1140°

Sony details PS4 PlayStation Plus changes

Sony has detailed some of the changes due to be implemented to PlayStation Plus with the arrival of PlayStation 4, telling VideoGamer.com that both auto-updates and the "social features of PS4" will not require a PlayStation Plus subscription to access.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
Old McGroin3963d ago

Yup, same here and I don't mind paying for such an awesome service as it is. I don't even have the time to play all the games from Instant Game Collection! If someone had described the PS+ service to me 5 years ago I would have punched them in the face to try and clear out the stupid. Saying that though, I still don't like the fact that you have to pay to play online. Sure, personally I'm gonna be paying for PS+ anyway but the fact of the matter is the choice has been taken away from gamers, just doesn't sit right with me.

JAM_brz3963d ago

I don't like either, that we don't have a choice in pay or not and still be able to play online. Even knowing that I'll still be a member of Plus service, the best service in games in the world

Ilovetheps53963d ago

I agree with what you said. I'm a PS+ member. I have been since they released PS+. I don't plan on letting my membership lapse, but I still don't agree with having to pay to play multiplayer. It's just a little disappointing. At least I have another 14 months left on my PS+ membership.

abzdine3963d ago (Edited 3963d ago )

i'm on my 3rd year and it keeps getting better and better!
PS+ ftw! You get some of the last games every month and add to that an auto trophy sync, auto DL, online storage... and now they wanna make it even better so i am not complaining

Greatness awaits
4>1

Yi-Long3963d ago (Edited 3963d ago )

... but MP Online shouldn't be charged.

And many of my friends don't game that often, but like to play a game of CoD or Battlefield or GT or FIFA or whatever, SOMETIMES, online.

And I'm not sure if they'll be willing to pay for online gaming, considering they bought the PS3 because of the free online MP.

I'm a member and think it's worth the money, but not everyone games almost every day. They could be losing those who only game (online) occasionally.

Also, purely on a principal level, I don't think online MP should ever be charged, considering you already bought a game that advertises online MPon the box. It should just be included.

I thought the system we have in place right now with PSN+, for PS3 and Vita, was just absolutely PERFECT. Online MP is free, but PSN+ gets you a whole lot of free games and benefits, and for many is worth the money.

I would have preferred it if they stuck with that.

BattleAxe3963d ago (Edited 3963d ago )

@YI-lONG,

Well then it looks like it'll be the WiiU or the PC for your friends then. Personally, I just pre-ordered a PS4, which I am quite excited for, but I would probably have been fine just playing on my PC for next generation. I decided to bite the bullet and buy Battlefield 3 on Origin since I'm so excited for Battlefield 4, and basically what I am playing now with BF3 on PC is essentially what most games will look like next generation anyway, although I'm sure there will be some exceptions like Uncharted 4 and maybe The Last of Us 2.

justastranger103963d ago

Why do so many playstation fans love paying for online gaming now? WTF.

Ritsujun3962d ago

PS+, at the moment, offers 5 to 6 free games per month. That's 60+ free games per year.
Lots of discounts.
1GB cloud storage for PS3, 1GB cloud storage for PSVITA.
Auto firmware/gamepatch update. Auto gamesave upload.
Free themes, free avatars.
Access to closed betas and early demos.
Full game trials.

It seems that PS+ will be offering 3 PS4 games for free on PS+ at PS4 launch.
I'm expecting 7 to 8 free games per month after the launch of PS+ on PS4.

insomnium23962d ago

@justastranger10

All I see is people saying they would've preferred the online to stay free and that the desicion Sony made does not sit right with them but hey, let's not count them at all and just say everyone loves to pay online now for sh*ts and giggles right?

here are some actual quotes:

"but the fact of the matter is the choice has been taken away from gamers, just doesn't sit right with me"

"I don't like either, that we don't have a choice in pay or not and still be able to play online."

"but I still don't agree with having to pay to play multiplayer. It's just a little disappointing. "

"MP Online shouldn't be charged. "

But hey! You don't have to be correct to make claims right? You can say anything you want because you are a 10-day-old troll account.

Seriously N4G. It should be mandatory to be joined this site atleast a month before you can comment. It would weed out most of these BS accounts that pop up for the sole purpose of trolling.

brave27heart3962d ago

Im currently a plus member and have been from the start, however I dont agree with being charged for multiplayer. The console I buy is capable of online out of the box, the game I buy has multiplayer access on the disc, I pay for my internet service to my provider, where is the cost to Sony?

Plus is great value and I think if it had stayed the same more people would have bought it for the value it offers. Charging for multiplayer wasnt necessary, they saw that Microsoft got away with it and followed suit.

When my plus subscription runs out I wont be renewing, not because I dont think its worth the money but because I feel as consumers we should be taking a stand against this sort of thing.

At least it sounds like cross game chat is outside the paywall.

nveenio3962d ago

I didn't like the idea of paying to play online when the PS3 launched. But I never played online anyway. With the PS4, it appears just just about every game is going to blend solo play with multiplayer interaction, and that has to be hard on the networks making it happen. So I feel like it's perfectly fair to charge a fee. Those networks are an ongoing cost that a single game purchase doesn't cover.

Also, I'm good on PS+ until September of 2015. So this doesn't bother me at all. It's a great value. People would be stupid for not stacking up on it now.

SheenuTheLegend3962d ago

Xbox n people who supported their paid service is the reason for all this..
Now we all have to suffer. Damn

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3962d ago
Saigon3963d ago

Man this PR campaign is ridiculous; they might as well just talk in blah blah because everything Sony is saying is positive. The choices they have given us with this system is phenomenon. I have the option to do what I want and how I want.

4>1

3963d ago
MYSTERIO3603963d ago

@Old McGroin, I totally agree with you but if you had to blame someone blame MS their the ones that got the ball rolling.

3963d ago
MYSTERIO3603963d ago

@gameonbro, I get your point but i was merely replying to what Old McGroin said. I totally understand the reasoning behind a pay service and its benefits but its the principle. I still be purchasing PS+ maybe just not at launch.

Old McGroin3963d ago (Edited 3963d ago )

@MYSTERIO360

Don't worry buddy, I know where it started! I'm a Gold Subscriber as well as a PS+ subscriber but if it wasn't for the fact that I absolutely have no choice but to pay to play online with my 360 I wouldn't be a Gold Subscriber. IMHO the two services don't compare, PS+ blows Gold out of the water for the value it offers. But yeah, it's a pity that no matter what console we go for (except for the Wii U) we will now have to pay 3 different charges to play online; 1 the broadband bill, 2 the game itself and 3 the subscription for PS+/Gold.

I wouldn't put 100% of the blame at M$ door though, they may have gotten there first but it was gonna happen sooner or later anyway, unfortunately there's money to be made and servers don't fund themselves!

pixelsword3963d ago

@ gameonbro:

If you set up your own servers, all you pay for is electricity; I should know, I used to (and will in the future, Lord willing) run a server out of my house.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3963d ago
RavageX3963d ago

I have Plus right now, and I like it. Having said that I don't like the fact you must have it for multiplayer.

It's one thing when it is a choice...like how it is now, and a different matter when you have to(in order to play online).

schlanz3963d ago

yup, had it over a year now, excellent service. I think 99% of people who end up getting it will find it's absolutely worth it and won't feel bitter about it.

Sony said themselves the satisfaction rate for the service is already 95%, I can only imagine it will get better especially with more people participating.

jessupj3963d ago

True.

While it is a little disappointing that is required now to play online, it is an amazing service.

I've had it for 14 months now and I have gotten 108 free games. My 500 GB HHD is literally packed full of free PSN Plus games.

Hopefully this means Sony can invest more in PSN and maybe even offer more dedicated servers.

Jaqen_Hghar3963d ago

A man was subbed till late 2014 even before he knew it was required for PS4 MP. A man is also getting the KZ Shadofall + bundle on Amazon so he will be subbed till November of 2015 when he gets his PS4. A man already has gotten over $200 worth of content in less than a year subscribing to plus. The only inconvenience this causes him is needing to upgrade his HDD because of all the games he gets!

3963d ago
Conzul3963d ago

It will be worth it, but Sony's gotta bring dem features up to par with XBL. Maybe even further.

I have faith. Sony is batting 1000 around now.

Sevir3963d ago

To play PS4 games online. It's fair in this since the PSN on PS3 and Vita are both free. There won't be some hike in price as it's the same value subscription service that nets you free games discount and special beta offers.

If you have plus for your PS3 and or Vita you will have it automatically on PS4.

Especially when what's only sitting behind the gate of this subscription is online play.

Bowzabub3963d ago

Agreed. As JT said in the interview with Geoff, the $ will go toward betterment of the infrastructure. I'll gladly take one yearly for my fellow gamers. I'm sure there are many many people that share this sentiment. Game on!

Dannycr3962d ago

I was really pissed off about the online thing. I know PS Plus is worth it. I'm willing to pay $100 for a year in order to keep online free, because I know, even if I pay $100 I will get the $100 back within the first 2-3 months.

However, I've been reading about the free to play games and how it is the devs the ones who choose whether you need PS Plus or not to play. Also, the launch SKU's have a 12 month plus subscription card inside, so I now I don't feel backstabbed and betrayed. I feel that they are doing the most they can to compensate for this.

Deadpool1013962d ago

"paying for it anyways". Makes sense, that's a good answer. People moan that you now have to play to play PS4 games online but, like you say, if you were already paying for it anyway then theres no problem.

My question is how many people moaning about having to connect the XboxOne online for the "check in" already have there present gen console hooked up to the net as soon as they turn it on? "Online anyways"?

Playstion Plus is great value, and if im honest, better value than i get with xbox live. I just hope that now more people will be paying Sony for this service they can use the addtional funds for a more stable and secure service as the content is already brilliant.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3962d ago
Octo13963d ago

This should have been what MS should have done to Live a long time ago and the big reason why I don't have a 360. Holding other services that you already pay for separately behind a pay wall is just ridiculous.

Relientk773963d ago (Edited 3963d ago )

Is that like spanish for, "I'm getting a PS4"

edit @ below: ah, interesting, yea this is gonna be ridiclous

A-laughing-horse3963d ago

Yeah. Actually getting both. Gonna see what all the fuss is about.

Relientk773963d ago (Edited 3963d ago )

I'm already getting it

I got the Killzone, PS+, PS4 bundle off Amazon

very excite

Conzul3963d ago

Shadowfall - prettiest PS4 game shown thus far. Also liking the wide-linear game world.
Marry me, Sony.

MizTv3963d ago

Yeah I have been part of plus since day1
So nothing will change for me

ziggurcat3963d ago

so have i. i'm paid up through until april 2015.

Show all comments (133)
70°

Disney Dreamlight Valley teases part two of paid expansion

Disney Dreamlight Valley devs have officially teased the second part of the paid expansion titled The Spark of Imagination.

70°

Best Stardew Valley Farm Names – 100 Funny, Nerdy, Cute Ideas and More

Starting out a new farm, but need help choosing a name? Check out this article for a 100 farm name ides for Stardew Valley.

180°

Bethesda Needs to Reduce the Gaps Between New Fallout and Elder Scrolls Releases

Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
-Foxtrot12h ago

Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.

Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.

When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.

The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.

If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.

We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.

RaidenBlack10h ago(Edited 9h ago)

Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland

KyRo6h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years

RaidenBlack30m ago(Edited 29m ago)

@KyRo
So, by 15 years, you mean Fallout 3 was the last great game Bethesda made?
You don't consider Skyrim a good game, which came out 13 years ago?
I'd consider Fallout 4 a pretty decent game as well. It's Story & RPG elements were a bit downgrade from New Vegas but the exploration and shooting on the other hand, were upgrades.
FO76 was disappointing and Starfield could've been better at launch I'll agree.

Duke196h ago(Edited 6h ago)

I disagree. Part of these games is the support for the mod community. If they move to releasing a "next game" every 2 or 3 years, the modding support plummets and the franchises turn into just another run of the mill RPG.

Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support.

--Onilink--3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

I dont think anyone is saying they need to come out every 2 years (not to mention almost no game is released that quickly anymore)

By the time Fallout 5 comes out, it will be more than 15 years since Fallout 4 came out (same with ES6 coming out 15 years after Skyrim). Even if you want to use F76 as the metric for the most recent release, that one came out in 2018. It will be a miracle if F5 comes out before 2030

The point is that for a studio that doesnt seem to operate with multiple teams doing several projects at once, that their projects normally take 4-5 years as a minimum, and that now they even added Starfield to the rotation, it becomes a 15+ years waiting period between releases for each series, which doesnt make sense. Imagine that Nintendo only released a mainline Mario or Zelda game every 15 years…

They either need to start developing more than 1 project at a time, let someone else take a crack at one of the IPs or significantly reduce their development times

Duke192h ago(Edited 1h ago)

Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs? Look at what happened to Final Fantasy as a recent example - there is pretty clear FF fatigue setting in because they are now pumping out titles in the franchise every few years. Pumping out more games faster doesn't always make a series better.

There are plenty of options to make new games, not just create more titles in the same universe at a faster pace.

mandf3h ago

Yeah I’m going to say it, who cares about the modding community when making a game? Half the time developers only tolerate modders because they fix there game for them.

Skuletor5h ago

Yeah, let's all advocate for smaller gaps between series' releases, then we'll probably get headlines about how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven. Let them cook.

SimpleSlave3h ago

"how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven" So every Bethesda game then? Got it.

Listen, I would agree if this was about From Software or something, but Bethesda?

🤣

C'mon now. What timeline are you from?

Skuletor1h ago

Think about it, they're already bug filled messes on their current schedule, can you imagine how much worse it would be if they rushed things?

Duke192h ago

I mean you aren't wrong. People are going to complain about anything

isarai4h ago

Hows about you focus on quality, just a thought 🤷‍♂️

Sciurus_vulgaris3h ago

Bethesda [or Microsoft] would have to reallocate internal and external studios towards fallout and elder scrolls titles. Bethesda has the issue of developing 2 big IPs that are large RPGs on rotation. If you want more Fallout and Elder Scrolls, development will have to be outsourced.

Show all comments (19)