Get a new job so I have disposable income: check
Pre-order the best next-gen system if it's affordable: check
Sell my existing PS3 and 360 for GameStop funbucks: pending
Use GameStop funbucks to buy a WiiU for the next Xeno game: pending
Save up the rest of the year for a new PC, for both programming and Steam games: pending
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
So the definitive answer is: When it ships. I just pre-ordered, and no money was taken from my account. So yeah, pre-ordered!
Yea, they make a big deal of giving you the lowest price between order and ship date. That'd be tough to do if they took money right away. Really Amazon preordering is the non-silly version.
So the definitive answer is: When it ships. I just pre-ordered, and no money was taken from my account. So yeah, pre-ordered!
This is correct. In addition, you will pay the LOWEST price that item is from now until the shipping date; so, if they run a sale and knock $50 off for one week only in September, that's the price you'll pay. Also, if your item enters the shipping process before the release date, and then goes down in price after they charge you but before release, they'll refund you the difference.
So, really, Amazon Preorder is flat-out win for the customer.
+6
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Weeeell...it's not quite the same though. I mean the PS4 is a different development environment than whatever it was developed on. So it's a port, essentially. That can cause issues. I guess my concern is that it won't necessarily run or look better and it might be more buggy. Even if it's not buggy AND runs smoother and looks a little nicer, is it worth buying a new console now instead of waiting until next year some time. There's plenty of time to get more information though.
Also if I could get wishes granted they would release a controller for the PS4 that is basically a 360 controller. I've never been a fan of the dual shock.
Actually the development environments for PC, PS4 and XBone are almost exactly the same now. x86_64 instruction set, OpenGL/DirectX for graphics, regular system RAM (no crazy syncing like the PS3), lots of RAM.
This is why games like Destiny are being developed and shown mostly on PC's right now, because the development environments are analogous. This is the first generation in a while where games will be pretty much the same across most platforms.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now?
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
So it was a baseless, made-up stat. 93.7% of people use them in arguments. If I claimed, in support of your opinion, that 80%+ of games are single player only then does that make your opinion less valid?
Edit: Just to clarify, I only jumped on the Mugaaz quote train because there are very few of us arguing on this side of the fence. That doesn't mean I share his anger or that I assume you share the "YOUS GUYS ARE STUPID. MOAR GAMES!" mantra.
Destiny is coming out for 360, and PS3 as well as xb1 and ps4. If its being developed for 360 and just being up-ported to pc/ps4/xb1 it might have problems. I can definitely see where mare is coming from. I can't imagine it not being better on the next gen consoles though.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
Last generation, the reason to choose a PS3 over a 360 was because you didn't have to pay to play online games.
This generation, you have to pay to play online with both consoles... so I guess it wasn't the hill to die on lots of people made it out to be?
For me, it's always been the exclusives that made me choose which console I wanted. 50-60 bucks a year isn't a good way to decide what console to buy. And truth be told, I want to play the new Halo coming out, but I'm so uninterested in the xbone right now. I think it's just time to say goodbye to John.
If it is a consolation, Bungie isn't even doing Halo anymore. They are working on Destiny, a PS4 exclusive.
It helps, but I think 343 did a pretty good job with 4.
But isn't Destiny on all systems? Even current gen?
My bad. I did a quick look earlier and saw "PS4 exclusive" and basically lept to conclusions.
I really wonder if the extra power of the PS4 will even matter. Maybe for in house stuff, but I see most developets just coding to the lowest common denominator (Xboned) to save on costs.
If anything, the extra effects developers often throw into PC ports proves that most developers aren't just going to ditch their games when they could improve them further. And the gap between the PS4 and XBO is large enough that you'll definitely see the difference in a lot of games.
Edit: @GnomeTank: Sony doesn't use OpenGL, they use their own custom graphics libraries that lets developers program much closer to the metal.
Weeeell...it's not quite the same though. I mean the PS4 is a different development environment than whatever it was developed on. So it's a port, essentially. That can cause issues. I guess my concern is that it won't necessarily run or look better and it might be more buggy. Even if it's not buggy AND runs smoother and looks a little nicer, is it worth buying a new console now instead of waiting until next year some time. There's plenty of time to get more information though.
Also if I could get wishes granted they would release a controller for the PS4 that is basically a 360 controller. I've never been a fan of the dual shock.
they have third party controllers for the PS3 that are basically 360 controllers. they'll probably have them with the PS4 eventually
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Destiny is coming out for 360, and PS3 as well as xb1 and ps4. If its being developed for 360 and just being up-ported to pc/ps4/xb1 it might have problems. I can definitely see where mare is coming from. I can't imagine it not being better on the next gen consoles though.
It's not. Bungie has gone on record as saying it's being developed of the PS4 first, getting a direct port to XBone, and a down port to PS3/360.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now? I realize Sony won, but do we have to take them in our mouth too?
Jesus Christ, dude, you get a fuckton more dollars out of PSN+ than you ever put into it. It GIVES YOU MORE THAN 20 GAMES PER YEAR. A single one of those games is usually enough to pay for the whole subscription!!!! The total value you get is much more than what you pay!!!!!! HOW HARD IT IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT?????
Look, you've been saying this since yesterday and you need to understand that the same things don't hold the same value for everyone. What if he isn't interested in any of those games that are available for free? None of the games on IGC on PS+ interest me right now since I already own the titles on that list that I cared for. You know what I am interested in? The Last of Us. If online multiplayer were behind a paywall right now, you know what my position would be? I would have to pay 20$ for a three month subscription on top of the initial $60 to be able to play that game multiplayer. What do I get in return? Deus EX? Saints Row? XCom? Already own them on PC. And the price I got for all three games combined on Steam still comes out to less than an annual PS+ subscription.
I understand that for a lot of people PS+ is a no-brainer. But it isn't the same deal for everyone. So stop reacting this way to people who don't have an interest in what PS+ offers.
Weeeell...it's not quite the same though. I mean the PS4 is a different development environment than whatever it was developed on. So it's a port, essentially. That can cause issues. I guess my concern is that it won't necessarily run or look better and it might be more buggy. Even if it's not buggy AND runs smoother and looks a little nicer, is it worth buying a new console now instead of waiting until next year some time. There's plenty of time to get more information though.
Also if I could get wishes granted they would release a controller for the PS4 that is basically a 360 controller. I've never been a fan of the dual shock.
Actually the development environments for PC, PS4 and XBone are almost exactly the same now. x86_64 instruction set, OpenGL/DirectX for graphics, regular system RAM (no crazy syncing like the PS3), lots of RAM.
This is why games like Destiny are being developed and shown mostly on PC's right now, because the development environments are analogous. This is the first generation in a while where games will be pretty much the same across most platforms.
I never got PS+ because it's time, not money, that's my barrier to playing games.
I own more games in Steam than I have installed, much less played. EA gave me Spore for free and I've never so much as loaded the main menu. I got inFamous for free after the PSN hacking debacle and maybe got through a third of it.
The chances that Sony is going to pick free games that I actually want to play is fairly minimal, and their PS+ sales are way too small to get my interest (because Steam).
So basically, I'm going to be stuck dealing with PS+ subscription horseshit off-and-on throughout the lifetime of owning my PS4 whenever I happen to be playing a game with an online component, like Dark Souls II.
This is going to cause me to buy fewer PS4 games. I'll be picking up cross-platform games on my PC instead so I can play them online whenever I want (and besides, I already got my PS3 controllers working on my PC, so I won't even know the difference). I'll be mostly focusing on single-player games on the PS4.
And it's not because I can't afford PS+. It's because I dislike being nickle-and-dimed in general, and because I don't like wasting the time dealing with account and login shenanigans. It's just yet another little hassle in a life filled to the brim with little hassles.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm still getting a PS4. Conference blew me away. I can't wait to get my hands on FFXV.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
So it was a baseless, made-up stat. 93.7% of people use them in arguments. If I claimed, in support of your opinion, that 80%+ of games are single player only then does that make your opinion less valid?
No. But it would make yours.
Specifically since you'd be the one making baseless claims. Not me.
You've put actual money down? I hope they're still around by the end of the year!
L
O
L
If you think GameStop is going anywhere
The Xbox One deal basically cuts them and only them into their used game market
And now it's obviously not gonna be a problem for PS4 used games, and never was one for the Wii U
We have GameStop for at least one more gen.
Tbh I wasn't sure what 'Game...' that was, in the UK it's certainly a possibility!
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I really wish people would realise just because they are fine with something, doesn't automatically mean everyone else is. I've been through this enough recently with regards to the DRM discussions in other threads. To me, PS+ is a fantastic deal that will certainly pay for itself. To others, putting MP behind it when it was previously free is a step too far, especially if they don't play a lot of games on the system and primarily use it for multiplayer of whatever (something like Injustice, which takes considerable play over a long period to get very good at as an example).
So it was a baseless, made-up stat. 93.7% of people use them in arguments. If I claimed, in support of your opinion, that 80%+ of games are single player only then does that make your opinion less valid?
No. But it would make yours.
Specifically since you'd be the one making baseless claims. Not me.
I think at this point we're not arguing about the same thing anymore or we completely misunderstand each other. Either way this has run it's course and people like Muddy, Sauce and Aegeri have already explained pretty clearly why the other side of the fence exists.
Whomever did that graphic was pretty spot on if this was truly done on the 9th. Unless there is some place that is one day behind the US. . .is that even possible? Though some of that seems spotty - Dark Sorceror was a tech demo and was Deep Down confirmed as PS4 exclusive? Same with FFXV (since it did well - but significantly not better than PS3 - on XBOX).
what is "dark sorcerer"? Is that the tech demo Quantic Dream did? People know that's not actually a playable game, right?
Yeah pretty sure that's just the Tech demo. The guy making this picture was basically updating it as he went along it seems which is why a couple things were missed.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
So it was a baseless, made-up stat. 93.7% of people use them in arguments. If I claimed, in support of your opinion, that 80%+ of games are single player only then does that make your opinion less valid?
No. But it would make yours.
Specifically since you'd be the one making baseless claims. Not me.
I think at this point we're not arguing about the same thing anymore or we completely misunderstand each other. Either way this has run it's course and people like Muddy, Sauce and Aegeri have already explained pretty clearly why the other side of the fence exists.
They certainly have and with valid, non farcical reasons.
I have never gotten PS+ because i'm using the old brick 60gb ps3 and I don't want to deal with downloading/installing the 2 games that can fit on the hd and then uninstalling the old 2 games and downloading/installing the 2 new games. I could replace the HD but at this point my ps3 is a time bomb. A lot of my friends old PS3s have died.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now?
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
am I the only one excited for The Division?! i want to divide things! it looks like DayZ, except approachable. or like APB, but not total shit. Or really any shooter/MMO, except not shit.
i guess it's really hard to make a decent shooter into an MMO?
No. Hopefully it's good, and the world-pvp happens organically and there's more to customization than weapons. Destiny looks like it will have armor customization as well (and each weapon has it's own upgrade path - that's pretty boss).
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now?
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
There is a difference between tacked on multiplayer and quality multiplayer though.
"Wait" he says... do I look like a waiter?
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now?
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
I disagree with you. 5/6 games I have bought were all single player orientated. One of the best rated recent games in The Last of Us was primarily single player, Bioshock Infinite was entirely Single Player etc. I don't think this is true whatsoever.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now?
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
Look, clearly you are viewing this from a biased perspective of what I am assuming is mostly playing multiplayer games. (correct me if i'm wrong)
But suffice to say, no that is not the case. Most of the PS3 and almost ALL my 360 games are single player (with a few of those having some minor multiplayer element that is not the main focus of the game)
It depends on the person, but there are enough single player games that it is entirely valid to not pick up the PS+ sub.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now?
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
I disagree with you. 5/6 games I have bought were all single player orientated. One of the best rated recent games in The Last of Us was primarily single player, Bioshock Infinite was entirely Single Player etc. I don't think this is true whatsoever.
Yeah a lot of the big releases lately (Remember Me, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution, Metro: Last Light) were focused on single player, all but one of those didn't even have multiplayer. Singleplayer is still here to stay.
I feel like at this point people are just throwing out complaints in some need to not concede that PS+ going MP only isn't SONY blowing Gabriel's horn and freaking judgement day descending. Free is obviously better than not free, but it's not like this is the MS Xbox Live model (in which you got shit, except the ability to play). SONY is bringing it's policy in line with it's competitor, but basing it off of a very successful subscription model already in place.
Personally, the tiers they have mentioned make sense - if you foresee yourself investing a significant amount of time in MP for a game, then obviously the 3-month or annual pass makes sense. If you aren't sure, and perhaps don't want to be locked in, 10 dollars is certainly less than what you'll be paying for other online experiences. If it were just the online-pass route (which other companies STILL might do), I could see the level of acrimony displayed, but as others have said the PS+ essentially is giving you access to titles you might have otherwise not even bothered with for lack of funds or w/e else, so essentially they are saying "Hey buy this game - so I can give you other games." If - in the lifetime of your PS+ membership - there's not a single game you want to offset the cost, then totally; consumer hosed.
And I can count on one hand the number of games I went online for this past year. . .one.
I actually contend that 37% of all PS4s won't require electricity to run.
So clearly the best option.
50%, the PSU maybe internal after all.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Posts
Get a new job so I have disposable income: check
Pre-order the best next-gen system if it's affordable: check
Sell my existing PS3 and 360 for GameStop funbucks: pending
Use GameStop funbucks to buy a WiiU for the next Xeno game: pending
Save up the rest of the year for a new PC, for both programming and Steam games: pending
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
As someone who preordered the PS4 on amazon and orders things pretty regularly from there in general, this is not correct.
With preorders they charge you when the order finishes processing, which happens when it ships (or possibly a day or two before)
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Yea, they make a big deal of giving you the lowest price between order and ship date. That'd be tough to do if they took money right away. Really Amazon preordering is the non-silly version.
This is correct. In addition, you will pay the LOWEST price that item is from now until the shipping date; so, if they run a sale and knock $50 off for one week only in September, that's the price you'll pay. Also, if your item enters the shipping process before the release date, and then goes down in price after they charge you but before release, they'll refund you the difference.
So, really, Amazon Preorder is flat-out win for the customer.
Actually the development environments for PC, PS4 and XBone are almost exactly the same now. x86_64 instruction set, OpenGL/DirectX for graphics, regular system RAM (no crazy syncing like the PS3), lots of RAM.
This is why games like Destiny are being developed and shown mostly on PC's right now, because the development environments are analogous. This is the first generation in a while where games will be pretty much the same across most platforms.
So it was a baseless, made-up stat. 93.7% of people use them in arguments. If I claimed, in support of your opinion, that 80%+ of games are single player only then does that make your opinion less valid?
Edit: Just to clarify, I only jumped on the Mugaaz quote train because there are very few of us arguing on this side of the fence. That doesn't mean I share his anger or that I assume you share the "YOUS GUYS ARE STUPID. MOAR GAMES!" mantra.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
wondering this about US amazon as well, if anyone has an answer
If anything, the extra effects developers often throw into PC ports proves that most developers aren't just going to ditch their games when they could improve them further. And the gap between the PS4 and XBO is large enough that you'll definitely see the difference in a lot of games.
Edit: @GnomeTank: Sony doesn't use OpenGL, they use their own custom graphics libraries that lets developers program much closer to the metal.
they have third party controllers for the PS3 that are basically 360 controllers. they'll probably have them with the PS4 eventually
It's not. Bungie has gone on record as saying it's being developed of the PS4 first, getting a direct port to XBone, and a down port to PS3/360.
No, I Just pre-ordered, no money is taken. It will charge near shipping time.
Look, you've been saying this since yesterday and you need to understand that the same things don't hold the same value for everyone. What if he isn't interested in any of those games that are available for free? None of the games on IGC on PS+ interest me right now since I already own the titles on that list that I cared for. You know what I am interested in? The Last of Us. If online multiplayer were behind a paywall right now, you know what my position would be? I would have to pay 20$ for a three month subscription on top of the initial $60 to be able to play that game multiplayer. What do I get in return? Deus EX? Saints Row? XCom? Already own them on PC. And the price I got for all three games combined on Steam still comes out to less than an annual PS+ subscription.
I understand that for a lot of people PS+ is a no-brainer. But it isn't the same deal for everyone. So stop reacting this way to people who don't have an interest in what PS+ offers.
Good to know. Thanks.
Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132
I own more games in Steam than I have installed, much less played. EA gave me Spore for free and I've never so much as loaded the main menu. I got inFamous for free after the PSN hacking debacle and maybe got through a third of it.
The chances that Sony is going to pick free games that I actually want to play is fairly minimal, and their PS+ sales are way too small to get my interest (because Steam).
So basically, I'm going to be stuck dealing with PS+ subscription horseshit off-and-on throughout the lifetime of owning my PS4 whenever I happen to be playing a game with an online component, like Dark Souls II.
This is going to cause me to buy fewer PS4 games. I'll be picking up cross-platform games on my PC instead so I can play them online whenever I want (and besides, I already got my PS3 controllers working on my PC, so I won't even know the difference). I'll be mostly focusing on single-player games on the PS4.
And it's not because I can't afford PS+. It's because I dislike being nickle-and-dimed in general, and because I don't like wasting the time dealing with account and login shenanigans. It's just yet another little hassle in a life filled to the brim with little hassles.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm still getting a PS4. Conference blew me away. I can't wait to get my hands on FFXV.
No. But it would make yours.
Specifically since you'd be the one making baseless claims. Not me.
Tbh I wasn't sure what 'Game...' that was, in the UK it's certainly a possibility!
I think at this point we're not arguing about the same thing anymore or we completely misunderstand each other. Either way this has run it's course and people like Muddy, Sauce and Aegeri have already explained pretty clearly why the other side of the fence exists.
This is what I told everyone last night.
Thread was still in fast moving excitement mode I guess.
Pretty good comparison list of features and games between the two consoles thus far (It's missing the 500GB HDD on PS4 though)
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Also the PS4 HDD is 500GB and is replaceable.
Yeah pretty sure that's just the Tech demo. The guy making this picture was basically updating it as he went along it seems which is why a couple things were missed.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
They certainly have and with valid, non farcical reasons.
I don't have access to what percentage of games are online now, no. I guessed a number, 80%. I made it OBVIOUS I was guessing. Holy hell. Does anyone honestly disagree with me when I say the vast majority of games nowdays are focused on multiplayer? There's still single player games, but online is now the majority.
No. Hopefully it's good, and the world-pvp happens organically and there's more to customization than weapons. Destiny looks like it will have armor customization as well (and each weapon has it's own upgrade path - that's pretty boss).
There is a difference between tacked on multiplayer and quality multiplayer though.
I disagree with you. 5/6 games I have bought were all single player orientated. One of the best rated recent games in The Last of Us was primarily single player, Bioshock Infinite was entirely Single Player etc. I don't think this is true whatsoever.
I certainly would.
Look, clearly you are viewing this from a biased perspective of what I am assuming is mostly playing multiplayer games. (correct me if i'm wrong)
But suffice to say, no that is not the case. Most of the PS3 and almost ALL my 360 games are single player (with a few of those having some minor multiplayer element that is not the main focus of the game)
It depends on the person, but there are enough single player games that it is entirely valid to not pick up the PS+ sub.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Bioshock Infinite
Tomb Raider
Hitman Absokution
dmC
Metal Gear Rising
Heavy Rain
Assassins creed 3
Dishonored
Resident Evil 6
Sleeping Dogs
None of those are multiplayer focused.
Yeah a lot of the big releases lately (Remember Me, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution, Metro: Last Light) were focused on single player, all but one of those didn't even have multiplayer. Singleplayer is still here to stay.
So clearly the best option.
Personally, the tiers they have mentioned make sense - if you foresee yourself investing a significant amount of time in MP for a game, then obviously the 3-month or annual pass makes sense. If you aren't sure, and perhaps don't want to be locked in, 10 dollars is certainly less than what you'll be paying for other online experiences. If it were just the online-pass route (which other companies STILL might do), I could see the level of acrimony displayed, but as others have said the PS+ essentially is giving you access to titles you might have otherwise not even bothered with for lack of funds or w/e else, so essentially they are saying "Hey buy this game - so I can give you other games." If - in the lifetime of your PS+ membership - there's not a single game you want to offset the cost, then totally; consumer hosed.
And I can count on one hand the number of games I went online for this past year. . .one.
50%, the PSU maybe internal after all.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."