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

[compl3x]

I wasn't saying you specifically satanized XBL, I was talking in general.

What negative things have people been saying about XBL over the years on here? And when has anyone been been told they can't praise XBL as a service?

[chrisj1968]

why could they save $$$ on allowing Console gamers to create a server off of their consoles? It appears to be what I used to aptly call in the military as "micro management". since these consoles run off the internet..

[Rodrigo]

What negative things have people been saying about XBL over the years on here? And when has anyone been been told they can't praise XBL as a service?

Really?

Like having to pay for multiplayer, not giving free games? Are those not negative things someone would say about XBL?

I don't really understand what you are trying to say with the second part of your sentence.

[compl3x]

Really?

Like having to pay for multiplayer, not giving free games? Are those not negative things someone would say about XBL?

Some people are willing to pay for Gold, and some people aren't. Some people think the pricing is reasonable, and some people don't. This issue has been discussed by plenty of users, journalists and gaming sites over the years. Unless you're suggesting they're all biased against MS and XBL too.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say with the second part of your sentence.

but discussing the quality of the XBL service (like not having what, 1 month downtime and credit card numbers stolen?) is a no-no.

That implies people have been discouraged or forbidden from saying positive things about XBL. It's never happened.

[Gerowen]

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.

I used to own an XBox 360, in fact I had a 360 for a couple years before I got a PS3, and for a while I owned both consoles before I just got bored with the 360 and sold it, and to be completely honest, at least in the games I played, I didn't notice any difference in performance or quality of service between PSN and XBL. In fact, generally speaking, the audience on PSN was more mature than that on XBL, it seems like less 12 year olds are playing M rated shooter games like Killzone on the PS3 than there are playing Halo for the 360. I think the reason people talked smack to 360 owners for paying for XBL was/is because it was always a nice novelty, even for those of us who have been paying for PS+ anyway, to know that you didn't "have" to pay for the online service. They're adding more features and another console to the same online service, so to me requiring PS+ is justifiable, and it seems reasonable to expect them to try and cover the cost of running that service. If that means making PS+ a requirement to play online, well then I'm ok with that, because I've been a PS+ member for about 2 years now just because of all the free games you get, :p

[gameboy1977]

I will buy Nintendo wii U soon.

[compl3x]

I will buy Nintendo wii U soon.

OK. That has nothing to do with this topic, though.

[StephenBratz]

why could they save $$$ on allowing Console gamers to create a server off of their consoles? It appears to be what I used to aptly call in the military as "micro management". since these consoles run off the internet..

I bought LBP1 on Amazon a few years ago when it went on sale for $15. So I start up my PS3 60GB, and was told that I had to update it. When that was done I put in LPB, and had an update. When all was done, on a Friday night it finally completed at 1AM PST (when people are out or in bet, and Sony's servers are not as clogged) after 1 hour and 45 minutes. The P2P architecture of Live has always been an unproven rumor, but I would prefer to spend 5-10 minutes updating my 360 vs. 105 minutes with the PS3. Not only that, we have been told that there are 300,000 servers being used for Live, how many does Sony have for PSN? Sony proudly announced they are offering cloud services to PS4 developers, what is their network stats? I have not heard what their cloud infrastructure setup is, why not? What are they trying to hide?

[Rodrigo]

Some people are willing to pay for Gold, and some people aren't. Some people think the pricing is reasonable, and some people don't. This issue has been discussed by plenty of users, journalists and gaming sites over the years. Unless you're suggesting they're all biased against MS and XBL too.

That implies people have been discouraged or forbidden from saying positive things about XBL. It's never happened.

I feel like you are just trying to get out of context.

Right, so plenty of users, journalists and gaming sites have discussed this issue over the years, your point? I was just merely saying that those "characteristics" are what people discuss as negative aspects of XBL. I don't even know from where you pulled the "suggestion" that all are biased against Microsoft. Just to be clear here, when I quoted your first post, it wasn't as an attack or trying to contradict you, but making a point that it's quite laughable how people from both sides (Sony and Microsoft) are complaining about the "perks" these services have/are adding.

And thanks for explaining the second part of your sentence. Again, I'm not sure I said nobody is able to discuss those things or are "forbidden". I'm pointing out (and not your opinion) that it's always double sided with THESE topics. In this case you said "Only on this forum would people criticise an almost universally applauded service." (which I'm assuming you refer to PS+), so I just stated that some people seem to fail and realize the quality of the XBL service, which is obviously top notch and doesn't have any issues (as some people make it, and no, I'm not going to start quoting those people).

I hope that gives plenty of explanation.

[compl3x]

I feel like you are just trying to get out of context.

Right, so plenty of users, journalists and gaming sites have discussed this issue over the years, your point? I was just merely saying that those "characteristics" are what people discuss as negative aspects of XBL. I don't even know from where you pulled the "suggestion" that all are biased against Microsoft. Just to be clear here, when I quoted your first post, it wasn't as an attack or trying to contradict you, but making a point that it's quite laughable how people from both sides (Sony and Microsoft) are complaining about the "perks" these services have/are adding.

XBL gold is obviously popular, however, some people have questioned whether the pay-for-online should continue to exist, be made cheaper or removed all together. I've never heard anyone question the validity of the PS+ program. Actually, most of what I have read is people questioning why the PS+ wasn't a paid for online service like Gold.

Simply put, people didn't understand why Sony didn't make a Gold-like system with PS+. You'd get freebies, online storage and the online MP component would become subscription based instead of free.

I guess it is easier to alter the subscription with a new console than it is to alter a system that is already established as free.

Sony has made the claim that they are going to improve their infrastructure to make online better and that is their justification for charging for online. No doubt they've seen how good Gold is an have adopted the idea of charging a fee and using it to improve their service.

If Microsoft can justify charging a fee because it makes their online better why can't Sony do the same?

And thanks for explaining the second part of your sentence. Again, I'm not sure I said nobody is able to discuss those things or are "forbidden". I'm pointing out (and not your opinion) that it's always double sided with THESE topics. In this case you said "Only on this forum would people criticise an almost universally applauded service." (which I'm assuming you refer to PS+), so I just stated that some people seem to fail and realize the quality of the XBL service, which is obviously top notch and doesn't have any issues (as some people make it, and no, I'm not going to start quoting those people).

I hope that gives plenty of explanation.

When you said "is a no-no" I thought you meant that people had been told not to say good things about Gold or something. That's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw from the context.

[StephenBratz]

I used to own an XBox 360, in fact I had a 360 for a couple years before I got a PS3, and for a while I owned both consoles before I just got bored with the 360 and sold it, and to be completely honest, at least in the games I played, I didn't notice any difference in performance or quality of service between PSN and XBL. In fact, generally speaking, the audience on PSN was more mature than that on XBL, it seems like less 12 year olds are playing M rated shooter games like Killzone on the PS3 than there are playing Halo for the 360.

Um, if less 12 year olds are playing, then I would expect it to be more mature because people who are more mature are playing. But I remember when Home was introduced wasn't there a lot of sexism against women on the service? And talk about boring, PS Home? People complain about advertising on the Xbox dashboard, but that was invented purely as an advertisement that Sony thought people would want to spend their entire life playing, and the only time you would want to get up from your couch would be to go to the physical Gap or whatever virtual store was in Home. I remember going to the virtual arcade and not being allowed to play a game because there were people somewhere else in the world that was playing, and the concept that more than one person may want to play a game was completely foreign to Sony. So you just walked around, paid to decorate your "home," got tired of browsing virtual clothes, and deleted the beta REAL quick. Do they even have that any more on PS3, and I don't recall it being announced for PS4?

I think the reason people talked smack to 360 owners for paying for XBL was/is because it was always a nice novelty, even for those of us who have been paying for PS+ anyway, to know that you didn't "have" to pay for the online service. They're adding more features and another console to the same online service, so to me requiring PS+ is justifiable, and it seems reasonable to expect them to try and cover the cost of running that service. If that means making PS+ a requirement to play online, well then I'm ok with that, because I've been a PS+ member for about 2 years now just because of all the free games you get, :p

And Microsoft has been adding more and more features to Live over the years, it has not been a static service since it was first released since Nov 2005. The problem was that Sony found that they could no longer offer a service for free, so they created PS+. When PS+ was started, there were people that was saying that the online play would move to be paid, but Sony would never do to them what MS has done to their users, because Sony cares about their users, they are not all about the money, and it justified the higher price (at least at launch) of the PS3. So, according to those arguments, Sony does not care about their users, they are about the money, and the price does not justify free online.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Plus will work over PS3, PS4 and Vita. I think that's an awesome thing that isn't getting enough attention. No price increase either.

By work I mean will offer content for each. Its a good ecosystem if you like Sony consoles.

[StephenBratz]

Plus will work over PS3, PS4 and Vita. I think that's an awesome thing that isn't getting enough attention. No price increase either.

By work I mean will offer content for each. Its a good ecosystem if you like Sony consoles.

Isn't unification great? I mean, when Microsoft tried it by using one OS on laptops, desktops, and tablets; one UI paradigm across laptops, desktops, tablets, game consoles, and phones; or unifying services such as Xbox music across laptops, desktops, tablets, game consoles, and phones; that was all bad. But Yeee Haw! You go Sony, making it work across the old console, the new one, and a complete failure, shows how great you really are!

And if Sony was truly great, rather than moving online play into PS+, they would have created a middle tier for $1/month, so you would not need to get all that extra stuff that you are now forced to pay for but may not want.

[Bizkit]

XBL is great if you pay for it, but if you don't, your Xbox can only play games, and download games you buy. You can't use anything like YouTube, or Netflix. That is the bad part of the XBL service. It doesn't have anything to do with anything else to me. When all I had was my Xbox, I had to watch Netflix on my phone because my computer was broken and I didn't pay for XBL (I don't play many multiplayer games).

PS+ right now is good cause it gives you free games and cloud backup. If those games are something you want to play then GREAT! If not, then that month you are paying for any past games you still want to play, or kind of throwing your money away until they give you a game you do want to play.

The biggest thing to me, just some random nobody on the internet, is that you can use the services like Netflix and YouTube without paying. If Sony puts those behind the PS+ paywall, then it will be as ****ty as XBL is for people that don't play multiplayer games.

It comes down to what games are one what system you want to play, OR what system your friends play on. I like RPGs, and they tend to be on the Playstation more then the Xbox. BUT THAT IS JUST ME.

Also, coming to a site that leans heavily towards Windows and Microsoft products, what do you expect when you make a topic out a competitor. Mention anything Apple or Sony and you get nothing but flamewars. You can expect the same thing if you went to the Sony forums and talked about XBL.

[StephenBratz]

Well I am genuinely asking. All I know is that they are dropping MSP on One and removing 100 friends limit.

There has not been so much as a rumor that this was happening. They are now just making these things up on the fly when they need something new to try to scare people away from the Xbox and Microsoft. It is all about creating FUD to make sure that they get as many people to go for Sony as they can, because if they get just one more person to switch then they did good for Sony. And like Sony gives a crap about them once they get that dollar.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Yeah, let's not throw around the words "sucking ass". :rolleyes:

Cleaned

[srbeen]

I bought LBP1 on Amazon a few years ago when it went on sale for $15. So I start up my PS3 60GB, and was told that I had to update it. When that was done I put in LPB, and had an update. When all was done, on a Friday night it finally completed at 1AM PST (when people are out or in bet, and Sony's servers are not as clogged) after 1 hour and 45 minutes. The P2P architecture of Live has always been an unproven rumor, but I would prefer to spend 5-10 minutes updating my 360 vs. 105 minutes with the PS3. Not only that, we have been told that there are 300,000 servers being used for Live, how many does Sony have for PSN? Sony proudly announced they are offering cloud services to PS4 developers, what is their network stats? I have not heard what their cloud infrastructure setup is, why not? What are they trying to hide?

I had the same fate with Warhawk on my PS3. Once all the updating was done I didn't want to play. Microsoft has a SUPER fast network and always have. Their original updates were able to be patches too, not full 200MB+ updates like sony came out with on nearly a weekly basis. They eventually addressed that issue allowing patches, but still their network speed caps around 500KB/s for me where I can get a few MB/s from MS. Microsofts system all around was fast, no requiring of disc installation - but you could install the disc to decrease load times if you had the hard drive space (which was another scam IMO). If you don't believe me play the original Motorstorm and sit patiently during the 3 minute load screens.. It was terrible.

We'll see if the sony updates get faster with more people paying for PS+ when its required.

[sc302 Veteran]

Yeah, let's not throw around the words "sucking ass". :rolleyes:

Cleaned

Thank you. I might have jumped off a bridge if I saw that phrase. You saved my life.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I honestly don't mind, but then again I was expecting it to happen ever since they introduced PS+ all those years ago. Even before then I knew they'd have to either charge for online eventually or copy Microsoft and go for 2 tiers.

It's impossible to expand or introduce the new features we're seeing in gaming without a subscription service.

I'd happily pay it for the Wii U too if Nintendo were to offer a premium service.

If anything I just expect Microsoft to offer more value with XBL Gold now. I know the new promotion is being introduced but 2 games a month is still on the short side compared to what PSN+ offers. I'd like to see more games offered and less of the subscription used to secure "exclusive" DLC. Mostly because I don't care for the games they choose to do that with. Obviously that's subjective to taste, but it's also not free DLC either which it probably should be if it's coming out of the subscription to pay for it...

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Thank you. I might have jumped off a bridge if I saw that phrase. You saved my life.

Cool story, bro. :)

I honestly don't mind, but then again I was expecting it to happen ever since they introduced PS+ all those years ago. Even before then I knew they'd have to either charge for online eventually or copy Microsoft and go for 2 tiers.

It's impossible to expand or introduce the new features we're seeing in gaming without a subscription service.

I'd happily pay it for the Wii U too if Nintendo were to offer a premium service.

If anything I just expect Microsoft to offer more value with XBL Gold now. I know the new promotion is being introduced but 2 games a month is still on the short side compared to what PSN+ offers. I'd like to see more games offered and less of the subscription used to secure "exclusive" DLC. Mostly because I don't care for the games they choose to do that with. Obviously that's subjective to taste, but it's also not free DLC either which it probably should be if it's coming out of the subscription to pay for it...

It's a logical step for Sony. Online infrastructure and the related services require money to expand and maintain. If Sony wants more people to use PSN, then they need to invest more in it. I knew Sony would charge for MP with PS Plus so I wasn't surprised. Less than $5 a month isn't bad. It's cheaper than a Xbox Live Gold subscription and I've been a Gold member for a couple of years already.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

First off, I would like to sincerely apologize for calling people douchebags, it was uncalled for, but I did feel a gang like mentality was forming against one member, and perhaps they might even deserve it, but still does not make it right. That is what I was actually addressing with that remark. People ganging up on others. It had nothing to do with opinions about PSN or Live, I should have clarified that. However I do apologize for that remark.

I did not read all the comments since my tirade, but I read a few. It is no excuse, but I had an extra long week and I admit I am extra cranky as a result, so my tolerance for BS is lower than usual, but I would like to adress one person who said I did not give MS credit.

I clearly say Live was the better service. How is that not giving them credit?

Where I did not give them credit was for the fact they have charged for Live since Day 1, something as I pointed out, I am a Founding Member of. I still pay for it to this day even though I have turned on my 360 about 5 times in the past year. So I have no real issues overall with paying for it. I do have an issue with the ads and the fact, up until now, they really have given up very little to those people. I got a Founding Members Avatar once. And like I said, I thought I had cumulated 220 points for my faithfulness to Live. I checked, it is actually 460. 400 of those being for my renewal of Live itself. Okay I guess, but really chump change at the end of the day for MS.

I don't think anyone here is saying Sony is a "bad guy". It's mostly people who complained about XBLGold but are ok with paying for PS+ (for online play).

It really is quite simple at the end of the day why it is all of a sudden okay for Sony to turn around and ask for money and yet people still complain about Live. Sony has not changed any policies at all regarding games. Okay, maybe you can point to the leaving it up to 3rd party publishers, but has that not always been the case? #rd parties have had online codes this past generation. So making a mountain out of a molehill over that seems silly IMHO. But Sony treating the gamer good overall, and asking for a little in return and including + with that little they are asking, really is not a big deal. It really is as simple as that.

So yeah, it is obvious people cut Sony some slack over this new fee, because they have otherwise done good by the gamer with other aspects.