|
On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online?
Yes the playing for playing online itsself isn't the problem since normally you get at least some sort of trial with the game to at least check out if you wan to play the game online for longer and pay for it.
The having to pay MS to use stuff thats otherwise free or already beeing paid in some other form is just disgusting practise though and a dealbraker .
|
Canada5565 Posts
Wow... I'll continue to observe this thread like a befuddled visiter watching baboons in a zoo.
|
On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. Wait, I thought the ps4 you don't need to be online and that "day one patch" gave it to you without psn while xbox one needs xbox live to be able to do anything? Just a confused bystander here.
|
i am amazed that so many people buy this thing day one when it had soooo many controversities and everyone was outraged. people forget so easily.
|
On November 23 2013 06:17 Spektor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. Wait, I thought the ps4 you don't need to be online and that "day one patch" gave it to you without psn while xbox one needs xbox live to be able to do anything? Just a confused bystander here.
As far as I understand, PS+ (the subscription) isn't required for online apps (and getting patchs). It is required for online play however.
Note that it is 10$ cheaper a year than microsoft (49 vs 59 a year I think) and that you get a free game now and then (every month ?).
I don't know what xblive offer in comparison though.
|
So we had the same amount of PS4 and Xbox One at my store. We sold out of the PS4 before we even technically opened (opened hour early, we open at 10am), last guy walked out with his console 15min after open. We did the same opening schedule for the Xbox One and literally like 3 people showed up, it took us till 2pm to sell the last Xbox One. I think that can pretty much verify which one is more popular atm lol. We've gotten more calls for the PS4 too.
|
Free games added every month for PS+. Xbox Live started offering the same thing within the past few months though
|
On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer).
|
On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer).
So the money that you pay for a game which includes multiplayer should not provide you with a server to play it on because it has to be placed on a sony/xbox server and they need to money to operate it. Developers seems perfectly capable of running servers on pc games without charging extra..funny that.
I completely understand that sony and xbox are running a business, and they're not going to turn down money where they can get it. But paying to use your own internet is complete bullshit. Yes, you get extras and thats nice, but it doesn't change the fact that its a money grab.
Result is that any game I can get on pc or console, I will get on pc rather than console so I can play it online.
|
On November 23 2013 06:34 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:17 Spektor wrote:On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. Wait, I thought the ps4 you don't need to be online and that "day one patch" gave it to you without psn while xbox one needs xbox live to be able to do anything? Just a confused bystander here. As far as I understand, PS+ (the subscription) isn't required for online apps (and getting patchs). It is required for online play however. Note that it is 10$ cheaper a year than microsoft (49 vs 59 a year I think) and that you get a free game now and then (every month ?). I don't know what xblive offer in comparison though. It's the same xbox will give you free games monthly as well
On November 23 2013 06:19 LaNague wrote: i am amazed that so many people buy this thing day one when it had soooo many controversities and everyone was outraged. people forget so easily. Yup seems some are reporting disk drive failure on the xboxs, lol who ever their oem is screwed them.
|
On November 23 2013 07:06 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer). So the money that you pay for a game which includes multiplayer should not provide you with a server to play it on because it has to be placed on a sony/xbox server and they need to money to operate it. Developers seems perfectly capable of running servers on pc games without charging extra..funny that. I completely understand that sony and xbox are running a business, and they're not going to turn down money where they can get it. But paying to use your own internet is complete bullshit. Yes, you get extras and thats nice, but it doesn't change the fact that its a money grab. Result is that any game I can get on pc or console, I will get on pc rather than console so I can play it online. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the amount of people that play online on consoles vastly exceeds the amount of people that play free online games on PC. For games that require a substantial amount of servers like MMORPGs you usuall pay a subscription fee or get offers to buy skins etc.
|
On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer).
Aren't console games p2p? It seems insane that PC games can come with server cost included, and consoles which host peer to peer games require extra money to host servers that do what exactly? Perform matchmaking services and host lobbies?
|
On November 23 2013 07:27 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:06 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer). So the money that you pay for a game which includes multiplayer should not provide you with a server to play it on because it has to be placed on a sony/xbox server and they need to money to operate it. Developers seems perfectly capable of running servers on pc games without charging extra..funny that. I completely understand that sony and xbox are running a business, and they're not going to turn down money where they can get it. But paying to use your own internet is complete bullshit. Yes, you get extras and thats nice, but it doesn't change the fact that its a money grab. Result is that any game I can get on pc or console, I will get on pc rather than console so I can play it online. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the amount of people that play online on consoles vastly exceeds the amount of people that play free online games on PC. For games that require a substantial amount of servers like MMORPGs you usuall pay a subscription fee or get offers to buy skins etc.
I would love a citation on that
|
On November 23 2013 07:27 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:06 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer). So the money that you pay for a game which includes multiplayer should not provide you with a server to play it on because it has to be placed on a sony/xbox server and they need to money to operate it. Developers seems perfectly capable of running servers on pc games without charging extra..funny that. I completely understand that sony and xbox are running a business, and they're not going to turn down money where they can get it. But paying to use your own internet is complete bullshit. Yes, you get extras and thats nice, but it doesn't change the fact that its a money grab. Result is that any game I can get on pc or console, I will get on pc rather than console so I can play it online. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the amount of people that play online on consoles vastly exceeds the amount of people that play free online games on PC. For games that require a substantial amount of servers like MMORPGs you usuall pay a subscription fee or get offers to buy skins etc.
If you don't count mobile games as consoles i'm pretty certain the number is at the very least very similar. I'd argue PC is probably in front . Maybe not in triple A games but overall with everything you can play on PC's most def.
|
On November 23 2013 07:28 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:47 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2013 05:48 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2013 05:47 Xxio wrote: Wait, do you still have to pay to play online? Yes. On both consoles now. Welcome to the world where you have to pay so you can use the internet you're already paying for. That's not really a fair description. You pay your ISP to provide you connectivity. You pay MS or Sony to maintain the servers on which you can play the games. Note that this is quite fundamentally different from something like Battle.net, where the money from selling the game goes to maintain Battle.net. In console's cases, the majority of money from the game goes to the developer/publisher of the game and not to the console developer. I don't find it outrageous that you have to pay for PSN or XBLive. However, in the case of XBLive, it seems virtually impossible to do anything with the XBox without XBL, whereas it seems like your PS4 will work just fine without the payed PSN subscription (as long as you don't want to do any multiplayer). Aren't console games p2p? It seems insane that PC games can come with server cost included, and consoles which host peer to peer games require extra money to host servers that do what exactly? Perform matchmaking services and host lobbies? Games are p2p but multi-player servers to find opponents are not, also the maintenance of friends lists et al. and other feature also require a server. Which either is serviced by microsoft of the game makers via xbox live rules between developers and them.
|
On November 23 2013 06:34 rezoacken wrote: Note that it is 10$ cheaper a year than microsoft (49 vs 59 a year I think) and that you get a free game now and then (every month ?). About one a week.
semantics equating XBL Gold's free games to those of PS+ is more than a little disingenuous.
|
On November 23 2013 09:22 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:34 rezoacken wrote: Note that it is 10$ cheaper a year than microsoft (49 vs 59 a year I think) and that you get a free game now and then (every month ?). About one a week. semantics equating XBL Gold's free games to those of PS+ is more than a little disingenuous. Perhaps, they changed XBL just recently to accommodate what PS+ had for years, so they don't quite have the line up of deals like PS+ has had. But the main difference is "Games with Gold" you keep your games when you gold runsouts, which is also why i think it's a once a month deal you can download and keep. PS+ unless they changed it recently you only get those games while you have PS+.
|
On November 23 2013 10:30 semantics wrote: Perhaps, they changed XBL just recently to accommodate what PS+ had for years, so they don't quite have the line up of deals like PS+ has had. But the main difference is "Games with Gold" you keep your games when you gold runsouts, which is also why i think it's a once a month deal you can download and keep. PS+ unless they changed it recently you only get those games while you have PS+. I realize that there's a lot of subjectivity involved in evaluating relative quality of games, but I don't think XBL Gold's output is even close to comparable to PS+'s, no matter how you spin it. We've had five and a half months of Games with Gold to look at now, and only one retail game thus far (Dead Rising 2 among Fable 3, AC2, Crackdown, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and Halo 3) has been something you couldn't find in the $5 range at GameStop. That's not to say that every game from PS+ is a blockbuster either, but the odds of getting something that's not old and either a bargain bin game or a $5-10 downloadable game from GwG looks to be low. (This isn't even taking into account how much better Europe's PS+ is.)
Based on present information, there's nothing to support the assertion that Microsoft's offerings are going to catch Sony's, or that PS+ is going to get worse because people will be subscribing just for PS4 online play anyway. That's not to say that either one is impossible, but counting on them at present seems misguided, if you aren't playing favorites.
You're correct that GwG games are more akin to "free" games than PS+, although I think it's not very well-publicized that PS+ games are permanent on your account. You can accrue games and let your subscription lapse, then resubscribe (or use a trial code) to play them in the future, if you so desire - they're not going anywhere.
|
On November 23 2013 11:38 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 10:30 semantics wrote: Perhaps, they changed XBL just recently to accommodate what PS+ had for years, so they don't quite have the line up of deals like PS+ has had. But the main difference is "Games with Gold" you keep your games when you gold runsouts, which is also why i think it's a once a month deal you can download and keep. PS+ unless they changed it recently you only get those games while you have PS+. I realize that there's a lot of subjectivity involved in evaluating relative quality of games, but I don't think XBL Gold's output is even close to comparable to PS+'s, no matter how you spin it. We've had five and a half months of Games with Gold to look at now, and only one retail game thus far (Dead Rising 2 among Fable 3, AC2, Crackdown, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and Halo 3) has been something you couldn't find in the $5 range at GameStop. That's not to say that every game from PS+ is a blockbuster either, but the odds of getting something that's not old and either a bargain bin game or a $5-10 downloadable game from GwG looks to be low. (This isn't even taking into account how much better Europe's PS+ is.) Based on present information, there's nothing to support the assertion that Microsoft's offerings are going to catch Sony's, or that PS+ is going to get worse because people will be subscribing just for PS4 online play anyway. That's not to say that either one is impossible, but counting on them at present seems misguided, if you aren't playing favorites. You're correct that GwG games are more akin to "free" games than PS+, although I think it's not very well-publicized that PS+ games are permanent on your account. You can accrue games and let your subscription lapse, then resubscribe (or use a trial code) to play them in the future, if you so desire - they're not going anywhere. I think the fine line here though is that ps4 and xbox1 aren't backwards compatible so between the two the games it's limited at the start. So yes i do think GwG could catch up to PS+ on PS4 vs Xbox1 level. That is what i was considering but i guess i wasn't explicit, which is why i avoided listed games as i don't know the lists for xb1 and ps4.
|
On November 23 2013 16:02 semantics wrote: I think the fine line here though is that ps4 and xbox1 aren't backwards compatible so between the two the games it's limited at the start. So yes i do think GwG could catch up to PS+ on PS4 vs Xbox1 level. That is what i was considering but i guess i wasn't explicit, which is why i avoided listed games as i don't know the lists for xb1 and ps4. Well, even on release day, PS+ has two $15 PS4 games available with the promise of a cut-down version of Driveclub to come. All Microsoft's said about GwG is that... there'll be something happening at some point. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
The lack of BC doesn't exactly mean that there's no value in accruing games, either - anecdotally, it seems like the prospect of playing an accumulated Vita library from PS+ has been successful in getting some people to pick one up, and I think that 2-3 PS3 games a month would have a similar effect in the long run in conjunction with PS3s being cheap in general.
|
|
|
|