Google+

69 comments

  • DigitalSensation - June 11, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    I'm a PS+ member and I love it. There's usually a couple of offers in a year so you can get a year subscription for £30 which I don't think is too bad. My question however is now we will be essentially paying to play online, does that mean an end to all these online pass things you have to buy if you buy a used game (which are usually about £8 here in the UK). I understand EA for example have stopped this now, but if this is true I think paying for PS+ and being able to play any game online new or used is a pretty good deal The only thing I'm a bit concerned about is the risk they might start to water down the free content if almost everyone becomes a PS+ member
  • death4us - June 11, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    So getting charged is a good thing? I buy the console and the games but now I have to pay to play online when I can play for free on a PC. We are being nickled and dimed to death now days. PlayStation just lost its edge on multiplaying to the Xbox now. So for me I will stick to online play with my PC and stick to offline games on the consoles if I bother to buy these underpowered overpriced wannabe PCs.
  • Raiden145 - June 11, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    FREE? when did the pc do that? ever heard of microtransaction bitch? every god damn game on pc has one nowadays ..unless you're the 90% population of the unforunates who just DOWNLOAD torrent stuff poor you asshole
  • death4us - June 11, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    Every hear of buying the game and just playing it and not paying to play it online. Unlike you I buy my games and my computer and don't have mama or papa buy me one. Also please try to watch the language it just shows how immature you are.
  • Sovtek - June 11, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    You can play online on the PC for free since forever, dick-cheese. Microtransactions are a recent development, and are entirely optional. Poor you, never heard of Steam.
  • hoofhearted4 - August 21, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    im a PC fanboy, but you cannot call the consoles underpowered overpriced PCs. you cannot build a PC for that price and get the same power. not even close.
  • semitope - June 11, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    FYI, this article sucks. I agree that plus might be useful, but that confirms the reason why its not necessary to force people to pay for it to get online gaming. "Why do you think Sony is able to take that hit on allowing used games trading to continue? Sony knows online gaming is a vital part of modern gaming life. It’s charging no more than Microsoft is, but will now be accumulating cash where it wasn’t before. Cash that will offset any revenue lost from its bold (brilliant) open policy on used games. Cash that even pirates will need to pay to get online." Pirates will be banned from psn most likely. I also am not sure what this bold move is when it comes to used games. It's the sensible thing to do especially when the competition is being a huge douche about it. They automatically win the generation by doing that. Yet another reason why they shouldn't prevent people going online to play without plus. The plus situation just adds a reason for people to say screw ps4 and stick with M$. If its not all good news they risk losing people. I am sure people will get over it eventually, but it sucks. For those who don't play online often it sucks even more. If they get that one game that needs online (Fuse maybe) and they can't have the best fun offline or even a game like demon souls that is sp, but has MP elements to benefit the sp... its just not ideal and they have plenty of avenues to make money to supplement online play. This article reads as if the author thinks I'm stupid.
  • CombatWombat101 - June 11, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    You have the money for a $400 gaming console, but not $5 a month for PS Plus? Also, to date I've spent about $30 on PS Plus monthly membership costs. So far, I've gotten Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Demon's Souls, Sleeping Dogs, Vanquish and inFamous 2 for free. Do the math.
  • semitope - June 11, 2013 6:52 p.m.

    At launch its $400 for the console, $60 for an additional controller, $60 per game, then $50 just to play those games online. What people willing to spend on simply varies. the plus requirement is definitely going to reduce the number of games I bother buying so I guess the free games will help there. And you really haven't "gotten" anything. You just have access. Stop paying and they are gone.
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    Now you're arguing semantics. I've "gotten" to play these games that I wouldn't have "gotten" to play otherwise. Games that, were I to purchase them, would certainly come up to much more than $30. And my point still stands: if you have $400 for a console, $60 for another controller, and $60 per game, but you don't have another $5 for PS Plus, you probably shouldn't be buying a console. Furthermore I don't see why a $5 service would restrict the number of games purchased; I don't think it's really that big of a financial barrier.
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    PS plus isn't $5. Some people are conscious of their spending, some aren't. Every additional cost is of concern to some, not to others. Simple as that.
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Sorry, around $6. I didn't realize that extra dollar per month would be the real issue.
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    it's 9.99 per month, 17.99 for 3 months or $50 per year. See you aren't even considering the actual upfront cost. You are thinking of it as some monthly fee. At some point you have to cough up $50 or choose the less efficient options. For some, each month you put it off is a month without online. Going for the monthly fee is a waste of money and so is the 3 month fee. At the very least it affects initial game purchases as it takes up the cost of one game
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 3 p.m.

    I pay the three-month fee. That's eighteen bucks, not even a third of the cost of a game. It costs about two dollars more per month than the yearly option. So let me revise my original statement: You have $400 for a console, but not $18 for three months of PS Plus?
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    seriously COME ON. people buy houses and are paying for that crap for years while holding off wasting money on other things. Someone might want to invest in a console but still would like to save money where possible. Just because you buy one thing doesn't mean you suddenly become a millionaire. For all you know they sold a ps3 and some other stuff to buy it. Really should just stop saying that. If you go with the 3 monthly option you end up paying $72 a year instead of $50
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    Dude, if an extra $22 a year is actually a concern for you, don't buy a $400 console. And honestly here, if you are on such a tight budget that you don't even have an extra $20 wiggle-room every three months, you shouldn't even be thinking of buying a new console.
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    and it continues. Stop gaming because you care about how much you end up spending. You american?
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    lol no I'm not, but that was a sweet attempt to deflect my points. (For the record, the American stereotype doesn't actually fit here -- you know, the stereotype of mindless consumerism? Seriously, nice try though) Anyway, I'm not saying to stop gaming because you care about how much money you spend. I haven't said that once. But if you're seriously in a position where purchasing a console means you literally have not even $20 extra to spare and are actually considering buying said console, you can drop the financially responsible act. If, however, your obvious exaggerations really are just exaggerations, then I don't see why spending less than $20 every three months to support a company making a lot of choices that benefit us as gamers is such an issue. I mean, you realize that money will pretty much ensure that the gap in quality between the two online services is closed, right?
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    I wouldn't call it mindless consumerism, just money dumb. It's simply not insignificant that there are additional costs for some key features and saving up to buy a console is not a reason to think a person must not care about those costs. Odds are that free online was a key deciding factor for some people buying a ps3 over the xbox. Now tho the xbox one is a dud so there's really no choice Money won't ensure jack. The difference between psn and xbl was never down to one paying and one not paying, it was down to what the company was willing to do and how capable they were at doing it. Sony isn't suddenly going to have money just because they charge for online play, they've had the cash and simply didn't have the vision, drive or means till now. PSN multiplayer can still fall short of xbl (I never really cared as long as games worked online. Extra features dont matter to me).
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    Actually yeah -- money totally does make a difference in this case. It's always been a huge factor in XBL servers being better than PSN ones -- pretty much the only one worth mentioning, really. Having free online is great, but when it means publishers have to host servers versus Microsoft doing so, you make a trade-off in quality. Also, $72 a YEAR isn't insignificant? Yes, actually, it is.

Showing 21-40 of 69 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.