Sony explains why PS+ is required for online play...

  • 98 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Areez (6278 posts) -

Interesting read, considering how Sony and its fans often bashed the Xbox Live subscription service....Now Sony has changed its policy requiring all gamers to pay to play online....

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-explains-why-ps-plus-is-required-for-ps4-online-play/1100-6410806/

#2 Edited by SirSlimyScott (266 posts) -

The only thing people bash is bullshit pay wall for simple things like YouTube.

#3 Edited by Areez (6278 posts) -

@SirSlimyScrotum:

I use youtube on my Galaxy S4, on both my smart TVs, and laptop, so its a non-issue for me. I dont pay for Xbox Live to use youtube...its for gaming....But we could technically make the argument against PS+ and Live as other free to play options exist.

#4 Edited by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

If Sony makes dedicated servers the norm (the 650 hours I put into 2007's Warhawk occurred almost exclusively on dedicated servers) that will make internet play better and I'm fine with it.

It also helps that I subscribed to and hugely enjoyed PS Plus before it was linked to online play (each month sees at least one game worth playing).

However, I can see how people use to free online play (I paid for XBL Gold before the modem died) could be pissed off.

#5 Edited by DangerRemix (189 posts) -

I m not happy with this move by Sony, regardless of features they have which I dont care about simple fact is online should be FREE. I just paid 400+ for your console, $60 a game, $60 extra controller, and $50 for a ps+ its absurd that we as gamers get suckered in to this kind of crap. Everyone knocks Nintendo, but at least online is free, but then again only time will tell with Nintendo.

Of course Ill be getting my ps4 at launch, but I wont be using it no time soon cause theres no games, that I want thats worth playing/ paying for a ps+ at this time, plus I'll still be playing my ps3, and Nintendo (wiiu) online for a min, which is FREE.

#6 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

@DangerRemix: Why get a PS4 at launch if you're not interested in the games? Wait and maybe by the time something you want has arrived it will be cheaper.

As for Nintendo, what online?

#7 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@DangerRemix said:

I m not happy with this move by Sony, regardless of features they have which I dont care about simple fact is online should be FREE. I just paid 400+ for your console, $60 a game, $60 extra controller, and $50 for a ps+ its absurd that we as gamers get suckered in to this kind of crap. Everyone knocks Nintendo, but at least online is free, but then again only time will tell with Nintendo.

Of course Ill be getting my ps4 at launch, but I wont be using it no time soon cause theres no games, that I want thats worth playing/ paying for a ps+ at this time, plus I'll still be playing my ps3, and Nintendo (wiiu) online for a min, which is FREE.

Considering how incredibly bad Nintendo's entire online package is, bringing that up actually bolsters Sony's position, rather than weakening it.

#8 Posted by Chozofication (2926 posts) -

But you get soooo much benefit from PS+. You don't need it for things like netflix or internet browsing or basically anything else, with Xbox live gold you get nothing but what should've been free in the first place.

People that don't like it, get over it and enjoy the free games and discounts.

#9 Edited by BranKetra (48750 posts) -

Could someone link that URL? I cannot highlight it on my tablet.

#10 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25761 posts) -

It is indeed ants at the PS4 picnic. I'm with PS+ until Dec 2015 and onwards because of the "free" games; any outrage on my part would be somewhat phony but it's unfortunate free online on consoles is a thing of the past.

#11 Edited by Areez (6278 posts) -

@Randolph:

And free is not always better....Especially when you are talking about a service...Often with services, you do get what you pay for, or in Nintendo's case dont.

Sony could not sustain a comprehensive, secure, online service, and build up its internal infrastructure without charging.

#12 Posted by AK_the_Twilight (285 posts) -

@Chozofication said:

But you get soooo much benefit from PS+. You don't need it for things like netflix or internet browsing or basically anything else, with Xbox live gold you get nothing but what should've been free in the first place.

People that don't like it, get over it and enjoy the free games and discounts.

At this point, PS+ is something that everyone should have if you own a PS3 and definitely a PS4. The benefits are too immense. The PS4 will come with a 30-day trial of PS+, so if anyone is still complaining about paying for online, they can try it out themselves for a month and realize how great the service is. There's no going back, trust me.

#13 Edited by c_rakestraw (14716 posts) -

Regardless of reasoning, it was going to happen. Microsoft's been able to charge for Xbox Live since its inception with no issues, so Sony would be stupid not to do the same. There's too much money to be gained there. And if it paying for online play helps make PSN a better service all-around, then that's fine by me.

#15 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

Online gaming should always be free, all the extras to online gaming could stay behind a paywall. But at least Plus has tons of value unlike Live. I pay for plus now, this effects me in no way.

#16 Edited by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

it's just a small backtrack from their original stance that the fee was there entirely to compensate for gaikai, which was a stupid position because that's a service that isn't going to be available at launch.

#17 Edited by Areez (6278 posts) -

@dvader654:

Live does have value...Not sure what you mean by that...The echo system, comprehensive online services and community are some of the things that give it value. Not to mention the server capacity for this coming gen. Free is not always better with services, insert Nintendo here.

All in all....Both services are great online services and about identical in value.

#18 Edited by Archangel3371 (15737 posts) -

Both PS+ and XBL give away free games so I think everyone should be subscribing to them anyway which makes what is or isn't behind a paywall a moot point. Also Microsoft's free games are your's to keep regardless of if you continue to pay for the service which is better then Sony's free games deal.

#20 Edited by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

@c_rakestraw said:

Regardless of reasoning, it was going to happen. Microsoft's been able to charge for Xbox Live since its inception with no issues, so Sony would be stupid not to do the same. There's too much money to be gained there. And if it paying for online play helps make PSN a better service all-around, then that's fine by me.

Yup. MS makes like $500 million from XBL subs. That’s an insane amount of money and people willing to pay that money every year. If there is anyone to be blamed, it’s Grammaton. :P

But the argument that it was done to improve the infrastructure is weak at best. As a platform holder, it is their responsibility to provide a seamless and immersive online experience. You cant sell a $60 game on $400 console and then turn around and ask for more money to play it every month. Imagine if Steam started asking for $50 a year. Why is steam free? Don’t they have an infrastructure? Hell, their speeds are twice as good as PSN.

If anything, seeing as how Sony has practically a monopoly on all the money going in and out of PSN, they should be able to offer up free online play, Netflix, and other apps. That’s how a business, any business, is run. It is THEIR job to make PSN enticing, not OUR job to fund it.

Imagine if Amazon started charging for the cloud service for mp3s. It would be the stupidest thing ever. Sony and MS charging for online play is the stupidest thing ever.

#21 Posted by Areez (6278 posts) -

@S0lidSnake:

You do realize that these companies are creating services to generate a revenue. If they were in the business of providing free goods and services, they would be a designated 501(c)3 organization.

And the argument that they charged to build up an infrastructure is indeed not "weak". When was the last time Xbox Live was hacked? And the server infrastructure they have in place just didn't magically fall out of the sky either. It is a result of the revenue generated by the collection of fees.

And to compare Steam to PS+ and Live is not an apples to apples comparison. Also, the Amazon reference is off based as it is an online retailer but they do also charge for PRIME which is $79 a year.

Oh by the way, services are made enticing by the variety of services offered. Its a common practice used in a variety of consumer spaces. Not sure why their is a sense of entitlement here. Businesses do what they do to make money, plain and simple.

#22 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I never had a problem paying for Live because it was a better service than anyone else had. Now PS+ is better since it is advantageous for people like me who prefer getting single player content over multiplayer stuff. As such, I have absolutely zero problem paying for PS+.

#23 Posted by c_rakestraw (14716 posts) -
@S0lidSnake said:

Yup. MS makes like $500 million from XBL subs. That’s an insane amount of money and people willing to pay that money every year. If there is anyone to be blamed, it’s Grammaton. :P

But the argument that it was done to improve the infrastructure is weak at best. As a platform holder, it is their responsibility to provide a seamless and immersive online experience. You cant sell a $60 game on $400 console and then turn around and ask for more money to play it every month. Imagine if Steam started asking for $50 a year. Why is steam free? Don’t they have an infrastructure? Hell, their speeds are twice as good as PSN.

If anything, seeing as how Sony has practically a monopoly on all the money going in and out of PSN, they should be able to offer up free online play, Netflix, and other apps. That’s how a business, any business, is run. It is THEIR job to make PSN enticing, not OUR job to fund it.

Imagine if Amazon started charging for the cloud service for mp3s. It would be the stupidest thing ever. Sony and MS charging for online play is the stupidest thing ever.

That's the problem with closed platforms. They can do whatever they please with them with little consequence, especially now that Microsoft has proven you can get away with charging for online play. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo eventually does the same.

The idea of subscriptions improving PSN is suspect, I agree. I don't there's ever been any hard evidence that subscriptions amount to a better service. Higher profit, sure -- but I've yet to see any tangible effects. But if PSN really does get better on PS4, then fine. I'll gladly pay up for online play.

@Areez said:

@S0lidSnake:

You do realize that these companies are creating services to generate a revenue. If they were in the business of providing free goods and services, they would be a designated 501(c)3 organization.

And the argument that they charged to build up an infrastructure is indeed not "weak". When was the last time Xbox Live was hacked? And the server infrastructure they have in place just didn't magically fall out of the sky either. It is a result of the revenue generated by the collection of fees.

And to compare Steam to PS+ and Live is not an apples to apples comparison. Also, the Amazon reference is off based as it is an online retailer but they do also charge for PRIME which is $79 a year.

Oh by the way, services are made enticing by the variety of services offered. Its a common practice used in a variety of consumer spaces. Not sure why their is a sense of entitlement here. Businesses do what they do to make money, plain and simple.

It could also just be that they knew how to build a stronger network since they've been working with Live for far longer than Sony has with PlayStation Network. Either scenario is possible.

#24 Edited by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@Shame-usBlackley said:

I never had a problem paying for Live because it was a better service than anyone else had.

Sorry, but 16 player peer-to-peer is shit and definitely not better than 24, 32, 64, etc. players with dedicated servers. It's only "better" if you're into additional fluff (and even that advantage is gone now), but if you're into actual multiplayer gameplay, then it's a pretty shitty service. Microsoft has been amazing at creating this widespread illusion that by paying for a service you get a better service and now Sony is trying to do the same. And there's only one reason why they're doing it - because they can.

#25 Edited by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@CarnageHeart said:

If Sony makes dedicated servers the norm (the 650 hours I put into 2007's Warhawk occurred almost exclusively on dedicated servers) that will make internet play better and I'm fine with it.

Providing dedicated servers for your own game is one thing, providing dedicated servers for others is another and something that just isn't going to happen.

#26 Edited by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

@UpInFlames said:

@CarnageHeart said:

If Sony makes dedicated servers the norm (the 650 hours I put into 2007's Warhawk occurred almost exclusively on dedicated servers) that will make internet play better and I'm fine with it.

Providing dedicated servers for your own game is one thing, providing dedicated servers for others is another and something that just isn't going to happen.

Isnt MS providing dedicated servers to everyone? I remember Albert and Nelson touting how all X1 games have dedicated servers.

#27 Edited by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

@UpInFlames said:

@Shame-usBlackley said:

I never had a problem paying for Live because it was a better service than anyone else had.

Sorry, but 16 player peer-to-peer is shit and definitely not better than 24, 32, 64, etc. players with dedicated servers. It's only "better" if you're into additional fluff (and even that advantage is gone now), but if you're into actual multiplayer gameplay, then it's a pretty shitty service. Microsoft has been amazing at creating this widespread illusion that by paying for a service you get a better service and now Sony is trying to do the same. And there's only one reason why they're doing it - because they can.

I don't play PC games... you know that. On consoles, Live is the best there is. It was stable and consistent, without any of the fuckery or egghead, pocket-protector bullshit the PC has -- turn it on and play. Plus multiplayer gaming is meant to be played in the comfort of an easy chair or couch, not in a fucking home office cubicle. I know PC has its perks, but if that was the only option, I'd have lit my sack on fire and sworn off the hobby.

Besides, I already said I don't give a shit about multiplayer anyway -- I'm in it for the free games. A free game library is not fluff. ;)

#28 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

@S0lidSnake said:

@UpInFlames said:

@CarnageHeart said:

If Sony makes dedicated servers the norm (the 650 hours I put into 2007's Warhawk occurred almost exclusively on dedicated servers) that will make internet play better and I'm fine with it.

Providing dedicated servers for your own game is one thing, providing dedicated servers for others is another and something that just isn't going to happen.

Isnt MS providing dedicated servers to everyone? I remember Albert and Nelson touting how all X1 games have dedicated servers.

That's what Penello claimed less than a month ago.

http://www.destructoid.com/xbox-one-dedicated-servers-for-all-multiplayer-games-263667.phtml

#29 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

They spent billions on their online network before they started charging for it, and i was buying PS+ for the instant game collection anyways so i dont mind.

#30 Posted by Pedro (21109 posts) -

I don't understand the bewilderment. MS was able to con millions into paying for something that they should not be paying for and Sony grabbed the opportunity. Its that simple. No one can do anything about it because there isn't any other option.

#31 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

Sony explains the real reason why you have to pay to play online this generation:

#32 Posted by wiouds (5257 posts) -

I can see why some are upset about it since it another charge on a raising cost to game.

I am waiting for valve to have steam start to charge for online gaming, but it is valve so even if they add it to the to do list, it would take a long time before they get to it.

#33 Edited by Areez (6278 posts) -

@CarnageHeart:

Dedicated servers are available to any developer who chooses to use them.

The MS dedicated servers are a big reason why Respawn is bringing Titan Fall to the Xbox One. Respawn approached both Sony and MS with the idea of having an online FPS, that could have dedicated servers in multiple regions.....MS basically said, hey we can do this...Rest is history....BTW this is the short version of the story..

#35 Edited by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@Shame-usBlackley said:

Plus multiplayer gaming is meant to be played in the comfort of an easy chair or couch

And that's not a problem for PC gaming since you can totally do that. All you need is an HDMI cable and a controller of your choosing. You're stuck with 90's viewpoints, man. :) There are things nowadays such as Steam Big Picture that make this a total non-argument.

I am aware that you are not into PC gaming and that's totally fine, but that doesn't in any way mean that you can say stuff as if it doesn't exist. Xbox Live is a mediocre service at best.

#36 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -
@CarnageHeart said:

@S0lidSnake said:

Isnt MS providing dedicated servers to everyone? I remember Albert and Nelson touting how all X1 games have dedicated servers.

That's what Penello claimed less than a month ago.

http://www.destructoid.com/xbox-one-dedicated-servers-for-all-multiplayer-games-263667.phtml


That's a suspiciously strange way to confirm/announce something like that. But if it turns out to be true, then for the first time Xbox Live subscriptions will be justifiable as dedicated servers incur real costs and benefits.

#37 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72286 posts) -

You only pay for online and you get free games with it... I don't see the big deal... You don't even get to use Skype and it's free on ps3 and ps4.The ONLY thing you need to ps+ to really access the whole game is online. They aren't gimping anything...

#38 Posted by bob_toeback (11267 posts) -

I had a dream I was gonna sign up for PS+, then I woke up.

#39 Posted by wiouds (5257 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

You only pay for online and you get free games with it... I don't see the big deal... You don't even get to use Skype and it's free on ps3 and ps4.The ONLY thing you need to ps+ to really access the whole game is online. They aren't gimping anything...

The problem that most have is that it was free and they would get the PS4 to play games. So to some they are gimping on the most important part of the online.

#40 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18512 posts) -

The real reason is that Microsoft has demonstrated that people are dumb enough to pay a premium fee for the smallest things (me included). It would have been insane for Sony not to dip the cookie. Anyone who was surprised by this hasn't got a very firm grasp on the mechanics of the entertainment industry, really.

If anything, and to my surprise, Sony has (unlike Microsoft) shown restraint, by only making multiplayer and a couple more accessory features premium, while leaving youtube, party chat, internet browser and more free for everyone. I guess they still (though admittedly less than before) somehow believe in giving people a reason to subscrbe to a paid service instead of ambushing them like corporate highwaymen.

#41 Posted by firefox59 (4403 posts) -

@Areez said:

@CarnageHeart:

Dedicated servers are available to any developer who chooses to use them.

The MS dedicated servers are a big reason why Respawn is bringing Titan Fall to the Xbox One. Respawn approached both Sony and MS with the idea of having an online FPS, that could have dedicated servers in multiple regions.....MS basically said, hey we can do this...Rest is history....BTW this is the short version of the story..

This is right, Sony didn't like that fact that it was online only as well. I don't think Sony would have even had the dedicated servers in place by the time Titanfall launched.

#42 Posted by firefox59 (4403 posts) -

@UpInFlames said:
@CarnageHeart said:

@S0lidSnake said:

Isnt MS providing dedicated servers to everyone? I remember Albert and Nelson touting how all X1 games have dedicated servers.

That's what Penello claimed less than a month ago.

http://www.destructoid.com/xbox-one-dedicated-servers-for-all-multiplayer-games-263667.phtml

That's a suspiciously strange way to confirm/announce something like that. But if it turns out to be true, then for the first time Xbox Live subscriptions will be justifiable as dedicated servers incur real costs and benefits.

This is one of those things where I thought everyone knew this. MS said at their console presentation that the dedicated server farm could be used for all games and any developer that wanted to use them. What happened is MS used the money from XBL subs to partially subsidize the server farm. So that's already in place. Sony is now building there server farm and has to start charging money now, to pay for it.

#43 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

@UpInFlames said:

@Shame-usBlackley said:

Plus multiplayer gaming is meant to be played in the comfort of an easy chair or couch

And that's not a problem for PC gaming since you can totally do that. All you need is an HDMI cable and a controller of your choosing. You're stuck with 90's viewpoints, man. :) There are things nowadays such as Steam Big Picture that make this a total non-argument.

I am aware that you are not into PC gaming and that's totally fine, but that doesn't in any way mean that you can say stuff as if it doesn't exist. Xbox Live is a mediocre service at best.

Unless you have a PC in your living room right next to your giant CPU (which almost no one does), you dont just need a HDMI cable and a controller of your choosing. You also need a PC controller or a 360 wireless adapter.

The best you can do is have a giant tv in your man cave and set up your PC desk right next to it. But even then, switching that stupid HDMI cable every time you want to play becomes a pain in the ass. I am currently playing Batman AO on my small 23 inch monitor because I cant be bothered to switch my HDMI cable every hour or so.

#44 Edited by Pedro (21109 posts) -

@Solid

I don't understand the confusion. I have gaming PC connected to the TV via VGA since HDMI is garbage in comparison. As for controller, a wired or wireless Xbox controller works perfectly.

#45 Edited by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

@Pedro said:

@Solid

I don't understand the confusion. I have gaming PC connected to the TV via VGA since HDMI is garbage in comparison. As for controller, a wired or wireless Xbox controller works perfectly.

Well, VGA introduces even more headaches since it does not output audio. So now you need a separate speaker system that comes out of the PC.

I never said that it does not work perfectly. I said you need a wireless adapter to run your 360 controller or you would have to buy a PC specific controller. Both of which are additional purchases, not as painless as UIF pointed it out to be. The Wireless adapter is the cheapest option but is a pain in the ass to install since the newer drivers do not work with these 2nd party adapters. They also take up a precious USB slot which in my case means having to take out either the mouse or the internet USB adapter since my stupid fucking motherboard's rear USB slots have terrible performance and freeze every five minutes.

As for the confusion, there is none. I am simply refuting UIF's claim that comfy couch PC gaming in the living room is easy. Having a PC in your living room needs a desk which can be a big no-no with the missus. Then you need to make sure the TV is in the vicinity of the tower to connect either the VGA or HDMI cable. Even if you design your living room this way, You have to plug it in and out every time you want to game on your TV.

#46 Edited by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

@firefox59 said:

@Areez said:

@CarnageHeart:

Dedicated servers are available to any developer who chooses to use them.

The MS dedicated servers are a big reason why Respawn is bringing Titan Fall to the Xbox One. Respawn approached both Sony and MS with the idea of having an online FPS, that could have dedicated servers in multiple regions.....MS basically said, hey we can do this...Rest is history....BTW this is the short version of the story..

This is right, Sony didn't like that fact that it was online only as well. I don't think Sony would have even had the dedicated servers in place by the time Titanfall launched.

Guys, I hate to shatter your illusions, but the real reason Respawn made Titanfall exclusive to MS supported properties has nothing to do with anything you mentioned :).

Firefox, I know you're saying what you believe is true, but whoever told you that Sony was opposed to online only games lied to you. Sony has a history of funding online only games and the PS4 is launching with three MMOs (DCOU, Warframe and War Thunder) though only one of those three is made by Sony.

The person who told you that dedicated servers wouldn't be operating on the PS4 by the time that Titanfall hit in March 2014 also lied to you. Aside from the MMOs I already mentioned, Battlefield, CoD and Killzone have dedicated servers at launch.

#47 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

@S0lidSnake said:

@Pedro said:

@Solid

I don't understand the confusion. I have gaming PC connected to the TV via VGA since HDMI is garbage in comparison. As for controller, a wired or wireless Xbox controller works perfectly.

Well, VGA introduces even more headaches since it does not output audio. So now you need a separate speaker system that comes out of the PC.

I never said that it does not work perfectly. I said you need a wireless adapter to run your 360 controller or you would have to buy a PC specific controller. Both of which are additional purchases, not as painless as UIF pointed it out to be. The Wireless adapter is the cheapest option but is a pain in the ass to install since the newer drivers do not work with these 2nd party adapters. They also take up a precious USB slot which in my case means having to take out either the mouse or the internet USB adapter since my stupid fucking motherboard's rear USB slots have terrible performance and freeze every five minutes.

As for the confusion, there is none. I am simply refuting UIF's claim that comfy couch PC gaming in the living room is easy. Having a PC in your living room needs a desk which can be a big no-no with the missus. Then you need to make sure the TV is in the vicinity of the tower to connect either the VGA or HDMI cable. Even if you design your living room this way, You have to plug it in and out every time you want to game on your TV.

Yeah, that sounds like a pain in the ass. My PC is in my den, on the other side of the house 75 feet away. Besides, playing MOBAS and Strat games on the couch would be almost impossible with a controller. Plus, playing multiplayer (which I don't anyway on either format) with a controller against dudes sitting at a cubicle with a mouse and keyboard would get old.

#48 Edited by megaspiderweb09 (3686 posts) -

It killed me inside when Sony said they would charge for multiplayer, i knew it was coming ever since Microsoft did it but i guess i was in self denial. The money was just too good to pass up really, but it begs the question though, if someone pays £40 for a boxed game, what exactly are they paying for, is it the single player alone or....cause there is something fundamentally wrong with this models, it sells an incomplete software for full price and expects the consumer to pay a value added to get the benefit of the full priced product. Its one of my many dislikes of microsoft to be frank, thank heavens people gave them hell for the DRM because if they got away with it, trust me Sony would follow suit as well. Now that i think of it, Microsoft seem to want to monetize everything they can get their hands on, i mean i have the new Windows 8 and i learnt i have to subscribe to use MS word!!!....and it does not come cheap at all, this is a software that used to come free with every other Windows before hand.

Even though i like the Xbox One and how robust the Kinect feature is, i cannot help that these technologies Microsoft pursuid were because of the added monetary advantages they have with the product, i mean it has already been observed by one of their executives, the advert merits of the Kinect tech, studying consumer behaviour and all that. Maybe i am paranoid but i just feel Microsoft are too aggressive with everything, it is almost as if they want to run the company like a Mafia, wanting to get a cutt from everything really. Very strange modern world for gamers we live in, i would keep my eye on the Steambox and what they choose to put out there, hopefully it is something very gamer focused, we really do need a shake up in this industry, these two corporate hydras are taking everyone for a ride

#49 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

@Shame-usBlackley said:

if that was the only option, I'd have lit my sack on fire and sworn off the hobby.

Now you're just doing that on purpose, aren't you?

D'awwwwww... so cute.

Well, back to Google searching pictures of baby bunnies to get the VIVID AND AWFUL images out of my diseased brain.

#50 Posted by CoquiNegro (173 posts) -

It only seems logical. They can produce a better online service, but let's get to the real reason why they did it. Microsoft makes a huge load of money from this service, and it appears as if people actually are willing to pay for it. So while Microsoft is profiting from it, Sony is actually losing a bit of money keeping the use of online multiplayer free.

For us the consumer, this is not good. But being a realist, its only fair for Sony from a business standpoint. I honestly have no issues, playstation plus is one of gaming's greatest deals, and if it continues being excellent, i'll continue to support it.