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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS4 Now requires PS+ for MULTIPLAYER!

 

Are you jumping out because of the loss of free multiplayer?

Yes 191 17.83%
 
No 708 66.11%
 
See Results 172 16.06%
 
Total:1,071

sad part is a lot of people will eat this shit up, just like quite a few people did with Xbox Live. Paying for online is pure bull shit! I'm going with a Wii U and PC this gen. Maybe I'll buy a PS4 later on when they actually has exclusive games I'm interested in. But I'm not gonna pay for online. I'm paying my bill and that's enough for me.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network
The Fury said:
iceland said:
So now Sony fans are okay with it? Interesting

I wish that was the case. The majority of people who are saying it is okay, they are the ones that seems already happy to part with their money for PS+ so it make little difference on the grand scale of things. For me, a PS3 owner who likes to play online and has done for free and doesn't pay for PS+, it pisses me off.

X-box Live is a service that has certain benefits over PSN because it was paid for, I'd expect as much. Now Sony have to keep up, so to speak, their games rental is a great feature which many liked but with Live new 'here are some free games', Sony have to make up for it by giving more, and taking away one feature isn't giving more.

I won't be buying a PS4 at launch or anywhere near as long as many of the games I want are coming out on PS3. Only way they could help is by including a year PS+ in the £350 cost, or change it to a flat £5 for the entir year to play as many games online as you want but if you want to get the free games and discounts, storage etc, you pay more.

As a multi console owner I would have to pay 2 subscriptions now, which sucks. Totally agree if you a system new they should throw in a year subscription, it'll be nice. I'm sure some have problems with it, looking at N4G (god knows why I still use that site) 99% of the people there just don't seem to care although they were poking fun at MS doing it earlier that day...



slowmo said:
iceland said:
So now Sony fans are okay with it? Interesting


Looking at the post below yours, apparently so.

I am not okay with it. All these people who are calling hypocrites don't understand that there were people who were paying for PS+ already and nothing changed for them, but for people who didn't have PS+ it definitely changes things.



has anyone forget that it is not backwards compatible ?



If the new PS+ and requirement to pay for multi-player was as insultingly bad as XBL has been for the last few years when contrasted against PS+, that would be a deal breaker. So, if I was asked to pay for the right to access P2P online, and remove Netflix, Youtube, and web browser paywalls. yet still have ads plastered everywhere, I would have rejected it like I rejected the 360 version of XBLG. As it is, the new PS+ being required for online is not ideal, but hardly an issue at all.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Around the Network

Remind me why this is ok with some here all of a sudden? Im not paying subscription fees just to access the full potential of a purchased game. Online multiplayer is free on Wii, Wii U, PS3, Vita, 3DS and PC so what is the problem with PS4? Im not paying subscription fees when i will be the server on P2P games. I want to get a PS4 but this is nonsense. PS4 by itself will cost a hell of a lot more than $400 it seems.

Also there is no such thing as FREE GAMES on PS+. If you stop paying you cant play those games so they are not FREE and never were intended to be FREE. You pay for access to those games and i have no problem with people doing that if they choose but paying just to play online multiplayer makes no sense.



iceland said:
mantlepiecek said:

Are people comparing paying for PS+ and paying for gold? They are vastly different, and plus is ridiculously amazing for somebody who has more than one PS console that supports it.

It is still not a rip-off like gold was and is. People like me who don't like to pay a subscription for anything will have a problem with it.


Are they vastly different?

Both now require a paywall to access multiplayer

Both offer exclusive deals for the service

Now the only difference is that Sony lets you borrow games as long as you have the service

Unless I'm missing something big, for the record I've always been against paying for multiplayer I just find it so jarring that Sony fans are now fine with the argument they've been using since the ps3 came out. Now that gold is getting free games on 360 and if they keep that going into Xbox One, is there much of a difference if any? 

Yeah, they are very different. You get twelve games or something on PS3, and then there discounts, PS Vita games if you have a PS Vita, and on top of that PS4 games. It is not going to be called a rip-off by anyone, that is for sure.



Paying for Ps+ is not a big deal, specially if there´s additional content for free. The console has a reasonable price. The only letdown for me is the lack of backward compatibility.



mantlepiecek said:

Yeah, they are very different. You get twelve games or something on PS3, and then there discounts, PS Vita games if you have a PS Vita, and on top of that PS4 games. It is not going to be called a rip-off by anyone, that is for sure.

Have agree; calling PSN+ a "rip-off" is pretty much ridiculous unless you are the rare, rare bird who is planning on buying a new console during the launch window, but only buy 2-4 games for it per year and only play it sporadically with weeks or months in between games/active console time. 

Between all the content a subscription gives its users access to, unless you play a huge amount of games per week and buy a lot of new release games, technically, one could play nothing but the games PSN+ gives without ever buying any games. It's actually a pretty crazy but viable budget gamer option.

The instant collection for the PSV for instance, was pretty ridiculous, seeing as how they gave away some of the best titles the platform has seen to date. 

Often times I did temporary subscriptions just for the discounts when there were enough promos being done through PSN+ and broke even. If you download a lot of stuff, that $50 subscription would break even after a few months at most. 



i think the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sony welcomes XBOX Gamers to PS4 by providing a experience they are comfortable with"



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’