Google+

69 comments

  • 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.
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    It isn't. But hey, to each his own. Sony isn't going to host game servers, they are going to enable and host console features. Not sure what you mean by better servers anyway, never had an issue. The only real complaints were features and how you got into games etc. Sending an invite through messages to add a player (iirc), for example, was just so backwards. They could have done that better. Messages could have been done better. Chat could have been done better etc etc. These aren't money issues. They just didn't do it right that gen. The actual online playing was ok. I really doubt they are improving it just because they are charging. Its been getting better since ps2 and would be whether or not they charged. This is a business decision they decided to take for whatever reason. It could easily have been seen the other way in that free quality multi-player would bring in more customers. It's one area now that they are not better than the competition in and plus was compelling enough by their consideration that it could have supported multiplayer without being compulsory for it.
  • CombatWombat101 - June 12, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    If you honestly believe getting money for their online service won't improve the online service in any way, you know less than I thought originally.
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    Your thinking is seeming very limited. Businesses don't have to operate in such a straightforward or narrow sighted manner. "Oh we want a feature of our offering to be better, we better charge for it." Might as well charge for entering the PSN store at all so that it will get better too. They did a smart thing with plus. Being able to supplement the servers without charging for multiplayer. It's an ideal situation. The question of quality is down to their design choices and how much they innovate, not charging for the end product. The product development comes before the revenue anyway. What cost would address is stability and that was never really the concern in the xbl vs playstation network comparison. maybe they now think its good enough that people won't mind paying for it. Charging for multiplayer isn't going to make the service significantly better by itself. They never actually had a problem with the actual multiplayer like I have said, just the features around it.
  • semitope - June 12, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    the per month option is far worse being 118.8 for the year.
  • neeraj-sharma - July 2, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    I got the PS4 in Hong Kong a few months ago, I bought a few games (Assassin's Creed 4, Infamous: Second Son, Battlefield 4, Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends, Watch Dogs, and a bunch of free games). My game collection is growing and I wanted to badly play multiplayer, I don't have a credit card so I bought the PS+ 12 month membership card for HKD$268 (around USD$34.57). Truth be told, this ONE YEAR membership is a tad above half the price of a regular PS4 game. And it's totally worth it. I'm enjoying AC4 multiplayer, BF4 multiplayer and getting the MOST value out of the price for the games AND the membership. I love it so far and of course the two free games monthly for PS4. All of this from my own money btw, and I'm 17.
  • ChameleonX - June 11, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    Your activated free games DO reactivate when you renew, regardless of how much time lapses. Here are some details from the PlayStation Plus FAQ page: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/09/10/playstation-plus-faq/ Q: What happens when my PlayStation Plus subscription ends? A: The content you have downloaded as part of your PlayStation Plus subscription at no charge is only accessible as long as you are an active subscriber. The exceptions are free themes and avatars, which you will continue to have access to, even if you are no longer a subscriber. Anything you have purchased (even if you purchased it at a discount) will remain available to you even if your subscription ends. Q: My subscription expired, but I renewed it late. Will I get my content back? A: Yes you will.
  • GR_JustinTowell - June 11, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    Apologies - this must have changed, as from experience, I lost my content when my subscription lapsed a year ago. Virtua Fighter 5: Final Showdown would not renew. Strange. Either way, article is amended now, thanks for the heads-up. Makes it even better then, eh? ;)
  • Nero4983 - June 11, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    It has always been like that--the problem you were encountering is that you probably tried to redownload the game from the playstation store when you needed to go to your account history, find it there, and redownload (a bit annoying, but that's how to do it).
  • Rhymenocerous - June 11, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    A little off-topic but I need this clearing up; Can we keep the same PSN profile we made on PS3, and just sort of "carry on" on PS4? Or do we need to make a fresh account (never to see our WipEout HD trophies again)?
  • Tyrlanae - June 11, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    You maintain your PSN account. In fact, in the case of PS+ it carries across all online PlayStation systems (Vita, PS3, PS4). So you shouldn't need to worry about anything. I'm pretty sure if you can find the actual announcement Jack Tretton goes over this specifically.
  • mafyooz - June 11, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    I was a harsh critic of PS+ until I had it for 3 months, and now I miss it and may be signing up again soon anyway. One great thing about it that doesn't seem to be covered in the article is that it encourages you to try games you might not otherwise bother with. I love Demon's Souls but my mate wouldn't look at it due to it's difficulty and it being "Beardy swords and magic crap". Since it went free on PS+ he downloaded it to shut me up and is hooked! Similarly, racing games normally bore the shit out of me and I wouldn't spare a game called MotorStorm Apocalypse a second glance in a shop, but because it was free I had a go and to my utter surprise thought it was great fun :)
  • outlyer - June 11, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    You should correct the misleading (mis-)information at the start of this article, as others have said, you DON'T loose PS+ games when your subscription ends. You loose access to them when unsubscribed, but if you ever come back you regain access to any games you got while being a member. They might change this policy at some point, but for now it's an integral part of how the instant games collection works.
  • rainn'sgaydar - June 11, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    I agree, though, as others have pointed out, PS+ is $50 annually and if your subscription lapses and you pick it back up later, you retain the games you "purchased" previously. Another overlooked advantage is that you don't have to download the free game(s) when they're free. If you just go to the store and click "purchase," they're yours for as long and as often as you're a member. You can delete the games and redownload as often as you please. In fact, it's because of this that it's in a member's beat interest to just "purchase" every game they list when they're free, even if you'll probably never play it, because you don't have to take up valuable hard drive space for it unless you want to. Either way, it's still yours. All in all, it's a great value, and considering the money I've saved with their discounts ($30 off of Tomb Raider a month after release is a strong example), the online multiplayer access is still basically free because the $50 subscription pays for itself.
  • FoxdenRacing - June 11, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    If I end up getting talked into a PS4 [sadly, this coming generation isn't "I want this", it's a process of elimination for "no cash for you"...a sad state for the industry], I look at it this way. I already pay $60/year for XBL. And for that $60, I get the "privilege" of paying subscriptions on the side for Netflix and the like [something it looks like Sony is letting non-Plus users have], group voice chat [Silver members can only send messages or private chat], ads everywhere, and one of the most poorly policed userbases I've ever seen. So, Sony, here's the deal. I won't complain that Plus will be required for multiplayer, IF I don't have to deal with ads, IF the matchmaking is quality, IF you've finally gotten around to cross-game chat, IF my games/DLC will still be playable after PSN ceases to exist [I'm big into retro; I won't pay if things I've paid for cease to exist at your whim], and IF you actually have consequences for the mouthy little prats that haven't learned how to act appropriately in public. Those five things are worth a small yearly fee. I work on the 'net, I know what dedicated servers [such as what power PSN / XBL's matchmaking] cost. I'll pay my share of keeping them running, as long as I'm not being taken advantage of. If I end throwing my hat in your ring...do we have a deal?
  • hugh-charles - June 11, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    Even without PS+ free users still get a much better experience now. With the Xbox you would have to be subscribed to gold in order to access Netflix etc. but with the Playstation it's free. Also the free games become available once you resubscribe to PS+.
  • StefanGrey - June 11, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Never understood the complaints about gold. If you're smart you can get a 1 year membership for $20-$30 bucks. If you can find the same deals for PS+, really not a huge deal.
  • StrayGator - June 11, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    I seem to have a wrong picture of how this works. to enjoy a PS+ free game do i need to be a member the month it is added to the library? and if i cancel my membership and renew later, will i not be able to play it again (for free)?
  • CplCupcake - June 11, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Most of the free games are only free for 2 weeks. If you are a member when they are available and you download them you effectively have them forever. If your Plus subscription lapses the games will be locked but remain on your system. Once you renew you will have access to those games again.
  • CplCupcake - June 11, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    A little clarification: If you don't have a large HDD you don't actually have to keep them on your system. Once they are on your download list they are yours. (I have erased and re-downloaded the same game multiple times.)

Showing 41-60 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.