Reply
Oct 29 2013
By: tripmind Hekseville Citizen 360 posts
Offline

Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

64 replies 464 views Edited Oct 29, 2013

Call this a complaint, call this whatever, I don't care, but as someone who spent untold hours on playstation 2 in games such as socom 2 or FF11 I had to throw my hat in because i do love playstation.

 

But the main point is that pay-to-play is really seen as a negative aspect to me personally. Combine this with recent side by side comparisons of BF4 on both the Xbone and PS4, PS4 (and the Xbone alike) are both starting to shape up as semi-undesirable gaming systems. As someone who plays almost every genre on a multitude of systems I find that when you have to pay a subscription to play a game you get a feeling of guilt when days or weeks go by and you don't get around to playing that mmo or that game or console that you paid for, and I eventually decide to move on to other games and leave the sub-required games/consoles shelved almost permanently.

 

If there was a type of subscription plan that allowed a player to retain hours that they did not spend playing PS4 online, then I would definitely feel more receptive to pay-to-play systems, but until then I'm probably going to stick to PC gaming, because as it stands in my gaming career I switch games almost monthly, and how long I spend in those games varies largely.

 

I guess I might just be getting old, but I think companies such as EA/DICE with their endless battlefield dlc packs and "season passes", that they are conditioning younger gamers to value their dollar values much less than older days when an expansion pack actually provided game content that was almost as long as the original game itself, nowadays DLC only delivers on small fractions of that at a time.

 

I doubt people at sony will read this, but I've had too much fun on playstation over the past 2 decades to just go quietly.:robotwink:

Message 1 of 65 (464 Views)
First Son
Registered: 09/17/2013
Offline
13 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

Socom and ff are old crappy games that arent relevant anymore. Just from that time gaming has exploded and is larger than ever. More money equals more games. Its a neccesary evil.

Message 2 of 65 (457 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 05/24/2009
Online
17808 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

It has nothing to do with EA/DICE.

 

You have to have PS+ to play online, or an Xbox live subscription.  Those are SONY/Microsoft policies.

 

While your post was much better constructed than 99% of the threads made complaining about the new pay to play model... it is, when you boil it down, simply complaining about needing PS+ which gives you a whole lot of stuff if you want it... so it's not even a cut and dry subscription fee, its like being given free food for going to the grocery store, sure you had to pay for the gas, but it was worth it. Not to mention, you don't have to keep it going... You can still use Netflix and the myriad of other services without a PS+ account.

 

The simple fact is. There is no way they can support the overhauled PSN on their dime at this point. 

Message 3 of 65 (453 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 06/26/2013
Offline
569 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

As far as I know only FF14 is pay to play.

 

If there was a type of subscription plan that allowed a player to retain hours that they did not spend playing PS4 online, then I would definitely feel more receptive to pay-to-play systems

 


The average MMO player who puts in a lot of hours probably saves money with the month by month payment model. If it were per the hour, with rollover hours, you'd be dinged with more $$$ per hour.


sig by Grindhead_Jim
Message 4 of 65 (434 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 07/15/2005
Offline
360 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013
I thought the plan was that to play ANY game online on a PS4 requires PS+. just like how XBL works
Message 5 of 65 (400 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 10/08/2007
Online
5102 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

tripmind wrote:
I thought the plan was that to play ANY game online on a PS4 requires PS+. just like how XBL works

Nope, Free to play Games like Warframe, Black Light Retribution, and others like that Stan of play do not require PS+ to play online, Free to Play games on Xbox One requires Gold to even access. Certain MMO's like Planetside 2, DCUO, and various others Do not require PS+, Any MMO coming to Xbox One Requires Gold. Sony also leaves it up to the publisher and developer if PS+ is required for their game, but like you said, the majority do though. 

 

Also take note that the following below do not require PS+ but Xbox One will require Gold for any and all of these features.

 

Features with NO PS+ requirement

Party Chat (ExMimic) | Cross-Game Chat | PS4 Apps | Video Services (ex. Netflix, Hulu) | Free to Play games |

Remote Play (positive_emotion) | Certain MMO Games | Auto Patch Games and Auto Update Firmware | 

Recording and Streaming functions (Share button) |

Message 6 of 65 (389 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 10/10/2005
Offline
9212 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

Setzaroth wrote:

It has nothing to do with EA/DICE.

 

You have to have PS+ to play online, or an Xbox live subscription.  Those are SONY/Microsoft policies.

 

While your post was much better constructed than 99% of the threads made complaining about the new pay to play model... it is, when you boil it down, simply complaining about needing PS+ which gives you a whole lot of stuff if you want it... so it's not even a cut and dry subscription fee, its like being given free food for going to the grocery store, sure you had to pay for the gas, but it was worth it. Not to mention, you don't have to keep it going... You can still use Netflix and the myriad of other services without a PS+ account.

 

The simple fact is. There is no way they can support the overhauled PSN on their dime at this point. 


yeah but dice on battlefield 3 and 4 if you want better stuff you have to spend bit more to get premium.

wssclanXbox one: Phew Phew Phew.
Ps4:BANG BANG BANG.
Outcome: Xbox One is down call the ambulance"Wii U Wii U Wii U
Message 7 of 65 (381 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 04/04/2013
Online
3025 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

You Dont need Plus for PS3 it remains free While the PS4 will now require Pluse to play all BUT free to play games, they will be free online access even on PS4. While $50 to play online may seem like a bad idea. How about the free games you will be able to download  and play.  Playstation gave out 65 games the first year. Even if you only wanted 1 a month thats 12 games. I think that a very nice gift for joining Playstation Plus $100,s in free games.


Getting Older doesn't mean it's GAME OVER
My Top PS4 Games: Wolfenstein, InFamous Second Son Diablo 3, Saints Row 4
Message 8 of 65 (360 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 06/26/2013
Offline
569 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

tripmind wrote:
I thought the plan was that to play ANY game online on a PS4 requires PS+. just like how XBL works

That's not pay to play. An online-only game like MAG would be pay to play on the PS4.


sig by Grindhead_Jim
Message 9 of 65 (341 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 12/22/2008
Offline
926 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013
Paying to play games is really kind of a retro process that goes back to the all-but-forgotten days of Arcades. In an arcade, you had to pay money to play the game and to continue to play the game. Games were designed to eat your quarters, and in fighting games there were service menu and dipswitch options that operators used which limited the number of games you can play. (E.g. if you won 25 matches, even though you didn't lose the game would ask you to put in more money to continue playing).

We are now fully in the online gaming age with consoles. We will not go back. Many complaints are made about online gaming, but most of these are items that the consumer never once thought to consider. Previously, when a game expansion was created it was indeed very full and very lengthy. This was because the developers needed to ensure that what they were producing would be considered "of value" to the gamer. The discs had to be pressed, packaging made, etc. etc. If the gaming community out there didn't purchase enough of this expansion, then the developer would have lost money on the endeavor. So they made sure what was being produced was of the best possible quality.

With an online gaming system, the developer doesn't have to worry about the costs associated with the pressing of discs, creation of instructions manuals and packaging, shipping of discs, and setting a price which will allow the retailer to make profit on it. As a digital only distribution, the developers don't need to worry about all that and also don't need to worry about ensuring the game sells at a certain price point so that the retailer is able to make a profit on the sales. This results in what I feel are lower quality releases since there isn't as much risk involved for the publisher. As for the length of games, don't forget that the general gamer today has an attention span that is borderline ADHD for most. They get a game, and then race to see who can beat it first and post their speedrun on YouTube so they can feel special. The days of playing games to enjoy the games are long over. The gamer just wants to go and get the next thing and will completely forget about a game once they've played through it once.

The pay-to-play system is here, and it is here for good. The community has accepted it and is supporting it based upon sales numbers. Why does the gaming community support this? I have no idea. I guess I could say ignorance is the reason, but it's difficult to say that as many people look at the word "ignorant" as an insult when really it isn't. (I'm ignorant about a lot of things, and will readily admit it).

If you can, try and remember this post 15-20 years down the line. At that point, if the community who is currently raving about it right now gets what they want, EVERYTHING will be purely digital. At that point, you will no longer purchase a game period. You will pay a fee to play games that are not in your possession and are simply housed on servers at the developers. When the developer goes out, the game is lost forever. This will happen if the developers/publishers get what they want and the community continues to say "Digital is the best thing ever." When this happens, take a look at your original post and ask yourself "Why didn't we stop this from happening back then?" It will be amusing.
Message 10 of 65 (334 Views)
Reply
0 Likes