Playstation Plus discussion thread - Part deux

Penn

dunworth1 wrote: »

a prime example is when it was down for 3 or 4 days recently not really the level of service i expet for my €60 euro

My car broke down last week. Not really the level of service I expect for my €10,000.

Ultimately, the cost of the PS+ subscription is largely irrelevant when something unexpected happens on such a scale. There's only so much you can do in terms of reliability, but sometimes, sh*t happens.

dunworth1

Penn wrote: »

My car broke down last week. Not really the level of service I expect for my €10,000.

Ultimately, the cost of the PS+ subscription is largely irrelevant when something unexpected happens on such a scale. There's only so much you can do in terms of reliability, but sometimes, sh*t happens.

is your car being maintained by a multi-billion dollar company with teams monitoring it 24/7 such a system should have redundancies considering it's providing a service for millions of people? yes it's a consumer-based service but its also sold as a premium service
a once in a blue moon outage it to be expected but 4 in a matter of weeks
and regular poor performance (slow download speeds etc) shouldn't be happening unless they are not investing enough the in the service.

if your car broke down 4 or five times in a matter of weeks after having fixed it the first and second time would you still be sitting on the side of the road saying ah well Sh*t happens?

Nailz

I was under the impression that most people actually wanted Sony to focus on offering quality over quantity, I for one did.

Now we have people moaning about it. The mind boggles.

I still use my PS3 and Vita, but frankly I thought the free PS+ games for those platforms have been a waste of space for about 2 years now.

If their omission means better monthly games for PS4, then I'm all for it, I'd find it hard to believe that there'd be many people who would think otherwise.

Thing is though what you deem to be quality over quantity? Like if they went AAA every month you'd likely have played a lot of what they put out already. Some moan about games like Gone Home etc being crap offerings.

For me on Xbox it's the case I've either played it or not interested it in although they will occasionally have a game release straight to GwG. On PS4 I've only had one for a year and as a result I've likely done better than most in terms of the games they've offered.

Penn

dunworth1 wrote: »

is your car being maintained by a multi-billion dollar company with teams monitoring it 24/7 such a system should have redundancies considering it's providing a service for millions of people? yes it's a consumer-based service but its also sold as a premium service
a once in a blue moon outage it to be expected but 4 in a matter of weeks
and regular poor performance (slow download speeds etc) shouldn't be happening unless they are not investing enough the in the service.

if your car broke down 4 or five times in a matter of weeks after having fixed it the first and second time would you still be sitting on the side of the road saying ah well Sh*t happens?

No, because it's an essential item I paid thousands for.

A non-essential service that gives free games and regular deals as part of the service anyway goes down occasionally... I'll survive. Mobile networks go down all the time. Internet services. Power outages.

These things are neither unique to Sony, nor consoles, nor any service which relies heavily on telecommunications or infrastructure. And sometimes you think you've solved the problem or applied a fix to get things up and running, and a few days later, it happens again. Again, not uncommon.

FAILSAFE 00

Penn wrote: »

It's too early to determine if the money will be used to give away better games, but given the games next month (Bloodborne and Ratchet & Clank), there's no reason to suspect it won't yet.

The PS Vita and PS3 games that are no longer being provided on PSN+ won't be removed until March 2019. This means this months PSN+ quality and the previous months are the result of the 25% price last year.

So removing PS Vita and PS3 games is not going to improve the PSN+ offering. It's just penalising PSN+ subscribers by offering less which is helping Playstation up their profits. If the offerings were going to get better wouldn't Playstation have announced that yesterday rather than publishing the vague statement they posted.

It's very surprising that Playstation has decided to hike the PSN Plus price while removing PS3 and Vita games all in a 2 year window. I'd say their profits will soar when this kicks in.

Jerichoholic

Removing PS3 and Vita is a smart business move. Both dead consoles, they just want people to buy PS4's now. You can't blame them for that.

Penn

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

The PS Vita and PS3 games that are no longer being provided on PSN+ won't be removed until March 2019. This means this months PSN+ quality and the previous months are the result of the 25% price last year.

So removing PS Vita and PS3 games is not going to improve the PSN+ offering. It's just penalising PSN+ subscribers by offering less which is helping Playstation up their profits. If the offerings were going to get better wouldn't Playstation have announced that yesterday rather than publishing the vague statement they posted.

It's very surprising that Playstation has decided to hike the PSN Plus price while removing PS3 and Vita games all in a 2 year window. I'd say their profits will soar when this kicks in.

Okay, I thought the PS3 and Vita games were ending next month. Which means people will still get PS3 games for another year, more than 5 years after the PS4 came out. That's more than reasonable, and as I said previously, I'm surprised they even kept offering free PS3 games this long, never mind next year.

Secondly, get over the PS+ price hike. As has been pointed out many times before, Xbox Live was a requirement all through the life cycle of the 360 for online play whereas it wasn't for the PS3, and it's the same price as the Xbox Live Gold membership (which also went through a price increase a few years ago).

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Okay, I thought the PS3 and Vita games were ending next month. Which means people will still get PS3 games for another year, more than 5 years after the PS4 came out. That's more than reasonable, and as I said previously, I'm surprised they even kept offering free PS3 games this long, never mind next year.

Secondly, get over the PS+ price hike. As has been pointed out many times before, Xbox Live was a requirement all through the life cycle of the 360 for online play whereas it wasn't for the PS3, and it's the same price as the Xbox Live Gold membership (which also went through a price increase a few years ago).

Not worth the hassle, if MS announced this he'd be singing their praises.

Far as the move goes, it makes perfect sense. The PS4 will be 5 years old at that stage and the back catalogue is so great that they'll be able to offer some big titles.

As for the price increase, no big deal. A couple of extra euro a year and now the same price as Xbox Live. You know Xbox who only offered games because Sony did.

Potential-Monke

Sony didn't have the years of Windows experience behind them, so their online was always going to be playing catch up. I was mainly online with the 360 during that time, and while the PS4 offered online for free, it wasn't as good. But they improved, started charging, which I was ok with at the time, gave free games which MS didn't (for 10 years, 2004-2014). It's only natural that support for last gen consoles will eventually run out. Sony have given us a years notice for this, which will bring PS3 support to 13 years. Now MS are charging for a good online and giving free games, PSN is way more stable than it used to be, but like others above, I understand the nature of these things, and they will break, get hacked, require maintenance, upgrading, etc.

I work for a company who support IP based motion detection CCTV, and customers give out that it won't work when their internet is down. People will complain regardless of value or service, even if the value and service is really good, as PS+ is. I've got more than my fair share of free gaming for the PS+ sub, along with a now fairly stable online service. I haven't turned the PS3 on in over 2 years and haven't had a Vita for over 3 years. Even if the quality of the PS4 games doesn't get better, I'm still more than happy to pay and get free stuff, as it means I'll probably play games I would have missed otherwise, and missed amazing games at that.

TitianGerm

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

The PS Vita and PS3 games that are no longer being provided on PSN+ won't be removed until March 2019. This means this months PSN+ quality and the previous months are the result of the 25% price last year.

So removing PS Vita and PS3 games is not going to improve the PSN+ offering. It's just penalising PSN+ subscribers by offering less which is helping Playstation up their profits. If the offerings were going to get better wouldn't Playstation have announced that yesterday rather than publishing the vague statement they posted.

It's very surprising that Playstation has decided to hike the PSN Plus price while removing PS3 and Vita games all in a 2 year window. I'd say their profits will soar when this kicks in.

I think Bloodborne might have been given free to get positive press out there again before an announcement for a sequel.... Or at least that's what I'm hoping for

Generic Dreadhead

Ye'd think at this stage people would stop talking the usual bait from the usual suspects.

The option to ignore users has been available on Boards.ie for a long while now and it works great.

FAILSAFE 00

Deleted User wrote: »

Far as the move goes, it makes perfect sense. The PS4 will be 5 years old at that stage and the back catalogue is so great that they'll be able to offer some big titles.

As for the price increase, no big deal. A couple of extra euro a year...

Does it really make sense to offer customers less value for the same price. PSN+ customers deserve more, not less.

A 20% price hike is significant. It will be even more significant when PlayStation start stripping the games from PSN+

FAILSAFE 00

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Does it really make sense to offer customers less value for the same price. PSN+ customers deserve more, not less.

A 20% price hike is significant. It will be even more significant when PlayStation start stripping the games from PSN+

Can we get the lotto number for Friday given that you can clearly see the future, or do Sony loop you in on plans a year in advance?

Generic Dreadhead

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Ye'd think at this stage people would stop talking the usual bait from the usual suspects.

The option to ignore users has been available on Boards.ie for a long while now and it works great.

One could say why does this always get posted if it's anything Sony related?

Some people don't follow companies blindly.

People are entitled to question motives from Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or any other company for that matter.

Some people think it's a poor move from Sony. I tend to agree especially if the price is being raised.
However It depends on the level of quality of PS4 games they release over the coming year. If they keep it at Bloodbourne levels then it might be justified.

And I own a PS2, a vita, a ps3 and a PS4 pro just to be clear.

Penn

M!Ck^ wrote: »

One could say why does this always get posted if it's anything Sony related?

Some people don't follow companies blindly.

People are entitled to question motives from Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or any other company for that matter.

Some people think it's a poor move from Sony. I tend to agree especially if the price is being raised.
However It depends on the level of quality of PS4 games they release over the coming year. If they keep it at Bloodbourne levels then it might be justified.

And I own a PS2, a vita, a ps3 and a PS4 pro just to be clear.

The price isn't being raised. The price was already raised last year independent of this, and reflects market costs given MS had already raised the price to 60 too.

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Can we please stop with the bickering / faux outrage please? A handful of posters on both sides of these repetitive debates keep dragging threads off topic with the same tired arguments and back-and-forths, and it is utterly tedious. If you don’t think a poster makes worthwhile posts, please put them on ignore rather than responding and dragging threads down the same old path we’ve seen a hundred times before.

We don’t want to issue cards or bans, but if posters keep indulging old grudges or endless agendas we’ll have to. Thanks.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

The price isn't being raised. The price was already raised last year independent of this, and reflects market costs given MS had already raised the price to 60 too.

So the motive could be questioned last year then based on the price hike.

As I said too early to pass judgement until you get a clear scope on what type of PS4 games will be free in the coming months.

Bloodbourne is a good start for anyone who missed out but Sony needs to keep it at that level for this to be worth paying for.

Anyway just my thoughts on this. Nothing to get worked up over

Riesen_Meal

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Ye'd think at this stage people would stop talking the usual bait from the usual suspects.

The option to ignore users has been available on Boards.ie for a long while now and it works great.

I have to agree GD, seeing the usual suspects from certain other forums are in posting ten fold in this thread trying to drum up a console war for no apparent reason...

Would you be bothered like?

Decent enough offering this month though from PS+ as much as I like to give out...

I have Bloodborne myself but I can't wait to check out R&C...

TitianGerm

M!Ck^ wrote: »

One could say why does this always get posted if it's anything Sony related?

Some people don't follow companies blindly.

People are entitled to question motives from Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or any other company for that matter.

Some people think it's a poor move from Sony. I tend to agree especially if the price is being raised.
However It depends on the level of quality of PS4 games they release over the coming year. If they keep it at Bloodbourne levels then it might be justified.

And I own a PS2, a vita, a ps3 and a PS4 pro just to be clear.

Plenty of people complaining about the Switch not having cloud saves, Xbox not having many exclusives and nobody seems to mind when those companies are questioned.

Customers should question these practices, if they don't the you will end up getting less and less and paying more and more.

Edit: I don't know why that posted before I was done typing.

FAILSAFE 00

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we get the lotto number for Friday given that you can clearly see the future, or do Sony loop you in on plans a year in advance?

Its already confirmed.

Starting in March 2019 PlayStation will no longer offer any PS Vita or PS3 games. So 2 games each month instead of 4 unfortunately.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17062888/playstation-plus-ps3-via-games-no-longer-offered-march-2019

Beefy78

It seems certain people are forgetting/ignoring the fact that PS+ is very much an optional service for both PS3 and Vita. There's no online sub required for either. It was (at a time) an extremely appealing offer on the PS3 in particular and I'm sure most of us here have had countless hours playing all sorts of games which we may otherwise not have tried.

For anyone who owns just a PS3 and/or a Vita PS+ is no longer a particularly great service and has been winding down for quite a long time. Those people are being given a year's notice of the intention to change and can make their own, pragmatic, decision on what is now best for them. It surprises me that anyone can really pick holes in that.

For those of us with both a PS3 and a PS4 set up, it's a minor loss of value however I'd be surprised if many of those people were actively playing the PS3 games.

To me the interesting thing here is will the PS3 owners who end their subs in March 2019 lose access to that entire back catalogue? They should do, obviously, due to the wording of the T&Cs but it'll be interesting to see if there's any flexibility offered.

Jerichoholic

There is nothing more sad than someone with blind loyalty to a multi billion dollar corporation.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

It seems certain people are forgetting/ignoring the fact that PS+ is very much an optional service for both PS3 and Vita. There's no online sub required for either. It was (at a time) an extremely appealing offer on the PS3 in particular and I'm sure most of us here have had countless hours playing all sorts of games which we may otherwise not have tried.

For anyone who owns just a PS3 and/or a Vita PS+ is no longer a particularly great service and has been winding down for quite a long time. Those people are being given a year's notice of the intention to change and can make their own, pragmatic, decision on what is now best for them. It surprises me that anyone can really pick holes in that.

For those of us with both a PS3 and a PS4 set up, it's a minor loss of value however I'd be surprised if many of those people were actively playing the PS3 games.

To me the interesting thing here is will the PS3 owners who end their subs in March 2019 lose access to that entire back catalogue? They should do, obviously, due to the wording of the T&Cs but it'll be interesting to see if there's any flexibility offered.

You need PS+ for online multiplayer yes? And cloud saves? Alot of gamers would not consider that optional.

Even Nintendo are going this route.

ERG89

Don't understand the big deal with cloud saves tbh. It saves barely any memory and how many actually use them that often??
When I switched from the original model to a Pro I just used a usb stick to move my saves as it was far easier for me.
It's a big deal for Nintendo cause as baffling as it sounds you can't even transfer save data to the micro sd card. I'd much rather that than cloud saves as a switch owner.
Should probably give out a VR game instead though even though I don't have one it's supported by Sony unlike the other 2 systems now.

Varik

ERG89 wrote: »

Don't understand the big deal with cloud saves tbh. It saves barely any memory and how many actually use them that often??
When I switched from the original model to a Pro I just used a usb stick to move my saves as it was far easier for me.

If your system is bricked or damaged, and personally I move between a few PS4s more convenient to use the cloud.

EoinHef

M!Ck^ wrote: »

You need PS+ for online multiplayer yes? And cloud saves? Alot of gamers would not consider that optional.

Even Nintendo are going this route.

He said you dont need PS+ on PS3 or Vita for online play. Which was the case when i had a PS3 anyway. Cloud save requires PS+ regardless of platform i think. Never had a situation where i needed a cloud save,but it is a handy feature.

Beefy78

M!Ck^ wrote: »

You need PS+ for online multiplayer yes? And cloud saves? Alot of gamers would not consider that optional.

Even Nintendo are going this route.

For PS3 it's a service you subscribe to for free games and discounts. Arguably cloud saves but that's hardly worth paying €60 a year for, especially on PS3.

kunst nugget

I've only ever used the service for the free games. I don't play my PS3 or Vita anymore so it's not really an issue if the stop releasing the games for them anymore tbh. I'll miss some of the indie cross-platform games that we got most months for the PS4/Vita but I'm totally honest I didn't really play them all that much.

FAILSAFE 00

Since PlayStation are removing games and not adding any additional games they should consider a price reduction to account for the devalued offering.