#1 Edited by aerisbueller (6 posts) -

E3 was fantastic for Sony in every way but one. Having to pay to play online isn't a small inconvenience, or "It's ok, I love Sony, and No DRM!", or "I already pay for PSPlus so it doesn't affect me"

Sony doesn't pay for the servers you play your online games on, and the Steam and Origin stores/online game portals on PC show that you can have a huge network of gamers connecting to eachother and it doesn't need to cost anything to gamers. Plain and simple Microsoft's greed and Xbox fans' willingness to put up with paying for being allowed to use their own internet connections is all this is. They've proven to Sony that console gamers will accept this.

This is the appropriate reaction, as demonstrated by PC gamers when MS tried to repeat their pay to use your connection for gaming policy on PC. From Wikipedia:

After the official announcement of Games for Windows – LIVE, many PC gamers were upset with Microsoft's move to charge PC gamers a fee of $49.99 to use the service. Many PC gamers felt this move was unfair, as playing online and many of the other services GFWL offered has, for the most part, always been free on the PC.[38] Microsoft later began offering the service free of charge, after many complaints from PC gamers were made.

After the announcement that the PC release of Dark Souls would use Games for Windows – LIVE, fans started up a petition to have the game released without the service attached. The online petition gained over 20,000 signatures in 5 days, reflecting a notable public dislike of the service among PC gamers.[39]

The twitter campaigns have begun but need plenty of help:

#PS4FreeOnlinePlay #PS4FreeOnline

and the Sony employees to direct these to (politely) aside from gamer friends and family (thanks to FamousMortimer from NeoGaf for this list):

Shuhei Yoshida

(president of worldwide studios)

@yosp

(easily the highest level person on twitter and quite accessible)

John Koller

(head of hardware marketing)

@jpkoller

(dude has like 150 followers - heh)

Guy Longworth

(senior vice president PlayStation Brand Marketing)

@luckylongworth

Scott Rohde

(PlayStation Software Product Development Head for Sony Worldwide Studios America)

@rohdescott

Adam Boyes

(Publisher and developer relations at Sony)

@amboyes

Shahid Kamal Ahmad

(third party relations, europe)

@shahidkamal

Nick Accordino

(SCEA ISD A. Producer)

@nikoro

Phil Rosenberg

(SCEA - reports directly to Tretton, thanks GoFreak)

@philrosenberg

If you agree, please spread the word, and let's make this happen.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

@aerisbueller said:

E3 was fantastic for Sony in every way but one. Having to pay to play online isn't a small inconvenience, or "It's ok, I love Sony, and No DRM!", or "I already pay for PSPlus so it doesn't affect me"

Sony doesn't pay for the servers you play your online games on

Yet. MS is going to be spending TONS of money on dedicated servers in the next generation, and Sony is going to have to do the same thing if they want to compete. If everything is peer to peer, you might have a point, but I doubt that will be the case. If Sony wants to compete with MS, not many games will be peer to peer.

Sony has already given gamers more than enough reason to support them in the next generation. It's sad to see a company offer its customers so much--FAR more than their competitor--only to see a bunch of those customers turn around and demand even more.

#3 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

Oh come one. I know it is a change but it is kind of needed oft this price point and for the huge DRM stuff. Publishers are not happy with their drm politics. And if you always get a free game for it each month it is worth it.

Online
#4 Edited by MattyFTM (14340 posts) -

You're not going to change anything. Internet petitions don't change a thing. It's clear Sony have put a lot of thought into it. A few hashtags aren't going to change their mind.

Personally I'd rather pay money and get a good online infrastructure than get an average one for free. As long as Sony steps up their game with regards to PSN, paying for online pay is a positive thing. It gives them funding to make that upgraded infrastructure a reality. Xbox Live is way ahead of PSN currently. This allows them to level the playingfield.

Heck, I might start a #PS4PaidOnlinePlay hashtag.

Moderator
#5 Posted by devilzrule27 (1239 posts) -

Sony hasn't talked about how online gaming is going to work on the PS4. I'd assume they're going the Microsoft route with dedicated PSN servers. If thats the case then charging for it makes sense. It's sucks but it's not the end of the world.

#6 Posted by Nictel (2380 posts) -

@mattyftm: #PS4PaidOnlinePlay I'll follow.

Stuff costs money. On a level it's a shame but with all the value they are giving you it's hardly something to complain about. It had to happen at one point, it couldn't stay free forever.

#7 Posted by Bollard (5245 posts) -

Sony hasn't talked about how online gaming is going to work on the PS4. I'd assume they're going the Microsoft route with dedicated PSN servers. If thats the case then charging for it makes sense. It's sucks but it's not the end of the world.

#8 Posted by aerisbueller (6 posts) -

Except that has been free forever and would still be if MS didn't steal from consumers on 360

#9 Edited by Damodar (1300 posts) -

I can see how some people wouldn't appreciate this, but PS+ is such a great deal, especially if you have a VITA and PS4 etc.

Bringing up people petitioning for Dark Souls to not be GFWL has nothing to do with any of this though. People hate GFWL because it's terrible.

#10 Edited by Chaser324 (6315 posts) -

Sony is making so many concessions already to cater to the wants and needs of the gamers that I think you can make one compromise and pony up for PS+. That extra cash flow should hopefully allow them to provide a more substantial online infrastructure than the fairly barebones offering on PS3, and the steady flow of free games should make it a pretty easy pill to swallow.

Also, if you're a fan of the $399 price point, you really can't complain about PS+. Sony would almost certainly raise the base price if they couldn't count on PS+ revenue to balance the loss they're taking on the hardware (which I think is probably a pretty big loss).

Moderator
#11 Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2495 posts) -
@damodar said:

I can see how some people wouldn't appreciate this, but PS+ is such a great deal, especially if you have a VITA and PS4 etc.

Bringing up people petitioning for Dark Souls to not be GFWL has nothing to do with any of this though. People hate GFWL because it's terrible.

Agreed - also, I think the majority of people who are complaining about a PS+ requitement haven't tried out PS+ or are one of the small minority who don't like it (you saw the numbers - 95% satisfaction rate).

Seriously, PS+ is one of the best investments you can make - assuming you're used to putting down good money for games. I mean, it's goddamn free games people - and good ones, not random useless crap nobody wants.

#12 Posted by zels (204 posts) -

@aerisbueller: I... can't bring myself to care. With how well PS+ has been going for months now I'll be getting it anyway for the PS3.

Also, online "campaings" - if you want to send Sony a message don't buy a PS4, go for the WiiU or something.

#13 Edited by TheHT (10871 posts) -

I am fine with Sony stripping away online play and including it in Playstation Plus. Maybe it'll get them to make a better online experience, and you'll get "free" games with it.

It could be much worse.

#14 Edited by Red (5994 posts) -

I think it's a good call, as it gets more people to use PS+.

#15 Edited by Sanj (2352 posts) -

The cloud streaming/gaikai stuff that's integrated into the PS4's online architecture CAN'T be cheap to maintain for Sony. Just suck it up. They need to make money on this thing.

#16 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

Except that has been free forever and would still be if MS didn't steal from consumers on 360

Simple question: If both MS and Sony step up to provide a large amount of dedicated servers for this upcoming console generation, would you still feel that you shouldn't have to pay for multiplayer?

#17 Posted by Wuddel (2079 posts) -

Sony hasn't talked about how online gaming is going to work on the PS4. I'd assume they're going the Microsoft route with dedicated PSN servers. If thats the case then charging for it makes sense. It's sucks but it's not the end of the world.

qft

#18 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Haha, I knew this hashtag campaign stuff wouldn't end seeing as people thought they were the reason Sony said no to the whole used games DRM BS thing(You know, the whole "SUPPORT GAMESTOP"-campaign)
It is however good to know that some people only have things like "Should I buy these 3 cups of coffee or get a PS+ membership?" and not something really important.

#19 Posted by DarthOrange (3851 posts) -

The stuff they want to do with Gaikai seems both interesting and costly. They are still offering free Vita, PS3 and PS4 games with the subscription to Plus in addition to cloud storage. They do not have entertainment apps behind a pay wall either. At some point you have to #DealWithIt and stop harassing these guys. Save it for the next time someone does something truly sinister. No one likes a boy who cries wolf.

#20 Posted by aerisbueller (6 posts) -

@aerisbueller said:

Except that has been free forever and would still be if MS didn't steal from consumers on 360

Simple question: If both MS and Sony step up to provide a large amount of dedicated servers for this upcoming console generation, would you still feel that you shouldn't have to pay for multiplayer?

No, at that point I'd feel it was justified. This last console gen, and the upcoming one, unless sony isn't showing it's cards yet, devs have been using their own servers for online gaming. Which is why some games had more reliable online play than others. I would much prefer gaikai demo streaming, or something that actually costs sony something monthly be included in ps plus. On a side note(not directed at spaceinsomniac), I think ps plus is a great service and would gladly pay if it continued to be optional and free online play. I disagree with making it mandatory on principle, not because $5 is oh so much money. It's only $5 for something that costs sony nothing. By that logic I should pay my next door neighbor $5 a month to let me use my own internet connection.

#21 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

@aerisbueller said:

Except that has been free forever and would still be if MS didn't steal from consumers on 360

Simple question: If both MS and Sony step up to provide a large amount of dedicated servers for this upcoming console generation, would you still feel that you shouldn't have to pay for multiplayer?

No, at that point I'd feel it was justified.

Well then, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and not pester people on twitter until you hear something solid, one way or another.

Not that being in the minority about something makes you automatically wrong or anything, but not many people seem to agree with you: http://www.giantbomb.com/playstation-4/3045-146/forums/how-do-you-feel-about-ps4-online-multiplayer-requi-1440224

And personally, I've paid for Xbox Live gold for years now, and it's pretty damn impressive how much that service has improved over the years. Party chat, beacons, pins, loads of dashboard adjustments, a rather large boost to the chat audio quality, and even more. Like they say, you get what you pay for.

#22 Edited by HaroldoNVU (591 posts) -

Sorry dude, but as @mattyftm said I wouldn't mind paying for a good service, and I already pay for PS Plus. It's a friggin good service, in my opinion and yes Origin and Steam are free they don't have servers for multiplayer on third party games, I don't think you'll need to subscribe to PS+ to be able to buy and donwload a game from the PlayStation Store.

#23 Posted by TangoUp (307 posts) -

I approve of this message. I don't like the pay-to-play-online feature. F2P online was a major reason for selecting PS3 and I'm disappointed they're scrapping it this time.

#24 Edited by TangoUp (307 posts) -

@aerisbueller said:

E3 was fantastic for Sony in every way but one. Having to pay to play online isn't a small inconvenience, or "It's ok, I love Sony, and No DRM!", or "I already pay for PSPlus so it doesn't affect me"

Sony doesn't pay for the servers you play your online games on

Sony has already given gamers more than enough reason to support them in the next generation. It's sad to see a company offer its customers so much--FAR more than their competitor--only to see a bunch of those customers turn around and demand even more.

Irrelevant. Customers can ask for whatever they like. Sony are lucky in that Microsoft have bungled up so badly. And just because Microsoft have done badly, doesn't mean Sony are free of criticism or that customers should just keep their mouth shut.

Of course, at the end of the day, one should vote with their wallet. But as the DmC fiasco showed, gamers who don't buy something they don't like are painted as the plague of the industry.

#25 Edited by White (1320 posts) -

I thought you people would be grateful for keeping your ability to buy and play used games at $55 from Gamestop. Instead, now you're upset that you have to pay $50 a year for a subscription model that gives you free, freaking, games and discounts for buying MORE games.

The nerve of you people...

Go buy a Xbox One. I heard their subscription model let's you play multiplayer online for free. Oh wait...

#26 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@tangoup said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@aerisbueller said:

E3 was fantastic for Sony in every way but one. Having to pay to play online isn't a small inconvenience, or "It's ok, I love Sony, and No DRM!", or "I already pay for PSPlus so it doesn't affect me"

Sony doesn't pay for the servers you play your online games on

Sony has already given gamers more than enough reason to support them in the next generation. It's sad to see a company offer its customers so much--FAR more than their competitor--only to see a bunch of those customers turn around and demand even more.

Irrelevant. Customers can ask for whatever they like. Sony are lucky in that Microsoft have bungled up so badly. And just because Microsoft have done badly, doesn't mean Sony are free of criticism or that customers should just keep their mouth shut.

Of course, at the end of the day, one should vote with their wallet. But as the DmC fiasco showed, gamers who don't buy something they don't like are painted as the plague of the industry.

Sure Customers can ask for whatever they like, it's when they, for some dumb reason(probably bad parenting), think that they're entitled to something, that's when it becomes a problem.

#27 Posted by Jaytow (693 posts) -

SONY ARE CHARGING FOR ONLINE PLAY!!!

BLAME MICROSOFT, QUICK!!

#28 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@jaytow said:

SONY ARE CHARGING FOR ONLINE PLAY!!!

BLAME MICROSOFT, QUICK!!

Wait a minute, what happened to blaming EA for everything for no reason?!
WHEN DID PEOPLE GROW A BRAIN?!
Is the world ending?!

I'm scared...

#29 Posted by Mister_V (1188 posts) -

JUST PAY THE MONEY AND ENJOY FREE GAMES!!!!!

The nerve of some people.

Online
#30 Edited by TangoUp (307 posts) -

@tangoup said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@aerisbueller said:

E3 was fantastic for Sony in every way but one. Having to pay to play online isn't a small inconvenience, or "It's ok, I love Sony, and No DRM!", or "I already pay for PSPlus so it doesn't affect me"

Sony doesn't pay for the servers you play your online games on

Sony has already given gamers more than enough reason to support them in the next generation. It's sad to see a company offer its customers so much--FAR more than their competitor--only to see a bunch of those customers turn around and demand even more.

Irrelevant. Customers can ask for whatever they like. Sony are lucky in that Microsoft have bungled up so badly. And just because Microsoft have done badly, doesn't mean Sony are free of criticism or that customers should just keep their mouth shut.

Of course, at the end of the day, one should vote with their wallet. But as the DmC fiasco showed, gamers who don't buy something they don't like are painted as the plague of the industry.

Sure Customers can ask for whatever they like, it's when they, for some dumb reason(probably bad parenting), think that they're entitled to something, that's when it becomes a problem.

Asking for /= being entitled

No one's talking about holding Hirai's hand and forcing him to sign off on 'Always Online. Always Free' again.

#31 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@tangoup said:

@zeforgotten said:

@tangoup said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@aerisbueller said:

E3 was fantastic for Sony in every way but one. Having to pay to play online isn't a small inconvenience, or "It's ok, I love Sony, and No DRM!", or "I already pay for PSPlus so it doesn't affect me"

Sony doesn't pay for the servers you play your online games on

Sony has already given gamers more than enough reason to support them in the next generation. It's sad to see a company offer its customers so much--FAR more than their competitor--only to see a bunch of those customers turn around and demand even more.

Irrelevant. Customers can ask for whatever they like. Sony are lucky in that Microsoft have bungled up so badly. And just because Microsoft have done badly, doesn't mean Sony are free of criticism or that customers should just keep their mouth shut.

Of course, at the end of the day, one should vote with their wallet. But as the DmC fiasco showed, gamers who don't buy something they don't like are painted as the plague of the industry.

Sure Customers can ask for whatever they like, it's when they, for some dumb reason(probably bad parenting), think that they're entitled to something, that's when it becomes a problem.

Asking for /= being entitled

That is exactly what I said, word for word there. You got it!.


...but just for the hell of it, let me try to explain it again just to make sure you get it this time.

I said that customers can ask for whatever they like.
It's when they suddenly feel that they're entitled to stuff for some dumb reason, that those people become an annoying problem.

So just to make it clear.
I never said anything about Asking for = being entitled to.

#32 Edited by aerisbueller (6 posts) -

@white said:

I thought you people would be grateful for keeping your ability to buy and play used games at $55 from Gamestop. Instead, now you're upset that you have to pay $50 a year for a subscription model that gives you free, freaking, games and discounts for buying MORE games.

Hello mugger, I'm grateful that you stabbed me in the leg, but not also in the eye.

I don't mind the subscription model that gives me free, freaking games, and discounts, I mind the console that charges me for a service I already pay for to my cable company.

It's this "I'm glad to pay without a second thought because I wanna play my games and you won't let me unless I do" attitude that got us here in the first place. And to those who think for a second MS needed that money to upgrade the service, you obviously haven't been paying attention to...well, anything that goes on with the hundreds of varied online services that continue to be upgraded for free. MS made money of each sold game, off of each ad shoved into gamers faces, off of every dlc they pressured third party devs to charge for. XBox Live cost was there because they could, and for no other reason

#33 Edited by Winternet (8002 posts) -

Are "hashtags" the "online petition" of the aughts?

#34 Edited by MarkM (288 posts) -

You get so much value for PS+ that it is hard to criticize. $5.00 a month is reasonable and cheaper than the alternative anyway.

#35 Edited by Blue_Cube (158 posts) -

PS+ is cool and if they can deliver the kind of service that can rival xbox live I don't have any issues with paying a monthly fee.

#36 Edited by aerisbueller (6 posts) -
@markm said:

You get so much value for PS+ that it is hard to criticize. $5.00 a month is reasonable and cheaper than the alternative anyway.

It's hard to criticize as an optional service, I wholeheartedly agree. My problem is making it mandatory(for the average user who does want to play online), not that it's not a good deal. I would gladly pay if it were optional, as I'm sure millions of other would (and will anyway). I like Sony as the company that doesn't pull this kinda thing, and not eager to see them change, so I choose to be vocal about it. I guarantee as much as the wii-u is thought of as the silly kiddie console, that their online service will continue to improve throughout the lifecycle, despite the fact it costs nothing, and this is whether or not Nintendo loses miserably this generation as far as sales figures

#37 Posted by McLargepants (359 posts) -

Hopefully they can use the extra money for making and expanding PSN. I'm already a subscriber so I can't get to upset about it, but if Netflix was behind the paywall, that'd be something to get extremely upset about. I think people will be sad when they first sign up for PS+ but after they realize how awesome the service is sans multiplayer, it'll calm down.

#38 Posted by masterpaperlink (1829 posts) -

@white said:

I thought you people would be grateful for keeping your ability to buy and play used games at $55 from Gamestop. Instead, now you're upset that you have to pay $50 a year for a subscription model that gives you free, freaking, games and discounts for buying MORE games.

The nerve of you people...

Go buy a Xbox One. I heard their subscription model let's you play multiplayer online for free. Oh wait...

Remove Microsoft from the equation (i know, its hard to), sony has done nothing worthy of praise or "gratitude". Its only in contrast to how bad microsoft is that sony seems like videogame jesus.

sorry, but paying for basic functionality like online play IS backwards. If pc and wiiu are capable of doing this there is no reason sony cannot, im not talking about all this free game, sale, extra value BS, by all means charge for added functionality, charge for party chat, cloud storage etc... however, i don't believe its overly entitled or greedy to want free basic multiplayer (a part of games that is encroaching on the single player experience).

I wont tell you how to think, but i do think chastising people for being annoyed when they are getting fucked is incredibly dumb/ short sighted.

#39 Posted by NoobSauceG7 (1232 posts) -

I will happily pay for online pay. I got what I wanted with no DRM so no thank you.

#40 Posted by TangoUp (307 posts) -

Don't you have to deal with P2P online play even on Xbox Live? How else does COD and pretty much every online game work on there?

I don't see how an online subscription will improve online play on 3rd party games.

#41 Posted by White (1320 posts) -

@white said:

I thought you people would be grateful for keeping your ability to buy and play used games at $55 from Gamestop. Instead, now you're upset that you have to pay $50 a year for a subscription model that gives you free, freaking, games and discounts for buying MORE games.

The nerve of you people...

Go buy a Xbox One. I heard their subscription model let's you play multiplayer online for free. Oh wait...

Remove Microsoft from the equation (i know, its hard to), sony has done nothing worthy of praise or "gratitude". Its only in contrast to how bad microsoft is that sony seems like videogame jesus.

sorry, but paying for basic functionality like online play IS backwards. If pc and wiiu are capable of doing this there is no reason sony cannot, im not talking about all this free game, sale, extra value BS, by all means charge for added functionality, charge for party chat, cloud storage etc... however, i don't believe its overly entitled or greedy to want free basic multiplayer (a part of games that is encroaching on the single player experience).

I wont tell you how to think, but i do think chastising people for being annoyed when they are getting fucked is incredibly dumb/ short sighted.

Then vote with your wallet. Don't subscribe to Gold or PS+; play only single player if you have to. Stand your ground and only play multiplayer on PC.

#42 Edited by masterpaperlink (1829 posts) -

@white said:

@masterpaperlink said:

@white said:

I thought you people would be grateful for keeping your ability to buy and play used games at $55 from Gamestop. Instead, now you're upset that you have to pay $50 a year for a subscription model that gives you free, freaking, games and discounts for buying MORE games.

The nerve of you people...

Go buy a Xbox One. I heard their subscription model let's you play multiplayer online for free. Oh wait...

Remove Microsoft from the equation (i know, its hard to), sony has done nothing worthy of praise or "gratitude". Its only in contrast to how bad microsoft is that sony seems like videogame jesus.

sorry, but paying for basic functionality like online play IS backwards. If pc and wiiu are capable of doing this there is no reason sony cannot, im not talking about all this free game, sale, extra value BS, by all means charge for added functionality, charge for party chat, cloud storage etc... however, i don't believe its overly entitled or greedy to want free basic multiplayer (a part of games that is encroaching on the single player experience).

I wont tell you how to think, but i do think chastising people for being annoyed when they are getting fucked is incredibly dumb/ short sighted.

Then vote with your wallet. Don't subscribe to Gold or PS+; play only single player if you have to. Stand your ground and only play multiplayer on PC.

I did exactly this for the past 2-3 years, in future if mulitplayer games are multiplat and come to pc i will always play it there.

Voting with my wallet has little to do with my point though (people looking at this decision with a skewed perspective)

#43 Posted by JBird (489 posts) -

We are the core consumers and target audience of the video game industry, we have a voice, as demonstrated by sony's used games, online and pricing policies but the weight in that voice is useless if we just scream at any slight bad news.

I strongly believe that consumers should pay for a worthwhile service, and Sony have done everything in their power to demonstrate that PS+ is a worthwhile online service. For the price of a single game you have access to free games all year round. When I was a teenager this would be a dream, for those on a budget how can that be a bad deal? Ok so online multiplayer is now paid, but think about what you are getting for that money. In comparison to mobile phone contracts, tv contracts, internet contracts, Sony are offering a deal that is really very good.

The internet needs to learn how to show gratitude.

#44 Edited by pandorasbox (302 posts) -

Sony most probably is taking a huge hit on these consoles with their current pricing. I am not going to take away from them their only chance to recoop their money from the consumer.

#45 Posted by OtakuGamer (1224 posts) -

I have no problem in paying for a fee for online play. If that gives me a better online service, then I'm all for it.

#46 Posted by Arx724 (201 posts) -

The big problem I have with PS+ being required for online play is that I don't play games online on the PS3 very often. A few weeks ago, I played co-op on it for a few days with a friend. The time before that was several months ago. I have no interest in any other aspect of Plus and dislike having to suddenly shell out 5 bucks to play with a friend for a few hours.

If I played on it online as much as I do on PC, I wouldn't mind.

#47 Edited by Demoskinos (14559 posts) -

Who cares? If $5 a month is the price I have to pay for no DRM on my games then fucking SOLD. Actually signing up today and buying a year.

#48 Edited by big_jon (5709 posts) -

Is this a joke?

#49 Edited by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

Sony has already given gamers more than enough reason to support them in the next generation. It's sad to see a company offer its customers so much--FAR more than their competitor--only to see a bunch of those customers turn around and demand even more.

As far as I can tell they're not offering me anything I don't have already. The only difference now is that I have to pay for online.

#50 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

Who cares? If $5 a month is the price I have to pay for no DRM on my games then fucking SOLD. Actually signing up today and buying a year.

Well, today $0 is the price you have to pay for no DRM. Seems like people fail to realize that Sony conned them.