What innovation are we talking about here? There hardly anything new. We have slightly better graphics. We will continue to have to settle with unfinished, broken games that will require constant patches, games will continue being mediocre and 'okay' at best and there'll be longer droughts due to increased development time required. Look at recent games released, many were either too short, broken, boring, mediocre, lacked content etc. It's just gonna get worst and we'll build all this hype around games only to be really disappointed.
Graphics are only slightly better on cross platform (i.e. ported) games. If you are going to look at something like Killzone or any of the upcoming games in 2014 and tell me you think the graphics are even close, you need your vision checked. But, if you're really part of the "slightly better graphics" crowd already, I'm probably not going to convince you of anything because you clearly don't get it.
Unfinished, broken games ... what games are you talking about? Crappy Call of Duty rehashes or Assassins Creed 8 or Battlefield 12? If these are the games you mean, you're basically lining up to give these garbage publishers your money. These overused IPs are not my idea of good games or innovation.
Longer droughts due to dev time ... many would consider this a good thing. You're kind of contradicting yourself here too, games will be broken, short, mediocre, with longer dev time... really?
The innovation I'm talking about is simply by looking at the titles that are out there. I think the indie movement of the past 2 years has given the AAA devs some great ideas to draw from (i.e. steal) and use their limitless funds to create amazing games. I don't necessarily think every game is going to knock your socks off, but I do think that things are moving in the right direction.
Either way, obviously you are going to be sour grapes no matter what. I totally get you on the ISP stuff, and I understand why people hate paying for online access, but these are realities of the next gaming generation. You can accept them for what they are and enjoy the good of this console generation, or you can decide it's doomed before it even starts and sit in the corner and pout.
Knack, Ryse, Forza 5, DR3, weren't really all that great. Resogun might be a well crafted arcade type game but it just isn't my thing. KZ: SF is okay though feels like just another generic shooter with nothing new. As for dev time. devs are stuck between a rock and hard place meaning the we either gut rushed, low quality products or wait forever for at least something half-decent at best and still is 30 fps. is broken, and lacks other things.
I love my PS+ and will always have it.
You may love it, but that doesn't make it right to put online play behind a paywall.
Neither does it make it right to put netlfix and other apps that can be used without a paywall on other devices, behind a paywall *cough* M$ *cough*. I know this is a PS forum, but I have yet to hear you say anything negative about Live (didn't read all your posts though)
I think I'll keep mine also, I like the fact I get games each month, to me it pays for itself.
I looked on steam for game prices.
Outlast - 20.00
Don't Starve - 15.00
Contrast - 15.00
Resogun - 15.00 (PS store price)
Total - 65.00
So you can basically say if you are one of the ones who downloaded and played all those games they gave us, your PS+ membership is already paid off in a matter of 2-3 months, and we still have 9-10 months to go for more games.
Even if you can't play them anymore if you don't renew your membership, if most people think its a good value then those people will still be able to play, I know I'll renew mine and will be able to still play. Plus, unless you have a backlog of games, I can't see how anyone won't beat these games in a years time.
Plus I am used to paying for Xbox Live, so it doesn't bother me to pay for online, which to me is worth it more than Xbox Live.
To those saying that Sony is only keeping up servers on their own games, ok then, how is that different than Live? I would assume its the same situation over there also (unless EA is using microsoft servers which in that case disregard that comment). So what are you paying 60.00 for then? To use Netflix and all those other apps that are free to use without a paywall on other devices? Gee, that sure seems like a good value to me *rolls eyes*. Oh, and don't forget those free games that are a couple years old like Halo 3 and such. I don't see any difference in online quality on PSN compared to Live either, both are just about equal, so to me, the fact that PS+ actually gives you more current games over Live's games that have been out for awhile, seems more worth it to me.
Again this thread is not about the value that PS Plus provide but rather about it's current subscription rate on the PS4 and it's suppossed added benefits. Also to your question, yes Microsoft is providing the servers for all games on Xbox One 1st and 3rd party. EA, Activison, Ubisoft, you name it are all using Microsoft's servers for their games.
And don't value and benefits go hand in hand? If PS+ has the benefits of getting "free" games, then doesn't that hold value? To me it does. I like the benefits of PS+, the games, the fact that they don't include netflix and other apps that microsoft does in PS+ is nice too.
What I meant to say was that no one is arguing about the fact that PS Plus is a great value, if you read my first post you see that the thread was not about whether PS Plus is worth it or not. The post is about the current PS Plus subscription rate on PS4 and it "supposed" added benefits on PS4 like party chat, live streaming, video uploading,etc. Besides all those free games you like to talk about so much are not free, the are just glorified rentals that are marketed as free.
Yes and if you would read my original post, if I would actually buy those games, they would cost more than PS+ costs, so essentially those games would have payed for PS+. And as long as you have to pay to play online, while they aren't essenially "yours", they are yours for the time you have PS+, which if we have to keep paying to play online in the future, I would say they are basically mine.
Look, I don't like P2P online either, but if you think you can get millions of people together to speak with their wallets and say no, then I wish you all the luck. You'd have to get the WHOLE M$ Live crowd, AND the WHOLE PS+ crowd who likes PS+ together to say no, which isn't going to happen. Essentially P2P online is here to stay, like it or not, take it or leave it.
Knack, Ryse, Forza 5, DR3, weren't really all that great. Resogun might be a well crafted arcade type game but it just isn't my thing. KZ: SF is okay though feels like just another generic shooter with nothing new. As for dev time. devs are stuck between a rock and hard place meaning the we either gut rushed, low quality products or wait forever for at least something decent at best and still is 30 fps. is broken, and lacks other things.
Go look at the release titles for each console generation. If you can find 1 from each that were among your top 20 for that console generation I'll give you a cookie. Release titles are always uninspired, rushed, barely more than "hardware demos". Resogun is the only "new" game that I enjoy right now. I hardly even touch my PS4. But, I still have zero concerns for the system.
If those games are reflections of what we really have to expect for the next 7-8 years, then I'm right there with you on the "this gen sucks" bandwagon.
I really don't see how Plus on is a failure on the PS4. 50% is pretty good considering that the amount of PSN accounts is around 75% on PS3. Plus only really is for online play, nothing else. You can still use Party, Broadcasting, and Video Uploading without it, and not even all the games that have online play require Plus! So its totally possible to have the same experience without Plus Plus is not like Live where it prevents you from using a lot of its features. The real incentive from Plus come from the free games it offers. Okay, now take into consideration that Plus is still a largely optional service that gives you free games, and 50% is pretty darn good. 50% Approval is something that not even the President of the United States has or had for years. 80-90% is unrealistic. 50% means 1 out of 2 people support Plus. That my friend is no the definition of Failure.
And let all my PS3 free PlayStation Plus games beome useless. Yeah sure, only if you agree to buy them for me so I can play them whenever I want. Otherwise NO!.
Ahhhhhhh, no. I enjoy my ps+ to much, don't play a lot on line but, so what? I'm happy to pay so others can enjoy their on line play, due to the money being used for upgrades and maintenance. I like the free games we are given. And if I do decide to play on line, that's great too, because I still benefit from it.