ForumsGamesPS4 charges for ONLINE!

46 6863
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

Xbox one failed, being priced at $500, but now PS4, already costing $400, is charging for online play. NINTENDO!

  • 46 Replies
Gamer_Cale
offline
Gamer_Cale
1,378 posts
165

Either way I bet xbox one charges more for online.

wflag10
offline
wflag10
1,276 posts
535

I did a bit of research and here's how it works: When you sign up for PS+, you get 12 Playstation (as in console) and 6 Vita games to download for free. That selection is on a monthly rotation system, but you can redownload any of your previously downloaded games for free as long as you're a PS+ member. If the membership expires, so does your access to those games.


Which automatically works because for this console because you have to have PS+, so dozens of free games for me!

This guy put the entire story of the PS4 and Xbox one together here:

http://www.angryjoeshow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2376

I have a question for all those Xbox one people out there, what would happen if your internet goes out for a couple of days, and your Xbox becomes as useful as a brick, what then?
d_dude
offline
d_dude
3,541 posts
745

What I recall from it was PS+ players will be getting around 20 free games a month to play. I don't know about owning the games, but for $50 a year, 20 games every month sounds awesome.


It's not 20 games a month. I think you get like 12 games instantly when you sign up for PS+. After that every month you get 5 free games. 2 of them for PS Vita.
PauseBreak
offline
PauseBreak
318 posts
9,570

Looks like the PC wins yet one more time.

Mr_Sand
offline
Mr_Sand
673 posts
655

Maybe they will get the PC version of TF2 on the consoles since it is free to play and maybe they will finally figure out cross platform play. That I would love.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,902 posts
21,110

Might sound like a stupid question, so bear with my ignorance.. but you can play the PS4 without bothering with online games, and so, without paying, right? It does not come automatically, right?

Spoiled generation, really. PS2 was great and had no such thing as online games and whatnot. Those are meant for PC anyway, why would I bother playing them on my console...

KentyBK
offline
KentyBK
570 posts
265

Spoiled generation, really.


That's not it. People are complaining because a big thing PS3 did better than 360 was that multiplayer was free. Now Sony turned around and has people pay for something that is free on other platforms (the PC and Nintendo systems).

And considering that big games like COD and the like are pretty big on the Multiplayer aspect, I can understand why people are upset.
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

That's not it. People are complaining because a big thing PS3 did better than 360 was that multiplayer was free.
Exactly, it was their biggest difference and advantage.

pickpocket
offline
pickpocket
5,991 posts
1,810

Might sound like a stupid question, so bear with my ignorance.. but you can play the PS4 without bothering with online games, and so, without paying, right? It does not come automatically, right?

Nope. You can get a ps4 and play offline and never even make a psn account. With the x1, it's different.....
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,306 posts
390

us X1er's
What? What? Seriously? How can you defend that thing? They backed out of their more evil policies, sure, but their camera is still always watching you. It still has the kinect BS. It still costs a lot more. It still grows innumerable insectoid limbs in the night and devours children.

Did you guys know the games they demoed at E3 weren't running on the Xbox1? They were running on Windows 7. Not 8. 7. Microsoft doesn't even trust their OS, let alone their console.

The PS4 is better. But guess what? You don't have to get either. Especially at release, but I recommend skipping them this time.

Now, PS+ online. Look, people saying it's a great value. It's not. Pure and simple. If the free games were a good deal, you wouldn't be forced to buy them. 20 games sounds like a lot for 5 dollars, but they might not be games you want to play. It might be the right choice for some, who want many of those games, but most consumers won't get their value out of the subscription. That's why it exists. That is the gamble Sony is making. If it was a better value for most people than just buying the games they did want, there would be no PS+. Sony is doing it this way because it makes them more money. This fact, by the way, is incredibly obvious if you apply a bit of reason.

Hell, that's why they're holding your online play ransom. To make you take the deal. Otherwise, why would you?
ihsahn
offline
ihsahn
428 posts
245

If the free games were a good deal, you wouldn't be forced to buy them.
That's a stupid, purely theoretical argument. Have you even seen the games they made available? Look at this. Just in June, PS+ users got Deus Ex, Saints Row 3 and Machinarium for free. Those are awesome ****ing games. Previously, they also had games like Infamous 2 and Little Big Planet 2, which are also really really good.

Whether or not "most consumers will get their value out of the subscription" is pure speculation on your part. Great games are available, fact. 5 dollars a month is really cheap for that sort of game quality and way less than you'd spend to actually get them, fact.
You can't just categorically state that PS+ is crap, because it's really not.

It's imposed onto us, sure, it's not ideal, I'd rather have free online, but hey, online costs money now.
It's not "Sony forcing you to pay", they're not "holding your online hostage", it just costs money now. Pay it or don't. Sony maintains the servers. That costs them. They get to choose whether they charge for that service.
It's a step backwards for the consumer, but it's hardly extorsion. In fact, call me what you will, but I think 50 bucks a year for universal online play and access to those PS+ games is far from unreasonable.

Don't like to pay for that? Build yourself a gaming PC or get (hah) a Wii U.

Exactly, it was their biggest difference and advantage.

Not really. The biggest difference between the consoles was always their exclusive lineups. Of which Sony had the superior one, obviously.
mrpoke
offline
mrpoke
11 posts
350

I am quite surprised Sony decided to do this.

Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

You mean Sony and Microsoft are screwing over the consumer just to make some more money? I totally didn't expect that!

kingofwar1234
offline
kingofwar1234
614 posts
1,120

I am quite surprised Sony decided to do this.


I am not. Greed controls the world.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

But guess what? You don't have to get either.


Or, if you're really ****ing rich, you could get both!
Showing 16-30 of 46