Support NeoGAF

[GhostTrick]

The horror!

It's a cheap cost for a lot of value. What's the issue?

The issue is online play not being provided. Next what ? PS+/XBLG mandatory to boot your games ? I mean you could still argue "cheap cost" "75p a week" "lot of value".
PS+/XBLG for games are fine. But for online play which 1st parties dont provide is bullshit.

I use the PSN network almost every day when chatting to friends so I attribute the cost more to that personally, when the console itself is sold at a loss I don't begrudge them for PS+. Especially with the games being thrown in, it honestly makes it worth the cost for me. Principles don't enter the equation when you're happy with the service provided.

You dont pay for Discord or Skype. What's the cost here again ? None. Heck I'm sure all these conversations are handled on a P2P basis.
Heck, Vita did the same. It was free. What's the explanation here ?
In fact, I think you dont even need PS+ to do vocal chat with friends.

 

[takriel]

That's why I do most of my online gaming on a PC. Fuck these paywalls on consoles.

 

[MUnited83]

Since people have brought it up, I'm not a fan of Sony and Microsoft gating cloud saves behind the yearly sub. It's free on Steam (some games don't support it, but the vast majority of releases after 2010 do), Origin and Uplay. There's like zero reason for Sony/Microsoft to gate it besides the fact that they can.



That price increase was one of my breaking points, actually. It went up $20 here in Canada (combination of the global Plus increase + our currency value dropping), and that's when I began to reevaluate whether or not I wanted to continue paying. No judgment from me whether you or anyone else still considers it worth paying for, of course! I am going to miss having access to a few delisted PS3 titles that were given away years ago though.



Speaking of Humble, I've found their Humble Monthly to be a great alternative to PS+/Gold on PC. A year's sub is like double the price of PS+/XBL, but you get like 8-10 Steam games each month plus they're your's forever. I find there's a nice mix of AAA and indies in their line up.

Microsoft has unlimited cloud saves for free actually. It's ridiculous how Sony has a hilariously limited cloud saves still tied to the subscription.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

You dont pay for Discord or Skype. What's the cost here again ? None. Heck I'm sure all these conversations are handled on a P2P basis.

So because Discord and Skype are free the infrastructure costs for PSN just vanish?

As mentioned PS4's are sold at a loss. I'd rather PS+ as-is than a significant increase in the price of the hardware. Past that, I use their infrastructure and the overall value from the service is completely fine for the cost for me.

 

[test_account]

No it's not. It's about the service provided. I would have no problem with PS+ or XBLG being just a renting game service. But hiding Online play behind is just an anticonsumer measure to force people into it because in the end, Sony and Microsoft arent providing the online play service. They just confiscate it for the sake of it.

Although my point with the poster quoted is semantics. It's not free when you pay. And there's a difference between these services which you know beforehand what you're renting.

Yes it is. Like you say, its about what the service is providing, if the price around the service is worth it or not. You have people in this thread that say they have basically no interest in the "free" games, so then they dont see the value in paying ~$60 a year for basically only getting online play. For those people, the value in the service is bad, for other who care more about the "free" games and such things, its worth it.

Its fair enough that you're against the idea of including online play as a part of the whole package. But it is only a question about value proposition in the end, if you think its worth to pay the price or not for what you get.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

So because Discord and Skype are free the infrastructure costs for PSN just vanish?

As mentioned PS4's are sold at a loss. I'd rather PS+ as-is than a significant increase in the price of the hardware. Past that, I use their infrastructure and the overall value from the service is completely fine for the cost for me.

For every game sold on PSN, Sony also gets a 30% cut. You think that isnt enough to uphold the infrastructure?

 

[Smasher89]

Let's hope that Nintendo intends to keep the fee low like they said. Was it something like 20€ per year? That I might pay, I understand the need to keep services up but Sony/Msoft are just milking players.

Not gonna happen, normalisation strategy when it comes to payed new subscriptions 101 tells the price will get significant increases if they get a solid userbase!

 

[Rellik]

Microsoft has unlimited cloud saves for free actually. It's ridiculous how Sony has a hilariously limited cloud saves still tied to the subscription.

It's not hilarious if you're on a Sony console like I am. It's yet another cock slap in the face from Sony.

 

[NintendosBooger]

Yeah, was disappointed to learn Nintendo was going to follow suit.

Which is why I'm going to wait for price drops/sales/buy used for all future purchases to offset the cost.

 

[Freddo]

It's a scam but what can you do.

Play multiplayer games on PC.

 

[TatteredHat]

PS+ used to be a good deal in the PS3 era, but as soon as people bought into having to buy PS+ to play online Sony lost all motivation to bother continuing to offer games at the same standard as they had before the PS4 was released.

Now the "free" games are just buffer against criticism.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

For every game sold on PSN, Sony also gets a 30% cut. You think that isnt enough to uphold the infrastructure?

Considering they've out and out stated that they intend to recoup the money from sales and PS+ I have no idea. They're a business, of course they're looking for more than breaking even. I just know I don't begrudge them doing so for the sake of getting a cheaper console.

 

[MUnited83]

So because Discord and Skype are free the infrastructure costs for PSN just vanish?

As mentioned PS4's are sold at a loss. I'd rather PS+ as-is than a significant increase in the price of the hardware. Past that, I use their infrastructure and the overall value from the service is completely fine for the cost for me.

False, PS4s are not sold at a loss.
What infrastructure costs? Have you checked the ridiculous download speeds on PS4? I download stuff faster on Steam/Uplay/Origin/GoG/Humble Bundles, even fucking Itch.io. Sony has no excuses for the shitshow of a network they run.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

I don't play online on console often enough to justify the cost. Maybe I pay for a month or year or something?

If you're not on PC for whatever reason, and enough people you know play on a specific console, I could see it being "worth it", even though it shouldn't have to be worth it. Feels like basic functionality to me.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

It's not hilarious if you're on a Sony console like I am. It's yet another cock slap in the face from Sony.

To you. But even in this topic you see people defending it and are happy to pay for "premium cloud saves" or at least use it as an argument that (paid) cloud-saves add value to PS+.

Which is total bullshit, since, like I said, you can download 50GB of Doom on PSN for free, but for uploading a small save and redownloading it from the servers you need to pay money.

 

[Nev]

Let's hope that Nintendo intends to keep the fee low like they said. Was it something like 20€ per year? That I might pay, I understand the need to keep services up but Sony/Msoft are just milking players.

But Nintendo isn't?

Jesus, the Ninty filter.

Honest question, do the people that justify this bullshit know that PC has more and better online services and that they're completely free? They should take a look at that before defending this scam. If they still do it well then you can only assume some kind of sad fanboyism and brand allegiance is at work. Ninty, Shu, in Spencer we trust and all that embarrassing stuff.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

False, PS4s are not sold at a loss.
What infrastructure costs? Have you checked the ridiculous download speeds on PS4? I download stuff faster on Steam/Uplay/Origin/GoG/Humble Bundles, even fucking Itch.io. Sony has no excuses for the shitshow of a network they run.

Apologies then, it appears I was misinformed. I've already mentioned the parts of PSN I use frequently, and that I use them enough to see value from that service. The additions that come with it make it so that the entire proposition is good for the cost, for me.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Netflix and PS+ free games are not even remotely the same thing.

You are right, you get to keep you PS+ games as long as you keep paying, where as Netflix movies get de-listed...

Try again. Your comparison might make sense if Netflix was a service that was the only way to watch the extra features on the blurays you already purchased.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say.

Its about value proposition. Some people feel that something is worth it, others dont. Its not too much to argue about in that regards since its a matter of personal opinion.

Exactly, and 48 games for £25 = about 50p a game, even if I don't know what it is going to be, is a bargain in my eyes.

If it was pay for online with no other perks, then I could understand the brouhaha, and I certainly wouldn't be paying it. But as I said I pay for the perks not the multiplayer, that I have no interest in.

 

[test_account]

PS+ is actually a per game basis but outside of free to play games I haven't seen developers choose to bypass PS+ for their online multiplayer. Which is a shame since PSN being free was the reason I bought multiplayer games on my PS3 instead of Xbox last generation.

Any source to this? I really doubt that the developers can choose to have their games being part of PS+ (in regards to online play). I think its more a case where Sony have exceptions for certain type of games (MMO and F2P).

It's a scam but what can you do.

What do you feel that is promised, but not being delivered? The definition of scam.

 

[Rorschach]

And how the fuck do they get away with charging for one of the most basic features of the internet?

Attitudes like

The horror!

It's a cheap cost for a lot of value. What's the issue?

 

[Mifec]

You are right, you get to keep you PS+ games as long as you keep paying, where as Netflix movies get de-listed...



I have no idea what you are even trying to say.

You also don't get random games but pick and choose what you want to watch and can inform yourself on what's available and the value is much greater.

 

[Snoopycat]

Lol, this is a joke, right?

No, it's not a joke. The only time I've ever seen any obvious hackers was on Dark Souls on the 360, who were using save editors. Never seen any on the PS4 or X1.

 

[test_account]

Let's hope that Nintendo intends to keep the fee low like they said. Was it something like 20€ per year? That I might pay, I understand the need to keep services up but Sony/Msoft are just milking players.

The reason why Nintendo is charging lower is most likely because they are new to this, so they have to stand out to be more attractive. Its not really a case of being "kind", i'm pretty sure that Nintendo would have charged €60 if they felt that their service offered enough value, so that a lot of people would be fine by paying that.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Honest question, do the people that justify this bullshit know that PC has more and better online services and that they're completely free? They should take a look at that before defending this scam. If they still do it well then you can only assume some kind of sad fanboyism and brand allegiance is at work. Ninty, Shu, in Spencer we trust and all that embarrassing stuff.

The only embarrassment around is you stating that if anyone dare to find the value proposition worthwhile that they must instantly be a "fanboy" and doing it out of blind allegiance to a brand.

 

[MilkyJoe]

You also don't get random games but pick and choose what you want to watch and can inform yourself on what's available and the value is much greater.

You don't get to choose what you want with Netflix or Prime or any of them. You get what they give you, depending on studio deals.

Netflix is £89 a year... Cheapest I've got GWG was £23 for 13 months. I think value is in in the eye of the beholder, here.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

You are right, you get to keep you PS+ games as long as you keep paying, where as Netflix movies get de-listed...



I have no idea what you are even trying to say.

If that's the case, I'm not sure this is the thread for you.

The biggest issue for most people is the fact that the multiplayer paywall locks out a portion of the game for users.
Games that have already been purchased at full price. In the case of multiplat releases the multiplayer paywall only exists on console.

Netflix is offering a completely standalone service that has its own merit. You aren't paying to unlock features for a DVD you already purchased. It's not a valid comparison in any way as far as I am concerned.

 

[test_account]

Exactly, and 48 games for £25 = about 50p a game, even if I don't know what it is going to be, is a bargain in my eyes.

If it was pay for online with no other perks, then I could understand the brouhaha, and I certainly wouldn't be paying it. But as I said I pay for the perks not the multiplayer, that I have no interest in.

Its the same for me, i've had PS+ for several years now and i would still have it even if online play wasnt a part of the package (like it isnt for the PS3 and Vita). So the inclusion of online play in PS+ for PS4 didnt affect me in that regards, but i understand why people dont like it if they only have interest in the online play part. Especially if they're sporting several of other subscriptions as well (then the total amount of money can add up).

The only embarrassment around is you stating that if anyone dare to find the value proposition worthwhile that they must instantly be a "fanboy" and doing it out of blind allegiance to a brand.

Yeah, i dont see why people cant say that they see value in the service without being disrespected for it. I've had PS+ since the PS3/Vita days (where online play isnt a part of the service), and i would still have it even if online play wasnt included. I'm also curious to what exactly people feel that is promised, but not being delivered since they use the word 'scam'.

 

[Nev]

The only embarrassment around is you stating that if anyone dare to find the value proposition worthwhile that they must instantly be a "fanboy" and doing it out of blind allegiance to a brand.

Nah, what's embarrassing is that because people ate the anti-consumer bullshit Microsoft and later Sony (and soon Nintendo) forced on them, paying for something that has always been free for the users is completely normalized.

There's no "value proposition" in a online paywall when there's another platform that does exactly the same (but better) at no cost whatsoever. It's plain and simple artificial value that they managed to sneak in because of the people who willingly put up with this literal scam.

People who pay to remove a P2P paywall are paying for a literal extortion to release a hostage.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Yeah, i dont see why people cant say that they see value in the service without being disrespected for it. I've had PS+ since the PS3/Vita days (where online play isnt a part of the service), and i would still have it even if online play wasnt included. I'm also curious to what exactly people feel that is promised, but not being delivered since they use the word 'scam'.

I think its more that people listing arguments that support their "it has a lot of value" stance that are actually free on competitors like the cloud-saves.

Can anyone please explain to me why I can download 50GB of games or 1TB of games I bought on PSN for free, but downloading a 12kb, 2MB, 100MB savefile should cost money?

Same with a P2P connection. You are literally paying to use your own connection in certain games. You arent even connecting to any PSN servers when playing a fighting game e.g.

 

[GhostTrick]

So because Discord and Skype are free the infrastructure costs for PSN just vanish?

As mentioned PS4's are sold at a loss. I'd rather PS+ as-is than a significant increase in the price of the hardware. Past that, I use their infrastructure and the overall value from the service is completely fine for the cost for me.

You also skipped the other major point: Vita do group chat for free. In fact I'm sure you can do party chat on PS4 without PS+ subscription.

 

[ArtHands]

The horror!

It's a cheap cost for a lot of value. What's the issue?

Because those are free standards turned into paid features.
Imagine them turning local co-op mode into a paid feature and then increase the PS+ price by a little. "but its cheap! Its just the cost of 2 chocolate bars per week!"

 

[Itaremustbedangeres]

I pretty much just pay $30-$40 a year for the free games now. I never buy PS+ or XBL at full retail because with Google and CheapAssGamer handy I can find year subscriptions for 35-50% off whenever I resubscribe.

But... I mean the games are not free then when you have to pay 30-40$ a year :/ edit: and have to continue to pay if you want to play them whenever you please.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Nah, what's embarrassing is that because people ate the anti-consumer bullshit Microsoft and later Sony (and soon Nintendo) forced on them, paying for something that has always been free for the users is completely normalized.

There's no "value proposition" in a online paywall when there's another platform that does exactly the same (but better) at no cost whatsoever. It's plain and simple artificial value that they managed to sneak in because of the people who willingly put up with this literal scam.

People who pay to remove a P2P paywall are paying for literally nothing.

There is a value proposition regardless of if you agree with their justification for it. For some people the value they get from it is worth the price they're asked to pay.

What's bullshit is you shaming people and suggesting they're fanboys of brand loyalists for paying that fee and being content with it. Somehow expecting people to just go and game on a PC instead, regardless of where their friends might be, what games the platform offers, what enjoyment they get from PS+ other than online and a whole host of other reasons.

Get off your pedestal.

 

[Mifec]

You don't get to choose what you want with Netflix or Prime or any of them. You get what they give you, depending on studio deals.

Netflix is £89 a year... Cheapest I've got GWG was £23 for 13 months. I think value is in in the eye of the beholder, here.

No, you get to choose what's available before you spend any money at all. For PS+ you only see the first however many games are free that month and that's that not to mention on Netflix you know what's getting delisted well in advance and you don't lose anything if you don't renew next month.

Which was the main qualifier as to why they're not even remotely the same when I mentioned it. What you get on demand from Netflix is not the same or comparable to the free games of something like PS+ because you actually get to pick and choose.

 

[BasilZero]

Its the reason why I'll never do MP in consoles anymore.


Never subscribed to PS+ and I will likely never subscribe to Nintendo's online costs either.



If the next pokemon games (after Ultra Sun/Moon) require nintendo online (paid) - then that will be the end of trading/etc for me.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Somehow expecting people to just go and game on a PC instead, regardless of where their friends might be, what games the platform offers, what enjoyment they get from PS+ other than online and a whole host of other reasons.

You enjoy paying money to play online, even if its a P2P connection?

I can totally get behind the "free games" argument and cheaper games via PS+. I dont get why people would see value in paying for online or paying for standard stuff like Cloud saves.

 

[NintendosBooger]

If the industry is willing to accept I'll buy fewer games or game's at sales prices to negate the cost of subscription fees, then we're all good. At the end of the day, it boils down to budget and how much money you're open to putting into this hobby every year.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

You enjoy paying money to play online, even if its a P2P connection?

I can totally get behind the "free games" argument and cheaper games via PS+. I dont get why people would see value in paying for online or paying for standard stuff like Cloud saves.

No. I'm asked to pay a small fee to be able to play online, receive discounts for games and receive a selection of games each month. In my experience of that offering it has been worth the cost, so I don't mind paying the fee. The alternative is not paying for it and not being able to do said things, which I am free to do. However, when I weigh up the enjoyment I get for the price of entry I see value from it.

The OP was asking how people could be okay with things like PSN, that is how. People can be upset until they're blue in the face but it all comes down to that question; for what's offered do you feel you get enough for the price? I do, so I'm content paying for it. If you're not, then don't.

 

[nkarafo]

Hmmm, i'm a PC user exclusively this gen but i never play online, i think i'm doing it wrong.

 

[TheKeyPit]

I was under the impression 360 cloud saves were free to access on XB1, didn't realize it applied to native titles as well.

You got it all mixed up. You need Gold for Xbox 360 cloud saves.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

No. I'm asked to pay a small fee to be able to play online, receive discounts for games and receive a selection of games each month. In my experience of that offering, it has been worth the cost, so I don't mind paying for it. The alternative is not paying for it, and not being able to do said things, which I am free to do. However, when I weigh up the enjoyment I get for the price of entry, I see value from it.

The OP was asking how people could be okay with things like PSN, that is how.

I can see that.

But in the end, if its P2P games, online is still locked behind a paywall that shouldnt be. If you are just interested in playing online with friends and dont care for anything else, locking online behind a paywall is a bad move and not consumer-friendly, no matter how many stuff they offer that might not interest you.

 

[Mithos]

No. I'm asked to pay a small fee to be able to play online, receive discounts for games and receive a selection of games each month. In my experience of that offering it has been worth the cost, so I don't mind paying the fee. The alternative is not paying for it and not being able to do said things, which I am free to do. However, when I weigh up the enjoyment I get for the price of entry I see value from it.

The OP was asking how people could be okay with things like PSN, that is how. People can be upset until they're blue in the face but it all comes down to that question; for what's offered do you feel you get enough for the price? I do, so I'm content paying for it. If you're not, then don't.

Indeed, I even keep track of all the games I add to my list, and what the price of that game is at the time of me adding it, after a year that adds up, and I'd never be able to buy all those games straight up.

 

[RK9039]

You also skipped the other major point: Vita do group chat for free. In fact I'm sure you can do party chat on PS4 without PS+ subscription.

You can do party chat on Ps3 as well, for free.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

But in the end, if its P2P games, online is still locked behind a paywall that shouldnt be. If you are just interested in playing online with friends and dont care for anything else, locking online behind a paywall is a bad move and not consumer-friendly, no matter how many stuff they offer that might not interest you.

Of course, in which case I'd recommend not buying a console. They're up-front about the requirement to play online. Personally I've come to enjoy playing on console over PC so I have to ask myself the question of whether the price is worthwhile for what I receive. For me, it is.

 

[MilkyJoe]

If that's the case, I'm not sure this is the thread for you.

The biggest issue for most people is the fact that the multiplayer paywall locks out a portion of the game for users.
Games that have already been purchased at full price. In the case of multiplat releases the multiplayer paywall only exists on console.

Netflix is offering a completely standalone service that has its own merit. You aren't paying to unlock features for a DVD you already purchased. It's not a valid comparison in any way as far as I am concerned.

See now you explain yourself properly.

It's primary purpose and your gripe, are not even a consideration for my usage, to the point where they are selling "multiplayer" subscriptions to people that have no interest in playing multiplayer, so imagine how good of a deal this must seem to people that play multiplayer?.... Anyway, I use this as an entertainment subscription service only. Therefore I will compare it to Netflix, despite your concerns.

What you really need to do is move onto acceptance stage. You accept that it is what it is, and then you can decide what you want to do about it. It's not ideal, and now Nintendo are on board, it's not going anywhere. As far as I am concerned MS & PS have sweetened the deal to the point where subscription is a no brainer. However, I still only buy on Blackfriday, may as well get it for £25 rather than £40.

 

[c0Zm1c]

Playing online on PS3 for free is an oddly surreal experience now.

 

[Nev]

No. I'm asked to pay a small fee to be able to play online, receive discounts for games and receive a selection of games each month. In my experience of that offering it has been worth the cost, so I don't mind paying the fee. The alternative is not paying for it and not being able to do said things, which I am free to do. However, when I weigh up the enjoyment I get for the price of entry I see value from it.

The OP was asking how people could be okay with things like PSN, that is how. People can be upset until they're blue in the face but it all comes down to that question; for what's offered do you feel you get enough for the price? I do, so I'm content paying for it. If you're not, then don't.

Can't you see why it's upsetting for people that don't pay for it? It affects everyone regardless of their choice. It's an anti-consumer practice and showing support for it will only push publishers and big names to throw more of them down our throats, something they're already doing at full speed since there's no better indication that people will pay for anything than a succesful paywall for P2P online.

If this only affected you nobody would care, but it shaped the industry as a whole. Remember when the PS3 had free online?

By the way I didn't tell anybody to get a PC. I even have a PS4, I just don't pay for that crap.

 

[test_account]

I think its more that people listing arguments that support their "it has a lot of value" stance that are actually free on competitors like the cloud-saves.

Can anyone please explain to me why I can download 50GB of games or 1TB of games I bought on PSN for free, but downloading a 12kb, 2MB, 100MB savefile should cost money?

Same with a P2P connection. You are literally paying to use your own connection in certain games. You arent even connecting to any PSN servers when playing a fighting game e.g.

I can see that, but on the other hand, if something is free other places, that doesnt necessarily mean that people cant see value in it elsewhere even if they have to pay for it though.

When it comes to paying for online play isolated, its not something that i'm advocating for. I cant really speak for anyone, but i would assume that people talk about the total package, that they feel that its worth it overall.

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

The horror!

It's a cheap cost for a lot of value. What's the issue?

What value? I'm not a PS4/Switch gamer. I buy maybe three exclusives a year per platform and if I only want to play The Last of Us MP or Splatoon 2 which are both peer2peer-based, where is the value in that? Sure, I get some games with the subscription (generally stuff I already own because I buy indie games on PC) but all I want to do is access the content that is included on the disk.

How can anyone justify that kind of cost when they're not even hosting the servers? I don't care about the discounts, I don't care about Cloud Saves (which is free on GOG/uPlay/Steam/Origin), I should be able to access peer2peer-based multiplayer modes that I paid for. Between the endless bullshit people put up within the walled garden, paid "remasters" which are just the PC versions at 1080p instead of 720p, lack of a decent refund policy, paid online, awful infrastructure, I'm shocked people put up with any of it.

 

[Tapejara]

You got it all mixed up. You need Gold for Xbox 360 cloud saves.

Microsoft has unlimited cloud saves for free actually. It's ridiculous how Sony has a hilariously limited cloud saves still tied to the subscription.

Even more ridiculous is Sony still not implementing a refund policy, despite Steam, Origin, GOG and Microsoft all having one.

In any case, thanks for the correction, guys; I'll edit my post!