Support NeoGAF

[luxsol]

My point is were gonna get screwed anyway with game prices.

It's about content and our expectations though.
Does Zelda need an online multiplayer mode?
Does Final Fantasy MCX?
Did Super Mario World?

Are 10 hour long games worth $40? $50? $60?

Not every game needed online multiplayer or had to be 50 hours long, and yet, the price has been consistent for every generation. A flat fee. This is how it has been for decades. The norm.

Now for the new generation, our expectations should be lowered?
The new normal is that we shouldn't get a complete game for $60 and that games designed to nickel and dime us are "free?"

 

[uncharted86]

Ps2?! they mentioned bc for ps2 games?

Not sure if serious, but PS2 = PlanetSide 2

 

[pixelbox]

Not sure if serious, but PS2 = PlanetSide 2

I totally read what i wanted to read.

 

[Mudkips]

My worry in all this is that PS+'s offerings like free games and discounts will be gimped due to the fact that so many more people will have it compared to now. Can they really keep giving out so many free games and great discounts when a large majority of PS4 owners will have Plus?

They'll just add a new service that gets extra discounts, earlier access to betas, etc.
PS++

 

[mollipen]

Has there been mention of if every player on the same console needs PS+ for online, or if one account gets the entire PS4 the ability to do online multiplayer? That's my biggest concern at the moment.

 

[RMI]

My worry in all this is that PS+'s offerings like free games and discounts will be gimped due to the fact that so many more people will have it compared to now. Can they really keep giving out so many free games and great discounts when a large majority of PS4 owners will have Plus?

you never design a service and then take away features once it builds steam. My guess is that if PS+ subscriptions go up the features will either stay the same or get better.

 

[UrbanRats]

Has there been mention of if every player on the same console needs PS+ for online, or if one account gets the entire PS4 the ability to do online multiplayer? That's my biggest concern at the moment.

The latter.
(mentioned in several interviews, one being Patrick Klepek's on Giant Bomb)

 

[jj984jj]

It's good to see Sony is approaching this the right way and not turning it into XBL.

 

[Felix Lighter]

That's definitely a better response than their go to response at the beginning of this current gen, "you'll get a second job."

 

[Omnistalgic]

I'm not going to use any of these new services and features so why should I have to bear the financial burden for the users that will? Let me play multiplayer for free like everywhere else and charge for all these new services and Share buttons and junk.

And stop saying you're giving "free" games and stuff. It's not free if you have to pay even a penny for it. PS+ costs money. You're not giving away anything free you jerk.


"For the low price of $50 a year, you can get 1 free hamburger each month at the fast food restaurant of your choice!"

Ironically, I feel like your being a jerk in this situation. You don't have to support PS+, but how you view the service your opinion. It doesn't matter what's technically "free" and whats not, when you sign up, you instantly get to play a bunch of games for a year that you may not have. It doesn't matter if it's technically free, it's a rental, whatever the case is, people see value in it, and for you to be smog about people's purchasing decisions, and how they see value is what I would call being a jerk, who thinks there opinions are more valid than others.

Yoshida is simply giving consumers reasons for the change, and actually apologizing for the increase to consumers while giving us some helpful information. No need to be rude dude, you don't have to support the service if you don't want to.

And if you compare the likes of Uncharted/Infamous/LBP/Gravity Rush/VF5 to eating a burger at fast-food, I don't know what to say to you. Not everyone buys games left and right, this is a great value to some gamers, rental service or not.

Kudos to Yoshida for the apology...continuing that good PR baby...PS4U in this house..

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Good to hear him say this. Many people will be able to buy a PS4 and enjoy some awesome f2p games day 1.

 

[NullPointer]

Just seeing some of the confirmations for some free 2 play games. Awesome news.

 

[HarryDemeanor]

I was scared that those games would be behind PS+ but this eases my concerns. Thank you based Yosp.

 

[davepoobond]

=O

So, games that were $60 and included both single player and online multiplayer didn't exist this gen? Last gen? the generation before it (on PC/Mac)?

Too bad maybe you should just play free to play games instead of fee to play games

 

[frequency]

Ironically, I feel like your being a jerk in this situation. You don't have to support PS+, but how you view the service your opinion. It doesn't matter what's technically "free" and whats not, when you sign up, you instantly get to play a bunch of games for a year that you may not have. It doesn't matter if it's technically free, it's a rental, whatever the case is, people see value in it, and for you to be smog about people's purchasing decisions, and how they see value is what I would call being a jerk, who thinks there opinions are more valid than others.

Yoshida is simply giving consumers reasons for the change, and actually apologizing for the increase to consumers while giving us some helpful information. No need to be rude dude, you don't have to support the service if you don't want to.

And if you compare the likes of Uncharted/Infamous/LBP/Gravity Rush/VF5 to eating a burger at fast-food, I don't know what to say to you. Not everyone buys games left and right, this is a great value to some gamers, rental service or not.

Kudos to Yoshida for the apology...continuing that good PR baby...PS4U in this house..

It's great if people see value in their subscription. I don't question the value of PS+ for people who like it. It's awesome for you no doubt. I'm not blind. I see praise for it everywhere and I think it's justified praise.

It's still not free.

It's not about opinions. If something costs money, it's not free. Saying something is "free" when you take money for it is dishonest.

I'm not questioning the value for people. I'm saying it's not free. And saying it is giving free things is being a jerk.
"Sorry you must bear this financial burden. But there are some "free" things you get for paying!"

And PS+ isn't optional anymore. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, it's required for most online multiplayer and it absolutely does not need to be.

And I find more value in a burger than game rentals several months or even years after release. But that wasn't the point. The point is just if there is exchange of money for goods or services, you can't call it free no matter how cheap it is.

He gave reasons and apologised. Fine. I don't like his reason and his apology doesn't mean anything when I still have to bear the financial burden for people like you who do use those features. That's just simply not fair.


I also like that you admit it's a "purchase". Which means it's... not free.

And the irony here is that you're saying I'm a jerk for not accepting other people's opinions while you're attacking me for having a differing opinion on the value of PS+ to me. Not once did I say anything about the service to other people. I just said it's of no use to me and I'm bearing the financial burden for others and telling me I get "free" things for paying is an insult to me.

 

[Aureon]

Wow.

So the games i buy for $60 that have online multiplayer, i can't play for free.

But the games i don't pay a penny for has free online?

Fucked up.

Basically, if the game publisher has it's own servers and online infrastructure, you get a free pass.

If the bulk of the work is on Sony, you have to pay Sony for their service.

 

[Knoxcore]

My worry in all this is that PS+'s offerings like free games and discounts will be gimped due to the fact that so many more people will have it compared to now. Can they really keep giving out so many free games and great discounts when a large majority of PS4 owners will have Plus?

If they decrease the number of free games while increasing the number of discounts, I'm fine with that tbh.

 

[BobTheFork]

Shocking News: well exlained smart decision by Sony

 

[EatinOlives]

I'm still pissed that they're deciding to charge online for this, but I did manage to squeeze one positive out of this.

Apparently one of the reasons why PS+ is so much better in the EU in terms of game selection is that there are far more people subscribing to the service, giving more money for Sony to then turn around and pay publishers to have their games on the service. If PS+ is mandatory for online, the amount of subscribers could surge, giving Sony a lot of money to throw around to publishers.

That is, if Sony doesn't go ahead and just pocket the extra profit MS-style.

 

[Tylahedras]

That's a surprisingly smart and reasonable stance for them to take.

 

[Kung Fu Grip]

I just want to know if i will be able to sign into PSN and see my friends list, access the store, download demos etc. without PS+?????

 

[Beautifully Shaped Monsters]

By all reports PS+ is such great value for a very significant chunk of people. It seems like the service should and would be able to stand on its own without putting MP behind it.

I don't have a PS3 at the moment, but when I did I would typically buy the games I was interested in at launch or close to, and not bother with others. I would also only very occasionally play MP, so I'm not sure I would really bother with signing up with another subscription just for that, so in those terms this policy represents a decrease in value for me for what I get. Not a significant one, I admit, but still I feel it's disappointing.

 

[hitmon]

It's great if people see value in their subscription. I don't question the value of PS+ for people who like it. It's awesome for you no doubt. I'm not blind. I see praise for it everywhere and I think it's justified praise.

It's still not free.

It's not about opinions. If something costs money, it's not free. Saying something is "free" when you take money for it is dishonest.

I'm not questioning the value for people. I'm saying it's not free. And saying it is giving free things is being a jerk.

I agree totally. It is a fact, those games are not free since you have to pay for the PS plus subscription. Once your sub ends, you lose access to those games. It really irks me when I see the statement about "Free games" are included with PSN Plus.

I think its great those free to play games will be outside the paywall.

 

[Darknight]

So Free 2 Play games can still be F2P unlike LIVE. (and actual decent games to boot!)

Good.

I just want to know if i will be able to sign into PSN and see my friends list, access the store, download demos etc. without PS+?????

WTF how is this even a question. Cmon be real. Those are system level functions.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

You know I do appreciate that they're apologizing for requiring the fee. Microsoft never even did that. Sure the fee is still there but at least Sony acknowledges that for the consumer it kind of sucks. Even if they really like making that cash. They at least acknowledged it sucks for us.

 

[Ifrit]

You know I do appreciate that they're apologizing for requiring the fee. Microsoft never even did that. Sure the fee is still there but at least Sony acknowledges that for the consumer it kind of sucks. Even if they really like making that cash. They at least acknowledged it sucks for us.

Yep, same here. At least they know it sucks for us

 

[Kung Fu Grip]

WTF how is this even a question. Cmon be real. Those are system level functions.

You can't on 360 if i remember correctly.

 

[thumb]

You know I do appreciate that they're apologizing for requiring the fee. Microsoft never even did that. Sure the fee is still there but at least Sony acknowledges that for the consumer it kind of sucks. Even if they really like making that cash. They at least acknowledged it sucks for us.

I was actually astonished that he apologized for the "financial burden". When was the last time anyone in this industry did that? I understand that he was speaking in a PR capacity, but it was at least respectfully communicated.