I want to talk about this

I want to talk about this.

I completely get the hate. I get being upset by rising prices. I know its technically not worth it.

However, it could be a great solution to the problem consoles have as a whole, and seem to be having more problems with now.


If they raise the price of these services, they could afford to make their hardware units cheaper. meaning that switching from one console to the next isnt as big of a worry. or if you dont like a console, you can just eat what little cost you paid and simply stop subscribing to its service. in the end, theyll make just as much money if not more from the average crowd that buys the division and call of duty and etc. but we get more options. what do you think about a console where the bulk of its money made is from a subscription instead of a big upfront cost?

All the money is still going to the same place its an unnecessary jew move they are doing for the sake of money

I never supported PS+ forced online shit and I don't support it now the service hasn't been getting any better whatsoever with me paying for it and the entire sub feels useless

No I don't think it would. If the company had exact goals, constant updates about progress and a rigid obedience to promised ambitions, sure. What it will turn in to is an excuse to raise subscription fees. Think about Sony and Microsoft, user. Do you trust them to promise to use that extra sub money properly and for the consumers benefit?

Perhaps if the consoles themselves were free, making you pay only for the subscription. But really, even then it would be fucking terrible. You just should not have to pay just to re-enable your console's ability to play online.

That'd be like paying your telephone service provider for your telephone service, but then also having to pay Samsung, Apple, or whoever your phone manufacturer is, an annual fee as well in order to be able to make use of the telephone service you're already paying for.

People would never ever accept that. And I really have absolutely no idea why people ever accepted Microsoft or Sony charging for online either.

What would I be subscribing for? I don't care nearly enough about online to pay a sub for it, and if something like this were to happen you'd probably be paying for your console to have any functionality aside from that of being a literal paperweight, and that notion can fuck right off.

Because most people think they're paying for servers when the majority of games are P2P or have servers run by the companies who made the games.

> I know its technically not worth it.
>not worth it

How is it not worth it?

PS+ will only now be $60 for a year.

$60 for cloud storage for game saves, weekly sales and discounts and 72 games isn't worth it?

How the hell does that make sense?

What if I don't want all that and still want to play online? Oh right it's not optional you have to pay for all that shit you don't want.

Cloud storage is bullshit when traditional save data management works just fine (though to be fair I'm a Vitafag who has an issue with that particular point) and 72 games means fuck all when 70 of them suck.

>If they raise the price of these services, they could afford to make their hardware units cheaper

But they won't this is money motivated. They will improve nothing.

Does a list exist that shows which game is p2p and which is on servers?

72 games spread across 3 platforms as well. You're fucked if you only have 1 of 'em

I pay for my internet, why the fuck should I pay MS to let me play call of duty online when friends occasionally come over?

Look I understand that people don't like PS+ because they consider it an added cost to play multiplayer to the internet - and that's fine - but it is simply not representative of the big picture.

PS+ gives multiple free games every month or varying quality for 3 systems, it gives you mega discounts, it gives you access to free alphas/betas, it gives you cloud storage, and online multi of course but there are three things people refuse to acknowledge out of ignorance or anger.

>1: Every single F2P game on PS4 DOES NOT REQUIRE PS+ TO PLAY ONLINE

>2: PS+ ensures the hackers, cheaters, botters, etc that are rampant on PC and last generation are practically non-existant on PS4/Xbone

>3: It is NOT MANDATORY for a PS4 owner. If you want to play all your exclusive games single player offline till the end of time via disc then there is nothing stopping you - ever. Go play all the multiplats on PS360 or PC.

In fact the PS3 is STILL free just like the Vita and you know what people would say? OMG IT'S SHIT IT DISCONNECTS ALL THE TIME HAHA - well of course it fucking does because these things cost money (servers, maintenance, software, etc)

In the end normal people don't care though, just shitposters shitposting I guess.

>If they raise the price of these services, they could afford to make their hardware units cheaper.
Hah, could.

This. It will get ignored though.

>If you want to play all your exclusive games single player offline till the end of time via disc then there is nothing stopping you - ever. Go play all the multiplats on PS360 or PC

Don't you have another company to run into the ground, Mattrick?

>PS+ gives multiple free games every month or varying quality for 3 systems, it gives you mega discounts, it gives you access to free alphas/betas, it gives you cloud storage, and online multi of course but there are three things people refuse to acknowledge out of ignorance or anger.

This is the dumbest part about PS+ is none of the games they give you are actually yours as soon as your PS+ subscription is over they lock those 'free games' it's one of the most jewish tactics ever and cloud storage means nothing it's basically free on steam and several other programs.

>2 games for free every month

I am ok with this.

>Oh right it's not optional you have to pay for all that shit you don't want.

Then you pay for multiplayer and get everything else with it. Why wouldn't you want to back up your saves, be given 72 games a year and constantly have opportunities to save money on thing you would buy anyway?

> and 72 games means fuck all when 70 of them suck.

You can't both be stupid enough to not understand that it's worth it just on the games alone. It doesn't matter if you don't like all of them. Even if every single one of the games was only worth $1 (which is very far from the truth) it would still be $72 dollars worth of games for $60 That alone makes it worth it and you also get; on top of the, easily, over $500 worth of games (still for only $50, now $60); you also get the cloud storage and the benefit of hundreds of dollars worth of savings.

There is no way it can't be considered not worth $60. It is factually worth at most more than a thousand dollars, and you're getting it for sixty.

6 games every month

at least for PS+

>Why wouldn't you want to back up your saves
Which you can already do with flash drives.

>be given 72 games a year
Which disappear unless you pay for the subscription, and you have to "download" them to actually have them tied to your account in the first place.

>and constantly have opportunities to save money on thing you would buy anyway?
But I don't buy digitally, it's the stupidest thing you can do since you can usually get anything on it from either Europe or your own country physically. Very rarely do they have something that's digital only and can't be found anywhere else, and for those games it's usually only like a $3 discount anyway.

>Which you can already do with flash drives.

that you have to buy

>Which disappear unless you pay for the subscription, and you have to "download" them to actually have them tied to your account in the first place.

no shit

>But I don't buy digitally, it's the stupidest thing you can do since you can usually get anything on it from either Europe or your own country physically. Very rarely do they have something that's digital only and can't be found anywhere else, and for those games it's usually only like a $3 discount anyway.

Just because you don't take advantage of it doesn't mean it isn't a great deal. And you can shut the fuck up with your condescending "why would anyone ever buy digital?" argument against savings until downloadable content somehow becomes always available without downloading.

>that you have to buy
Which can also move shit over to other hard drives and your computer, can be used without paying for a subscription of any kind, and doesn't hold your save hostage if you uploaded it. I have a save of Uncharted Golden Abyss being held hostage since I bought a physical copy when I played the PS+ version and until I pay for it again I can't get it back.

>Just because you don't take advantage of it doesn't mean it isn't a great deal.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean I should have to pay for multiplayer because of these things, they're just being shoehorned in to make it seem like I'm getting a deal alongside the multiplayer when I'm really not, the multiplayer itself is just being held hostage and I get "benefits" for it. You could make the exact same argument for Xbox Live itself.

If you enjoy the discounts and "free" games then lets go back to PS3 PS+ where multiplayer was free across the board but if you paid you got the games, the online saves, the automatic patches, and the discounts.

>they're just being shoehorned in to make it seem like I'm getting a deal alongside the multiplayer

No, they were there before multiplayer was attached. And it is a deal.

>If you enjoy the discounts and "free" games then lets go back to PS3 PS+ where multiplayer was free across the board but if you paid you got the games, the online saves, the automatic patches, and the discounts.

Because we are getting more than our moneys worth (which is the original point you're moronically trying to argue against) we should still have what we already have? How would that make PS+ any better?

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't give a shit how much worth I'm getting from the deal, I don't want to pay for multiplayer on top of my internet service. I could be getting a "free" subscription to Netflix or Hulu with it and I'd still be pissed because I have to pay for multiplayer when I seldom play it, and when I do I have to shell out money to do it on a game and system I already paid for using the internet connection I'm already shelling out for. I'd rather have it be like the PS3 version of PS+ where it was intentionally paying for heavy discounts and downloadable games monthly if you wanted that, not forcing the person to pay for it if he wants to play a portion fo his game and justifying it with the extra stuff you end up getting.

>not forcing the person to pay for it if he wants to play a portion fo his game and justifying it with the extra stuff you end up getting.

Why would someone that wants it just for the multiplayer access justify it with anything more than the multiplayer access? Everything else then just makes it a better deal?

It doesn't matter if you didn't have to pay for it with the Ps3 or Vita. As it is now you can't buy a current gen Playstation console, that isn't handheld, and have access to the multiplayer content of every game without paying for it; and they aren't hiding that.

You can't buy a TV and get, legally, get cable without paying for it. You either buy it, or you don't.

It's not great that what used to not cost any extra now does. But that's how it is. Sony also gave us backwards compatability with the Ps2 and (for a limited run) the Ps3, and that's something we don't get anymore either.

But none of this changes the fact that all of this for even only $60 is an amazing deal and absolutely worth it.

All you have to do is look to Nintendo to see what free online means. It's absolute shit.

>mfw there people unironically that defend this bullshit for free
>mfw they gladly spread open their checks and thankes for get treated like a bitch
>b-b-ut its a great deal, you are only paying for something that was always free

>you were already going to be given those 72 games

>Why would someone that wants it just for the multiplayer access justify it with anything more than the multiplayer access? Everything else then just makes it a better deal?
The point is that if someone just wants it for multiplayer then the extra shit is just being used as a justification by Sony to actually make the multiplayer paid in the first place. Why do I all of a sudden have no access to what I paid for without paying you more on a monthly basis? Because you so graciously offered me extra options on top of it?

>and they aren't hiding that.
and that means it's a good thing? That we should bend over and take it? When literally every other Playstation console has given it for free on top of still having devices currently running that have it for free with no fee?

>You can't buy a TV and get, legally, get cable without paying for it. You either buy it, or you don't.
No, but you do get access to public access shows. Or is in your example the extremely basic stuff like profile management and buying from the storefront the public access?

I don't find this shit worth it just for multiplayer, even paying $1 every couple months they offer it to me on the 360 is bullshit and you shouldn't stand for this just because they give you extra shit. Like I said, you could give me all the shit in the world and I don't want it, I want to play multiplayer without paying for it, those who actually want these games and discounts should be allowed to pay for it while multiplayer stays free since you already paid for the multiplayer portion on the damn game in the first place. The fact you are trying to justify "the extra stuff you get is just better!" is horrendous when I only want multiplayer without paying for it, you can keep the amazing extra stuff they give you.

>I know its technically not worth it.
Both Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus give you free games monthly that have value which exceeds (especially in XBLG's case) the monthly cost.

Since in both cases that's considered a "bonus" feature I'd say that they're both good value.

>justification by Sony
>Sony
>not the player

If we're talking about the service as a whole the entire thing is more than enough justification.

>and that means it's a good thing? That we should bend over and take it? When literally every other Playstation console has given it for free on top of still having devices currently running that have it for free with no fee?

It's not a good thing, dumbass. But that's how it is. Try not paying and see how far that gets you.

>No, but you do get access to public access shows.

and network television

> Or is in your example the extremely basic stuff like profile management and buying from the storefront the public access?

and all of the multiplayer games on the Ps4 that don't require Ps+, as well as every multiplayer game on the Ps3 and Vita.

>I don't find this shit worth it just for multiplayer

You don't find multiplayer worth it for multiplayer?

> Like I said, you could give me all the shit in the world and I don't want it, I want to play multiplayer without paying for it

But you can't get that on the Ps4, and it's all still an incredible deal at $60.

>The fact you are trying to justify "the extra stuff you get is just better!" is horrendous when I only want multiplayer without paying for it, you can keep the amazing extra stuff they give you.

Acknowleding a deal for what it is is horrendous?

Multiplayer on the Ps3 and Vita was free, and it still is. Multiplayer on the Ps4 foq every game was never free. It would be nice if it was (which I was never against and never tried to justify).

I will keep all of the extra stuff that I've recieved from Ps+ and I'll continue playing online on all three systems.

1. The value of PSN+ games has decreased substantially in the past 2-3 years.
2. You don't get to keep the PSN+ games after your membership expires. You're not getting free games.
You're paying a rental service that only carries shitty indie pixelblobs.

Sony defense force can't into arguments and reading comprehension.

Steam does this all for free, and more.

It's not even in the "free but half-assed" sort of way. It's flat-out done better on Steam than anywhere else. Even the biggest normie on the planet probably has at least heard of Steam at this point.

>You don't get to keep the PSN+ games after your membership expires. You're not getting free games.

No. You're paying sixty dollars for over seventy games a year.

Which makes Steam better. But it doesn't change the value of Ps+.

It changes the perceived value, which is almost as important.

Only when compared to Steam. But that's not the arguement here.

68 of which are incredibly shitty indie games, and the other 2 are old as shit and can be bought in a bargain bin for like $5.

Wow. Amazing.

a more apt comparison would be having to pay samsung a monthly fee to use a samsung phone on the mobile network you're already paying for.

and FWIW this already happens, just in a less direct way.

And like I said, if you view it as a game rental service, that's an incredibly bad selection.

"Hey, we're renting games to you. But you can only pick these six shitty indie games each month."

Can you imagine if Netflix only let you watch shitty indie films, and only offered a selection of six of them each month? They'd never survive.

>post yfw Microsoft actually drops the online fee

It'd never happen, but imagine if they did. Imagine if all this shit they've been doing since the Kinect (AT LEAST) was some big plan to get the PlayStation in a situation where public perception would be ruined instantly.

The more they push the whole "unify all our platforms" thing they're doing, it's inevitable really.

Honestly, dropping the online fee is Microsoft's greatest weapon if they want to buttfuck Sony. Sony would not be able to respond immediately. Microsoft would advertise the fuck out of it and Xbox is back on top.

>Free

what about the PS3's free online? The PS4's online is literally the same thing except behind a pay wall.

Unless those other 68 games are worth less the 74 cents a piece you would still be getting you're moneys worth.

I've had plus for a few years now. I wouldn't say the majority of these games have been shitty. I've got more than the few years of fees that I've paid worth of AAA and mid tier games out of this and many not-so-shitty and not-at-all-shity indie games to make it more than worth it (and to make up for the actually shitty indie games).

>they could
what is the point of fantasizing about potential assumptions? The whole reason they've raised the prices is because they have a financial year target to reach (and the target is to increase the income - that is always what they want)

They would only lower the hw price, if it will sell poorly (which is, again, made only to reach as close as possible to THE Target)

Maybe you are into something OP, iirc Sony didn't make much profit when the PS4 launched because of the price tag, they made it cheaper so people can buy it and didn't make the same mistake as PS3 , and that worked wonderful (although MS and Nintendo didn't do shit to compete this gen).

I hope this raise means a good price for the PS4 neo and if we ever get the Vita successor it might be cheaper this time.

Or maybe Sony is just a fucking greedy jew but it seems that Sony is the only company that kinda gives a shit to their consumers

Didn't they do pretty good when it came to the PS4s launch and profits?

Problem is, most of these games are trash or niche and you would never pay a dollar for them.

All commercial offers are in direct competition with other offers of the same service. Steam, doing cloud saves and weekly discounts first, sets the precedent at $0, which PS+ must compete with. The comparison is fine.

The only difference between the two is that Steam gives you 4+ free games a month, at least 1 on each weekend. PS+ by definition doesn't actually give you free games.

You're basically telling someone to give your favorite corporation free money so that they can half-ass a service someone else was already providing without fail for nothing. Giving someone a monthly drain on your wallet to not do anything different is not worth it.

yes, the only massive jews on PC are GPU providers and Microsoft, which has been successfully destroying the gaming environment for two generations of their OS.

Don't get me wrong, Valve definitely tries to jew us out often.

But that's why every PC gamer has a bullwhip in their closet.

I've had PSN+ for a few years. After the first year, it was pretty much all indie trash which I tried and hated, or old games which I already owned. Besides that, like I said: why force me to rent your shitty selection of games just so I can play online?

Do you even realize how ass-backwards you sound right now?

>Games nobody wants
>"But it's included in your rental fee!"
>Can't you just not charge me a rental fee, and keep the games?
>"No, because it's included in your rental fee!"
>But I don't want to fucking rent the games.
>"Then why are you paying a rental fee?"
Sony defense force everybody.

yes, as a company Valve has found a really nice niche of milking poor sods with the trading market environment (and I'm glad that this is not shoved in my face whenever i launch steam.. yet).

But there's no comparison - you either spend your money on PC, which, as a platform, does not belong to a single company (so you can either go Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Steam, GOG, bundle sites, piratebay, whatever) so there is significantly more competition, which has only one drawback - compatibility issues between the products - but overall is extremely beneficial for the user.

Or you can go for a dictatorial single-company proprietary platform, and stuck with whatever decision they would like to throw this day (be either server shutdown, or raising price for online service)

regardless of what the money is for PS+ has no reason to be at the same price as xbox live.

they can't even keep their shit from being hacked or ddos. it's literally been less than a few weeks since the last time they went down.

their free games are typically shit and they brag about it's value when it's entirely dependant on owning all sony products. PS4 owners don't get the vita or PS3 unless they've been ported and the games that are ported are usually trash. the only way to play certain PS3 games is to pay an additional fee to stream those games.

the xbox one comparatively only gives out games it can play for it's free games so you're always gauranteed 4 instead of sony's random assortment of shit and there's no fee for the backward compatible games you play.

Why are you paying for games if you don't want them?

72 different games for $60 every year.

It doesn't matter if you personally don't like each one of them. How is it a bad deal?

>If they raise the price of these services, they could afford to make their hardware units cheaper.

Has this ever happened in any profitable industry ever?

I didn't say you can't compare them.

I said that $1000 worth of games and savings, with a few extra benefits, for only $60 is a good deal. Even if a better service exists it's still a good deal. The only thing that could really change that is if a better service existed on the same platform.

This is kinda like saying that getting one arm removed is better than both. While true, you still lose an arm.

Not really. It's more like saying I enjoy when gas prices aren't $5 a gallon or more like they were years ago even though I could get an electric car and never pay for gas.

Or like saying $5 to rent a speed boat for a day is a good deal even though some people own them.

Or I bought _____ for %75 off which is a great deal even though I know someone that got is as a gift.