More than 130 weeks ago, Colin said PlayStation charging for online would be a mistake. Does PlayStation Plus solve the problem?
Yea it matters when you are paying for crap. Always being hacked all ways down defiantly is not something worth paying for.
"Always", he says. Gather round boys and girls, let's look up what 'always' means: Always adverb 1. at all times; on all occasions. Yeah..... " all ways down defiantly" Wut? Jesus, if you're going to troll, at least put some damn effort into your spelling.
Post your smart ass remarks all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that PSN is garbage, and you still pay for it.
My English prof would tear you a new one for using always when it's not constant ;) someone not pass grade school? (sorry N4G, I know he can't reply it's just I find monkeys typing hilarious)
Xbox live yeah? Neither are impervious to a hack or some downtime, first time I used my xbox 360 in the last few weeks load it up, xbox live was down, and I'm paying for that privilege
Liar. Everything I've read pretty much painted the picture that the downs ONLY affected diablo 3 gamers, and it was due to the DDOS attack on BLIZZARD'S servers that did it...Blizzard relaying info back and forth to MS servers etc.. and your downtime IF you played diablo 3, was brief if at all. Not a full day, and not twice within two weeks like PSN, one from DDos, and the other one was just random and stupid. I'm not saying PSN sucks, but it's NOT XBL. And Xbl's ONLY downfall when compared to PSN is not having as many higher quality 'free games' this is, of course my opinion, but I'm not gonna lie to myself either.
"Always being hacked all ways down defiantly is not something worth paying for." - Wrong on both accounts.
ps+ is an awesome service and the fact multi is behind the pay wall now i really dont care because i wont be getting rid of ps+ any time soon :D
Exactly and at the end of the day sony have only started charging in the last year Microsoft have charged since day one on the original xbox yet ps3 is and still is entirely free to play online, has been for the whole generation so what it's changed for ps4 of you own a sony console your bound to get ps+ at some point even if it's for that months free games, great service won't be cancelling anytime soon. As for the Triple AAA games that sony has been offering on ps3 and not on ps4 it's because they have 6/7 years worth on ps3, ps4 has barely 9 months worth and probably barely 10 games that could go up on the service, come Christmas when all the sequels start releasing you'll get your AAA games on ps4, killzone will be up by chrimbo and no doubt infamous or something like that. They never held back on the ps3 it may seem like they are on ps4 but what were they gonna do give you all the £50 launch games for free? Doubtful let's face it Microsoft wouldn't even give you any games day one, was a good 6 months later so it could be worse could be paying and getting no games at all.
what sucks is that now that people are forced to subscribe to play online Sony has no need to deliver with the free games like it did on PS3 where it had to give triple A titles or people would simply not subscribe
"Sony has no need to deliver with the free games like it did on PS3 where it had to give triple A titles or people would simply not subscribe" This is what concerns me, on PS3 it was an option. An option I happily took once I saw some of the games on offer. I guess we'll see how it pans out.
Well that will come soon. You have to remember - 1. PS4 is a new platform. 2. Publishers are less likely to make deals because they games still have a lot of value retail/digital. 3. Library is fairly small. 4. It took about a year for PS3 to get a AAA title on PS+ also when the service was introduced.
That's all true but you have to consider: 1. Sony is obliterating Microsoft on sales unlike last gen 2. Sony was forced to offer AAA games on PS3 because subscription levels were very low before they did.... now that PS+ is mandatory subscription levels are very high 3. Sony is a business. if just requiring everybody to subscribe in order to play online is enough to have 90% subscription rate, why spend extra money in offering better games
1. "Sony is obliterating Microsoft on sales unlike last gen" - So? Value and Prices of games wouldn't change a pub isn't going to be more willing to do deals. 2. "Sony was forced to offer AAA games on PS3 because subscription levels were very low before they did.... now that PS+ is mandatory subscription levels are very high" - I don't know much on that but if that's the case it still took a year for a AAA to come to said service. 3. "Sony is a business. if just requiring everybody to subscribe in order to play online is enough to have 90% subscription rate, why spend extra money in offering better games" - The money isn't just spend on that though it's also spent on the service as a whole. I mean look MS has more money than Sony/changed their policies on XB1 to sub based for access and are only offering downloadable/smaller scale titles. You can't really expect them to be offering launch titles on PS+ so early on. Already the end of the year leading onto next year. Things should get better if not then there is a problem.
I don't like how it was announced way back. It was kinda sneaky how Jack ran past it in his talk. I don't like how they talk about games being free, you are actually paying for the games through PS+, so they aren't literally free games. That is a small annoyance to me whenever people bring that up. Other than that, yeah, the bonuses overall kill Xbox Live(whom only recently started giving games out to not be utterly trampled by PS4's success, after years and years of pocketing Live subscription $$$ as basically full profit). PSN isn't quite up to par with Live though with stability yet, understandably so when you consider Live has been charging since it's inception with the original Xbox in like '03 I believe when I first tried it for Capcom vs SNK 2:EO. So, Live has had lots of time to slowly upgrade, while pocketing tons of profit. Compared to something like Steam, they both lose out, because Steam is awesome and doesn't charge - but I understand things seem to work a lil differently in the console world. The way I see it, since it seems there's no turning back at this point - as long as PSN upgrades at a faster rate than Live has over the years(which at this point it basically has to) then I'm accepting of it. Especially considering I usually wait to renew my subscription until there's a discount on the 1yr PS+ for like $35 or so.
I've got two bought games and psn+ , enough said Lol.
More like PS-, amaright😁. I'll get me coat.
More like bubble- amirite OT I didn't notice a pay wall because I had plus on ps3 and was always going to keep getting it every year.
The problem I have with payinf for PSN+ has nothing to do with being poor or not liking free games. It's mainly about stability and factoring in what great online experiences does it offer that cannot be experienced somewhere else. So far PSN is not that service. So far there is not one game exclusive on PSN that makes me want to drop 50 bucks a year for it and every ps4 exclusive has a knack (no pun intended) for dying out quickly like killzone shoadowfall which died out faster than killzone 2 or killzone 3. The "free" games are nice but you lose them once you stop paying for it so in the end they're not so free now are they? Not to mention PSN is still not as stable as we think. With the ps3 PSN was constantly going down for maintenance and it wasn't as good as XBL or PC in terms of online games and it's online offerings. PSN has yet to find it's halo or CS in fact all it has are games that die out shortly after release and I don't feel like supporting or paying for an online subscription to play online games where it doesn't have many online games worthwhile playing to begin with. Sure I guess you can say FIFA, or COD, heck even BF but I can play that anywhere. Not to mention I never see any big support for any of their exclusives. I played KZ, resistance, motorstorm, MAG, warhawk and many games on PSN on the ps3 and these games never had huge online communities to support the games for years on end. They lasted a month or 2 and died off.
I have no idea why people complain. PS Plus is still mostly about free games for PS Vita and PS3 users. It's true that PS Plus is required for multi on PS4, but many good games, like FFXIV or F2P games like Warframe do not require it. Nothing else is behind a paywall. On the other hand 360 players had to get Gold as an obligatory subscriptions or they wouldn't be able to play any games via P2P connections. Yes, Xbox users were playing on P2P connections most of the time, not dedicated servers, and they still had to pay for it. On the other hand, most PS3 exclusives had dedicated servers, and didn't demand a dime. And now the only thing to blame for the PS4 semi-PS Plus requirement for some games, only Microsoft is to blame. If they operated on carrots like Sony, and not sticks with paywalls, we'd still have people buying PS Plus only for all the awesome it offered. Funny thing is, none of the games I played required PS Plus so far, yet I still got it.
Xbox Live is still second to none, in the console realm anyways. "Free games" was introduced to PSN, which required a subscription. This still didn't make it, at the very least, on par with Xbox Live. I see Playstation plus as a separate service from PSN. It doesn't mask PSNs shortcomings at all. PSN is a decent service when it works. Why shift online play behind a paywall if you've got an unreliable network that's easily breached every other day. I doubt people would complain as much if online play were still free on PSN. PSN is good for what it is, just not as good as Xbox Live.
My problem with the PSN is that it goes down waaay to much. It's like it has to crash at least once or twice a month. When freaking minecraft is able to bring down your servers.. you know you have a problem.
Well obviously PS+ is successful if MS have to mimic it with GWG. You're not just paying for online play with PS+.
Given that online play is a recent addition, you could argue that you're not paying for it at all. (I mean, if Xbox fans can say buying batteries for their controller is a plus, an argument can be made that you're not actually paying for online.) That said, it DOES matter, as I'd rather not pay for ANY online. But- and Xbox fans like to tear this apart, though I question how they justify paying for XBL in contrast- the fee is mitigated by all the deals I get and games I DON'T have to pay for across four (still counting the PSP) platforms.
What are you paying for? Considering Steam offers.... - Far better servers - Better security - Far higher quality voice chat - Far better download speeds - Better Deals - Free weekend games - Better community features - Far bigger selection of games Sham that they charge for playing online. Fanboys love to duck that fact with "I had PS+ anyway"
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.