Support NeoGAF

[EGM1966]

Because the market accepted a subscription fee. Sure the platform providers have costs but so do Valve they just don't chose to charge for their services.

I guess if you want to pin it on one company then MS was first to implement it. That said the real reason it's now on all three main platforms (or soon will be) is because the market accepted it.

PC market refusing to pay and MS backdown shows it could have been rejected but it wasn't.

Whether it really makes much difference to the service I have no idea. Valve seems able to offer their services without one and the quality is very, very good so I suspect not but can't say for sure.

 

[rackham]

Sure, but it is what it is. Getting upset isn't going to change how it works, you either pay or you don't. Given the choice of never playing on vs paying £3 a month to do so, I'll pick the latter.


Steam supports ALL pc games? Steam also doesn't have a built in recording feature, as far as I know. I could be wrong on that one.

I mean, what kind of dumb response is that? It's the type of response that says "I have nothing of value to add to this discussion other than status quo, status quo"

 

[Gravy Boat]

I mean, what kind of dumb response is that? It's the type of response that says "I have nothing of value to add to this discussion other than status quo, status quo"

What? You quoted me when I wasn't even talking to you. I'm sorry if my opinion on the situation isn't enough, what would you have preffered me to say?

 

[dano1]

Not sure if everyone hear thinks that running a online service for 65 million people isn't expensive?

PlayStation.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

As other's note, just because the mainstream market was ok with it from Xbox Live gold on to today.

Personally, I don't mind now. It was more annoying back when it was just paying for online play with Gold as I've never been super huge into online gaming. I was more into i then and thus paid, I wouldn't pay just for that today beyond maybe a monthly sub here and there when I wanted to play some coop game with real life friends in other states.

But now with PS+ (and Gold if I still had an X1) I view it as a moot cost as the "free" games and extra discounts end up more than paying for it for me yearly. There's always at least a couple of games I would have bought if they weren't "given" to me and a lot of things where I save a few buck with the extra 10% discount that I end up saving more than the $35-45 I'm paying for PS+ in sales.

So I still don't like the concept of paid online given it's free on PC and they aren't giving us dedicated servers etc. But I can justify it as I view it more as paying for a discount service much like Best Buy GCU that ends up more than paying for itself.

 

[Gator86]

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.

This. Companies will never turn down free money or go back once you've given an inch. People gave an inch on Xbox Live and now we're all paying forever. Companies aren't your friends it turns out.

 

[pantsmith]

I'm not defending the fees or how much they make off of them, but you pay a subscription cost to give the company a base income with which to invest in infrastructure, support, and whatever else. Whether they do or not really remains to be seen, especially when you consider what they make via virtual storefronts (PSN, Marketplace, etc)

Nintendo just spent however much developing, maintaining, and moderating Miiverse on the 3DS and WiiU, and I'm sure the money equation didn't work out for them because it was all free. Charging helps create a budget and increases the health and accountability of the service.

 

[FallingSputnik]

Because you're on console. Aside from the obvious need to make money, it's not like running these services is totally free. It also helps provide jobs, I mean a lot of people work for Xbox Live Support (I use to, for one year, making about 25k/year, along 500 other employees, and we were one of like a handful of other centers world wide), supporting people who pay for XBL, and even those who don't.

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

Because all you console gamers fell for it.

 

[grandwizard]

It's ridiculous that playing games like R6 Siege and Battlefield 1 on PC I'm using the exact same dedicated servers as console users are (ones provided by Ubisoft and EA) except they have to pay a third party (Sony/MS) to use them.

 

[JaseC]

Steam supports ALL pc games?

In a sense: client-level features work with non-Steam shortcuts. For instance, there's a website dedicated to the sharing of Steam Controller configuration files for non-Steam games.

Steam also doesn't have a built in recording feature, as far as I know. I could be wrong on that one.

It doesn't, but it does have an in-built broadcasting feature, which is almost the same thing (and, as I allude to above, works with non-Steam games).

 

[ghostjoke]

You pay for online because you are paying for online. As long as you keep paying, you are valuing it at that price no matter how much you complain about it.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

It would if you actually read the several quotes previous to this one.

Don't you see the difference between netflix allowing you to access their content and Sony allowing you to use your internet connection on the console you payed for in the game you bought?

Forgive my uninformed console user input, but that was a small sampling. Does Steam allow game recording / hosting? Support all PC games? (As in games that are on origin, uplay, etc?) Have a good group party/chat system?

Just asking since those are nice, convenient things I like with Xbox Live. I don't ever feel like I'm paying for the privilege to play online. I'm paying for a unified, complete online experience. One place where i can do pretty much anything and with ease.

I realize with PC you can do the same things and for free. But from my understanding, it's not like i can download something like Steam and have everything covered the same way i can on PSN or Xbox Live.

Yeah steam do all of that, it also support most if not every controller from the get go. So you can for exemple use a DS4 and have a friend use a XB1 controller at the same time.

 

[ar4757]

I don't. Free trials and a cheapassgamer for life.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

PC bro. Best graphics, best control options, best online options, etc.

 

[emb]

"First they wanted a fee for MMOs, and I said nothing and paid.
Then Microsoft charged a fee for Xbox Live, and I said nothing and paid.
Then Sony paywalled online play, and still I said nothing and paid.
Then Nintendo decided to end free online play on consoles, and it was already too late."

At least plenty of PC games will still offer free online.

For my part, I bought into Xbox Live when I got my 360, and didn't mind paying up. Later on I tired to buy a month, it stared auto-renewing without warning, so I'm convicted to never let MS see a single penny from me for online services.

As gen 7 progressed, my opinion of the PS turned around. Free online was one of the cooler features, I thought, and one of the factors in me buying a triple. I barely played it online though. That's the way I usually am, I'll play online now and then. Used to enjoy some Gears of War sessions back then, and more recently I played Splatoon and Smash 4 in pretty significant bursts. I don't use it consistently enough to justify adding more recurring fees to my life though.

On principle, I don't really like that online play is paywalled, so I can't see myself supporting much. If I sign up for any, it'd probably be to Nintendo since I'm a fan. My ideal online system would allow online play, but minimize it's influence. The experience I had with it all on Wii U quite nice overall. But it's easy to see why platform holders are going for the extra cash grab, given that most people are used to it. As a business, it's a very reasonable and logical decision.

 

[bigDdestruction]

I always thought it was cute how people got on sony's case for charging for online on ps4. The writing was on the wall with how successful XBL was, and i'm willing to bet most of the people that complained about it have paid for XBL at some point, so you only have yourself to blame if you supported paying for online.

 

[rackham]

What? You quoted me when I wasn't even talking to you. I'm sorry if my opinion on the situation isn't enough, what would you have preffered me to say?

I did quote you but expected more than a typical "like it or leave it" response. To be honest, I expect more from anyone who posts here.

At the very least if you do like the sub services, make a knowledgeable positive argument for them. I don't blame you. I don't think you (or anyone else) can make a legitimate argument for online fees.

 

[Gren]

Eh maybe I'm out of touch, but after digital/retail price parity, now-defunct online passes, microtransactions galore, etc I'm tired of giving this industry the benefit of the doubt. I don't think it should be expected to subsidize their operations on top of buying their products. Like most other consumer goods, the latter should naturally lead to the former.

 

[Gurnlei]

I'm not - mostly game on PC - and I don't on what consoles I do have.

 

[Chris1]

Because people pay for it

the 30% cuts from all games/microtransactions are more than enough to cover any costs, but people pay extra on top of that so why not?

only chance of it ever going free was if Sony stuck to their guns on PS+ being free, but unfortunately people accepted that too

The "PC denied it, its consoles faults" response is stupid, for one on PC you can just download another program, on consoles you need to spend X hundred more & risk losing your friends etc. Situations aren't the same at all. If it was a simple as downloading a program on your console to get free online I'm sure everyone would do it. it is true but it's still stupid, you don't really get a choice on console.

 

[Gravy Boat]

I did quote you but expected more than a typical "like it or leave it" response. To be honest, I expect more from anyone who posts here.

At the very least if you do like the sub services, make a knowledgeable positive argument for them. I don't blame you. I don't think you (or anyone else) can make a legitimate argument for online fees.

I didn't say I liked it, I just tolerate it. I'd rather it be free, but me not paying isn't going to change anything, so I pay it. It's cheap enough that I don't care.

I'm sorry that you don't deem my opinion worthy of this discussion. I'll try and be more controversial next time. Althought I'm not sure why you 'expected more' when my thoughts were pretty clearly outlined in the post you quoted.

 

[trixx]

Yeah it's nonsense. Still not convinced with Nintendo's online services. Subscription for online smh.

The free games make you tolerate it more, still nonsense though.

 

[Lister]

Sure, but it is what it is. Getting upset isn't going to change how it works, you either pay or you don't. Given the choice of never playing on vs paying £3 a month to do so, I'll pick the latter.


Steam supports ALL pc games? Steam also doesn't have a built in recording feature, as far as I know. I could be wrong on that one.

You can add non Steam games to Steam for the purposes of streaming them, but not multi player. That has to go through whateve rothr service.

 

[conman]

Because MS showed that people were willing to pay.

There's no direct correlation between what the platform holders *say* those subscription fees pay for (overhead, service, dedicated servers, etc) and where that money *actually* goes. It's not as if we're paying a separate division or subsidiary of Sony for online service. It all just goes into their coffers.

Yet another reason why I haven't gone back to console gaming after last gen. I've stuck with PC and see fewer reasons to get a new console. Gaming is an expensive enough hobby without having to pay a monthly/yearly subscription fee on top of that.

It's also a reason that the argument about consoles being "cheaper" than PCs is a total delusion. If you buy a new console at launch (~$400) and then factor in yearly online ($60/yr) for a 5-7 year lifespan, that doubles the sticker price just on its own! I'd much rather put that extra cash into semi-regular hardware updates to my PC or into buying more games.

So, yes, indeed, why *are* we paying for online services?!

 

[AmFreak]

"First they wanted a fee for MMOs, and I said nothing and paid.
Then Microsoft charged a fee for Xbox Live, and I said nothing and paid.
Then Sony paywalled online play, and still I said nothing and paid.
Then Nintendo decided to end free online play on consoles, and it was already too late."

MMOs aren't comparable to the rest, because they actually generate costs for the developer whenever you play them.
At the same time it speaks volumes that even there fees are basically dead.

 

[SenkiDala]

Well, for around 50€/$ a year, you have monthly games to play, for the time of your subscriptions. And unlike all the "another shitty month" guys, I try the games and very (very) often I find myself loving some of those games.

Just for that, to me, it worth it. I'm a curious gamer and I like to try new things, so it's cool.

And please, PC gamers (I also play on PC though), stop with those "because console gamers are dumb and accept to pay", it's of course not the reason... On PC hacking a game is easy, on console (the current gen) it's not. If you're not happy with a publisher policy, on PC you just hack the game and that's it, on console if you really wanna play the game... you'll buy it anyways. It's same for online. If tomorrow Steam/Origin/Uplay all go to online fees for playing, PC gamers will just go all hacked games on pirate servers... Because it's THAT easy. On console you have less choices.

I remember PC gamers saying that console gamers were dumb to accept crappy DLCs like the horse armor in Oblivion, but on PC too gamers pay a lot of money for whatever dumb DLCs...

 

[Skux]

By your logic, Netflix and Spotify should be free because it's a "service" and apparently costs nothing for the provider.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Servers and bandwidth and content delivery costs money.

Multiplayer may appear to be "free" on PC but it's paid for from somewhere else.

And even if Sony and MS aren't using the funds to directly pay for online services, it's used elsewhere in the company for other useful stuff. Like paying people for doing their jobs.

 

[NascentGecko]

[removed]

 

[LordRaptor]

If you’re not paying for it, the cost is being eaten for you. So why is Steam still free? My guess is that Valve is privately owned whereas Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are not -- and they’re not in the business of breaking even.

My guess is that 30% of a $60 game more than covers the infrastructure costs for a digital purchase on every platform.

 

[Gren]

We're talking about thousands of servers with millions of concurrent users daily. Every time you sign in, join a new game, browse the store, or download something, these servers are queried. Software has to be created, maintained, and deployed on all of these servers. Hardware has to be maintained and occasionally replaced or upgraded (enterprise hardware is very expensive). Several backups are regularly created and sometimes used. Lots of people involved. Security audits. Etc.

If you're not paying for it, the cost is being eaten for you. So why is Steam still free? My guess is that Valve is privately owned whereas Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are not -- and they're not in the business of breaking even.

Blast EA & Ubisoft; how do those wizards do it?!

But seriously, the bolded is moot; it's the bare minimum expected of basically any online service/store anywhere, with or without additional fees on top of the product pricetag.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Because of THE TERRIFIC VALUE of unlocking built in features of your game for a small fee.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

By your logic, Netflix and Spotify should be free because it's a "service" and apparently costs nothing for the provider.

This logic fails. I'm not required to pay for Netflix to watch a blu-ray movie I bought.

 

[jax]

Speak for yourself. I don't pay for them. It's not worth it to me. We'll see if the Switch changes that.

 

[Randomizer]

My main motivating factor is I enjoy getting the PS+ games. I have played a lot of really good games I my have missed or played sooner than I would have if I had to buy them. If it's a crappy selection for a few months I have let my sub run out only to renew when something good turns up. Other than that people pay because they have no other choice. Especially if they want to play online with friends with the same devices. Fortunately not an issue for me as playing online is an extremely rare occurrence for me anyway.

 

[Beerman462]

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

Wrong. Consumers normalized it. The only way to stand against it now is to play on PC. A PC that matches the newest consoles will cost you about $200 more. That's four years of console online charges. Personally PC is the best bet for third party and PC exclusives.

If you are locked into consoles then it doesn't really matter.

 

[Calm Mind]

Because those 3rd party exclusives don't come cheap.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Because gamers are idiots, that's why.

 

[Skux]

This logic fails. I'm not required to pay for Netflix to watch a blu-ray movie I bought.

This analogy also fails, because a Blu-ray disc is a product, and on-demand streaming is a service.

The game you buy is the product. The infrastructure you use to play it online is the service.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Because we pay for online services. They wouldn't exist if we weren't willing to pay.

 

[CEJames]

Kiss beat you to it:

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE SOMETIMES!....

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/02/21/kiss-air-guitar-strings/

KISS Making Millions Off of $3.99 ‘Air Guitar Strings'.

Bags of air. Everything is possible. Air has officially been sold. I'm done.

P.S. I know it's off topic but I just found it to be completely ridiculous.

 

[OldMan]

I don't know but when my ps+ sub runs out I'm gonna be pissedski

 

[pretty done]

Speak for yourself. I don't pay for them. It's not worth it to me. We'll see if the Switch changes that.

 

[killatopak]

why are we paying tax?

So things get better.

how much better is the platform owner's choice.

it ranges from nothing to great.

 

[Hale-XF11]

Because you bought the system and now you're stuck with their eco-system, like it or not. Their console, their rules. You have no say in it, except for how you respond with your wallet.

 

[icam_17]

I'm gonna say...Microsoft.

 

[Muzicfreq]

Because fuck Microsoft

essentially this.
Had Xbox Live not been a thing millions paid for I doubt the rest would have followed suit.

 

[Aalvi]

They're becoming aware.

 

[randome]

Glad someone made this topic. It's total BS in my opinion. Just bought a fuckin PS4 and forgot that I'm required to spend $40-60 to play games online (which is most of them; and only for a year, not even for good). Its just such an unnecessary expense and really sucks for people who dont have a lot of money. So...I guess like everything else, lol. Ah well.

 

[Night Angel]

Because we don't have another option for console gaming online.