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

Forums - Sony - Playstation: 21 Million PS+ Subscribers

DonFerrari on 01 July 2016
Nem said:
fielding88 said:

Honest question here: what are these full facts you speak of? Are there numbers to go on that state that the online paywall is all a scam? I'm Googling it but can't find anything solid.

OT: I've been paying for PS Plus for maybe four years now, and the free games have been great for me. I think early on, the majority of games on my Vita were from plus, and it got me engaging with the online store much more and gave me a reason to never discontinue use of my Vita or PS3. And I actually enjoy Powers. As far as comic book TV shows go, it feels miles above anything on the CW but lower than anything on Netflix. So I've definitely gotten my money's worth without being an online gamer.

The costs for mantaining servers are extremely low today and can be covered by the physical sales. This only becomes a problem with heavy traffic, aka the more hardcore online players. What the paywall does is make everyone pay the same for different useages to justify the excessive use. This ofc also affects how active in the long run online communities can be.

That is why i say what i do. But apparantly is causes alot of disconfort.

What i have also said is that if you got it for the games its fine. The service is worth that (if you find them worth it). But the paywall wich is used behind the online gaming acess does not in fact benefit anyone but Sony's financials. It doesn't benefit the games nor the consumers. It's a way to fish people into the service even though it doesn't benefit anyone. The online games's service detiorate's faster because the pool is smaller than it could be. Thing like longer queues and servers closed after a year or two due to inactivity, for example.

So does everyone that have a cable tv and internet connection get dupped? I only watch TV at weekends and at the moment also only use my internet at home at the same time.. while there are guys who watch all day and keep connect non-stop... Should I them have cable tv and internet for free instead of paying for those guys that use it a lot?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 01 July 2016
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

I highly doubt that PS+ even come up within most people purchase decision on whether to get a PS4, X1 or Even WiiU.  Personally, I was only commenting on congrulating a company for making you pay for something thats basically should be free unless they added features that make it worth the cash.  For Online Play, it should be free and if you want some of the features added besides just basic network play only then should their be a charge.

In the end, I only care about if the company provide me a service worth my cash more than the company.  I am not going to congrulate them for making a smart choice to take my money because I want to play online.

Why not congratulate them on taking a decision that made the business profitable and sustainable (a thing it wasn't in the past) and just so you know there isn't nothing free in the world, someone will always be paying for it. Before it was Sony and now it's their costumers (and seeing like they have 1/2 their userbase paying for it it seems like the customers are happy enough to be charged for their online).

I disagree with the charge and wouldn't pay for PS+ for online, but I also disagree with MP online and would like more local MP games. But the market wants to go to another direction.

As a consumer, I really do not care about Sony being profitable at my expense.  I guess I see it differently.  If Sony provided some really must have features to online MP since they are not really losing anything if its peer to peer thats one thing.  I am not sure customers are happy to be charged for MP play, its that they have no say in the matter if they want to play MP.  Whether you are on Sony or MS network you have to pay, only Nintendo is free.



JustcallmeRiff on 01 July 2016
Machiavellian said:

Sony or MS network you have to pay, only Nintendo is free.

Because all the great multiplayer games are on Nintendo like CoD , Destiny , The Division , Doom and every third party game.



SWORDF1SH on 01 July 2016
Nem said:

Swordfish i'm not even gonna read that anymore. Sorry, i'm just not interested in talking to you over this topic anymore. Make of that what you will, i don't care. Those that know me, know i don't have any agendas.

It's ok, you've glossed over 90% of what I said in other posts anyway.



DonFerrari on 02 July 2016
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Why not congratulate them on taking a decision that made the business profitable and sustainable (a thing it wasn't in the past) and just so you know there isn't nothing free in the world, someone will always be paying for it. Before it was Sony and now it's their costumers (and seeing like they have 1/2 their userbase paying for it it seems like the customers are happy enough to be charged for their online).

I disagree with the charge and wouldn't pay for PS+ for online, but I also disagree with MP online and would like more local MP games. But the market wants to go to another direction.

As a consumer, I really do not care about Sony being profitable at my expense.  I guess I see it differently.  If Sony provided some really must have features to online MP since they are not really losing anything if its peer to peer thats one thing.  I am not sure customers are happy to be charged for MP play, its that they have no say in the matter if they want to play MP.  Whether you are on Sony or MS network you have to pay, only Nintendo is free.

most games are on pc with free multiplayer, so they have that choice (on Nintendo you won't have those games) so they have a choice, and funny thing, they choosen PS4 or X1.

Do you buy any Nintendo product? Because their profit margin is quite high so that would be a company being profitable at your expense, look at how much a MS or Sony game cost to produce and how many they sell compared to Nintendo and see which company is getting your money and which is giving you back. On PS3 have you felt bad that Sony was taking a loss so you could have a cheaper vg and so sent them a check of 200,00 usd for that loss when you bought your console?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 04 July 2016
JustcallmeRiff said:
Machiavellian said:

Sony or MS network you have to pay, only Nintendo is free.

Because all the great multiplayer games are on Nintendo like CoD , Destiny , The Division , Doom and every third party game.

So what happens if the next Nintendo system can play all those games.  In other words, Peer to Peer with nothing to offer really does not need a paid service.  Just because Sony and MS decided this is the easies route to making money isn't any reason a consumer should be happy or just accept it.



Mbolibombo on 04 July 2016

Since I barely play console games online I pay only for the "free" games, which really havnt paid off (yet anyways)

Paying a fee to play a game online is just... sad :



Machiavellian on 04 July 2016
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

As a consumer, I really do not care about Sony being profitable at my expense.  I guess I see it differently.  If Sony provided some really must have features to online MP since they are not really losing anything if its peer to peer thats one thing.  I am not sure customers are happy to be charged for MP play, its that they have no say in the matter if they want to play MP.  Whether you are on Sony or MS network you have to pay, only Nintendo is free.

most games are on pc with free multiplayer, so they have that choice (on Nintendo you won't have those games) so they have a choice, and funny thing, they choosen PS4 or X1.

Do you buy any Nintendo product? Because their profit margin is quite high so that would be a company being profitable at your expense, look at how much a MS or Sony game cost to produce and how many they sell compared to Nintendo and see which company is getting your money and which is giving you back. On PS3 have you felt bad that Sony was taking a loss so you could have a cheaper vg and so sent them a check of 200,00 usd for that loss when you bought your console?

On the PS3, I purchase the system because it had the games I wanted.  I care not if Sony took a loss on the system or made a profit.  If the price was outside of my range or I felt it was overprice I would not purchase the system.  Just like any consumer I evaluate my purchase based on preceived value.  If I do not see the value I do not make the purchase.  The same thing for PS+.  Online Peer to Peer MP does not need a service.  If there is a service there needs to be value added features.  If Sony only reason to add MP to PS+ is for Profit then they need to do better.  Just accepting what a company does and not push them to do more will always lead the company to complacentcy. 



Barkley on 04 July 2016

Don't know if this was posted in here.

"PlayStation 4 has more gamers paying for PS Plus today than the peak number of Xbox 360 users paying for XBL gold before XB1." - Zhugeex



Mummelmann on 04 July 2016

How much is the PS4 overtracked in here anyway? If it "passed 40 million" at the end of june/start of july, and we have it at 40.7 million at the beginning of may? That has to be at least 1-1.5 million, yet again, we're really not getting it right this year, are we.