I like this answer.
-
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.
Why are we paying for online services?
- Thread starter C.Olimar788
- Start date
Strangelove77
Member
People on Xbox thought it was fine so now here we are.
Did Xbox Live have anything else to offer besides online? Free* games, discounts or anything exclusive?
If it didn't, that's even stupider.
Did Xbox Live have anything else to offer besides online? Free* games, discounts or anything exclusive?
If it didn't, that's even stupider.
family_guy
Member
I was already paying for PS+ because it provided value back then on PS3 with no online paywall. After 3 years with PS4 I don't see value in it anymore so I'll probably let the subscription lapse.
McStickenstein
Member
I was one of the original who paid for Xbox Live. Can't say I regretted it because Halo 2 was so much fun. It was a time when online console gaming was a novelty and everyone was nice in voice chat. Not so much the case anymore.
Now almost all of my multiplayer gaming is on PC. I had a PS Plus sub but I let it lapse after 1 year. It's not terrible when you can get subs for 20-30 bucks a year during discounts, and I have a spare 1 year card laying around, but paying for subs is not something I plan on doing going forward.
Now almost all of my multiplayer gaming is on PC. I had a PS Plus sub but I let it lapse after 1 year. It's not terrible when you can get subs for 20-30 bucks a year during discounts, and I have a spare 1 year card laying around, but paying for subs is not something I plan on doing going forward.
Still makes me laugh that there were hardcore defenders of the price increases on both Xbox Live and PS Plus.
For anyone looking for an actual answer that isn't just a knee jerk answer:
Every item listed on status.playstation.com and support.xbox.com/xbox-live-status has servers, support staff, and developers that have to be paid. Also, you may not notice it any more but PSN sure seems to be much more stable than before. Also, "free games" still cost Sony and MS money.
Now, whether those are things you're willing to pay for, and if that's a good price, that's a personal question.
Every item listed on status.playstation.com and support.xbox.com/xbox-live-status has servers, support staff, and developers that have to be paid. Also, you may not notice it any more but PSN sure seems to be much more stable than before. Also, "free games" still cost Sony and MS money.
Now, whether those are things you're willing to pay for, and if that's a good price, that's a personal question.
MarineMountie
Member
Steam has servers, support staff and developers. I have seen free games pop up from time to time. Steam is free.
Okami Haundo
Member
Reminds me a lot of cell phone plans honestly. There's honestly no real reason why the vast majority of them cost as much as they do on a monthly basis.
But yeah, we're basically paying for a ton of back-end stuff that we'll never see. Definitely outrageous for some, but for me personally I get more than my $60 per year in XBL benefits.
Because the gaming community decided to roll over and accept it when "good guy" Sony announced that they would be doing the same which flew under everyone radar as there was whole screw Microsoft movement at the time.
Personally I refuse to pay for on-line services as I see it as a waste of money and this has affected the games I buy as I tend to avoid games that are multiplayer focus.
It was actually Sega that started the trend with the Saturn, Microsoft just pushed it hard with Sony making it an acceptable thing by tricking people that they are getting "free" games.
Personally I refuse to pay for on-line services as I see it as a waste of money and this has affected the games I buy as I tend to avoid games that are multiplayer focus.
It was actually Sega that started the trend with the Saturn, Microsoft just pushed it hard with Sony making it an acceptable thing by tricking people that they are getting "free" games.
Sure but steam and every other client on PC handles it fine for free. MS brought it in and if people completely rejected it like how the rejected always online xbox one at launch,things could probably be different now. Now it's too far gone and people are just used to it, I'd probably do the same too if millions of people kept gifting me money.
Hamster Plugin
Member
Amazing how Steam does the same stuff PSN and Live do, but without a fee! They even offer downloads for free if you get a serial key outside Steam store, while Sony/MS/Nintendo take a licensing fee for retail copies.
And when you include the "free" games, those games were much better before the multiplayer paywall happened and Sony no longer needs to offer great games.
PSN on PS3 didn't have these things? (excluding the "free" games).
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Because there is no competition on closed platforms and the platform holders need to be able to justify the expenses of building an online service to the management.
jasminlovesyoux
Banned
Like most said, Microsoft made it the norm. Granted they had a fantastic online set up in the 360 era, not so much the og Xbox IMO, but people really wanted to play halo 2 online. Because everyone just accepted it the fee stuck. And now here we are.
DevilSnake
Member
Because they're businesses that want to profit on something wherever possible instead of taking massive losses, it's as simple as that. Also your money will likely be going to the company as a whole, redistributed into different areas when needed like funding new studios, marketing etc, it doesn't necessarily all go towards online services.
On the plus side if something makes a lot of money, more money & resources are placed back into it, usually resulting in a better experience for the customer, just look at the improvements the PSN has made since it became profitable.
On the plus side if something makes a lot of money, more money & resources are placed back into it, usually resulting in a better experience for the customer, just look at the improvements the PSN has made since it became profitable.
C.Olimar788
Member
What services for online play are being paid for, even if just in part, by the subscription fee though? It's one thing to do PS+ last generation where you paid explicitly for bonus stuff (free games, cloud saves, etc etc) but it doesn't make sense for playing online to cost extra if at least a portion of that cost isn't going to the online servers and the like. Does peer-to-peer play cost MS/Sony money in any way?
This seems like a solid answer. Something about the subscription fees of the few paying for the general services of the many.
LegendofLex
Member
The short answer is that you always paid for online services.
The difference is that cost used to be subsidized by your hardware and software purchase. Now it's a marginal "pay if you want to" subscription cost.
Why a shift to a subscription cost? For the same reason we saw this in business IT: because there's now an expectation that users will be supported for a long time after the initial software (and hardware) purchase. If you want the full long-term support (incl. online services), it'll continue to be provided - to customers who pay for it.
At some point companies decided that charging people a marginal recurring cost for online services was better than jacking up the cost of their software and/or hardware.
Steam doesn't have a hardware business that also needs to be sustainable alongside their software business because their software business depends on it.
The difference is that cost used to be subsidized by your hardware and software purchase. Now it's a marginal "pay if you want to" subscription cost.
Why a shift to a subscription cost? For the same reason we saw this in business IT: because there's now an expectation that users will be supported for a long time after the initial software (and hardware) purchase. If you want the full long-term support (incl. online services), it'll continue to be provided - to customers who pay for it.
At some point companies decided that charging people a marginal recurring cost for online services was better than jacking up the cost of their software and/or hardware.
Steam doesn't have a hardware business that also needs to be sustainable alongside their software business because their software business depends on it.
You all clearly missed the part of ops question where it was asked "what is the money used for?" I was simply answering that question.
As I also mentioned in the final sentence, it's up to you to decide if that's worth the money or not. I was neither trying to defend the price nor say it is worth it for everybody.
Please try to actually read a post before replying to it.
Valve decides to eat that cost in order to promote their platform. Apparently they've decided that's worth it for their business situation. (The nature of the PC platform would also make it hard for them to charge for it – the market would probably just work around them, defeating the purpose.)
The console makers decided to use their exclusive control of their platforms to turn a cost center into a profit center. Whether the service they provide is worth the cost is up to you – choose your platform accordingly – but the fact that some other company in some other business situation decides to provide some service for free really isn't much of an argument that said service should be free universally, or that charging for it is some kind of scam.
MarineMountie
Member
How else would I play with my friends?
That's assuming you NEED to play with your friends?
If you want to, then you pay. Or if playing on PC is an option you migrate your friends there.
No other way around it.
Goldenroad
Member
To play devil's advocate a bit; as a consumer, I guess the upside to me would be that it helps subsidize the cost of the console. I 100% believe that if people weren't paying for XBL, PS+ and now Nintendo's online service, that the actual hardware costs would probably be double what they are. The only reason PS4 launced at $399 is because of the tail associated with people paying for online play. Otherwise I believe consoles this gen would be in the $600-ish range. I know with these online services you are potentially paying more than that over the course of the lifespan of the consoles, but it is a lower up front cost.
This is the main issue, they lock something that should be baseline behind a paywall so you are almost forced into giving them money unless you can play with friends on PC.
It's a damn shame.
Couldn't the government charge a fee for air? For breathing the air in the land, if u don't wanna pay you gotta have your own gas mask or something? Lol
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
Because people are willing to pay for it with relatively little complaint.
King of Custard
Member
I pay for it because I get six games a month.
MarineMountie
Member
Gaming has turned into a social hobby in the last 10 years or so. Chatting with the guys, even if we aren't playing the same game, is just as fun as playing to some people.
I hate that they put it behind a paywall, but if you have friends that play, you are paying for online. Its just part of gaming now, unfortunately.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
B-b-but free games!!! And they are cheap so its ok!
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Because people that didn't pay was stupid according to Xbox owners because it was awesome to pay for this great service
And people agreed it would be great if we was charged
Now we all pay
The end
Seriously despite the hours of fun those people had with their 360's they fucked us all over.
And people agreed it would be great if we was charged
Now we all pay
The end
Seriously despite the hours of fun those people had with their 360's they fucked us all over.
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
I don't know why people get up in arms about this. Microsoft and Sony are offering a service, for a price. If you think the service is worth the price, buy it. If not, don't-- Steam is a perfectly good free alternative.
Herp Derpington
Member
I should be surprised that more people don't see this but I'm not. Instead we just get the typical fuck ms, etc posts.
Diprosalic
Banned
It's by far the best business move of MS in the xbox history. They came in and got online right and people were happy to pay for it because it was something they didn't really have before.
Donniewahlberg
Banned
Literally just because we allowed it to become part of gaming culture, to put it as basically as possible. If you look at the amount of money there is to be had through microtransactions playing a pub/dev's online game, the advertising money to be made, the data they can gather by tracking everything we do online and how valuable that is to them. It's SO much more profitable for any given platform holder or the publishers/devs making games on the platform to get us online, that had push came to shove and we had refused way back when to pay for online and allowed that to become a dependable profitable pillar for platform holders, I honestly imagine they would have just got users on there anyway in the end, for the money to be made past the paywall.
That's my thoughts on the matter. I can't even really say I'm not fussed about paying for online, but that's how I look at it, on the simplest level.
That's my thoughts on the matter. I can't even really say I'm not fussed about paying for online, but that's how I look at it, on the simplest level.
Vol5
Member
Considering the PS4 / XO are closed systems and are pulling their weight against beefier PC's, I honestly don't mind paying £3.50 a month to play online. All the added community, voice chat, party, game saves, free games, etc are fine for that amount of cash. It's all relative obviously so for me it provides plenty of value as I regularly play online.
Phrozenflame500
Member
I mean that's kinda the *real* question here. Why can Valve get by without charging an entrance fee while Sony, Microsoft, and now Nintendo can't apparently?
I can only speculate but aside from the obvious closed platform/"because they'll pay for it";
- Since they sell consoles at breakeven/loss to establish market share, they probably make up the profit with online fees
- Larger research/development costs since they make more proprietery hardware/software while the Valve really only handles the Steam client
- They probably take more of an active role in offering devs their online network to encourage them to come on their platform
perfectsil
Member
no reason other than it's big source of profit for them
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Because people don't work for free and infrastructure cost money.
Also at least on XBL 24/7 365 on staff for tech problems and attacks on the network.
I don't mind paying as long as its good enough.
[edit]
Please stop comparing it to steam, Valve has billions and no-one to report to so they can spend and not ask for anything in return.
Also at least on XBL 24/7 365 on staff for tech problems and attacks on the network.
I don't mind paying as long as its good enough.
[edit]
Please stop comparing it to steam, Valve has billions and no-one to report to so they can spend and not ask for anything in return.
Gaming has always been a social hobby. I agree that if you have friends and they're playing online you either join them or you're left out.
But you can't make it sound like there aren't other options.
I have a ton of friends who play online, and have no problem doing so on PC. But if they're playing on console, it's just not worth it. Imagine if I had to pay for online for my PS4, Xbox One and Switch (one day). That would be absolutely insane. You're looking at $120? (don't know the going rate for online services these days) per year, and then multiply that over lets say 7 years to be safe. Wow.
If you feel you get the money out of it, then more power to you. But for other people who would only casually go online, it's a barrier to entry. If a game has a heavy online component, I check out immediately.
I Wanna Be The Guy
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
They were a hell of a lot more sweet before online was locked behind it. I miss those times so much. You don't quite realise how good you had it until it's gone
perfectsil
Member
They already get paid 30% of what you pay for the games