PlayStation 4 online multiplayer gaming is no longer free

The PlayStation 4 will require a PlayStation Plus subscription to access online multiplayer, Sony has revealed at their E3 2013 press conference. Previously on the PlayStation 3 it was free to access online multiplayer gaming, but with the launch of the new console, Sony is moving to a Microsoft-style model where you must pay each and every month to access the feature.

PlayStation Plus will cost less than $5 per month, and will also provide access to discounted games, cloud saves, automatic game updates and new games for free every month. A special edition of Driveclub will be provided to all PlayStation Plus members on the PlayStation 4 immediately, and those of you with PS Plus subscriptions on the PS3 will have those carry over to the PS4.

Image via The Verge

Neowin's E3 2013 coverage is sponsored by Alienware

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The PlayStation 4 to cost $399, available this holiday season

Next Story

E3 2013: Alienware reveals new line of laptops

149 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So there goes the "gaming on console is cheaper than PC", at least in MP; Steam gives me all of that plus discounted games, great deals, beta access to games (hint hint company of heroes 2)... Oh and no fee's for MP gaming as well!

also: 5 dollar per month = 60 bucks per year, the price of a new game

So... when I login with a PSN+ account, do my other family members get to use their own non-plus account on the console but get access to the PSN+ features? The dreaded guest feature, and having others bunk up your stats while logged into your account is lame.

Well, it kinda sucks, but as others have mentioned at least media streaming is still free. I therefore think I'll stick with Sony for this generation and simply not game online... I only ever played one game online anyway, CoD, and I'm pretty much bored of that now, haven't touched it for months.

Wonder if everyone is reading this wrong.. it did say "immersive multiplayer online play".. could it possibly be if you want all the bells and whistles of streaming online on ustream, having your friends jump in on your game session to help you out (playing the game for you), etc is part of PS+, but maybe just normal online play like it is now is free?

I haven't seen one thing for Sony saying "yes all online play is part of PS+", just a lot of speculation from one line.. I won't be suprised either way but just saying a lot of conjecture and talking like it is "fact" before it has even been confirmed.. *shrug*

I had every intention of picking up an Xbone, I figured the kinect would kick in eventually and be a good gaming rig for the next few years. Killing used games and DRM every day completely turned me off to them forever, PS4 might not have kinect, but that was just for future use anyway, nothing current appeals to me whatsoever, so M$ really f'd themselves, I just hope they learn their lesson because we need competition out there and if it ends up just being Sony, things will degrade quickly into a greed machine.

PlayStation Plus on the PS3 is really excellent. So I will naturally migrate this over to the PS4. Absolutely.

I know it's diluted a little but I get the impression that it will be quality over quantity.

I remember using the one month trial and enjoying the benefits, but once it was over I didn't consider paying. Strangely enough, all this talk about PS+ for the PS4 makes me want to go and sign up for PS+ on my PS3 this evening. Curse you, Sony!

Even thou it says its a PS+ thing... could it be that you guys have read into it wrong and its not a requirement? More an upgraded multiplayer experience?

wow that man looks like he is taking delight in distributing drugs to the sureshot addicted populance for just $5 a month... so proud of his darling addicts..his business model can never go wrong..

It's not that bad of a deal If they keep up with the PS+ content offers. Didn't they also announce that they're giving Driveclub away with PS+?

I suppose PS+ allows simultaneous use between PS3 and PS4, no? I already have 2+ year membership paid in advance so I it should transfer nicely into the PS4. People comparing this to Xbox Live Gold do not seem aware of the staggering amount of content that Plus (EU & NA) has been giving away for the past 2 years. Heck, next month we're getting X-COM and Uncharted 3. In April we got Hitman Absolution. It's pretty much a consensus with PS3 users that PS+ is worth the money, at least in the current model for the PS3 & Vita.

Microsoft is also giving you two things

1) When buying Xbone you get Free access to Xbox Live for 12 months
2) Two free games every month just like PS+

So, in that regard they are both equal.

One thing to note, the 2 games that they are giving you are yours to keep even if you don't renew your subscription. You aren't renting them like with PS+.

Yogurtmaster said,

2) Two free games every month just like PS+

If it was just like PS+ you'd be getting more than two free games every month.

I don't know how but I've had PS+ twice now and after cancelling both times, not all of the free games but some of them stayed behind. Is that common? Have you experienced this or know someone that has? I'm not trying to refute what you're saying, just letting you know my experience. I know you're not supposed to be able to still have access.

thehockeyguru said,
I don't know how but I've had PS+ twice now and after cancelling both times, not all of the free games but some of them stayed behind. Is that common? Have you experienced this or know someone that has? I'm not trying to refute what you're saying, just letting you know my experience. I know you're not supposed to be able to still have access.

Same thing happened to me when I dropped plus. Most games were no longer usable but I did have several games stay as permanent purchases.

Lack of games and no innovation? Did you watch the conference yesterday? How much more will the XBO have that PS4 won't? You must've shut it off right after Microsoft finished and said Sony can't compete, why bother even watching. We're all entitled to our own opinions but realistically, to say that PlayStation has a lack of games and no innovation? That's exaggerating a bit there, I'm sorry.

Could see this coming a mile off and it's no biggy.
I already pay for XBL so if i decide to switch allegiances this year, i'll just continue paying but for PSN+

So, the PS4 is really the PS3+. No innovation at all. The only difference is that you have to pay to play online which was already on Xbox.

I am sad about the PS4 camera not being included because now it's completely useless and so is Move. What an epic nightmare next generation has turned out to be.

There are zero games that I am interested on the PS4 and now that there is no next generation innovation on the PS4 at all (no a 15 year old touch pad technology is not innovation).

I don't care about "DRM", everyone uses iTunes or Steam anyway so who cares. All of video games are going this way, this is the future for everyone, everywhere.

I do, and you know what? it help me keep fit because sitting on your butt for hours and hours playing games with your controller is not healthy for you. In addition, I do use the voice command.

nub said,
iTunes has been DRM free since 2009. Do you really enjoy playing kinect games?

Only music is DRM free. Movies, TV Shows, apps and books are not and no one complains there.

Both Sony, and MS have some solid exclusives, neither is devoid of them. Most AAA will be cross platform. The hardware is almost the same so they will both get similar performance.

Microsoft decided to apply PC business model (internet connection, DRM, restriction of used games) and Sony kept the existing console business model.

Pity, but I could see this coming.

One thing I don't get though. On the PS3 it made sense to offer discounted games as an incentive to get people to pay for the PS Plus membership. But if you have to have a PS Plus membership to play online on the PS4, what's the point in offering games at a discount as well? Just an extra incentive for people who think they will only play singleplayer games?

Think of it this way, if anyone already have ps3, there's no reason to get xbox because having to start xbox library is a bite expensive and vice versa. As for me, I am already an xbox owner since original xbox so PS4 is not going to be my console regardless how cheap it is.

minster11 said,
Think of it this way, if anyone already have ps3, there's no reason to get xbox because having to start xbox library is a bite expensive and vice versa. As for me, I am already an xbox owner since original xbox so PS4 is not going to be my console regardless how cheap it is.

Except that, as neither console is backwards compatible, you need to start afresh for libraries for the new consoles and keep your old ones anyway...

JHBrown said,
Unless we are forced to buy games like Sim City and their wonderful cloud experience. :-(

While Sim City was a joke, at least there wasn't a $5/month price tag to play it.

virtorio said,
Yup, one of the perks for buying something considerably more expensive than a console to play games on.

Well I don't know. A friend of mine managed to put together a decent gaming machine for a dollar more than an xbone, and I don't quite consider a single dollar as being considerably more expensive than...well...anything.

Depends on how you look at it. I know someone who put together a fairly ok PC about two years ago (maybe less) for what he thought was a pretty decent price, and now it barely runs games like Planetside 2 and Metro Last Light, and he's looking at video cards which cost more than than a PS4.

virtorio said,
Depends on how you look at it. I know someone who put together a fairly ok PC about two years ago (maybe less) for what he thought was a pretty decent price, and now it barely runs games like Planetside 2 and Metro Last Light, and he's looking at video cards which cost more than than a PS4.

Well this was about a month ago lol. I think at least for a year or 3 he'll be good.

virtorio said,
Depends on how you look at it. I know someone who put together a fairly ok PC about two years ago (maybe less) for what he thought was a pretty decent price, and now it barely runs games like Planetside 2 and Metro Last Light, and he's looking at video cards which cost more than than a PS4.

Well your friend is an idiot, my PC is old from about 6 years ago, Q6700 and 9600GT and it runs metro: LL absolutely fine.

virtorio said,
Depends on how you look at it. I know someone who put together a fairly ok PC about two years ago (maybe less) for what he thought was a pretty decent price, and now it barely runs games like Planetside 2 and Metro Last Light, and he's looking at video cards which cost more than than a PS4.

I don't understand this. I own an 8800gt. A card that is nearing 6 years old and I am still able to play games just fine. Obviously not on the highest settings, but games run at a reasonable framerate on decent settings. The 8800gt is becoming the minimum require for some games now (Bioshock Infinite). I'm going to have to upgrade fairly soon especially with publishers pushing for more intense graphics now that the Xbox One and PS4 are being released, but this card has served me well for 5+ years.

The problem isn't being too expensive, the problem is your friend can't be satisfied with medium graphics settings. If he has the money, then by all means he can spend excessive money on his hardware, but it is not a requirement to game on a PC.

I bought the GTX780 ($650) and the difference in games is truly remarkable. I can justify the cost because it has multiple uses, I WORK on my computer during the day and the card greatly helps towards that (video/3D editing). Before this card, I had a $200 GTX660 which played any game I could throw at it pretty damned well. I might pick up a PS4 for the GF, it's just easy to use and no fiddling which she likes.

Guess what.. If you purchase a yearly sub of Psn+ its $50, so its actually $10 cheaper than a yearly sub of Xbox Live Gold.

And if amazon has deals on XBL Gold membership, I have no doubt they'll have deals for Psn+ too in the future. Its amazon afterall.

Jaybonaut said,
XBL is like triple that cost too.

Haha, math fail.

Also, xbox live gold is now shared between family members, so anyone in your house can use online if only 1 person has a gold account, so that price (which is the same price anyway) gets you ALL online.

X-Bone! I ****ing love MS sometimes. I bet they never realized in all the higher level meetings that it would be abbreviated as the X-Bone by a lot of people. I have a family pack for that price also. Still available too.

mrdeezus said,
I have a family plan. 4 accounts for $99 per year. Xbone for the win

they removed the family pack as soon having one gold account in the house will allow you all gold access, so the value proposition is far greater than Sony.

dead.cell said,

Jesus, it's almost like Microsoft wants you to have zero reason at all to invest in their console.


They made it cheaper. From 99 to 60 for 4 ppl on a console

Lachlan said,

They made it cheaper. From 99 to 60 for 4 ppl on a console

But is it limited to 4 members that can share or not? I haven't seen that said anywhere, or I don't remember it anyways.

GP007 said,

But is it limited to 4 members that can share or not? I haven't seen that said anywhere, or I don't remember it anyways.


They have never said it is limited to 4 members.

Lamp Post said,

They have never said it is limited to 4 members.

That's what I thought, that makes it's value even better since you can share it easy now.

I probably heard him wrong but I thought they said you can share your games with other users on the same console, not your XBL Gold access; I could be wrong though. I'm not claiming you're wrong. I'd like to see the source of that information. That makes things a little better. I will still eventually get both consoles as I always do with every generation but not having an unlimited income, I have to choose which to go with first and this time around it's looking like the PS4. Last time it was the 360 despite my hatred for the Xbox and my love for PS2.

I'm going to go on the lookout for that information and will post it here if I find it.

thehockeyguru said,
I probably heard him wrong but I thought they said you can share your games with other users on the same console, not your XBL Gold access; I could be wrong though. I'm not claiming you're wrong. I'd like to see the source of that information. That makes things a little better. I will still eventually get both consoles as I always do with every generation but not having an unlimited income, I have to choose which to go with first and this time around it's looking like the PS4. Last time it was the 360 despite my hatred for the Xbox and my love for PS2.

I'm going to go on the lookout for that information and will post it here if I find it.

I think you're mixing two different things together. You can share your games library with up to 10 family members, that's one thing, and that doesn't depend on what Xbox One they're using. The XBL sharing seems to be for anyone on your own personal console? So your main system, or first one. I could be wrong though. The way they're doing the 10 family game sharing is nice IMO.

Fine with me! I don't even play online. But I think I'll get PS+ anyway to show my support for what Sony has done for its consumer base with the PS4. Thanks Sony. I'm sure they'll make it worthwhile like they have done so far with PS+, and with all of the network features the PS4 will have, I can see why they're imposing a fee. It's not just a paywall.

Lachlan said,
Do you have some sort of problem with your brain... you are going to pay 5 dollars a month to support them without using multiplayer .. why would you give money to a billion dollar corporation instead of your own bank account.. they are not your friend and are just trying to impress their shareholders..

Haha well said mate- if you can help it, don't give the big companies any money. If you really want to help out in the gaming scene try supporting some indi or low key developers out there trying to put bread on a plate.

Lachlan said,
Do you have some sort of problem with your brain... you are going to pay 5 dollars a month to support them without using multiplayer .. why would you give money to a billion dollar corporation instead of your own bank account.. they are not your friend and are just trying to impress their shareholders..

He will still be able to get free games, early access to some games, guaranteed access for some betas, etc.. There was a whole lot of benefit to PS+ before multiplayer was tacked on for PS4. It's the reason why many people subscribed to it on the PS3.

@Lachlan, even if I don't play online, I will benefit from PS+ discounts and free games.

Being a PS+ member is like having an incentive card at a store where you get discounts and benefits. It's not just about playing online. Do you think all the PS3 owners who subscribe to PS+ are throwing away money because they don't need it to get online?

More expensive doesn't need to mean harder. For many people, $5 a month has no effect on their lives at all. Besides, if you can afford a console with games, but not $5 a month, you have wrong financial priorities IMO.

Lamp Post said,
More expensive doesn't need to mean harder. For many people, $5 a month has no effect on their lives at all. Besides, if you can afford a console with games, but not $5 a month, you have wrong financial priorities IMO.
Really, so you cant be a gamer on a budget with the latest games? Well you can't on xbox thats for sure, being required to pay what is going to be MSRP anyway means that option is out for a lot of people, at least with the PS4 people will have the option to buy and trade games for much cheaper.

SierraSonic said,
Really, so you cant be a gamer on a budget with the latest games? Well you can't on xbox thats for sure.

You just have to wait a month or two until the games go as low as half their price.

Lamp Post said,
More expensive doesn't need to mean harder. For many people, $5 a month has no effect on their lives at all. Besides, if you can afford a console with games, but not $5 a month, you have wrong financial priorities IMO.

The issue is the continuing creep of extra charges.

1 - Buy the expensive console
2 - Buy the expensive games
3 - Pay the "monthly fee" (along with your internet connection) to play
4 - Realise companies are now just pumping out "incomplete" games so they can charge you for "DLC"

Notice you are significantly worse off. It's not as if the experience is any better on a console. It just costs more. That's why I can't buy a console as I can't be seen to support such rampart gouging of the consumer.

so 60 a year for this or 30-35 a year for xbox live, yeah enjoy your hundred savings at console purchase cause they gonna get it back eventually lol

DPyro said,
A year of Xbox Live Gold cost the same...

I haven't paid more than $35/year for Xbl for the last three or four years. Gotta love amazon.

Jme621 said,
so 60 a year for this or 30-35 a year for xbox live, yeah enjoy your hundred savings at console purchase cause they gonna get it back eventually lol

I thought I was in back in 2005 for a moment

spenser.d said,

I haven't paid more than $35/year for Xbl for the last three or four years. Gotta love amazon.


Who's to say they won't start offering the same for PS Plus?

I know it'll probably be $4.99 but they actually didn't "specifically" say it was going to be $5/month. Look at the very top photo and go back to read some articles, or even re-watch the reveal. They said "less than $5 per month".

thehockeyguru said,
I know it'll probably be $4.99 but they actually didn't "specifically" say it was going to be $5/month. Look at the very top photo and go back to read some articles, or even re-watch the reveal. They said "less than $5 per month".

In other words, Sony announced something that it is not totally ready. Then again, let's not kid ourselves here. If they say less than $5, it is more likely that is it 4.99 + Tax.

well at least sony with that money they could improve the online gaming who knows make it better than xbox live.

eilegz said,
well at least sony with that money they could improve the online gaming who knows make it better than xbox live.
They could start making in secure in the first place

MVD said,
And no mandatory livingroom spycam.

Please stop calling it a spy camera. If you think Microsoft give a flying **** what your little family is doing, you're deluded ... Even if you're joking, this kind of ludicrous sci-fi conspiracy crap just makes dumb people keep spreading more rumours. And yes, those people are severely dumb.

link6155 said,
Just watch people say the same thing about the new PS Eye

You can unplug it and still use your PS4, if MS had same option, the spying angle would not be brought up.

Spirit Dave said,

Please stop calling it a spy camera. If you think Microsoft give a flying **** what your little family is doing, you're deluded ...

Yeah, why would companies be interested in what brands you have in your room or how many people watch the T.V. or play games? No way that could be used for marketing and advertising.

I don't know MS' plans for this gen of Kinect, but they have plenty of reasons to want to know what people are doing. That's not conspiratorial.

compl3x said,

Yeah, why would companies be interested in what brands you have in your room or how many people watch the T.V. or play games? No way that could be used for marketing and advertising.

I don't know MS' plans for this gen of Kinect, but they have plenty of reasons to want to know what people are doing. That's not conspiratorial.


You're right, it isn't conspiratorial to project unfounded suspicions based on your own negative attitude toward a business. It's just ignorant.

Spirit Dave said,

Please stop calling it a spy camera. If you think Microsoft give a flying **** what your little family is doing, you're deluded ... Even if you're joking, this kind of ludicrous sci-fi conspiracy crap just makes dumb people keep spreading more rumours. And yes, those people are severely dumb.

it's a little sad the passive acceptation of a state of intrusive surveillance, never mind the open admission to warrantless wire tapping, and other means of illegally attaining digital communication information, and outright discarding of fourth amendment rights, and never mind mircrosoft's active collaboration and agreement to "help" the government with doing the above. our own devices being used by the government to spy on us is not delusional conspiracy theory, it's a fact. and to not only assume that they wont use this to spy on us, but to dismiss it as a delusional conspiracy theory, KNOWING that they OPENLY admit to doing so with every ether of digital communication implies that you're the "severely dumb one" but hey. who needs privacy any more, "I don't have anything to hide, go right ahead and spy on me"

Leightthegreat said,

it's a little sad the passive acceptation of a state of intrusive surveillance, never mind the open admission to warrantless wire tapping, and other means of illegally attaining digital communication information, and outright discarding of fourth amendment rights, and never mind mircrosoft's active collaboration and agreement to "help" the government with doing the above. our own devices being used by the government to spy on us is not delusional conspiracy theory, it's a fact. and to not only assume that they wont use this to spy on us, but to dismiss it as a delusional conspiracy theory, KNOWING that they OPENLY admit to doing so with every ether of digital communication implies that you're the "severely dumb one" but hey. who needs privacy any more, "I don't have anything to hide, go right ahead and spy on me"


Saying something is a fact does not make it so. You still have to make an actual argument, not just spew from a soapbox.

And for what it's worth, as George Carlin once said, we think in language, so the quality of our thoughts can only ever be as good as the quality of our language. On that note, learn your grammar. My own may not be world class, but there's no way yours is indicative of much in the way of quality thought. Christ.

ok, grammar Nazi. I'm sure you get my point give or take a few apostrophes. don't be a ******. and it's not an argument, it was an opinion. and it is a fact that the NSA openly and on the record, admits to collecting digital information on ALL us citizens through any and every ether of electronic communications possible. doesn't matter if you believe it or not, or what imaginary soap box you think it's coming from, it's true.

Leightthegreat said,
ok, grammar Nazi. I'm sure you get my point give or take a few apostrophes. don't be a ******. and it's not an argument, it was an opinion. and it is a fact that the NSA openly and on the record, admits to collecting digital information on ALL us citizens through any and every ether of electronic communications possible. doesn't matter if you believe it or not, or what imaginary soap box you think it's coming from, it's true.

Ah, look at how you changed your words when you reiterated what you believe is factual. Spying became "collecting digital information". Isn't that interesting? Isn't it also interesting how, when people use the word "spying", the impression given is that of a person actively listening to phone calls, reading email, watching a skype chat, etc.

Words behave interestingly, and people throw them around without much thought. This is one way in which the quality of our language indicates the quality of our thought.

Another way is when someone uses run-on sentences and disjointed clauses, but thinks criticism of his grammar is referring to apostrophes.

Joshie said,

Ah, look at how you changed your words when you reiterated what you believe is factual. Spying became "collecting digital information". Isn't that interesting? Isn't it also interesting how, when people use the word "spying", the impression given is that of a person actively listening to phone calls, reading email, watching a skype chat, etc.

Perphaps my linguistic abilities are not as polished as your own, but his use of vocabulary is in no way related to this debate and certainly does not lessen the validity of his argument. Pointing out someone's poor grammar in an argument in an attempt to make your points stronger is disgusting. It just goes to show that you have nothing new to bring to the table on the subject and have merely run out of things to say in your losing battle.

By the way. your linguistics are not as highly polished as you'd like to think if you can't even be bothered to take the time and pick up a dictionary.

Webster's clearly states the definition of spying as, "Work for an organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors."

Federal agencies and companies alike have clearly stated they illegally use our own devices to collect information. It's clearly factual. Whether or not Microsoft will sell the information they collect to third party companies or to the government is currently unknown to us, but what's stopping them? The argument isn't that Microsoft is definitely going to use these cameras to deliberately spy on us and release the information to others; it's about the fact that it has already been done by others. It should make you, at the very least, a little worried to put this camera in your home knowing it is fact that federal agencies and companies can already use our devices to spy on us.

Buzz words don't care about dictionary definitions. Perception is king when pushing an agenda. Walk up to any stranger on the street and ask them what they think it means if the government is spying on their email. Surveillance and spying deliver a particular mental image. Ignoring that to play games with semantics is a great way for a debate to go nowhere.

Do you think people understand what metadata is? Do you think people understand that collecting telephone metadata doesn't mean eavesdropping on a conversation? Do you understand that?

This common ignorance of what the government is really doing is feeding an emotional panic, and the people pushing an anti-government agenda do nothing to stop it, because the panic serves their purpose. So what if people believe the wrong thing if they're at least on your side? Why correct them if there's a risk their support might waver? Why bother with facts when assumptions are better motivators?

If you know anything about this issue you'll know that the terabytes of metadata being milled from our devices is sufficient enough to find out an array about us and what we do. The issue is that people are taking data and information about us without a warrant. It doesn't matter how insignificant you think the data they mine from you is, what should matter is they're doing it without your consent. It's a slippery slope. If they can get away with collecting data on us through our devices, what difference is recording audio or video, or anything else they please from phones, cameras, and the like? I'm not anti-government. I have no agenda. I do, however, know my rights and know when they are being infringed on.

SebZogg said,
It's a slippery slope. If they can get away with collecting data on us through our devices, what difference is recording audio or video, or anything else they please from phones, cameras, and the like?

Two things. One might even change your life.

1) The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The term is, by definition, a flawed argument, because it presumes the inevitability of an end result without offering any actual proof of that inevitability. It's a lot more powerful to argue against something based on its own merits and issues, rather than on the merits and issues of some other thing that may or may not happen later, unless you can make a clear case that that other thing will be impossible to avoid.

2) "what difference is recording audio or video" -- a lot. And I already explained this fully in my earlier post. It's about the impact the argument has on the audience. To you, there might be no difference, but when this wrong impression is allowed to spread, people choose to support the cause when they might not care as much if they knew the actual facts. That's my point. If you can't get people to support your cause with the truth, but instead have to rely on misinterpretation and manipulating what people perceive to be the issue, you're surrendering. You're admitting that you don't have faith in your cause as-is. You should always rely on the truth as much as you possibly can, because it's the only way you can really gain confidence in your decisions, and have confidence in your supporters.

compl3x said,

Yeah, why would companies be interested in what brands you have in your room or how many people watch the T.V. or play games? No way that could be used for marketing and advertising.

I don't know MS' plans for this gen of Kinect, but they have plenty of reasons to want to know what people are doing. That's not conspiratorial.

Yes it is. Now get that shiney hat off of your head. Microsoft will not be doing any of this stuff. Jesus, you people make me laugh. You think after they had their ass kicked by the DOJ and the EU they'd even THINK of doing that?! These kind of suggestions are just embarrassing.

Spirit Dave said,

Yes it is. Now get that shiney hat off of your head. Microsoft will not be doing any of this stuff. Jesus, you people make me laugh. You think after they had their ass kicked by the DOJ and the EU they'd even THINK of doing that?! These kind of suggestions are just embarrassing.


Nevermind the enormous investment required to build a system that can identify all of these things in your living room, regardless of angle, lightning, or obstructions. Facial recognition for black people was a technological challenge, but intelligently identify commercial products? That's practically the new Hello World!

People rush into putting on the tinfoil hat because it's easy to wear. They can hurry up and start imagining it's the end of the world without paying any mind to the manpower involved in making it happen, the technological limitations barring it from happening, the contracts and partnerships required to populate a database with visual data, and the fact that so many programmers would be involved with this effort that it would've been leaked long ago and wouldn't even have to be a 'conspiracy' theory.

In other words, it's so completely absurd, that by virtue of *being* a conspiracy theory, it is false.

Joshie said,

Ah, look at how you changed your words when you reiterated what you believe is factual. Spying became "collecting digital information". Isn't that interesting? Isn't it also interesting how, when people use the word "spying", the impression given is that of a person actively listening to phone calls, reading email, watching a skype chat, etc.

Words behave interestingly, and people throw them around without much thought. This is one way in which the quality of our language indicates the quality of our thought.

Another way is when someone uses run-on sentences and disjointed clauses, but thinks criticism of his grammar is referring to apostrophes.

i'll stick to my statement, collecting my information secretly to be observed at whim of someone who I've never met is spying. I refer to it as spying, im not "changing my words" for my own convenience. you wouldn't give your information to someone on the street who you've never met. he may be some nefarious criminal, or your information may end up in the hands of one. they have your information, they can observe it without you knowing. under several definitions, that's considered spying. so before you correct my grammar, know what the **** you're talking about.

Thief000 said,
Indeed and I'm really enjoying the hypocrisy amongst the PlayStation community right now. Showing their true colors.

I already pay for PSN+ anyways

That sucks, but at least they are not charging you extra to use a bunch of crap that's free everywhere else (Netflix, ect...) like MS.

Gojira77 said,
That sucks, but at least they are not charging you extra to use a bunch of crap that's free everywhere else (Netflix, ect...) like MS.

that's why PS3 online is really bad experience and always go down. There is a reason you pay for good service and Sony does a bad job with it.

Gojira77 said,
That sucks, but at least they are not charging you extra to use a bunch of crap that's free everywhere else (Netflix, ect...) like MS.

Where is Netflix free?

Dinggus said,

Where is Netflix free?

Netflix the service isn't free, you still have to pay the $8 month to Netflix. But to stream the Netflix app on PS4 will not require a PS+ membership.

This. If you want to use Netflix on your 360, you need to be a gold member. On PS3, Wii, phones, PC, ect..., there is no additional fee to use Netflix. Same with just about every other app on 360. It's all free everywhere else, but MS has the audacity to charge you extra to use it.

I used to be an Xbox fanboy up until a year or so ago, but I got too frustrated with all that kind of crap (and the fact that I HATE Metro and find anything with it unusable).

The charging for free stuff, the video ads everywhere even though I am paying them, and the FUGLY interface made me finally switch to PS3. It's better in just about every way. Yes, the MP isn't quite as good, but it's good enough, and up until now it's been free.

Plus, PS+ gives you tons of free games. You actually get something for your money, not just access to a bunch of crap that's free everywhere else.

ctrl_alt_delete said,
Didn't Microsoft say starting July 1st every gold member will get 2 free games a month? I think that's cool.

That's like a prison guard giving you two candy bars.

Love all the defence for Sony.. was it not just a few years ago they declared war on hackers and put one guy in prison for cracking bluray.

If they just offer games that are 3-5 years old then it ain't that great. They better start offering more recent releases if they want it to be considered even remotely as good as what PS+ offers.

Regarding the point that the PS online is a "really bad experience" and it "always goes down" - that's complete crap.

Gojira77 said,
That sucks, but at least they are not charging you extra to use a bunch of crap that's free everywhere else (Netflix, ect...) like MS.

edit: didnt read all the comments

Gojira77 said,

Plus, PS+ gives you tons of free games. You actually get something for your money..

Thats like a prison guard giving you candy bars

compl3x said,
If they just offer games that are 3-5 years old then it ain't that great. They better start offering more recent releases if they want it to be considered even remotely as good as what PS+ offers.

Regarding the point that the PS online is a "really bad experience" and it "always goes down" - that's complete crap.

It's not terribly old games. Last month, we got Sleeping Dogs. Now we have Deus Ex: HR. Just for the games alone, it's paid for itself several times over the two years that I've been subscribed.

NeoTrunks said,

It's not terribly old games. Last month, we got Sleeping Dogs. Now we have Deus Ex: HR. Just for the games alone, it's paid for itself several times over the two years that I've been subscribed.

I was responding to someone else's point about XBL giving away free games now. Those games are old. I am a big fan of PS+ - I have had a subscription since the very beginning. Sorry for the confusion.