I dont think ive ever seen an analogy so dumb in my life
-
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
I dont think ive ever seen an analogy so dumb in my life
Telephone Man
Member
Good for you, but I'd rather have free online and spend my money on games I actually want to play.
Imp the Dimp
Member
Same here. Not paying for garbage. I'll just play all the online game on my PC that's that.
I'm actually really curious about how Nintendo handles online on Switch.
Gravy Boat
Member
The point is that free doesn't automatically mean better, like the guy I was responding to was implying. There are a ton of reasons why you would want to pay for something over getting it for free. Even though that's an entirely pointless point to bring up as there is no way to get online free on PSN or XBL, so if they're the platforms you play on you don't actually have a choice.
I don't want a PC, so no that's not an option. And it's not 'free', the cost of building a PC would be a lot more than a few years of PS+.
TheRedSnifit
Member
So basically, the options for online multiplayer are "Use Plus/Live" and "Build your own server infrastructure/matchmaking system/etc."
And not "Build a budget PC and get everything Live/Plus offers and more for free."
hooijdonk17
Member
You've said every single one of them about Valve, and I pointed out how every single one of them applies to Microsoft equally. If that is a straw man, well.. Whatever man.
I'm basically bracing for impact if they introduce an online multiplayer paywall.
TheRedSnifit
Member
He never said free was inherently better, he said that you can get the same thing MS and Sony make you pay for elsewhere for free. You keep hammering on the Wii U because you don't want to acknowledge that Steam/GOG/mobile games are both free and not downgrades from Live and Plus.
Gravy Boat
Member
You can't get 'the same thing MS and Sony' offer for free elsewhere. I can't get PS+ for free anywhere. If I want to play my PS4 online, then I have to pay. 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+.
Online multiplayer functionality, ease of use, player/party chat, matchmaking, ect. Let alone the costs of operating and maintaining the service and proving additional features and updates to the system (Xbox 360 Backwards compatibility is an example of that).
TheRedSnifit
Member
Except this isn't true, but okay.
If you want to play your PS4 online, then you're stuck with Plus. If you want to play Battlefield 1 online, you aren't. I guess it depends on whether you buy for the games or the brand.
I'm against online paywalls in principle because it puts an added barrier on participation. Some games live and die based on the online population playing them at one time and having to pay for multiplayer features will obviously reduce the numbers available. Sure if your COD it doesn't matter too much but for a more niche game that could be the difference between a game with a small but active player base and one that's just dead.
GhostTrick
Banned
3rd parties are handling the matchmaking. Same for online multiplayer. Microsoft and Sony dont provide servers, netcode or whatever.
Party chat ? That thing's handled on user side. It's called P2P and there's a shiton of free service doing it better. Skype, Discord, Steam, Mumble.
Ease of use is there for free too and is a fixed cost.
The only online services MS and Sony are running is their store (which they already make 3rd parties pay for with their 30% cut and Sony even make them pay for the data use) and online multiplayer for their own games.
Online play has no reason to be behind a paywall. They dont provide anything for that service.
Gravy Boat
Member
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?
Battlefield 1 is one example. If I want to play Bloodborne online, I have no options. If I want to play Overwatch with my friends, I have no options becuase they're all on PS4. I mean, I'd obviously rather PS+ to be free, but the amount of money I actually spend on it is not even worth thinking about. I'm never going to be a primarily PC gamer, and the cost of PS+ is tiny so I pay it.
I'm OK with paying a monthly/yearly fee as long as I know a good chunk of that money is going into running the services I use including servers, monitoring (making sure it's up, users aren't cheating and people are behaving themselves), making sure they don't turn servers/online play off and making improvements and adding new features.
Both MS and Sony are not doing this 100% and have plenty of room for improvement but generally I generally think they are OK.
Maybe for 3rd parties who are using their own servers that MS/Sony should pay them a bit towards the running costs (not the entire thing) and help insure (through some sort of agreement) that the servers remain up and functional and to a certain standard.
Both MS and Sony are not doing this 100% and have plenty of room for improvement but generally I generally think they are OK.
Maybe for 3rd parties who are using their own servers that MS/Sony should pay them a bit towards the running costs (not the entire thing) and help insure (through some sort of agreement) that the servers remain up and functional and to a certain standard.
GhostTrick
Banned
A decent PC is a fixed cost. But if you want to go there, it's actually cheaper than a PS4 + 5-6 years of PS+.
And the question isnt about price, it's about the service provided. In this case, both Sony and Microsoft dont even provide anything related to online play.
CircleOfFire
Member
Let me try again here though, Sony & Microsoft have to spend continuously on console R&D to make the money from their respective stores and online services. If they don't make a new console, all that cash dries up in the space of a couple of years. For Valve there's no such cost, all the hardware R&D and the most commonly used operating systems that Steam runs on are funded by other big corporations. Now businesses abhor spiky cash flow because it's unpredictable and invariably dangerous, I'm betting Steam's revenue is past that. But for the console manufacturers everything but the online services are spiky.
Remember as well that wasn't it like 6 years until Microsoft turned in a quarterly profit on their gaming division? Saying something like the online service on one platform is overpriced because another is much cheaper might make sense to you as a consumer (and all power to you on that front). But those businesses have to make a profit overall say for the entire 5 or whatever year lifespan (which for them is probably more like 8 given the upfront work) of the console. That's why I'm effectively nonplussed on this argument as I see the whole deal not just this one specific thing to the exclusion of all else.
chillybright
Banned
I never implied that. If you could show me please do.
Also are you seriously using Nintendo, a company that is notoriously out of touch with almost anything about Internet, as a reference point of to judge an online service?
Just an FYI, party chat has used Dedi's for a while now on XBL.
Doesn't make up for that yearly subscription though haha.
The subscription on consoles is starting to make less and less sense as time goes on. It'd make more sense if like you're saying, 3rd parties used platform infastructure like 1st parties do on XBL. Since only 1st parties use Azure, and the companies have to pay for it post-launch anyway, then it makes no sense at all.
It's just a serious revenue stream, I suppose it pays for all our software updates.
hooijdonk17
Member
If XBOX Live is any indication, the paywall barrier to participation really doesn't improve the community in any way. That's my anectodal experience, of course.
Gravy Boat
Member
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'
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.
gaming_noob
Member
"Ecosystem" is the new buzzword these days. The companies have won.
Conkerkid11
Member
I don't pay anything for Steam, Origin, Battlenet, Uplay, etc... And they're all significantly better than XBL and PSN.
Gravy Boat
Member
Battlenet won't even let me play Hearthstone with friends in the US. I need to change my region, at which point I'd lose all my progress and essentially be starting from scratch.
This made me think, I'm kind of surprised EA and Activision are seemingly fine with Sony and MS making a paywall that devalues their games for a lot of people since they can't get to the online portion and becoming a possible microtransaction/season pass customer. Unless Sony and MS do pay them a portion of the subscription money on the sly.
GhostTrick
Banned
Quality or price isnt a question. Question is: What service is provided. Answer is none. So why do they make people pay for nothing ?
Nydius
Gold Member
Late to the response here but...
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.
I'm still concerned they're going to try again with Windows 10 UWP with cross-play. It really feels like they're working on leveraging their position like they tried to do with GFWL. The only good thing is that Steam, GOG, Origin, and others exist as competition.
Gravy Boat
Member
Because they can. I mean, at no point have I defended Sony or MS or gave any reason why they need to charge for online. I'm just saying that I don't care because it's so cheap that it's a sacrifice I willingly make.
I didn't knew that Sony and Microsoft were selling their devices at a loss, and thus need to charge their costumers for years to get the remaining costs in.
People also seem to forget that the servers they play on on PC aren't free either. Someone is paying for the host machine and the hosting service. At worst, people who "play online for free" are freeloaders.
Quote:
Greg Thomas Interview
President of Visual Concepts unveils online plans, first details of ESPN NFL 2K5.
IGN Sports: One of EA's big hang-ups about going on Xbox Live was the fact that they wanted control of their own servers. Do you think LSP now opens the door for EA Sports to be online by the end of the year?
Greg Thomas: I've read different reports where they wanted control of their own content, but they also didn't fell that it was fair for Microsoft to charge. I think they're wrong about that. I think that the Xbox Live service is really impressive in what they've done and by the number of paid subscribers that they have, that really proves it. I think LSP does open it up, though, because it allows you to use your own servers. So if that was EA's problem, then they can definitely be on Xbox Live this year. But if they had a different problem, a billing issue or a revenue concern, then that hasn't changed. If you read every one of their game reviews, they're making a huge mistake by not being on Xbox Live, and that gives people opportunities. But at this point, we're clearly expecting them to be on Xbox Live by the end of the year.
As someone who is stepping into the PS4 ecosystem for the first time, PS+ does not seem to be an equal value to what MS has been offering in recent times, either in quantity or quality of free software or the overall quality of the online infrastructure. 2 free BC games every month has definitely helped on that front too.
I blame MS for coming up with the idea, but at least they seem to try to make it a good value. PS+ seemed better before it was compulsory for online play this gen. I hope they decide to start stepping up the free game quality in 2017...
I blame MS for coming up with the idea, but at least they seem to try to make it a good value. PS+ seemed better before it was compulsory for online play this gen. I hope they decide to start stepping up the free game quality in 2017...
I don't know why you're quoting me with that interview part from supposedly 2005? The only thing that is relevant is that at that time EA felt it was unfair MS were charging for online. Of course they'd make more money if the online worked on both consoles, they'd also make more money if they weren't paywalled. That's just fact. The games are devalued for people without PS+ or Live and companies can't reach as many people with season passes and microtransactions as not everyone will have access to the MP. It's a no win situation for both parties.
I quoted you because I thought it gave insight on why EA or Activison may be cool with it. Like I said before MS killed it's entire sports lineup for EA. Which pretty much started EA/MS business arrangement with Madden
Negotiator
Member
XBL Gold started as an online MP paywall. PS+ started as a game rental service. Not the same thing.
Eventually XBL Gold also became a game rental service and it's much better than before. I cannot justify paying for a subscription for online MP with no games at all.
If Nintendo also introduces a game rental subscription, I wouldn't mind at all.
LukasTaves
Member
Many pc gamers did party for online, sometimes much more than live/psn just for a single game even.
It seems they are just opposed to the idea of having to pay for everything, but I'd it's a game they want they will sub.
Though I dunno if that model is dying. Are there many sub based games these days?
LukasTaves
Member
That was the ea answer to save face. But they wanted to use their own network so they could turn the servers off when they desired.
They jumped to Xbox live the moment ms allowed box live to connect to their servers, and basically made Ms drop their entire sports lineup.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I will say the benefits of PS Plus only narrow the gap between it and Steam, lol.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
If Nintendo introduces payment for online gaming, I will shove this thread in the faces of people who complain about the news.
LordRaptor
Member
There is a huge difference between paywalled multiplayer and subscribing to a game.
one is
"I'm going to stop you using parts of a game you already paid for unless you pay me money, because I can."
the other is
"If you keep paying me money, I'll keep adding things to this game"
One goes directly to support a developer of a game you presumably enjoy.
The other goes to the accounting branch of the people that made the hardware other people make games for.
lazer_bean
Member
By that point you had spent 100€ on ps+, unless you didn't subscribe for two whole years of course. It's not good value.
It is a fact that ps+ instant game collection isn't as good value as it used to be.
ViolentP
Member
It was a joke. Take it easy.
Very much the same way that a bunch of my old friends would rather stay in and smoke pot instead of going out and socializing every once in a while. After a while, the common opinion doesn't necessarily carry the weight it used to.
CerebralTiger
Member
The quality of voice chat isn't the biggest concern for me. It's just so much easier to have a centralized friend list, be able to party up with the people in said list, and join their multiplayer session via the party system in the OS on consoles.
Then again, these are benefits associated with having a closed system. I wouldn't use them to justify an online paywall.
Conkerkid11
Member
I mean, you already chose to buy that PS4 and start paying for the online service.
If you had instead chosen to buy a PC and play online for free, that would be an entirely different thing.
But to say, "well, PS+ is better because it's cheaper than a PC" is dumb.
But that's because you're making the assumption that your group of friends wouldn't be sticking strictly to a single service on PC. There's a reason people use Discord. On PC, you have the option of using a mish-mash of software based on which is better at doing what. People use this combination of Steam and Discord, or Origin and Discord, etc... Because it's better than just the single piece of software.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
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.
Unless Nintendo makes huge headway in its services I really dont see them being able to charge, and that's fine by me. For the most part people just want to be able to play online but Nintendo can be restrictive and goofy at times with how they handle matchmaking and features. Voice chat is pretty much a given that most want now along with some reward system.
TylerDurden4321
Member
Mine expired on Christmas Eve, I will probably buy 1 month for Gran Turismo Sport but that's it. I was a lot happier with XBLG (better free games and download speed), I'll still let it expire mid-January.
Never again. A 100%-all-time subscription even if a friend would pressure me.
However, if a GAME would offer special servers or whatnot for 3-4 bucks a month, I could see that as fair. For example if a PC Destiny, iRacing or Overwatch 2 with more teams per map would do that, I wouldn't look down on the game or publisher for charging additionally.