PHOENIXZERO
Member
MGSV's online sucks on PC too and we don't even have MGO3 yet but that will probably also be a mess in the three or whatever months they release it in.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
MGO3 highlights why I can't justify Paid Online
- Thread starter Klossen
- Start date
paperspace
Member
I think the point is, why do people have to pay for access to a P2P service?
Honestly, the only argument worth anything in this thread is the one saying that since the game relies on p2p, it shouldn't require access to ps+. That's fair.
Everything else you complained about (lag, microtransactions, bad decisions on Konami's part, etc.) has absolutely nothing to do with psn itself.
I guess you best bet would be to wait for MGO3 to release on pc early next year (which I understand can feel frustrating too since the game is already out on ps4).
Yeah that's BS.
TouchMyBox
Member
What, you mean being forced to pay in order to connect mostly to peer-to-peer games or servers hosted by third parties who aren't even getting that dosh seems silly?
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
I'd say the OP is right if you'd only and solely pay for being able to play online. But this isn't the case with PS+. You get several (at least 4) games per month for free. Granted. you only have access to them as long as you have a valid PS+ subscription, but this is hardly a problem in my opinion, because as soon as you pay the few bucks for another month or three of PS+ you get them all back.
I pay 60 or so per year and get games worth that money for each month of that year.
Being able to play online is just the cherry on top.
I pay 60 or so per year and get games worth that money for each month of that year.
Being able to play online is just the cherry on top.
Lalalandia
Member
We disagree then. The awfulness of PS3 experience meant I'm onboard with paying for a service that enables smooth chat across and within games. When the pubs and devs were asked to step up and do the same they failed spectacularly on PS3.
More to the point who the hell uses in game chat on most PC titles? By and large, Skype, TeamSpeak, etc have supplanted in game chat there too because of the advantages if decoupling chat of on the game (ie lasts through disconnects, crashes, etc). Those services are either OS (a unique PC advantage) or ad supported (TS servers are a special case).
Dedicated servers are dead for most titles, I grieve for this too but to presume that a sub would fix that is bizarre to me. Even MS who tried to force pubs down that route on XBL gave up because no dev was up for writing 3 x backends for their game.
Let's say an equivalent PC to a PS4 is 700 all in (fair since the i3 doesn't cut it anymore) then the 350 cost for a PS4 + 250 for PS4 still works out cheaper. As a console it still enjoys the lower hassle level relative to PC.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
If the value is so good why did they felt the need to put online play behind a paywall?
But what if i dont want those games and i just want to play online with my friends some random game once in a while?
You are basically paying for online with "Added value!!!" of not-so-free games on top of it. P2P online. Wich is disgusting. And they get away with it.
I agree you shouldn't have to pay for access to P2P especially when you have situations like this when your experience online is less than satisfactory. Least Konami gave us all 3000GP and extended their EXP Booster another week, right? Right?
The thing is, what are you going to do about it? It is what it is. There aren't enough people who will complain and or vote with their wallet on the topic. You're literally just going to have to deal with it if you want to game online on consoles currently.
CQC Lag and Disconnections are staples of Metal Gear Online.
The thing is, what are you going to do about it? It is what it is. There aren't enough people who will complain and or vote with their wallet on the topic. You're literally just going to have to deal with it if you want to game online on consoles currently.
CQC Lag and Disconnections are staples of Metal Gear Online.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
supporting p2p games is awful
supporting paid online sucks
as many have said, MGO is an outlier but PSN has plenty of issues that, imo, make it not worth subscribing - PS+ games or not
online play should be free. we've seen time and time again that none of this money seems to be going in to improving online infrastructures for xbl or psn
i wouldn't pay for Steam and I'm sure as hell not gonna agree to pay for services with more issues
supporting paid online sucks
as many have said, MGO is an outlier but PSN has plenty of issues that, imo, make it not worth subscribing - PS+ games or not
online play should be free. we've seen time and time again that none of this money seems to be going in to improving online infrastructures for xbl or psn
i wouldn't pay for Steam and I'm sure as hell not gonna agree to pay for services with more issues
Lalalandia
Member
For profit, it's a thing you may have heard of. For a better online some of us are willing to pay others are not. If it's a F2P title you're interested in you don't even have to do that.
TouchMyBox
Member
It was a total bait and switch though, making a service with incredible value where you got most of the GOTY candidates 2 months after awards season, sneakily announcing the paywall in-between a bunch of good news at their E3 press conference in the tone of the rest of the good news, and then switching to mostly indie games that people bought on steam for $4 8 months ago (which they get to keep instead of rent, and they actually get to choose for themselves instead of being chosen for them) with a few exceptions to keep people happy every now and then.
It's almost brilliant, really.
Your console is downloading games, massive updates all the time. That costs a lot of money, and looking online behind a paywall allows to support that. The only issue is, they should provide more, server relays at least.
I honestly don't want the PS+ games, and I wouldn't continue to use the service if the online wasn't behind the paywall. I don't think this is entirely accurate. There is nothing about those two services which are inherently tied together, and users would be better off if they were separate and could choose what they wanted, or if the online was just free like before.
Its not really a "cherry on top" to me when its the only draw of the service.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
But how is it better?
entremet
Member
Yeah. PS plus rarely impresses. It's a smart way to convince people to pay for online, but I like to very intentional with my gaming time and purchases. Giving me random free games doesn't' interesting me.
PSN is fucking garbage. I find it baffling that people will pay for an online service through PS+ with as many issues as PSN.
Owning all of the consoles, it's kind of hilarious that the Wii-U has more reliable online over Wifi (I don't have the Ethernet adapter
) than PSN.
And to be real? I don't think they'll ever fix it.
(The only reason I pay for PS+ is for the sick free Vita games :s)
Owning all of the consoles, it's kind of hilarious that the Wii-U has more reliable online over Wifi (I don't have the Ethernet adapter
) than PSN. And to be real? I don't think they'll ever fix it.
(The only reason I pay for PS+ is for the sick free Vita games :s)
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
i think you're vastly overestimating how much it costs. it's free on PC no matter where you're buying your games (unless you stream them from some shit like Nvidia Grid) regardless of the size of the service. from GoG Galaxy, to Steam, to Origin, to Desura, to even sites like Direct2Drive... no monthly fees just to download and update
PHOENIXZERO
Member
But as others already said, the state of what publishers are doing in terms of their online isn't exactly in Sony or Microsoft's hands. But yes, having to pay to play online is bullshit and I'm done defending Sony excuses for it since it's been nearly two years and it doesn't seem like any of the promises they offered with PS+ becoming mandatory have come to pass and at the absolute very least it should've come with covering dedicated servers for games. Just like with MS is basically just "easy money" for them.
I have PS+ but the only reason I do have it has been for the games (even if 99% of them I'll probably never play) and discounts, I don't even own a PS4 yet. >_>
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
PS+ GAMES are nice. the fact that it took over 5 years to get more cloud storage isn't
Lalalandia
Member
By making voice chat and parties a system level service with their own API and access to the reserved CPU/RAM allocation. Now even when the game fails (crash to XMB, split party, dropped voip) I can still hear my mates and moan about the game. It got so bad on PS3 myself and my mates used our phones for Skype more often than not. As these are services the devs don't have to wrestle quite so hard to make that work.
Honestly if the PS3 hadn't proved devs were shite at making this work off their own back I'd be more pissed about having to pay. If the service didn't come with games to sweeten the deal I'd be pissed for me Sony has balanced the obviously mercenary aspects of the deal with enough offsets for me to hop in. I've no doubt that there is a hefty margin on PS+ but there is also a some overhead in dev assistance on the API side also.
But even if you disagree there are online experiences to be had without PS+ (Warframe, soon World of Tanks, War Thunder, etc) that also benefit from the better chat stuff.
Zombegoast
Member
Does Sony and still maybe MS include 48 hour trial when buying a game? I remember 360 games doing that.
GFWL attempted and look where it is now.
GFWL attempted and look where it is now.
Lalalandia
Member
You're forgetting that each of these services charges you upfront as part of their retailer margin, Valve's strategy with Steam API has been to encourage/force users to install their client to use the 'free' features. Thanks to their user experience more user's buy from Valve they keep all the retailer margin (rumoured at 30%), unlike PC Sony/MS make up a much smaller percentage of the retail base so they're not in the same position as Valve.
Augemitbutter
Member
paid online is the worst. good way to limit your audience even more. niche online turns into a graveyard even faster.
Not sure about the others, but Steam uses P2P which originates from their content servers. Reduces cost of running significantly.
Also this.
Some new games include two week trials for X1 games if I recall correctly. Halo 5 does that.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting you, I just wanna read about it.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
That's great but you don't need PS+ for the voice chat and party: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/10/30/ps4-the-ultimate-faq-north-america/
Lalalandia
Member
Well I don't need voice chat or party unless I'm playing online sooooo.........
If people buy their game that still uses Steam outside of Steam store, Valve does not get 30%, the store you bought it from does. I don't see how that's any different than Sony/MS with retail? And 30% is pretty industry standard as far as I've heard.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
So the online hasn't improved and all you cared about was the voice chat.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
The 30% cut is barely more, if not the same, as MS/Sony/Ninty. And that entirely ignores other stores that don't take large cuts (GoG, GMG, etc), physical copies (still big in Europe) and resellers (GMG again, BundleStars, Humble, etc)
That doesn't change the fact that it's free, and that plenty of people use it for cross game chat.
That's incorrect unless it was a very very recent update that I am not aware of.
Lalalandia
Member
The 'online' you complain about is entirely in the hands of the individual devs/publishers so no I wasn't expecting Sony or MS to fix the across the board trend to use P2P. And hell yes I care about chat the whole point of online for me is catching up with my mates so having that work matters a lot to me.
Valve accounts for a significant proportion of all PC sales, I look forward to seeing GoG try and provide a solid alternative but with Valve's overwhelming success they can easily carry some 'freeloaders' who buy keys from 3rd party stores. Neither MS or Sony are anywhere near reaching Valve levels of retail domination so relying on the retail 30% is a non-runner for them (I actually have no issue w/30% it's the standard). More to the point the need to have a physical retail presence to sell the consoles themselves restricts the ability of Sony/MS to force more purchases via their online platforms.
And this functionality was present on PS3 (albeit not cross game, just as an app) and it was the deficiencies of the online chat experience that made PS3 online so bad for me.
alexandros
Banned
This comparison has no basis on reality. Sony and Microsoft get 20% of every retail game sold for their platforms and 30% of every digital game sold through their services. Valve only makes money from sales than happen through the Steam store. Valve makes nothing from other services, nothing from retail games, nothing from games that have their own services such as League of Legends or World of Tanks. To suggest that Valve is in a better position is simply crazy.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
They should actually, if I pay for a service I expect to have a minimum of quality to it. If I pay for multiplayer because Sony is acting as a middle man I expect them to ensure a certain level of quality.
Sony and MS also take a cut from every game sold at retail and a even bigger one digitally. Since games sells way better on console then on PC so they're making way more money that way then Valve.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Only text chat on PS3 cross game
Aces&Eights
Member
I think because Plus arrived well into the PS3 life's span, that the game offerings were quite plentiful and good. We are only rounding the bend for the 2nd year of the PS4 so there just isn't a lot out there. (Publishers are not wanting to hand over mostly new games)
I think in a couple more years we should start seeing the trend of a really solid AAA game each month on Plus and a handful of mid tier and indies. I let my Plus lapse on 10/01/15 because aside from the online storage for saves, I havn't used it for a darn thing.
I think in a couple more years we should start seeing the trend of a really solid AAA game each month on Plus and a handful of mid tier and indies. I let my Plus lapse on 10/01/15 because aside from the online storage for saves, I havn't used it for a darn thing.
Demoskinos
Member
I really don't care about the reason. I wanna play my games online. So I pay for it. And I get a bunch of other stuff like access to a growing library of games and cloud saves which are a godsend.
Chobel
Member
So MS is not really subsidizing for 3rd party, so how does that justify the cost to you?
And you're wrong... Steam disagrees with you, Nintendo disagrees with you, heck 3rd party publishers disagree with you because they use their own servers.
And even assuming MS need XBLG for financing their own dedicated servers, why do you have to pay for XBLG in 3rd party games which doesn't use MS servers?
Honestly, where is the online money getting spent on from Sony? Im sure the "im just the middleman here" excuse doesnt really hold up and nothing stops them from demanding dedicated servers for any game that requires PS+ and make all the P2P games avaiable to play online without.
PS+ was around on PS3, this really seems a case of "Hey, M$ got some free money, should we get some too?" and people just swallowing it for no particular reason other than "my friends play online so i should play online". Fuck that. Thank god im older and the vast majority of my friends play on PC.
PS+ was around on PS3, this really seems a case of "Hey, M$ got some free money, should we get some too?" and people just swallowing it for no particular reason other than "my friends play online so i should play online". Fuck that. Thank god im older and the vast majority of my friends play on PC.
FloorEssence
Neo Member
Paying for discounts, which are rarely even half as good as Steam discounts, is like the most insane argument I've seen in this thread.
Also you mention cloud saves in your other post? Yeah Steam and pretty much every free service has those, it's 2015, cloud storage is not new technology. That's what they want you to believe though, you have been sucked into their marketing.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Yup, and they frequently go on sale for $40 or less. I don't think it's ideal but it's not worth getting all upset about or saying you won't buy a platform because of it. Also the kind of attitude that console players are just too stupid to realize they shouldn't pay for it is insulting and immature.
I don't think it's great either but if you want access to the network, you pay, if not you don't. This isn't new. And Sony would have been stupid to leave money on the table after microsoft's success with XBL last gen.
As someone who plays a lot of CS:Go i would honestly be happy to pay $40 a year if valve would give 120 tick servers and better banning of cheaters, smurfs, derankers, and griefers just for that one game. Steam is very hands off which is good in some ways, bad in others.
Who does that? I want to play Bloodborne and The Last of Us with my friends, because that's a lot of fun. And both happen to be Sony exclusives. So...
7DollarHagane
Banned
This is a key misunderstanding among the militant PC players creeping into this thread. They don't care about those games for various reasons so they assume you shouldn't either.
Sony and MS have built platforms and networks with exclusive content that encourages people to spend money with them. They run a business. Steam runs a different business. Take your pick, or just enjoy what you want. There is no argument that the price of XBL or PS+ is so extravagant as to cause offense or harm to someone who has enough disposable income for a $350 console and $60 games.