I don't mind though? What with psn being cheap as hell and giving free games
I'm honestly surprised it was free to begin with. In order for gameservers to be any sort of self sustaining you've got to pay the bills
Anyone saying that it's dumb for PS4 users to have to pay for PS+ to use multiplayer obviously hasn't had PS+
[QUOTE=Map in a box;46060875]I'm honestly surprised it was free to begin with. In order for gameservers to be any sort of self sustaining you've got to pay the bills[/QUOTE]
Most games, like Call Of Duty for example, use peers (aka other players) to host the servers. There is very little cost for M$ or Sony in that.
[QUOTE=Shirky;46060118]Stupid that you even have to pay for it.[/QUOTE]
In a way yeah it is, but after all you get like two free games every month plus exclusive discounts. Just off of the top of my head I have Outlast, Trine 2, Don't Starve, Resogun, Contrast etc and that's not even half of them (but saying that, most are shit). Would be great if subscriptions for Music Unlimited were included with PS+.
[QUOTE=Kigen;46060929]Most games, like Call Of Duty for example, use peers (aka other players) to host the servers. There is very little cost for M$ or Sony in that.[/QUOTE]
it costs nothing at all
which is why they do it, i guess. no upkeep and it means they never get shut off either, which i guess is a plus.
[QUOTE=Kigen;46060929]Most games, like Call Of Duty for example, use peers (aka other players) to host the servers. There is very little cost for M$ or Sony in that.[/QUOTE]
They still need to manage the servers that allow players to find each other, and iirc both the PS4 and XB1 consoles are sold at a loss. The PS3 launched at around $900 here and I don't think even that allowed for much profitability per unit, while the PS4 was like only around $500 on launch.
The amount of stuff you get for having PS+ is such an insanely good deal though. I don't know how people can complain about it.
[QUOTE=Banned?;46060970]The amount of stuff you get for having PS+ is such an insanely good deal though. [B]I don't know how people can complain about it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Because people will complain about anything.
Sony could be throwing free money at them and they would still bitch about it.
[QUOTE=Banned?;46060970]The amount of stuff you get for having PS+ is such an insanely good deal though. I don't know how people can complain about it.[/QUOTE]
Steam is free and it's essentially the same thing, except it's on an open platform. You get free/dirt cheap games all the time and it provides all kinds of services without the need for a subscription. To add to that, steam isn't even profiting off of the hardware you buy.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46061031]Steam is free and it's essentially the same thing, except it's on an open platform. You get free/dirt cheap games all the time and it provides all kinds of services without the need for a subscription. To add to that, steam isn't even profiting off of the hardware you buy.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between free to play games and free games.
Steam has sales, but so does Playstation. With playstation plus, you get huge discounts on games just like steam does. They have flash sales, company sales, and pre-order sales too.
We're complaining because we don't want to pay for playstation plus benefits. We didn't ask for it, we just want free online play.
[QUOTE=usaokay;46060224]What bothers the shit out of me is that at the E3 2014 Sony press conference, the PS4 supporting used games announcement has overshadowed the following announcement of PS+ being mandatory for online PS4.[/QUOTE]
Hell, they didn't really directly announce it during E3, did they? Correct me if they did. But I remember people first realizing this when they saw the used games 'trailer' and noticed text at the bottom implying the monthly fee involving online, and then it was shortly revealed not long after that you'd have to work it much like Xbox Live.
I'm pretty sure they did it out of a mix of A.) not being sure if the PS4 would be a commercial success like it was, and B.) Microsoft shooting the Xbox One so hard in the foot that Sony probably realized they could charge monthly for their own online now and get away with it so long as they're not the Xbone.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46061031]Steam is free and it's essentially the same thing, except it's on an open platform. You get free/dirt cheap games all the time and it provides all kinds of services without the need for a subscription. To add to that, steam isn't even profiting off of the hardware you buy.[/QUOTE]
The Playstation store, like Steam, has F2P games as well (War Thunder etc). What PS+ does is every month it grabs two games that would otherwise have a pricetag attached, and gives them to PS+ users for free. Steam would only be comparable if you paid a subscription and you found two new games in your library every month, obviously not the case.
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;46060960]it costs nothing at all
which is why they do it, i guess. no upkeep and it means they never get shut off either, which i guess is a plus.[/QUOTE]
It does cost a bit to have the authentication, social/friend stuff, and matchmaking servers there. But ultimately its not justification for the cost they push to the consumer.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46060961]They still need to manage the servers that allow players to find each other, and iirc both the PS4 and XB1 consoles are sold at a loss. The PS3 launched at around $900 here and I don't think even that allowed for much profitability per unit, while the PS4 was like only around $500 on launch.[/QUOTE]
Steam has similar servers for matchmaking. And master servers have existed for quite some time in games to help people find servers. But Valve also hosts dedicated servers as well rather than the peering that Call Of Duty uses.
The hardware costs are offset by a great number of things. Including licensing fees the console makers get from the games that appear on their consoles. Ultimately, myself, I don't want to have to pay $50 or $60 a year just to play online. PC games spoiled me in that regard I guess.
[QUOTE=usaokay;46060224]What bothers the shit out of me is that at the E3 2014 Sony press conference, the PS4 supporting used games announcement has overshadowed the following announcement of PS+ being mandatory for online PS4.[/QUOTE]
I remember laughing at that video because they were making fun of the Xbone for not being the 360. Paid online play included.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;46060875]I'm honestly surprised it was free to begin with. In order for gameservers to be any sort of self sustaining you've got to pay the bills[/QUOTE]
If only any popular console games used dedicated servers. It's fucking 2014 and Destiny still uses P2P, and I can tell because people jump around in time and space worse than fucking Dark Souls 2.
Im glad I dont get consoles anymore.
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;46062199]If only any popular console games used dedicated servers. It's fucking 2014 and Destiny still uses P2P, and I can tell because people jump around in time and space worse than fucking Dark Souls 2.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing really wrong with the listen server system most console games use. It's very scalable - it doesn't run into the issue of too many servers for too few players making it hard to find populated servers, nor does it run into the opposite of too many players for too few servers and players having to wait in queues for server slots. And most of the time a host is chosen with a good connection quality so latency really isn't much of an issue.
On my PS3 the only game I play is GTA V and that's only until January when it will come out on PC. If I had to pay for online I'd pay a shitload of money to play GTA V, but also get a shitload of free games that I would never play because the only reason my PS3 is still plugged in is that I want to play GTA every few weeks.
So yes, making people pay for playing games they already paid for is FUCKING STUPID.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46061948]The Playstation store, like Steam, has F2P games as well (War Thunder etc). What PS+ does is every month it grabs two games that would otherwise have a pricetag attached, and gives them to PS+ users for free. Steam would only be comparable if you paid a subscription and you found two new games in your library every month, obviously not the case.[/QUOTE]
Yet we still get free games every now and then. Not on a regular basis, but very often.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46061948]The Playstation store, like Steam, has F2P games as well (War Thunder etc). What PS+ does is every month it grabs two games that would otherwise have a pricetag attached, and gives them to PS+ users for free. Steam would only be comparable if you paid a subscription and you found two new games in your library every month, obviously not the case.[/QUOTE]
you should really note that a lot of the PS+ free games are either 5+ years old, really shitty, or brand new neat indie games with about 10 minutes of "ah man this is really neat!" and then you never play them ever again.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46063347]Yet we still get free games every now and then. Not on a regular basis, but very often.[/QUOTE]
You get free weekends, you don't get to keep the games after the weekend is over...
[editline]24th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=M_B;46063362]you should really note that a lot of the PS+ free games are either 5+ years old, really shitty, or brand new neat indie games with about 10 minutes of "ah man this is really neat!" and then you never play them ever again.[/QUOTE]
It's obviously going to depend on the person, but there are a few games that don't fit into either three of those categories created by you just for the sake of argument.
[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;46061238]There's a difference between free to play games and free games.
Steam has sales, but so does Playstation. With playstation plus, you get huge discounts on games just like steam does. They have flash sales, company sales, and pre-order sales too.[/QUOTE]
Wow, so we can pay them even MORE money than we already have. Yeah, if I take the drop and purchase a $400 console whose games sell for $60 a pop I want to spend as little as possible after all that.
PS+ is such a good service though that I was paying for it back when it was a purely voluntary service for the PS3.
If you own a PS3 or a Vita and you don't have PS+ you're basically a dipshit. That's why I don't mind that you need PS+ to play multiplayer on PS4, because I was already paying for it. You give them sixty bucks once and they give you sixty dollars worth of video games per month for an entire year.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46070183]imagine trying to justify paying extra to play your $60 videogames online[/QUOTE]
Even if this is sarcasm, the kicker is that Xbox Live's been around since November, 2002. People have essentially been paying monthly since around the time games using Live appeared not long afterwards to be able to access a portion of, if not half of, their games. Sony's games depended individually on that sort of thing (Everquest, Final Fantasy XI which was later ported to 360 and required Live Gold ontop of its own monthly fee). And even then Seganet preceded both of them on the Dreamcast with certain things, but at least you can play Phantasy Star Online, offline. We've effectively had this sort of shit for over a decade now, and it's only getting more prevalent now that Sony's jumping on wholeheartedly, even if PS+ is a good deal generally speaking.
[QUOTE=M_B;46063362]you should really note that a lot of the PS+ free games are either 5+ years old, really shitty, or brand new neat indie games with about 10 minutes of "ah man this is really neat!" and then you never play them ever again.[/QUOTE]
There have been plenty of great AAA games on PS3 PS+, some less than a year old. PS+ is easily worth it on the PS3. But PS4... I don't think there has been a single PS+ game that I actually wanted to play yet. It's mostly just indie games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
