510°

PlayStation Plus required for multiplayer on PS4 games

That is the only caveat we’ve heard so far. Stay tuned for full quote. Upon launch of the PS4, PS Plus members will get access to Drive Club, free. So while you will have to have a Plus membership for multiplayer – you will still be getting free games.

GentlemenRUs3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

False, It's required for features linked to Online... Not online play...

Streaming
ect...

So no, Online Play will still be free.

EDIT: Yes, I have PS+ anyway.

JhawkFootball063970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

Only less than $5 a month though. Honestly that's what 2 energy drinks at a gas station, or a trip to a McDonalds. People should not be complaining.

NeverEnding19893970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

Confirmed that PS Plus is required for online gaming on the PS4.

I'm assuming every N4G user to swear that they would never pay for online gaming is now jumping to the Wii? Post your friends codes!

whoyouwit043970d ago

Ans thats the same price xbox live has been for years but now no one should bitch because it's Sony.

HammadTheBeast3970d ago

I'm actually not cool with this.

However, how do you like getting owned Never ending?

"PS4 WILL HAVE ALL THIS BS RESTRICTIONS TOOOO"

LOL_WUT3970d ago Show
mrmarx3970d ago

but on a serious note plus is worth it. once you get it you will be happy.. it saved me twice when my ps3 yellow lighted and all my game saves were in the cloud. also the free games are good. so man games i cant fit them on my 640gb hdd

dedicatedtogamers3970d ago

I'm pretty sure they meant for online multiplayer, as in, if you want to play online games, ya gotta have PS+. I already have it, so it doesn't affect me *wink wink*

duli143970d ago

Something had to give guys, we can sell our games and no online connection required! and also we get driveclub on ps plus!

WhittO3970d ago

^^ actually i wont bitch because you actually get TONES of stuff with PS PLUS, and not JUST the ability to play online like LIVE.

You literally get loads of free games, themes, avatars etc.

Worth it

hulk_bash19873970d ago

It was a huge plus for Sony to not charge for online play this console generation. And a huge point people hated on Microsoft for so yeah I'd say that this warrants a "this sucks"

Muffins12233970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

Hehehe....sony people always bragged about free online and now its like..."meh...its okay to pay online" lollolololololol

But im still going with sony next gen

sunnygrg3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

It is required, not that I care. Been a Plus subscriber since Day 1.

http://i.imgur.com/wGVY2Tx....

Gazondaily3970d ago Show
gunnerforlife3970d ago

@Muffins1223
Ha now we can brag about buying preowned games and being able to play offline for 26 hours non stop,and taking my brothers games at any time ;) but yes im sort of pissed of about ps+ still but will see.

ThatCanadianGuy5143970d ago

Deff sucks to pay for multiplayer but in the end, it's still miles ahead of what XBL tries to justify it's price for.

Been PS+ member since day 1 and i don't think i'll never not be so it's not all that bad lol

SilentNegotiator3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

Someone tell me I'm just having a nightmare. Because I am not paying for online play.

-Alpha3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

It's smarter to have Plus than NOT have Plus. Assuming Sony continues with the Instant Game Collection quality, I will gladly pay for Plus.

When 360 debuted with XBL, it was worth the $$. No one else was offering something of equal value (on consoles at least). Personally, I complain about XBL today because of the lack of value.

It really does suck that you absolutely need Plus to play online (Tretton snuck this in and we need some more clarification), but as far as value goes, I have no issue downing $50. I don't go in thinking "I need this to play online", I continue going in thinking "I am getting free games out of this"

I'm concerned if this will affect the quality of Plus games, if everyone has access to the service. I also hope I can share my Plus to everyone on my system, I don't want to pay twice for my sibling.

Dee_913970d ago

I heard someone say this and I hoped it wasnt true.
This definitely sucks.I mean I have ps+ for about 2 months now but I wasnt planning on renewing it because of ps4 coming soon but yea.. not happy about this.
The rest However, they killed it, killed all the DRM murmur, so it softens the blow by alot imo.

Godchild10203970d ago

I previously stated that I would never pay for a service that restricted me from playing my games online, but then I started playing for Xbox live for my Nephews 360.

I would play for PlayStation plus no matter what, because I get almost 15 games for free, plus the many discounts on games on the PlayStation store. I have a subscription that doesn't end until 2017, plus the extra 3 months that I will get when I pick up The Last of Us.

Also, someone mentioned that something had to give. There is no used restrictions and I can sell my games with no restrictions, I'm sold!

Divine3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

listen guys the system is 400 dollars! i would pay to play anytime for that and its like lunch money! even though we wont have to pay to play online. its only to give us a better online experience

Outside_ofthe_Box3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

WOW this kills everything. Now games that I was looking forward to like The Division I can no longer look forward to playing. I will never pay to play online. I will not pay to play the other half of a game that I ALREADY paid full price for.

We should have another campaign to get rid of this crap. Sony said they are all for the consumer. Now they must prove it by getting rid of this.

Rainstorm813970d ago

Heres a plan buy a year of PS plus now and tomorrow it will have paid for itself long before PS4 hits....and then you get Drive Club

PS Plus has far more valur than XBL ever did, thats why its not as painful that its needed for PS4 MP

Oh_Yeah3970d ago

It's worthy of payment because it comes with GAMES.

Dir_en_grey3970d ago

Friggin admins on this site, they failed any rumors against Microsoft

Yet they brought this from failed back to approved

Yeah right they are not biased

MikeMyers3970d ago

Only single player games and other media services like movies will not require a membership. Online multiplayer is now behind a paywall.

Now watch as the hardened fanboys of yesterday who complained about paying to play online will all of the sudden justify it because the Xbox One has DRM for physical discs.

The flip-flopping will happen, guaranteed. I already have Plus so I'm ready to go.

SonyPS43970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

I have Plus and love the service, thus I will plan on using it on PS4. Still I know a dick move when I see one.

DigitalRaptor3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

@ MikeMyers

Most of us are NOT okay with this. I'm not okay with having to pay to play basic online, regardless of the fact I will continue to pay for PS+. It's sh*t and still confusing, cause it hasn't actually been confirmed yet, or has it? It still smells like rumour to me.

BUT at least Sony aren't disgustingly anti-consumer like Microsoft in pretty much every respect. At least they aren't trying to take control of the ownership of your games, at least they aren't requiring you to connect every day to verify your games. At least they aren't forcing you to connect a camera to play your games - which by the way has ensured you're paying more for the console, as it's a requirement.

MS are disgusting and Sony has hands-down won this generation for gamers and consumers on these points alone. On focus, on price, on peace of mind as consumers. I'm so happy there's a company out there that treats consumers with respect, and not as criminals or fools.

Believe me I will rally strongly against, forced online, unlike you mugs who will bow to whatever MS wants to take away from you.

steven83r3970d ago

Unless they say You cannot play online without PS+ then its rumor. What i head when he said it was if you want to get the full experience you will need + but he did not say you can't play unless you have +

darthv723970d ago

sony knew people would pay. If people paid to be part of PS+ then switching the multiplayer over to the same level of service makes more financial sense. People are already paying, they have to find a way to get new people to sign up.

I got ps+ and live gold. Im ready for both next gen platforms.

JackBNimble3970d ago

You get PS plus for PS Vita PS3 and PS4 all in one. One price for games on all 3 systems. I already have ps plus and all the games that have come out on it since day one.

Driveclub alone is worth a one year subscription of plus...

Anon19743970d ago

I'm of two minds about this. Plus as a subcription model is fantastic and well worth the price. I've been extremely happy as a Plus subscriber and had no intention of cancelling anytime soon.

Online play is a different beast. I don't agree for a second that we should be charged extra to play 100% of our titles. I didn't agree whem MS does it and I don't agree with Sony doing it. I think it's something that should be expected with our consoles and its a cash grab. If they wanted to charge for extras, I'm fine with that but basic multiplayer should be free.

At the end of the day it won't impact me. That doesn't make it cool though.

abzdine3970d ago

who doesn't have PS+ anyway? you wanna buy Drive Club? buy a PS+ cheaper then Drive club price and you have it at the same time.

specialguest3969d ago

i dont care how anyone tries to justify or spin this, this pay to use your own internet to play online is b/s! every negative thing people have said about paying for LIVE just to play the other half of the game you dont have access to unless you pay up can be applied to the PS4s online multiplayer paid service. i dont give a damn what you get extra with PS+ just like how I dont give a damn about LIVE's extra perks.

kreate3969d ago (Edited 3969d ago )

If i gotta pay... i might downgrade to the wii....

But xbox live clearly showed the corporations that charging for online play is ok.

+ Show (31) more repliesLast reply 3969d ago
EcliPS33970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

You are incorrect sir. Multiplayer gaming will require a PS Plus Membership.

Disagrees? I am only stating facts. From Jack Trettons mouth no less.

xPhearR3dx3970d ago

I still find it funny all the Sony fanboys are like "Oh it's okay I have PS+ anyway, paying for online is no big deal". Yet, MS does it, and it's the end of the world. Goes to show you how pathetic fanboys are.

Either way, Sony's conference was a win. It lacked on the game side of things compared to MS, but the information and price revealed took the cake. I've always had XBL Gold, so paying for online doesn't bother me.

I shall be pre-ordering a PS4 shortly and I'll have my PC for Xbone "Exclusives". Sorry MS. You already lost.

joeorc3970d ago

Single player online play is still free, so no not all online play is charged to be played online.

darthv723970d ago

umm...whats an example of single player online game? Usually if its single player, it isnt "online". If its online then it isnt single player.

unless we are strictly talking leader boards? That really isnt online in the sense that 90% of the gamers believe online means.

DigitalRaptor3970d ago

Don't lump us together please. Although it's true that I will still be paying for PS+, I'm totally not okay to not being given the option to connect to basic online gameplay, and this is all MS and their fans' fault.

All the anti-consumer features you see on Xbox One - you can't only blame MS. The people who paid for things that should be free are the ones who truly set the wheels in motion for extra restrictions.

As it stands it's just a rumour, but I will be strongly against having my options removed. I'm kinda really conflicted by this.

BISHOP-BRASIL3970d ago

Actually Dragon's Dogma is completelly single player yet is has online connectivity way beyong leaderboards. I'm sure there are other examples.

Anyway, I believe he's talking about Xbox One online check-ups, meaning you have to pay even to play single player (not saying he's right at all, as it seens gold membership will still be optional, this is just what I believe he meant).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3970d ago
Pandemic3970d ago

Sounds reasonable, for $5 per month, in return you'll probably be getting a game worth $20 or more for free for being apart of Playstation Plus, for example Drive Club, which I'm guessing will cost a fair bit once it's released.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney3970d ago ShowReplies(2)
JsonHenry3970d ago

No, it IS required for multiplayer. He said so (by omission) and so did the slide on the screen stating it was required.

showtimefolks3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

Also by paying that $49.99 you get a brand new IP/game drive club for free so basically you are getting a service for free

$399 console
KZ,Drive club,knack at launch
No DRM
Can play used games
No need to connect to net

So I am giving Sony a free pass on paying to play but with them giving me drive club which I was buying for $60, so basically I save $10 m the game plus get PSN-plus

IcicleTrepan3970d ago

Those games are 'free' the same way netflix gives you 'free' movies. you stop paying and they go away. Either way I could care less, I'll probably still buy it.

showtimefolks3970d ago

IcicleTrepan

well thing is if you have a ps4 you will be keeping it for 5-8 years meaning you will keep up your psn-plus account for that long so game doesn't go away.

people don't have issue with MS charging but now all of the sudden paying for psn is a bad thing

also unlike MS sony is giving us a brand new IP as a free game unlike halo 3 and Ac2 games from a while back

what about all the other things they did right like not charging $100 extra and not having DRM or blocking used games

maybe this is why some 3rd party publishers are making exclusive games for xbox one since sony must have said no to blocking used games and drm

JackBNimble3970d ago

$50 a year for instant game collection... why would you stop paying? Or would it be better to pay full retail price for the same games. You still would come out on top with plus no matter how you look at it.

badkolo3970d ago

no its not, ps4 will have psn + which you will pay for to play online mulitplater, dont spin it

--Onilink--3970d ago

Plus is definitely worth it, but still a major blow to multiconsole owners, as now I know i would have to forcefully pay 2 subscriptions a year

Donnieboi3969d ago

Not for me. I have PS3, Vita, and getting ps4. So that's free games for all 3 systems every month.

Gothdom3970d ago

Do what you want, I'm not paying to play online.

King-u-mad3969d ago

You go ahead lmao. I'll be getting more than what its worth with plus :P

Man-E-Faces3970d ago

It's wrong of Microsoft to charge for online multiplayer and if this is true then it's wrong of Sony too. I don't like someone blocking my already paid internet service just so they can exploit their customers and fill their pockets more, especially when the servers are still shitty peer to peer. I guess all my multiplayer needs will be done on PC and WiiU.

Man-E-Faces3969d ago

So can we still use the share feature without PS+? Can we finally change our PSN ID without creating a new account? Lot's of little details are missing and need clarification!

Divine3970d ago

correction to my comment before. we do have to pay to play but. im not upset only because sony is way better in the way they went about it. i still dont like the idea. of it but hey now both consoles have it and the better choice is still ps4

Christopher3969d ago

The problem I have is I would do PS+ anyway for the extra features and games, but I don't want to support the idea of paying for online access to games.

Man-E-Faces3969d ago

This is exactly my feelings as well it's just not right when PC, WiiU and possibly still PS3, Vita are free, unless Sony blocks those 2 platforms too.

Aceman183969d ago (Edited 3969d ago )

look i've been on PS+ since the beginning and its a great service.

honestly it sucks balls that we now have to pay to play online, but i feel that this was the concession to not having the system with all that drm, always checking in garbage.

its like someone here said something had to bring so i ask you all here what would you rather have

1
free online play with the drm restrictions
always checking in
no used games
no reselling of used games
possible fee on used games
paying to play online

2
no drm restrictions
never having to checking online to make sure your games play
being able to have offline play
no used games fees
still able to use media apps for free
for the first time in 7-8 now having to pay to play online

so choose each one which one of the models sounds like the best option for gamers.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3969d ago
Brewski0073970d ago

But we're getting so much back. I think i can live with this ! :) PS plus has been good to me so far :)

Software_Lover3970d ago ShowReplies(4)
Virtual_Reality3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

The thing is with PS Plus is a service that gives you instant games collection for all sizes.

Look at the history of PS Plus right now.

Ipunchbabiesforfun3970d ago

is it? I took the less than $5 and times it by 12 for an average. Not too bad, but I surely enjoyed free

CGI-Quality3970d ago

Where are you people seeing this?

turnerdc3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

Did I hear that right? Jack was saying PS+ is required for "immersive multiplayer experiences" but people who didn't have it could enjoy single player? Regardless, good on them for no DRM!

Double_O_Revan3970d ago (Edited 3970d ago )

"For less then $5 a month, members will get Discounted games, Cloud Saves, Automatic Game updates, Early Access to Beta Programs, Instant Game Collection, & as well as the ability to FULLY Immerse themselves in the incredible PS4 games with online multiplayer. PS4 gamers that aren't PS+ Members will be able to enjoy SINGLE player games for Free, and access to all your media services won't require PS+."

That was directly from Jacks mouth from the show. Sounds like Multiplayer isn't free anymore.

EDIT*
Official video from Sony states that PSN+ is now required for multiplayer.
http://n4g.com/news/1277886...
Read fine print at the bottom.

TheDivine3969d ago

This is BS but we all knew it was coming especially with the cloud gaming and focus on social media/features. This is also why they couldn't do drm and block used games because they were already adding a bullshit pay to use your own Internet. If they did that on top of this fans would riot. Now they look like a savior while screwing us ps fans up the arse.

That said at least you can use Netflix, play sp, and all the main stuff I do with my ps3 right now. I've always hated how ms blocks out Netflix, Hulu exc. Stuff you already pay to use. I can see not having plus and enjoying my games and subs I already have. I also already have ps plus and think its fantastic and a must have. What I hate is forcing me to buy it by tying in mp. Otherwise its amazing.

CaptainSheep3970d ago

Doesn't matter. I'll renew my subscription anyway. :P

vlonjati77vlonjati3969d ago

i renewed it 2 days ago.I was gonna buy Drive club,when they annonced that is part of the ps plus I was really surprised.Go Sony Go http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i...

Show all comments (293)
60°

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.

60°

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.

170°

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
-Foxtrot10h 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.

RaidenBlack8h ago(Edited 8h 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

KyRo5h ago(Edited 5h 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

Duke194h ago(Edited 4h 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--2h ago(Edited 2h 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

Duke1939m ago(Edited 36m 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.

mandf2h 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.

Skuletor3h 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.

SimpleSlave2h 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?

Skuletor33m 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?

Duke1938m ago

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

isarai2h ago

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

Sciurus_vulgaris1h 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 (17)