What about EA with Origin or Ubisoft with Uplay?
-
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
What about EA with Origin or Ubisoft with Uplay?
Jailer of Hope
Member
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.
Because Steam has (potentially) a march larger audience and they (Valve) have decided to absorb the operational cost of some things in order to make that audience as large as possible so that they can make their revenue off of the individual transactions.
wonderful103
Member
Valve has plenty of R&D and plays with a ton of hardware, some of which is never seen. They're like Nintendo in that regard, and the stories you hear of lots of prototype devices. They handle more than just a steam client.
They make a TON of tools available to developers as well. For free.
They get 30% in return. Just like MS and Sony and Nintendo do. But let's keep pretending console makers aren't fleecing you so you feel validated in your purchase.
They clearly do SO much more for those dollars on consoles! Especially considering how many fewer games have dedicated servers there. Or how much slower on average their CDNs are compared to Steam or Origin. Or how much shittier their rental content is in comparison to even a typical humble bundle, which gives you keys you own. The free games I've gotten on Uplay or Origin over the years also generally top a typical haul from you rentals, and they're permanent/owned too.
Because we're not given much of a choice.
I do think it's an issue worth pressing, though. It'd be interesting to organize a boycott, even a temporary one. "A month without Gold." We can make a list of games that can be played offline, even highlight local multiplayer. I'm sure some devs would support it as it gained steam. Something worth thinking about.
I do think it's an issue worth pressing, though. It'd be interesting to organize a boycott, even a temporary one. "A month without Gold." We can make a list of games that can be played offline, even highlight local multiplayer. I'm sure some devs would support it as it gained steam. Something worth thinking about.
Sorcerer
Member
Teran
Member
Because people lapped it up. Most people believe they're actually getting dedicated servers for their games. It is what it is, and when Sony made that jump it officially made it okay for Nintendo to go that route.
The perpetuation of many bad practices in this industry are pretty much owed to consumers just biting the bullet and rolling with the punches rather than taking a stand. It takes very extreme cases for gamers to just be like "nope". Witcher 3 bullshots? GOTY. Zelda downgrade? Initial shipment pretty much sold out. Gamers remind me of smokers, where they'll pick up a cigarette they dropped on the street and continue smoking it, but they'd never dream of eating something like a sandwich they dropped.
It is what it is, but things like this can build and reach a point where people are just like fuck it. I think if PCs continue to become more accessible, we may see quite a significant migration.
The perpetuation of many bad practices in this industry are pretty much owed to consumers just biting the bullet and rolling with the punches rather than taking a stand. It takes very extreme cases for gamers to just be like "nope". Witcher 3 bullshots? GOTY. Zelda downgrade? Initial shipment pretty much sold out. Gamers remind me of smokers, where they'll pick up a cigarette they dropped on the street and continue smoking it, but they'd never dream of eating something like a sandwich they dropped.
It is what it is, but things like this can build and reach a point where people are just like fuck it. I think if PCs continue to become more accessible, we may see quite a significant migration.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
Well there are costs for running the stores and networks even if some games use p2p. Whether the network's quality justifies the cost is another thing. Another question is whether they could offer it for free, which obviously they could, but they're a business so of course they're not if they can get away with it.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
You think that covers all the cost?
Also that 30% is for cert and getting on the store, being on the psblog, having a yt trailer on playstation channel etc.
Paying people that work with devs and pubs on a day to day basis.
jonscrambler
Member
don't know how people are defending it, or downplaying how much it costs (pay it for 5 years you're paying more than your console), saying you pay it begrudgingly because you don't have a choice, that I understand
Conkerkid11
Member
Because you are
Real_Madrid
Member
Console gamers clearly don't care that much about it. They cared about the used market, the always online DRM stuff, but apparently an online paywall is fine.
I don't like it, especially on a console like the Switch where you got a very small amount of online games, but I've been a PS+ subscriber since the PS3 era. I just like the immense collection of games I got by now and the discounts are also mostly good.
So I'm part of the problem, I just pay my yearly 50 euro and be done with it. I also never heard any complaints about it from my very casual (gaming) friends.
I feel like these threads always pop up every week and it's mostly PC gamers complaining about it.
The big question is when publishers are going to voice their irritation by it. A game like COD is probably making Sony lots and lots of new PS+ subscribers every year, while for Activision, an online paywall limits their userbase and people who can buy DLC. That's a part of the online paywall discussion we rarely hear. I can't imagine that games with online focus are happy with these online paywalls.
I don't like it, especially on a console like the Switch where you got a very small amount of online games, but I've been a PS+ subscriber since the PS3 era. I just like the immense collection of games I got by now and the discounts are also mostly good.
So I'm part of the problem, I just pay my yearly 50 euro and be done with it. I also never heard any complaints about it from my very casual (gaming) friends.
I feel like these threads always pop up every week and it's mostly PC gamers complaining about it.
The big question is when publishers are going to voice their irritation by it. A game like COD is probably making Sony lots and lots of new PS+ subscribers every year, while for Activision, an online paywall limits their userbase and people who can buy DLC. That's a part of the online paywall discussion we rarely hear. I can't imagine that games with online focus are happy with these online paywalls.
EroticSushi
Member
Wonder how it would be had people been more outspoken about it when Microsoft first did it.
jonscrambler
Member
are you serious? 30% of EVERY xbox/ps game, we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars a year here
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Market has determent that pc players don't want to pay for those services on PC.
Because the market leader Valve is free so the rest has to be as well.
Believe me if steam was not free then Origin and uplay would not be free either.
I'm not saying current console infrastructure can't/should be better IT SHOULD BE a lot better.
We are talking about WHY you pay, you pay because the market leader at the time MS, made it so and people just followed.
Nitty_Grimes
Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
How else would they claw back the loss they make on their television (Sony) or phone (MS) business?
Lil'DigiOp
Member
I really don't know why y'all don't get your subs reupped for Christmas or ya birthday or something.
mcdomination
Member
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!"
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!"
jonscrambler
Member
because Valve is not a monopoly on PC gaming, just how are they going to start charging online? people can play plenty of PC games on origin/uplay/battle.net etc etc and not use Steam
C.Olimar788
Member
What is significantly better between PS3/Wii U and, say, PS4 and XBone? Genuinely curious - I haven't noticed a huge amount of differences in the online play between the consoles I own, whether I'm paying for online or not. What is worth the premium to you?
That is wrong. Even if, for some crazy reason, Valve decided to charge for play online, neither EA or Ubisoft or any other company would follow suit. The outrage would be even worse than when Valve and Bethesda tried to charge for mods.
Microsoft tried it once and it failed hard, doubt any other company would succeed when Microsoft failed to do that.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Not saying starting the charge now if they were not free from the start, then the market would not have know what that was like.
Its all about who the market leader is and how that company has "set it up" from the start.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
'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.
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.
Have a Nice Day
Member
You believe wrong.
First gen Sony makes money with the hardware, first gen Sony has pay to play ...
While I was browsing this thread and tried to invite someone to my party:
Think about the poor staff members who are simply trying to do their jobs!
-MD-
Member
I stopped paying for it 7 years ago.
King Gilga
Member
I don't.
But suckers will be suckers.
But suckers will be suckers.
I might resubscribe to PS Plus if I can get another super cheap deal on it, but the PS4 version has been such a bust. Horribly slow download speeds and subpar game offerings. The only quality games have been indies I already own on PC for the most part or PS3 ports of their big indie games like Journey. Over the last 3 years, I've felt I've only gotten my money's worth from Resogun and Infamous First Light.
perfectsil
Member
Sure it does, 30% of total Xbox games revenue? Got to be hundreds of millions dollars a year if not billions
Jailer of Hope
Member
Cross chat is a big one for some people. You couldn't even chat at all on most Wii U games. Or easily matchmake with friends. Just the general quality of matchmaking even had a wide gap.
evilromero
Member
Well, you did call it a service. So do you expect to pay for services or not?
HawksWinStanley
Member
Exactly. Back when it first started it seemed reasonable to pay for it because it was a great service and the only one of its kind on console. Then Sony's attempt came out and it was ok but felt like a "you get what you pay for" type of deal so I still thought it seemed fair to me.
It wasn't til this gen when Sony not only made you pay for it but then upped the price that I actually feel ripped off now. And I still don't think it's up to snuff with Live which I can regularly get for $35/12mos.
