By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Puppyroach on 08 August 2013
Edit Thread
Figgycal said:
Puppyroach said:
This is really silly, so now people are discussing who gives more or less when you pay? Sony recently announced that they will start requiring PS+ for most multiplayer, yet people still think they are some kind of heroes for not requiring it for the recording?

Do not people understand that these are business decisions? If MS´s strategy works, Sony will follow suit. If, however, Sony´s strategy is succesful, MS will follow closely (like, for example, free games). None of them are "good guys" or "bad guys" which Sony showed by starting to require payments for more of their services. They want to make money to stay in this business and make more games avaliable for us gamers.

And, for anyone complaining about all the money everything costs: it is a lot cheaper to be a gamer today than in the 90´s, you get more for less and a lot better deals all the time. So you chill out and start enjoying the games instead :).

You're absolutely right - all businesses want your money in the end; there is no good guy or bad guy when it comes to big businesses. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. There is a pro-consumer way and an anti-consumer way. From the very beginning - Microsoft showed that it was going about things in an anticonsumer way and have only recently changed. Sony on the other hand has done a great job demonstrating the value of PS plus and showing the plethora of features available to non-ps plus memebers while I'm still wondering if I can do ANYTHING without a gold account.

It's not about Sony being heroes for not doing DRM or in this case requiring PS + for this feature. It's about Microsoft doing things wrong and Sony having the common sense to do what people want.

Also chilling out and enjoy games is nice and all, but if nobody complained these businesses would walk all over us.

 


But the thing is - these are added benefits to a games console. If I do not wish to pay for having acces to Skype or Netflix, I can use my computer. Otherwise, I can still use my console as a games machine, which it actually is.

The thing that is strange though, is the way both MS and Sony require payments (starting with the next generation) for multiplayer, which should be seen as an integral part of a game experience. That is in a lot of ways an anti-consumer decision, but I still recognize the fact that all these membership fees for XBLA has given me the best gaming experience by far during any generation, so obviously the money benefits me in some ways.

But I agree, they do make decisions (both of them) in advance of the coming generation that are, in some parts, anti-consumer (although they are actually very benefitial for those of us that pay). I have a very hard time thinking Game recording features and Skype availability should be counted as part of an anti-consumer agenda since they really are just bonuses besides the gaming experience.