It's literally a free PS3 worth of difference. That is pretty damn substantial.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kotaku Rumor: PS4 out in November, control with your phone/tablet, maybe $429/529
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
It's literally a free PS3 worth of difference. That is pretty damn substantial.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Do we really expect Sony to match the next xbox with regard to online features? If I was a betting man, I would say they will match the 360 online service along with some additional features like sharing and possibly video chat, but Microsoft will undoubtedly bring something new to the table as they did this generation with cross party chat that Sony won't have foreseen or be able to implement due to hardware.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
should is according to you.
I think I should have free tuition for school, but instead I am six figures in debt.
privileges can be taken away.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Maybe premium psn members wont have to use online passes or something.
With you on that. $500 to be able to play online is ridiculous. If it guaranteed dedicated servers for all online play I could maybe see it. But for the quality of online play we get on most console titles? Get the fuck out.
Pretty much.
So now buying a product automatically entitles us to services...
Hold on I need to call my phone service provider, car insurance provider and tv service provider this news will be as big of a surprise to them as it is to me.
BadAss2961
Member
You're missing the point. You're paying $500 over the course of 8 years for basically no reason at all other than the fact that Microsoft found a way to gouge you. It costs them nothing to flip your account from silver to gold just so you can play P2P online.
They tried bringing the same model to PC, it flopped, so they made it free.
I expect it. PS3 wasn't designed for this at all. When it launched, DLC wasn't a thing. Online play was barely a thing. Netflix digital wasn't really a thing. Digital games purchases on consoles was not a thing. It totally changed and they couldn't redesign the whole system around that.
That's not going to be the case this time. They're focusing on services and the digital platform front and center, so we can finally see what they have in mind, and I think it's going to be pretty nice.
Don't forget that Microsoft launched Xbox 360 without an HDMI port (let that one really sink in), with a 20 GB HDD, and with an HD DVD add on. This is also the same company behind Games for Windows Live. They're far from flawless. If Sony is smart they can match anything they're bringing to the table, or exceed it. It's not guaranteed, but it's certainly possible.
Xbox Live Silver on GFWL was always free to play online multiplayer.
Wasn't the point I was contending with in the first place, I'm saying $500 over 8 years isn't even worth the words discussing over it.
Axispowers
Member
I am not enjoying how the controller looks. This is apart of the Dev kit, right?
Black Republican
Member
if its true, i doubt sony will mention it themselves tonight
Miles Quaritch
Member
That's simplifying it quite a bit. They don't just provide peer to peer gaming for the money. They also provide a service that rarely goes down, good download speeds for content, cross party chat and a few other smaller features that make Xbox Live the preferred service for a lot of people.
That's not to say all of the above justifies the price they charge, I feel it should be at least $30 or less per year, without having to search for reduced subscriptios, but to simplify it to just peer to peer gaming is being incredibly disingenuous and misrepresenting facts.
It would be easy just to call corporate ballwashing every time I see it -- and god do I see it -- but it isn't that easy. Saying "that's how things are now" or "this multi-billion dollar amoral corporation needs to make a profit" are both terrible arguments. All corporations want our money at the end of the day. How they get it matters. Valve takes your money one way -- EA another. Now, PSN is probably losing Sony a lot of money. And, I agree, that should change -- but that doesn't mean a paywall. PSN can sustain itself by other means. I don't feel like my content is being fundamentally compromised if I had to pay for OS level features come PS4. The content on my disc isn't being held from me -- and that's what ultimately matters. I also recognize that making a paywall standard is the most efficient way to garner subs, but it's not what I, the consumer, am looking for.
But you, and others, are on the money, I think.
Free:
- Friend's List
- Store Access (Demos, if staggered)
- Online Play
Sub:
- Everything else: YT uploads, Cloud saves, early access, free games, chat.
If they back the subscription model with enough content -- it may be the difference maker. Look at PS+, I still cannot believe it exists. It embodies everything right with PS and contrasts everything wrong with XBL.
Vargavinter
Member
Playing online will be free, voice-chat will not?
No one knows.
gamethriller
Banned
Controller is ugly prototype or not....
Brad Grenz
Member
Services where I'm paying all the costs to begin with? Fuck yes! MS isn't hosting these games. The VOIP traffic doesn't go through their servers. They don't even build the apps for Netflix and Hulu and Amazon. Those companies, the ones I'm already paying, make them! XBLG would be a profitable service just on the advertising revenue. As it is now it's just a 1.5 Billion Dollar slush fund MS uses to pave over disasters like Kin in their financial reports each year. The fact that you pay over time isn't an excuse. No one hand waives a protection racket just because the mafia didn't take all your money upfront.
Wolves Evolve
Member
I think honestly that PSN or PSW will charge for online play. I think that's okay if when you pay, you get actually useful services.
I would pay for PSN if I also got a huge selection of ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to stream at will. If it was just online play, both companies will need to convince me that's really what I want.
Wait! Did 360 Dark Souls users have to pay to summon each other and read messages? How did that work?
I would pay for PSN if I also got a huge selection of ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to stream at will. If it was just online play, both companies will need to convince me that's really what I want.
Wait! Did 360 Dark Souls users have to pay to summon each other and read messages? How did that work?
Miles Quaritch
Member
You are absolutely right on the HDMI point, but I feel Microsoft took a gamble and it ultimately didn't matter as HDTV adoption wasn't as high in 2005 as it was just a year or two later and by then they had addressed the HDMI issue by releasing the Arcade SKU.
I'm not sure I agree that Sony will be able to match whatever Microsoft bring to the table. This is an area where Microsoft excel, just as Sony excel in hardware, Microsoft excel in software and online infrastructures and will be bringing features to the table that most people probably haven't even thought about yet.
I hope Netflix is free at least. That would really, really piss me off if it's not.
The concept of putting half of a game behind a paywall is incredibly baffling to me and I hope they keep away from that. I'm not even sure how it's even legal to charge people for a product, than have them come home to find they have to subscribe to some service in order to play the game they've just purchased. I've been a satisfied PSN+ subscriber since the start and I hope whatever they do next is added service, not having to pay for stuff that has always been free.
Rarely goes down? I don't remember last time an online PC game I cared about went down. Good download speeds for content? Never had a problem with that on PC either. Cross party chat? I can talk to anyone I want using dozens of different means. What few other smaller features? Cause what you have listed so far is not an improvement over what you get on PC for no subscription fee whatsoever.
Do you really want to start this discussion because it won't end well.
Looks at every pay to play MMO on PC.
Miles Quaritch
Member
We're not talking about PC. In fact, PC has no bearing on the current conversation. How PC online gaming is handled is wholly different, so it's not fair to bring it up in any discussion about online gaming on consoles.
Pretty confident they won't be charging for online. A lot more of the features maybe PS+/World, but simply playing a game online won't have a cost.
Version 3.0
Member
Well, this is a terrible argument. Let's all submit our income statements to Sony and Microsoft, so they can decide the maximum we can afford to pay them. To hell with any other reasoning.
Ozzykamikaze
Member
I don't think you're even reading a thing that they are saying. Your examples cannot even be compared to playing online on a console. There are so many reasons, but primarily, those are services you are purchasing, not products with multiple uses. When I buy a cell phone, I'm purchasing a means to consume their service with little other transactions taking place. If PS4 was a shell that only streamed games and I was not spending $60 regularly on their accompanying products, then pay online would be reasonable. The same goes for your other examples. They don't work, at all.
Phat Michael
Banned
So what? You could add that up for just about anything.
$6 or whatever it is is nothing at all for this service. Im not sure WHY you think it should be free - i have had gold now for ages and i dont mind renewing every year for cross game chat and a great service.
I pay for my internet provider, cable provder, my phone bill, water, electricity, fuel bills - i dont see why $6 per month is unaffordable. If you cant afford it then you have no business buying the console.
The Ps online is free but its terrible so i dont use it. No cross game chat, the demo area and ps store is awful and i cant stand the lack of functionality. I really dont mind paying a token fee for a premium service.
It's going to be much more relevant when Steam Box hits. Microsoft can't charge for things free on every other system and not have people compare them directly and wonder what is going on.
Netflix is even free on 3DS. This is a problem.
It's different because you say so?
In reality and infrastructure wise it is entirely similar
Black Republican
Member
Playstation Mundus ?
Directly from the vatican city
You don't seem to understand my initial point or the point I was making to counter the point he tried to make.
Also your comment on cell phones is not only completely wrong but just down right funny.
Are you honestly saying people don't make purchases on their cell phones?
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
If Sony actually does another $500+ launch their next console had better give blowjobs and warm my cocoa, otherwise I'm waiting for a price drop.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I believe it might, but we're not there yet so while you might be right n the long term, I feel it's not apt to bring online in PC into a discussion about console gaming. It distracts from the discussion at hand and the comparisons aren't helpful, especially when comparing what is essentially a closed platform to one that's entirely open.
No, it's simply common sense. They might appear the same, but there are vast differences in how both are handled. This difference allows PC gaming to have considerably more flexibility and allows consumers to have full access to how they choose to play their games online.
The same isn't true of consoles, at least not yet.
I think MSFT can charge and be successful. Look at how many people in this thread are eager to take that D. And given there will be some sort of a feature disparity between the PS4 and 720 (whatever that is) that will be used to justify the cost. It'll fill that hole. Right now? It's cross-game chat. Next-gen? It might be DVR related. But let's imagine there is parity. What then?
Ozzykamikaze
Member
I'm sure they appreciate it. Just don't ask them to have servers or anything, that'd be silly. Also, if you could peek at a couple extra ads here and there, the break room needs a new coffee machine.
Different games with different business models. There are a few pay to play mmos on consoles as well, which worked pretty much as they do on PC. FFXI for example. Or that superhero game that ended going f2p. What's your point, if you have one?
I was talking about online play and how paying half a grand for p2p is a scam imo. Not sure what you are talking about then. PC is very much on topic, it offers p2p online play for free most of the time. I can see how you'd feel it's not fair as it cleanly contradicts the point you were trying to make in your previous post.
Can you try to be anymore insulting?
I'm completely willing to pay for even a premium Playstation service if it means superior quality and security.
The point, that you seem to be ignoring as it negates your point, is that as bad as Xbox Live might be there are pay to play services on PC even worse, World of Warcraft and Eve Online to name a few.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Whudda ya mean "them people", huh?
gamethriller
Banned
He means "them people"
Miles Quaritch
Member
Because how PC handles online gaming is different to how it's handled on consoles. We can argue semantics about how they might appear to offer the same, but how they are delivered is vastly different.
I also don't appreciate your making false assumptions about my position. It does nothing but attempt to make the discussion take on a personal dimension. Attack my argument, don't make false assumptions about any bias or preference I may not may not have.
while netflix is useless in europe, i can see the value in the US, and i doubt they won't allow to use it behind a paywall considering it is free elsewhere (you obviously have to pay netflix sub) .
Smartvs, smartphones that can stream content to your tv, psvita, tablets... you have it free elsewhere. That applies to all standard free apps,too, like youtube, c'mon, i can even control ps3's youtube app from my smartphone now.
If they want to make orbis a hub, those services cannot be behind a paywall.
Ozzykamikaze
Member
If they do? So what? Who gets that money? The Google Play Store and the app dev? Not Samsung and AT&T.
What do console makers need all the online money for? Certainly not incredible services that are cost prohibitive. They don't stop games from being peer-to-peer. Games that do have servers are recouped in the cost of the game. So I need to pay for xbl AND a season/online pass?
Please do tell me what was wrong and funny.
This isn't true. They tried requiring Gold with the first Gears of War on PC I believe it was and it absolutely failed.
Do elaborate as to exactly how they are different? Because the infrastructure is exactly the same
For one without the service provided by AT&T and the product supplied by Samsung you wouldn't be able to buy the apps on your phone.
In other words you might not be buying the app from AT&T or Samsung but the service from AT&T is needed to do so.
The completely wrong and funny part is that you implied that people don't buy apps and media on their phones.
By the way some providers and manufacturers do in fact have their own app and media stores you can purchase from.