Support NeoGAF

[Sorc3r3r]

I think Sony will leave for free just the basic features so the online multi and messaging as is this on the ps3 now.
I dubt the xgc will be free, even if it is on the Vita.

I've no problem if this will be the case, the thing i hope is that the price will be the same as the ps+ right now,whose i'm already a subscriber.

 

[nib95]

They'll build upon Playstation Plus. It was one of their best moments this generation. It's a truly great service. This comes down to pricing, really. I fully expect Live to go up in price yet again when this new generation starts, for example.

UP in price? Fudge that. Online play on 720 (and PS4) needs to be free, or cheaper if anything. I know that's not feasible, but anything else and it'd just be unscrupulous imo.

 

[jooey]

My guess is they will pull an Apple and drop any numeric identifier and just call it the "playstation".

OK, this has officially been said about every new system this gen.

 

[ThisWreckage]

UP in price? Fudge that. Online play on 720 (and PS4) needs to be free, or cheaper if anything. I know that's not feasible, but anything else and it'd just be unscrupulous imo.

I'm willing to bet Live goes up. It falls in line with what Microsoft has done in the past. They RAISED the price of Live this past generation and people gladly took that. They did it midway through the generation too.

 

[phosphor112]

This been posted yet?

http://livedoor.4.blogimg.jp/news4vip2/imgs/b/c/bc6880dc.jpg

It's a mock-up. And it's ugly. The only good thing is that pseudo LCD screen on the controller.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Just imagine paying for two services.

I would only pay for the one my friends used.

I'm willing to bet Live goes up. It falls in line with what Microsoft has done in the past. They RAISED the price of Live this past generation and people gladly took that. They did it midway through the generation too.

That price increase only affected casual users. The average GAF'er still paid $30-$40.

 

[BeastM0de]

Sony will charge for PSWorld and online play, I think.

If Xbox Gold gets you:

- Online play
- Apps and Services
- More OS features

and PSWorld gets you

- Online play
- Apps and Services
- More OS features
- Streaming games from PS1/PS2/PS3 catalogue

You WILL NOT MIND playing a fee. That's how they'll get us.

Free online is a big selling point to consumers. It didnt matter in the last generation because of the price difference/ year lead that 360 had. It doesn't make sense for Sony to charge you for something mandatory then give away free shit.

Adding online to PS+ completely changes the dynamic of playstation plus.

It makes sense for Sony to say "hey, buy our system it has free online. Buy PS+ for all this free shit and cool features". They get market share and money. If they pull a dick move and charge for online they wont pull any of the swing voters away from microsoft since they will have to pay for online either way.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I would only pay for the one my friends used.

Earlier in the generation, people will pay for the better deal. People are morons if they get gouged.

 

[Shady859]

They still screwed up the d-pad and left stick placement....

 

[tzare]

I would only pay for the one my friends used.



That price increase only affected casual users. The average GAF'er still paid $30-$40.

The only ones used to pay are xbox users, so most ps users would probably skip a subsciption service just to play online.

btw, casual users are the ones that make install base huge and the ones that pay full price, so the ones that pay less for live are minority here.

 

[Jack_AG]

They still screwed up the d-pad and left stick placement....

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

 

[Router]

They still screwed up the d-pad and left stick placement....

The vita dpad is perfect. Stick placement is personal but the fact the sticks are now further apart makes it millions of times better than the traditional DualShock design.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I figured it out:
"Orbis is also following the path first set by Xbox Live: our source says "most" of the PS4's online features will require a premium subscription to use."

Paid:
Apps
Playing Games
Discounts on games
Gaikai

Free:
Checks if game is used

 

[hodgy100]

im a ps+ sub but I'd still refuse to get the next playstation if they make online play part of their subscription, just out of principle

 

[i_am_ben]

don't destroy free online, Sony

 

[Phat Michael]

don't destroy free online, Sony

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

 

[nib95]

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

The fact that you've paid $400 for a console, and $60 for the game, should automatically omit you from having to pay another $60 just to play it online. It's a farce.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

The fact that you've paid $400 for a console, and $60 for the game, should automatically omit you from having to pay another $60 just to play it online. It's a farce.

What if the console cost $1000 to make and the subscription subsidized that?

 

[nib95]

What if the console cost $1000 to make and the subscription subsidized that?

Why on Earth would I want a $1000 console?

 

[SmokeMaxX]

In reality, it's all about value. If you bought a PS4 for $5 and then had to pay $5 a month for 2 years to keep it, most people would because it's a good value. If you bought a PS4 for $500 and then had to pay $50 a month, that's a different story. Paying for online doesn't necessarily equal evil. It just depends on the whole package.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Why on Earth would I want a $1000 console?

I would love a $1000 console. Can you imagine the kind of power that would be under the hood that developers will get to play with? Instead we are getting something comparable to a low end/low midrange pc lol.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Why on Earth would I want a $1000 console?

The WiiU cost roughly ~$300 to make with free online. You're complaining about $400 plus paid online when the system likely costs more than that to make. If you don't want to pay for online, then get a WiiU. Otherwise, the subscription is probably a necessary evil so Sony doesn't bleed red from these consoles.

 

[FordGTGuy]

The fact that you've paid $400 for a console, and $60 for the game, should automatically omit you from having to pay another $60 just to play it online. It's a farce.

If this is the way you perceive the world I have bad news for you.

Pretty much every business is doing this one way or another even owning a car requires you to pay personal property and insurance to continue using it.

In reality, it's all about value. If you bought a PS4 for $5 and then had to pay $5 a month for 2 years to keep it, most people would because it's a good value. If you bought a PS4 for $500 and then had to pay $50 a month, that's a different story. Paying for online doesn't necessarily equal evil. It just depends on the whole package.

$125 to keep a PS4, seems legit.

You're comparing buying a product to paying for a service, a product is bought once and requires a single payment. On the other hand a service is continual and requires continual payments for it to stay profitable.

I'm not justifying Xbox Live's price but some of the comparisons and ideas here are laughable.

 

[nib95]

In reality, it's all about value. If you bought a PS4 for $5 and then had to pay $5 a month for 2 years to keep it, most people would because it's a good value. If you bought a PS4 for $500 and then had to pay $50 a month, that's a different story. Paying for online doesn't necessarily equal evil. It just depends on the whole package.

That I can agree with. It depends on the span of the console, the specs, games etc. If they charged $100 for the console and $60 a year for the rest, I'd be ok with that. 5 x $60 is $300 which would roughly cover the original $400 total. 5 years is a reasonable amount of time to expect a new console to offer value within.

If this is the way you perceive the world I have bad news for you.

Pretty much every business is doing this one way or another even owning a car requires you to pay personal property and insurance to continue using it.

I've never really been much for credit, interest etc. About the only thing I can't avoid paying it on is the mortgage. But it's not fair to lumber in Insurance and MOT etc in with cars, because those are necessities out of safety and security, not just for yourself, but everyone else out there too.

With my phone (Galaxy S3), I pay £30 a month for unlimited minutes, texts and data, and I got the phone for free on release. Over my 18 month contract that works out to £540, which was still less than was charged for the phone sim free at release (£600). I'll generally try and seek the best value for money with all purchases. At the end of the day we talk with our wallets.

 

[Flatline]

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

By that logic why not add another ripoff tax if you can afford it. Let's call it the single player subscription where you'd pay to be allowed to play single player games. That will be cheap, only $4 per month! Since you can afford it why not?

 

[BadAss2961]

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

By the end of this generation, the typical XBL user that's had a 360 since launch would've paid nearly $500 just to play online.

 

[Flatline]

By the end of this generation, the typical XBL user that's had a 360 since launch would've paid nearly $500 just to play online.

But they can afford it!

 

[SneakyStephan]

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

Woah dude you're so rich and cool, being able to shrug off 6 bucks a month. Us entitled babies living in our parents' basements with limited allowance sure are jelly.

Spoiler

or from the sane side of the fence anyone proud to pay an arbitrary fee to play the games that you already paid for online comes across as a tool

 

[OldJadedGamer]

The only ones used to pay are xbox users, so most ps users would probably skip a subsciption service just to play online.

btw, casual users are the ones that make install base huge and the ones that pay full price, so the ones that pay less for live are minority here.

Point is that if you are discussing this topic, you were not affected by the price increase. Why care so much on what the casuals pay?

 

[GillianSeed79]

I honestly won't be surprised if Sony charges for online via PS World with PS4. I think people who are saying flat out that Sony would never do that are being nieve. MS has already set a precedent that people are willing to pay for online peer to peer gaming on consoles. Sony is a business. They like money and they lost a lot of it this gen. A new gen is a fresh slate. PSN is a lot better than it was in 2006. They wouldn't have been able to get away with charging for online at the start of this gen and when they went to PS+ they wouldn't have gotten away with suddenly charging for online since it had been free for so long.

They probably think whatever customers they lose will be made up by revenue generated by a mandatory sub to play online. MS is still going to charge for Live. They probably figure they can get away with charging for PS World. What are console gamers going to do? I'm talking about those that only buy Madden or CoD every year. Do you really think those kind of consumers are just going to sit out next gen or suddenly say, fuck it, I'm just going to build a gaming PC? Sure, those people exist on GAF, but the larger mainstream casual/semi-core gamer? I doubt it.

 

[IrishNinja]

This been posted yet?

http://livedoor.4.blogimg.jp/news4vip2/imgs/b/c/bc6880dc.jpg

man that's a 2 without the ruffles ridges, and it's sitting on 5 of its vents! manual says that's only okay if you have it on a subwoofer icebox

 

[rdrr gnr]

The fact that you've paid $400 for a console, and $60 for the game, should automatically omit you from having to pay another $60 just to play it online. It's a farce.

Especially if that purchase is towards a game that has a disproportionate emphasis on the online component. Buying Battlefield 3 and then having to pay $60 more to play what is, in essence, the entirety of that game is indefensible.

 

[pachuco]

I think a November release seems a little soon. That is pretty close to "pulling a Saturn!"

 

[Flatline]

Point is that if you are discussing this topic, you were not affected by the price increase. Why care so much on what the casuals pay?

Because he's trying to explain to you that Microsoft had the audacity to increase the price instead of decreasing it.

 

[Trickytoon]

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

Thats almost the price of the console again over the lifetime of the 360.

Edit : Beaten.

 

[FordGTGuy]

By the end of this generation, the typical XBL user that's had a 360 since launch would've paid nearly $500 just to play online.

Given the average price to eat is $7~ a day gamers had to pay $20,440 this generation so they wouldn't starve to death.

$6 a month is absolutely nothing in the scheme of things and $500 over 8 years isn't even a fart for someone on minimum wage.

Working fulltime minimum wage with two weeks off a year that's $116,000 before taxes.

I'm willing to pay $60 a year(I personally pay $25 a year with a family plan) if it means I get a better run service.

I'd pay it for either Playstation or Xbox.

Which is pretty outrageous when you think about it. It will be even more audacious if the PS4 ends up roughly matching the 720 with online features, especially those key missing one's such as cross game voice chat.

$500 over 8 years is outrageous to you?

I spend more on bubble gum in 8 years.

Want to hear something really outrageous?

Look at the price of phone plans.

 

[nib95]

By the end of this generation, the typical XBL user that's had a 360 since launch would've paid nearly $500 just to play online.

Which is pretty outrageous when you think about it. It will be even more audacious if the PS4 ends up roughly matching the 720 with online features, especially those key missing one's such as cross game voice chat.

 

[rdrr gnr]

It's a sort of rationalization to put it into those terms. What if you don't have a job or if every dollar matters? Are you going to ask if I always get the cheapest meals to save some money to pay for Live? Should I be gaming at all if I can't afford that monthly payment? If you have a set amount of cash you spend on your hobby (like me) you don't see it terms of only a few bucks. $500 bucks is $500 but it's also 8 full-price retail games (many more discounted games) or it could also be a semester of books (like it is for me).

 

[tzare]

Point is that if you are discussing this topic, you were not affected by the price increase. Why care so much on what the casuals pay?

well, i care about the official price. Nothing is guaranteed , and that includes all those discounts many find lurking the internet. Plus it may happen that i play with some people that could be considered casuals, for example FIFA with my brother-in-law. No way he will be paying to play online. And that may happen with many others in my friends list, so yes, i care about it. For me, i don't want to pay for p2p gaming, and obviously i care about pricing because people i play with will not be online anymore.

By the end of this generation, the typical XBL user that's had a 360 since launch would've paid nearly $500 just to play online.

yes, that would be 500+399= 899, beating the 599 dollars of the mighty ps3 launch. Interesting.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

yeah - i can afford a $500 console but i sure as hell cant afford $6 a month for online!

Yeah, but people got used to free online after 7 years when the competition was charging for it, so paying for the same thing is going to be difficult for most people. Let's say you pay $500 for the console, then $70-$140 or whatever for a game or two and then $50-$60 on top of that? It's launch PS3 all over again. It's not a matter of can be people afford it, but do they want to pay for an extra service that was once free. It would be like paying for ice for your soda at a fast food restaurant all of a sudden.

 

[FordGTGuy]

It's a sort of rationalization to put it into those terms. What if you don't have a job or if every dollar matters? Are you going to ask if I always get the cheapest meals to save some money to pay for Live? Should I be gaming at all if I can't afford that monthly payment? If you have a set amount of cash you spend on your hobby (like me) you don't see it terms of only a few bucks. $500 bucks is $500 but it's also 8 full-price retail games (many more discounted games) or it could also be a semester of books (like it is for me).

You can't compare $500 over 8 years vs $500 lump sum.

Hell the first $60 spent by someone 8 years ago isn't even worth the same amount as it is today.

If you have no job and every dollar matters what are you doing playing Xbox Live?

 

[nib95]

$500 over 8 years is outrageous to you?

I spend more on bubble gum in 8 years.

Want to hear something really outrageous?

Look at the price of phone plans.

It's about the principle. Just because I have the money, doesn't mean I'll spend it without merit. People on here who know me know I live a pretty lavish lifestyle, but I'll still seek out a good and fair deal whenever I can. I have XBL Gold and have had it a few years on and off, but it's not something I like having to pay for, and several years I've not bothered with it at all. End of the day, it's not about the money, I should not have to pay to play online, especially when I've already paid for the game (including it's online mode).

 

[Jamie OD]

I figured it out:
"Orbis is also following the path first set by Xbox Live: our source says "most" of the PS4's online features will require a premium subscription to use."

Paid:
Apps
Playing Games
Discounts on games
Gaikai

Free:
Checks if game is used

How about a PS+ subscription allows you to play second hand games?

 

[Fistwell]

Man, pay for p2p multiplayer? PC's starting to look mighty good right now.

 

[FordGTGuy]

It's about the principle. Just because I have the money, doesn't mean I'll spend it without merit. People on here who know me know I live a pretty lavish lifestyle, but I'll still seek out a good deal whenever I can. I have XBL Gold and have had it a few years on and off, but it's not something I like having to pay for, and several years I've not bothered with it at all. End of the day, it's not about the money, I should not have to pay to play online, especially when I've already paid for the game (including it's online mode).

I'm not talking about the principle of it, I'm referring to how you're calling $500 in 8 years outrageous.

 

[rdrr gnr]

You can't compare $500 over 8 years vs $500 lump sum.

If you have no job and every dollar matters what are you doing playing Xbox Live?

That's exactly why I don't. And, yes, you can. It isn't the same psychologically, but say I wanted relative parity for my experiences on PSN but on XBL. If I had purchased and actively played my Xbox like my PS3, I would be down roughly the cost of four years of Live. That's tangible now as I would have drawn from the same funds to pay for that subscription as I would my books. So, sure, one's buying power and the relative impact of losing $500 in a day versus $1 dollar a day for two years is not the same, the ultimate value to me is, as that decision to refrain from paying for Live was deliberate.

 

[City of Dis]

Instead we are getting something comparable to a low end/low midrange pc lol.

Where the hell have you been?

 

[Shinta]

Not having to pay to play online literally made the PS3 pay for itself. Add the value of PS+ to it and it's just insane how much of a rip-off XBL was.

I don't see Sony copying that. I may eat crow in 13 hours, but I don't see it.

Maybe Gaikkai BC functionality, maybe some new PS4 functionality, but not online play or chatting. And if that's the case like I think it is, I'm fine with it. If they tack some extra shit on PS+, I'm fine with it.

Sony knows PS+ is a gigantic hit. They know people value free online. They know people value actual value. It took them a while to get to that conclusion, but I think they understand.

 

[Joe White]

As long as I can play online for free, I am happy. I could give a shit about in-game chat or cross game chat or whatever else.

But what if the free play has other limitations than just communication? For example, like in BF where Premium customers have priority in server queue? Or there are forced adds after every few rounds, that prevents you to join game at the start? And/or possibly some restrictions in within games, like number of characters, slower progression, available weapons/levels/quests etc?

 

[nib95]

I'm not talking about the principle of it, I'm referring to how you're calling $500 in 8 years outrageous.

It is outrageous (imo). $500 for something you should have had for free.