Sad Affleck
Member
Free online multiplayer on consoles is finally dead. The consumers lost.
-
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
- Thread starter ArtHands
- Start date
No Splatoon 2 , or MK8 online for me.
Unless it's like $24 a year.
Unless it's like $24 a year.
But the service will be better now.
Just kidding. It's going to be psn+ all over again. Guess I can always get my fix on pc.
Melchiah
Member
Eh, how exactly were people pushing for it? Should they have just stopped subscribing for the monthly PS+ games, when online play was included in the service?
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Well they were "justifying" it in this thread and saying how paying it will lead to better things like better online services, help companies raise revenue to create and deliver more and better games etc
neurosisxeno
Member
If you don't think PSN got exponentially better since they mandated paying for access you definitely didn't use it back during the early days of the PS3. It was absolute garbage compared to Xbox Live.
I think Nintendo charging for online will backfire on them. Nintendo make "side consoles" for a lot of people, asking people to pay to go online multiple times and when they don't have the pull of Destiny, GTA, COD, FIFA it's gonna be a hard sell.
I can see Mario Kart and Smash having some of their lowest sales because of it. I know I won't buy Mario Kart now, because I'm not paying for yet another subscription, screw that.
With Xbox and PS they're main consoles, the vast majority of people have 1 or the other so it's only the one subscription each year. Plus they give away 2+ free games each month on each console that helps soften the blow, that's something Nintendo will never be able to compete with. As someone with an xbox one I'll get 24 games to keep forever, and 24 rentals as long as I have my sub each year. 48 games vs 12, which I have to play within their respective months? Nintendo is on crack or some shit if they think that's a good alternative.
I can see Mario Kart and Smash having some of their lowest sales because of it. I know I won't buy Mario Kart now, because I'm not paying for yet another subscription, screw that.
With Xbox and PS they're main consoles, the vast majority of people have 1 or the other so it's only the one subscription each year. Plus they give away 2+ free games each month on each console that helps soften the blow, that's something Nintendo will never be able to compete with. As someone with an xbox one I'll get 24 games to keep forever, and 24 rentals as long as I have my sub each year. 48 games vs 12, which I have to play within their respective months? Nintendo is on crack or some shit if they think that's a good alternative.
I was paying for ps+ before this gen hit. Don't blame me for putting online behind it.
I'm paying for the service for the free games and discounts involved, which really saves me money.
This is the truth. MK8 is one of my favourite games ever, yet there's no way I'd buy it for a switch because I'd never pay to play online.
Theslammer
Member
It does strike me as strange that we're paying to unlock something we already have. I already pay for the internet; why pay to then unlock the internet?
Xbox LIVE is free for PC, so it's clear that it's all smoke and mirrors.
Xbox LIVE is free for PC, so it's clear that it's all smoke and mirrors.
Melchiah
Member
The post I responded to said at the start of this gen though.
That's not how it works. You pay isp for their servers. Websites incur their own costs running a server.
So technically it makes sense for companies to charge you for using up resources on their server.
In reality though advertising is so effective costs go down really quick.
For gaming companies box sales are so good they could host you for decades.
That's why this service is a scam.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Nope, its already too late and a done deal. Nintendo already announced it officially on stage. It'll have been more efficient if everyone put pressure on Nintendo before Switch announcement last year.
And considering that many people has accepted it as a norm, there's no way you can gather and rally enough people to fight back.
It's not too late if the Switch bombs hard but that's not going to happen.. I think lol. Actually Nintendo will just blame it on something else not the paid online, so you might be right.
I am done with it myself. First time in years that I have not had XBL Gold or PS+. I don't really see them improving the monthly game offerings anytime soon either. That will only happen if COD sales decline really becomes dire and Destiny 2 does not pick up the slack.
The Nintendo situation is really weird, since their big games at least through 2017 are single player. A lot of the MP stuff is ports of Wii U games. But they are not charging for it until later on either.
The Nintendo situation is really weird, since their big games at least through 2017 are single player. A lot of the MP stuff is ports of Wii U games. But they are not charging for it until later on either.
I have always found sufficient value in xbl or ps+, but in the last few years my mp gaming has all but ended. However, when I tried letting ps+ lapse, I found that I did miss having the ability to go on and play some mp with friends. Given how much money it does make, I highly doubt we will see a change in these practices.
test_account
XP-39C²
I understand, i can see that.I assume most do it, but you can only do so much. For example, what happens if both players shoot within 100ms of each other? Both players will see themselves shoot, but who wins essentially becomes a coin toss. Developers have to weigh lag compensation vs. ping advantage.
As for games with host advantage, CoD is a pretty blatant example, since it executes commands as soon as they reach the server (host). Melee fights are generally impossible for anybody but the host to win. It's more common than you'd hope. And even on Source, somebody with more than about 50 ping (about half of the interpolation time with default settings) will have a disadvantage.
And yeah, I was out of line there. Cheers
No worries, i do realize that what i said could be understood as me making more of a statement on it, but i wasnt trying to rule out any other possibilities