Sony explains why you'll have to pay for online with PS4

[compl3x]

Pretty much the only thing people didn't like about Sony's E3 conference was that tiny little part where they announced that you'd have to pay a subscription fee (PS+) to play games online with the PS4. It was kind of a bombshell for some, but for others, it made sense given the value of PlayStation Plus.

After being asked what went into the decision to charge for online gameplay, Sony explained that online features and services are going to be a "big pillar" of the PS4 experience. They go on to note, "we've already talked about the share button, sharing features, second screens...if we continue to invest into online infrastructures, that costs money. If we continue free service for online multiplayer, from a business standpoint, there's pressure to recover costs. That's when we decided 'let's ask the people who are most active in playing online to share some of the cost so we can invest more.'"

Sony ends with, "$399 is the price point we always wanted to hit. We carefully looked at the potential of the technology we put in the PlayStation 4. We believe that when PS4 comes out it will be the most powerful system inside."

I saw all of this coming, and I'm not really surprised. Sony can't afford to offer 10 more years of free online play with all of the cloud based services they're offering now. Still, as I said earlier PlayStation Plus is a tremendous value, and I'm willing to make that sacrifice to pay for online if Sony can provide a truly solid experience -- if.

http://www.destructoid.com/sony-explains-why-you-ll-have-to-pay-for-online-with-ps4-256158.phtml

[LaP]

Why work so hard just to say "We want moar moneiessss!" ?

[compl3x]

So we are more willing to part with our moniesssssss! :)

[trooper11]

I'm completely cool with this considering the value of the service and the fact that I know how much has to be invested to make these services work.

Its the same reason I have kept an xbl gold subscription. MS and Sony are investing time and money to grow these services and offer gamers more for their money in the process. That isn't just about the top level features, but also the behind the scenes infrastructure such as dedicated servers, etc.

It'll be interesting to see if those that have railed against putting multiplayer behind a paywall still have a problem with it.

[TheLegendOfMart]

As long as they put that money back into developing the services I guess I can live with it, if it's just a pure money grab I am going to be annoyed. I am paid up till Feb 2014 with PS+ anyway and I shall be extending it soon so guess it doesn't really affect me.

[StephenBratz]

8+ years of Sony and Playstation fanboys mocking the 360 because of the pay model for online play, years of claiming that PS3's online play not being as good as 360's is just fine because it was free, and years of other attacks against the 360's Live model. But in a few moments after Sony's announcement they collectively saw the light, none of what they have been saying for years matters, and giving money to Sony is now a good thing that we should all want to do.

But Microsoft is still bad for charging for Live.

[TheLegendOfMart]

8+ years of Sony and Playstation fanboys mocking the 360 because of the pay model for online play, years of claiming that PS3's online play not being as good as 360's is just fine because it was free, and years of other attacks against the 360's Live model. But in a few moments after Sony's announcement they collectively saw the light, none of what they have been saying for years matters, and giving money to Sony is now a good thing that we should all want to do.

But Microsoft is still bad for charging for Live.

In the past 12 months Sony have given me nearly ?3000 worth of games as part of my subscription, Microsoft has given me 20 Microsoft points (1 pence) for my Birthday. If they continue to give me ?3000 worth of software as well as multiplayer as part of my PS+ subscription I don't really see the comparison.

Microsoft has EVERYTHING locked behind Gold paywall and they only recently started to give away games which are 4 and 6 years old so worthless anyway.

[threetonesun]

But Microsoft is still bad for charging for Live.

Let's say I own a console for 6 years. Maybe I play an online multi-player game for 2 of those. Should I be locked out of Netflix and other apps because I don't want to keep paying for those other 4 years?

I won't even get into the fact that if you pay for Live you still get a Dashboard full of ads, but needless to say Live and Sony's service are not equivalent.

[Matrix XII]

I'm totally fine with this and I expected it.

Looking forward to subscribing again to PS+ as I had it a couple years ago

threetonesun: I read somewhere on Neowin that those apps wouldn't be behind the paywall.

[StephenBratz]

In the past 12 months Sony have given me nearly ?3000 worth of free games, Microsoft has given me 20 Microsoft points (1 pence) for my Birthday. If they continue to give me ?3000 worth of software as well as multiplayer as part of my PS+ subscription I don't really see the comparison.

Microsoft has EVERYTHING locked behind Gold paywall and they only recently started to give away games which are 4 and 6 years old so worthless anyway.

So you are proving my claim that all the whining for years was just because it was Microsoft, and now that Sony is charging it is all for good.

Edit: So list out the prices of this software you got for free, you know this ?3000 value off the top of your head, so you must be able to list every item, and the price for each item that you got for "free"

[spaceelf]

Let's say I own a console for 6 years. Maybe I play an online multi-player game for 2 of those. Should I be locked out of Netflix and other apps because I don't want to keep paying for those other 4 years?

I won't even get into the fact that if you pay for Live you still get a Dashboard full of ads, but needless to say Live and Sony's service are not equivalent.

I don't think they've announced whether or not they'll do the Netflix paywall again for Ones Live. I highly doubt it.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I won't even get into the fact that if you pay for Live you still get a Dashboard full of ads, but needless to say Live and Sony's service are not equivalent.

Always my beef with Live. I pay for the damn thing, yet it is still full of ads and I have no option to turn them off

So you are proving my claim that all the whining for years was just because it was Microsoft, and now that Sony is charging it is all for good.

No, he saying + is still the better deal.

[sc302 Veteran]

I don't play any games online on the consoles. They are mainly single player. I don't believe in paying someone for a service on top of a service I am already paying for. Never believed in the WOW model either, I guess that is why I have never played or will own WOW. I haven't paid for Live, nor will I pay for Sony's ps+. They can all suck my sweaty sack before I pay them or they can take some of the cost out from my ISP. Start paying and there will be no end to being charged for things because everyone will assume that it is alright to charge. Sony and Microsoft need more money like I need more rocks in my yard.

[TheLegendOfMart]

So you are proving my claim that all the whining for years was just because it was Microsoft, and now that Sony is charging it is all for good.

What?

It's not because "its Microsoft", it's because it's a sh*tty model, pay to play online will be under Sonys PS+ subscription which gives you at least 3-5 games PER MONTH , that's hardly a bad thing.

[threetonesun]

I don't think they've announced whether or not they'll do the Netflix paywall again for Ones Live. I highly doubt it.

I would be very surprised if Microsoft changed their stance on that. I mean, they've had how many years now to get rid of that paywall. Plus, I'm sure a large part of Microsoft business model is to get people to buy the console and pay for live. I don't think they're very interested in console sales alone. You have to remember, over the course of 5 years, if you have Live the entire time, you've basically bought 1.5 consoles from them.

[Dick Montage]

It's set at the right level, and I have no problem with it.

[trooper11]

I won't even get into the fact that if you pay for Live you still get a Dashboard full of ads, but needless to say Live and Sony's service are not equivalent.

I always hear this about the dashboard being full of ads, but I really don't get that. On my dashboard the only place I see an ad is a small square in the content sections. People talk like they are everywhere and in your face. On my ps3, I also see small ads when I'm exploring content in the market, so I just don't get the big deal.

At the first X1 reveal, it was interesting to see that the dashboard didn't have any ads, not even the small squares, so we will see if MS and Sony change how those are displayed.

Regarding the value of the services, its very subjective. You guys love to make grand arguments on both sides, but the reality is not black and white.

I see xbl gold and Ps plus getting better next gen, which is a great thing. Both are being advanced in terms of gaming features.

[spaceelf]

I would be very surprised if Microsoft changed their stance on that. I mean, they've had how many years now to get rid of that paywall. Plus, I'm sure a large part of Microsoft business model is to get people to buy the console and pay for live. I don't think they're very interested in console sales alone. You have to remember, over the course of 5 years, if you have Live the entire time, you've basically bought 1.5 consoles from them.

Now you're not adding on support costs from flaky hardware that may die at any time. I also expect the apps to tie into the existing 8 ecosystem somewhat (we'll see, but why not) in which case paywalling it would be ridiculous.

[Rodrigo]

In the past 12 months Sony have given me nearly ?3000 worth of games as part of my subscription, Microsoft has given me 20 Microsoft points (1 pence) for my Birthday. If they continue to give me ?3000 worth of software as well as multiplayer as part of my PS+ subscription I don't really see the comparison.

Microsoft has EVERYTHING locked behind Gold paywall and they only recently started to give away games which are 4 and 6 years old so worthless anyway.

Actually, you are buying the chance to play them. Those games are not yours. You only get to play them because you are paying for PS+. Once your sub runs out, or the service stops working, you won't be able to play those games, sorry.

[HawkMan]

In the past 12 months Sony have given me nearly ?3000 worth of games as part of my subscription, Microsoft has given me 20 Microsoft points (1 pence) for my Birthday. If they continue to give me ?3000 worth of software as well as multiplayer as part of my PS+ subscription I don't really see the comparison.

Microsoft has EVERYTHING locked behind Gold paywall and they only recently started to give away games which are 4 and 6 years old so worthless anyway.

yeah they're worthless :rolleyes:

Let's not pretend the games sony "give" away is any less worthless, they may be newer, but they're also the kind of games that those interested in have already bought.

[StephenBratz]

What?

It's not because "its Microsoft", it's because it's a sh*tty model, pay to play online will be under Sonys PS+ subscription which gives you at least 3-5 games PER MONTH , that's hardly a bad thing.

Look, I get it. You spent 8 years being the foot soldier in Sony's army, fighting the good fight for them, using the "But you need to pay for online play" argument against Live whenever you could, and smiling at yourself in the mirror whenever you thought you scored a few points against the millions of people who like and use Live. But now Sony has done what you fought against for so many years, and so you need to make Sony look good, otherwise all those years of attacking are a waste of your time, time you will never get back.

But all I know is that with PSN, it cost me time and money and I didn't get anything back. My credit card was one of them that were hacked, I had to pay late fees on some of my auto withdrawal accounts that were not paid while my card was canceled, time spent making sure that everything was fixed, all because when I bout the original 60GB, I decided to try out their service and buy Q-bert - the only game I ever played on that overpriced Blu Ray player.

[HawkMan]

Actually, you are buying the chance to play them. Those games are not yours. You only get to play them because you are paying for PS+. Once your sub runs out, or the service stops working, you won't be able to play those games, sorry.

As I understood it with MS system though, they are actually GIVING you the game. so you can play it with or without a subscription after you get it. I may be wrong, but that's how it seemed from what they said.

Also with the PS+ system what happens if you lose a payment and the sub drops and you resub. the old games that are no longer part of the plan, do you lose them as they have time bombed or are they reinstated. I believe in the past there was some discussion that if you you dropped PS+ for a month you actually lost the previous titles, is that how it works or was that changed or something ?

[Rodrigo]

yeah they're worthless :rolleyes:

This is actually becoming the "defense" some people try to pull. The games are either crapware or worthless. Done by Microsoft is just bad.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Actually, you are buying the chance to play them. Those games are not yours. You only get to play them because you are paying for PS+. Once your sub runs out, or the service stops working, you won't be able to play those games, sorry.

I'm well aware of how it works, hence why I said "as part of my subscription", still a damn sight more than Microsoft gives me.

yeah they're worthless :rolleyes:

Let's not pretend the games sony "give" away is any less worthless, they may be newer, but they're also the kind of games that those interested in have already bought.

They are worthless, 4 and 6 year old games.

Sony gives away brand new games and games that are less than 12 months old that I wouldn't normally have spent money on.

Also with the PS+ system what happens if you lose a payment and the sub drops and you resub. the old games that are no longer part of the plan, do you lose them as they have time bombed or are they reinstated. I believe in the past there was some discussion that if you you dropped PS+ for a month you actually lost the previous titles, is that how it works or was that changed or something ?

As long as you "bought" them whenever you resub you get access to ALL of the games, I have stuff still available going back to when they first implemented Instant Game Collection.

This is actually becoming the "defense" some people try to pull. The games are either crapware or worthless. Done by Microsoft is just bad.

Well they are, AC2 and Halo 3.........

Sony gives away stuff that is relatively modern, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Mass Effect 3, Hitman Absolution, you know big hit recent games.

[BajiRav]

I would be very surprised if Microsoft changed their stance on that. I mean, they've had how many years now to get rid of that paywall. Plus, I'm sure a large part of Microsoft business model is to get people to buy the console and pay for live. I don't think they're very interested in console sales alone. You have to remember, over the course of 5 years, if you have Live the entire time, you've basically bought 1.5 consoles from them.

That's true. I have paid ~$200 in last 5 years for XBL Gold (combination of $30/35 cards). I mainly have it for online multiplayer and I consider everything else a bonus. I think most PS+ subscribers have it for the "free" games and are now required to have it for multiplayer.

It is still funny to see flip-flopping from "who needs cross game party voice chat" to "PS4 will have cross game chat YEY!"