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

Forums - Gaming - Multiplayer behind PSN+ will hurt online games not called CoD

brendude13 on 16 June 2013
Wright said:
cmeese47 said:
Or you spend 50 dollars and get the games for 12 months then renew and now you got those games for 24 months. My hard drive is not even big enough to hold all the free stuff PS+ has given me.


Stop paying = stop playing. PS+ games ain't free, but nice, long rentals, buddy.

We're going to keep calling it free stuff whether you like it or not.



Around the Network
kupomogli on 16 June 2013
Wright said:

4.- That's cool for, let's say, The Cave or Vanquish. But try beating Demon's Souls or X-COM within days. You'll find yourself buying 3-months subscriptions or renewing another month if you want to finish it.

While most people probably wouldn't be able to beat Demon's Souls without help, I beat the game without having to get help one of the times I've replayed it.  The hardest boss in the game, in my opinion, is the flame beast boss.  I beat Dark Souls and never summoned any help.

Also X-Com doesn't have any online within the single player campaign.  There's an online multiplayer and it's only five different maps where you've got a point limit to create a team of up to six characters against the other player who can do the same. 

There are very few games that have online that are linked along with the single player.  The only games that do have that are Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, White Knight Chronicles 2(quests only,) Armored Core 5, Test Drive Unlimited 2, and Dragon's Dogma.  Dragon's Dogma is asynchronous though so that would be free if these were PS4 games.  None of these are integral other than Dragon's Dogma and Demon's Souls for some players.  You can ignore other players inviting you to multiplayer or turn off PSN altogether if you want a single player experience on the o ther, so you could very well just purchase them for single player and get the same amount of content just no multiplayer versus. 



Hawkeyejonjon on 16 June 2013
Wright said:
VGKing said:
Wright said:
cmeese47 said:
You are paying for PS+ you get great games for free as well as access to multi player etc. If you think this is bad for gamers then you are wrong. Live really offer nothing but profits for 360 and still people paid for it year after year.


Live gives you free games that once you stop paying, you keep playing. If you stop playing for PS plus you don't keep playing your PS+ games.

 

Both models are bad for gaming, think about it before making absurds comparisons and derailing the thread.

1. You're wrong. For example one of the first games given out on live is Halo 3 right? YOU NEED XBL GOLD TO PLAY THAT GAME. So even if you could continue playing single-player, why would you? Multiplayer is what keeps people playing and it would be useless without it.

2. Also, PS Plus not only gives you more games per month, but they tend to not be 5 years old. PS Plus gives you free games that released during the last year.

3. Why would you stop paying for Plus when you are getting all these free games anyway? On PS4, you need Plus to play multiplayer so that's another reason to continue paying.

4. Games can be beaten within days. It doesn't matter if you lose access to it once your subscription runs out, you already beat the game lmfao. It's not like the game gets deleted off your HDD, it stays there and renewing your PS+ sub takes seconds. You even have the option of buying 3-month subscriptions.


1.- Assassin's Creed 2 needs Gold too?

2.- This is a new model for Live. So long, I'm not complaining. Not the best of the starts, but not bad either.

3.- But that's precisely what turns some people off. Keep on paying.

4.- That's cool for, let's say, The Cave or Vanquish. But try beating Demon's Souls or X-COM within days. You'll find yourself buying 3-months subscriptions or renewing another month if you want to finish it.


1 by all terms yes

2 it isn't the new model for live when it will only last till the Xbox One releases (yes the two free games will stop in November)

3 Than don't pay and play single player (it sucks but that is how it is and how much it costs to keep the network up and with them in a financial problem i can understand why they want to charge online.  I had XBL and didn't mind so this will not affect me)

4 those two games are awesome but understand what you mean 

 

I can understand some peoples problem with this but i don't think much people care. 



For EU PS+, EU PS Store, NA PS+, NA PS Store updates. Come to my thread

[Database] "An Unbiased Review"

Wright on 16 June 2013
kupomogli said:
Wright said:

4.- That's cool for, let's say, The Cave or Vanquish. But try beating Demon's Souls or X-COM within days. You'll find yourself buying 3-months subscriptions or renewing another month if you want to finish it.

While most people probably wouldn't be able to beat Demon's Souls without help, I beat the game without having to get help one of the times I've replayed it.  The hardest boss in the game, in my opinion, is the flame beast boss.  I beat Dark Souls and never summoned any help.

Also X-Com doesn't have any online within the single player campaign.  There's an online multiplayer and it's only five different maps where you've got a point limit to create a team of up to six characters against the other player who can do the same. 


You beat Demon's Souls within days?   I wasn't referring to having online, at all. That's why the other game I said was X-Com. I beat Dark Souls without help too, but not within days.



Wright on 16 June 2013
brendude13 said:
Wright said:
cmeese47 said:
Or you spend 50 dollars and get the games for 12 months then renew and now you got those games for 24 months. My hard drive is not even big enough to hold all the free stuff PS+ has given me.


Stop paying = stop playing. PS+ games ain't free, but nice, long rentals, buddy.

We're going to keep calling it free stuff whether you like it or not.


Yeah. Old habits die hard!



Around the Network
Wright on 16 June 2013
Hawkeyejonjon said:
Wright said:


1.- Assassin's Creed 2 needs Gold too?

2.- This is a new model for Live. So long, I'm not complaining. Not the best of the starts, but not bad either.

3.- But that's precisely what turns some people off. Keep on paying.

4.- That's cool for, let's say, The Cave or Vanquish. But try beating Demon's Souls or X-COM within days. You'll find yourself buying 3-months subscriptions or renewing another month if you want to finish it.


1 by all terms yes

2 it isn't the new model for live when it will only last till the Xbox One releases (yes the two free games will stop in November)

3 Than don't pay and play single player (it sucks but that is how it is and how much it costs to keep the network up and with them in a financial problem i can understand why they want to charge online.  I had XBL and didn't mind so this will not affect me)

4 those two games are awesome but understand what you mean 

 

I can understand some peoples problem with this but i don't think much people care. 


1.- Assassin's Creed 2 doesn't have any online portion, except for DLC. So Gold is not required.

2.- Source?

3.- This entire point is what we're discussing, buddy.

4.- There are more examples!



Wright on 16 June 2013
KylieDog said:
Wright said:
KylieDog said:
PS+ is a service many people have chose to get without the multiplayer of PS3 stuck behind it. Is why there hasn't been an outcry about PS4 MP being behind PS+, most active gamers already have it.


If the most active people have it, Sony wouldn't need to make the rest of the users to pay for plus if they intend to game online on PS4.


Because there totally will not be any NEW gamers, or PS4 owners who didn't own a PS3.  Not like there are millions of XBox 360 or even gamers ready to switch to Playstation.


I don't understand your point.



biglittlesps on 16 June 2013
brendude13 said:
I agree, multiplayer should remain free.

I'd like it if some games were excluded and can be played online for free if the developers want them to.


Sony is giving online free for F2P games like Planet side 2, warframe, DC universe etc., so they are doing eveything then can for consumers and that PS+ paywall is meant for improving that experience only. If we keep saying that multiplayer must remain free then soon sony gonna bankrupt becoz of losses since they are giving everything free without having any profits to sustain. I don't get it why people still say that Multiplayer must be free and they are dissappointed, stop it and look at the things sony doing for us and its not bad thing about multiplayer since everybody like PS+ value and this helps them a little to the serves and to bring better online.

Hope everyone will listen to this so we won't be seeing these stuff again. Sorry if i have been rude and its not my intention, i just want everyone to put themself in Sony place and think for a minute what you would do if you are in financial problems.



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

mutantclown on 16 June 2013

"Lot's of PS3 gamers have just a couple of games with multiplayer"

Well, expect more games to include multiplayer?

Also, speak for yourself, I'm not a big MP gamer, but most of my games have a MP mode, including PSN games.



cmeese47 on 16 June 2013

Halo 3 and Assassins Creed 2 vs. Uncharted 3 SP, X-Com, LBP Karting, Machinarium, Dues Ex, Saints Row 3, Vanquish, Pin Ball Arcade, Joe Danger The Movie, The Cave, Labyrinth Legends, Malicious, Kyntt Undergorund.

Enough said that is not even including the awesomeness on PS Vita or the massive discounts like Tomb Raider for 21 bucks.