Let the Hypocrisy Flow

Xbox One doesn't have backwards compatibility? No biggie. Ps4 requires payment to play online? I wipe myself with $5 a month! Xbox One has mandatory installs? Whatever, man; Halo!

I read a blog by DedicatedToGamers a few days ago, in which he said (in summary) 'I'm not afraid of a console with bad policies, I'm afraid of the gamers that accept them'. I must now concur with grave prejudice.

Over time, I could probably end up coping with all of the issues we've seen unveil the last month, but only in the way that a man accepts taxes; because they don't want to move to a deserted island just to avoid them. They want to live in a place with clean water, some law and order, electronics, etc and manage with the BS for it.

But to see gamers bend so hard to accept policies that they moaned over for an entire generation is truly disturbing.

These were ADVANTAGES. They were positive things. Xbox 360 had BC and no mandatory installs? Great! Ps3 not charging for online? Wonderful, I hate the idea of a paywall to the MP! How can we just shrug these things off where we were once so discontent with when we didn't have them?

Now on a few personal notes, I never cared about BC; it was faulty on the 360 and I didn't care that Ps3 dropped it because my ps2 is a decade old and still runs without a hitch. But not having mandatory installs on 360 was a nice advantage. I can't think of how many games I went with on 360 because I didn't want to make room for 5GB on my PS3. But now Xbox One, with it's proprietary, irreplaceable HDD, will be the one with mandatory installs. That sucks. And no online paywall was a major advantage for me in deciding on being a PlayStation gamer. LIVE was never a financial burden, but it was definitely a moral issue; paying for the multiplayer portion of my game made no sense. I stopped paying for LIVE about 4 years ago and never looked back. I never would have guessed that Sony would backtrack on that policy. I'm very disappointed.

Granted, not everyone has bent over or shrugged. But enough to disappoint me with vigor. The gaming world is ripe for change that favors publishers because so many gamers have no strength or principle.

[SilentNegotiator]

I never would have imagined that this E3 could leave me so sad. It's not that there weren't good looking games. There were plenty. But I hate the new policies and I'm not sure I will ever be able to deal with them. Between DRM and MP subscriptions, none of the home systems (consoles and PC) feel very welcoming anymore.

As soon as I read about the MP paywall on Ps4, I just went numb. I don't care anymore. I stopped looking at E3 details, wrote this blog, and now I'm going to bed. The one system I thought wouldn't find a major way to disappoint me.

Oh gaming...whyyyy?
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[pixelsword]

I missed that; if I have to pay to play, then Sony's off of my list.

[givemeshelter]

If you want to play online you have to... Something Sony said they would never do...

[darthv72]

sony made that promise for the PS3. They never said anything abou the PS4 until now. It only makes financial sense to encompass the multiplayer into PS+.

Sony would probably have liked to charge for PSN initially but their service was nothing like Live at the time it came out. So they had to make it free.

Adding in the optional PS+ component a few years later was their way of testing the waters. If people were comfortable with paying, they would likely start to tailor new services and features towards the paid members. Which is what they did over the course of the last couple of years.

so now they have established a strong paid membership plan, to get others to sign up they really had only one incentive. Move the multiplayer over to the PS+ side of things.

[pixelsword]

Yeah, so what?

I don't want bells and whistles,

I don't want free B-Grade games,

I don't want to take over other people's games.

I just want to play the game I bought online.

They've got the nerve to charge $60 for a game when you have to pay to pay for the other half.

It wasn't acceptable when Microsoft did it, and it's not acceptable that Sony does it.

Screw 'em.

[gaffyh]

I was a little disappointed that Sony snuck that in there, but I have had PS+ for a while now and it is absolutely 100% worth it and my subscription is paid up until some point next year, so this doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would. This possibly has to do with how anti-consumer the XBone is that I was willing to accept the PS+ cost to play online.

Sony are doing quite a lot more this gen with the PSN than they have done previously, particularly the video uploading, so it is to be expected that their server costs would increase, and this probably helps in that regard.

[TheBlackSmoke]

The difference is that xblg was simply a paywall to play online. The argument was always that other than the ability to play online, gold offered nothing else of value.

Ps+ is a different story, you get so much value, you get old and new games across 3 platforms, discounts, themes, avatars, betas. and lets not forget that plus is still cheaper than gold. I get my money back within the first month.

Adding the online pass to plus is not ideal but I dont feel ripped off at all. I already have plus so I simply have to just carry on as usual.

For sony, I think with what they offer with gakai, instant download, share functionality, Dedicated servers, streaming and all the new networking features, you cant expect them to run all that for free. The PS4 era psn is a MASSIVE upgrade from the PS3 psn, we can all see clearly that they invested money in to the online like everyone asked them to so the charge is justified because in the end they are a business and they have to incur costs to do everything.

[MysticStrummer]

I'm very disappointed about paying to play online as well.

I expected them to make basic online play free but give most or all of the PS4's social features to the PS+ members.

PS+ is a great value as it stands now, and I can see why Sony did it, but it did dampen my enthusiasm. I'll probably end up going for it because I've thought of getting PS+ many times and just never did it. I think the possibility of games becoming free might make me buy fewer games overall though.

[pixelsword]

This isn't any offense to anyone, but it's just comments, so please don't take it personally, any anger displayed is for Sony, and not any individual.

gaffyh

"so this doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would. This possibly has to do with how anti-consumer the XBone is that I was willing to accept the PS+ cost to play online."

That's a good point I wish to elaborate on, my friend: yesterday's villain is tomorrow's hero. Paying to play online was Anti-consumer this gen, and now it's not...? So, next gen if/when Sony requires constant online and monitoring of it's players along with DRM, it won't be so bad because we get free games with your monitoring and lock-down of services because Microsoft requires you to put in your ID before you play? All they are doing is inching along while Microsoft is barreling forward, and there's two major groups that will buy into it:

1. the ones who are more impulsive (not a bad thing because they display more in-tuned instinct for things than others).

2. people who are more rational and weighs the good and bad and makes decisions upon info more than impulse (not a bad thing, number crunchers look at the stats over shine).

The games on each respective console even reflect such mentalities. This seems like a big social experiment.

"Ps+ is a different story, you get so much value..."

I agree there's value there, I'm not denying that, but why can't it stand on it's own? Not everyone values those things, nor cares for them; not that it's useless, but not everyone sees the features the PS+ has as needed, and that's where Sony messed-up. Give me a choice, and I'll probably choose it anyways, but give me no choice and I'll resist every time.

@ MysticStrummer

"I expected them to make basic online play free but give most or all of the PS4's social features to the PS+ members."

That's what I was thinking, that would have been something I would have tried for the first year then make a decision about keeping it or not, but not like this. At least give me a choice instead of the illusion of one.

[unchartedxplorer]

Putting up servers costs money. If you look at the xbox live service it ran a lot better, was much more secure plus it gave funding for timed exclusive dlc and to make the service overall a lot better.
Plus with psn plus you get a lot more stuff besides online play. You get an instant game library, cloud storage, discounts and with the ps4 we might be getting even more stuff.

I know a goddamn subscription sucks, but hopefully this means that they can provide a much quicker, secure and social service.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

"If you look at the xbox live service it ran a lot better"

So then why did everyone always parrot the constant "Lol you pay for P2p servers"?

[MysticStrummer]

XBL actually didn't run better in independent testing, if by "running better" you mean being a stable online gaming platform. XBL's advantage was the social features.

[JohnDread]

Seriously, when I watched the part where they explained the whole PSN stuff and no DRM etc, I constantly thought "Holy crap, this box is gonna cost a fortune, there is no way they can pay for all that just like that." When I saw the price tag, I was astonished. That they now adopt the subscription model for online play is a thing I consider necessary. Honestly, if they wouldn't have done it that way, the box would have a 500$ price tag at least. This way, you have the choice whther you want to pay or not. Sony has done so many things right.

Besides, I am not at all disappointed by this E3 (Nintendo is still to come btw). It's one of the best I ever experienced.

[iamgoatman]

With you 100%.

A lot of great games on show masked by the console manufacturers doing what they do best, screwing over the consumers whilst making out it's actually a good thing.

What sickens me the most though is not that the PS4 now has a pay-to-play online service, it was inevitable really, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's the people who harped on about Live being paid are now praising Sony as if it's brilliant idea and that they're doing gaming a favor.

MS deserves everything it gets when it comes to the X1's ridiculous DRM, but that doesn't automatically make the PS4 any better. Championing a device that now has restricted it's online to a paid service just because it has no DRM, which should be standard anyway, is just mind boggling.

Gamers, you're embarrassing a once great pass time.

[Mr_Nuts]

In my opinion I feel like it's got to do with Microsoft changing the rules in the industry with their anti consumer policies.

If MS didn't do that and the PS4 made you pay for online then fair enough but because MS has been the threat more about anti consumer rights then Sony is forced into a choice

1) Do what MS is doing to get themselfs a cut

or

2) Find another way to make money

They went with option 2 because MS forced them into that space....they decided to charge people for online since MS had buried themselfs even deeper then just making people pay for online.

[RyuCloudStrife]

I couldn't help though, I'd be great if your status on N4G would read "You Dumbass". Thats what Red Foreman always said to Eric. http://areyoufinishedyet.fi...

Or maybe "My Foot in Your ___" http://th03.deviantart.net/...
Love That 70's Show!

[DragonKnight]

Yeah, I don't know what Sony are thinking with the PS+ thing if it indeed is true. It pretty much is true, so I'm going to accept it as true, but Sony need to clarify instead of letting people go off 2 seconds of a youtube video. Pretty stupid thing to do considering they were holding free online play over MS for so long.

[SilentNegotiator]

Oh it's true, no doubt about it. "PS4 multi-player online access requires PSN account & PS Plus subscription"

There's no way to misinterpret that.

[Software_Lover]

LOL

[DragonKnight]

I didn't hear that in their conference, too busy with twitter implosions, but if they said that in their conference then booooo.

But I did see the "confirmation" in a 20 second video. So, IF true, then twitter hashtag campaign #NoPayForOnlinePlayPS4 should commence.

[LoveOfTheGame]

^^^
It was right after the guy was dogging xbox about how the PS4 will allow used games, loan them to friends, and 100% ownership of disc. When he started to talk about PS+ the very last line on the slide said something like Allow Immersive Multiplayer on PS4...the crowd kinda went silent.

I found this hilarious, with the amount of Sony fanboys on this site, and it even converted a few PS only players to Xbox.

I'm not dogging either company for their new decisions with online play and installing as they make sense. The xbox one installs erases the need of using the disc which is an advantage and PS can now make an experience on par with Xbox Live now that they have a steady income for it.

Everybody wins or everybody loses, whichever way you want to look at it.

[KrisButtar]

very true but it brought up questions for me as in what about the MMO's. do you have to have PS+ and pay a monthy fee for them or is all you need PS+ or maybe MMO's can be played without PS+ since you would have just paid 60 bucks for a new game or/and only to be charged another 50 bucks for a yearly sub of PS+. to play the MMO.

[MysticStrummer]

"it even converted a few PS only players to Xbox."

Given other factors, I don't see how that's possible.

Not saying you're lying but NeverEnding, who's always been a big time Sony hater, is now claiming that he was going to buy a PS4 until he found out it was pay to play online.

People can claim whatever they want online to get a reaction.

[MacDonagh]

I think it's very smart. They can get to bury the bad guys and come out smelling like roses. I felt a disturbance in the force. It felt like millions of Xbox One pre-orders screaming and being cancelled.

Sony pulled a good conference but there are downsides to everything these days. Making this Gaikai system work will probably not come cheap but at least with PS+; you're getting more than just online play.

[MikeMyers]

Oh my God. If it was the other way around you'd write a blog about it. Yet when Tretton says it for all to hear you want to question it now? Too funny.

He said that single player games and media options like movies and music will remain free. However online play will now reside under the Plus service.

Now excuse me while I wait for you to draft your next damage controlled rebuttal.

It's also not a stupid thing to do, it's money Sony needs. They know games are becoming very demanding online such as Destiny and Watchdogs. Sony has always passed the buck to 3rd party publishers to runt heir own servers. Perhaps they now want a fee for doing that because with Microsoft they handle the servers. It's why games don't have as many issues on Xbox Live. How many times do we see games on the PS3 stumble out of the gates because of server demand? Go look up Call of Duty and how they had to add more servers on the PS3 because of demand. Way too many shooter fans on the PS3.

That doesn't happen on Live because Microsoft already has 15,000 servers and are about to go wide open with 300,000. That's why so many PS3 owners like myself notice downloads seem to take longer on the PS3 because those servers get over-loaded and because of location.

[Why o why]

I think the whole point of this piece was to highlight the hypocrisy of both sides. You've been spinning all week...projecting sony would have drm/ block too....this now is ALL YOU HAVE. So bask in this hollow victory, the war has already been won

[ShabbaRanks]

I think the reason Sony Incorporated a fee for multiplayer is due to acquiring Gaikai a few months ago and I’m sure some devs complained that they didn’t get anything in return like with Xbox Live. I could be wrong though, I’m still getting a PS4 and the fact that I’m PS+ won’t affect me…

But I know a lot of people that aren’t pleased with this news. I know a lot of people that don’t feel like paying for multi including some of my close gaming friends and I hope I won’t loose them :( I could go on and say 5bucks isn’t much and that you get free games, but I would sound like a fanboy and it would also make me a hypocrite for bashing Xlive in the past witch I did stop paying for.

Oh well PS4 could be the last console I own. The future of gaming seems dark ...

[stuna1]

The thing is do we as gamers really know what Sony had to sacrifice in order to 1)Do away with DRM? 2)Allow us to still have control over how we choose to use our games, as far as selling, trading or just giving them away? 3)Not require us to have a camera attached to our console that without it wouldn't even operate? And I'm sure there were other sacrifices made on behalf of gamers! But Sony heard how we felt about these things, and instead of ignoring us, these proved to us that they do listen to us.

So knowing what type of money Sony could have squeezed out of us, the chose to make PS+ manditory for online play, even though we as gamers are still benefitting from paying a $50 dollar fee that for the most part pays for itself in the first month! considering all the free material we get for just being members.

Yet we have those still complaining about paying this fee! I could see if you got nothing in return, but that's not the case is it? And knowing the financial trouble Sony has been in, don't they deserve something in return?

[Ducky]

"And knowing the financial trouble Sony has been in, don't they deserve something in return?"

I didn't realize that Sony made no profit from selling console hardware and/or games.

... but if they're in financial trouble, then I suppose it's alright for them to put features behind a pay wall.

[stuna1]

@Ducky

Do you not realize more than likely the PS4 and definitely the Xbox1 will start off selling at a lose? Hell the WII U was reported to sell at a lose, but thats neither here nor there! The paywall you speak of has 1 thing behind it! Multiplayer, but I'm willing to bet that you paid for Xbox Live!? And practically everything they offer is behind a paywall.

[dedicatedtogamers]

The new policies do suck, although - with the push for more cloud-based and integrated/social/massive-mult iplayer/free-to-play/etc/etc - I can understand WHY Sony is requiring PS+. I'm not saying it's okay. I'm just saying I understand why. They can charge for it and still end up being the hero compared to MS. I'm already a PS+ user, so I guess it...doesn't...affect...me *wink wink*

The hypocrisy is downright annoying. Why are mandatory installs and Blu Ray suddenly okay, but $5 for PS+ not okay?

[Software_Lover]

It's the other way around also. That is what Silent was saying. Hypocrisy on both sides.

[SonyPS4]

Don't see how Sony cannot leave the fancy cloud/social networking knick knacks behind a PS+ paywall and just let everyone else use the traditional online multiplayer for free, like they have been since the beginning of PSN, or during the PS2-era if you must.

[Ducky]

I championed myself as a selfish bastard, so I guess I get off scott-free.

Well, not really, I still have to live with the stain of being a selfish twerp, but I'm a happy little twerp I am.

[MikeMyers]

Flip-flop and damage control, that's all I read.

[MRMagoo123]

Yeh those xbone fans are the worse with all that flip flopping huh, remember all that stink about having to install games on the ps3 and everyone bagging it and how about everyone saying sony will def have drm and stuff now they dont have anything to say but you have to pay to play online which the xbone fans have been doing since the 360 came out, luckily most ps3 owners have ps+ and it wont effect them at all but those that dont have it will go oh well you have to do that with xbox anyway. the same cant be said for the xbone fans that will see ps4 owners trading in games and say i wish i could do that or watching them buy used games and saying i wish i could do that, or just lending a disc to a friend and saying i wish i could do that, or playing offline for as long as you want and the xbone fans saying i wish i could do that.

[smashcrashbash]

That is the way it is.People were just looking for a reason to attack the PS4 and they found it.Any bad news about the PS4 will be amplified so they can make the Xbox One look good and they can use it as a shield every time we point out any faults the Xbox One has.They scream hypocrisy until it is their turn.Look at the recent rumor that Microsoft was blocking Sony from showing certain third parties.If Sony had done it it would be evil.Microsoft does it and it's just business.Sony is evil every time they try to make a profit and Microsoft is smart and it's just business whenever they do the things they do. People don't even care about the fact that even if Sony decides to implement this PSPlus is loads more advantageous then what Microsoft offers.After what Sony did to Microsoft at this E3 they have to lash out somehow.Non gamers who buy the console only will see one thing. PS4 is cheaper then a Xbox One.and after they were so confident and certain that Sony wouldn't come cheaper with their console.Like you said I don't accept it but I understand why they would do something like this.

[SonyPS4]

"That is the way it is."

"Like you said I don't accept it but I understand why they would do something like this. "

You just accepted it.

[rainslacker]

PS+ has always been a great value. I think that's why the reveal of paying for online didn't really hit me that hard at first since I would have it as a matter of course.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. Hypocrisy, and calling it out is rampant on both sides of the fence. It's fan boy fodder as it always has been.

In the end, it still comes down to what I've said before on this issue, if you find value in what you're spending your money on, then it's not for me to tell you that you're wrong.

In some ways it's just a smaller version of the DRM issue. YOu accept it, you can pay for it. Only this time there is no way to really say that we fought these things...unless we do fight it. I have a feeling though, given what I've seen so far, Sony is probably going to get a free pass on this one. I'm sure greenpowerz will say it's the reason Sony is doomed next gen. He's already said no 24-hour check in means the system will be rife with piracy.

[maniacmayhem]

@Dedicated

I'm actually shocked you didn't write a blog about this first, as soon as the info/rumor hit. You seem to get other blogs about MS/Xbox One out as soon as their news is hot off the press.

[dedicatedtogamers]

I was actually one of the first to mention it in my blog here: http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

Although the mention was a part of a much larger blog post. Sorry that I didn't make a full blog post out of it (you'll notice that this blog was my only blog of the day). Silent beat me to the punch. ;)

[Why o why]

Im with sonyps4... I thought sony had enough ps plus subscribers to allow free for everybody else.

This is annoying even though I'm a plus subscriber.

Annoying

[Christopher]

In this instances, we are left to choose the lesser of two evils or stick with the evil we've always had (PC). Oh, or the Wii U... but... well... that's crazy.

[Software_Lover]

There is no such thing as the lesser of two evils. I hate it when people say that. You kill them both and come to pc where it is free, the games are cheaper, you can use a console controller. But there is that (evil) DRM thing you have to worry about. You dont have to be online to play, but you get the idea.

[Christopher]

You are blind if you think PC already hasn't embraced DRM almost entirely. I'm on Steam, that's DRM. I can't lend my nephews a game. There are tons of DRM with PC games. I have to install Origin for Ea. UPlay for Ubisoft. There's tons of bad stuff about PC.

There are a lesser of two evils. A robber is not the same as a murderer.

[DragonKnight]

PCs invented the DRM that Microsoft is using. PC is where DRM is tested first because, most of the time, it is allowed to happen.

[Software_Lover]

ou are blind if you think PC already hasn't embraced DRM almost entirely. I'm on Steam, that's DRM. I can't lend my nephews a game. There are tons of DRM with PC games. I have to install Origin for Ea. UPlay for Ubisoft. There's tons of bad stuff about PC.

........... Did you not read what I wrote? I said there was DRM on pc.

[Christopher]

Then how do you "kill them both" when you're going right to what you are trying not to run towards?

You're not making sense as a response to my concerns.

[Reefskye]

Difference is with PC games.. PC needs DRM as you can stick a game in to your drive and copy it then take the DVD back to the shop and get a refund.. this is why PC has DRM. I did it with quiet a few PC games back in 2000-2003 before shops stopped taking PC games back opened. Not hard to find a no CD crack for any game on PC in this day n age. Plus internet connections are so fast if you was really desperate to play a game quick google search and you can download it in an hour.

If you could of copied a PSone or a xbox games back before steam and the likes where on PC you would of had the same result with CD keys etc.

[majiebeast]

Yeah not cool with the online. Doesnt bother me though you get so much content for that 5$ a month. I bought Guacamelee with a 4$ discount at launch, thats almost the price of 1 month PS+ that doesnt include other discounts and the rental games you keep till the sub is up. Also all the apps are not behind a paywall.

[Valenka]

I'm just going to wait until all the information is on the table and then make a Venn diagram comparing and contrasting the two and then make my decision.

[mega31]

Most logical opinion i have ever seen kudos

[generalthadeape]

Share it with us when you do-- that'd be great!

[Fairchild Channel F]

Like a lot of people, I have PS+ so I doesn't affect me directly. That being said, I'm not ok with being charged to play online.

Your selling me a game. It's $60 dollars. It has multiplayer. Now your saying I have to pay more money to use said multiplayer. There's the problem. Your double dipping.

If you want to charge for online, fine. Then sell me just the single player for $30 bucks and keep the multiplayer.

[rainslacker]

My initial reaction was, "No big deal, I would play for PS+ without hesitation anyways". However given the past couple weeks, and the fact that I myself have said, "It doesn't effect me", is a terrible attitude to take, I am also disappointed by Sony charging for online now. I was never one to really make a big deal about the Gold charge though, but did state I didn't find it to be a good value.

There are a couple reasons it doesn't effect me. PS+ is a given for me now. It's the best value in gaming IMO. I also rarely play online, so if I didn't have it, no big deal to me. But I believe there are people who enjoy online games, but shouldn't be held to having to pay to access them if for some reason they can't afford it, although it's hard to imagine they wouldn't be able to if they could afford internet.

If Sony, and I guess MS, have some reason why their online MP is worth paying for then I could understand a charge. MS said they'll run dedicated servers for MP, but nothing stated like that for Sony.

Thinking about it logically, which I tend to do in blogs more than comment articles, it's kinda sneaky for them to try to slip this in after all the great things they said about gamer rights.

I'll still be getting a PS4, and since MP isn't a big deal to me, it won't affect me. PS+ I will have, already paid up for a couple years now. But at this point I don't really know if there would be any kind of movement to have it be free again. I will post my disappointment over it on the Sony forums, but other than that, I just dunno.

[coolbeans]

"Thinking about it logically, which I tend to do in blogs more than comment articles, it's kinda sneaky for them to try to slip this in after all the great things they said about gamer rights."

Heh..pretty much. When it was initially suggested in forums, some stated they didn't hear that PS+ online part b/c they were hooting and hollering from Sony's 'good news' before it. "That's the point" was the first thought that came to mind.

[Godmars290]

That MP was behind a paywall on the 360 was never the problem with me. It was everything else also behind it tacked on in attempt to justify and make people not into MP who wanted those other things which got me. That MS was misrepresenting themselves and their service. By all current count Sony isn't doing that. They're being upfront.

Aside from the actual announcement.

[iliimaster]

5 a month with no drm no required check ins or webcams come on i mean if ur not going to buy ps4 because u refuse to pay 5 bucks to play mp u have issues

[coolbeans]

A portion (or many) of the same people who snickered and jeered at MS' XBLG policy, regardless of what another poster found in its value, are now throwing up the obvious defense "well...at LEAST it isn't that console" in order to justify this action. Before the Sony conference, it wasn't necessarily MS' similar $5 monthly cost that got to most people but the PRINCIPLE of the paywall that constantly had anyone--from fanboy to typical gamer--foaming at the mouth.

And now?

Take a look at the reasons you're defending it:

-no drm
-no required check in
-no required webcams

The xbox 360 had the same basic policy (minus Kinect required games, though it didn't need to stay plugged in) and it received a load of flak for its ideals for online. That's the hypocrisy he's discussing.

[iliimaster]

the xbox 360 this is a whole new GEN fellow ur still thinking ps3 my main man well this is ps4 ANOTHER console i get ur gripe if ps3 games now require online psn + i dont think they do do they? if they do then i get ur point

[coolbeans]

A different generation doesn't discount the fact, unfortunately. If n4g had it's own goggle-like search engine solely for comments you'd see a profusion of posters in years past stating "Sony would NEVER stoop to charging for online play," and even to the days before this conference. Now, you could probably find a decent portion of those same posters marking this change as a something to be expected, or even a 'good thing' (because reasons).

Like I highlighted in my initial reply, we're seeing people backtrack against a PRINCIPLE--something that's timeless. What was once one of the greatest points to use against purchasing a 360 from (average) n4g's point of view became innocuous in the blink of an eye simply because PS4's other policies are nothing near the foul stuff involved in the One. Spin it any way you want, it's still hypocrisy.

[iliimaster]

"What was once one of the greatest points to use against purchasing a 360 " LMAO man r u serious im talking about playstation 4 not playstation 3 or purchasing a 360 wake up im talking about the next version of consoles if u want go buy a xbox360 or a ps3 i on the other hand am getting a ps4

[iliimaster]

i dont get your comment because im speaking for myself i have 2 years on both xbl and psn + so ur grouping me into every ps3 owner who boasted about free online play yeah it was nice for a whole generation not to charge, but now i would like improvements that come along with my FIVE dollars a month which will happen now, gripe all u want about u want free free free well wake up man what is free in this world? it eventually wont be enough if it remains free ive never seen anyone complain about 5 bucks in my life only children who dont understand the concept of VAULE

[coolbeans]

I'm...not exactly sure where this conversation is heading. Let me try some bullet points to clarify:

-I am not griping against the new cost of PS+ multiplayer for PS4 or that the service in general doesn't have value (last night's conference showed 95% think it's a great service)
-I'm not explicitly grouping you in with the people on n4g I'm talking about, only point out how your first comment seems to exactly mirror the typical defensive response I've seen from a number of other individuals.

I understand what you're focusing on; however, this blog essentially stresses against the point you're trying to make by discussing the flip-flopping attitude behind these new next-gen decisions and what gamers are willing to put up with. When all your first comment basically says is "at least it doesn't have X1's policies" and "you have issues if you have issues with a monthly $5 paywall to play online," you shouldn't be the least bit surprised for someone to point out the irony in your post.

Please tell me you get my comments now.

[iliimaster]

you cannot seem to get ahold of the fact that this is a whole new generation ps3 was the ps3 and xbox 360 was what it was.... now if PS3 is requiring money to play multiplayer i understand your crying foul but let it go.... its going to be okay... this is a what we call NEW console NEW OS NEW everything so comparing the two does not make any sense .... less than 5$ a month you can unlock your full library of games to test online

5 is around the same you would rent a single game on, or buy a value meal at a fast food place, a large pizza at little ceasers, like i said keep ur ps3 with free online if u want im getting a ps4 ive never seen anyone complain about 5 bucks in my life do you understand the meaning of value?

[coolbeans]

Or perhaps you cannot seem to get a hold of the fact that I recognize that and my point is in regards to the arbitrary shifts in some gamer's attitudes towards things they used to be morally opposed to, with your first comment being a portrait of the back-pedaling I'm seeing. (Note: that still doesn't necessarily paint you as one of the people I'm speaking against)

Seeing as how you spend the rest of your comment countering points I never bothered to argue against, I can see you haven't entirely grasped what I'm talking about yet.

[Petro]

I'm actually considering passing this generation of consoles. I do have plenty of money and I am subscriber of such services as Spotify and Netflix, but those services I use constantly so I could say that I get my money worth, same cannot be said about my console PS3. It has been ages since I last played a multiplayer game on my precious console, but I still do play about once a month or two on average, so it really would not be wise for me to pay for Sony's service unless it really gives me other benefits as well.

[mrmarx]

the definition of "butthurt"

[Qrphe]

I'm so happy used games work on PS4 I'm not bothered that much by the paywall (that I've had already). It is a low-blow by Sony regardless of how one sees it or is affected by it.

[Saints94]

Eh, used to it cause of Xbox live. Hopefully PSN won't be hacked easily?

[N4Flamers]

I am against paying for online play. I am still buying a ps4 and just not paying for online play or online only games. Most of the games I enjoy are single player but I did see some online games I thought looked interesting like destiny and the division.

[generalthadeape]

Yeah, it "hurts" a little, but considering what would have happened if Sony mirrored Microsoft's draconian anti-gamer / anti-consumer / anti-privacy policies, it is a small price to pay to be able to play games with the least number of restrictions possible.

I just signed up for PlayStation+-- on my shiny new PS3--last week and am blown away with all the content that is available to me. I must have spent at least a full day downloading all of that stuff and haven't even gotten around to installing everything onto my system just yet-- there's really SO much stuff that you get for being a PS+ remember that it's not funny.

Coming from Xbox Live, I can see much more value in PS+ than what Microsoft has to offer.

Both of my Xbox 360s are cleaned up & ads have been placed on Craigslist to sell them. Having said that, I'm pretty sure that my Xbox Live subscription will be lapsing soon. Sorry Microsoft, I doubt that I'll ever renew Xbox Live again. See ya!

[e-p-ayeaH]

I dont have a problem with paying for online multiplayer as long it as its perks and PS Plus does offer that.

[AceofStaves]

Since I don't play online MP in consoles, having it behind a paywall is better value for me, since I won't end up paying for something I won't use. And who knows? The paid online MP model may help Sony provide a better online experience.

The hypocrisy found in vehement defenders of consoles is hilarious. Seeing those that complained about MS charging for online MP now supporting Sony's approach is funny. So is reading the posts from people who mocked the PS3 for being a multimedia entertainment hub, yet now believe that XB1 offers the best value for money because of its entertainment offerings and capabilities.

The way I see it, we're at a Rubicon of gaming, and consumers have never had such a clear-cut choice in front of them (excluding those who will by both of course). Sales for both should be very interesting to watch over the next couple of years.

[e-p-ayeaH]

PS3 clearly had its rough past most internet users were xbox fanboys and rightfully so because PS3 had a pretty slow start and the price was just ridiculous but now the tides have turned and sony is making you pay for online which is something it as been done with xbox since its begining not to mention you get perks with playstation plus service isnt simply enabling online play by deflaut.

People like to support the consoles whenever they see the pros and cons about them i support sony because i grew up with playstation that´s about it.

I did joked about xbox in the past in the PS2 days and rightfully so the improved graphics doesnt make a system better its the games and playsation always had the best games plus its consumer friendly unlike the xbox one so that goes to show that making the best option (for those that choose to buy 1 console per gen) as never been easier unlike previous generations.

[spektical]

write a big article about how you can't play online with ps plus. Should it be free? definitely, but its sure a whole lot better than getting your games locked to a system, being watched and paying to use your other media subscriptions.

[givemeshelter]

Now the real question is:
Will 3rd party Publishers and developers adopt this DRM? God I hope not.
Sony for ITS GAMES WILL NOT but there is no mention of 3rd party titles.
I can already see where this is going unfortunately ...

[kingPoS]

Since 2010 ps+ has been providing me with me with excellent service. Oddly enough inclusion of ps4 multiplayer into ps+ doesn't bother me. I subscribe to it for games after all, why would I want to stop that.

The PS4's online additions are just gravy on top.

[ExCest]

It's more like the other way around now. Now, the online is the core of Plus and the other additions are gravy to you and others but to me, just appeasement.

Luckily, I already have Ps Plus but this is pretty dirty to force a price to play online.

[kingPoS]

Obviously we have differing viewpionts.

The only game I play online almost daily is Gran Tursimo 5. The rest of my game time, I'm enjoying games like Outland Closure Spec Ops or Tekken Tag 2.

The online for ps4 seems like a deal to me. I subscribed to plus for the games, updates & back ups. (demon souls) And that's exactly what I desire.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the content from plus.
Why want to give that up.

[s45gr32]

Jack Trenton did not state about having to pay to play online. I don't know were people got that information.

[iamgoatman]

@s45gr32

"Jack Trenton did not state about having to pay to play online."

Welcome to yesterday!

Watch the conference again, it's actually pretty clear. Basically he mentioned when outlining the features of PS+ that if you don't want it, you can still play singeplayer games, and on the charts it mentions something along the lines of 'diverse multiplayer experiences' or something when showing the benefits of PS+. So basically pay-to-play multiplayer.

[s45gr32]

I miss that, let me see the conference again. I don't recall Sony for adding a pay wall for online gaming. The other bit of notion is will non-playstation plus members (like me) will be able to carry over their psn account purchases and friends. I am the only only one excited for killer instinct (which is not made by Rare the creators of the original killer instinct), Destiny, and watch dogs. I don't know this E3 event was decent but Microsoft is still not officially confirming (Steve Baller, Don Patrick, etc.) that they will implement say policies. Most of these games are available on PC ( the platform that never had used games to begin with, but gamers do have more control of their experience). Now Microsoft just ditched the point system, has made gold members able to share their membership. Those were stated at the conference not from some game journalist spitting bile and hate. My point is changes are being made but not all of them are good; is up to gamers to unite themselves and keep fighting for their rights by not supporting anti-consumer practices. The problem is we gamers have no reliable gaming news, the video game sale system is beyond broken. So is time to get real journalism that is unbiased and is not a sellout along with a new video game sale system that is up to date with professional not clueless financial analysts. Then it will become a lot easier for gamers to fight back but is not going to happen right away.