The lights are on
Given the success or failure of Xbox Live gold membership depending on the user and the wonderful Plus membership that Sony introduced to encourage players to pay to play with discounted items and free games. Although it doesn't seem likely that Sony would switch up it's formula assuming that Plus is a success and would want to keep it's PS3 fans happy with free online services. But playing devils advocate let's say Sony does charge for it's core online experiences and due to the online fee they were able to improve their online structure and keep it much more secure. Would you pay?
It's already confirmed that you will have to pay for PS+ to play online, and it's no different from Microsoft. I hope they use the money to improve PSN. It's going to be less than $5 a month.
They already do use the money to improve PSN, It's why you get discounts on almost everything and free games with PS+
I will not pay.
To me pay-to-play games distasteful, and for consoles it seems like it is just a slap in the face all around.
First off we have the fact you have purchased exclusive hardware from Sony to play the game on. Second we have purchased a game with some of the money from my purchase going to the game designers and some of it going to Sony. Third we have the fact that Sony (who is not alone, Microsoft and Nintendo practice this as well), charges the game developer royalty fees for releasing the game on their console, that is right the people that do the real work in making your console of choice come to life get charged for making the game. And now if Sony adds a pay-to-play-online fee it is just plain greedy; I have already bought the console, I already have payed royalty feels in the game price, and the game developers have paid their royalty fees for releasing their game on the PS4, and Sony wants more? What dose Kazuo Hirai just buy a new Ferrari when his old one gets dirty instead of taking it to a car wash like the rest of us?
As a sort of off-shoot from the PS4 but related to the pay-to-play category I like to look at Blizzard who have pay-to-play titles. Now I know I will get all the pay-to-play fan-boys excited by mentioning this, but it is the cold hard truth. You have millions of players who pay monthly fees to play their game online. On average Blizzard rakes in just a little over $1 billion per a quarter in profits, and for the most of it I cannot complain about any of it being a dishonestly earned profit, people bought and paid for their services and products on their own will. And now the fan-boys of pay to play say that pay-to-play is the way to go because it creates revenue for the game company to update and fix their products and provide services and support for their product. Which in a perfect world this is true, but it is not a perfect world. Servers experience the same amount of down-time and problems as the other servers that are not pay to play, support and updates are about the same, if not worse as it can seem like it is forever stuck in a beta stage by having to download a new patch/update every time you turn around (which has all its frustrations as well). When I am expected to shell out full retail price for the game and then pay fees to play the game on top of it, I expect the experience to be at least 99% perfect for that.
I pay monthly (actually quarterly) fees for a dedicated virtual web server that has better support and service than Blizzard offers and they work on a fraction of the budget Blizzard does. Don't get me wrong, it is not like I hate Blizzard, they are just the perfect example for why I think pay-to-play games are a joke.
And if Sony does go with a pay-to-play fee this could easily discourage customers from buying a new PS4, with all the extra fees involved why not just spend the extra money on a good gaming PC?
sure. this gen no online games really stuck out for me. if i wanted to play a multiplayer game i'd just play resistance 2. the next gen seems to have more dynamic and engaging multiplayer games that seem to make paying a fee more worth it. i wouldn't pay a fee just to play team deathmatch on 15 different games.
Yes. All you have to do is purchase PS+ for $50 a year and you get all the freebies. Great deal IMO and they'll use the money to make improvements for the PSN. Win win as far as I'm concerned.
NO! I just read in my latest issue of Game Informer that Ps4 will "REQUIRE" PlayStation Plus... to play online at all... I already pay for my internet. I love my PS3 and I loved my PS2... but if this is there new Policy... I got my internet so I could game online and the PS3 gave us FREE access... PlayStation Plus is just that an added bonus for the people who want it... it should never be a requirement, Thank you
I've paid for PS+ since the free month we got for the hack a while back. That little taste got me hooked, and although I don't like the idea that we are being forced to pay for PS4 multiplayer, I never planned on letting my subscription run out anyways so I'll keep paying regardless.
sony has stated that you will have to buy the ps+ to play online multiplayer. and because of it I bought ps+. also they said that they were going to get rid of network passes.
Gladly, so long as the service is great, the system performs well, and the games are awesome enough to play online.
Breathe life, for you are not alone.....Breathe life, inside your heart of stone (BREATHE IN LIFE!) [Breathe Life by Killswitch Engage (The End of Heartache: Bonus Track Edition)]
Yes, I dont see the problem with paying a fee if im going to be using it a lot. Its not that big of a deal.
Not at first, usually there aren't to many launch titles im gonna wait for a couple months to make sure its worth paying for a whole year. I don't want to not have anything to really play and know my subscription is going to waste