30 réponses à ce sujet

[Sinuphro]

Hey, you're all wondering what the heck am i thinking right?? Well...here's the problem....according to the unveil about the Ps4. Online gaming will no longer be free. The main reason ps3 killed the xbox360 was because of free online access and free multiplayer gaming. Now...playstation wants people to pay around $50 per year just to be able to play online with friends.

This will kill the playstation online community because since this is the case, what difference does it make if a gamer buys and xbox one 3 to 4 years after the console's release date?? Majority of playstation owners will not want to pay that monthly subscription so...if significant good parts of recent game titles created by EA are the online aspects of their game...people may likely not buy them.

This problem would greatly hurt playstation's wallet and all game developers that choose to make multiplayer aspects for their game. Well i guess this nonesense will make gamers start buying PC games and investing more on STEAM

As for me; if in 3 years time multiplayer gaming is not free on ps4 I will stop buying games that have multiplayer. And lots of people will stop as well.

Modifié par Sinuphro, 11 juin 2013 - 05:19 .

[deuce985]

Wait, what? It's not like it hurt Xbox Live's community. If anything, it will strengthen the Sony community because it means their infrastructure will be far better than it is now. Let's be real here, XBL is superior to PSN in almost every way possible. Gaining steady income from the players allows them to allocate money to their infrastructure. I think you're grossly overlooking how much people care to pay online. To add to that, you're getting all the PSN+ benefits. It's not like you're just paying to go online. A lot on my friends list already sub to PSN+.

While this might change the way you play games, I highly doubt it has much impact on the install base as a whole. People who were planning to play online will spend money and people who never played online won't care about this anyway because they never online to begin with.

Modifié par deuce985, 11 juin 2013 - 05:24 .

[redneck nosferatu]

Considering all the perks already present with Playstation Plus membership, I don't really see the problem. It's a far better deal than XBL.

[Angrywolves]

EA requires it EAVP Frank Gibeau says he won't approve a game without multiplayer. Google it. You can read the interview for yourself.

[Kalyppso]

I haven't googled it, but I could have sworn it has been said multiple times it is that games require an "online component" and that can be, but does not have to be multiplayer.

Also this:

redneck nosferatu wrote...

Considering all the perks already present with Playstation Plus membership, I don't really see the problem. It's a far better deal than XBL.

Also, you don't have to pay 50$/year. It's 5$/month, if you get your fill in 5 that's 25$ over a long period of time.

[Sanunes]

redneck nosferatu wrote...

Considering all the perks already present with Playstation Plus membership, I don't really see the problem. It's a far better deal than XBL.

I am not an expert in either online service since I gave up all my consoles in the last year or so (I moved to a really small studio apartment), but besides the free games you get with PS+ is there anything else you get? I know starting in July XBL will be mimicing that bonus with giving two free games per month.

My problem with Sony is well Sony, I stopped supporting them with the entire network hack they went through and yes they did give stuff away, but they haven't done anything to earn back my trust.  Its a little sad to say a mandatory fee for playstation online is could be a step in that direction for they can then hopefully keep the security up.

Modifié par Sanunes, 11 juin 2013 - 05:38 .

[Sanunes]

Mademon wrote...

I haven't googled it, but I could have sworn it has been said multiple times it is that games require an "online component" and that can be, but does not have to be multiplayer.

I agree and I also wonder if that statement was made after seeing some data sheets or other information on the Xbox One and the PS4, for they both seem to have started to incorporate a lot of online components into their consoles.

[Sinuphro]

you do know that alot of people bought the ps3 because of free online gaming right? In short, one of the major reiasons people abandoned the xbox 360 for a ps3 was because of free online gaming. If this happens...some people may ending up buying xbox 360 instead of the ps3. And the n those particular set of people that bought a playstation console because of free online gaming would likely stop buying games that a major component to them is online gaming. In short, gaming may revert back to how it was between 1995 and 2002 at this rate.

What average person would be willing to pay $60+ for a game then pay around $50 for multiplayer gaming then to add insult to injury then pay a monthly subscription to play certain games like elder scrolls online or killzone 4 or even a new crysis game.

The psn community is going to shrink very badly. Imagine going online with a new game release only to find out most people did not buy that game because its is mainly multiplayer based??

[wolfhowwl]

Sony isn't in the best shape.

Hopefully this will help them provide a better service.

[Kalyppso]

Sanunes wrote...

Mademon wrote...

I haven't googled it, but I could have sworn it has been said multiple times it is that games require an "online component" and that can be, but does not have to be multiplayer.

I agree and I also wonder if that statement was made after seeing some data sheets or other information on the Xbox One and the PS4, for they both seem to have started to incorporate a lot of online components into their consoles.

I don't know the answer to that, but I found one of the statements I meant to reference:

David Gaider wrote...

Which is interesting primarily due to the fact that this is something EA has said repeatedly and publicly many times to date-- all their games must have a multiplayer or online component (requirements which even DA2 satisfied). And both Mike and Mark have also spoken several times about their intention to have some form of multiplayer in the DA franchise, if not details as to what form it will take.

So, curiosity about that? Sure. Concern? Maybe, if you had anxiety about how that was going to be implented within DA, though that isn't going to be explained anytime soon-- I'm sure opinions on how you'd like to see it done are far more welcome than assumptions, though. Shock and panic? I have no idea why, unless someone wasn't paying attention.

Here.

[Angrywolves]

multiplayer or an online component. So which does this have?

[Ninja Stan]

Angrywolves wrote...

EA requires it EAVP Frank Gibeau says he won't approve a game without multiplayer. Google it. You can read the interview for yourself.

Incorrect. Gibeau said he won't approve a single-player-only game. And there are many different ways to add online components than just multiplayer.

[Sinuphro]

online components = good
multiplayer = bad idea

[Kalyppso]

Angrywolves wrote...

multiplayer or an online component. So which does this have?

[AtreiyaN7]

And PS+ is different from XBL how? My friend actually got me to sign up for it on my Vita - and he's kind of a cheapskate/king of bargain-hunting. I have to say that I've found PS+ to be a good value on the whole - free games every month and discounts on certain games.

I believe that $50/year for PS+ works out to be cheaper than XBL too, but if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

[Sinuphro]

lol not everyone care for free games. I do not care about any other features on psn. All i cared about was being able to play multiplayer games i preordered for free.

[AlanC9]

Let's say the OP's right. So what? Bio's not going to take a feature out of the PS4 release just because it's a smaller online community; the vast majority of the work will have to be done anyway.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Already pay for PS+ do not care.

I don't want MP for other reasons.

[addiction21]

Sinuphro wrote...

online components = good
multiplayer = bad idea

Says you

I'm not really a "fan" of multiplayer but multiplayer can mean a lot of things and if its going to be there I will judge it then. If its fun its fun if not its not.

[Sinuphro]

DinoSteve wrote...

Already pay for PS+ do not care.

I don't want MP for other reasons.

you're going to have to care. Someone recently somewhere said something along the lines that it would help thin out irritating kids from online gaming....unfortunately it is going to have more of an impact on the average consumer. the irritating kids on xbl and psn get their parents or guardians to pay so charging high fees for multiplayer gaming does not matter.

But picture this in your mind....imagine playing a new or a good multiplayer game only to realize that the kind of people you do not want to play with are mainly the ones online. In other words you will be wasting money on multiplayer you are not able to enjoy. Of course if you use PSN for other things while on your ps4 good for you. However, the average consumer of ps4 games will be quite upset and this would lead to drastic declines in sales which leads to lower profits which at times then leads to game studios getting bankrupt.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

and get live does it without a problem.

[Cyrax86]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

And PS+ is different from XBL how? My friend actually got me to sign up for it on my Vita - and he's kind of a cheapskate/king of bargain-hunting. I have to say that I've found PS+ to be a good value on the whole - free games every month and discounts on certain games.

I believe that $50/year for PS+ works out to be cheaper than XBL too, but if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

Also discounts on some DLCs.  


  plus their adding alot more features to PS plus.

[Tvorceskiy]

If DA has a multiplayer it has a multiplayer. That doesn't mean you have to play it if it does; no one's holding a gun to your head.

You have to remember; Bioware and EA and Sony are businesses (shocking right?). They look for profit and that profit allows them to create more games and services; it allows them to invest more in their technology and in software that will keep things like server issues and hackers at a minimum. Being all upset that they're charging a fee (which is actually a pretty reasonable fee imho) isn't going to change it.

I'd ask if people would rather pay a fee and have secure gaming or a literal free for all open to issues but...I have a feeling people will try cutting their noses to spite their face.

[Urazz]

I don't mind online aspects to the game but I sure as hell don't want multiplayer added on to DA.

[franciscoamell]

I hope there's no MP at all. If I have to pay for it then that just means I won't even try MP, which I don't care that much anyway.