Posted December 9, 2013 PS Plus is a very weird thing for me. If I had a PS3/PS4, I would definitely buy it the instant I got the console because it gives me instant access to a library, but I do agree with the people calling out the defence that it's okay to move the Playstation Network multiplayer service behind it. I can see why people are defending it, if you're all ready paying for PS Plus, why give a shit? But the fact of the matter is online multiplayer is now behind a barrier and that's not right. Sure, you can say those funds prevent these services from becoming laughably poor like Nintendo's offering, but you don't really need the funds for it. Some one said it before, if PS Plus was such an amazing deal (which I personally think it is), why hide a vital feature that's been done for quite a while on other platforms for free behind it? It's like the whole Xbox Live/Gold thing, if Microsoft really believed Gold to be cutting edge in what it offers, why not allow Silver members to play online multiplayer? Kind of disappointed in Sony, sure it offers a lot of value, but it's setting a precedent about what should and should not be open to the average player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 9, 2013 Well if it is essentially 10% cash back, they should just do as PS Plus and give members 10% off when they buy it, not try and force them back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) why hide a vital feature that's been done for quite a while on other platforms for free behind it? To make money, pretty much. Microsoft is their competition (not really PC, and definitely not Wii U), and the X1 is pretty much inferior in nearly every way, so they know they can level the playing field and charge for online too and still get away with it (which was the case, since the PS4 sold so well). I think it's a shame they're now forcing charges. But I know why they're doing it - when PSN was free on PS3 it started out not as good as XBL, so the tradeoff for it being free was a dip in quality. Now there is pretty much no difference (in fact, PSN is probably better now if only for the OS/party chat). They can make more money by charging everyone, since it's not like customers can go for a different console with free online and get a similar experience. Well, maybe PC, but a lot of casuals get lost with that. Edited December 9, 2013 by Sheikah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2013 To make money, pretty much. Microsoft is their competition (not really PC, and definitely not Wii U), and the X1 is pretty much inferior in nearly every way, so they know they can level the playing field and charge for online too and still get away with it (which was the case, since the PS4 sold so well). Well yeah, it was kind of a rhetorical question haha. It's just such a shame to see only the loner putting multiplayer behind a pay wall last gen to find now the majority do it. It's pretty disappointing, I can definitely agree with what those arguing against it are saying. But it's hilarious how this entire argument would probably flip if Sony didn't have this system and Nintendo did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2013 It's just such a shame to see only the loner putting multiplayer behind a pay wall last gen to find now the majority do it. This sentence is confusing me... are you talking about Microsoft or Sony? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2013 This sentence is confusing me... are you talking about Microsoft or Sony? Sorry, I'm pretty bad at my own native language.. Basically, it's a shame that we now have two companies with multiplayer behind a pay wall this generation (therefore, a majority), compared to only a loner doing it last generation (Microsoft). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2013 I don't think Nintendo should charge for online, they should keep it free, but they should offer a Netflix like service for their virtual Console. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2013 In addition to that, if you get say a download code for Mario for £40 from GAME, it will still calculate the points as if it is the price at the eShop. That's the part that makes it nice. I've bought a few download codes from GAME (got one for myself for Pikmin 3 when it got released early) and you get the full value of DDP points taken from the eShop RRP, despite paying less than the actual eShop price Makes some games quite a bit cheaper than their physical counterparts at time of release (SM3DW for instance would only cost £37.99 - while the physical version sells for £40+ online - Shopto are currently doing it for £39.99) Buying direct from the eShop is a total rip, but the download codes combined with the DDP can make the prices a LOT more competitive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 10, 2013 I got SM3DW on release for £34 from Wow HD (and Flubit were beating the Amazon price for about that too). Just gotta shop around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 11, 2013 I don't think Nintendo should charge for online, they should keep it free, but they should offer a Netflix like service for their virtual Console. I'd be satisfied/happy with that. Or, if they did more with WiiUWare/Indie games and had those on some sort of subscription. The idea of paying for online play (after you've already paid for the console, the game and your monthly broadband) really is a turn off and I doubt it would be something I'd pay for. I'm not a massive online gamer to begin with, so this wouldn't help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
