• 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.

How come PC digital distribution services are free and Xbox Live / PSN cost money?

S

Seagoon

Member
Valve / EA / Ubisoft etc. make their services free on the PC. Microsoft and Sony charge for theirs.

Why is this? all services make use of large server infrastructure, bandwidth etc. Is it down to the closed shop nature of consoles locking customers into paying, or are these services something MS and Sony could afford to offer for free?
 
P

Phrozenflame500

Member
Sony/MS lose money selling consoles I believe, and they make it back via these subscriptions.

Valve doesn't sell hardware (yet) so it doesn't have these costs.
 
T

Takao

Banned
Seagoon said:
Valve / EA / Ubisoft etc. make their services free on the PC. Microsoft and Sony charge for theirs.

Why is this? all services make use of large server infrastructure, bandwidth etc. Is it down to the closed shop nature of consoles locking customers into paying, or are these services something MS and Sony could afford to offer for free?
Click to expand...

Do you mean the storefronts? I'm pretty sure you can access that even if you're not a Gold subscriber on an Xbox platform. I know you can do that without needing to subscribe to PS+ on PS4. If you're referring to online multiplayer, well, it's greed. Sony went with free multiplayer access on PSP, PS3, and Vita. If you're referring to costs that publishers incur, I dunno, probably greed too.
 
T

TheD

The Detective
Phrozenflame500 said:
Sony/MS lose money selling consoles I believe, and they make it back via these subscriptions.

Valve doesn't sell hardware (yet) so it doesn't have these costs.
Click to expand...

They make the money back from the cut they get for each game, stuff like XBL is just MS lining their pockets.
 
E

epmode

Member
Phrozenflame500 said:
Sony/MS lose money selling consoles I believe, and they make it back via these subscriptions.

Valve doesn't sell hardware (yet) so it doesn't have these costs.
Click to expand...

Subsidized console hardware existed wayyyyy before Xbox Live.

The real reason is obviously that the console owners have 0 competition on their own platform so why not charge? The infrastructure costs could be covered by game sales but hey, free money.
 
S

SolidSnakex

Member
TheD said:
They make the money back from the cut they get for each game, stuff like XBL is just MS lining their pockets.
Click to expand...

It's helping Sony out according to Kawano

Kawano-san also mentioned that until now the game business always had thin profit margins for Sony, but after November 15th the number of PS Plus subscribers has doubled in the United States in a short period, and similar numbers have been achieved in other countries where the PS4 was launched.

That provides a straight revenue source and increases stable earnings, bringing a change in the business model for the company.
Click to expand...

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04...ber-of-games-talks-development-and-marketing/
 
E

enzo_gt

tagged by Blackace
What are you talking about? Both XBL and PSN are offered as free services to console owners. Access to the digital distribution parts of the service are free as well. Having premium tiers does not change that. All of the stuff you listed in OP is available at the free tier as well.
 
T

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
tino said:
PS+ gives you free games every month.
Click to expand...

That you don't own. So that's not an apt comparison.

Also LOL @ people continuing to tout that rental service.

CountAntonius said:
Because you don't have a choice on consoles and they won't give up all that free cash.
Click to expand...

Ding ding.

Main reason why Sony changed from free to a pay-wall: Because they saw the money MS was making from CoD-players.
 
M

morningbus

Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
tino said:
PS+ gives you free games every month.
Click to expand...
I love when I go to a restaurant and pay for a sandwich and thery're benevolant enough to give me a side of french fires completely free.

I mean they can't do that for everyone. How are they making money?
 
G

Game Guru

Member
Seagoon said:
Valve / EA / Ubisoft etc. make their services free on the PC. Microsoft and Sony charge for theirs.

Why is this? all services make use of large server infrastructure, bandwidth etc. Is it down to the closed shop nature of consoles locking customers into paying, or are these services something MS and Sony could afford to offer for free?
Click to expand...

Because when MS tried to bring fee-based online multiplayer service to PC with GFWL as well as the 360 with Xbox Live, PC gamers rejected it while console gamers accepted it, which led to Sony adopting it with the PS4 and PS+. Despite what many people might think, the gaming PC and console markets are different.
 
S

Seagoon

Member
Takao said:
Do you mean the storefronts? I'm pretty sure you can access that even if you're not a Gold subscriber on an Xbox platform. I know you can do that without needing to subscribe to PS+ on PS4. If you're referring to online multiplayer, well, it's greed. Sony went with free multiplayer access on PSP, PS3, and Vita. If you're referring to costs that publishers incur, I dunno, probably greed too.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit out of the loop but do you have access to chat / voice chat without a premium subscription on consoles?

I guess I meant the platform as a whole - I forgot the storefront was still accessible without a subscription, although I do remember when I owned an Xbox 360 I thought it odd how Gold subscribers had preferential access to some demos and things like YouTube required Gold.
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
I don't understand you question because the digital distribution services on PSN/Live are free.

I can buy a game and download it without pay the Plus.
 
M

Moneal

Member
Seagoon said:
I'm a bit out of the loop but do you have access to chat / voice chat without a premium subscription on consoles?

I guess I meant the platform as a whole - I forgot the storefront was still accessible without a subscription, although I do remember when I owned an Xbox 360 I thought it odd how Gold subscribers had preferential access to some demos and things like YouTube required Gold.
Click to expand...

ps4 and vita have cross game chat free as well as the apps. 360 and xbox one require gold for chat and online apps.
 
entremet

entremet

Member
enzo_gt said:
What are you talking about? Both XBL and PSN are offered as free services to console owners. Access to the digital distribution parts of the service are free as well. Having premium tiers does not change that. All of the stuff you listed in OP is available at the free tier as well.
Click to expand...

This is how I'm understanding it. Unless he means online MP.
 
H

Hatchtag

Banned
Microsoft is first to make online multiplayer on consoles a major feature.
Microsoft realizes they can charge for it since there's no competition.
Microsoft charges for it, and since no one else does the same thing for any cheaper, people accept it.
7th gen roles around. Sony and Nintendo attempt to combat it by making their services free.
People still are paying for Xbox Live because they're accustomed to it, and it was arguably more featured.
8th gen rolls around and Sony realizes that people would probably be willing to pay for it on Playstation if they gave gamers some incentives to do so, and slowly works up to doing so.
Nintendo realizes their online is not featured enough for people to pay for it, chooses not to.

Meanwhile, PC gamers can easily pirate games, and many games have free online. PC games had free online for long enough that if a company decided to start charging for it, people wouldn't pay for it, because there are other, free options.

TL;DR:
Online PC games have always had free competition, so aside from MMOs, paid online services are quickly rejected by consumers.
Online console games didn't really have free competition when they started up, so Microsoft was able to capitalize on that and make a shit ton of money. Then Sony realized they could probably do the same thing.
 
T

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
TheSeks said:
That you don't own. So that's not an apt comparison.

Also LOL @ people continuing to tout that rental service.
Click to expand...

Enjoy those free (until MS drops Live support for 360 like they did Xbox) games that only have $0.25 cent trade-in value at Gamestop on physical media because everyone else in the world has played them... twice.
 
L

Lizardus

Member
Hatchtag said:
Microsoft is first to make online multiplayer on consoles a major feature.
Microsoft realizes they can charge for it since there's no competition.
Microsoft charges for it, and since no one else does the same thing for any cheaper, people accept it.
7th gen roles around. Sony and Nintendo attempt to combat it by making their services free.
People still are paying for Xbox Live because they're accustomed to it, and it was arguably more featured.
8th gen rolls around and Sony realizes that people would probably be willing to pay for it on Playstation if they gave gamers some incentives to do so, and slowly works up to doing so.
Nintendo realizes their online is not featured enough for people to pay for it, chooses not to.[/B]

Meanwhile, PC gamers can easily pirate games, and many games have free online. PC games had free online for long enough that if a company decided to start charging for it, people wouldn't pay for it, because there are other, free options.

TL;DR:
Online PC games have always had free competition, so aside from MMOs, paid online services are quickly rejected by consumers.
Online console games didn't really have free competition when they started up, so Microsoft was able to capitalize on that and make a shit ton of money. Then Sony realized they could probably do the same thing.
Click to expand...


Source for this? When did Nintendo say this?
 
A

Anion

Member
TAJ said:
Enjoy those free (until MS drops Live support for 360 like they did Xbox) games that only have $0.25 cent trade-in value at Gamestop.
Click to expand...

You still have them (and can play them) even if Xbox live for 360 shuts down...
 
A

Arklite

Member
Because we accepted the pay walls. The bigger joke is that MSoft actually tried to charge PC users for Games For Windows Live. A perfect case of having their heads fully up their asses.
 
H

Hatchtag

Banned
Lizardus said:
Source for this? When did Nintendo say this?
Click to expand...

They never did, I'm basically just taking a stab at what they were probably thinking when they made the consoles. Microsoft never said they made Xbox Live just to make money, Sony never said they realized they could copy Xbox Live and make money, and Nintendo never said their online wasn't featured enough that people would pay for it. But I'm just inferring that, essentially, these were the thoughts going through their heads while making the eighth gen systems.
 
T

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Agent AA1 said:
You still have them (and can play them) even if Xbox live for 360 shuts down...
Click to expand...

If you bought them on that console or used the license transfer tool and that console and HDD hold out and you didn't delete them, sure. Beyond that, we'll see.
 
F

Frayne Daddy

Banned
Because we accepted it as the norm and it is what it is. We pay for the companies to pay more attention to the console version of games while majority of the time PC ports are put on the back burner when it comes to updates and content.

But it is funny when you think about how console gamers pay for a service like we get. I feel my $30-40 a year is justified.
 
L

Lizardus

Member
Hatchtag said:
They never did, I'm basically just taking a stab at what they were probably thinking when they made the consoles. Microsoft never said they made Xbox Live just to make money, Sony never said they realized they could copy Xbox Live and make money, and Nintendo never said their online wasn't featured enough that people would pay for it. But I'm just inferring that, essentially, these were the thoughts going through their heads while making the eighth gen systems.
Click to expand...

You made it sound like you had some cold hard facts :)

They couldn't have not charged for online because they don't believe in it?
 
K

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
To be fair (?) Xbox Live was a standard setting service, and MS did invest in its design and engineering. But even so, they pulled a mindjob when you get down to it. And truth be told, they never did really greatly increase the value of what you were paying for - you're not getting that much more today than in 2005. The value proposition of XBL Gold hasn't stayed competitive with what PS+ has become.

I don't like Sony putting online play on PS4 behind a paywall. From a purely principled point of view, I think it's low and taking advantage of a platform launch to hold people hostage with hot online launch titles. On the other hand it's hard to fault the rest of Plus as a service. There's way too many freebies, too much of a game collection of non-trivial software, and too much of a discount for bargain shoppers on digital purchases.
 
A

Alphahawk

Member
Hatchtag said:
Microsoft is first to make online multiplayer on consoles a major feature.
Microsoft realizes they can charge for it since there's no competition.
Microsoft charges for it, and since no one else does the same thing for any cheaper, people accept it.
7th gen roles around. Sony and Nintendo attempt to combat it by making their services free.
People still are paying for Xbox Live because they're accustomed to it, and it was arguably more featured.
8th gen rolls around and Sony realizes that people would probably be willing to pay for it on Playstation if they gave gamers some incentives to do so, and slowly works up to doing so.
Nintendo realizes their online is not featured enough for people to pay for it, chooses not to.

Meanwhile, PC gamers can easily pirate games, and many games have free online. PC games had free online for long enough that if a company decided to start charging for it, people wouldn't pay for it, because there are other, free options.

TL;DR:
Online PC games have always had free competition, so aside from MMOs, paid online services are quickly rejected by consumers.
Online console games didn't really have free competition when they started up, so Microsoft was able to capitalize on that and make a shit ton of money. Then Sony realized they could probably do the same thing.
Click to expand...

The idea that these services "choose" to charge is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Xbox Live and PSN are both complex services that require several employees to operate. Sony has outright said that they are charging for online play now, because they need the money to keep the service going.
 
A

Atomski

Member
Seagoon said:
Valve / EA / Ubisoft etc. make their services free on the PC. Microsoft and Sony charge for theirs.

Why is this? all services make use of large server infrastructure, bandwidth etc. Is it down to the closed shop nature of consoles locking customers into paying, or are these services something MS and Sony could afford to offer for free?
Click to expand...

Im sure MS makes more than enough money on ads to pay for their online services. They also make enough money off of the console tax that developers have to pay to sell games on their systems.

It all comes down to them being corporations all about making money. If people will pay for these services without question then why not charge?

I think Valve knows PC gamers have had these features for so long that they could no way get away with it. But a console.. you buy one and some games and you want to play with friends and you have no choice but to pay to do that. Its dirty..

Alphahawk said:
The idea that these services "choose" to charge is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Xbox Live and PSN are both complex services that require several employees to operate. Sony has outright said that they are charging for online play now, because they need the money to keep the service going.
Click to expand...


Haha come on! you seriously dont think MS or Sony makes a enough income on ads and game tax to have P2P servers? seriously?

How does Valve afford their servers and services?
 
D

Daingurse

Member
Console gamers bought themselves into it. They charge, because at this point they can get away with it. If at any point, you paid for Xbox Live . . . yeah it's partly your fault. We all share this burden collectively now, it's bullshit, but I don't mind PS+ as I already had it before PS4 dropped. Paywalls are still bullshit, but we're good and fucked now.

ixS9k9AvS2iS8.gif


Nothing stops this money-train.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Xbox's automated 'moderation' systems need to be scrapped. Microsoft has fired thousands of customer service employees, and replaced them with AI
Opinion News Drama 2
93
6K
StereoVsn replied
Epic Online Services expands free crossplay overlay from PC to consoles
Game Dev
2
699
DemonGamerTTT replied
[Jez Corden] If Microsoft really IS bringing Steam, Epic Game Store, etc. to Xbox consoles, it needs to answer these big questions
2 3 4
155
7K
sachos replied
Microsoft concession a gamechanger that will promote competition - CMA
2 3
142
9K
graywolf323 replied
Phil Spencer says most publishers take advantage of the success of old franchises over risking something new
Game Dev 2 3
120
7K
Mephisto40 replied
Top Bottom