From what I recall, Sony has always preferred that. I wouldn't be suprised if essential is the most profitable tier for Sony.
There is no true offline, all cities and open-world ares are shared, you will see other players running around.
You can't play the game offline, but you can play the whole campaign solo (there's some areas on the open world map were it's PvP enabled, but you don't have to engage with that part of the game if you don't want to).
Dude seriously
Sony probably would love if MS kills GP entirely, so they can also backpedal.
PS+ essential is probably one of the most profitable parts of their entire business. They're never getting rid of it.
I mean they add high budget games in Essential, and meh/okay ish old games in Extra/Premium. I have Premium but my library benefits greatly from the Essential part.
They are doing a terrible job at not having people upgrading then
I am talking about Extra and Premium, the counterparts to what GP started.
I think they put out mostly old games, probably for very little money. I'm sure they are just fine with it. Honestly I think they make back almost all the money from their canceled games through recurring PS+ income.
I like it because there's always 5~6 games per year who insterest me and cover the cost of the subscription. Besides that, I can play the games forever since I keep the subscription active. For me is good, cause I don't have so many times to play games.Dude seriously
Diablo 4 is great. But entire service is crap deal. Straight up multiplayer tax.
Yeah it's decent enough, I can't remember if it can be played offline, but I just ignored all the noise and played the campaign. It's nothing ground breaking but the cutscenes are awesome and the combat is absolute carnage as you would expect from a game like this. Well worth a play through.
Diablo IV's campaign is significantly better than D3's. Great story, characters and production all around.
