Support NeoGAF

[system11]

I remember when PS2 online was free and provided by Gamespy.

And it fucking sucked. It sucked the life out of everyone it touched, we were delighted to be able to move to Xbox and pay Microsoft for a service they were responsible for providing.

I still can't understand why primarily PC gamers think it should be free.

 

[ViolentP]

I remember when PS2 online was free and provided by Gamespy.

And it fucking sucked. It sucked the life out of everyone it touched, we were delighted to be able to move to Xbox and pay Microsoft for a service they were responsible for providing.

I still can't understand why primarily PC gamers think it should be free.

Because on PC, online interactions work equally if not better than the console counterpart without a fee. The argument here is that console owners should be allowed the same luxury.

 

[Gravy Boat]

But to say, "well, PS+ is better because it's cheaper than a PC" is dumb.

That would be dumb if I had said that.

 

[Conkerkid11]

That would be dumb if I had said that.

Uhh

How is it not? You can get PS+ for less than £30 a year if you pick it up when it's on sale. How much does a decent PC cost?

There is no 'free' alterntive to PS+ because that would require me paying for a new console/PC, which woudl cost a lot more than a few years of PS+.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Uhh

Exactly, I said PS+ cost less than a PC, but never that it was better because of that.

 

[gypsygib]

Can't forget that when xbox live launched it offered free game demos when, at the time, the only way to get console demos was to buy a $12 magazine for the demo disc.

Live was worth it for many simply for the fact that the game demos covered the cost of the service.

 

[Kureransu]

I remember when PS2 online was free and provided by Gamespy.

And it fucking sucked. It sucked the life out of everyone it touched, we were delighted to be able to move to Xbox and pay Microsoft for a service they were responsible for providing.

I still can't understand why primarily PC gamers think it should be free.

i was primarily a console gamer and switched to PC because i felt it should be free. It's been beaten to death that we've already paid for the console itself, our ISP for internet, and full price for the game. Despite all that, they feel it's ok to lock half the game's features behind an additional paywall. Like i said in a post previous, cost isn't relevant it's principle. Most people here defending it know it's absurd, otherwise they wouldn't be posting about how little they actually pay for it and just pay the full sixty with no questions asked if they truly thought it was worth it.

Online multi being locked is no different than when Netflix and Hulu were locked behind the paywall is xbl. you already paid full price for the product, yet you have a pay a premium on top to access it through their specific ecosystem.

 

[ArtHands]

I remember when PS2 online was free and provided by Gamespy.

And it fucking sucked. It sucked the life out of everyone it touched, we were delighted to be able to move to Xbox and pay Microsoft for a service they were responsible for providing.

I still can't understand why primarily PC gamers think it should be free.

That was more than a decade ago, dude. Online gaming has change a LOT since then. On mobile, handheld, PC, console.

On non-consoles, you pay for a game, you get to access everything of the game with no string attached.

On consoles, you pay for a game, but you can only access the offline portion of the game (say 50%). The other 50% (the online portion) is locked behind a pay wall.

Online gaming is an entitlement everywhere except console, because the console makers added a pay wall and turn it into a privilege. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.


To reuse an analogy just in case, it will be Disney locking up the bonus content of their bluray discs behind their subscription service. You have purchased the bluray, but you are deprived of the bonus content until you become a member. Whereas if you purchase a bluray that's not from Disney, you can access the movie and the bonus content without signing up or paying any member fee.

 

[AmFreak]

Some of the responses in this thread like R&D for the console or the cost of the overall service ...
Ms and Sony get 30% whenever something is sold on their store, meaning a price increase of ~43%. What do you give them that money for?
The tale once was that you would get a console for less than it's costs, but then had to pay a little extra for every game cause the console owner would get a share from every game sold - a tale that was over with this gen.
This gen is funny - they make more money on every front and people still defend their pay4nothing model.

Games: They get $10-12 from a $60 game bought offline, but $18 from a game bought online. Infact they could sell you the same game for $40 and would still make more money. On top of that they can extract more money per game with dlc.

Hardware: First time they don't loose money on the hardware, in comparison to $200-300 last gen.

R&D (mentioned by somebody): Less than ever before. They went to AMD took their actual cpu and gpu and threw it together into an APU. A far cry from last gen where they not only build a new cpu, but invented a completely new architecture (SPU's).

Online: And on top of all of this they added an online fee. I think most people don't realize the absurd amount of money they get from it. Let's say the ps4 will be living for 7 years like the ps3 and then say they get $40 from the avg. user. The numbers have always been a little more than 50% of all ps4 users and they are close to 60 million, so let's say 30 million have ps+. If you now take 30m. as the avg. number over the whole lifetime you get this:
30m * $40 * 7 = $8.4bln
This is more money than all money making years of the ps1-ps3 time added together.

 

[Skinpop]

got burnt by this and now I'm never buying a multiplat game on console again. mp paywall is a disgrace.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

EA were the ones who orginally didn't want to support Xbox Live. They wanted to run the games through there own servers and oddly enough many complained about how those games performed online. If we truly want to validate the fees it is to encompass all these publishers under one roof. No need to sign into with a differnt account for Ubisoft or EA or Activision games. My argument is Sony offered that service for free but as we can see they too are trying to maximize profits any way they can. The motto is if they can charge and get away with it they will.

D3: UEE locked items behind your Battle.net ID. Overwatch asks for your Battle.net ID for various reasons. Almost every EA game wants you to connect to EA's online system, often locking "freebies" behind your EA Account (hell, you had to verify your EA Account to initially claim Mass Effect 2's DLC on consoles). Ubisoft puts value-adds as bonuses through their uPlay system. Rockstar puts things behind their Social Club, and on and on.

While having a unified place for friends is definitely convenient, you're STILL usually forced into connecting to each of those services anyway if you want the full experience of the game.

.

 

[Chobel]

You know what's funny? There's no MP paywall on Windows 10 store, desktop or mobile. You got the same service (minus the free games) absolutely free lol

 

[Negotiator]

Ms and Sony get 30% whenever something is sold on their store

Games: They get $10-12 from a $60 game bought offline, but $18 from a game bought online.

And what about Valve...?

 

[OnPoint]

If PS+ didn't exist then the "better sale prices" would be what the sale price is for everyone. You are paying to pay for what the publisher actually set as the sale price for their game.

No... I'm pretty sure the publisher can set the sale price at whatever they want still, PS+ or not.

 

[Chobel]

And what about Valve...?

Same thing for Valve.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Nvidia GPU prices are through the roof right now. PC gamers bend over and take that (myself included) What's the difference? You pays your money and takes your choice.

 

[Castef]

Its $10 a month.

Why?

 

[Diablohead]

I remember the days of dreamcast dialup in the uk, paying 1p a minute after 6pm and running up a bill worth hundreds because I was in a full leg cast off work for 3 months, heh.

 

[Abilidebob]

And what about Valve...?

30% from games sold on Steam, 0% from game keys sold outside Steam, but activated there.

 

[Gren]

Nvidia GPU prices are through the roof right now. PC gamers bend over and take that (myself included) What's the difference? You pays your money and takes your choice.

But in that scenario we pay once and get full access to the product's functionality. It's not like we have pay an additional fee to access driver updates (in before Club GeForce Elite comments) over an Internet connection we're already paying for.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

But there is an option. Buy a PC or another device that does not include a multiplayer paywall.

You know full well that wasn't even my point. I was talking more so about how the consumer is forced to pay if they are a PS4 and/or Xbox owner interested in multiplayer. Saying "just go to PCs!" isn't exactly an adequate answer for people who are interested in games that PS4/Xbox One offers that you can't find in PCs. That in conjunction with how silly it is for consumers to pay for MP on top of Sony/MS not even contributing to servers to the extent that publishers/developers have to just makes this issue even more ridiculous.

Nvidia GPU prices are through the roof right now. PC gamers bend over and take that (myself included) What's the difference? You pays your money and takes your choice.

There's a difference between paying more for a one-time purchase of a product than you usually would vs. paying out the ass for a subscription that enables mp over a period of time, on top of things you already pay for to help facilitate this (Internet, the games you buy etc.)

 

[ArtHands]

Why?

Standard price for one month sub

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

You know full well that wasn't even my point. I was talking more so about how the consumer is forced to pay if they are a PS4 and/or Xbox owner interested in multiplayer. Saying "just go to PCs!" isn't exactly an adequate answer for people who are interested in games that PS4/Xbox One offers that you can't find in PCs. That in conjunction with how silly it is for consumers to pay for MP on top of Sony/MS not even contributing to servers to the extent that publishers/developers have to just makes this issue even more ridiculous.



There's a difference between paying more for a one-time purchase of a product than you usually would vs. paying out the ass for a subscription that enables mp over a period of time, on top of things you already pay for to help facilitate this (Internet, the games you buy etc.)

The difference is inconsequential. You buy an Nvidia GPU and you're paying out the ass. Sony charge for PS+, because they can. Nvidia charge high amounts, because they can. 'Because they can' is the answer to 'why does X cost X amount' every . single . time. Honestly, you'd think people that have been on the planet more than a handful of years would understand this by now.

 

[Kelegacy]

I still find it ridiculous that you can buy a $60 game and still cant play it on your system until you pay another fee. Multiplayer only games are purchasable but not usable unless you have Live or PS Plus, essentially making multiplayer games more expensive than other games. The online should be included in the purchase price IMO.

I have PS Plus, but I still can see the issue however. Thankfully the services have tons of value over just online. If you dont care about the extras, yeah it sucks.

 

[TyMiles2012]

The only way to go back to free is if either everyone stops paying for it (Not going to happen)

Or Nintendo keeps it free on the Switch with their infrastructure doing better than PS4 and becomes extremely successful in the long run. Though Nintendo has many other things that rake in money, so they couldn't justify charging for online.

I don't think Sony or Nintendo can ever beat the stability of Xbox Live, but if we got something close out of a console and it was free, it'll make a lot of people think twice.

 

[Acerac]

No they're not, you try running a service with a few million people on if that has these things and see how much it costs. Steam just deducts the cost from their game sales revenue.

By the logic you and lots of other people are using I could say that I don't want to use any of Steam's services so I should be able to get games at a discount.

You certainly shouldn't be charged 60 dollars a year to use Steam's services, that's for sure...

 

[MegaManTrigger]

The difference is inconsequential. You buy an Nvidia GPU and you're paying out the ass. Sony charge for PS+, because they can. Nvidia charge high amounts, because they can. 'Because they can' is the answer to 'why does X cost X amount' every . single . time. Honestly, you'd think people that have been on the planet more than a handful of years would understand this by now.

It's not inconsequential at all, you're relying on "because they can" and ignoring other important aspects like the fact that the Nvidia card is a one-time purchase vs PS+/Xbox Live charging you over a period of time. When you factor time (relative to console lifespan), you're more than likely going to be paying more for online multiplayer than you would if you were buying a card for PCs, so I don't get why you think they're comparable in the first place. Furthermore, just because they can, doesn't mean it's beneficial to the consumer, especially when they're pretty much forced to use the service if they want mp. Never mind the fact that a lot of games that rely on mp are essentially locked behind paywalls, or that consumers already pay for Internet/bought their games (so they should have everything instead of paying extra for something they already bought within the game), or that Sony/MS are pocketing money for stuff that developers/publishers do (as far as servers related to their games are concerned). In this regard, "Because they can" is a very facile response the overlooks what's wrong with this kind of system.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

It's not inconsequential at all, you're relying on "because they can" and ignoring other important aspects like the fact that the Nvidia card is a one-time purchase vs PS+/Xbox Live charging you over a period of time. When you factor time (relative to console lifespan), you're more than likely going to be paying more for online multiplayer than you would if you were buying a card for PCs, so I don't get why you think they're comparable in the first place. Furthermore, just because they can, doesn't mean it's beneficial to the consumer, especially when they're pretty much forced to use the service if they want mp. Never mind the fact that a lot of games that rely on mp are essentially locked behind paywalls, or that consumers already pay for Internet/bought their games (so they should have everything instead of paying extra for something they already bought within the game), or that Sony/MS are pocketing money for stuff that developers/publishers do (as far as servers related to their games are concerned). In this regard, "Because they can" is a very facile response the overlooks what's wrong with this kind of system.

And what happens in a few years when your Nvidia card isn't cutting it? You buy another overpriced (probably even more so) GPU from Nvidia, rinse and repeat.

You're talking like Sony are morally obliged to provide free online play. Absolute nonsense. They can charge for whatever the hell they like. Saying they can't purely because others don't is meaningless. Or that you've already paid your ISP, a different company entirely, for an unrelated service. Or because you've paid the game publisher, again a different company.

When people say 'this should be free', what they really mean is 'I would prefer if this were free'.

For record, I don't find the service worthwhile, so I don't pay for it.

 

[Dylan]

And what happens in a few years when your Nvidia card isn't cutting it? You buy another overpriced (probably even more so) GPU from Nvidia, rinse and repeat.

You're talking like Sony are morally obliged to provide free online play. Absolute nonsense. They can charge for whatever the hell they like. Saying they can't purely because others don't is meaningless. Or that you've already paid your ISP, a different company entirely, for an unrelated service. Or because you've paid the game publisher, again a different company.

For record, I don't find the service worthwhile, so I don't pay for it.

Morality doesn't need to apply here. People have the right to bitch and complain about companies when they do shitty things to consumers.

Remember when Microsoft launched the XBONE as a TV Box with built-in Kinect that was forced always-online? The backlash was immense, was a PR nightmare, caused the company to switch directions, and cost Don Mattrick his job. So yeah, people should complain about shit that fucks them over as a consumer. Your complaint that GPUs cost too much is fine, but it's a separate argument and it doesn't pertain to this thread.

 

[Dylan]

Honestly, the more people just accept it, the worse it is for everyone. Here on GAF, we live in a bubble where everybody is informed, but how many parents purchased a console this Christmas so that their kid could play Overwatch (or BF, or COD, etc), only to realize they just paid hundreds of dollars for a system that can't even do that without a paid subscription? I'm willing to bet a whole lot. I've heard plenty of first hand complaints from parents who were furious that they just bought something without realizing they have to pay a fee to play online. It isn't their fault. It isn't obvious to the average consumer, and makes even less sense from their perspective, when they are already paying a monthly fee for their internet connection.

 

[Nessus]

I've never paid for console online multiplayer and I doubt I ever will.

Between most console games having fewer number of simultaneous players, fewer maps, no mods compared to their PC counterparts, and the fact that the matchmaking often becomes a ghost town fairly quickly before the publisher finally takes the servers offline a year later.

I mean, god, I remember playing on 32 player Team Fortress servers back in like '99. On PC I can *still* do that if I want, because players can host their own servers.

And I don't have to pay a dime for any of it.

Only time I've paid a monthly subscription fee for gaming was briefly for World Of WarCraft because all my friends begged me to to. Only ended up playing like 2 months.

 

[geordiemp]

I've never paid for console online multiplayer and I doubt I ever will.

Between most console games having fewer number of simultaneous players, fewer maps, no mods compared to their PC counterparts, and the fact that the matchmaking often becomes a ghost town fairly quickly before the publisher finally takes the servers offline a year later.

I mean, god, I remember playing on 32 player Team Fortress servers back in like '99. On PC I can *still* do that if I want, because players can host their own servers.

And I don't have to pay a dime for any of it.

Only time I've paid a monthly subscription fee for gaming was briefly for World Of WarCraft because all my friends begged me to to. Only ended up playing like 2 months.

But the thing that puts me off PC online gaming is mods, cheats, wall hacks, changing set ups to give advantages...I could go on for days and days here. You cant change or muck around with Ps4 installs without being a serious hacker as your main past time.

Add to that 2 ms monitors, people with their face to the monitor, gaming mouse pixel perfect and just about every thing you could think off that would piss off someone chilling on his sofa.

Yes, you can cheat on Ps4 and do some advantages..sometimes but its few and far between.......but the percentages compared to PC .......idk

 

[ponziacs]

F2P multiplayer games on PS4 do not require Plus.

 

[KingK]

Can someone explain why Sony and Microsoft needs to charge for online multiplayer?

Because people have proven that they'll pay for it, and Sony/Microsoft are giant, publicly traded companies that don't give a shit about you or anything else other than increasing profits.

 

[Maaaaaardy]

You'd pay £40 easily for a night out, £40 for a couple of hundred nights in with friends is a fucking steal.

Hand in your pocket.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

The real question is why everyone else thinks this is acceptable.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

And what happens in a few years when your Nvidia card isn't cutting it? You buy another overpriced (probably even more so) GPU from Nvidia, rinse and repeat.

You're talking like Sony are morally obliged to provide free online play. Absolute nonsense. They can charge for whatever the hell they like. Saying they can't purely because others don't is meaningless. Or that you've already paid your ISP, a different company entirely, for an unrelated service. Or because you've paid the game publisher, again a different company.

When people say 'this should be free', what they really mean is 'I would prefer if this were free'.

For record, I don't find the service worthwhile, so I don't pay for it.

Again you're comparing something that isn't even comparable. Why does property breaking have any relevance to a discussion about the subscription model of PS+/Xbox Live? Hell, like I said before, it doesn't even make sense to compare buying an item with subscribing to online services

Also, you're assuming I'm talking about making the service free, which if you read my post carefully wasn't exactly my point. I don't mind server costs being passed onto me as long as that money is going to the people responsible for them (developers and publishers). That's precisely why I don't give a shit about PS+/Xbox Live and primarily game on handhelds, or PC, and why it doesn't make sense to pay them for a service that they technically do not even provide.

 

[chillybright]

Your exact wording was 'Customers actually defend companies for charging them shit that is free somewhere else?' What are you implying here if not 'People should take the free option'

So again where did I imply free = better?

Yes, I'm seriously using Nintendo. Them being 'notoriously out of touch' doesn't change that their free online service is terrible compared to the paid service of some of their direct competitors.

ok then you do that.

 

[Negotiator]

The difference is inconsequential. You buy an Nvidia GPU and you're paying out the ass. Sony charge for PS+, because they can. Nvidia charge high amounts, because they can. 'Because they can' is the answer to 'why does X cost X amount' every . single . time. Honestly, you'd think people that have been on the planet more than a handful of years would understand this by now.

TL;DR: Capitalism

I remember when I could buy a mid-range GPU (6600 GT) for €200... now you have to pay up to 350-400€ for the modern era equivalent (GTX 1060).

It's outrageous and one of the many reasons that PC gaming became less enticing for me.

How is the online gaming situation any different? There are ways to mitigate the cost there though.

For example, 5 years worth of PS+ cost me €150 (€30 per year). I also bought more subscriptions and sold them for €40 each. 15 subscriptions sold and I basically have free online for this generation.

Another way is activating 14-day PS+ trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW1AUYE40Bo

Why does it matter if a GPU is a one time purchase? Paying €500-700 (or even more for Titan cards) every 2 years is a lot more than 5 years of online gaming...

Do whatever you want with your money. Some people squander it on hookers (even though sex should be free, right?) or drugs or sports cars. Just don't act all high and mighty because you choose to squander money on A and not on B like someone else does.

 

[MUnited83]

Same thing for Valve.

Incorrect. Valve doesn't get a single cent from Steam games sold outside of the Steam store.

 

[ZOONAMI]

They used to throw in the occasional aaa retail release every now and then to make it more palatable but now that everyone relies on it for the online multiplayer they've basically won.

If everyone stopped renewing something might change.

Vote with your wallet I guess, but I'm a sucker too. I usually do get a 12 mos reneweal for around $30 so it really isn't that terrible honestly if there's even a few "free" titles I download and play for a bit.

If it was actually $60 for a renewal I wouldn't renew.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I buy physical games for PC just fine. Am I doing it wrong?

Sort of, as that physical PC game has zero resale value as it's gonna be tied to steam, origin, or uplay for drm.

 

[Gravy Boat]

So again where did I imply free = better?

If you weren't saying that free = better then why is it so incredulous to you that some people would pay for a service that's available for free somewhere else?

 

[horkrux]

TL;DR: Capitalism

I remember when I could buy a mid-range GPU (6600 GT) for €200... now you have to pay up to 350-400€ for the modern era equivalent (GTX 1060).

It's outrageous and one of the many reasons that PC gaming became less enticing for me.

How is the online gaming situation any different? There are ways to mitigate the cost there though.

For example, 5 years worth of PS+ cost me €150 (€30 per year). I also bought more subscriptions and sold them for €40 each. 15 subscriptions sold and I basically have free online for this generation.

Another way is activating 14-day PS+ trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW1AUYE40Bo

Why does it matter if a GPU is a one time purchase? Paying €500-700 (or even more for Titan cards) every 2 years is a lot more than 5 years of online gaming...

Do whatever you want with your money. Some people squander it on hookers (even though sex should be free, right?) or drugs or sports cars. Just don't act all high and mighty because you choose to squander money on A and not on B like someone else does.

What are you on about? 'Up to 350-400'? You can get most models for something between 250-300. You even have the option to go with 3GB just like you could back then with the 6600GT with 128 or 256MB. You really can't complain about prices unless it's high end.
You also don't have to upgrade every two years. You can also reduce hardware costs by buying used.

Why. What.

Ridiculous.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I'm not a fan either, but honestly the cost is so insignificant that it doesn't bother me.

 

[Negotiator]

What are you on about? 'Up to 350-400'? You can get most models for something between 250-300. You even have the option to go with 3GB just like you could back then with the 6600GT with 128 or 256MB. You really can't complain about prices unless it's high end.
You also don't have to upgrade every two years. You can also reduce hardware costs by buying used.

Why. What.

Ridiculous.

Are you implying that Nvidia is as cheap as it used to be in 2004? And why would I buy a GPU with less RAM/future-proofness?

Of course I can complain when the mid-range tier used to be around €200. €400 should be reserved for high-end cards only. Hell, I can buy an entire console for that amount of money.

Ridiculous indeed. There's a term called "nVidia tax" in case you haven't heard it. Wanna pay it? Fine. You're not really better than anyone who pays the online MP tax though.

 

[grandwizard]

1. Nvidia comes out with good price/performance cards occasionally like the 970

2. The comparison you are making is idiotic

 

[Negotiator]

1. Nvidia comes out with good price/performance cards occasionally like the 970

2. The comparison you are making is idiotic

I don't care if you think it's idiotic or not.

970 is also overpriced hardware cost-wise. Nvidia is the Apple of GPUs and they get a free pass.

 

[ArtHands]

Nvidia GPU prices are through the roof right now. PC gamers bend over and take that (myself included) What's the difference? You pays your money and takes your choice.

They are 2 entirely different things though. You are comparing buying an tangible item, with a subscription service that take away non-members' basic right to access every content of his game in full.

The point isn't Sony charging for PS Plus. The point is Sony building a pay wall around the online portion of the games that non-members has paid for.

 

[ArtHands]

I'm not a fan either, but honestly the cost is so insignificant that it doesn't bother me.

I have heard this a lot. Its scary people is more than happy to give them a free pass because its affordable.