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

Forums - Gaming - Free Online (Wii U) vs Paid Online (PS4 and Xbox One)

fedfed on 25 June 2014
outlawauron said:
fedfed said:
cannonballZ said:
Playing online is fine for the most part, but not being able to chat or send messages without having to go into miiverse is a pain. I really wish there was a way for them to add cross-game chat onto wii u. I want to be able to chat with buddies even if we're not playing the same game.


I don't mean to troll or anything, but by the sound of it, it looks like you are paying for a phone subscription if want you want is to chat with buddies even if palying different games!

This is a feature that has been working since 2005 on other services, I don't understand your comment.

I literally would not have been able to beat games had it not been for party chat.

Yes but then you are paying to buy the game, paying to ahve the full game via DLC  and paying to be able to finish the game?

 

i mean great if you are ahppy with it and good on SOny and MS - for sure they are making money. But I would like to have all this free! And free vs to-pay I have to choose free even if less fancy!



Switch!!!

Around the Network
outlawauron on 25 June 2014
fedfed said:
outlawauron said:

This is a feature that has been working since 2005 on other services, I don't understand your comment.

I literally would not have been able to beat games had it not been for party chat.

Yes but then you are paying to buy the game, paying to ahve the full game via DLC  and paying to be able to finish the game?

 

i mean great if you are ahppy with it and good on SOny and MS - for sure they are making money. But I would like to have all this free! And free vs to-pay I have to choose free even if less fancy!

This response had nothing to do with what I quoted. I understand that not everyone wants or need a robust online experience, but you're kinda missing the point by saying he should be paying for a phone service.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Mr Khan on 25 June 2014
outlawauron said:

There's far, far more to an online network and gaming service that the ability to join and play games online. The lack of unified account system, universal store, social functions (any AT ALL in-game), rewards system, and gameplay sharing all count against it (not to mention the non-interaction or gameplay perks of auto-download/install of updates/patches, etc). These things are the expectations with a new console as they're included by default by the competition. If Nintendo charged, maybe they'd be able to invest in a system that doesn't resemble what the PS2 had + Miiverse.

Uhh, they have that. At least the auto-download side.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

naruball on 25 June 2014
TheLastStarFighter said:

Yes, it does.  Most gamers want to game online and want to have the option to do so whenever they like.  On Wii U I can play Ghosts or MarioKart online whenever I want at no extra charge.  If I want the same experience on PS4 I will have to pay an extra fee.  The vast majority of PS4 buyers are subscribers - Sony has been very open about this and blunt about it being how they are able to turn a profit on PS4 at $400.  You aren't getting some amazing extra service for the fee that is now charged on a service that was once free - it's just a hidden extra source of revenue for Sony.

Nice. I love how you ignored most of my points. Forget about inflation, forget 70 "free" games, forget deals everywhere that make the cost significantly less than $300, forget that there's a diference between paying $300 upfront as opposed to in the course of 6 years, everyone will own the console for 6 years and everyone will want to play online every month.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.

Also, please provide a source for the bolded. If you make such claims, you need to back them up. What the Sony representative said was that 90something % have connected their ps4 to the internet, not that they have subsribed. Those people might be playing free to play agmes, MMO or single player games. But if they gave a number of subsribers that suggests that the vast majority of PS4 buyers are subscribers please go ahead and cite it. Keep in mind that a certain percentage of that are people who have a + subscription just for the games. Believe it or not some people still don't care about online multiplayer. You might, but not everyone does. For those people, Sony offers the option to never pay extra for it.

"Sony has been very open about this and blunt about it being how they are able to turn a profit on PS4 at $400."

Once again, you seem misinformed. They were able to make a profit thanks to ps+ when the ps4 launched, but the hardware on its own has been profitable for some time now (they haven't specified for how long).



outlawauron on 25 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
outlawauron said:

I'm most would if they brought it up to the standards of PSN and XBL.

That's a clear "no" then. I expected as much.

I have more faith than you do.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
naruball on 25 June 2014
pokoko said:
I kind of want to chime in with my perspective.

I don't play online games much at all. I'm more of a single-player person. Yet I've paid for PS+ for two years now and will continue to do so.

The simple truth is, for me, PS+ saves me money. I've paid $33 a year for each of the last two years and the return I've gotten has far exceeded that. From games I would probably have never tried had it not been for PS+, like Kingdoms of Alamur and XCOM: Enemy Unknown, to games I was waiting on a price drop on, like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Saint's Row the Third, it's been consistently worth the price.

That's not all, though. I've pretty sure it's been worth the price on sale discounts ALONE. PSN has some really nice sales and PS+ makes it even better.

Do I like paying for online capabilities? Not really, no. However, I'd still buy PS+ even if it wasn't attached to online play. As someone on a budget, who isn't buying very many games at full cost right now, the value of PS+ has been excellent.

I've had the exact same experience. Never cared for online, but the free games have saved me a lot of money. Not sure about the discounts, though, because I've spent much more than I would have had they not been so good and so many.



outlawauron on 25 June 2014
Mr Khan said:
outlawauron said:

There's far, far more to an online network and gaming service that the ability to join and play games online. The lack of unified account system, universal store, social functions (any AT ALL in-game), rewards system, and gameplay sharing all count against it (not to mention the non-interaction or gameplay perks of auto-download/install of updates/patches, etc). These things are the expectations with a new console as they're included by default by the competition. If Nintendo charged, maybe they'd be able to invest in a system that doesn't resemble what the PS2 had + Miiverse.

Uhh, they have that. At least the auto-download side.

For more than firmware updates?



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

vkaraujo on 25 June 2014

I find these "worth it" or "payed with 3-4 hours of good job" very odd arguments.

The bakery near my home does a very good bread, that i am sure worth its own price and i am pretty sure i can pay for a year long of daily breads with 3-4 hours of my job.

Still, i wouldn't be happy if it was mandatory...



Arcturus on 25 June 2014

In most cases, I'm not that interested in playing online multiplayer. If a game has online multiplayer I usually play it for a few hours to try it out, but in general I stick to single player. At this point, I don't think I would pay a yearly fee to play online.

I do, however, find value in PS+. I've downloaded and enjoyed a lot of games through PS+ that I would have otherwise never played. In addition to the free games, a lot of other titles have PS+ discounts which add up.

It sucks that Sony decided to put online play behind a pay wall, but it hasn't impacted me as I'm already a PS+ subscriber.



Arcturus on 25 June 2014
vkaraujo said:
I find these "worth it" or "payed with 3-4 hours of good job" very odd arguments.

The bakery near my home does a very good bread, that i am sure worth its own price and i am pretty sure i can pay for a year long of daily breads with 3-4 hours of my job.

Still, i wouldn't be happy if it was mandatory...

If online multiplayer costs you 3-4 hours of your time but provides you with hundreds of hours worth of entertainment, then some people have no problem paying that cost.

Edit: Some people just don't mind spending $1 for a bottle of cold water when they could just as easily get some water from a drinking fountain.