it's easy to include the bullet point of what he says which could be interpreted as some fluff piece that psn online is a great thing and multiplayer is a part of that but it's only when you specify that online play requires psn+ are you saying outright that you do not get access to online play without paying.
Regarding the non psn+ members getting to play single player games for free being a rock solid definition that without psn+ you don't get online play... that doesn't work considering that if you don't have psn+ you can still play fortnite/paladins and a myriad of other online games on the ps4 100% online without paying for psn+ ever. (any free game is free to play online on psn)
The first time that it was clearly stated that you need psn+ for online play is that footnote to the video. To suggest that every bullet point on that list is only available to those with psn+ would suggest that without psn+ you cannot access any of the discounted games which appear in the psn store which of course is not correct as many games get reduced on the store but some titles receive additional reductions with psn+
Not gonna go in depth about how the footnote also "doesn't lay out the exact plan with the online games though since it's far bigger than just a footnote" or that it contradicts things like how you can still play games like Fortnite online for free. Because I think that conversation won't go anywhere. Things like how certain exceptions like Final Fantasy 14 requiring a separate subscription shouldn't be expected to take up space in their presentation.
But rather, I remember that we were discussing the info from the presentation here on VGC. I don't recall there being any doubt about PS4 online being behind a paywall. And the first article that came up when I looked it up looks like this:
You said "it's easy to include the bullet point of what he says which could be interpreted as some fluff piece that psn online is a great thing and multiplayer is a part of that".
But I disagree there.
On stage he specifically said "For less than 5 dollars a month, members will get..." and then mentioned each bullet point, one by one.
So obviously, non-members will not get these things. That's pretty straight forward. If someone thinks otherwise, then I don't know what to tell you.
If any membership anywhere tells you what members get access to, you wouldn't assume you'll get those things without a membership.
And every bulllet point on the list that we already knew of from before all required a PS Plus membership. So the idea that they would mix in something that doesn't require it would make even less sense, even if he hadn't specified that members get these things.
Not to mention it would be an inconceivable marketing mistake to unnecessarily cause confusion about a free feature that their closest competitor charges money for, by advertising a free feature among features you pay for.
So if anyone was confused, that's primarily on them imo.
And then on top of that, he also said "PS4 gamers that aren't PS Plus members will be able to enjoy the single player games for free." As if it wasn't already obvious enough. I don't see why anyone would reach a different conclusion.
Though to your point, they're not crystal clear about the negatives in their messaging. But to call that "nuts", rather than standard PR, and to suggest that the video you linked was the only relevant source of this information, and not even mention the presentation, is misleading imo.
Would you also say it's nuts that Nintendo didn't specify that a subscription was 'required' for online play in their reveal video?
Last edited by Hiku - on 25 September 2019
They said it's "included with your membership", much like Sony did in their press conference, which according to what you said "could be interpreted as some fluff piece that Nintendo online is a great thing and Online play and Online multiplayer is a part of that".
But I don't think so. It's standard PR to omit negative connotations when they're not necessary, and it should be clear to most people without it.
As I recall, there was no confusion about online play being locked behind a paywall here either. I don't get the impression that they were hiding this in some fine print somewhere else. But rather that they were presenting a negative in a 'positive' way instead.
Rather than using negative terms that highlight that you're losing something you used to have for free, they're just saying "here's what you get".
That's super basic PR for marketing.
That online play would be behind a paywall was openly presented.