Yup. You’re in the minority:
[ul]
[li]I’m with you for part of this: I want Netflix moved out of the pay wall. [/li][li]Giving you a heads up on another part: sounds like you might not be a LIVE member. If not, FYI, games are free for Xbox Live members. Just got Crackdown this month. BUT, you’re totally right that I want this to be a permanent feature of the system as it is on PS+. I feel like every other month, I think, “I should cancel my PS+ account. I don’t really play multiplayer games and… oh wait. That’s free or discounted this month? Yeah, I want that.”[/li][*]Disagree on key part: Microsoft does not do a terrible job when it comes to their LIVE service. If push came to shove and I had to only pick one service, I would pick LIVE. It’s easier to use and more reliable. This is even more important next generation because Sony will now charge gamers to play games online just like LIVE. I could forgive Sony before because the service was free. Now that I have to pay for it? It better be top notch. The key difference here is that I know Microsoft can make and support a reliable and easy-to-use online gaming service. When it comes to the PS4, I hope that Sony will get it right this time around. Because they did not before.[/ul]
I was under the impression that the free games incentives to xbox live were only added semi recently to defend against criticism and were confirmed to not be permanent. Maybe this was changed or i read wrong though.
Jake Plane: The question is extremely misleading. Even i would vote in the 69% because i use my ps3 to watch blurays and dvds. The question is whether gamers want gaming consoles to be the same basic concept that they have been since before the next generation (a streamlined system that is designed to play games well and save on cost by cutting other stuff out) or a locked down media pc. I vote the former, obviously. I personally don’t think most people wanting their console to play a dvd/watch netflix every couple days really want the later.
There is a middle ground between wanting 100% games/0% media on a console and wanting 50% games/50% media.
The free games for Gold members were a very recent addition and are only going to be around until the end of the year. Unlike PS+, though, you’ll get to keep anything you add to your account even if you stop being a Gold member. (Also unlike PS+, everything we’ve gotten through the Games for Gold program has been at least a few years old; compare this to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being added to PS+ less than a year after launch, or the various PSN titles that have been added to PS+ on release.)
Don’t get me started on polling questions Murbella. I agree. There are definitely problems with that poll. But I find problems with every poll. Happy to dissect any you find!
But the general gist of their findings is true - people want their consoles to do more than just gaming. I think that becomes even more important as you age - it’s not just YOUR game console; it’s your family’s. And that means different uses for different people in the house.
But you might say: “That’s true Jake - if I can call you Jake -but my real point above is do they want more than what they had last generation? What else do you think they will want beyond what we had last generation - gaming plus blurays/DVDs/netflix/web/basic apps?”
And to that I say: I have no idea Murbella!
But you know what was cool about the last generation? Microsoft and Sony added features to both consoles AFTER launch - some were successful (Netflix on the PS3!), some weren’t (anyone here love to spend time on PlayStation HOME? Anyone?) and some were hit and miss (Xbox LIVE arcade game room and Facebook on the 360, I don’t use so much… but I do use voice commands on my 360 and really like crossplay between the PS3 and Vita!).
The point is - you can’t predict what features and services will be added that will prove to be must-have options. But what you can predict with some confidence is that new features will be added - and some will be successful, some won’t be and some will be a mixed bag. AND those features won’t be what we have today.
jpinard
3452
Me too. But it is up to developers to do it right. I hated the implementations (outside of kinect only) in last gen. Forza 4 was huge disappointment.
Steel Battalion for the Kinect (1.0) was god awful but I wanted to like that game because it was using Kinect in interesting ways. The fidelity, however, wasn’t there (and the game design, in terms of mission structure, sucked).
Alstein
3454
I wouldn’t count on PSN+ remaining a good point in the future- with the online MP paywall, I fully expect PSN+ to not be as good once you’re forced to keep it to play online.
I just really object to paying for online MP. Same reason I’ve never gotten into MMOs - i just don’t like recurring fees for services I believe should be free.
Why do you think it should be free?
Teiman
3456
Microsoft making the world worse with every action.
First they introduce paying to play multiplayer. Now they make so Sony follows then (because… If gamers are soo gullible, why not?).
Now we have people like Jake Plane writing “Why do you think it should be free?”.
So let me get this straight? Sony’s decision to now charge people for multiplayer is Microsoft’s fault because they must always follow what Microsoft does?
[ul]
[li]That makes sense. After all, Sony included their web camera in the PS4… wait, scratch that one. [/li][li]Well, before the Xbox One did away with their always on requirement, the PS4 matched Microsoft, right? No?[/li][li]Hmmm… I know, Sony was also going to have DRM requirements but they were joking at E3! No, they were serious? And they used that distinction for market advantage?[/li][li]Well, maybe I’ll use voice controls on the PS4 to look up more information about this. Huh? There are no voice controls?[/ul][/li]
Teiman, of course Sony does not have to follow Microsoft! These companies are big boys. Sony made the decision to charge for multiplayer because it costs them significant money to create and maintain that system.
I’m asking why people think it should be free because I’m not an expert in this space. To me, it seems to make sense that there will be significant costs to create a technological architecture that allows reliable, always-on, easy-to-use online play for millions of people worldwide.
Teiman
3458
Microsoft invented the idea of charging for multiplayer. They had the cojones of charging people playing a peer 2 peer game like Call of Duty for connecting to each another.
Its the Microsoft fault for inventing the scam. And is the gamers fault that paid for it, for failing for the scam.
Oh dear lord. Talk to Divx or copy protected CDs. Not all ideas that are introduced take off. The marketplace does decide.
Also, by this “logic” Sony would have charged for multiplayer in the PS3 era since Microsoft charged for LIVE with the original Xbox.
Also, by your “logic” Sony would have had the same DRM requirement the Xbox One introduced ( and then chucked ). They didn’t because they saw a market advantage.
Lastly, if you seriously think Sony can offer a service that is comparable to LIVE for free, you should be angry at Sony for not doing so. You should argue that it would give them a competitive advantage in the marketplace. BUT you would have to explain why that didn’t work for the PS3.
Somehow pc games are able to offer good multiplayer without charging a free money fee.
I don’t think you can really blame Microsoft for Sony following suit.Yes, Microsoft showed them it was possible to get free money from customers, but in the end, Sony made the decision.
Enidigm
3461
Also re: PSN, it wouldn’t be an errant guess to assert that the reason PSN’s free game library became so amazing over the last couple of years was because of Sony’s own significant financial problems urging them to find sources of revenue. It feels certain there were board meetings where they noticed MS’s constant quarter over quarter profits and Sony’s own quarter over quarter losses forcing hard looks at their differing revenue streams and models.
What this means is that I wouldn’t at all expect PSN’s free game library for the PS4 to be anything at all like what was offered over the PS3 for at least a couple of years. More likely (imo), if they get Gaikai feature in play, is they offering free PS3 era games over their Gaikai service until enough time has passed that launch titles are made obsolete and practically can no longer be sold.
And/or, of course, some level of F2P. Wings of Steel, a game hardly anyone played, even as a full priced simulator, parceled out its planes even in single player with a grindy meta-game unlock tree that you earned points for over a very long time of playing, but offered the ability to purchase additional points or levels-up with RM through PSN. That’s the model I expect many new games to follow in this next generation.
Does anyone know how the free games program actually works?
For example, how much does Sony pay Double Fine when they made one of their games free for PS+ users? Zero? $1 per copy downloaded? Half a million dollars regardless of how many copies are downloaded? How does it work? Or is Double Fine just giving it away in the hopes that more people will get DLC or their other games? I noticed XCOM was being given away left and right by 2K games anyway. Preordered Bioshock Infinite? Here, have a copy of XCOM. (That’s how I got it). PS+ member? Here have a copy of XCOM. Pre-ordering The Bureau? Here have a copy of XCOM.
So maybe all free games on PSN+ are like that? Where the developer gets nothing out of it except free publicity? Does anyone remember any insider reports on this? Any leaks that give a hint as to how Sony does it? And why do they give away so many more big releases in Europe?
It’s on a case by case basis. For some, they give away your game and you agree to get zilch for it because you value the publicity (think of it as Steam offering a game at 75% off for a limited time; even if you miss the sale, you might buy the game later for full price). For others, Sony pays something. Link.
Interesting. So then it shouldn’t be all that expensive for Microsoft to start negotiating such a program for their console either. Though I do wonder if they had to pay Ubisoft outright for Assassin’s Creed II since it isn’t part of a membership but the gamers’ to own from then on.
In other unrelated news Playground Games is working on a next-gen Forza game. Considering how much I loved Forza Horizons, and how much it felt like Project Gotham had a baby with Forza, it reinforces my conviction that I’ll own both consoles for sure. But the real question is still, which one to get at launch. Those shiny Forza 5 screenshots are so tempting.
Canuck
3465
If you’re going to buy both at launch then it make sense to get whichever one has the games you like most at launch. I’m only planning to get one so I’m going to get the one I think will have the most exclusives over the long run and the best hardware which to me is the PS4.
Well, that’s what makes it so hard for me. I definitely like Microsoft’s exclusives better (at least in the 360 generation, and the launch line up we’ve seen of the PS4 so far), but I think the PS4 will be the best hardware, so I’m more tempted to get that one for the games that will be on both platforms (i.e. Ubisoft games especially). So yeah, pretty hard decision on what to get at launch. I’m still leaning PS4 because of the lower cost at this point. But then that might make the Xbox even harder to get later, because it’s an additional $500 purchase instead of an additional $400 purchase. But then on the other hand, it really chaffs that I might get the Xbox first and then all the multiplatform (i.e. Ubisoft) games that might potentially be a little better on the PS4, I’ll end up playing on the Xbox instead.
