@PSYCHOV3N0M: All right, this is going to be my last post in this absolutely inane thread, so feel free to type a novel in response to this. I won't read it.
Yes, I bought Xbox 360 exclusives, such as Halo 3 and Gears of War and had a Gold membership for the times that I would play them. I would regularly let my Gold lapse when I got tired of playing those games. Hence, I would buy multiplatform games like MW2 and Black Ops on PS3 because I knew if I felt like playing those while I didn't have a Gold membership, I'd still be able to without a having to pay anything additional.
As I state below in one of my other responses, I went with an Xbox One over a PS4 because at the time that I bought my Xbox One in November of 2014, I had an active year of Live because the main game I played back then was Halo 4. Therefore, the reduced price of the Xbox One at that time to $350 ($50 cheaper than the PS4) as well as the fact that I would not have to spend an additional $50 on PS+ pushed me to buy the marginally underpowered Xbox One at the time.
Your comment about Mattrick is in no way relevant to anything I've written.
BOTTOM LINE: I never once asked for free online or got upset about the fact that online play on PS4 costs money. I merely stated that IF it had remained free, I would have bought a PS4 first. I never said I went with an Xbox One to spite Sony. I did it because it saved me money for two products that I viewed at the time as extremely similar (feel free to disagree with me, I couldn't care less).
1. Making online play on PS4 cost money was a genius move by Sony. I don't blame them at all. It's probably been very healthy for their bottom line.
2. I'm not loyal to a name on a plastic box. Xbox One gave me what I felt to be a similar experience for effectively $100 less at the time (once again, feel free to disagree).
@joshrmeyer: Yes, my original post stated that I already had an active live membership for things I played on the Xbox 360. So that influenced my decision on which to buy because it was additional savings and neither console had many exclusives back in 2014.
And no red flags were necessary. Microsoft started selling a Kinect-less Xbox One bundle ($500 -> $400) and it was the holiday season, so there were deals for $50 off ($400 -> $350).
@Mirimon78: Yes, I see that there are exceptions to the rule and that not all games require a plus subscription to be able to access online features. But that's all they are: exceptions. To say that only some titles have a requirement for Plus is like me saying that only some states in the US have multiple syllables in their names (with Maine being the one that doesn't). That statement is technically true, but far from the reality of the situation.
@Mirimon78: I think we're using different definitions of "online". Is your definition of online simply playing a game while connected to the internet? I agree that F2P titles do not require plus to play online. We're good there.
As far as Destiny goes, that's where our definitions differ. Yes, I can connect to Destiny's servers and play the story without a Plus subscription. However, if I want to interact with other players and do activities with them, I need PS+. There is no joining other players for strikes, raids, or PVP (three facets of the game that I consider to be the overwhelming majority of content available) without a Plus subscription. When I think of playing a game online, I think of not just using an internet connection, I think of interacting with other players, whether it be as simple as reading player messages in Bloodborne, or playing an online match in Titanfall 2. Both of those things require a subscription.
And the reason I use the 50.1% threshold is because of what you said. "For the most part online play is free." That means to me that more games have free online play than do not have free online play. From the Playstation website I see 27 F2P games available on PS4. There are at least 18 games published by EA alone on PS4 that require a subscription to play online.
My original point is that online play being free for PS4 would have made me buy a PS4 before an Xbox One. I still believe that games that do not require a subscription to play online are the exception, not the rule. If you don't agree, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
@Mirimon78: The only games on PSN that I know of that let you access online play without PS+ are free to play games such as Paragon. Can you elaborate on how at least 50.1% of online play is free on PSN?
@Mirimon78: A distinction without a difference in the case of my post. I think my point still stands. Online play being free on PS3 was a huge advantage. Online play being free on the PS4 would have enticed me to buy a PS4 sooner and play online on that system.
@l0gic-gamer: Not necessarily. PSN being free on the PS3 was, in my opinion, one of Sony's biggest advantages over the Xbox 360. I know it's the reason that I bought multiplatform online games on PS3 over my 360.
Keeping PSN free on the PS4 would have convinced me to get a PS4 as my first console this generation instead of an Xbox One. In 2014 after the price of the One dropped, I already had an Xbox Live subscription for when I would play Halo and Gears of War, so Xbox was the right decision for me because the console was only $350 at the time ($50 cheaper than the PS4) and I didn't have to spend another $50 on PS+.
If PS+ had been free, I would have definitely bought a PS4 first because of the hundreds of dollars it would have saved me over the course of its life. That would also mean buying multiplatform online games like Titanfall 2, Battlefield 1, and the likes on PS4 instead of Xbox One. So, at least in my case, which may be unique, PS+ not being free actually cost Sony money. Sony didn't have to start charging money because Microsoft does, Sony chose to do it of their own volition.
MightofPhobos' comments