Reply
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 07/08/2006
Offline
1159 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013
No ones made the point of paying for a service means they have to keep a sub standard service. Unlike before when it was free to play online and we lost service for a month straight. I could be wrong in this but paying for online gaming eguals a win for us consumers...
Message 11 of 65 (208 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Big Daddy
Registered: 12/24/2007
Offline
16918 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

tripmind wrote:

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.
Pay to play has nothing to do with the graphics comparisons of BF4 on either console. They essentially look exactly the same with some minor/subtle differences that point to the PS4 looking better overall, especially when lighting is concerned.
The pay-to-play part of your argument/discussion/thread is about online 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, 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.

Then you've already made your decision. But the fact is.... when you are on Xbox or Playstation.... if you want to play online, you have to pay the subscription fee for it because you are not connecting to a specific games' server like on PC.... you are connecting to that specific network and accessing their servers which house the portal to connect to the game. 
Console gaming isn't for everybody. And the quip about "allowed a player to retain hours that they did not spend playing PS4 online" is a bit of a fallacy..... you are ALWAYS able to access your game/avatar online and keep the stats you have and pick up where you left off..... thats not the issue. The bigger issue is "Is this games' severs going to stay up for a long time?" and that question is best answered by how popular the game is and how much activity is being logged on the games' servers at the time. There are ALWAYS going to be games where the severs shut-down because the developer closed its doors or the game is no longer profitable or breaking even when it comes to overhead costs (employees, equipment, property/buildings). PC gaming is not immune to that.
I think what you're seeing is the fact that most console games, at least the most popular ones, are the online multiplayer enabled games. But there are PLENTY of games that do not have an online component to the game or at least an online component that

is not required to enjoy the game. There are some online components that just don't work (looking at you AC3).

 

But let me end this part of the discussion off with this: You will NEVER get back the time you invested in a game.... this is not a hobby where you can "cash in" on the time spent playing games. Thats not what a hobby is about. Video games is a hobby, no matter how you slice it and you are ALWAYS on the losing side because you'll never make your money back (unless you're a collector) and you'll never get the time spend playing games, online or offline. Games are meant as a means of escapism. A lot of us play games to "get away from it all" from our daily grind of work, taking care of our children etc etc.

 

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 agree with you here..... While "season passes" are a good idea in theory.... I have yet to come across one where it actually gave REAL value to the extra $50 I spent. In reality, is a way to spent $110 on a game instead of $60. But Killzone Shadow Fall seems to be different in that regard. Something like the DLC for COD is lackluster.... I've been burned by its season pass twice already. And the DLC isn't even good at all for COD for the most part, except Black Ops 1, that had great DLC and I kinda wish more DLC came to COD4: MW... the first and only map pack was quite welcome..... and for a COD game, we really only want more maps and more weapons. But thats why we buy the next COD game I guess.... Smiley Sad
As far as the age thing goes..... I think there is a bit of a correlation. But i think thats more dependent on the individual and their own particular tastes.

 

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.Robot wink


The pay-to-play part of your argument/discussion/thread is about online play. And theres nothing wrong with your argument for the most part.
Maybe you're referring to the gratification that is lacking on such games. And I can agree there are several games with online components that I feel are tacked on and dont actually feel like they were worth the time invested in developing that part of the game.

I think for someone who still likes Playstation, I think you're better off sticking with PS exclusives anyway. This will mean that game releases are going to spread out, and you'll have plenty of time in between to play on PC.

 

You don't HAVE to get a Plus subscription to play any game. There is nothing behind the Plus paywall aside from online multiplayer anyway, and even then Sony has said that the decision for games to be behind that paywall will be left up to the publisher/developer for the most part.
But there are benefits to having a Plus subscription. Make no mistake about it.

Furiously Chaosing
Message 12 of 65 (197 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 12/30/2011
Offline
3825 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

It so-so when it comes to pay to play. Some people would say they pay for a better service, others wanted it free. Lets admit, a big reason a lot of people got ps3 was for free online and would mock people paying XBL. Now while I pay for both XBL and PS Plus, i think PS Plus is a better deal. When Sony said you needed plus, I personally thought the community would oppose it greatly like when (i think microsoft tried charging for online on pc and and the users opposed greatly am i wrong?) But it looks like people are cool with it. lol maybe if the entire community decided to hold out on pre-ordereding then sony would probably get the message? idk really.....

KZMProductionsGT
Message 13 of 65 (191 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 08/28/2008
Online
11019 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

If I've said it once, I've said it...  well, you know where this is going...

 

Young people today have NO CLUE what pay-to-play is.

 

GEnie network (1985-1996) - $6 per hour nights and weekends / $36 per hour weekdays.

AOL Games Channel (1995-1999) - $3 per hour.

 

-- and keep in mind, these were DIAL-UP services (</= 53Kbps).

 

When you open your first monthly bill from PSN for $1,400 for gaming services, then and only then, do you have reason to complain about pay-to-play.  Smiley Tongue

 

To put it another way, if you average about 2 hours of online play per day, every day, over the course of a year, it averages out to about 6 CENTS per hour.

Message 14 of 65 (188 Views)
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 08/21/2013
Offline
394 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

tripmind wrote:

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.Robot wink


I am there with you man.

 

The sub to play online rubs me the same way, what if I need to go out of town for a month?  Its money I spent for nothing, its not much money per month but the thought of paying for a service I'm not using was one of the huge reasons I avoided the 360 like the plauge.

 

I too am getting to old for this constant obligation to play.

 

I was really pumped about ps4 for a minute, now though I am not sure.

 

Maybe I have outgrown online gaming?  And subs at the same time.

 

The bad part here is mostly all games these days lie heavily on their online aspect to make up for their 7-8hr single player

campaigns.   So if i am not using the online portions my value per dollar goes way down comapred to the current gen.

 

Also the comparison videos make me feel like whats the point anyway?  The BF4 vids dont seem to show anything further then what we have already.  Notice the jaggies and lack of fine detail?

Is the next gen really just a 180p bump with some sections of some games have new textures?

I really need to see a PS4 vs PS3 comparison now because if the ps3 version looks even worse something is up.  I have seen ps3 games look twice as nice as most of these BF4 videos. 

 

PS2 to PS3 represented a leap in terms of visuals no doubt, but more then that was the promise of an evolution in gaming, new methods of control, new ways to play games with new mechanics and new possibilites not available on the previous gen.

Where is this leap for next gen? 

 

I support your idea for an hour meter on our online play.  1yr of plus should give you at least 3000hrs of online gaming, or 1 full year, which ever comes last.

 

 

What will become of us old gamers left behind by subscriptions and paywalls of the ADD generation.

 Where do we go to die?

 

 

 

P.S. I figured it out, the paywalls and the guilt associated with it is the ploy to keep the attention of the ADD generation!  

Pay to play, to pay attention.........

SC-GRAY_FOX wrote:
"Of course you can. You can do this with the PS3 and the PS4 would not be taking steps back."

Smiley Sad Smiley Happy

Vertigomega wrote:
Being angry that your gaming console focuses on gaming is kind of like being mad that your microwave focuses too much on warming up your food.
But the new model removed the light bulb and timer from the microwave, so now you never know when the foods done, so ends up burnt a lot or undercooked.
Message 15 of 65 (178 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 06/26/2013
Offline
569 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

Phillyblunzz wrote:

tripmind wrote:

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.Robot wink


I am there with you man.

 

The sub to play online rubs me the same way, what if I need to go out of town for a month?  Its money I spent for nothing, its not much money per month but the thought of paying for a service I'm not using was one of the huge reasons I avoided the 360 like the plauge.

 

I too am getting to old for this constant obligation to play.

 

I was really pumped about ps4 for a minute, now though I am not sure.

 

Maybe I have outgrown online gaming?  And subs at the same time.

 

The bad part here is mostly all games these days lie heavily on their online aspect to make up for their 7-8hr single player

campaigns.   So if i am not using the online portions my value per dollar goes way down comapred to the current gen.

 

Also the comparison videos make me feel like whats the point anyway?  The BF4 vids dont seem to show anything further then what we have already.  Notice the jaggies and lack of fine detail?

Is the next gen really just a 180p bump with some sections of some games have new textures?

I really need to see a PS4 vs PS3 comparison now because if the ps3 version looks even worse something is up.  I have seen ps3 games look twice as nice as most of these BF4 videos. 

 

PS2 to PS3 represented a leap in terms of visuals no doubt, but more then that was the promise of an evolution in gaming, new methods of control, new ways to play games with new mechanics and new possibilites not available on the previous gen.

Where is this leap for next gen? 

 

I support your idea for an hour meter on our online play.  1yr of plus should give you at least 3000hrs of online gaming, or 1 full year, which ever comes last.

 

 

What will become of us old gamers left behind by subscriptions and paywalls of the ADD generation.

 Where do we go to die?

 

 

 

P.S. I figured it out, the paywalls and the guilt associated with it is the ploy to keep the attention of the ADD generation!  

Pay to play, to pay attention.........


What are you even talking about? Nobody has a gun to your head on the 1 year subscription, silly. If you don't play all year round you can drop $18 for 3 months or $10 for 1 month. That's not to mention free games and discounts with the price of admission.

 

Your generation needs to relax, Roger Daltry.


sig by Grindhead_Jim
Message 16 of 65 (166 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 11/30/2008
Offline
3334 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013
Ps2 gaming days were the best

1. No dlc or dlc before launch

2. Hardware lasts forever

3. Debs spent 90% of their energy on single player and 10% to the games that acually had online

4. One game equals $50

5. Playstation magazine

6. So much more
Image and video hosting by TinyPicHEAVY WEAPONS GUYImage and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 17 of 65 (158 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 11/30/2008
Offline
3334 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013
Devs*
Image and video hosting by TinyPicHEAVY WEAPONS GUYImage and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 18 of 65 (157 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 08/21/2013
Offline
394 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

teeborg wrote:

Phillyblunzz wrote:

tripmind wrote:

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.Robot wink


I am there with you man.

 

The sub to play online rubs me the same way, what if I need to go out of town for a month?  Its money I spent for nothing, its not much money per month but the thought of paying for a service I'm not using was one of the huge reasons I avoided the 360 like the plauge.

 

I too am getting to old for this constant obligation to play.

 

I was really pumped about ps4 for a minute, now though I am not sure.

 

Maybe I have outgrown online gaming?  And subs at the same time.

 

The bad part here is mostly all games these days lie heavily on their online aspect to make up for their 7-8hr single player

campaigns.   So if i am not using the online portions my value per dollar goes way down comapred to the current gen.

 

Also the comparison videos make me feel like whats the point anyway?  The BF4 vids dont seem to show anything further then what we have already.  Notice the jaggies and lack of fine detail?

Is the next gen really just a 180p bump with some sections of some games have new textures?

I really need to see a PS4 vs PS3 comparison now because if the ps3 version looks even worse something is up.  I have seen ps3 games look twice as nice as most of these BF4 videos. 

 

PS2 to PS3 represented a leap in terms of visuals no doubt, but more then that was the promise of an evolution in gaming, new methods of control, new ways to play games with new mechanics and new possibilites not available on the previous gen.

Where is this leap for next gen? 

 

I support your idea for an hour meter on our online play.  1yr of plus should give you at least 3000hrs of online gaming, or 1 full year, which ever comes last.

 

 

What will become of us old gamers left behind by subscriptions and paywalls of the ADD generation.

 Where do we go to die?

 

 

 

P.S. I figured it out, the paywalls and the guilt associated with it is the ploy to keep the attention of the ADD generation!  

Pay to play, to pay attention.........


What are you even talking about? Nobody has a gun to your head on the 1 year subscription, silly. If you don't play all year round you can drop $18 for 3 months or $10 for 1 month. That's not to mention free games and discounts with the price of admission.

 

Your generation needs to relax, Roger Daltry.


Look buying the yr sub makes the most sense, its only $3/month.

 

Cost $6/month for 3 month sub.

 

Its not the dollar amount for me, its the paying for something I am not using aspect.  This would make me feel a requirement to "get my moneys worth" and I dont want to feel pressured to play my games, lol.  Why I explain this I really dont know, it seems the generations past my own values everything so differently.

 

Plus you dont know the whole story.  A $60 game used to give you value for a long time, no online component required.

Now games are aimed to give a less then 10hr single player and all remaining focus is on the online aspect.

 

So now buying a game for $60 isnt enough.  Its enough to get you the short single player but to get the value you used to you need to sink a hundred or two hours into the online, which increases the cost, meaning you need to play online even more playing chase your tail all day to try and match the value of yesturyear.

 

I am explaining it poorly and if you too young to remember the days then I understand not being able to relate.

 

 

Rodger daulrty hey? must be a handsome fella.

 

 

SC-GRAY_FOX wrote:
"Of course you can. You can do this with the PS3 and the PS4 would not be taking steps back."

Smiley Sad Smiley Happy

Vertigomega wrote:
Being angry that your gaming console focuses on gaming is kind of like being mad that your microwave focuses too much on warming up your food.
But the new model removed the light bulb and timer from the microwave, so now you never know when the foods done, so ends up burnt a lot or undercooked.
Message 19 of 65 (150 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 02/03/2008
Offline
15343 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

HWGuy14 wrote:
Ps2 gaming days were the best

1. No dlc or dlc before launch

2. Hardware lasts forever

3. Debs spent 90% of their energy on single player and 10% to the games that acually had online

4. One game equals $50

5. Playstation magazine

6. So much more

Take off those rose tinted glasses, old sport.

Imperator Danknovaxperaux Divi filius Imp XIII Pont Max Trib Pot XLIX Cos CXVI Primus Signiferi Box-xy Princeps Moderatores Pater Forum


Fabulous!
Message 20 of 65 (144 Views)