Hardware Anyone else annoyed that we need to pay for online multiplayer?

[Obveron]

One of the reasons I really enjoyed my PS3 was that online mulitplayer was free on PSN.
Now that it's going to cost money I'll probably just stick with PC for my online multiplayer.

I might still buy a PS4 for local multiplayer. I wish more PC games would have local multiplayer so I'd have no reason to buy a console.


Truly dissapointed that there hasn't been more of an outcry from Playstation fans over this.

There was so much outcry over XBone's mistakes that it seems Sony got a pass on this one.

 

[jumpman1229]

One of the reasons I really enjoyed my PS3 was that online mulitplayer was free on PSN.
Now that it's going to cost money I'll probably just stick with PC for my online multiplayer.

I might still buy a PS4 for local multiplayer. I wish more PC games would have local multiplayer so I'd have no reason to buy a console.


Truly dissapointed that there hasn't been more of an outcry from Playstation fans over this.

There was so much outcry over XBone's mistakes that it seems Sony got a pass on this one.

Well, I'm not very fond of the $5/month fee for online multiplayer either, but I have been a PlayStation Plus member for quite some time and don't see myself without it. I could certainly understand people who don't have PS+ already, but $5 a month really ain't all that bad..

 

[FireEmblemGuy]

It's finally implementing pretty much everything the 360's online had that PS3 didn't, and since LIVE isn't free either I can't complain too much. They're not locking out Netflix, Hulu, or other audio/video apps for non-subscribers, as far as I've heard, and PS+ still has the advantage of free games and exclusive discounts every month. I've owned multiple 360s over the years and never paid up more than three months of LIVE unless it was a gift; I've owned a PS3 since last fall and I've already paid up for multiple years on PS+.

 

[Qtis]

It's finally implementing pretty much everything the 360's online had that PS3 didn't, and since LIVE isn't free either I can't complain too much. They're not locking out Netflix, Hulu, or other audio/video apps for non-subscribers, as far as I've heard, and PS+ still has the advantage of free games and exclusive discounts every month. I've owned multiple 360s over the years and never paid up more than three months of LIVE unless it was a gift; I've owned a PS3 since last fall and I've already paid up for multiple years on PS+.

Pretty much sums up my opinion. While pay to play for online is an annoyance, the perks of PS+ far outweigh the costs. If they keep pumping games out for PS+ just like they have so far, the $60 a year is pennies. Buy one new game and you've already spent it. So far I've discovered quite a few interesting games on the PS3 and PSVita thanks to PS+. Wouldn't have bought some of them otherwise (somehow the reasoning here could be said for piracy.. "I wouldn't have bought it anyways, so who cares"). Many great games and for a fantastic price. In other words, pay to play online is very moot for me.

 

[Ethevion]

Pay for online gets you better servers. Remember the PS3 servers before PS+? And besides it's 60 fucking dollars a year. I don't get why people complain about it so much when their phones plans cost $50+ a month.

 

[Walkin]

No, if they're going to make an online environment on par with the xbox they had to switch to a pay model.

 

[Osha]

Considering all the advantages we get besides the online multiplayer, no, I don't really mind. If anything, that means an online of better quality.

 

[Blindfoldedchaos]

'Nuff Said. also remember if you want to play online F2P titles you don't need PS+

 

[SolidSnake95]

Please don't tell me that you have to pay for PS3 online multiplayer when PS4 comes out...

 

[grossaffe]

I avoid subscription fees as much as I can. As unlikely as I was to buy a PS4 early on, this will probably convince me not to buy one down the line.

 

[GameWinner]

$50 is really nothing.
Discounts, IGC, Cloud storage, game trials and more.

 

[Ethevion]

I avoid subscription fees as much as I can. As unlikely as I was to buy a PS4 early on, this will probably convince me not to buy one down the line.

So approximately $0.14 a day is the reason you wont buy a console?

 

[pubert09]

I bought a PS3 instead of a 360 mostly for the free online. I also used to rag on my friends for being stupid enough to own a 360 and to have to pay for online services. Then I started to slowly realize that paying into something isn't such a big deal, that the money earned can go towards making a better service. I came to terms with the subscription idea, so by the time Sony announced this, I wasn't really surprised. I think I'm just less selfish and greedy now as well.

If you want a better service, you gotta pay for it. You can only get so much for free.
*This is me speaking strictly about the online service of course. The instant game collection and discounts is a GREAT plus*

 

[Depravo]

Truly dissapointed that there hasn't been more of an outcry from Playstation fans over this.

That's because most Playstation fans already subscribe to PS+ and therefore this announcement changes nothing for them.

 

[grossaffe]

So approximately $0.14 a day is the reason you wont buy a console?

Any cost looks small when you break it down by day, by hour, by whatever you want to break it down into, but all those cents per day for PS+/XBLive/TV/Internet/Phone/etc. add up. I prefer to make a one-time purchase and be done with it. If I were to buy the PS4 on launch and we assumed it had a 7-year life, that makes the total cost of the console $[400 + (60)(7)] = $820. For that money, I could build a solid gaming PC. It would be more powerful than the PS4, and it would be used for much more than gaming.

 

[GameWinner]

Any cost looks small when you break it down by day, by hour, by whatever you want to break it down into, but all those cents per day for PS+/XBLive/TV/Internet/Phone/etc. add up. I prefer to make a one-time purchase and be done with it. If I were to buy the PS4 on launch and we assumed it had a 7-year life, that makes the total cost of the console $[400 + (60)(7)] = $820. For that money, I could build a solid gaming PC. It would be more powerful than the PS4, and it would be used for much more than gaming.

It's actually $50 for a full year. Also, $50 should not break you at all, it's like you are paying for one game per year but you're not seeing as how you get amazing games in the service.

 

[grossaffe]

alright, so (50)(7) = $350 making for a $750 console. Still money I'd rather spend on a PC.

 

[Ethevion]

Any cost looks small when you break it down by day, by hour, by whatever you want to break it down into, but all those cents per day for PS+/XBLive/TV/Internet/Phone/etc. add up. I prefer to make a one-time purchase and be done with it. If I were to buy the PS4 on launch and we assumed it had a 7-year life, that makes the total cost of the console $[400 + (60)(7)] = $820. For that money, I could build a solid gaming PC. It would be more powerful than the PS4, and it would be used for much more than gaming.

You gotta pay for nice things, otherwise you pretty much get crap.
Besides,

'Nuff Said. also remember if you want to play online F2P titles you don't need PS+

 

[grossaffe]

You gotta pay for nice things, otherwise you pretty much get crap.
Besides,

Everyone's got their own priorities and preferences.

 

[Ethevion]

Everyone's got their own priorities and preferences.

Just curious, how many games do you buy yearly?