How do you feel about PS4 online multiplayer requiring Plus membership? *Improved Poll*

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for turtlebird95
Posted by Turtlebird95 (3618 posts) 3 years, 8 months ago

Poll: How do you feel about PS4 online multiplayer requiring Plus membership? *Improved Poll* (627 votes)

I'm pissed! How dare Sony betray us! 1%
I don't care. 22%
I wish it wasn't there, but it doesn't bother me that much. 40%
I wish it wasn't there and it bothers me a lot. 4%
I'm actually happy you have to pay. 9%
I will not subscribe to Plus/ I will not renew my membership because of it 1%
I won't be getting a PS4 so it doesn't affect me. 2%
Gives me the perfect excuse to become a member 14%
Other Motherfucker 2%
Green Ranger 2016 6%

Yeah old poll options were shitty and people seemed unhappy so here you go you whiny bastards! (Just kidding, maybe)

Ps4 online multiplayer requires PS +. I won't be a gold member when I get a PS4 so really for me nothing changes. I'll still only be paying like $50 a year and with the benefits of + I'll be getting a hell of a lot more out of it than Gold. How about you duders?

Avatar image for galacticpunt
#1 Edited by GalacticPunt (1457 posts) -

My vote and response:

Loading Video...

The value of PS+ has gotten so crazy in the last year and half that you should already have it. Especially if you have a Vita as well. I've been really surprised at how few games I buy now that new ones are getting dumped in my lap every week with this subscription.

Avatar image for crusader8463
#2 Edited by crusader8463 (14757 posts) -

I picked the joke choice because having joke choices always make polls pointless and stupid.

As for the question, I think it really sucks and is a big thing that now has me questioning on getting a PS4 as quickly as I otherwise would have. I'm a pc guy first and foremost so the idea of needing to pay a monthly fee for a thing that just sits in a corner for weeks at a time never being used makes me not want the stupid thing and is the main reason I have not touched my 360 in years. It means when I see a game that looks like it might have a neat online aspect I will just not pay attention to it because I know that I won't be paying this monthly fee so I will never get to play it. Effectively making half the game unusable by me and making it so that the single player needs to be that much more enticing to make me want to buy half a game for $60.

Not to mention I just think it's revolting to expect people to pay even more fucking fees to unlock the other half of a games features that they just spent $60 on, and to use the internet they are already getting bent over a barrel for by ISP's. If they go all in like xbox live and lock any feature on the platform worth using behind this paywall I think I'm just going to skip consoles this time around. It's insulting to lock stuff behind a paywall that you get for free on the PC by opening a browser or launching an app on your phone. It just stinks of them grabbing for money from people because they know enough people will just burn $50 a year just to not have to deal with the hassle of it.

Avatar image for turtlebird95
#3 Posted by Turtlebird95 (3618 posts) -

@crusader8463: Isn't it a staple in GiantBomb polls to have the one stupid option that is completely unrelated to the rest?

Avatar image for ajamafalous
#4 Posted by ajamafalous (13362 posts) -

I'm already a PS+ member because of all of the ridiculous perks and deals that Sony gives away with that service, so it doesn't bother me. I think anybody who thought online multiplayer would still be free was dreaming, to be honest. I still understand if people don't have PS+ and don't really see the value and are therefore upset about it, but, hey guys, if you play a Sony console (or handheld), you should really go get PS+. It's totally worth it.

Avatar image for krakn3dfx
#5 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2726 posts) -

As someone who has enjoyed the bounty that being a Plus subscriber has given over the last few years, I have no plan to stop subscribing, so this doesn't bother me, but it is kind of a bummer that they decided to go that way.

At the same time, if this means Sony has beefed up the online capabilities of the PS4 enough to justify asking people to pay for it, so much the better.

Avatar image for chibithor
#6 Edited by Chibithor (586 posts) -

I already have PS+ and think it's great, so while I'm not happy about it it won't affect me...probably. My only fear is since you need it for multiplayer anyway they might get lazy with the free games, but hopefully Microsoft offering the same will put that pressure back on them.

Avatar image for eddie_and_the_fist_monkeys
#7 Posted by Eddie_and_the_Fist_Monkeys (98 posts) -

I think it's intelligently priced and really adds value to owning a Sony games console.

Avatar image for marcsman
#8 Edited by Marcsman (3593 posts) -

It's 4 friggin dollars a month. Come on now..............................

Avatar image for extomar
#9 Posted by EXTomar (5047 posts) -

Throw me into the "happy with PSN but disappointed with the move". I like PSN+ because of the current ridiculous features like throwing free games at me but I am still disappointed they moved to this requirement.

Avatar image for darkshaper
#10 Edited by DarkShaper (1378 posts) -

Kind of a bummer but I already pay for plus so it won't actually affect me at all.

Avatar image for mooseymcman
#11 Posted by MooseyMcMan (12537 posts) -

Obviously it would be nice to be able to play for free, but it comes with all the existing PlayStation Plus perks, so it's not that big a deal. I don't really play many games online as it is though.

Avatar image for gogosox82
#12 Posted by gogosox82 (452 posts) -

A little disappointed but honestly I kind of expected this and you should have ps+ if you have a playstation anyway because the perks are just too good so I don't think it should affect too many people.

Avatar image for zeik
#13 Posted by Zeik (4328 posts) -

Already answered this before, but I'll do it again. It would have been nice if it had remained free, but given what I am being offered I can live with it.

Although it probably will affect how much I actually play online multiplayer. It's unlikely I will subscribe to PS+ all year, since I don't game online that much, so I'll probably treat it like Netflix and only do it when there is a particular game I want to play online or PS+ offers something particularly noteworthy. That will largely eliminate just randomly picking up a game and playing online on a whim though.

Not a huge loss for me personally, but it will affect me somewhat.

Avatar image for deathstriker
#14 Edited by Deathstriker (473 posts) -

I plan to get both systems, so that sucks. XBL is worth the money and I'll be getting BF4 and DR3 (which hopefully has co-op) this year. Killzone has always been boring and I'm not into racing games, so I don't see the point in paying immediately. Sony has no fun online multiplayer games like MS has Halo, Gears, and now Titan. If Infamous somehow has co-op then I'd consider it.

Avatar image for grillbar
#15 Posted by Grillbar (2078 posts) -

i hate it as much as i hated it when ms did it. the only positive thing i can think about it is that ps+ pays for itself via discounts and free games, but im still a little crossed even though it will not affect me.
the multiplayer that the rest of the "features" ps+ gives like cloud save and what not should be free and build in.
i understand why they did it. but still this should not be a requirement.
but i have a question since i have not paid that much attention to it all but, did they say anything about the ps4 be region free

@deathstriker how is xbl gold worth the money? as far as i know the only thing you get is a few features that should be free and multiplayer, atleast with ps+ you get a bunch of discounts and free games.
im not slagging it, i just dont understand it and would not mind your imput.
and with the games, well the console is not even out so lets put a pin in that. but titanfall looked amazing

Avatar image for zeik
#16 Posted by Zeik (4328 posts) -
Avatar image for pr1mus
#17 Edited by pr1mus (4158 posts) -

I wish it wasn't there, but it doesn't bother me that much.

I'm already using PS+ anytime i use my PS3 for a significant amount of time without even playing online much.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
#18 Edited by Fredchuckdave (10118 posts) -

These poll options still suck

Avatar image for thepickle
#19 Posted by ThePickle (4352 posts) -

People have been paying for multiplayer for the past 7 years. Why is it such a big deal now? At least Sony isn't keeping stuff like Netflix behind a PS Plus subscription.

Avatar image for harlechquinn
#20 Posted by HarlechQuinn (456 posts) -

I don't care... And for a more precise answer, I wouldn't subscribe to it just for the multiplayer, as all my multiplayer gaming seems to happen on the PC only for the last few years. But I am already a PS+ subscriber, and plan to keep it this way, for the other benefits... Heck my PS+ subscription was the thing which finally "pushed" me to buy a Vita (main reason of course P4G) but all the games I got via my subscription where a nice incentive...

Avatar image for zeforgotten
#21 Posted by ZeForgotten (10368 posts) -

YAY! You didn't forget the Green Ranger.
I'll vote for you next election! :P

But, as you already knew, I really don't care much. Kinda sad, maybe? buuut like, I dunno. It's 3 cups of coffee and a piece of toast that I'll have to survive without for like.. a day :P

Avatar image for yyziggurat
#22 Posted by yyZiggurat (1066 posts) -

I'm kind of between "I don't care" and "I wish it wasn't there, but it doesn't bother me that much." I voted for the latter.

I'm already a PSN+ member for the "free" games every month. I'll be happy to continue paying for that feature so Sony putting MP behind a paywall won't affect me unless of course I cancel my membership. I'm really glad they aren't putting Netflix behind that wall like XBL.

Avatar image for chrissedoff
#23 Posted by chrissedoff (2353 posts) -

@grillbar It's worth the money because Xbox Live's online features are consistently good, whereas the online features on PSN aren't good at all and the quality of online play and matchmaking are wildly inconsistent, ranging from excellent in the games Sony publishes to crappy in most other publishers' games. Xbox Live is a standardized service that works pretty well, and Sony, as far as I can tell, just leaves online service up to their publishers and PSN is only a means for players to have access to those services. I'm glad that Sony's charging for online play because now they have to justify that by building an infrastructure comparable to Xbox Live, instead of doing what they were doing before: excusing their deficiencies by falling back on "...but it's free."

Avatar image for nictel
#24 Edited by Nictel (2695 posts) -

Too bad but I can see why so it's ok by me.

Avatar image for grillbar
#25 Posted by Grillbar (2078 posts) -

@chrissedoff i have had no problems what so over with sony on that part but then again i did not try thr 360 so i have nothing to compare it with. but you sound like you know what your talking about so ill take that as fact. thx for your imput.
@zeik thx dude thats great to hear, at least that means ill be saving about $30 pr game by importing it with day one delivery instead of venturing out my door to the local store and get raped by our insane prices

Avatar image for dot
#26 Posted by Dot (164 posts) -

I'm happy. :)

Avatar image for tonyp2121
#27 Posted by tonyp2121 (172 posts) -

It's annoying but I was probably going to subscribe anyway, plus it means Sony has more funds to continue improving their online gaming scene so thats fine by me.

Avatar image for patoday
#28 Edited by PatODay (328 posts) -

The way I look at it is if a person has the money to buy a brand new console at launch, $4 a month for total online capabilities shouldn't break the bank. I'd happily pay that for all the added benefits of PS+.

Avatar image for keavy_rain
#29 Posted by Keavy_Rain (135 posts) -

I had to force myself to get PS+ and my only regret was not getting it sooner, so throwing multiplayer behind the best goddamn paid gaming service ever isn't even a concern. At this point, if you own a PS3, Vita, or both but don't have PS+, you need to get PS+ right the fuck now.

Avatar image for triple07
#30 Posted by triple07 (1256 posts) -

Ehhhh at first it seems shitty but then again I hated all their online infrastructure when it was free so maybe this will be a case of "you get what you pay for", in which case I will happily pay them $50 a year to keep their servers running smoothly. Still unsure if I will be getting a PS4 yet but if I do PS+ seems like a good deal to me. Unless they have the same shitty servers they had with the PS3 in which case I will be pissed as shit.

Avatar image for mroldboy
#31 Edited by MrOldboy (1048 posts) -

I was hoping Sony would do this as it will force a lot of people over that line to get PS+. My hope is that more PS+ users, means more money, which means more/better/recent free games and other content or discounts.

I can envision Sony giving 10% off for their digital versions if you are PS+ and maybe convincing other publishers to do something similar.

Plus now there is an expectation that Sony will provide quality online service, the excuse of it being free won't cut it anymore.

Avatar image for red12b
#32 Posted by Red12b (9360 posts) -

servers are hella expensive to run,

the value add to PS plus more than makes up for it, and they aren't hiding other sub services behind a pay wall like MS,

everyone who complains about this is either a literal child/teenager who doesn't understand how business works or is an uneducated ignorant adult.

Avatar image for deadmanforking
#33 Posted by Deadmanforking (587 posts) -

I very rarely play multiplayer games, so it doesn't bother me. I'll have a Plus membership anyways so again, doesn't really affect me.

Avatar image for sanious
#34 Posted by Sanious (799 posts) -

Doesn't really bother me all that much.

1) Considering I've been paying for it on Xbox already.

2) It is cheaper.

3) PS+ is a much better service that offers more.

Avatar image for griffinmills
#35 Posted by Griffinmills (300 posts) -

I want a combination of I wish it wasn't there, but it doesn't bother me that much and Gives me the perfect excuse to become a member.

Avatar image for selfconfessedcynic
#36 Edited by selfconfessedcynic (2970 posts) -

I love PS+ so *shrug*

But I voted "Green Ranger 2016" for the funny.

*looking at the poll it seems like 9% are outright negative about it, so that sounds like the results of the old poll*

Avatar image for probablytuna
#37 Posted by probablytuna (4872 posts) -

Although I already have PS Plus and don't really mind, it sucks for people who don't have it but want to play multiplayer games. Still, I would advocate for having PS Plus regardless since it's a great service.

Avatar image for werupenstein
#38 Posted by Kidavenger (4152 posts) -

[X] I already have a Sony console and would be an idiot for not already having PS+

Avatar image for doejonathan
#39 Posted by doejonathan (198 posts) -

Now that there is a price attached to multi-player, I feel we have much better ground to stand on as a consumer to complain about bad download speeds, matchmaking, network time-outs, servers shutting down etc.

I feel for kids who have to explain to their parents why they need another 50 bucks, but then again, the amount of high quality free-to-play titles wasn't around when I was a kid. Nor the variety of smaller indie games, Humble Bundles and so on. Ps+ is good enough on it's own, if including multi-player without skyrocketing the price yet improving the online experience, I'm actually in favor of it.

Avatar image for jnw93
#40 Posted by jnw93 (28 posts) -

Dont mind paying for it

its improved since the PS3's PSN and im not getting a new 360 subscription...

Avatar image for mandude
#41 Posted by mandude (2824 posts) -

I dislike the notion, but practically speaking, I've had PS+ for a long time, and I wasn't planning to cancel it any time soon.

Avatar image for jnal
#42 Posted by Jnal (307 posts) -

If they give us a tighter service like live has done for the most part then I'm fine with it. If the multiplayer service is like it was this generation then I might have a problem with it but PS+ is still a fantastic deal regardless and Sony is doing the right things with free to play and media services. I was a Xbox guy for the last two generations but got PS+ last year when the free games started happening and just bought another year today.

Avatar image for lava
#43 Edited by Lava (736 posts) -

It bothers me a little but it clearly has to be done to keep servers going and stuff. As long as they keep releasing free games on PS+ I will not complain. Getting Deus Ex: Human Revolution and XCOM: Enemy Unknown this month is a fantastic value. Sure it's a little disappointing they are putting multiplayer behind a paywall, but at least all of the other services wont be stuck behind there like Xbox Live.

Avatar image for djou
#44 Edited by djou (895 posts) -

I voted "I'm happy I have to pay." Although that doesn't capture my stance at all. I'm okay with a fee as long as they use to it improve their network, store, download speeds. I'm also hoping it reduces the number of idiots shouting into their mics during multiplayer matches since its no longer free, although that hasn't worked with Xbox Live.

Avatar image for stonyman65
#45 Posted by Stonyman65 (3608 posts) -

It doesn't bother me.

PS+ was already a hell of a deal to begin with, so putting multiplayer behind it isn't that big of an issue. I think it's a pretty safe bet to assume that if you have a PS3 or Vita right now, chances are that you are either already a PS+ member or were thinking about becoming one. This is really just a way of pushing people on the fence over the side.

Not to mention that extra money coming in will help alot with maintaining servers and online services and such which they had no possibility of doing before. Paying money for something sucks (you can't beat free), but I think this is a good thing actually that will (hopefully) solve most, if not all, of the problems that Sony has had with online stuff in the past.

Avatar image for chobobot
#46 Posted by ChoboBot (217 posts) -

In the back of my mind I knew it was inevitable, they couldn't go on through the next-gen without losing money on an extra source of revenue.

Avatar image for mideonnviscera
#47 Posted by MideonNViscera (2269 posts) -

It's fine. They're obviously going to have online comparable to X-Box Live, so whatever.

Avatar image for hermes
#48 Posted by hermes (2234 posts) -

It doesn't affect me that much. The value/price ratio of plus is so high already that I would still be subscribed even if they didn't require it.

Besides, given the alternatives (online passes, always-online architecture, UI full of ads, etc), I believe less than $5 a month is a pretty fair price.

Avatar image for turtlebird95
#49 Edited by Turtlebird95 (3618 posts) -

@fredchuckdave said:

These poll options still suck

Very constructive. Other motherfucker is reserved for people like you who doesn't feel like his or her opinion is accurately reflected on the options given. Unless you're just saying to be a dick.

Avatar image for sanj
#50 Posted by Sanj (3110 posts) -

Their new gaikai/cloud set up probably requires a lot more upkeep than the PS3's online infrastructure, so I guess it's understandable. Besides, PS+ is pretty awesome. Actually, I think it's friggin' genius that they were able to establish that fact before making this PS+ requirement.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.