Reply
MVP Support
Registered: 08/07/2009
Offline
13655 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

Phillyblunzz wrote:

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.

 

 


Then stop buying games new

 

Buy games when they're older.

 

Or stop playing games

 

Or switch to PC.

 

Instead of just complaining about it when, clearly, they're not going to change their stance on it.

 

 

And if games are designed purely for "online", then you clearly are playing the wrong games. Last I checked, JRPGs don't have in depth online (or any multiplayer at all)

 

I've been playing Tales of Xillia for the last week, well over 10 hours, and I'm getting my money's worth.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 21 of 65 (146 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 11/30/2008
Offline
3334 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

darknovaxp wrote:

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.


Really? So what are the flaws? if any not so significant. Ps2 was golden.

 

*guessing you are about to attempt to google "ps2 flaws" and come back here with some stupid information

Image and video hosting by TinyPicHEAVY WEAPONS GUYImage and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 22 of 65 (141 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 08/21/2013
Offline
394 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

glaciusx25 wrote:

Phillyblunzz wrote:

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.

 

 

Instead of just complaining about it when, clearly, they're not going to change their stance on it.

 

 

 

Oh thats right companies never change their policies based on negative feedback....... Oh wait....

 

Well at least not gaming companies........ Oh wait wasnt there something back in June or E3 or something..???  cant quite recall what it was it seems so long ago, and the policies seems so dated now.......

 

 

Heck its not like they can just throw a switch..... Oh wait they did that didnt they?

 

 

Well only one company can ever change there policies based on feedback then I guess.  Right?

 

Are you a delevoper? 

 

 

(If you dont know angry Joe this probably all flys over your head, if you do please enjoy being wrong, lol)

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 23 of 65 (137 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 08/21/2013
Offline
394 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

HWGuy14 wrote:

darknovaxp wrote:

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.


Really? So what are the flaws? if any not so significant. Ps2 was golden.

 

*guessing you are about to attempt to google "ps2 flaws" and come back here with some stupid information


I love me some PS2.   My son is finally old enough to get into some big boy games, and we hooked up the old 60GB and been split screening some amazingness, starwars battlefront 2 heroes vs villians!!!  I just wish I could pay a subscription I think it would make me enjoy it more, lol.

 

Only thing better then a nice phat ps2 is a nice phat 60GB playing PS2 games, I paid to play it, and can forever!

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 24 of 65 (132 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 06/26/2013
Offline
569 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

[ Edited ]
Oct 29, 2013

Phillyblunzz wrote:

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.

 

 


I wouldn't know, I don't play any multiplayer gamesSmiley Tongue

 

I do however remember plunking down $60+ for games I either got tired of within 15 minutes, were too hard to get past the 2nd level, or I could breeze through in 6 hours. With inflation that's around $80-90.

 

To be honest, the thought of having burned through $6 or so bucks because I haven't touched my console in a couple of months wouldn't really keep me up at night...

 

 


sig by Grindhead_Jim
Message 25 of 65 (130 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 12/30/2011
Offline
3825 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

times have changed, and there is less emphasis on offline splitscreen :/

KZMProductionsGT
Message 26 of 65 (124 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 11/30/2008
Offline
3334 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

KZMProductionsGT wrote:

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

times have changed, and there is less emphasis on offline splitscreen :/


 Totally forgot that one! nice point. Long live split screen!

 


Phillyblunzz wrote:

HWGuy14 wrote:

darknovaxp wrote:

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.


Really? So what are the flaws? if any not so significant. Ps2 was golden.

 

*guessing you are about to attempt to google "ps2 flaws" and come back here with some stupid information


I love me some PS2.   My son is finally old enough to get into some big boy games, and we hooked up the old 60GB and been split screening some amazingness, starwars battlefront 2 heroes vs villians!!!  I just wish I could pay a subscription I think it would make me enjoy it more, lol.

 

Only thing better then a nice phat ps2 is a nice phat 60GB playing PS2 games, I paid to play it, and can forever!



Right on!

Image and video hosting by TinyPicHEAVY WEAPONS GUYImage and video hosting by TinyPic
Message 27 of 65 (121 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 12/30/2011
Offline
3825 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

offline multiplayer it total lulz because you are sitting next to your opponent and throw curse words everytime you die XD

 

I'm hoping on ps4 system linking and lan play is encouraged. Heck watch, Halo 5 and COD Ghosts will still have splitscreen. My dear Killzone Shadow Fall doesnt Smiley Sad

KZMProductionsGT
Message 28 of 65 (114 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:

darknovaxp wrote:

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.


Really? So what are the flaws? if any not so significant. Ps2 was golden.

 

*guessing you are about to attempt to google "ps2 flaws" and come back here with some stupid information


I wouldn't dare. And my point was not that there were flaws, I loved my PS2 as well. I was pointing out the fact that you'll see the past you want in a positive light and your points are resultant of that thought process.

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


Fabulous!
Message 29 of 65 (109 Views)
Survivor
Registered: 01/30/2010
Offline
2358 posts
 

Re: Pay-to-play, a flawed strategy

Oct 29, 2013

i personally hope the PS4 bombs, then all the SONY lap dogs will be here crying and i can tell them i told them so..

OP i have for months been against the PS4 pay-to-play thing, its rediculous. they put so much social media stuff into the system they lost all the money that could of gone to fix the servers. and before you people start yes it was them putting the tech in to use these services, they even said so at E3.

anyway most of these i know many people are like myself and don't care for. we buy a gaming system TO GAME! you want social media? there are plenty of other ways to do it. looking over the PS4 its clear its more like a giant Facebook wanna be then a gaming system.

Message 30 of 65 (94 Views)
Reply
0 Likes