• 93 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by IIDrltaSNAKEII (23 posts) -

At this point anybody who has owned PS+ knows the benefits. In my opinion it is superior to xbox live in terms of Deals and free games that you get. This is coming from a person who has had xbox live for 5 years and has over 60,000 gamer score. My gamer tag is IIDeltaSNAKEII if you need proof. So yea online pay is annoying but anybody that pays for mmo's or even xbox live should not even complain. For those who are wondering how much PS+ cost, 3 months=17.99, year=49.99. You can get card at best buy or game stop. Simple.

#2 Edited by JasonR86 (9372 posts) -

There are people complaining?

#3 Posted by believer258 (11039 posts) -

I haven't seen anyone complain. All I've heard people say is that PSPlus has proven itself to be an excellent value proposition anyway.

#4 Posted by bigjeffrey (4156 posts) -

Is anyone complaining?

#5 Edited by IIDrltaSNAKEII (23 posts) -

Believe it or not theirs people that complain a lot about this topic. Most are people who have ps3's

#6 Posted by JoeyRavn (4886 posts) -

People need to stop complaining about people supposedly complaining about paying for multiplayer on the PS4.

#7 Posted by ThePickle (4149 posts) -

The complaints were ridiculous to start but they seem to have died down.

#8 Edited by ez123 (1901 posts) -

I know you're defending the internets beloved Sony but can you at least use the word free correctly?

Free being used for PS3 multiplayer(which is actually free) and PS+ games(which aren't free and you can't even keep them) doesn't make any sense.

#9 Posted by xyzygy (9618 posts) -

I haven't seen one person complain.

#10 Edited by Itwongo (784 posts) -

You're preaching to the choir. Barely anyone on these forums has made a peep about the subscription fee. Check out this thread.

#11 Posted by smitty86 (686 posts) -

*enters to say nobody is complaining*

*sees everyone else already saying the same*

*nods to self in quite assurance of GB community*

#12 Posted by Rick_Fingers (524 posts) -

While we are at it, everyone should stop complaining about Microsoft's Xbone DRM policies.

Why you ask? Because I am of the opinion that you should and I have the gamer score to prove it.

#13 Posted by JessicaaGoldBurst (34 posts) -

I'll be the one to complain, then. It's inconvenient for me. PSN being free when Live had a subscription fee is why I stopped paying for Live and started buying everything for PS3. It saved me money, and allowed me to let any friends visiting to play my games online without messing with my record since they could just make their own account for free. So why do I have to stop complaining about something that negatively affects me?

Oh by the way, this is my first post on GiantBomb, so hi everyone! Sorry to use said first post to be the contrarian.

#14 Posted by IBurningStar (2145 posts) -

Believe it or not, guys, people really are complaining about this. They aren't just complaining, they are raging. Hard. Luckily for all of us none of those people seem to be on this site. So let's all stay here where it is safe at Giant Bomb. Don't go to Gamespot, or Neogaf, and for fuck's sake don't go to /v/.

Remain quarantined. Stay in the safe zone.

#15 Edited by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

@iidrltasnakeii: People don't -need- to do anything. You can try to convince people why they should feel differently about paying for multiplayer on PS4, but they don't need to stop if they aren't convinced.

#16 Edited by isomeri (1172 posts) -

@smitty86 said:

*enters to say nobody is complaining*

*sees everyone else already saying the same*

*nods to self in quite assurance of GB community*

*quotes and agrees with all of the above*

#17 Posted by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

@jessicaagoldburst: Depending on the game, it sounds like you may not have to be paying. And from some of what they've said, it sounds like as long as one person on the console is on PS Plus, guests can be created and play online without worry of messing up that account's record. I think it's a bit too soon to say for certain whether this will be as big of a change as some people have perceived it.

Also, welcome to Giant Bomb!

#18 Posted by Itwongo (784 posts) -
#19 Posted by VincentVendetta (210 posts) -

How dare they give us Saints Row: The Third and XCOM: Enemy Unknown for free!

#20 Posted by Itwongo (784 posts) -
#21 Posted by TangoUp (309 posts) -

Sorry, plug-and-play-free-online was a major reason why I chose PS3. And the way things stand currently, I don't see a LOT of difference between Xbone and PS4 when it comes to my gaming preferences.

#22 Posted by hollitz (1171 posts) -

I agree that PS plus more than pays for itself, but I don't agree that people shouldn't be mad about it. You shouldn't give companies passes for these kinds of things. That's how they end up getting big heads and big dicks with which to fuck you.

#23 Posted by Taku128 (723 posts) -

It bugs me more to see the same people who talked shit about Microsoft charging for online instantly turn around and be fine with Sony charging for it.

#24 Posted by Rafaelfc (1282 posts) -

People should complain each time a feature is taken away from them.

Although I can see how this could lead to benefits in the long run, we shall see.

#25 Posted by Jay_Ray (1006 posts) -

@isomeri said:

@smitty86 said:

*enters to say nobody is complaining*

*sees everyone else already saying the same*

*nods to self in quite assurance of GB community*

*quotes and agrees with all of the above*

*quotes the quote and agrees with all of the above also*

#26 Edited by bitcloud (645 posts) -

@jessicaagoldburst: Your friends that make accounts on your PS4 will be able to do the same. Only one PS+ account is required per system for online multiplayer. They will be hosting dedicated servers for gameplay on every game, something XBL Gold doesn't. Obviously there are large costs associated with this and it would be unsustainable for them to keep going to way they do now.

Not saying that this isn't a bummer, but I understand why they are doing it. The dedicated servers for games are something I'm more than willing to pay for.

#27 Posted by Addfwyn (1914 posts) -

@taku128 said:

It bugs me more to see the same people who talked shit about Microsoft charging for online instantly turn around and be fine with Sony charging for it.

The difference being that PS+ established itself as a solid value first. Initially PS+ wasn't the best of deals either, but once they started showering you with free games and discounts, you basically have to be a crazyman (or crazywoman, let's be fair) to have a Sony console and NOT have PS+. Since really everyone should have PS+ already, the fact that it will also be a paywall should be negligible to the majority of the community.

Whereas Gold, for the most part, felt like you were just paying for that MP service.

#28 Posted by Sinusoidal (1152 posts) -

I'm a little irked that I might have to splurge for the month or two that I play Dark Souls 2 since the Souls games are the only things I play online, but this thread is the first time I've mentioned it, and I'm not exactly complaining.

#29 Posted by shinjin977 (707 posts) -

People have the rights to complain and it is genuinely an issue for some people. It sucks no mater how you slice it. It is a downgrade. While I love PS+, this is an unwelcome change until sony proves other wise.

#30 Edited by TangoUp (309 posts) -

@bitcloud said:

@jessicaagoldburst: Your friends that make accounts on your PS4 will be able to do the same. Only one PS+ account is required per system for online multiplayer. They will be hosting dedicated servers for gameplay on every game, something XBL Gold doesn't. Obviously there are large costs associated with this and it would be unsustainable for them to keep going to way they do now.

Not saying that this isn't a bummer, but I understand why they are doing it. The dedicated servers for games are something I'm more than willing to pay for.

*citation needed*

#31 Edited by Humanity (7946 posts) -

@addfwyn said:

@taku128 said:

It bugs me more to see the same people who talked shit about Microsoft charging for online instantly turn around and be fine with Sony charging for it.

The difference being that PS+ established itself as a solid value first. Initially PS+ wasn't the best of deals either, but once they started showering you with free games and discounts, you basically have to be a crazyman (or crazywoman, let's be fair) to have a Sony console and NOT have PS+. Since really everyone should have PS+ already, the fact that it will also be a paywall should be negligible to the majority of the community.

Whereas Gold, for the most part, felt like you were just paying for that MP service.

I agree that it's a great value proposition at this point, but it was mainly the principal issue of having to pay a fee to play multiplayer games that most people were upset about with Gold - something that was free everywhere else. Despite bribing players with free games, they are still turning around and doing the exact same thing - charging you to play multiplayer which is still free on PC.

That said it is a good deal and ever since I let my older brother have my PS3 because he hasn't played a console in years I thought I'd buy him PSPlus. He hasn't gamed in years and is kinda getting back into it but only players a few hours a week - so having two free titles from the PS3 backlog a month is a great deal for him.

#32 Edited by Vertrucio (145 posts) -

I think it's fair for people to complain.

However, the main problem I had with paying for online multiplayer play was that up until now, it was basically paying for basic matchmaking (not very good matchmaking at that) and perhaps some account info storage. Really not much in terms of service, even if the cost was relatively low. At ~$60 a year, that may seem low, but it's one more game on release day, or 2-3 games that are 3-6 months old, or a whole lot of smaller downloadable titles.

Thus the reason why I, personally, do not complain about PS Plus' implementation is that I'm not just paying for matchmaking, I'm also getting games out of the deal on a monthly (I forget how often they update) basis, discounts on games I'm likely to buy anyway, and other features like online storage of saved games.

People say Gold was worth it because it funded servers, the reality of which all it funded was matchmaking and some NAT transversal services that Steam offers for free now. All that could be covered by the various ways they monetized XBL and the dashboard without subscriptions, stuff like ads and what not.

#33 Posted by bitcloud (645 posts) -

@tangoup: They already do host dedicated servers for almost every multiplayer game and user created content. Games like Killzone have always used dedicated servers for mp and that won't change in Shadowfall. Driveclub has been confirmed to use dedicated servers as well.

#34 Posted by TangoUp (309 posts) -

@bitcloud said:

@tangoup: They already do host dedicated servers for almost every multiplayer game and user created content. Games like Killzone have always used dedicated servers for mp and that won't change in Shadowfall. Driveclub has been confirmed to use dedicated servers as well.

That doesn't mean 'every' game will have dedicated servers as you said. And besides, Killzone 2 (I think) had dedicated servers on the PS3 which had free online.

#35 Edited by bitcloud (645 posts) -

@tangoup said:

@bitcloud said:

@tangoup: They already do host dedicated servers for almost every multiplayer game and user created content. Games like Killzone have always used dedicated servers for mp and that won't change in Shadowfall. Driveclub has been confirmed to use dedicated servers as well.

That doesn't mean 'every' game will have dedicated servers as you said. And besides, Killzone 2 (I think) had dedicated servers on the PS3 which had free online.

My bad for being unclear, Sony hosting servers like this is unsustainable. If they want this for every game, going down the PS+ route is the best option for them. I guess we'll have to keep ears to the ground as this goes on. Those are the two first party multiplayer games that have realtime multiplayer servers. We have yet to hear anything from third parties, but BF4 will have servers for different reasons.

http://cl.ly/image/0Q1N2D1h062e I found this tidbit about Killzone 2. I'm guessing everything is client side like hit detection even though the game is server hosted. The same with Battlefield games pretty much.

#36 Posted by golguin (3651 posts) -

@jay_ray said:

@isomeri said:

@smitty86 said:

*enters to say nobody is complaining*

*sees everyone else already saying the same*

*nods to self in quite assurance of GB community*

*quotes and agrees with all of the above*

*quotes the quote and agrees with all of the above also*

I haven't seen anyone complain. I've seen a lot of people say they don't care about paying because they already are and they enjoy the service. I pay for Xbox Live and I get a lot less for that money.

#37 Edited by Vertrucio (145 posts) -

Something people need to realize, is that a dedicated server these days is basically a virtual server on a server farm of PCs. Especially for this upcoming generation. Gone will be the days of rack of PS3s plugging away as servers.

#38 Posted by ajamafalous (11591 posts) -

I've seen maybe 3 people complaining, total, since E3.

#39 Posted by JessicaaGoldBurst (34 posts) -

@jessicaagoldburst: And from some of what they've said, it sounds like as long as one person on the console is on PS Plus, guests can be created and play online without worry of messing up that account's record.

Thanks for the welcome! And yeah, that would mostly solve my second biggest issue with it. I know the 360 had a similar thing for games where multiple people could play online at once so long as one of them had a Gold account, but that didn't always work for me since not every game was like that (and since I didn't always want to be part of the game anyway; sometimes I want to take a break for a little bit without everyone else having to stop!). If all it takes is a PS+ account being on the console, that would be far more convenient.

#40 Edited by Unavailable (56 posts) -

If you honestly think people don't have the right and a legitimate reason to complain, there's something wrong with you.

I personally don't mind, but what the hell is wrong with-

...oh right, PS4 board.

#41 Posted by bitcloud (645 posts) -

@jessicaagoldburst: It was one of the execs that confirmed that it only needs one person to have PS+. It should work similarly to how games bought on an account are handled. IE if you buy a game, everyone can use it on the same system without a net connection, you being logged in or any special rules.

#42 Posted by TheHumanDove (2396 posts) -

Voicing opinions is bad

#43 Edited by afabs515 (832 posts) -

@jay_ray said:

@isomeri said:

@smitty86 said:

*enters to say nobody is complaining*

*sees everyone else already saying the same*

*nods to self in quite assurance of GB community*

*quotes and agrees with all of the above*

*quotes the quote and agrees with all of the above also*

*quotes the quote of the quote and agrees with all of the above also also

*laughs a bit while saying "I love this community"

*marvels as he leaves the Internet feeling satisfied for once

#44 Posted by JessicaaGoldBurst (34 posts) -

@bitcloud said:

@jessicaagoldburst: It was one of the execs that confirmed that it only needs one person to have PS+. It should work similarly to how games bought on an account are handled. IE if you buy a game, everyone can use it on the same system without a net connection, you being logged in or any special rules.

Awesome, that's perfect! Thanks for the information! Much less of a problem for me, then.

#45 Posted by Fearbeard (801 posts) -

PS+ was great because it didn't involve online. To get people to sign up Sony had to create ways for people to want the service. Now that it's required for online Sony doesn't need to offer the same value in free games and discounts. I'm not saying that they won't still offer free games, but I suspect that the best days of PS+ are in the past.

#46 Posted by SomeJerk (2967 posts) -

How about this:
"Complaining about PS4 requiring PS+ to play online, is like complaining that girls poop"

I have my reasons to complain about the fact of life that girls poop, but I've come to accept that and PS+ becoming the thing.

Don't ask.

#47 Posted by Example1013 (4749 posts) -

xXx360qu1ksc0p3r420WakeNBakexXx

see I can make up a fake xbl tag too

#48 Edited by oraknabo (1426 posts) -

If I get a PS4, I'm probably going to get PS+ anyway for the free games and hopefully the Gaikai stuff will be included. I don't do Live Gold because I don't play online much and it really pisses me off that I have to have it for shit I already pay for like Netflix. I'm gladd stuff like that will still be free on PS4 and it looks like F2P games and MMOs will also be free.

#49 Edited by ShadowConqueror (2993 posts) -

Why would we need proof of your gamerscore or subscription time? Who cares?

#50 Posted by bitcloud (645 posts) -

@fearbeard: I know that is the first assumption, but just because a company is charging for something doesn't automatically mean it goes down hill. They have been very specific about what the charge will affect and it's not just a paywall. Not defending that fact that it's a bummer or that people can't complain.

All of their games coming out for launch will be using dedicated servers for gameplay. We'll see if this benefit extends to other developers. I actually asked Patrick Klepek if he could look into this further.