Which thread? Google picked up several.
- Is it this one? If so, I've maybe found it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=588871
Compared with the Xbox One's requirements......yep, not that much of a concern.
The idea that i have to be a ps plus subscriber to use some games really pisses me off, it's not the price or anything it.. well okay it is the price and the morality of it.
Look I already payed for the game the console and i pay for my internet connect, now i have to pay to play this (whatever it may be) multiplayer game online? Sorry but something just isn't adding up here.
Pay to play is simply BS wrapped up in a nice nazi wrapper if you ask me, they are trying to slowly introduce systems that will inevitably siphon money and freedom from us like you wouldn't believe. I can see how they are tryign to implement this as mainstreem slowely so that we dont' feel it like a lobster in water that is slowly brought to boil.
I have always been against mmorpg's that require a monthly subscription it just ridiculous. Maybe i'm jsut getting older or something but i dont' like steam, i don't' like virtual copies of games and i don't like paying additionally in instalment to be allowed to play a game after i have already paid for the initial copy of the damn thing. PS3 had a good balance in my opinion, you could elect to have ps plus and you could go to the store and download titles, but by the same token i could get a hardcopy from my local store and i didnt' have to be a ps plus member to play any of my games. Perfect because you have 2 options. Slowelly we are seeing 1 of these options being taken away from us and that pisses me off.
While i'm on my soap box regurgitating my insignificant opinions i would like to mention that i am displeased (not raging about it now but maybe inthe future) that there are alot of old school games that you can only buy from teh online store and you can only get virtual copies of. When they removed backwards compatability from the ps3 i was rightly annoyed, not because i had ps2 games (which i didn't have any i was N64 guy lol) but because it's another option removed that i may have liked.
Moveing this into today i have a nice little collection of ps3 games which because ps4 will nto be backwards compatible with ps3 means that to play these games i will need either the ps3 or i will have to buy them again for the ps4. They are forceing me to pay twice for a product i already own and i am not cool with that, not by a long shot.
Once again its' not really the money (tho it is a part of the problem) but it's the principle of the thing. Give me goddamn options that aren't purely focused on making money for the corps.
Look I already payed for the game the console and i pay for my internet connect, now i have to pay to play this (whatever it may be) multiplayer game online? Sorry but something just isn't adding up here.
Pay to play is simply BS wrapped up in a nice nazi wrapper if you ask me, they are trying to slowly introduce systems that will inevitably siphon money and freedom from us like you wouldn't believe. I can see how they are tryign to implement this as mainstreem slowely so that we dont' feel it like a lobster in water that is slowly brought to boil.
I have always been against mmorpg's that require a monthly subscription it just ridiculous. Maybe i'm jsut getting older or something but i dont' like steam, i don't' like virtual copies of games and i don't like paying additionally in instalment to be allowed to play a game after i have already paid for the initial copy of the damn thing. PS3 had a good balance in my opinion, you could elect to have ps plus and you could go to the store and download titles, but by the same token i could get a hardcopy from my local store and i didnt' have to be a ps plus member to play any of my games. Perfect because you have 2 options. Slowelly we are seeing 1 of these options being taken away from us and that pisses me off.
While i'm on my soap box regurgitating my insignificant opinions i would like to mention that i am displeased (not raging about it now but maybe inthe future) that there are alot of old school games that you can only buy from teh online store and you can only get virtual copies of. When they removed backwards compatability from the ps3 i was rightly annoyed, not because i had ps2 games (which i didn't have any i was N64 guy lol) but because it's another option removed that i may have liked.
Moveing this into today i have a nice little collection of ps3 games which because ps4 will nto be backwards compatible with ps3 means that to play these games i will need either the ps3 or i will have to buy them again for the ps4. They are forceing me to pay twice for a product i already own and i am not cool with that, not by a long shot.
Once again its' not really the money (tho it is a part of the problem) but it's the principle of the thing. Give me goddamn options that aren't purely focused on making money for the corps.
I'm already a PS+ member but the mandate does sadden me. It strikes me as somewhat unethical and that view has been perhaps fostered by Sony themselves given they made access to online play free this gen. Then I realize that the only reason they provided it as a free service was to remain competitive in the market after releasing their console a year after 360, large part of whose user base were already willing and paying for XBL, and asking for $200 over the base 360 core version. Going forward, Sony sees this position being reversed and unlike MS, whose policy it is to declare that it's their way or the highway, they are smart enough to go the route of enticement via removal of season passes (at least for first parties) and offering one free game every month along with Gaikai and other features that come standard with XBL gold. Plus it also helps that they're not relegating subscription based media services behind pay wall (unlike XBL).
So, in conclusion, having to choose between M S's DRM policies and Sony's PSN+ (courtesy of which I have quite a few games for free as a part of the subscription), I'll take the latter (especially given that I ever got the xbone, I'd never pay for Live).
So, in conclusion, having to choose between M S's DRM policies and Sony's PSN+ (courtesy of which I have quite a few games for free as a part of the subscription), I'll take the latter (especially given that I ever got the xbone, I'd never pay for Live).
Yeah, I see your point, i-Lo. PS+ is a good value..but it wasn't an obligatory value of my PS3 game experience. If you see "MP" as an option in a game and then paywall it, the price you pay for that game just went up, and it's not on the label. Buy a game a month, that's an extra $5 for your MP.
Yes, of course there are extras, but they aren't extras I asked for or need. Giving me bennies after forcing me to buy something I didn't have to before and hiding a multi-player surcharge doesn't really convince me of the value of the service.
But you know this.
I dunno if we'll get PS+. I didn't need it before so unless something comes out that I absolutely need MP for, I expect I won't. And if I do, I'll mentally bump the game cost up by the amount of months I'll have to pay PS+ for. That'll take a $60 game and add a 10-30 percent surcharge. Certainly a substantial tariff.
Yes, of course there are extras, but they aren't extras I asked for or need. Giving me bennies after forcing me to buy something I didn't have to before and hiding a multi-player surcharge doesn't really convince me of the value of the service.
But you know this.
I dunno if we'll get PS+. I didn't need it before so unless something comes out that I absolutely need MP for, I expect I won't. And if I do, I'll mentally bump the game cost up by the amount of months I'll have to pay PS+ for. That'll take a $60 game and add a 10-30 percent surcharge. Certainly a substantial tariff.
I have to think about it, one source stated F2P games you didn't have to be a PS+ member. That can include lots of FPS games that do not have an online subscription, but you have to purchase the game like Battlefield and others. The issue is they are not being 100% descriptive with each piece of information that comes out. For that it will be a wait and see, I have been influenced to much by CP 2020 to think the Coperation are looking out for us 
This is going to sound antagonistic, but it's meant as a genuine question...
What MP games are you guys playing that are currently free, and how is the service actually funded?
What MP games are you guys playing that are currently free, and how is the service actually funded?
On PC? Damn little. Old Republic, funded by Cartel Coins, the in-game shop. Guild Wars 2, initial purchase and cash shop, but I haven't played in awhile. DayZ - game purchase, some official servers ( I think) lots of private hives. Tomb Raider, no idea. Private servers?
When I played MP a lot, it was on PC and there was little funding required. You or someone else hosts, voila. Dedicated servers. With bug hubs, the community might kick in for hosting costs, say for a popular CS server. Steam hosts for Portal 2, when I play that, part of the overhead cost of the game.
PS3 really little. I'll play GTA V when it comes out and I guess they'll cover funding costs out of revenue on sales?
Much of this issue is a feature of a game being set aside in terms of costing and funding, thanks to Xbox running their own network and teh decline or private and dedicated servers. Producers could run the service out of game revenue, like in PC BF3, which I played, but that would cut into those revenues on console. Why not offload that cost to players, instead?
Which is, of course, a typical business trick. You always try to offload as much of your cost as you can onto the consumer, until you hit the point where they buy enough less of the product to make the process a negative. Or you can raise the cost of the product until you hit your market ceiling/market share. You probably know all this.
Business ethics are so...flexible.
When I played MP a lot, it was on PC and there was little funding required. You or someone else hosts, voila. Dedicated servers. With bug hubs, the community might kick in for hosting costs, say for a popular CS server. Steam hosts for Portal 2, when I play that, part of the overhead cost of the game.
PS3 really little. I'll play GTA V when it comes out and I guess they'll cover funding costs out of revenue on sales?
Much of this issue is a feature of a game being set aside in terms of costing and funding, thanks to Xbox running their own network and teh decline or private and dedicated servers. Producers could run the service out of game revenue, like in PC BF3, which I played, but that would cut into those revenues on console. Why not offload that cost to players, instead?
Which is, of course, a typical business trick. You always try to offload as much of your cost as you can onto the consumer, until you hit the point where they buy enough less of the product to make the process a negative. Or you can raise the cost of the product until you hit your market ceiling/market share. You probably know all this.
Business ethics are so...flexible.
So it's currently mainly in-game purchases and/or the initial sale of the game?
On consoles, are the servers usually run by the game developer/producer, or by Sony/MS?
On consoles, are the servers usually run by the game developer/producer, or by Sony/MS?
For PC, yes. When a service is even run. On PC, the network architecture is part of the software and it usually contains code allowing a distributed, third-party dedicated server network.
This is becoming less common as EA and Valve run their own, for reasons of market, hacking, simplicity. Valve advertises it as a selling point for Steam and really, I think they are right. Steam is quite nice to hook up with and a point in it's favour. Some hate it of course.
Anyway, PC, yeah, either hosted by users, ( really the preferred method for shooters) or hosted by the producers at their cost. World of Warcraft, the overhead is covered by a monthly fee, but that model is almost done. And it's obviously vastly exceeded the overhead cost, going be ATVI-BLIZZ fiscals. Grotesquely exceeded.
Console games rarely even have a dedicated/third party server option. In order to control who plays with who and how, the companies themselves provide, maintain and expand the networks. They use the same platform to advertise their goods and provide you with other media. Netflix, for example.
The game producers themselves also have a good hand in, since their network code determines how you play, and that code is limited by/complemented by the consoles or PC hardware/software.
That's part of why you see producers providing online passes for Last of Us, for example. To prevent/dissuade me from selling my copy when I'm done with it,as the online pass and functionality is limited and locked to my online ID.
As you have discerned, this is all about control. It's a very different esthetic than a network setup to enable and encourage access and usability and this control comes with quite a set of complications. Mind you, so does even Steam, which is less about control than the console crews.
This is becoming less common as EA and Valve run their own, for reasons of market, hacking, simplicity. Valve advertises it as a selling point for Steam and really, I think they are right. Steam is quite nice to hook up with and a point in it's favour. Some hate it of course.
Anyway, PC, yeah, either hosted by users, ( really the preferred method for shooters) or hosted by the producers at their cost. World of Warcraft, the overhead is covered by a monthly fee, but that model is almost done. And it's obviously vastly exceeded the overhead cost, going be ATVI-BLIZZ fiscals. Grotesquely exceeded.
Console games rarely even have a dedicated/third party server option. In order to control who plays with who and how, the companies themselves provide, maintain and expand the networks. They use the same platform to advertise their goods and provide you with other media. Netflix, for example.
The game producers themselves also have a good hand in, since their network code determines how you play, and that code is limited by/complemented by the consoles or PC hardware/software.
That's part of why you see producers providing online passes for Last of Us, for example. To prevent/dissuade me from selling my copy when I'm done with it,as the online pass and functionality is limited and locked to my online ID.
As you have discerned, this is all about control. It's a very different esthetic than a network setup to enable and encourage access and usability and this control comes with quite a set of complications. Mind you, so does even Steam, which is less about control than the console crews.
OK, so now that I'm done with the Socratic Method, would this be accurate?
- If Sony are going to start charging for MP games, then, if they're being fair, the purchase price of a MP game should be lower than a SP game, or, at the very least, lower than it is now. (As they're going to recoup through time)
- If Sony provides the servers, it should, in theory, be easier for a startup/indie company to develop MP games, as the infrastructure is already there and can be funded monthly. BUT it also means that the decision to CLOSE the servers after any initial contract period will probably rest with Sony, not the game company. Of course, that can happen anyway, even if the game developer/publisher runs the servers, so it doesn't automatically mean it's worse for gamers.
(And I'm pretty sure it's about control with Steam too. They may be benign compared to many, but I'm sure they still want world domination)
- If Sony are going to start charging for MP games, then, if they're being fair, the purchase price of a MP game should be lower than a SP game, or, at the very least, lower than it is now. (As they're going to recoup through time)
- If Sony provides the servers, it should, in theory, be easier for a startup/indie company to develop MP games, as the infrastructure is already there and can be funded monthly. BUT it also means that the decision to CLOSE the servers after any initial contract period will probably rest with Sony, not the game company. Of course, that can happen anyway, even if the game developer/publisher runs the servers, so it doesn't automatically mean it's worse for gamers.
(And I'm pretty sure it's about control with Steam too. They may be benign compared to many, but I'm sure they still want world domination)
Oh, you. You so clevarr.
Yes, you've summed up some of the best counter-arguments - or compensatory arguments. Sony and MS and their supporters argue that they provide value above and beyond mere MP. This is true, but since that value is a non-voluntary acquisition by the consumer, it weakens it correspondingly.
The server shut down issue crops up rarely and typically only for the small minority of players still trying to play on old, dead game worlds. This was seen relatively dramatically when City of Heroes was shut down - it wasn't dead. Still, another value hit.
Steam loves you. Testing is good for you. Obey. Obey. Obey.
Yes, you've summed up some of the best counter-arguments - or compensatory arguments. Sony and MS and their supporters argue that they provide value above and beyond mere MP. This is true, but since that value is a non-voluntary acquisition by the consumer, it weakens it correspondingly.
The server shut down issue crops up rarely and typically only for the small minority of players still trying to play on old, dead game worlds. This was seen relatively dramatically when City of Heroes was shut down - it wasn't dead. Still, another value hit.
Steam loves you. Testing is good for you. Obey. Obey. Obey.
it sounds like they can get away with more in terms of off loading upon a consumer then any other market that i can think of.
perhaps it's because we don't' fully understand this new technology (yes i am talking about gaming) it's only been out for 40years or so, so far and i would say 15-20 of those as isolated over the internet mp style games, at least for my country the internet in the domestic sense didnt' really take off till early 2000's. Both game companies and the consumers are having to rapidly adapt to arguably the highest revenue market today. Naturally you have people on both sides taking advantage of loop holes, then there are rudimentary measures put in place to deal with identified loop holes.
Marketing and money are amazing things in the way they shape this industry. Lets see how it all developes with the PS4 and it's servers and CP2077 i hope it won't be too big a grab at our wallets.
perhaps it's because we don't' fully understand this new technology (yes i am talking about gaming) it's only been out for 40years or so, so far and i would say 15-20 of those as isolated over the internet mp style games, at least for my country the internet in the domestic sense didnt' really take off till early 2000's. Both game companies and the consumers are having to rapidly adapt to arguably the highest revenue market today. Naturally you have people on both sides taking advantage of loop holes, then there are rudimentary measures put in place to deal with identified loop holes.
Marketing and money are amazing things in the way they shape this industry. Lets see how it all developes with the PS4 and it's servers and CP2077 i hope it won't be too big a grab at our wallets.
Well, somebody's obviously paying for the servers, and whoever it is should be paid for it. The question is whether or not the server-owners are charging a reasonable fee for it, or screwing someone - the gamer, or the developer. The problem with closed systems is that the normal checks and balances don't work.
And yes, those marketing costs are the counter-argument to my "if they're being fair".
And yes, those marketing costs are the counter-argument to my "if they're being fair".
lol one counter argument after another.
But you see i would totally subscribe to a system that sells a game for $10 lets say instead of $60 where i have to pay an additional $10 a month or whatever to play it online whereas the $60 game is a single player game jsut for me, I like that idea. I would even be happy paying $150 for a single game but having access to servers and mp for free with much longer term support then say a $50 game would. All i want is to be able to make th echoice between a $10 version of the game or a $150 version.
The issue again is money, and I understand that there are people who are not like me and don't like paying money for services rendered crazy though it may seem. I wish this "closed system" as you describe it didn't have such issues tho, perhaps if we were all a little more naive and trusting (publishers/developers and gamers alike) it could work...
can you imagine such a naive world? holy crap that would be boring, i think i'll take our current issues, hot blood, and plausible cyberpunk future thank you, even if i fight with it on so many levels.
But you see i would totally subscribe to a system that sells a game for $10 lets say instead of $60 where i have to pay an additional $10 a month or whatever to play it online whereas the $60 game is a single player game jsut for me, I like that idea. I would even be happy paying $150 for a single game but having access to servers and mp for free with much longer term support then say a $50 game would. All i want is to be able to make th echoice between a $10 version of the game or a $150 version.
The issue again is money, and I understand that there are people who are not like me and don't like paying money for services rendered crazy though it may seem. I wish this "closed system" as you describe it didn't have such issues tho, perhaps if we were all a little more naive and trusting (publishers/developers and gamers alike) it could work...
can you imagine such a naive world? holy crap that would be boring, i think i'll take our current issues, hot blood, and plausible cyberpunk future thank you, even if i fight with it on so many levels.