PS Plus Monthly Games Thread for PS4/PS5
-
Fortnite doesn't need a subscription on ps4 or switch (guess it's the same for x1). Not sure about Apex.Kow wrote:you have to pay if you want to play Fortnite or whatever multiplayer.
I'm not interested in these games as I've got them on pc, but am waiting for a good ps plus deal as I want to play MHW again.
And I'm happy to learn Flippin Death got good reviews, had my eye on that one since it was announced on the Switch, just need a sale (it was a couple weeks ago but I forgot to buy it).
-
Kow wrote:You didn't have to pay to play online in those days though, so they had to give you something half decent or why wouldy you bother? Now they just give you any old shite because I presume you have to pay if you want to play Fortnite or whatever multiplayer.
Trudat, we're still worse off though.オレノナハ エラー ダ -
yourfavouriteuncle wrote:Also that’s when they were under the 360 kosh so had to give out free stuff to try and persuade some of us to turn on their machine. Much like MS and their sudden generosity in this gen.
True again, but doesn't change the fact the service is worse than it was and why the crys of 'another shit month' are becoming more common.
オレノナハ エラー ダ -
Yar, just give me free online and no "free" games. I don't have time to play what I buy, let alone a load of shit I don't want or already have. -
I'd agree with that. Sneaky how Sony and Nintendo disguised the pay wall with 'free games'.
We should never have had to play for online play.オレノナハ エラー ダ -
Why would be a better question. It as free for years on PS and Nintendo.オレノナハ エラー ダ
-
Why would why be a better question?
-
“Why should I have to pay for something which costs money to implement and which I am not entitled to?” isn’t a particularly good question.
I’m sure that Sony and Nintendo provided it free to start off as it was a way of getting both sides of the market - the consumers and the developers/publishers - on board with the idea and used to its presence in games, so that it becomes expected. That doesn’t mean they should have to pay for it for you.
Nobody is forcing anyone to take up any subscriptions. -
Yep servers cost a lot to maintain and scale. They aren’t free. -
You've no choice but to take a subscription if you want to play online. They should at least have a cheaper sub option for people who don't want the games. It's not good value at all if don't want the games and on top of that only get online once in a blue moon.
-
That's how I feel Kow.
Online play was still free on PS3 despite the (superior) PS+ subscription. Its a shame they didn't keep that model for the PS4.オレノナハ エラー ダ -
MS are already heading the way of one sub for online (gold) and another for games (gamepass) i reckon.
And to be fair, a year's sub for ps+ or gold is often on sale at prices that work out about £3 per month, so exactly how cheap would you want a cheap online only option?"Like i said, context is missing."
http://ssgg.uk -
Seeing as I've played a grand total of about 10 minutes online this year, I'd want it fairly cheap to free. I'm not worried about paying it but it seems like I'm being sold a package I don't want. It's like you want a bottle of coke but the only one available is overpriced because it comes with a 'free' kebab.
-
And I hate kebabs.
-
Kow wrote:And I hate kebabs.
Please clarify whether this is part of your hypothetical analogy or a statement of fact. This is important. -
Both.
-
He's a food ponce now, probably doesn't even know what a kebab is.
-
Kebabs are shite, its no wonder people have to be smashed off their face to eat one.
-
Only British people. The Greeks and Turks manage sober.Diluted Dante wrote:Kebabs are shite, its no wonder people have to be smashed off their face to eat one.
I've had one for lunch here a few times. Although the meat doners are a bit too greasy for me. Chicken doner, lamb/chicken shish, Adana etc are all delicious. -
If they have freshly made pitta like they do in the middle east then they're tolerable.
-
Kow wrote:You've no choice but to take a subscription if you want to play online. They should at least have a cheaper sub option for people who don't want the games. It's not good value at all if don't want the games and on top of that only get online once in a blue moon.Kow wrote:Seeing as I've played a grand total of about 10 minutes online this year, I'd want it fairly cheap to free. I'm not worried about paying it but it seems like I'm being sold a package I don't want. It's like you want a bottle of coke but the only one available is overpriced because it comes with a 'free' kebab.
I find these arguments rather odd. You have no choice but to pay for a thing if you want to use a thing you have to pay for. It’s entirely up to you if you think it’s worth it. To pay for it and complain that it’s not worth it is your own fault. It’s not Sony’s fault that you don’t use the thing you paid for. I think I know what the car dealership’s response would be if I said I wanted to pay less for my car because I’ve decided to walk more.
I know it’s not a direct analogy, because one is ownership and one is a service and, yes, there should probably be tiered subscription services, or pay-as-you-play options, but if people don’t like the prices, they only have themselves to blame if they continue using their wallets to tell the company’s that they will pay that price. -
What is involved in a game using p2p for multiplayer, from the companies side?
-
I don't think you have to pay for PS+ to play the FTP stuff like Fortnite and Apex. Davie will know better. -
@andy my opinion is that it doesn't represent good value for me personally. Is that simple enough to get your head around or do you have some long winded rebuttal?
-
I already understood that, but given that you wrapped it up in petty nonsensical complaints, and appear to have had at least as much to say on it as I have, you can shove your snark about the length of my replies.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836