By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Playstation: 21 Million PS+ Subscribers

Powers shouldn't have been renewed. It's one of the worst shows I've ever seen. The acting is terrible even by people who can act. Come up with something better and cancel that thing.



Around the Network
Kerotan said:
DonFerrari said:

I bet you are a very happy frog with this info right? I know I'm

You could say,  I'm jumping with joy.... Hehehehe and 

We are jumping around.

Nem said:
It's very sad when half the PS4 base gets duped like that. How many millions are paying so a few thousand play online all the time? Ah well... at least i never have. ^^

Online play on the PC ftw!

What are you talking about? If very little users (4M) had PS+ because of the games and now 21M have because of the Multiplayer how are million paying for a few thousando to play online? Most of them are paying so they can play online, if they didn't want to play online they could stop paying for Plus.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Nem said:
Mike_L said:

Well, I subscribed to PS+ far before PS4 was released due to the free games on PS3.

These are just some of the titles you got on PS3:
-snip-

etc.

 

Nowadays, you get 6 games a month for $4. Still pretty good value to me (or else I wouldn't subscribe).

If Nintendo ever launched a similar service (free games + online play) wouldn't you be interested?

If you are getting for the games, fair enough. Not that they don't have great sales anyways, so even if you didn't sub you would be able to get them by as cheap or cheaper.

But that in no way justifies hiding the acess to online gaming to dupe people into paying for something they hardly use under the guise that you "might" get some good free games. PS4 has shown you mostly indie games.

And no i would not. And i find it sad that you are trying to right me off as a Nintendo fan. I have more Sony systems than Nintendo and microsoft system you know? Doesn't make me a Sony fan either. I will point out the smelly stuff anywhere i see it.

Nobody is being duped. And he didn't "right you off" because you are a Nintendo fan, he simply posed you a question and you're being very defensive about it.

It's quite simply, Nintendos network is a long way behind PS and Xbox. It will always be way way behind unless it becomes a paid for service. I'm happy to pay £4 a month for a good network, discounts, free games for my PS4/PS3 and Vita. If you think the games haven't been up to par, I can agree with you on some level on the PS4(it's very subjective though and every body will either find more or less value than me). Even not being up to standard of the PS3 days I still get more than my moneys worth in games that I do like.

Even so, nobody is being duped, you can see what games were given away for free in past month and Sony release a list of free games prior to a new month of PS+. It's not like you pay your £4 and Sony spins a big wheel to decide which game you get, "Sorry son, you've got Q'bert reboot. Wanna spin again? That's £4".

If you don't play a lot of games then the chances are you will get a lot less value out of it with free games and discounts. If you don't care if you console as a modern network then you won't see the point for paying for it. Sony is very clear what you get and if you don't see value in it then you don't buy it. 



DonFerrari said:
Kerotan said:

You could say,  I'm jumping with joy.... Hehehehe and 

We are jumping around.

Nem said:
It's very sad when half the PS4 base gets duped like that. How many millions are paying so a few thousand play online all the time? Ah well... at least i never have. ^^

Online play on the PC ftw!

What are you talking about? If very little users (4M) had PS+ because of the games and now 21M have because of the Multiplayer how are million paying for a few thousando to play online? Most of them are paying so they can play online, if they didn't want to play online they could stop paying for Plus.

That is the gullable pov. There is no service there that is worth a monthly fee. People pay it to have acess. They are gullable for doing so. It's a service that is super cheap to mantain. It only incurs in losses for the company if you are a hardcore online player. There is a big difference and many seem gullable enough to not see it. 

Hardcore online players should pay a fee. Casuals shouldn't. It's bad for themselves, for the health of online games for there to be a paywall and for future business practices. Those paying are beeing duped and making it worse for everyone.

If you still don't understand, save it. 



Nem said:
Mike_L said:

Well, I subscribed to PS+ far before PS4 was released due to the free games on PS3.

These are just some of the titles you got on PS3:
-snip-

etc.

 

Nowadays, you get 6 games a month for $4. Still pretty good value to me (or else I wouldn't subscribe).

If Nintendo ever launched a similar service (free games + online play) wouldn't you be interested?

If you are getting for the games, fair enough. Not that they don't have great sales anyways, so even if you didn't sub you would be able to get them by as cheap or cheaper.

But that in no way justifies hiding the acess to online gaming to dupe people into paying for something they hardly use under the guise that you "might" get some good free games. PS4 has shown you mostly indie games.

And no i would not. And i find it sad that you are trying to right me off as a Nintendo fan. I have more Sony systems than Nintendo and microsoft system you know? Doesn't make me a Sony fan either. I will point out the smelly stuff anywhere i see it.

And I find it sad that you're painting me as someone who is easily duped. I wouldn't subscribe if it wasn't worth it for me. I doubt so many others would. The people that've bought 24.7 amiibo aren't duped either as long as it's worth it to them.

Rather PS+ or amiibo than microtransactions in Kim Kardashian's latest phone game. But again, if they find value in a virtual lipgloss and virtual hair extensions, I won't waste my life standing in their way.

 

I don't know from which manufacturer you have the most consoles. I just thought you'd be interested in potential Nintendo products (and services) based on the far majority of the latest posts in your history.

It was a genuine question. Not trying to "right you off as a Nintendo fan". Now I know you'd never support a paid Nintendo service offering free games and online play. That's fair, man. I'm not saying everyone has to love PS+ and XBL Gold.



Around the Network

Free Games, Bigger Discounts, Cloud Saves, PS+ is a great service!!!



Nem said:
DonFerrari said:

We are jumping around.

What are you talking about? If very little users (4M) had PS+ because of the games and now 21M have because of the Multiplayer how are million paying for a few thousando to play online? Most of them are paying so they can play online, if they didn't want to play online they could stop paying for Plus.

That is the gullable pov. There is no service there that is worth a monthly fee. People pay it to have acess. They are gullable for doing so. It's a service that is super cheap to mantain. It only incurs in losses for the company if you are a hardcore online player. There is a big difference and many seem gullable enough to not see it. 

Hardcore online players should pay a fee. Casuals shouldn't. It's bad for themselves, for the health of online games for there to be a paywall and for future business practices. Those paying are beeing duped and making it worse for everyone.

If you still don't understand, save it. It's too late for you.

I don't play online and I don't need your condescending tone.

The service is very clear on how much it cost and what it offers. So by the very laws of free market the customers are deciding if the value is bigger than the cost and for at least half of the userbase it seems like it.

Seems more like you are aggravated because half the userbase disagree with you, so they must be gullible and wrong but you are the brighten one because you don't use it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Nem said:

That is the gullable pov. There is no service there that is worth a monthly fee. People pay it to have acess. They are gullable for doing so. It's a service that is super cheap to mantain. It only incurs in losses for the company if you are a hardcore online player. There is a big difference and many seem gullable enough to not see it. 

Hardcore online players should pay a fee. Casuals shouldn't. It's bad for themselves, for the health of online games for there to be a paywall and for future business practices. Those paying are beeing duped and making it worse for everyone.

If you still don't understand, save it. It's too late for you.

Lol How many wrong statements can you fit into one post. I've bolded the area's where you are wrong

I can't wait to see your reaction to NX having paid online.



Sony have just taken £12 out of my account for 3 months of free game, 3 months of discounts and 3 months of PS4 online. I feel sooo duped right now.



SWORDF1SH said:
Sony have just taken £12 out of my account for 3 months of free game, 3 months of discounts and 3 months of PS4 online. I feel sooo duped right now.

I think you should sue them.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."