Has it been confirmed if Destiny...

... requires PS+/XBL Gold to be played? Sorry to ask this but I couldnt find any concrete answer on google. Only thing I've confirmed is that it does require internet connection and cant be played offline but do I really need a paid subscription in order to play it? I was somewhat interested in this game but I completely refuse to pay to play online. If so then I'll just have to cross this game out of my list.

Well, yeah.

Really? Damn. I guess Bungie/Activision just lost a sale. Oh well, The Order 1886 will be the game to get in the fall for me

I'm not even sure that's their call to make. i could be wrong, but as long as it has network features and they release on a PS or Xbox console then it's going to require those services. Especially on a big game like Destiny. That's a lot of server upkeep and requirements for seemingly nothing in return.

.. £30 a month... you get anywhere between 1-3 games (depending on what systems owned) a month for that.... + cloud saves, discounts ect... your principle seems rather flawed in this case.

Usually MP only games on PSN do not require PSN+ as far as I know? then again... thats free2play not Destiny. does Destiny even have an offline mode?

I have PSN, so I guess I don't care, getting the game either way.

£30 a month? Lol wut?

Why wouldn't it? Its not going to be free to play.

Doesn't every game require PS+/Gold if you want to play online on PS4 or Xbone ?

I think the only way to play Destiny online without paying is to get it for PS3 or wait for a PC version.

Publishers themselves should start supporting the servers

Why should they? Sony and MS have a closed system that provides servers for devs.

F2P games like Blacklight, Warframe and soon Planetside 2 dont need PS+ to be played, thats why I was asking.

Destiny is a retail game.

I'm not saying that @Vatusus is wrong, but I'm saying why should the devs do that? What's in it for them other than millions of dollars of upkeep that they now have to pay for that they didn't before. What would they do to recoup that? I'll tell you. We'd have Xbox Live, PSN+, EA Online for $50, Activision online for $50, etc.

the irony here is that we'd be paying PS+ to play an online only game like Destiny on Activision's own servers. And that my friend it's why is so dumb to pay for PS+ or XBL to play games online. It makes no sense. We'll be playing Destiny on Activisions servers but all the money from PS+ and XBL goes straight to Sony's and MS's pockets. In fact, it's a miracle that Destiny doesn't has monthly fees but I bet it'll be riddled with microtransactions.

How do you expect these companies to provide a service without money?

a year, a typo :P my bad.

@applefan1991:

Well said. It is the nature of business. Companies aren't in business JUST because they like what they do. I'm speaking more of the developers, here. Believe it or not, those devs love gaming, and making games, but want to earn a healthy living at it. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Profit, is the point of business, not breaking even. Gamers sit out here and piss and moan about greedy corporations, but as I once had in my sig: there used to be weekly threads here in the heart of '08-'10 about how mp should be free; and MS charging for MP is whats wrong with gaming, etc. So, Sony leases games every month and now charges for MP as well, and the cries died down rather quick. Because we are given very cheap leases on games, suddenly the principle of MP should be free is no longer a principle? I don't point this out to blast Sony, or even cows, but to illustrate our own greed. The almighty principle is gone because we get "free" games. Lining our pockets with games made us let go of principles, seems hypocritical to call others greedy, imo. And saying publishers should handle the costs of servers is ridiculous. People are lining up to buy games released just last year, again, and some expect publishers to NOT save money or make it off of gamers? We have shown them we will pay for almost anything.

You pay for XBOX Live and PSN because they too cost to operate? it pays for the R&D and new features, more content? the server upkeep, the staff to keep it up? the MP pay wall is just that a way for you to pay for the upkeep of the walled-garden enviroment that is console online eco-systems.

While I laugh at the idea being a PC gamer... I can see why MS did it from the start, and I can see why Sony are doing it now..... simply put if you want a good quality network on your consoles, expect to pay its upkeep and develepment. regardless of if you use ALL of its features or not.

I don't see how people have a PS4 without having PSN, same for XBL and X1. It's just worth it, especially with the games that PSN gives.

All I know is you need a console ;)

You would almost certainly need XBL gold for it, PS+ is more uncertain, so far Sony does not bar the games access behind paywalls for online, I guess that it may be due to a different kind of deal, (maybe a cut of peoples purchaches? So I would assume that we might see it on the PS without having +, MS has different policies, so I suspect that XBL gold will be required.

That's because otherwise they wouldn't be free to play :P

I'm looking at you Xbone >:(

Free to play games you don't need to pay for PS+ but this isn't a free to play game. This is retail and you will most certainly have to pay for PS+.

This thread makes me sad. The paygate for online access isn't a feature, it is milkage.

Dont think ES:O is behind the PS+ wall either?

If you only reason you payed was for that sole feature you'd have a point but the 2 services offer so much more than just online access to games.

I have no idea about that game. I'm pretty confident Destiny will be behind the paywall. It wouldn't make sense to pay for PS+ if the none of the games require it.

How do you think they will fund the servers if you don't pay? Unicorn dust?

never understood paid subscription games. You have to be a legit diehard of said game I swear lol.

to be honest me neither, I think it has to do with the notion of MMOs having an aditional cost, where as normal multiplayer is fairly contained. So from Sonys standpoint it might be wiser to place the Price of servers (if thiers) and services on the Publisher rather then the consumer, which in turn might be the better deal for both (as the need for PS+ might get alot of potential buyers to ignor esaid game) Maybe if microtransactions, but to be honest I have a hard time seeing what online needs PS+ and what does not.

Maybe it comes Down to the deals Publishers and Sony makes, but so far there have been more then a few exceptions to the PS+ for online part. (Likely because most MMo games or games that have any componant like that, maintains thier own servers?).

It once meant a constant stream of content, around the time WoW took flight not many PC games got expansions and only the ones that did were the very big games and they were few and far between.

Subscription based games were seen as a way of continually making money on a product. A standard PC game could only be "bought" once while a subscription model meant a steady stream of cash coming in with content flowing out. Its only recently with the rise of MT and F2P games have sub based games died off. I really think that Elder Scrolls game should of been a F2P game.

Yeah, could be the additional fee for MMOs that Sony decided paying for PS+ wasn't needed. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what Sony does with Destiny.

If it does they lost another sale. I will never support that kind of online service.

isn't there also a decline in WoW as well? I guess the sub-game bubble burst or something along those lines. Just seems like a hell of a lot of money to drop on a game. Could they retroactively shoe horn F2P into it if subscription numbers aren't breaking records?

F2P and a sub based model doesn't always work as you tend to split the community. The only game that I know of that has made the sub model stick is Eve-Online and even then they let you buy game time with in game currency. Well, you sell things in game to trade for PLEX which is the stuff you buy with real cash (£££).

Just get the PS3 version or hope it comes to the PC.

Yes, clearly it is impossible to have multiplayer without pay walls. That is why there is no multiplayer on the PS3 or PC.

Sony provided the servers for PSN. The PC's MP is normally either supplied by the devs or from the community itself. Someone has to foot the bill, no such thing as a free lunch.

BF4 doesn't use PSN servers. Neither does CoD or almost every other third party game.

That's not the reason why PSN+ is mandatory for MP games now.

The PS3 version is the only free online version.

Destiny isn't slated for PC, but if Destiny hypothetically came to PC as a late port, that PC late port version would probably be free as well (99% guarantee).

Bungie community manager Eric Osborne (as published by IGN).

"We know there are a lot of people out there asking for PC and we know that there are a lot of gamers that would willingly give us money, but what we have to do is make sure we're focused enough to bring a good experience to any platform that we ship on. What we 100 percent are not going to do is spread ourselves so thin that it negatively harms the other platforms. So right now we have the four platforms, which is a lot to focus on."

So...if it comes to PC at all, it'll come a lot later. Which isn't the worst news, it's just really bad news. Sigh.

----

360, Xbone, and PS4 versions you need to pay for the online.

XBLG: $60 a year (unless you find a deal)

PS+: $50 a year (unless you find a deal)

PS3 is the only free online version of Destiny as of now.

I don't think you understand how it works. How do you think you can play on BF4 on PS4 without PSN?

@clyde46: As the angry cat said, the community already foots the bill. Gold was milkage. Sony watched Microsoft drop the ball and witnessed their chance to get in on that sweet sweet free money.

Try and name a single AAA game that wouldn't have been made, wouldn't have multiplayer, or would cost more if it wasn't for Sony's or Microsoft's paywall. The fact that fanbois are celebrating this milkage is a real shame. Fanbois should be the one pushing against such exploitation, the way they did with online passes when EA said "We need it for... Uh... Servers! Yeah servers!"

I'm talking about servers being used for matchmaking and things like that. PSN is used for things like trophies, cloud saves, basically things steam does for free on PC.

A game like BF doesn't cost much to Sony because they do not provide dedicated servers for that specific game. For PSN, BF uses the same resources as a single player game does.

Stop being a selfish brat. Its not "milkage". Its not a service that is required to use the console as both companies offer a free service. Yes its geared towards making you pay but its not required. The whole "online pass" thing was not related to the online service, it was designed to curb used games.

Not disputing anything you said, but you can always find a deal (unless you are incredibly lazy). It sucks that this is what we are up against these days but the least a gamer can do for themselves is never pay full price for those services.

Tell me... would Xbox Live and PSN be as good as they are now? (well XBOX LIVE at least, PSN is getting there... slowly) if not for additional revanue? you can say no, but you know its the case.

Still costs to keep those servers running..... I still don't see how you lot seem to think that all these features should be provided for free....

Well of course the more money they make make the more developers they can hire but where do you stop? Why not make it $200 a year, that would make the service even better.

Don't these companies get a cut on each game sold? Why can't they use some of that money to better their product? They're console makers, improving their services is what they should do. They shouldn't ask for additional revenue to do their f***ing job. How do they spend their other revenues?