Support NeoGAF

[The ๖ۜBronx]

And you failed and your arguments have been countered many times.

Where? You misunderstood my post and are being needlessly aggressive for some bizarre reason.

- -

To reiterate this was said:

But Valve doesn't take a bigger cut than any console platform holder (who is then also asking gamers to pay a fee).

Which implies that Valve take their store cut but doesn't feel a need to find other, more shady, avenues to go down. To which I said:

Yeh, instead they pollute Steam with unnecessary bollocks to further their cash cow and refrain for as long as possible from doing anything to actually combat a number of the problems it has. Their cut may be the same but let's not pretend they haven't got shitty practices running alongside the cut from the store they get.

As I see Valve as the opposite of a paragon for the argument that a company should use profits to better their service. I was then asked for examples, so I said this:

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums. There are quite a few elements of Steam that are unattractive.

To think me wrong would be to suggest that Valve doesn't look for alternative profits other than the cut they take from the store, and they have persistently bettered their service with the money they've accrued.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums. There are quite a few elements of Steam that are unattractive.

I can't actually tell if you're serious when you suggest Steam hasn't been polluted if you've used it for any length of time.

I've used Steam since it was released, and I have to say, of the complaints you make, not a single one has prevented me from enjoying playing online multiplayer in the games I purchase for no additional fee. Is Steam perfect? No, not by a long shot. But seeing as how all the issues you've identified have affected me exactly zero times in the last 14 years, I'm content to continue paying no fee and dealing with these minor quibbles.

When did they start charging to play online through PSN? Is that a PS4 introduction?

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

I've used Steam since it was released, and I have to say, of the complaints you make, not a single one has prevented me from enjoying playing online multiplayer in the games I purchase for no additional fee. Is Steam perfect? No, not by a long shot. But seeing as how all the issues you've identified have affected me exactly zero times in the last 14 years, I'm content to continue paying no fee and dealing with these minor quibbles.

"Their cut may be the same but let's not pretend they haven't got shitty practices running alongside the cut from the store they get."

You're not actually contesting anything I've said. Again, I was highlighting that Valve are not a good example when talking about that.

 

[Armaros]

"Their cut may be the same but let's not pretend they haven't got shitty practices running alongside the cut from the store they get."

You're not actually contesting anything I've said. Again, I was highlighting that Valve are not a good example when talking about that.

And Steam still has the best and most features out of all the major console platforms and PC stores, for the least money.

With the most generous refund policy. And let's not even compare console paid online to free Steamworks. Whe

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

And Steam still has the best and most features out of all the major console platforms and PC stores, for the least money.
With the most generous refund policy.

Awesome. I own hundreds of games on Steam and used the service extensively. I still think they're a far cry from a gold standard when it comes to bettering their platform and additional avenues for revenue.

 

[Armaros]

Awesome. I own hundreds of games on Steam and used the service extensively. I still think they're a far cry from a gold standard when it comes to bettering their platform and additional avenues for revenue.

So because they aren't perfect, we can't compare them to how bad console paid online systems are? Which actually make more money for every digital sale compared to Steam even with the same store cut?

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

So because they aren't perfect, we can't compare them to how badly console paid online systems are?

If you're discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a decent example of the "good" side in particular, no.

 

[Armaros]

If you're discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a decent example of the "good" side in particular, no.

And lots of other people think otherwise. And have labeled reasons why. Especially the Steam features in your arguments have nothing related to console paid online vs Steam free online.

 

[jonscrambler]

"Their cut may be the same but let's not pretend they haven't got shitty practices running alongside the cut from the store they get."

your issues with Steam are hardly issues to me, and they don't charge me to play online, and have better refund policy

 

[Atomic Playboy]

"Their cut may be the same but let's not pretend they haven't got shitty practices running alongside the cut from the store they get."

You're not actually contesting anything I've said. Again, I was highlighting that Valve are not a good example when talking about that.

OK, so who would you hold up as a good example? I like GOG, but I've only used them for singleplayer games; I have no idea how their multiplayer service fares. Apart from that, who is there? Surely you wouldn't suggest uPlay or Origin are premier examples?

 

[PhilipDoesMatter]

Yeah it sucks.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

And lots of other people think otherwise. And have labeled reasons why.

Awesome, this is how discussions work.

your issues with Steam are hardly issues to me, and they don't charge me to play online, and have better refund policy

If discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a particularly good example.

That's cool you don't share the same issues, there are issues with those things though.

 

[Tiger Mask]

Yeah, it's trash. Don't do it if you can help it.

 

[Armaros]

Awesome, this is how discussions work.


If discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a particularly good example.

That's cool you don't share the same issues, there are issues with those things though.

Repeating yourself with no new arguments is not how discussions work. You have done nothing to counter the page of arguments people have leveraged against your arguments regarding Steam vs Console Onlinr.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Repeating yourself with no new arguments is not how discussions work.

Neither is telling people they've failed in an attempt to shut them down, if you want to play that card. Find me an argument I ignored and I'll respond to it if you wish.

So what's the golden standard? What is a better platform, that has no "shitty business practices" and offers the same features?

I said it was a poor example of one, not sure why that puts an onus on me to find a better one. Am I not allowed to criticize Steam or something? I find trading cards pointless outside of the introduction of another element to get money from. Events on Steam used to be great and pro-consumer, now they've lost all soul and the focus around cards is genuinely off-putting for me.

 

[jonscrambler]

Awesome, this is how discussions work.


If discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a particularly good example.

That's cool you don't share the same issues, there are issues with those things though.

then your example of a good storefront would be what?

 

[Armaros]

Neither is telling people they've failed in an attempt to shut them down, if you want to play that card. Find me an argument I ignored and I'll respond to it if you wish.

You have side stepped refund policy the entire time as if it doesn't matter.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

You have side stepped refund policy the entire time as if it doesn't matter.

No, I just said that it doesn't negate my issues with Steam in the same sense that offering discounts that can negate the cost of PSN and getting given games is not a valid way to dismiss the issue of paid online.

 

[Armaros]

No, I just said that it doesn't negate my issues with it in the same sense that offering discounts that offer to negate the cost of PSN and getting given games is not a valid way to dismiss the issues for paid online.

So trading cards matter but not refunds? Or what about all console holders license fees?

How nice of you to determine what arguments matter.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

So trading cards matter but not refund?

How nice of a double standard.

I referenced these as my issues:

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums.

Please don't talk of double standards when you're expecting a discussion but only being reductive in response.

 

[Armaros]

I referenced these as my issues:


Please don't talk of double standards when you're expecting a discussion but only being reductive in response.

Repeating yourself using arguments already argued against.

 

[jonscrambler]

I said it was a poor example of one, not sure why that puts an onus on me to find a better one. .

so you are not saying console storefronts are better than Steam, yet they want you to pay to play online, and have worse refund policy

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Repeating yourself using arguments already argued against.

You implied my only issue was with the cards, I was quoting myself to illustrate that that wasn't the case.

 

[prag16]

If you're discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a decent example of the "good" side in particular, no.

You're just being obtuse at this point. We're discussing paid online. Paid online in particular. Steam is awesome on that topic, while PSN and XBL suck. That is the discussion. None of those other issues with steam prevent me from playing the games I own online without an additional fee.

 

[Kenstar]

I always said they should make an Xbox Live/PSN Silver + or something that gets you basically silver level access but with nothing additional other than multiplayer being enabled for single digit dollar amount a year. Lets see how enticing all the extra stuff is when you arent forced to pay for it or abstain completely from online play

Imagine if Your supermarket started charging a $5 door fee to get in? 'But we've got live bands playing inside now and tickets to their shows cost way more than the door fee! We gotta pay for these bands somehow!'' Would it matter how much a value it was if you didnt like the band? maybe you like the band but dont want to be bothered with that during shopping.

Just gimme the god damn online, dont give a fuck about your free monthly games or cloud saves or super special sales or early demo access or digital coupons to dominos or anything else you do to try to prove why you suddenly started needing $50 a year.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

You're just being obtuse at this point. We're discussing paid online. Paid online in particular. Steam is awesome on that topic, while PSN and XBL suck. That is the discussion.

Not in the context of my original reply but after being led down the page long rabbithole I can appreciate it's turned into more than that which I originally intended. Your post is entirely correct when founded around how Steam compares on the issue of paid online, which as you say is the original topic of the discussion.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

You claimed that you can't compare having an online paywall to Steam because it has trading cards and other "shitty practices" you won't specify.

No aspect of that is correct but the ground is so well trodden at this point I'm too tired to point out the path if you missed it. I specified my issues in multiple posts but my prior reply to the thread sums up my current feelings on the topic.

 

[Aiustis]

Yup I can't do it.

It's a huge waste of money for me because I rarely play online.
But sometimes I want to.

 

[Ricky 7]

Worst thing is Sony increased the price of PSN subscription.

 

[King Gilga]

Yeah it's sad.

It's not even about the money, I spend more on my lunch than a month or two of psn, it's just sad.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to pay for something so basic.

 

[MUnited83]

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums. There are quite a few elements of Steam that are unattractive.

I can't actually tell if you're serious when you suggest Steam hasn't been polluted if you've used it for any length of time.

Cards are not a bad thing, console support is shittier, consoles have no action against ratings abuse either.

Neither is telling people they've failed in an attempt to shut them down, if you want to play that card. Find me an argument I ignored and I'll respond to it if you wish.


I said it was a poor example of one, not sure why that puts an onus on me to find a better one. Am I not allowed to criticize Steam or something? I find trading cards pointless outside of the introduction of another element to get money from. Events on Steam used to be great and pro-consumer, now they've lost all soul and the focus around cards is genuinely off-putting for me.

? Not a single other digital store, PC or console, has those events you've talked about.

If you're discussing a company not seeking additional lines of revenue and bettering their service when they're immensely profitable, I don't think Valve is a decent example of the "good" side in particular, no.

And more complete utter bullshit that shows how little you know. You realize the crazy amount of completely free new features and updates that made Steam better they have done, right?

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

And more complete utter bullshit that shows how little you know.

OK. Hard to take seriously from a guy that claimed that the below screenshot doesn't contain any Nintendo properties, but OK.

Not sure why this needed another dogged, insulting reply added to the mix after it's had its knot tied but that seems to be your thing from what I've seen.

 

[pretty done]

Worst thing is Sony increased the price of PSN subscription.

Worst thing they did is require it for online. The service was actually a great value before they did that.

 

[Meifu]

Ugh yeah i think about cancelling my xbox gold all the time to save a bit of money

 

[MUnited83]

OK. Hard to take seriously from a guy that claimed that the below screenshot doesn't contain any Nintendo properties, but OK.



Not sure why this needed another dogged, insulting reply added to the mix after it's had its knot tied but that seems to be your thing from what I've seen.

I never claimed that screenshot didn't contain Nintendo properties, but nice try . Interesting you can't seem to reply with actual arguments though.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Interesting you can't seem to reply with actual arguments though.

I have. I even mentioned in my reply to you that the issue has had a knot tied in it.

You're a persistently smug, baiting and aggressive member in every interaction I've seen you in. It's unsurprising you skipped the prior discussion to launch your own assault on something that's been discussed and resolved.

 

[Tain]

I'd say that up to a couple years into the 360's life you could argue that Live's price made some kind of sense. The way it tied up a bunch of community features, voice chat, and group matchmaking into something so easy-to-use was relatively rare (if not one-of-a-kind).

These days all of these online service fees are pretty laughable considering the experience I get on PC. It's always a bummer when some console-exclusive game grabs me and I want to play online and my only choices are passing or re-upping for a little bit.

 

[HF2014]

Im the most hater around. Pay to play make me puke. But when its stable, cheaters free, bug free , more crowded depending of the game compare to what PC is offering, there is no turning back. I finally accept it.

 

[Hale-XF11]

That's why my console is for exclusive single player games and my PC is for multiplayer games. Fuck paying for online multiplayer.

 

[SHAFT MASTER]

I always said they should make an Xbox Live/PSN Silver + or something that gets you basically silver level access but with nothing additional other than multiplayer being enabled for single digit dollar amount a year. Lets see how enticing all the extra stuff is when you arent forced to pay for it or abstain completely from online play

Imagine if Your supermarket started charging a $5 door fee to get in? 'But we've got live bands playing inside now and tickets to their shows cost way more than the door fee! We gotta pay for these bands somehow!'' Would it matter how much a value it was if you didnt like the band? maybe you like the band but dont want to be bothered with that during shopping.

Just gimme the god damn online, dont give a fuck about your free monthly games or cloud saves or super special sales or early demo access or digital coupons to dominos or anything else you do to try to prove why you suddenly started needing $50 a year.

I have some good/bad news for you depending on your point of view.

 

[Kenstar]

I have some good/bad news for you depending on your point of view.

youre not talking about costco are you
because the prices are actually lower there for the high end stuff

 

[killatopak]

yeah.

I really wanted to participate in the Gundam Versus and Dissidia Beta but I figured they required plus membership. Mine had ran out after the time I stopped playing games for a while.

 

[yyr]

Another week, another one of these threads.

I don't know how many times I've explained this to people. Microsoft runs huge banks of servers that take care of all the matchmaking, leaderboards, voice chat, and other multiplayer features so that devs don't have to. Then, it's stupid easy for devs to include these features in their games. Why do you think almost every console game has some of these features now? If devs always had to run their own servers, we never would have gotten there. Conversely, many PC games, especially those from smaller devs, lack these features.

So with this business model, the players are paying for the servers, not the devs. Paying customers are also subsidizing services for non-paying customers. Remember, all Xbox One users get cloud saves, not just the folks that pay.

NO online play is truly free. Well, almost none. Unless there's absolutely no matchmaking service provided, and everything is strictly peer-to-peer, then someone is paying to support your online play; it just may not be you. It could be the developer, who can shut it off as soon as it's no longer profitable. And yet I can still play Xbox 360 launch games online if I want to. Clearly, the subscription fees are going towards something.

Bottom line: things cost money.

 

[nikos]

I also forgot, because it's so cheap for an annual membership that I don't think about it.

 

[Shivvy_NTL]

Idk guys look at the bright side, my ps+ money is going straight into the funding of first party games. Game development is more expensive these days and I'm sure this money is giving more of a breather for more ips etc.

I may be wrong though but for me I don't see a problem paying for 4hrs of my work time for a yearly sub.

But once again, if I am wrong with my first point plz let me know.

 

[Abilidebob]

Another week, another one of these threads.

I don't know how many times I've explained this to people. Microsoft runs huge banks of servers that take care of all the matchmaking, leaderboards, voice chat, and other multiplayer features so that devs don't have to. Then, it's stupid easy for devs to include these features in their games. Why do you think almost every console game has some of these features now? If devs always had to run their own servers, we never would have gotten there. Conversely, many PC games, especially those from smaller devs, lack these features.

So with this business model, the players are paying for the servers, not the devs. Paying customers are also subsidizing services for non-paying customers. Remember, all Xbox One users get cloud saves, not just the folks that pay.

NO online play is truly free. Well, almost none. Unless there's absolutely no matchmaking service provided, and everything is strictly peer-to-peer, then someone is paying to support your online play; it just may not be you. It could be the developer, who can shut it off as soon as it's no longer profitable. And yet I can still play Xbox 360 launch games online if I want to. Clearly, the subscription fees are going towards something.

Bottom line: things cost money.

Literally all of these, and more, are available for free, for any dev using Steam or other popular PC storefronts. And at no cost to the end-user. If the "small developer" on PC doesn't use these, it's because they don't want to. The cost of servers for matchmaking are absurdly lower than a dedicated server for multiplayer, and these costs are supposedly already paid for by the 30%(+Devkit) fee that all games sold have. If the dev is already paying for these services, why should the end user pay the platform holder again?

 

[Tapejara]

Idk guys look at the bright side, my ps+ money is going straight into the funding of first party games. Game development is more expensive these days and I'm sure this money is giving more of a breather for more ips etc.

I may be wrong though but for me I don't see a problem paying for 4hrs of my work time for a yearly sub.

But once again, if I am wrong with my first point plz let me know.

Considering how many studios Sony has shut down these past few years I'm not sure that's an accurate summation. (Still pissed about Guerrilla Cambridge.)

 

[unapersson]

You have side stepped refund policy the entire time as if it doesn't matter.

For most of its life Steam didn't offer that refund policy, there's definitely an argument for the console makers to put some effort into developing that functionality, but it's still a pretty recent thing. The way people talk sometimes is as though if's been there forever. You can get refunds on other services, but it's more of a pain. Much like it used to be on Steam (dealing with Steam support). Automating that kind of process is always a good idea and would save the console makers money in the long run. I assume there's a contractual element as well as to when developers receive payment. But it definitely makes a good extra bullet point at the moment.