With the recent news that Sony is going to raise the price of PSN to $60 a year, it reminds us all on why are we paying a subscription just to play multiplayer? We paid for the console, the game and internet access from our local telecommunications provider. What are Sony and Microsoft doing that requires us to pay in order to play online? Surely it must be something significant if were paying $50+ a year. Lets break it down to see if its worth it. Were going to start first with Sony. Before you guys ask me where was I when MS started charging people for online well I was 11, didn't follow gaming news, mommy and daddy paid for everything, only played offline on PS2 and didn't know any better.
Multiplayer is free on the PS3 and Vita, what do they do that's inferior to the PS4?? Maybe its expensive to run the servers for PS4 games. There are over 700 games on the PS4 so lets just look at the top 51 PS4 games. 41 of the 51 are 3rd party games, of the 41, 31 have multiplayer and 28 use servers while the other 3 are all COD games which use peer to peer. So multiplayer is a major feature in the most of the popular games and more games than ever are using servers to make multiplayer smooth and frustration free. Its a good thing Sony does a great job hosting all of these games on their servers. Wait a minute... 3rd party companies run their own servers and Sony doesn't provide any financial assistance from their PS+ revenue. Why are we paying to play online with friends in 3rd party games if Sony doesn't do anything?? These 3rd party companies aren't charging me to play online too. Must be something else then, lets look at the 10 Sony made PS4 games in the top 51 list, must be something there. So of those 10 games, 7 have multiplayer and only 4 use servers. Sony's biggest games on PS4 like The Last of Us and Uncharted 4 don't even have servers. So you're telling me that we pay to play online because of the servers for Driveclub, Bloodbourne, Killzone and LBP 3?? Ok clearly there are more pieces to this puzzle, maybe Sony clarified it somewhere. Here is an snippet from an interview from 2013 before the console launched.
"After being asked what went into the decision to charge for online gameplay, Sony explained that online features and services are going to be a "big pillar" of the PS4 experience. They go on to note, "we've already talked about the share button, sharing features, second screens...if we continue to invest into online infrastructures, that costs money. If we continue free service for online multiplayer, from a business standpoint, there's pressure to recover costs. That's when we decided 'let's ask the people who are most active in playing online to share some of the cost so we can invest more."
https://www.destructoid.com...
Are the costs really that high for servers for the handful of games Sony makes?? Yes there are other Sony games like MLB the Show that use servers but they don't sell as well as the 4 Sony games that use servers so it doesn't cost as much to buy and maintain the infrastructure. Do you think its fair that you pay for multiplayer when Sony doesn't pay for the infrastructure for 3rd party multiplayer games and only a handful of Sony games use servers?? Doesn't seem fair to me at all, feels like we're being taken advantage. Well lets look at the other part of the quote where he says the infrastructure helps with share features. Cant find much on sharing clips but did find something on Share Play. For those that don't know its so your friends can play your games even if they don’t own a copy themselves for unlimited 60 minute sessions. Well what does Share Play have to do with me trying to play Battlefield with my friend when we both own the game?? Then there is cloud storage but that's free for all Xbox and Steam users so yet another 'costly' feature that other companies are just giving away.
Now lets take a look at the company that started it all when it comes to paying to play online on consoles. Now Microsoft does have more multiplayer games that they make that use servers but there is one little thing that I couldn't help but notice. All Windows 10 users will not be paying to play multiplayer games like Forza Horizon 3, Gears of War 4 and Crackdown. That's right not only will PC players get to play online without a Gold sub but if these games support crossplay then you will be playing with someone that doesn't pay to play online while you have to pay $60, how does that make you feel? Feel like your being robbed?? I felt like I was when I had Gold and woke up from my corporate shill daze. Didn't pay the last 2 years I had it since they were gifts, ran out in February and haven't looked back. Yea it sucks I can't play some fun mp games like Gears 3 but guess what? Gears 4 is coming soon and I wont have to pay a subscription just to play online with friends.
Now before you guys start saying "no one is forcing you to play online so don't buy it" Read what I posted above this and tell yourself. Why do I have to play online when PC users don't pay for it, only a handful of Sony's games use servers, and MS and Sony don't contribute to the infrastructure of 3rd party companies?? Why can't online just be free while PS+ and XBL Gold will give subscribers free games every month, share play for Plus members, exclusive betas and discounts, free game trials, and more.
3rd party companies like EA, Ubisoft and Activision would love free multiplayer on consoles because that means more people playing their games buying up DLC and microtransactions. As of now VGchartz says their are 44 million PS4s and 22 million X1s that have been sold. So you have 66 million people with current gen consoles. Lets say half pay for subscriptions, look how much money these companies are making off digital items life map packs, expansions and microtransactions. If you told them they would have 33 million more customers overnight they would have a heart attack.
But Chris stop being entitled, they are giving you free games. 1st of all its not entitlement when I'm being restricted from the internet on my console because I'm not paying an additional fee on top of my monthly internet bill to Verizon. 2nd of all those 'free' games you get every month aren't free. You're just renting them. As soon as your sub runs out those games are locked away until you renew it. You wouldn't say you got free movies with a Netflix subscription so don't fall for their clever marketing.
You also might say well multiplayer might not be as good since less people are subscribing which leads to weaker infrastructure. Well Steam and Origin seem to be doing just fine. Steam has 125 million users and the Origin probably has at least 50 million. Last time they announced the number of Origin users was back in 2012 and they had 30 million. Steam has free games, free weekends, streaming, achievements, major sales (seasonal sales are practically PC holidays), mod support, multiplayer and much more. All for the low low cost of free.
Free multiplayer is great for gamers, publishers and developers. Yes MS and Sony would take a hit in subscribers but they can make up a good portion of that hit when people are buying more of their DLC, microtransactions and multiplayer games.
Top Selling PS4 Games: http://www.vgchartz.com/pla...
The Nerd Stash: "The rarest PSP games of all time are some of the most underrated titles with niche gameplay styles and huge fanbases."
The Nerd Stash: "Ubisoft is finally bringing players to Japan with Assassin's Creed Shadows, but this samurai/ninja epic might arrive too late."
More like 12 year...people have been going on about Japan or China since after Assassins Creed 3
Hell I even remember seeing people talk about it before Brotherhood or Revelations came out.
Ubisoft ignored people for over a decade and clearly decided to do it once they saw how successful games like Ghost of Tsushima become.
Well, the funny thing is in the very first game once you unlock the eagle vision outside the Animus, people deciphered the writing on the wall and it gave a lot of hints to China and japan being the next or one of the next locations. And now they only do it when someone else already did it for them, and better imo.
Hell one of the directors literally addressed people's demands to.follow through on the hints the game had, and blatantly said they will never have an AC set in that location.
Me and my friends called it while playing GoT, like "i bet Ubisoft announces an AC game set in China or Japan now" and they announce TWO 🤣
The creators had plans for this series which where put on hold indefinitely for the milking Ubi had planned. Pretty sure they were gonna take this to Japan after 2, but then focused on Ezio. Which is why the modern day stuff fell apart too.
They know it was heavily requested so they kept it as a trump card while milking the series until it was dry. GoT finally snapped their eyes open but since you can't just release a game on the spot it takes them this long for a catch up game.
Idk how successful it will be though, with all the controversies surrounding it, either about the race stuff or ubisoft bad practices in general.
Better late than never. I haven’t been into an Ass Creed game since Black Flag and I only liked the non-Ass Creed parts of that game. This one will be the first I’ve played since Unity, which killed any interest I had with the series,
Nah, tsushima is all countryside and beach and sekiro and nioh are fantasy, a more urban feudal japan setting is fresh. Besides we get a new European medieval game every 10 minutes, why can't multiple companies do Japan ? I would love onimusha, tenchu and way of the samurai to come back.
I hate the idea of a gaming company 'owning' a setting, I want more high budget cowboy games besides red dead !!!!
Ghost of Tsushima has set a high bar for games in the vein of Assassin’s Creed. While having more options is generally beneficial, Ubisoft seems to struggle with their direction, which can sometimes undermine those benefits. If it was not for the success of Tsushima I don’t think we would ever get assassin Creed game in Japan. Even now sucker punch are a much much smarter team of developers that did Tsushima And now we have Ubisoft who have 15 studios helping making one game
Games like Ghost of Tsushima, Nioh, and Sekiro stand out because they focus on gameplay and setting without the burden of microtransactions or mandatory online connections for single-player content. They prioritize quality over quantity, something Ubisoft could learn from.
The upcoming Assassin’s Creed game will inevitably be compared to its predecessors and other high-quality titles. It needs to meet or exceed these quality standards. We don’t need another 80-100 hour marathon; we need content that offers a compelling and engaging experience.
Instead of criticizing other companies for excelling, we should encourage Ubisoft to elevate their standards. No single company owns a setting or genre, but the quality of some releases naturally sets a benchmark for others. Let’s push for better quality from Ubisoft rather than lowering our expectations
Why release it at a time when the setting is so common? Releasing it now lets it stand out more.
Everyone's looking to get some of the Fortnite pie lately. This time, it's everyone's favorite YouTube chill music channel, Lofi Girl.
Too much money is being made for them to drop charging for online. It sucks but the reality is the console market will be stuck with subscription service.
Sony used to not until they realized how much money MS was making.
Like if you dont have Plus or Live. Your buying HALF a game....
4hr long Singleplayer or pay for the endless fun of multiplayer...
Stupid.... I got ps plus till 2020 due to buy Black friday 30$ cards. But this is insane.
When playstiaon was boosting around the PLUS was at an ALL TIME HIGH and still move the price up...
Well i think that it cost BILLIONS of dollars to develop and market Sony VR . It is crazy awesome that Sony is coming out with VR at a somewhat affordable price this October .
Should they charge a subscription model, YES!
When you had something for free like in PS3 days, you had no argument, little rights and the service was poor compared to their competitor the 360.
Once you start to charge for a service you have a strong voice as a consumer to demand that the service is above sub-standard, of a good quality, it is fit for purpose and if it isn't that a compensation is given in return.
The moment PSN started to charge, the arguments for PS4 Multiplayer being dire started to vanish compared to the PS3 days. Go back to FREE and you lose your consumer voice and your right to a decent service.
Should PSN put up the price though....... well that is a difficult question, you have to ask "What do I get as a consumer that is extra, do I want those extra's" and if the answer is "Nothing, its to combat inflation, all prices eventually go up!"...... then you have to ask the question, "How come that Microsoft has not raised Xbox Live Subscription price pretty much since it launched over a decade ago....... and it still seems to offer a decent experience, adding new extra's AND still making some degree of profit for the company regardless of inflation going up, while Sony can't manage so it on a similar subscription price after just 3 years?"
And that starts to make the argument for the price going up much harder for Sony to make.