• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I find it hard to accept the idea of paying for online multiplayer on consoles

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Maybe its because I have been playing online multiplayer for free on PC, mobile and handheld as well, so that makes it harder for me to accept that consoles should be that special thing that you have to pay online to play multiplayer games.

Gamers has already fully paid for the games, so they are definitely entitled to access the online portion of the game as well. Instead of enhancing the value of PS Plus entirely through incentives, Sony is only adding a paywall and gate online gaming to the subscribers. Lets not forget online gaming is free even on Sony's PS3 and Vita too, but now not on PS4 (and Xbox One)

I feel like this is something that people should be calling them out for.

I dont like it and i didnt pay for it. I have alternatives too on other platforms. I just find it bizarre people have stop fighting it and just let them turn it from an entitlement into a privilege.
 

Optimus Lime

(L3) + (R3) | Spartan rage activated
You probably shouldn't pay to play online multiplayer on consoles then, since the practice has been commonplace for almost 15 years.
 

Bucca

Fools are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.
It's basically Microsoft's fault.

So, yeah. About a decade+ late on this topic.
 

Jotaka

Member
Nothing is free.

If you don't want to accept that you can just not buy a console and keep playing on PC where you can't resell the games.
 

TheYanger

Member
It's basically Microsoft's fault.

So, yeah. About a decade+ late on this topic.

What a bullshit statement people like to throw around. The same kinds of shit cost money on PC when XBL came out too. "Free" online was pretty much just battle.net and typing in IP addresses for quake servers. services like this all cost money back then.

Now they don't, but hey, OP, don't pay for online on consoles. If I didn't enjoy GWG/PS+ titles, I wouldn't pay for it either. Anything that isn't going to be dead on PC (Cod style games basically) I always just buy on PC regardless.
 

DonMigs85

Member
Yeah it never quite made sense to me either since you're already buying their proprietary console. Maybe it'll become free as physical media gradually dies off.
 

Bishop89

Member
I was paying for ps+ prior to the ps4 release, so it doesnt really affect me because im not primarily paying for the online.
 

Crayon

Member
It was an uphill battle convincing consumers to take this dick but they did it.

"It's like all my friends are in this hiot new club witha cover charge!" Remember that one?
 

cakely

Member
It's understandable that you wouldn't like it.

On the other hand, it's generally pretty cheap. I haven't paid more than $30/year for XBL or PS+ since I began subscribing.
 
Pretty sure I've paid like $3 per month for years to have Xbox Live... Never bothered me, I think Microsoft does a pretty amazing job overall with the network and the features it offers.
 

Crayon

Member
What a bullshit statement people like to throw around. The same kinds of shit cost money on PC when XBL came out too. "Free" online was pretty much just battle.net and typing in IP addresses for quake servers. services like this all cost money back then.

Now they don't, but hey, OP, don't pay for online on consoles. If I didn't enjoy GWG/PS+ titles, I wouldn't pay for it either. Anything that isn't going to be dead on PC (Cod style games basically) I always just buy on PC regardless.

Naw. It's true. Someone else could have done it but Microsoft really put in the work to make it happen.
 

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Nothing is free.

If you don't want to accept that you can just not buy a console and keep playing on PC where you can't resell the games.

You can't resell digital games on a Playstation too I believe.
 

Zemm

Member
Paying to play online so you can connect via some shitty peer to peer is something I just can't do out of principal now. At least MS use Azure for some of their games. Still not enough though.
 
It was an uphill battle convincing consumers to take this dick but they did it.

It was pretty easy really.

Didn't Microsft's first ever console have paid online service?

For your first attempt at a games console to have a subscription service and be successful enough to launch a second feels like it was "money left on the table" before MS.
 
I have a PS+ subscription.
And I will keep that, not because of online gaming but because of the monthly free games which, even if you only take the good stuff, are worth way more than the 60€ I pay for PS+ each year.
It's basically a flatrate for games to me.
 
People don't call them out on it because you also get games with it, this is an exceptional deal if you have numerous products in that ecosystem. Each month, I have new games to play on PS3, PS4, and Vita all for less than $.13 cents a day and/or $4 a month.

Basically, I don't complain because it is such an insignificant amount of money.
 

MRORANGE

Member
Paying for online is just laughable.

People who say it's a necessity or believe you need to pay for MP need to wake up.

Most of these MP games are still run on non dedicated servers such as peer hosting and even if there are dedicated it's the publisher who would most likely foot the bill and close it after a year.
 
I hate paying $70 a month for ADSL 2+ internet, it was only $20 during the 56k modem era

I hate paying $30 a month for a mobile phone plan, I used to pay $8 when I had a Nokia 3310

I hate paying $12 a month for Netflix, we used to watch movies on TV and it was and still is free

I hate paying $12 a month for Spotify, the radio is free

I don't really hate having PS+ for some reason. I feel I get more value out it since I have a PS3, Vita and PS4 and also seeing the PC gamers cry over it is really entertaining.

They want to play multiplayer games on the consoles but don't want to pay the asking price. Just walk away then.
 

Skellybroski88

Neo Member
I've always looked at it as paying a max of $60 a year for over 60 games. I of course didnt touch alot of them, and hated a few. They still gave me something to fiddle with in between my major releases.
 

Crayon

Member
It was pretty easy really.

Didn't Microsft's first ever console have paid online service?

For your first attempt at a games console to have a subscription service and be successful enough to launch a second feels like it was "money left on the table" before MS.

That argument could certainly be made. I think they did a lot of work on the marketing before and after it rolled out that made it look easy.
 

Shredderi

Member
I've maintained for a long time that I'm not paying extra for mandatory online feature that managed to be free on PS3. Not even dedicated servers for most of their games.
 

TP

Member
The "It's only x a day/month" is the most amusing shit I see come up in these threads

If I could actually pay a nickel for an hour the whole paying to play online thing might not bother me so much


If there's a console game I want with online then I just wait for a big price drop. I'm only getting half the game after all.
 

prag16

Banned
I don't really hate having PS+ for some reason. I feel I get more value out it since I have a PS3, Vita and PS4 and also seeing the PC gamers cry over it is really entertaining.
I don't think that's crying you're hearing. I think it's laughing, mostly.
 
For your first attempt at a games console to have a subscription service and be successful enough to launch a second feels like it was "money left on the table" before MS.

Yeah the money left behind was the desire for an OS level online network instead of various unique ones with differing features. I'll pay $3 a month for that structure.
 

LAM09

Member
You aren't alone. Microsoft set something in action and Sony eventually followed suit. Shame Sony haven't put some money into sorting their network infrastructure.
 

SeeThree

Member
I'm pissed that I just spent $49 amazon credit on PSN. I guess its worth it for aimbot free multiplayer but when the system gets hacked and shit runs wild like PC that will be the last year Sony gets my $49 for "online gaming".
 

Bessy67

Member
It's getting particularly hard to accept from MS considering they're bringing all their games to PC and trying to make the PC and Xbox experiences near identical yet they charge for MP on xbox but not on PC.
 
I have yet to subscribe to play any game online, and I'll continue to do so.

It's a large part of the reason I was never able to get into anything that isn't on PC or Nintendo over the last couple generations.
 

jdmonmou

Member
Can someone explain why Sony and Microsoft needs to charge for online multiplayer? I thought that publishers ran multiplayer on their own infrastructure and not Microsoft or Sony's? I know they do offer services like matchmaking, remote sharing, friends list, etc. but those things don't seem like they're worth the $60 a year. I'm just trying to understand where the money is going. If Microsoft and Sony could no longer charge the fee would they be unable to provide online multiplayer?
 
This is what stops me every time I am about to buy a ps4. I don't care about getting crap games every month I'm not paying for online ever.
 

Horse Detective

Why the long case?
Paying a monthly fee for internet use, then the price of the console with online capabilities, then a monthly fee to use said consoles feature with a service already being paid for...

At least you get free stuff I guess? Steam Sales basically give shit away too.
 

kagamin

Member
The only reason I'd ever pay to play a game online would be an MMO (worst case scenario though, I might end up getting into FFXIV unfortunately, I'm still resisting though). Paying to play games P2P is baffling though honestly.
 
Top Bottom