Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are Gamers Really That Miffed About Plus Being A Requirement?
#1
From the main site, Are Gamers Really That Miffed About Plus Being A Requirement?

As a Plus member and seeing it's value with the Instant Game Collection and discounts on games, the multiplayer pay wall isn't even something I'm thinking about when I purchase my Plus subscription. When I was upgrading my PS3 HDD, the cloud save feature was invaluable. So multiplayer is now a paid service but I'm cool with that because I've made much more back for the very reasonable price of admission. So are people actually concerned about having to pay for the service?
Feel free to add me on psn: frost-facechilla
Follow me on Twitter: frostface

[Image: frost-facechilla.png]
Reply
#2
I think Sony went about this perfectly, by offering all the perks that came with PS Plus on the PS3, getting people used to the value, before putting online behind a pay wall with PS4.

And as long as they don't go full retard like MS and start putting things like Netflix behind the pay wall, too, I doubt too many people will really care. Some people who are very casual PS players and use the system just as much for Blu Ray and Netflix as games would have every right to be upset if suddenly they had to pay money just to use Netflix, but for anyone who plays games pretty regularly, it's hard to be upset about it.
Reply
#3
I'm not thrilled about it, seeing as I don't play online but my nephew does, and I'm now going to have to take out a subscription to allow him to continue doing what he's been doing with the next CoD or LBP. As people in the comments point out, Steam and the other PC gaming services don't do it, which makes it look less like a necessary way to fund servers/content/cloud and more something Sony and Microsoft can get away with because they have no competition on their own consoles.

I can't say I particularly care about it though. We'll get a PS4, my nephew will get an online game that needs a Plus subscription, and I'll pay it. So it goes.
ATTENTION - Unless otherwise specified, all opinions stated in the above post should be interpreted as the personal opinions of The Benny (Macho) and not objective fact, even when said opinions are inarguably superior to all other opinions in the thread.

[Image: uc.png]
Stm | XB | PS | WP | FB
Reply
#4
But he'll also get all the benefits of cloud storage for his saves and access to the Instant Game Collection, discounts etc... which alone without the multiplayer coming into it, is going to more than pay for itself. If all Plus offered was the online then I'd agree with ya but it's so much more and not to be so easily dismissed. And the games aren't really old games either, well sometimes but take what we got this month for free with Plus...NFS:MW and Spec-Ops: The Line. They're not that old, especially comparing to what MS are offering with their subscription.
Feel free to add me on psn: frost-facechilla
Follow me on Twitter: frostface

[Image: frost-facechilla.png]
Reply
#5
Well I wasn't comparing it to Live anway, because Plus offers oodles more value, no doubt, and I don't pay for Live either. If he had a Plus subscription right now he'd be getting no use out of the cloud saves because we've never upgraded the hard drive and I imagine the PS3 will last now until we stop caring about it, he wouldn't touch NFS or Spec Ops because he doesn't play those games, and the discounts would be meaningless because why buy things from a store that has a couple of years of life left in it, tops?

I've not been tempted by Plus the whole time it's been live, just as I've not been tempted by Live. With the PS4 it will be mandatory just to maintain the same kind of experience, so I'll get it. Assuming they keep up the trend of giving out year-old releases for free I might actually see some benefit from it though, assuming they throw exclusives in and not things I'd rather be playing on PC anyway.
ATTENTION - Unless otherwise specified, all opinions stated in the above post should be interpreted as the personal opinions of The Benny (Macho) and not objective fact, even when said opinions are inarguably superior to all other opinions in the thread.

[Image: uc.png]
Stm | XB | PS | WP | FB
Reply
#6
The Benny (Macho) Wrote:I'm not thrilled about it, seeing as I don't play online but my nephew does, and I'm now going to have to take out a subscription to allow him to continue doing what he's been doing with the next CoD or LBP. As people in the comments point out, Steam and the other PC gaming services don't do it, which makes it look less like a necessary way to fund servers/content/cloud and more something Sony and Microsoft can get away with because they have no competition on their own consoles.

I can't say I particularly care about it though. We'll get a PS4, my nephew will get an online game that needs a Plus subscription, and I'll pay it. So it goes.

At least with Plus you'll constantly get 'free' games out of the deal, whereas with MS you just have no other choice because F*%K YOU THAT'S WHY.

It's pretty easy to compare PS Plus to Steam for Free Plus Insanely Cheap Games. The only difference is that on Plus, you don't get to pick which games. So still inferior, but definitely middle of the pack now, above MS, and PSN certainly didn't start off that way this gen.
Reply
#7
I just wish they kept the way it is (free online play), when going in the next gen.
Reply
#8
AlexanderTH3GR8 Wrote:I just wish they kept the way it is (free online play), when going in the next gen.

Making it a requirement means you get better service. Since you get way more than $50 in games in return, you're getting a pretty solid deal.

Buy one less game per year, download ten 'free' ones from PSN, save yourself a few hundred bucks.
Reply
#9
Spartan119 Wrote:Making it a requirement means you get better service. Since you get way more than $50 in games in return, you're getting a pretty solid deal.

Buy one less game per year, download ten 'free' ones from PSN, save yourself a few hundred bucks.


You got to understand I'm not mentioning the extra goodies you get for the service, I'm strictly talking about online play only. So being able to play online without paying for a PS+ subscription in the next gen (the way it is now), will be a smarter move since we are already paying for ISP. PC gamers get to play online for free (idk about all games) as along as there ISP is active, but with the PS4 we have to start paying extra on top of that. In my eyes I think Sony is making a dumb move here.
Reply
#10
AlexanderTH3GR8 Wrote:You got to understand I'm not mentioning the extra goodies you get for the service, I'm strictly talking about online play only. So being able to play online without paying for a PS+ subscription in the next gen (the way it is now), will be a smarter move since we are already paying for ISP. PC gamers get to play online for free (idk about all games) as along as there ISP is active, but with the PS4 we have to start paying extra on top of that. In my eyes I think Sony is making a dumb move here.

I understand where you're coming from, but a paid service enables Sony to offer better service overall, and that's one big reason why XBL was so much better for most of the gen - MS had more to invest in their infrastructure because of the revenue from gold subscribers.

In the coming gen, Sony is going to be offering way more bang for the buck, unless MS makes a drastic change in policy which I doubt. Either way you're talking 4 bucks a month, and in return you get a bunch of games out of the deal. Yes I know you're not talking about that stuff but it's part of the package and so it has to be evaluated on that front, IMO.

In the end I think PSN is going to be a better service for it. Steam is free, yes, but the two ecosystems are not really comparable.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)