Support NeoGAF

[Screamapillar]

"Here's your monthly pile of dogshit kthxbye"

That is completely unfair. There are excellent games available on both of those services every month, consistently. Not always, no, but quite often. "Free" doesn't equal "poor quality". Usually it's stuff that was just recently on sale, or even things that have been out for some time that people are asking for,

 

[Acerac]

Yeah, I think it's a pretty shitty concept myself. That's why I don't buy consoles that include such services.

If I didn't have a PC I'd be in a lot of trouble. As is I really don't feel like I'm missing out on much.

 

[Sophia]

I have found myself gravitating towards PC gaming simply because of the online fees, and I'd prefer to have that spare cash available for something else.

Related to this, but the double cost of Xbox Live and Playstation Plus is a factor in why I don't own both consoles. Only have a Playstation this generation.

 

[VICI0US]

I was a PS+ subscriber back in the PS3 days. The quality of the 'free' games took a immense nosedive once it became mandatory for online play.

the only thing keeping my sub active is the fact that my wife uses the PS4 to play CoD zombies online. if that weren't the case I'd be done as I do 99% of my online gaming on PC/nintendo where it's free.

 

[borges]

Unless I remember it wrong, didn't they open up with the " we are so awesome and 4thegamers and we will let you play used games", and immediately after they just snuck the PS+ needed to play online thing in a small text notice a little bit after instead of saying it directly?

Yes.

Interesting. I would like to know why then. Multiplayer infrastructure is not free, and by default I asume someone would pay (the users) for it. But if not, maybe Im missing the details of the business models of those providing it for free.

 

[Gren]

The really sad thing is Valve announced during Valve Dev days that they're going to start allowing 3rd party games to run on the Valve game server network they created for TF2, CSGO and DOTA2.

Microsoft and Sony can't provide game servers even though they charge their customers to play online yet Valve is going to start offering that feature despite Steam being free for users.

Part of what puzzles me about the argument that sub fees are a necessary evil to help subsidize the networks. We simply don't know & have to take it on blind faith. But others have long been proving it can be done for "free" (at least to the consumer).

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

I don't pay for either of them anymore cause I'm basically mostly single player now, but I used to pay for XBL to play with my friends so I guess I was part of the problem.

 

[Quentin]

What I don't get is paying for a Warcraft sub or buying DLC for a unfinished game.

I can't do either of those shits ever lol

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

Look at the good news of it though, Microsoft and Sony give 3-4 games to you each month for paying a service fee. If Steam had a steam plus service where they gave you 3-4 games each month I'd totally pay for it.

 

[Neverwinter27]

Kudos to anyone here who still refuse to throw away cash on our increasing reliance on subscription services in this day and age, especially with media. There is enough monthly bills that have to be paid already.

 

[shintoki]

I'll say this, Xbox live and BF42 made me switch from PC to console and accepted paying for the better half of a decade.

Why? PC was terrible and Xbox live was a breath of fresh air. PC involved multiple registrations, patches from third party sites involving wait times... there was nothing more painful then realizing you needed to a day patching bf42.

Then live came and suddenly it was easy again.



Buy around 2008/2009, it got better on PC and I went back.

So now, no its idiotic when PC is free, better, cheaper, and easier.

 

[MUnited83]

Interesting. I would like to know why then. Multiplayer infrastructure is not free, and by default I asume someone would pay (the users) for it. But if not, maybe Im missing the details of the business models of those providing it for free.

Servers are maintained and paid for by the publishers of the games, with the money they got from selling those games, docs and/or microtransactions.
This is true on consoles as well btw. Your 60$ a year is basically just the platform holders getting free money. Not a cent of your money goes to hosting dedicated servers, no publishers get a cut from those subscriptions to help them maintain servers.

In short, you're not actually paying for dedicated servers on console. The publishers have the same exact cost on running them they would have on PC, but you reward the platform holder for literally doing the less effort possible.

 

[borges]

Servers are maintained and paid for by the publishers of the games, with the money they got from selling those games, docs and/or microtransactions.
This is true on consoles as well btw. Your 60$ a year is basically just the platform holders getting free money. Not a cent of your money goes to hosting dedicated servers, no publishers get a cut from those subscriptions to help them maintain servers.

In short, you're not actually paying for dedicated servers on console. The publishers have the same exact cost on running them they would have on PC, but you reward the platform holder for literally doing the less effort possible.

Ok, that makes sense. Ill still pay for sub just because free games, but I was sure part of that 60 dollars fee were for dedicated servers for MP. I guess Im wrong ha.

 

[Chronospherics]

Servers are maintained and paid for by the publishers of the games, with the money they got from selling those games, docs and/or microtransactions.
This is true on consoles as well btw. Your 60$ a year is basically just the platform holders getting free money. Not a cent of your money goes to hosting dedicated servers, no publishers get a cut from those subscriptions to help them maintain servers.

In short, you're not actually paying for dedicated servers on console. The publishers have the same exact cost on running them they would have on PC, but you reward the platform holder for literally doing the less effort possible.

We do get games on Plus though. Sony and Microsoft put money into that, and PSN itself does have servers for things like cloud saving, and logging into the network, your account data etc. It isn't free, but whether the consumers should be paying for it is another issue.

I think as the console services offer more than mere connectivity for your games, it makes sense for Sony and Microsoft to want people to pay for that. Whether the current price represents good value is another issue, but for me I tend to get a lot out of Plus / Games for Gold, so I don't resent the payment.

 

[OldMan]

I agree

 

[Jawbreaker]

I don't like that multiplayer is tied to it, and I think it worked perfectly fine as an optional thing with regards to PlayStation Plus, but I pay it because some of their exclusives have online components, and the PS+ games more than cover the $40 I pay per year. In other words, there's enough value there for me that I don't feel bad about paying.

 

[ArtHands]

Call them out on what? If you're not paying, you're not invested. How exactly does this calling out process work? I guess there is always the hungry strike if demands for free play aren't met.
You may not be paying, but someone is. Nothing is free. Not even the water in your faucets.

I dont see why i have to be invested in the subscription service to call them out.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Call them out on what? If you're not paying, you're not invested. How exactly does this calling out process work? I guess there is always the hungry strike if demands for free play aren't met.
You may not be paying, but someone is. Nothing is free. Not even the water in your faucets.

He owns the console and can't play games online, but you're saying he has no personal interest in the discussion? Get out with that nonsense.

Also incredibly naive understanding by your analogy. Imagine if you had to pay for the water, and then pay again every time you use that water in your coffee machine. People are already paying for their internet. It's not free.

 

[DigtialT]

I mean accept it or not, it's a thing so you either do it or don't. The time to object was when Xbox Live first started, not 14 years later when the system is in place for the both major consoles on the market.

 

[ArtHands]

We do get games on Plus though. Sony and Microsoft put money into that, and PSN itself does have servers for things like cloud saving, and logging into the network, your account data etc. It isn't free, but whether the consumers should be paying for it is another issue.

I think as the console services offer more than mere connectivity for your games, it makes sense for Sony and Microsoft to want people to pay for that. Whether the current price represents good value is another issue, but for me I tend to get a lot out of Plus / Games for Gold, so I don't resent the payment.

I can understand getting subscriptions for these extra services. online feature though is a basic service being locked (thus locking you from a portion of the games)

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

I agree with OP - paying to use something that's already paid for (internet) is something I find ridiculous...it upsets me that's the norm in the console space. One of the things that attracted me to Wii U was the free online- as it should be. Mario Kart 8 online with 2 player co-op for free makes for fun times

 

[Tainted]

I only sub for 1mth blocks at a time depending on the 'free' games being offered or the game I am currently playing.

I think I was only subbed for about 3mths in 2016.

What makes it harder to swallow for me is it isn't the actual multiplayer you are paying for but a rather subpar matchmaking service.

 

[Shil Pencer]

I haven't paid more than 3.50 a month for either psn or Xbox live and it's been worth every penny

Edit: I also feel like playing on console I don't have to worry about cheating as much and a level playing field is way more obtainable than on pc. If I could pay for Xbox live for pc I would

 

[D i Z]

I dont see why i have to be invested in the subscription service to call them out.

I just don't see how you are actually doing that.

He owns the console and can't play games online, but you're saying he has no personal interest in the discussion? Get out with that nonsense.

Also incredibly naive understanding by your analogy. Imagine if you had to pay for the water, and then pay again every time you use that water in your coffee machine. People are already paying for their internet. It's not free.

If he were paying for a service that he found to be was inadequate then yes. But he's not.
I'm asking him to bridge the gap between a genuine complaint, and a service that other people have to provide for free, to him.
And how naive of YOU to assume that people aren't paying for water, and then have to pay again for anything that is usable. Google Flint Michigan. While you're at it do another google for California, Nestle. Two immediate situations that aren't in some far of place with ambiguous origins.
Point still and will always stand for entertainment value. You pay for your own level of investment. Nobody owes you shit. And you are entitled to absolutely zero outside of your own holdings.

 

[opoth]

I dont know about PS+, but there's always at least 1 game out of 4 that id pay $5 for on Live, so I don't mind the $3/mo I pay for the sub.

 

[Rellik]

Look at the good news of it though, Microsoft and Sony give 3-4 games to you each month for paying a service fee. If Steam had a steam plus service where they gave you 3-4 games each month I'd totally pay for it.

You would probably get Bad Rats.

 

[Vilix]

It's a cash grab and we're all suckers.

 

[abolisher6812]

I find that PS+ is well worth the price. I have saved a considerable amount from the deals alone over the years, so I have no problem paying for the multiplayer.

 

[Proxy]

Bollocks.



Can't resell DLC or season passes on console, and funnily enough multiplayer DLC tends to be fairly widespread

And? You can still resell the base game.

 

[shandy706]

I don't mind it.

Especially with all the extra games they give you now.

Edit* I pay $3 a month for 4 free games on Xbox One.

I'd certainly pay $3 a month for 4 free Steam games each month.

 

[kiguel182]

It's total bullshit since the servers aren't like dedicated or whatever but there's no turning back now.

 

[OnionPowder]

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 alway

Server browsers definitely didn't exist until Xbox live. Thank Microsoft

 

[RoninChaos]

Maybe its because I have been playing online multiplayer for free on PC, mobile and handheld, 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.

Multiplayer feature is an essential part of a game. Its locking a big part of the game behind a subscription like the PS plus. I feel like this is something that people should be calling them out for.

I actually think a lot of people fee this and that's why ps plus and gold give away games for free now. I don't think people would pay for just multiplayer anymore.

 

[ArtHands]

I just don't see how you are actually doing that.



If he were paying for a service that he found to be was inadequate then yes. But he's not.
I'm asking him to bridge the gap between a genuine complaint, and a service that other people have to provide for free, to him.
And how naive of YOU to assume that people aren't paying for water, and then have to pay again for anything that is usable. Google Flint Michigan. While you're at it do another google for California, Nestle. Two immediate situations that aren't in some far of place with ambiguous origins.

Well because I hope online gaming can be something that console gamers can enjoy for free without any worry, just like other platforms.

If given a choice, why wouldnt the console gamers prefer it to be something that is free?

 

[MegaManTrigger]

It's a cash grab and we're all suckers.

This. I see no reason why I should ever have to pay for online service like PSN or Xbox Live when the money doesn't even go to the publishers/development team responsible for managing server costs. Furthermore, I already pay for the Internet and games that come with multiplayer options, so what am I getting out of PSN/Xbox Live? The "free" games aren't even free considering they're locked behind a subscription model on PS+. Microsoft and Sony have basically suckered people into thinking that this is essential, when they're not even responsible for the service (again, it's mostly development/publishers).

 

[Dice]

Then use Bing and exchange points for free XBL. You can easily get enough for a year in 4 months.

 

[D i Z]

Well because I hope online gaming can be something that console gamers can enjoy for free without any worry, just like other platforms.

If given a choice, why wouldnt the console gamers prefer it to be something that is free?

Free seems to be a relative term here. Free for who? How many companies have been plowed under before things were stabilized when they offered it for free? Net neutrality under the gun again. Will it still be free? Of course everyone would want a free ride. My point is that nothing is ever free. Someone is paying for that, somewhere. And if we don't look at who exactly might be shouldering that cost, they might just disappear under the burden.

Addendum: I play a lot of "free" games and enjoy them on those systems. None require a subscription. But all need to get paid somehow to keep the services up, and they aren't looking to the overlords to cover the costs.They do their best to entice a player to be more involved, and be rewarded for it. No such thing as a free ride, and I bet that the free gaming on PC is more expensive than anyone would care to beleive.

 

[Quentin]

I'm sorry I just don't get the complaints at all. If don't want pay for multiplayer just don't.

TBH I care more about the extra stuff like cloud saves, share play, & party chat more than I care about multiplayer.

I always pay under 40$ and stock up. I'm good til 2025 lol

 

[yyr]

I am someone who has actually developed games and has seen what MS provides to devs for "free." It is really nice that they've built a whole infrastructure for online play, such that the devs can basically flip a switch and boom, you have online play in your game. Things like TrueSkill matching happen behind the scenes and they just work. I have no idea how Sony does theirs, but Xbox devs don't have to pay for any of this, so they've pushed the cost onto the players who are actually using the service. It sort of makes sense; the more people that are using it, the more money is coming in to help maintain it.

XBL multiplayer is so seamless and works so well that I have no problem paying for it. I also like the fact that the online play in X360 games from 2005 still works. Namco doesn't have to maintain servers for Ridge Racer 6, as XBL handles everything automatically. Surely, that is worth something. So I pay for it.

I understand why there are people who are at odds with the idea, especially the folks who've been playing on PC for years. But if you're developing a PC game and you want online play in it, you've got to set up servers and you've got to maintain them. Xbox Live negates that need. If you're a dev, and all you want are leaderboards and peer-to-peer online play on Xbox, you don't need to maintain anything. Microsoft runs the servers, the players pay for it, and you get it for free. Interesting how things work...

 

[ArtHands]

I'm sorry I just don't get the complaints at all. If don't want pay for multiplayer just don't.

TBH I care more about the extra stuff like cloud saves, share play, & party chat more than I care about multiplayer.

I always pay under 40$ and stock up. I'm good til 2025 lol

Well I dont pay for multiplayer.

I am good with multiplayer till the rest of my life on PC and mobile. Will be good if i can add console to the mix

 

[Kieli]

Me too. Like, what does the subscription even offer me. It's not like they provide dedicated servers for the video game developers or whatnot.

 

[13ruce]

Arrogant Sony is back this gen thats why or well arrogant is a bit ridiculous more like greed. Yes companies need to make money but there should be a morality to it.

It also does not help that ps plus free games have gone downhill, heck games with gold on xbox is 10 times better. After 3 years there should be more free AAA games or maybe even some classics from ps2 etc.

 

[deadman69]

im expecting microsoft to bring it back to pc if they can get enough of a foothold of the platform.

 

[Nilaul]

Paying full price for a online only multiplayer game and then be required to pay a subscription to play online is boderline criminal.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

You would probably get Bad Rats.

That's one out of 4 for just that month. Acceptable odds.

 

[breadtruck]

It sucks, but I do like playing the platform exclusive games online, so ill reluctantly pay.

I prefer my PC in most cases though

 

[ArtHands]

Free seems to be a relative term here. Free for who? How many companies have been plowed under before things were stabilized when they offered it for free? Net neutrality under the gun again. Will it still be free? Of course everyone would want a free ride. My point is that nothing is ever free. Someone is paying for that, somewhere. And if we don't look at who exactly might be shouldering that cost, they might just disappear under the burden.

Addendum: I play a lot of "free" games and enjoy them on those systems. None require a subscription. But all need to get paid somehow to keep the services up, and they aren't looking to the overlords to cover the costs.They do their best to entice a player to be more involved, and be rewarded for it. No such thing as a free ride, and I bet that the free gaming on PC is more expensive than anyone would care to beleive.

Free for gamers.

They should definitely find out why it can be free on mobile, handheld and pc but not on console then.

 

[Nilaul]

WiiU has free online and it's a console. A little bit lacking but it works.

 

[BigSoftieFF]

Point still and will always stand for entertainment value. You pay for your own level of investment. Nobody owes you shit. And you are entitled to absolutely zero outside of your own holdings.

Amen to that. Pretty fucking simple if you ask me. It's not like it's a big secret that you don't know about until you've bought either one of the systems.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I just don't see how you are actually doing that.



If he were paying for a service that he found to be was inadequate then yes. But he's not.
I'm asking him to bridge the gap between a genuine complaint, and a service that other people have to provide for free, to him.
And how naive of YOU to assume that people aren't paying for water, and then have to pay again for anything that is usable. Google Flint Michigan. While you're at it do another google for California, Nestle. Two immediate situations that aren't in some far of place with ambiguous origins.
Point still and will always stand for entertainment value. You pay for your own level of investment. Nobody owes you shit. And you are entitled to absolutely zero outside of your own holdings.

He finds the service to be inadequate value, clearly. He doesn't have to pay to voice an opinion or to have a personal interest in seeing it changed. Incredible. He has paid for the console and the game. He has enough interest to voice an opinion. And his refusal to acquiesce is action enough. He has voted with his wallet and may continue to vote and publicly make his issue with the system known.

Your grasp of the water analogy is sorely lacking. I said it was as if you had paid for the water and then had to pay to use it with a specific product. Just like you have to pay for your internet and then pay again to use it for your console multiplayer gaming. It's a fairly simple analogy you managed to fumble. Adding some extra element to the analogy, such as purifying the water or having to buy additional water from a separate source to meet your daily needs, is just strawmanning but I'll presume it was unintentional.

Your whole beat your chest, trying to jam your opinion down my throat approach just shows how shallow it is. No one said you are owed anything, so add strawman to the pile. No one said anything about entitlement. These are just boring statements made in the absence of anything meaningful to say.