Well I certainly don't want to be accused of being double stanard.
Well duh, of course MS was forcing people to pay for online. That’s what a paywall is. The difference being that they were upfront about it and you can see where the value goes. Microsoft used the live fees to help fund the service. The money goes to keeping live a good service, whereas sony just pockets it. Any dev who puts a game on xbox has free access to as many dedicated servers as they want. Whereas sony has killed the servers for games less than 2 years after launch. I’ve already further elaborated on the difference in value offered between the two services and I can’t help but notice how you ignored that entirely.
How is PSN now better than it was on the ps3? How has it improved? What additions have been made to justify a 50 dollar a year price tag?
“Up until now ps gave more games that ussually would cost more.”
You know, if you need to hide behind the Vita, maybe you don’t have the strongest argument. Plus gave out a pair of games per platform. Which means you needed a ps3, a ps4 and to be one of the 5 people who owned a vita in order to get them. On xbox one you got 4 games. Hell, you could even redeem the one games without buying a one. And the relative cost is irrelevant considering the games on live tended to score significantly better.
PS plus never gave you free games. You paid up front not knowing what games you were going to get. Then while nobody was looking, sony made it mandatory to play online, forcing people to use it and pocketing the money.
And PSN IS a ripoff. Objectively. It costs the same as live (more when you consider things like live rewards which many people sue to make live essentially free) but provides fewer features. No cross play unless the dev is big enough to force sony's hand. No mods unless they are heavily restricted beyond what the other console does. Forget about cloud servers. Gravity rush 2 gets gimped like a year after release meanwhile you can still play Gears 1 online, even across console generations. And now, they are taking away HALF of the value of Plus and replacing it with a crappier, paywalled version of something live does better, and for free.
"I'm sure Sony knows that. We'll see what else they offer and with ps5 around the corner, it will be free ps5+4 games."
Of course they know that. They also know that people like you will defend them to the last and never demand better, which is why they've been able to pull this anti consumer BS this entire generation. If they really cared, they wouldn't have done this in the first place. You act like offering hypothetical ps5 games 2 years from now justifies a lack on content now. And based on the trends, microsoft will also be offering next gen games with their service as well. But they will have continued to offer a good value for live all along.
For reference, xbox users get an unlimited amount of cloud storage for free. And they still get 4 games with their gold subscription.
This is not sony adding value. Nor is it them compensating for something. This is sony making the psn an even bigger ripoff than it already was, and getting you to thank them for it.
@sladakrobot: And considering that titanfall 2, a game that wasn't even designed for the 1X can run at 6k/60 in some places, the idea that it doesn't have the power is laughable.
That's right. As the saying goes, the coverup is worse than the crime. Like it or not, bullshots are an accepted industry practice. And using footage from the superior version of a game to sell it is not that much different from using footage from the FMV or prerendered cutscenes like games did heavily in the 90s.
The issue is that sony took the footage and doctored it to make it look like it was running on their hardware. If they had covered up the button prompts it would not have been s bad. They would just bee using the only footage available. But instead they went to the trouble of trying to mislead people. The honest path required less effort on their part and they chose the lie.
uberDave's comments