The difference between a PS4 with PS+ and without is bigger than all profitable years in the history of Playstation combined (PS1+PS2+PS3 gen, loosing years not counted).
I mean you still have to get the proper level to unlock the skills first(which is unaffected by boost) and using scrap to upgrade your skills isn't exactly uh efficient. You are probably upgrading one common skill a lvl higher versus a player without boost. Not to mention a non-boost person could theocratically be getting more scrap than a boost person. It's like saying any game that has had a pre-order bonus is pay to win, like Tomb Raider, God of War, Dishonored 2, Metro Exdous, the difference is extremely minor and temporary, true in the definition of the phrase rather than the spirit of it.
With Gamepass they might need them more than ever if they want to keep the production value of those AAA games and make them still profitable. But maybe their subscriptions get high enough to sustain all that and still go out with a plus. It will be interesting how things turn out in the end. Same goes for similar subscription services.
Nintendo including games with their online service is actually a good thing and adds value as making us pay again for the same thing a 3rd time (Wii, Wii U even though it was only a few dollars to upgrade, and now they could have done it on switch) would be milking their customers dry.
Fair enough! My comments were mostly about how this game doesn't encourage you to buy this stuff in any way, really. Heck, I didn't even know you could buy the stuff to upgrade skill cards. The game doesn't direct you to it, and you can upgrade them just by playing so quickly and easily. I upgraded three cards today playing over lunch.
Again, my argument is not and has never been MSFT is the devil and should be ostracized for everything they tried and do.
Hosting servers, and a complete infrastructure for user identity/networking/anticheat, isn't free. Back when Xbox Live launched, it was a massive financial risk.
Xbox games were also P2P.
erm counterstrike like every pc fps of that time was all dedicated servers. developer would release server clients so people could run their own or hire one from a 3rd party company.
I mean you are kind of providing the counter argument.
I mean that just shifts the paying online part to a handful of players rather than everybody. If no player was willing to pay than fewer people would pay.
Fair point, however that just demonstrates how there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to online multiplayer. If you don't pay, someone else will.
Mostly agree with the above. I kinda attribute the whole timed exclusive nonsense that Sony does in this gen to ms starting it last gen as well
Not sure if sarcasm but numerous people in this thread have pointed out this is factually wrong.
I mean Sega paid one month exclusivity for the first Tomb Raider, followed by Sony paying for console exclusivity for the sequels. This practiced already existed and was used a lot.
One month exclusivity seems like kinda nothing even now and back then even less so
No doubt, I just think ms were very aggressive in the 360 generation in this area and kinda made It a talking/selling point
Tomb Raider not appearing on non-Sony consoles for 3-4 years is a lot.
