourself of a PS4 online experience? But then again there's STEAM! It's free. Enjoy!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 5:08:00 AM

If you still haven't understood the point by now Homura, there's nothing more that can be said that will enable you to grasp it. Sorry.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 6:04:04 AM

Same to you.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 6:50:18 AM

Listen, Homura, I don't mean to be insulting but there's quite literally a *wall* of explanations here now from multiple persons as to why exactly some of us don't consider this to be a good deal.

It has nothing to do with the PS3. It has nothing to do with being spoiled. It has nothing to do with PS4 games being more ambitious. It hasn't even anything to do with Steam. You're so off the mark in your reply here that you either haven't read any of the posts on this page, or - sorry - you don't understand the point we are making.

Either way: You're happy about this. You think it's a good deal. And then it is that - to you. And indeed, for many this is a *great* deal! To pay a fixed fee to rent games from an ever increasing catalogue of games is obviously a cool deal... For those who want it.

But this deal shouldn't be mandatory, that's the *entire* problem here. It should be for those who want to take part in that service. To host a game on my machine, using my bandwidth should still be free cause it cost Sony *nothing*.

Peace. :)

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/8/2013 7:03:24 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 7:52:28 AM

"The main pillar for the PS4 will be online play. We're developing many new ways to play and connect which requires a large investment of resources," Yoshida said.

As I said PS3 online games is different from PS4. PS4 online games is going to be more ambitious.

"To host a game on my machine, using my bandwidth should still be free cause it cost Sony *nothing*".

Again "The main pillar for the PS4 will be online play. We're developing many new ways to play and connect which requires a large investment of resources," Yoshida said.

It didn't say we're doing the same just like we did in the ps3 but still you have to pay.

Now if other publisher put there games inside PLUS even though they only use peer to peer just like you said. Still going to blame Sony? When Yoshida clearly said:

"it's the publisher's decision whether they put it inside or outside of PS Plus."

Now read carefully.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 8:15:56 AM

That quote of yours in regards to "publishers decision" is only in regards to mmo/free-to-play titles. The rest will be inside Plus. The complete quote goes like this:
"As far as free-to-play games are concerned, it’s a publisher’s decision whether they put it inside or outside of the PlayStation Plus requirements"
So stop trying to sweeten the deal here.

Now, I don't mind a fee on MMOs or other games/concepts that require support or dedicated servers or whatever "new ways" they talk about. I simply reserve the right to judge that once we see it.

It doesn't change the fact that to host a game on my machine, using my bandwidth should still be free cause it cost Sony *nothing*. It should not be a part of Plus. Never.

Now, we are yet to see what the heck they mean with all this talk about "new ways to play" and all that. As of now that's just fluff. If indeed this turns out to be something awesome, then by all means, put it inside Plus. Add new services, go ahead. All cool.

But think about this: If the new Plus is such a fantastic service with such groundbreaking new gaming concepts and services, would it then be necessary to force people into it? It should be so good that we would join it voluntarily. If those new ways are so cool, why then force peer-to-peer into it?

It's like those bloody online passes. We as consumers should not just suck up and take the beating. Sometimes it's right of us to just stand up and say, "hold on, this is NOT fair".

And to host a game on my machine, using my bandwidth should still be free cause it cost Sony *nothing*.

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/8/2013 8:26:34 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 10:54:04 AM

"Now, I don't mind a fee on MMOs or other games/concepts that require support or dedicated servers or whatever "new ways" they talk about."

And that's why they are asking for it. They are planning to give you something ike that. So just wait for the right game you're going to support and all of the peer to peer online that Sony that have done in the PS4 you can also play.

Last edited by homura on 8/8/2013 10:54:31 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 11:50:26 AM

Well Beam, for someone who is apparently so tech savy, you have yet to educate me as to how I'm incorrect about Steam.

I don't care if you believe me or not. I do think you are possibly the most ignorant person I've ever met. I don't think you know all that much, and I think for someone who always makes fun of people for not researching, you know very little of the facts yourself.

I also find it amusing that you point out people's inability to understand what you are saying when you regularly and obviously just skim what people say because you always.... ALWAYS miss the most foundational point of what most people say.

Maybe ESL is to blame, and I can accept that. But honest to god, mate, you're like a freaking joke. And you are so often so very.... VERY wrong. It's so damn tiring to listen to you tirade your know-it-all-ness and still have absolutely nothing to teach. You counter everyone regularly and the only people who you disagree with that you get along with are the people who just blow you off and decide not to outright challenge you on anything.

And that's damn sad.

And for gods sake, man... stop trying to cover up your attitude with smilies all the time. Just be a man and be confrontational when you want to be. Take and give heat as it is... don't fracking soften it with a flipping :p all the time.

It just comes accross as arrogant.

I mean... at least I -know- I'm arrogant. You just think you're doing the site's membership a favor all the time.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/8/2013 11:52:49 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 12:37:58 PM

@Underdog: Sorry if I stepped on your toes. But please, if you really want a dialogue, why do you speak to me like that? I don't recall ever taking that tone to you and quite frankly I'm amazed at how rude you allow yourself to be.

In regards to Steam, when you say that the only useful thing thing you see in Steam is a marketplace and some interesting stats and that you've never found a "killer discount" on any games of interest during these three years, and that Steam don't offer what ps+ have when it in fact *do* give you much of the same, well that gives the impression that you've hardly used the service at all.

But again, I am sorry if I offended you. I think you are overreacting to an extreme degree now, but I'll let that part of your post remain uncommented by me. I believe they speak for themselves.

@Homura: Problem is, I can't wait for the right game, can I? After all, the membership is in all practical terms... Mandatory. And that is my only problem with it.

Last edited by Beamboom on 8/8/2013 12:45:51 PM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Saturday, August 10, 2013 @ 10:16:33 AM

@ Underdog

Mice suck? Personal preference and irrelevant, but anyone who plays shooters will call you out on that as you can't even compare the two accuracy wise.

Second, you attacked Beam personally, that is the cheapest troll tactic on the internet, considering you have a son and family I'm surprised that something as juvenile as that came from you.

He doesn't skim over what people say, Homura has copy and pasted the same quote over and over and over again and we get it we can read and we probably all saw sony at E3. Where people like Beam, me and Temjin get frustrated is that we understand how these systems work at a fundamental level. Both Beam and Temjin do programming, I am learning it, and we both seem to understand how bandwidth and server hosting works and you do not.

So servers are really cheap unless they are for MMOs. Dedicated servers for shooters can easily be covered in the price of the games box especially when games like CoD or BF sell millions and millions of units. On top of that most games use Peer to Peer for the multiplayer which actually costs Sony and the publisher nothing except for coding in the matchmaking system again this is covered when I buy the game, and I shouldn't have to pay royalties for a programmer doing his job.

What is peer to peer you ask? Peer to peer is when one of the people playing the game multiplayer hosts a temporary server on their console because they have the best bandwidth of the eligible players. So this is why people say stuff like Host advantage in CoD and other peer to peer games because the host has the advantage or running the server.

Bottom line this costs sony NOTHING not a dime, which is why it has been free and why XBLIVE is a joke because other than a handful of games everything uses peer to peer on console games.

So why should we pay Sony money in order to play say Uncharted 4 online for the PS4? Even if it has dedicated servers those in the grand scheme cost very little to maintain and can be covered in the box price of the game, but I bet my buttons it will still be peer to peer because its cheaper and these are corporations who need to spend the least and make the most, thats sadly how corporations work.

But the point is if we don't want the services homura is talking about the revolutionary online stuff that apparently isn't already available on the PC now *rolls eyes* then we are stuck without being able to play any PS4 games online with friends even if its a peer to peer based co op games.

So underdog as to why steam is of value? Well no one is going to convince you of this because you have been completely ignorant about how steam works and it is starting to seem like you haven't used it before. It has cloud storage for free something that PS+ and Live are saying needs a fee...yet oh look no fee for cloud saves on steam. It has acheivements AND stats, it has a marketplace where you can trade unactivated games with other people, and inventory items for other games like Dota 2 TF2 etc. You can actually make real money on the market place.

Steam allows users to create content for most Valve created games like Dota 2, and TF2 and they give the creator most of the money for the item they created, and the item gets voted in by the gaming community.

Steam has sales, I picked up dishonored for 10 bucks not even a year after it was released. because I played it on the PS3 but the controller made it not as enjoyable for me.

Wither 2 is regularly under 10 bucks and is considered by most gamers the best RPG this generation and to some ever.

So I just tried to explain everything that Beam either didn't or tried to earlier about steam and why PS+ should not be required.

@Homura, the problem beam and I have is that they are saying online games are going to be more ambitious so we need to pay for plus. But I really doubt every online game is going to have MMO quality servers.

The only way they might need this money is if they shoe horn social features into every game, which to be honest not every gamer wants. AC3 did this and one it was free and two it was terribly jarring.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:37:22 PM
Reply

FYI, Hitman: Absolution is free this week.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 3:49:33 PM
Reply

I don't have an issue with it as much as i used to, especially with what's being offered for PS+, not everyone will like it which is fine, you can't please everyone.

I see this as a good thing, with the money from PS+ they can improve the service and do other things with it as well. I was also bummed that they would be charging, but honestly. I really don't mind it now that they will be taking things seriously with improving things, with the service and developers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:00:31 PM
Reply

Plus appeals to me because of the current system with the Instant Game Collection, not because of paying a fee to play online, which never made any sense to me at all, and not being a multiplayer type of player I don't care about that part of it.

I just hope Sony won't decrease the current value of Plus just because they're making online play a part of it...

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

VampDeLeon
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 4:10:12 PM
Reply

It only costs $4.16-4.17 a month for PS+, just to play the games online along with those many benefits. Not bad at all. It also makes it easier to transition previous Xbox players onto our side, anyways.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 6:06:08 PM
Reply

There really is just one reason why PS+ sucks, and it makes the positives effectively negligible: You never own the games. I can't overlook that. And honestly, it will cheapen a game's experiance if I know I don't own it. That's a personal thing, but the point is you're not owning something you're paying for.

So I really would be paying for one thing: playing online. In probably only a few select titles, because I only get attached to certain multiplayer games. How lame is it that I gotta pay £50 a year for that?

You see it from that perspective, and PS+ doesn't seem all that great.

OOHHH yeah, one more thing: The big, big reason I bought a PS3 was because I could play online for free. I can't be the only one who did that. I've said it before, but Sony are alienating people with this choice...

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:00:13 PM

Technically you don't even own the games you own, you own a license to play them. Whether we like it or not games will be like movies, a part of a service we pay for instead of a product we own.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:39:08 PM

Knew someone would bring that up! The thing is, that's something completley opaque to the buyer. There is a real sense of ownership when I buy something, safe in the knowledge that I can play it whenever I want.

And let's be real honest here: you and many of us never even knew we were only buying a license, until we read it on the internet somewhere LOL. Because you effectively DO own it; you can borrow it, sell it, set it on fire, I mean whatever right.

And that last comment - be that as it may, Sony have the power to change how an industry operates (bluray, CD etc), so if enough people raise concerns, maybe we can change this. Maybe. Hopefully. Probably not. :(

Uh, but I'm like, not buying a next-gen system. So this doesn't actualllyyy affect me. Still feel pretty miffed all the same.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

VampDeLeon
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 8:52:39 PM

Your PSN account owns the digital games purchased, not the ones downloadable for free. It's that simple. If purchased, they'll be sitting in your console ready to replay as long as it's in working order. Like how those game discs could sit pretty and fine, but worthless if the console itself won't work.

The ones downloaded for free from PS+ don't work anymore once you stop subscribing, but they don't disappear from your downloaded and purchased list ever. If you wanted to keep the games forever.. why not buy them for their regular or discounted price in the first place? It's not like your PS4 won't turn on if you aren't subscribed. Just makes me think of the days of going to the local supermarket or blockbuster store to rent games. :p



Last edited by VampDeLeon on 8/7/2013 8:56:38 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

amonte64
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:18:09 PM
Reply

Unless there is proven fact to why online play can't be free, then I'm completely against paying to play online, it's a complete super greedy, anti consumer rip off and it's completely unnecessary.

REMEMBER (for the PlayStation slaves), I said if it's not proven fact. Why? because online play was and is still free everywhere else. Online play on PS2, PSP, PS3 and PSVita is free. Online play for Wii and Wii U is free. And online play for all the computer services is free. And they are all great (except for maybe Wii, but you get the point).

I have recently discovered GOG.com and now it has become my go to platform for gaming and I'm not turning back. No DRM (unlike Steam), we actually own what we purchase, never have to connect to the internet (unlike Steam), free online play, free extras AND on top of that, we can exercise what we have been legally allowed to do since forever, backup our products and use them. Don't like digital because you don't own crap? NO PROBLEM! You can back up your game to a disk or any storage and now you actually have it physically!

Since GOG is fairly new, all games aren't there so for now, my backup gaming platform is my PS3 when games I want aren't on GOG yet. The Witcher 3 on GOG, PS4, X1, Steam. Yeah, I wonder which platform I will choose. #NoDRM.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Geobaldi
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:40:14 PM

You're not required to log into Steam for most games either as long as you have started the game at least once. After that, you can load the game up all you want. You can backup your games on Steam as well, that's what the backup system is for in the option menu. Select what you want to backup, insert disc and burn it. GOG is a great service but it's also primarily for older classic games, not for the newer stuff.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

amonte64
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 4:58:37 PM

I have been told you have to connect to the internet every 90 days on Steam. Even if the rest of what you said is true abotu Steam, Steam still has crap, horrible and anti consumer DRM.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

darxed
Wednesday, August 07, 2013 @ 10:56:51 PM
Reply

It really doesn't affect me, as I am already a Plus member. I've been reading the discussion about Steam and I think everyone is missing one very important point, the mainstream one.

I'm a software engineer, so I have (cause I need to have) a pretty good PC. I know how to upgrade it, I know where to look for good parts for less money, I also have two kids and work two jobs to provide for them, so I don't have a lot of money for games, I got my PS3 used and I thank whichever deity you choose to believe in that It never broke. That's where Plus has come in. I'd never played A LOT of games if It weren't for Plus, Steam does great discounts but It doesn't do 64 good to great games free.

Now, from the other side of the discussion, I've bought games on Steam, and I've been able to play them with high settings thanks to the PC I have. Sometimes I have to patch a couple of files, sometimes I mod a game to get more out of It, sometimes I have to find a driver for something my PC doesn't support yet. I can do that because of the knowledge I have thanks to my profession, but most people don't know how to do those things. Since I'm kinda broke, I usually do upgrades on computers, install drivers, clean malware, etc, and I CHARGE for It. For people like me, PC gaming may not be more expensive than console gaming, but to your average Joe It is and I'm 100% in agreement with Ben on this.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 9:23:51 AM
Reply

Beamboom

And that's the question. If Sony PS4 multiplayer is just going to be peer to peer or all of them is like going MMO. We still haven't seen the online premise. Even the multilplayer of multiplatform could be all like MMO'S. That's the power of your next gen.

That's the thing, if the Sony exclusive didn't deliver it's promise of online play then they LIED. Simple.

DriveClub only requires PS PLUS if you're in real time online play, but you can play asynchronous without PLUS. Whatever that means. And I think it's an MMO racing game. They need servers. Right?

And here's the beautiful thing, if you don't like there online game promise, then don't subscribe to PLUS. There's Steam or PS3. You are not FORCED.

And it's possible that all online elements of PS4 exclusive or multiplatform is going to be like MMO. Which requires a server.

Now when the time comes. Judge it.

And I think DESTINY will require PLUS. So if you don't want to pay for it to play online. Go to STEAM or PS3 and of course you will missed the power of your beloved PS4.

To make it simple, SONY promise something for why you have to be a PS+ subscriber to play online for some games. And if SONY doesn't deliver then they lied. Don't subscribed, go to STEAM or PS3.


Last edited by homura on 8/8/2013 9:37:08 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 3:14:46 PM

There's nothing wrong in having thoughts on how things might turn out to be, Homura. You have your expectations and thoughts around that, and only time will tell how much of it comes true.

But... and this is why I get a bit worn out here... All I am saying is that - *sigh* - I don't like to have to pay a mandatory fee, month after month, just to connect with a buddy and play Borderlands 3 (or whatever of similar nature) now and then. That's all.

Create loads of fantastic MMOs and complex games with servers and clusters and whatnot... Just leave it up to me if I want to pay for that or not. Tie the payment to the actual services, not a mandatory fee based on what I might sometime in the future want to play.

Your thoughts on how the future might look described in your post here doesn't change the fact that to host a game on my machine, using my bandwidth should still be free cause it cost Sony *nothing*. It has practically nothing to do with them. It should not be a part of Plus. Never.

That is all I am saying. Only that.
And I am saying it over and over, and over again. That is why I am getting a bit worn out.
But sorry for bursting up on you earlier.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/8/2013 3:15:58 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 8:14:00 PM

Wait. So if the coop in Borderlands 3 put it inside the PS PLUS for the PS4 even though they only use peer to peer. You're still going to blame Sony? Sony doesn't own the server of that game even if they cost nothing to operate. It's owned by the publisher of Borderlands. So go ahead play Borderlands 3 on STEAM.

MMO can be played free in the PS4, why the hell can't that peer to peer kind when it doesn't cost anything just like you said.

And even so. If that happens in the PS4 exclusives. It's still a PS4 exclusives, not a PS3 exclusives. Can you find any other platform that will offer you PS4 exclusive online multiplayer games for free. That's the service you're paying for, even if you don't have a PLUS subscription in the PS3 at the very start.

And if you don't like that service then don't get it. And there's STEAM and PS3 that still offers online games for free.

Again you're paying mandatory for some of the PS4 online experience not a PS3 online experience, which still is free. So even if it turns out like crap doesn't mean it should be free. Because it's a PS4 online experience NOT a PS3 online experience. And it's still up to you if you want to subscribe or not. And from the looks of it, it's not a freaking rip off.

And by the way it's SONY who is developing the network. Not EA, UBISOFT or etc. So if those greedy companies still put their multiplayer inside PLUS even if it has mediocre service or can be played in other platforms for free. You're still gonna blame Sony?

Last edited by homura on 8/8/2013 8:15:16 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 3:19:54 AM

Homura: Only free-to-play games can optionally be placed outside Plus. Ref my reply to you further up. The full quote that you've read is this:
"As far as free-to-play games are concerned, it’s a publisher’s decision whether they put it inside or outside of the PlayStation Plus requirements"
Ergo, regular multiplayer gaming in all regular games now goes inside Plus.

That is the entire problem, Homura. That is exactly what I and others react on. What you now ask in your post is exactly what we *all* ask, "why the hell can't that peer to peer kind when it doesn't cost anything" - that's exactly it!
:D


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/9/2013 3:29:36 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

homura
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 4:41:51 AM

"Only free-to-play games can optionally be placed outside Plus".

Uhmm. NO! I've just read in the other post that Destiny could be outside of PLUS. It is free to play?

And again why are you blaming Sony when it's the publisher fault to put it inside PLUS even though they are only peer to peer?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Friday, August 09, 2013 @ 8:34:57 AM

Destiny is a MMO.

Listen, I misunderstood your post that I quoted above but there's really no reason to argue further about this. I am telling you that multiplayer gaming in general requires Plus now. That's what Sony said at E3, and that is how everyone understands it. Then there are some - *SOME* - exceptions to that rule with mmos and f2p being the main exceptions.

There's no need to go back and forth further on this. If you don't believe me then just wait and see. We will all know in time.



Last edited by Beamboom on 8/9/2013 8:38:28 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Thursday, August 08, 2013 @ 10:46:17 AM
Reply

I have subscribed to PS+ since minute one of day one and have never regretted it. However I do not like that now I will have to pay for it, it is a principle thing for me. I would have and plan on paying for it anyways, but I do not like that I have to now.

I also hope Sony uses the money the right way, unlike MS who has used its membership money to buy timed exclusives and other pointless endeavors.

Last edited by Rogueagent01 on 8/8/2013 10:55:27 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

JROD0823
Saturday, August 10, 2013 @ 1:20:34 AM
Reply

Some people couldn't see the value of Plus even if it reached out of the tv screen, slapped them upside the head and called them a dummy.

I have saved so much money over the past 3 years by having Plus just through the discounts alone, that Plus has paid for itself several times over already.

I couldn't care less that I don't actually "own" the monthly free games, because I'm robbing Sony blind whenever I buy the discounted stuff.

Either get Plus and quit crying about having to have it now to play online, or don't get Plus and feel proud of yourself for sticking to your guns, even though you are only shooting yourself in the foot by doing so.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PharaohJR
Saturday, August 10, 2013 @ 2:17:47 AM
Reply

in a way it is a problem thats the reason in a recent post i said Ps4 might be why i get plus.

with gaming becoming more "social" i dont want developers & artist of the future believing there product must revolve around online connection...... its a post on this site bout Ps4 attracting core gamers & thats true...... since xbox existance im rarely asked or told to play a exclusive for its campaign/story on xbox.

since Ps4 will have new capabilities & functions online i think Sony just wants charge a fee to provide its service but sametime grant us some benifits & thats koo but the problem is the requirement......... in time they might change it & allow just a basic online connectivity option with no so social sharing, cross chats & etc..... just standard online we experience now on Ps3.....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

What do you think of the Destiny beta?
It's awesome! Can't wait for September!
It's only good, but I'm having fun.
Eh, it's okay, but I expected more.
It sucks, period.

Previous Poll Results