Support NeoGAF

[Smasher89]

Here they have a very good deal for Xbone(1TB with fifa17) today(slightly worse rest of the week) 1999sek and PS4 for 2.390 sek.
Concidering the pricing for the Switch I get tempted, but the online cost makes the potencial impulse buy not happening. Still a console with streaming would be kinda nice to have.

 

[eot]

'Why does X cost Y' is such a strange and pointless question for a grown-up to ask. I mean, the answer is always the same, isn't it? Surely beyond about the age of 12 people realise this and stop asking it? How can people go around and around and around discussing this same issue?

Do people think Valve aren't feverishly working away to devise ways to get monthly payments from people?

I don't personally subscribe to PS+, but I did briefly tot up the cost of all the PS+ games that I'd bought on Steam and it game to around the price of the subs. So basically I hadn't really saved anything by not having it.

Except you own those games and don't have to keep paying just to access them in the future.

 

[adj_noun]

If I could sell people air, I totally would.

C'mon, Cohagen! GIVE THESE PEOPLE AIR!

 

[InfiniteUnrest]

Rarely is anything truly free in this industry. Even services that claim to be free are usually collecting/selling your data.

 

[FLAguy954]

Because they convinced the mainstream it provides value, and because the nature of the closed platform makes it very difficult to challenge.

This. They got my ass back when I used to game on the Xbox 360.

 

[mcdomination]

I sure don't.



Allowing to use your own internet connection isn't a service.

So...Netflix streaming should be free then, right?

 

[DAHGAMING]

I am probably in the minority, but I actualy think its a good thing to be charged for online games, I feel its a great service much better than those that are free. I can remember a campaign roughly 10 years ago when people was putting in there Xbox live profile "Xbox Live should be free", Myself along with others disagreed with this and started the "Xbox Live should be bare $$$" movement as we felt we all as gamers would benifit more if Microsoft raised the price and used the money to buy more rolex watches for there employees, therefore boosting morale and coming up with more great ideas to implement into the service. I feel its time we get the "Xbox Live should be bare $$$" banners out again, enough is enough, its time for change.

 

[Skyzard]

Never have, and don't plan on doing so either. Just don't see the value when I have my beast pc.
Even if I end up getting a switch I won't be paying for online for a handful of games I'll play a few times.

 

[MegaSackman]

Because providing those services aren't free. Now if you want to argue they're too expensive that's another thing.

I know nothing about business but I'd asume that servers and stuff cost money... it doesn't sound crazy to charge for it to me.

 

[Aztechnology]

Because people are apathetic and let it happen. They chose to play on a closed ecosystem for "convenience", exclusives, or friends usually. This allowed Microsoft and then Sony to essentially apply an additional tax as the category leaders.

 

[Altered Juice]

Because Sony used the Xbox One situation to sucker their buyers into thinking it was ok.

 

[Ahasverus]

Because Microsoft found suckers 15 years ago, and then everybody wanted their own suckers too, and everybody followed. There's no turning back.

 

[Teran]

So...Netflix streaming should be free then, right?

Access to ad free streaming of licenced IP isn't the same thing at all, that's not really a good example to use even though you have a case.

 

[Vital Tundra]

No one asked "why?" when Microsoft released the Xbox and instead just bought into for some stupid reason.

 

[Mithos]

Because for the eight and final time, we must be stupid, stupid, stupid!

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Who says the subs money just goes on running the network? Who knows what it contributes towards. Maybe it is isn't invested at all. Maybe it paid for Bloodborne, Horizon and Uncharted 4?

 

[iMax]

They already get paid 30% of what you pay for the games

Not preowned ones.

 

[nicanica]

I sure don't.



Allowing to use your own internet connection isn't a service.

No its not, but maintaining a network infrastructure is.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Really we're doing this again?

 

[Rolodzeo]

I don't, I migrated to PC last gen ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[The Artisan]

i pay for it because if i want to play online i don't have any choice but to have psplus

playing online for free was one of the best things about playstation

 

[Sangetsu-II]

I pay for PS+ to get Steam like discounts that save me hundreds of dollars a year.

 

[Parmenide]

What can we do to change the situation? Or is it too late?

 

[Fracas]

Lol at people arguing that devs have to be paid for online infrastructure

PC b o y s

 

[MadeULook]

Because it's just become the new normal for people on consoles. If Sony didn't screw up PSN back on the PS3 we'd all be in a better place. One of the reasons I migrated to PC this gen.

 

[Acerac]

We? I ain't paying for that crap.

You guys pay for it because the vast majority was willing to do so, now it is the standard. Good job to all of those who encouraged this.

 

[Jailer of Hope]

No one asked "why?" when Microsoft released the Xbox and instead just bought into for some stupid reason.

People did ask why actually. Then the PS2 and gamecube played their hands. If anything the Dreamcast was a much better competitor than those two were. We also paid separate fees for individual games like PSO.

 

[Leafhopper]

So...Netflix streaming should be free then, right?

Is this a real post?

 

[ramparter]

Because we are stupid.

 

[Forsaken82]

Who says the subs money just goes on running the network? Who knows what it contributes towards. Maybe it is isn't invested at all. Maybe it paid for Bloodborne, Horizon and Uncharted 4?

That isn't how it works...

The money made from subscription fees goes right back into improving the service, not software development budgets.

There are tons of things going on behind the scenes that as a consumer would be oblivious too, however thanks to Sony and now MS with Games with Gold, one obvious beneift to the fee is some of that money going to developers to offer a few games for game free for a month.

 

[ResoRai]

If you want to compare console online services to PC gaming for the sake of discussing your platform of choice, that's fine, but the free online alternatives for console weren't up to par. When the gold standard for free online on consoles is PS3 & Wii U, I don't find it surprising that people are willing to pay 5 bucks or less a month on something more premium.

Heh. My friend always used to complain about the ps3 and its "walmart connection" as he called it lol.

 

[Lister]

I pay for PS+ to get Steam like discounts that save me hundreds of dollars a year.

"Steam-Like"? So you pay to get deals that aren't as good as Steam's free deals?

What a racket.

 

[Jailer of Hope]

"Steam-Like"? So you pay to get deals that aren't as good as Steam's free deals?

What a racket.

Well, I don't personally pay for PS+ hoping for good deals but if the savings for any particular purchase will pay for itself for one month or something I may as well.

 

[Coriolanus]

Not preowned ones.

they already got the 30% for that copy. that copy cannot be used in two places simultaneously. thus, yes, even preowned ones.

 

[TheHellsLord]

One has to say that it did get better on the Xbox side. Firstly they did start up Games With Gold, following Sony in that regard - previously you paid on Xbox to have any kind of online service aside from achievements and store access. Secondly Microsoft removed the necessity of having Gold to use Streaming Apps, etc.

Where it did indeed get worse for players is on Sony's side, with requiring it to play online at all. And it seems like Nintendo will follow suite.

It's a good question what they actually use the money for nowadays. I'd say a good porition actually goes to the "Free Games" Portion. Some will be used to pay for the servers (which previously were subsidized by the hardware and software sales - as is the case with Steam services). And some definitely will be profit.

I don't think that including the free games it's priced outrageously, however you might not be interested in those games and that might change the value it has to you personally considerably. A more interesting question might be why people payed for it before the free games were a thing but I think that has been answered as well (Xbox Live on the OG Xbox was really new and exciting and there wasn't really anything comparable around (Steam launched 1 year later and as far as I remember as a store only at first, without the community components). And it seems that just carried over to the 360.

 

[cakely]

Because we were willing to pay for online services.

 

[Ganado]

The only why you're paying is because people accepted to pay for that.
There's no real reason, its just easy money and everybody does it now, thanks to Microsoft.

Don't blame Microsoft, blame the players. They tried to put a paywall on PC but we fought back. Console players didn't, just came with excuses.

 

[OfficerCrunk]

Curious after seeing the 30% being thrown around that companies get per game sale; do companies also get a cut of ANY dlc/season passes sold?

 

[meerak]

Wait a minute...

Online infrastructure costs nothing to maintain, for anyone? Actually?

lol what.

I don't know how those guys PC do it honestly! 1 weird trick console-makers can't stand!

 

[Aztechnology]

I know nothing about business but I'd asume that servers and stuff cost money... it doesn't sound crazy to charge for it to me.

There's two problems I see with this line of thought, which is very common.

1. It assumes they exist in a vacuum, they don't, most of the same games and more extensive features are available on PC free of charge.

2. It ignores the reality of readily available information on financial reports.

You need to do your due diligence as a consumer to be informed. What we see is that Microsoft and Sony are getting their highest profit margin (it actually is either ahead of or at the same level as their software licensing money now) from subscriptions. It's not that it costs them so much more money to provide us with all these services than it has in the past. It's that it's free money they didn't want to leave on the table. The whole concept that all these services were expensive to provide and therefore warranted at the price is absolutrly not supported by evidence. Even the price bump is just to even further expand revenues. The whole concept was perpetuated by fans. Who increasingly will vie for corporate interests over their own.

On Sony's new strategy dating back to 2013

“Lower research and development costs for PlayStation 4 hardware, additional revenue streams from online service subscriptions and a more aggressive transition to higher margin digital content sales are combining to strengthen Sony’s games business outlook even in the face of increased competition from cheap Android consoles and alternative devices eating into consumers’ gaming time, including smartphones and tablets.”

That was from early analyst research which has turned out to be very true, especially in the case of PS Plus which has been their fastest and strongest revenue streamsrofit.

 

[Jailer of Hope]

One has to say that it did get better on the Xbox side. Firstly they did start up Games With Gold, following Sony in that regard - previously you paid on Xbox to have any kind of online service aside from achievements and store access. Secondly Microsoft removed the necessity of having Gold to use Streaming Apps, etc.

Where it did indeed get worse for players is on Sony's side, with requiring it to play online at all. And it seems like Nintendo will follow suite.

Because it was mentioned in the OP, I'll also point out that cloud saving is free on xbox, unlimited, and upload/downloads automatically.

 

[Floody]

Because if I don't the Sony ninjas will come get me.

I pay because I have a massive backlog of games from Plus, and the extra discounts are nice too. Haven't play a MP game in months, if they removed that I'd still pay, most wouldn't though, so why would they?

 

[Azerare]

I always felt that console online was pretty bad but to be expected.
I do feel that the fees that Sony and Microsoft ask for is way above of what they actually deliver.

 

[bebop242]

ITT: People who don't understand economics or IT/telecom infrastructure.


I appreciate the sentiment about multiplayer being behind a paywall, but some of these comments may as well read: "Why should I pay for fuel? I already own the car!"

Why does my PC car not need fuel then?

 

[Redd]

Becauae people love to make money and most of us give it to them.

 

[Floody]

Why does my PC car not need fuel then?

Because that'd eat into the hat money.
But being serious, If they could get away with it they'd do in a heartbeat, just too late now and PC has other sources of income, which annoying spread to consoles fast.

 

[Aztechnology]

they already got the 30% for that copy. that copy cannot be used in two places simultaneously. thus, yes, even preowned ones.

Anything sold through their storefront digitally yes.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Really we're doing this again?

Someone has to 🤷🏾*♀️

 

[tsab]

The same reason that cheats and unlockables in games are now extra DLC


$$$

 

[Inuhanyou]

Because MS saw money signs and thought they could do it regardless fan backlash. they did it and everyone else saw how much money they were making off of it.

They normalized it