Support NeoGAF

[Wowfunhappy]

It is complete and total BS. Even for games that do have dedicated servers, third party developers get zero revenue from PS+ Xbox Live subscriptions.

It's just a feature they randomly decided to lock behind a paywall. It's no different than if Microsoft started charging users $5 per month for the ability to change your desktop background. It's completely ludicrous.

 

[yyr]

At least in Microsoft's case, anyone saying "because they can charge for it" or "It's just a feature they randomly decided to lock behind a paywall" is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As an Xbox developer you are able to add things like skill-based matchmaking, P2P networking, leaderboards, achievements, and other features to your games with virtually zero effort. You also don't have to set up or run servers to maintain any of it. This is because MS built and maintains the entire infrastructure that handles everything. edit: this was extremely important back in the days of OG Xbox and early 360, because console online gaming was still a new concept to many people, and MS wanted as many devs to be on board with it as possible.

Example: I want to release a game on PC and Xbox that contains leaderboards. On Xbox I basically do nothing and it's handled for me. On PC, unless I can get my game on Steam, I'm on my own. I have to choose an implementation, and then either run a server myself or rely on a 3rd-party cloud service that I may have to pay for, and that may disappear overnight.

Obviously running all of this costs MS money. Rather than have developers or publishers foot the bill, MS asked players to pay for it instead. Seeing how the Xbox experience has been feature-packed and generally reliable, players accepted this years ago, not because MS can get away with it, but because it was (and still is IMO) a service worth paying for.

I can't speak for Sony or Nintendo as I don't know how differently they handle things.

 

[Aztechnology]

At least in Microsoft's case, anyone saying "because they can charge for it" or "It's just a feature they randomly decided to lock behind a paywall" is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As an Xbox developer you are able to add things like skill-based matchmaking, P2P networking, leaderboards, achievements, and other features to your games with virtually zero effort. You also don't have to set up or run servers to maintain any of it. This is because MS built and maintains the entire infrastructure that handles everything. edit: this was extremely important back in the days of OG Xbox and early 360, because console online gaming was still a new concept to many people, and MS wanted as many devs to be on board with it as possible.

Example: I want to release a game on PC and Xbox that contains leaderboards. On Xbox I basically do nothing and it's handled for me. On PC, unless I can get my game on Steam, I'm on my own. I have to choose an implementation, and then either run a server myself or rely on a 3rd-party cloud service that I may have to pay for, and that may disappear overnight.

Obviously running all of this costs MS money. Rather than have developers or publishers foot the bill, MS asked players to pay for it instead. Seeing how the Xbox experience has been feature-packed and generally reliable, players accepted this years ago, not because MS can get away with it, but because it was (and still is IMO) a service worth paying for.

I can't speak for Sony or Nintendo as I don't know how differently they handle things.

I think the question here now, isn't that it costs something, It's how much should it cost? Are we being overcharged? Obviously they are making a massive profit margin on the service. The financials speak for themselves in that regard. My argument is yes and the reason is because people allowed them to get away with it.

 

[Gxgear]

You're paying for the privilege of playing online for a closed platform. Fucked up? Absolutely.

 

[RenTargino]

I don't pay for it.

Well, in my case I would not play online even if it were free.

 

[Two Pikachus]

At least in Microsoft's case, anyone saying "because they can charge for it" or "It's just a feature they randomly decided to lock behind a paywall" is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As an Xbox developer you are able to add things like skill-based matchmaking, P2P networking, leaderboards, achievements, and other features to your games with virtually zero effort. You also don't have to set up or run servers to maintain any of it. This is because MS built and maintains the entire infrastructure that handles everything. edit: this was extremely important back in the days of OG Xbox and early 360, because console online gaming was still a new concept to many people, and MS wanted as many devs to be on board with it as possible.

Example: I want to release a game on PC and Xbox that contains leaderboards. On Xbox I basically do nothing and it's handled for me. On PC, unless I can get my game on Steam, I'm on my own. I have to choose an implementation, and then either run a server myself or rely on a 3rd-party cloud service that I may have to pay for, and that may disappear overnight.

Obviously running all of this costs MS money. Rather than have developers or publishers foot the bill, MS asked players to pay for it instead. Seeing how the Xbox experience has been feature-packed and generally reliable, players accepted this years ago, not because MS can get away with it, but because it was (and still is IMO) a service worth paying for.

I can't speak for Sony or Nintendo as I don't know how differently they handle things.

They built a great system that helps dvelopers get their games online quickly, yes. But that's a software package included with the SDK. Aside from bugfixes and new features (which I haven't seen any since the xbo launch, personally), there is nothing to maintain. The code is written already and there's no server-side computing for getting that going. Yet they are charging a maintenance-like fee every month or every year.

In the case of Microsoft's first-party titles, many of them do have dedicated servers so there's somewhere the money could be going and I feel that's justified. P2P however costs them nothing. If you're not playing MS first-party games and paying for XBL then you're paying for other gamers to get dedicated servers, essentially. Kinda like universal healthcare but you still have to get your appendix removed in a back-alley.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

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

That doesn't even make any sense.

No its not, but maintaining a network infrastructure is.

I'm sure the higher margin digital sales provides can do just that.

 

[zenspider]

The general consensus is "because they can muah hah hah", but does anyone actually know?

I mean, there still is an infrastructure that needs to be maintained for matchmaking at the bare minimum, which seems to be very often, but maybe it's a case of you just can't charge for online services on PC because of the backlash and publishers have to chalk it up to cost of doing business on PC?

Not trying to be particularly contrarian, I really don't know.

 

[CharminUltra]

Beats me.

I refused to pay for it when MS started it.

I refused to pay for it when Sony followed suit.

And as much as I love Nintendo, I won't be paying for theirs either.

 

[zenspider]

That doesn't even make any sense.



I'm sure the higher margin digital sales provides can do just that.

This. Asides from sales, I feel like I'm paying a digital tax to subsidize retail. Thanks Obama!

 

[yyr]

I think the question here now, isn't that it costs something, It's how much should it cost? Are we being overcharged?

I obviously have no idea how much they're spending on the actual network. I can speculate that the money is helping support other things (like the backwards compatibility updates, for example) but of course I have nothing to confirm that. What I can say, though, is that when you account for inflation, the yearly price for XBL Gold has actually gone down since it launched (even with the $10 increase), and with things like cloud saves, Games with Gold, etc. they are giving us more now than they did before. So there's that, at least.

Aside from bugfixes and new features (which I haven't seen any since the xbo launch, personally), there is nothing to maintain.

I'm not even going to attempt to guess how many servers are required to run the matchmaking and leaderboards for the many, many thousands of games currently supported by Xbox Live.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Third party developers get zero revenue from PS+ Xbox Live subscriptions.

It's just a feature they randomly decided to lock behind a paywall.

It's one of the reasons I refuse to go into the console walled-garden ecosystem.

I don't even play games that would require dedicated servers.

 

[Mephala]

If I could sell people air, I totally would.

It is actually a thing

 

[Ushay]

Come on guys..

- Dedicated UI with constant support and updates. New features being delivered.
- Server Infrastructure that keeps your online sessions fast and latency free.
- Faster download speeds.
- Dedicated servers for gaming.

I guess it pays for all that and some extras.

 

[Joal]

Honestly there's no reason to pay online services in consoles with respect to PC, however...

 

[iMax]

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

But it's used twice as much.

 

[Vipu]

Its not supid to ask for money but its stupid to pay money.
They tried could they get money from something, they could, they continued.
Someday soon they will try something else, people will pay, it will cost in future too.

Thats how it pretty much works.
And since on consoles you dont really have a choise so its easy for them to ask money from anything almost.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Come on guys..

- Dedicated UI with constant support and updates. New features being delivered.
- Server Infrastructure that keeps your online sessions fast and latency free.
- Faster download speeds.
- Dedicated servers for gaming.

I guess it pays for all that and some extras.

Yet all the above are way better on free services like Steam.

 

[ArtHands]

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

No one asked "why?" when Sony push it either. And since then everyone just accepted it.

 

[Mechazawa]

No one asked "why?" when Sony push it either. And since then everyone just accepted it.

People absolutely asked why, you just couldn't hear them over people losing their shit for Kingdom Hearts 2029.

 

[mcdomination]

Why does my PC car not need fuel then?

Because your PC car is electric and does not require fossil fuels. How far down the analogous rabbit hole would you like to go?

 

[mcdomination]

That doesn't even make any sense.

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

 

[gypsygib]

At the time Microsoft introduced Live on xbox, online was a cool new technology in the console space that appealed to a niche market willing to pay for brand new experiences.

At the time Microsoft released Live on 360, it offered free demos and other services console owners never had before making the $5 a month seems like a fair price, even if just for the demos alone. Many people were paying $11 a month for a magazine just to play the game demos.

By the time Sony released PS4, they saw how much easy money there was in requiring your console base to pay to play online. Even if only 20 million owners paid for yearly online, that's $1,000,000,000 in revenue annually.

Nintendo realizes just like Sony did, that to not require online subscription is to give away billions in revenue.

Online subscriptions makes even a second or third place console (only 20-40 million sales), still very profitable.

 

[Jingo]

What i dont understand is why i have to pay for a service that is a part of an whole of what they are selling, its like going to a coffee, take a cofee, pay it and on top of that pay the rent to the guy who is selling you the coffe cause theres maintenance to the shop, crazy right?

 

[slick7rick]

I'm not paying a cent for these scams.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Be happy it is broken out as a separate subscription service. Because don't kid yourself, the costs to implement and maintain their online infrastructure are going to be passed on to the consumer either way. TANSTAAFL.

 

[giapel]

I like how people are screaming outrage and say don't accept it and don't pay for it etc... But in reality, there is no alternative if you want to play online with your console. You can't exactly use an online service other than PS+ with your PS4. So obviously people are paying for it. Let's face it though, these new consoles are heavily subsidised by the manufacturers to get them out as cheaply as they currently are. The flip side to this is "service charges" and royalties on games. If the whole package is deemed too expensive, only then will people reject it.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

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

Do tell, how you could possibly know this.

 

[Apparition]

Because of the closed nature of consoles and because a large enough portion of the userbase went along with it.

It doesn't matter who started it. Chances are if MS hadn't, Sony or Nintendo would have.

Companies will always look for ways to make more money. That's business, alright.

 

[Randy Monk]

The money you pay for online is part of the cost of membership to this generations Sony console. The same generation that has given you Bloodborne, TLG and Sony exclusives. They were upfront about the cost and is nothing like a scam.

If you knew the cost involved and you still paid it, you have not been scammed unless you did not receive the product or service.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Because we're all suckers

 

[perfectsil]

Come on guys..

- Dedicated UI with constant support and updates. New features being delivered.
- Server Infrastructure that keeps your online sessions fast and latency free.
- Faster download speeds.
- Dedicated servers for gaming.

I guess it pays for all that and some extras.

What dedicated servers? The few console games that have dedicated servers like Destiny and ESO are running on Activision/Bethesda servers , they don't get a penny from xblg/ps+

 

[Chinbo37]

Because we're all suckers

Speak for yourself I dont pay

 

[PeskyToaster]

because it's super cheap so nobody cares. It's like what 60 bucks a year? Aight whatever

 

[system11]

There are PSN and XBL servers, therefore there are service costs.

Seems blindingly obvious really. Even for base social features, nothing works if PSN is turned off.

Is NeoGAF free? Actually - no, it's supported by advertisments. Do you want adverts popping up all over your dashboard uninvited? If so, feel free to complain about subscription costs.

 

[Petrae]

Consumers have voted that it's okay to pay for online play, spending millions of dollars on online subscription fees. Microsoft took the first step, then Sony and Nintendo fell into line when they realized that leaving money on the table wasn't a smart business decision. If consumers want to give you money, why wouldn't you take it?

There's no going back. If you own a console and want to engage in online multiplayer, you're gonna have to pay up. It's a level playing field now, with all current platforms requiring the toll.

 

[Noisepurge]

Speak for yourself I dont pay

last June Sony said they have 20+ Million subscribers, so some of us do pay and it seems to be a handsome business for them too

 

[Sad Affleck]

There are PSN and XBL servers, therefore there are service costs.

Seems blindingly obvious really. Even for base social features, nothing works if PSN is turned off.

Is NeoGAF free? Actually - no, it's supported by advertisments. Do you want adverts popping up all over your dashboard uninvited? If so, feel free to complain about subscription costs.

How do you explain Steam or every other online service on PC?

 

[RichiRamjag]

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.

There was nothing stupid about it. Coming from a time where people were moving off dial-up toward broadband and seeing my buddy play splinter cell online, I didn't care. It was that awesome. Throw in games like halo 2 and such and it was over.

 

[Abilidebob]

If I buy Call of Duty or a similar game, it's completely ludicrous that I have to pay the platform holder money so that I can access a feature of the game I already paid money for, especially when that game does not use Sony/Microsoft servers for anything, and the developer already paid the platform holder a % of my money, and I also paid for the console itself.

 

[Usobuko]

Because they can charge without facing notable backlash.

The main reason Sony emerge victorious during 2013 e3 was simply not being Microsoft ( kinect, used games, 499 etc) despite mentioning they will start charging online.

Nintendo follows suit because they know they will get away too.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

I think it's madness, and it's the reason I don't play my PS4 more, sometimes I'd like to jump on and play UC4 multiplayer but I'm not paying a months sub for that so my console just collects dust.

 

[Sr. Wiggles]

Yet all the above are way better on free services like Steam.

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.

 

[jonscrambler]

my $60 for Battlefield 1 (which EA only keeps what 30%?) somehow pays for the lifetime of dedicated (EA) servers for the game, MS/Sony wants $60 a year for what, friend list and party chat? which there's free service like Discord

 

[therealbigrich]

How else would I play with my friends?

You don't need friends lol.

 

[rackham]

I really hate the fact than whenever this argument is brought up, some asshole always says "It's only $___ per month you cheap douchebag. stop crying"


Forget about ever bringing up real facts about why paying for online is bullshit. Nah, you're just a cheap douche if you dare question the big companies who have real feelings. Oh but wait, microtransactions are a thing in pretty much every online game ever nowadays but that somehow still doesn't pay for server costs? Buying a $60 multiplayer only game doesn't entitle you to play it p2p online. Nope.

 

[Gravy Boat]

my $60 for Battlefield 1 (which EA only keeps what 30%?) somehow pays for the lifetime of dedicated servers for the game, MS/Sony wants $60 a year for what, friend list and party chat? which there's free service like Discord

I'm sure the $60 season pass also contributes towards that, even if you yourself didn't pay it.

I'm in the boat of 'If it were free that'd be great but it's not so I'm just thankful it's cheap'. I'll stop paying if I ever feel it's not worth it.

 

[rackham]

I'm sure the $60 season pass also contributes towards that, even if you yourself didn't pay it.

I'm in the boat of 'If it were free that'd be great but it's not so I'm just thankful it's cheap'. I'll stop paying if I ever feel it's not worth it.

what about the shitload of money SONY and Microsoft make through the sale of their hardware and software-both physical and digital. They both make money on every game sold on their platform. Shouldn't that help the cost of their network infrastructure?


How about the fact that they both offer games as incentives? Shouldn't those be factors in their subscription and NOT the online play which they don't do shit for

 

[Lister]

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.

Well, you'd be wrong in your assumption because yes, Steam does all those things. And free third party services/software also offers a lto of this on PC with even more options.

 

[Gravy Boat]

what about the shitload of money SONY and Microsoft make through the sale of their hardware and software-both physical and digital. They both make money on every game sold on their platform. Shouldn't that help the cost of their network infrastructure?


How about the fact that they both offer games as incentives? Shouldn't those be factors in their subscription and NOT the online play which they don't do shit for

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.

Well, you'd be wrong in your assumption because yes, Steam does all those things. And free third party services/software also offers a lto of this on PC with even more options.

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.