-
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.
So um.. A Honest Question. Why the F**K MS is charging For Gold on Consoles when its free on PC ??
- Thread starter //DEVIL//
- Start date
You should be careful saying things like that. Those companies monitor this place. No need to give them ideas.
grumpyGamer
Member
I believe most people would pay the steam fee, and justify it by saying its the cost of maintenance, i personally would not pay for it it is stupid.
On pc these days the games are almost all digital even if you buy the cd, you still need to have steam to activate it and internet, or they have some kind of protection against piracy. so basically from that point of view you either buy GOG or you are screwed if you do not have internet for whatever reason.
Pc is way further ahead with the digital protection stuff than consoles are right now, and i hate it because i am a physical collector i hate digital.
Zog
Banned
Agreed, people said Sony and Nintendo wouldn't charge for online play and when it happened people began justifying the cost. The same would happen with PC. There would also be people who dismiss the MSRP of the service because you can always find 'Steam Connect' (patent pending) cards for less than MSRP.
Last edited:
FranXico
Member
Pay-per-play LOL.
And they'll do it without hesitation the moment they learn people would be willing to pay that...
Zog
Banned
...but they will offer discounts if you buy in bulk. 100 plays for $22.50, a 10% discount. 500 plays for $100, a 20% discount.
magnumpy
Member
as a long time PC gamer I absolutely refuse to pay for online. I'm already charged once just for internet service, now what am I supposed to pay an hourly fee just to have the computer? there's also oxygen, how about they charge me 10 cents for every breath I take. also another fee for every blink of my eyeballs.
Zog
Banned
I hope your Steam library is full of single player games.
AdmiralMikey
Member
Actually, I believe such a monetization structure for games like that already exists...
gioGAF
Member
I didn't actually say that Sony/Nintendo are "pro-consumer". I said they had more respect for the customer than MS.
Cross-platform multiplayer: I don't think it makes much sense for Sony to allow this and I believe the only reason MS is allowing it is because of their current position. If the roles were reversed, I am certain MS would not allow it (except with their own Windows ecosystem).
Sony Too® Stuff: One competitor can push the envelope and see how much they can get away with, they can revamp the way a system works, they can prioritize different things. If the consumers respond in an acceptable manner, others will take notice. MS innovated most of those practices, competitors simply followed suit. I can't say that I am happy with the "innovations". EA's Battlefront 2 is a good example for this. It is a shitty move, but if there hadn't been a backlash other competitors would be doing the same exact thing now.
None of these companies are "pro-consumer", all of them are "pro-money". MS is just the least desirable in their approach (scam advertisement, squeezing out other competitors by force/bundling, sham partners who either follow MS or are destroyed, smear tactics, etc.)
Last edited:
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
Or you mean that you so blindly hate them that you ignore anything positive that they have done and don't hold other companies to the "standards."
Keep up the good work!
Keep up the good work!
Actually, quite a few PS exclusives are on PC.
//DEVIL//
Member
No. Not from Sony. Not talking about third party exclusives here .
So Gears, Forza and Halo which need XBL Gold to play online. MS is offering a service for $60 a year. PS is offering a service for $60 a year. I don't mind paying for their walled service, same goes for Nintendo. I have a better online experience with PSN and XBL than I do on PC, so that is a choice I am making.
Zog
Banned
Not published by Sony I would imagine.
Dlacy13g
Member
Well, certainly things have gotten better on PC over the past years but I think the reality is more about when XBL was created there was nothing like it in the console space. It was a premium/premiere service.. that introduced good online features all in one place for console gamers. You didn't need 2 or 3 different programs running to get online with friends and play. it gave you online chat, a closed secure network to play on, friends lists to build a community around and store all in one. And to a degree that still holds true... MS doesn't charge PC gamers for it because PC gamers have plenty of work arounds should they choose to and console gamers don't. through competition MS began offering free games to be included for the console paid service as well... PC gamers don't get that so there at least is a perk for console gamers.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
You just admitted MS is more supportive of the gamer and just retreated to they are only doing it because of their current position. That's called an oxymoron. They also seem much more supportive with digital refunds than the other two.
It's amazing how much people hold grudges for years and love to single them out for everything.
chemicals
Member
I don't know why consoles have slipped into this anti-consumer practice. My phone? I get internet over my wifi (which I happily pay for every month). My laptop? (super fast internet connectivity included with my cable internet wifi) Wifi. My desktop beast? I plug the tower directly into my router. I play against other people, I don't get charged extra... yet when I want to play Borderlands 2 online with my daughter who also has the same game on the same freaking console (PS4), we would both have to pay extra.
Arefu
Neo Member
Is it really that anti-consumer when they are giving you hardware that is much stronger than the price point?
Zog
Banned
LOL, Ok. I guess you can justify any fee if you say the hardware is a loss leader. You paid for the console, you paid for the game, you paid for the electricity, the TV and the internet connection. As a bonus you get the privilege of paying Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo to play online with the console and game you bought on your internet connection.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
I guess people who don't pay to play online, they are getting a huge discount on the hardware?
Louis Cyphre
Banned
The hardware is not really subsidized to warrant that. Also think about it, when they get costs down and make a profit on the hardware do they stop charging? Of course not. People can justify it all they want with hardware prices being low or games being offered for free but it's a money grab and they will continue to get away with it because they can. It's walled off unlike on the PC. How can you easily manage tracking all your friends, stats like Achievements/Trophies and invites on a console without it? It's not like they are going to allow any third party to come along and allow you to use it on the console. They are offering a service while blocking others who could do the same thing for less money or even free, it's called capitalism not charity.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
No, your just wrong about the cost of online play subsidizing the hardware.
Funny, because companies in the past have always confirmed that they're selling hardware at cost or below in order to sell you the games. For every game sold, they make money off it even if the consoler maker didn't produce or publish it.
This is how it's been since basically forever.
Now hardware costs are low because they block access to the third party servers and may you pay to get the games to them?
Always with the rationalizing and there will always be an excuse to defend these anti-consumer policies.
It's no different than luggage fees, bag checking fees, taxiing fees, texting fees, and in less than a year, gaming/streaming fees for the fast lane internet speeds from your ISP.
It's nothing but bullshit for a quick buck and you're going to accept it because now they'll itemize it for you, so there will always be more fees to apply later on.
All this shit that we're talking about was already accounted for long ago.
Way back when, probably before you time, games could range in price from 50 to $120. Why more than twice the price? Because it includes 3d hardware in the cart. Why more than $50? Because the cart needed more memory. This is a necessary cost, justified. Adding online/multiplayer to games was always built into the production/budget of a game and they themselves justified it because it extends the life of a game beyond the few months that a game would sell big numbers. Numbers remained more constant, higher, so they continued making [online] multiplayer, until almost every game had it. It was a large attraction.
MS adding a messaging service, buddy lists, and unified ID across all games? They charge extra for that? Yep, you can justify this very well. But to BLOCK access to what developers/publishers already built up themselves? That's bullshit, but here you are rationalizing why they can.
It's nothing more than "they can," and that's why Sony and Nintendo have gotten into it, because they know fans will rationalize it away, defending it from detractors. Plain people, who view it as nothing more than just entertainment are more apathetic to it and say "well, it's only a few bucks and i like to play"
I wasn't talking about online play. I was talking about a straight-up subscription fee just to use Steam at all. But yes, I think most people would leave Steam in favor of free alternatives. The vast majority of Steam users don't have that many games and don't really care about replaying the ones they've already played. They use Steam because it's currently the best platform but if Valve starts charging money, that changes things entirely. People are cheap. When given the choice between free or not free, they generally choose free (see the overwhelming success of F2P games for reference). Consoles don't offer that choice so they take whatever's available. Meanwhile, PC has multiple platforms that would love to dominate the market should Steam ever drop the ball. Make no mistake, platforms like Uplay and Origin and GOG would up their game considerably when given such an opportunity.
I'd argue that MS is more sympathetic than Sony this gen. Sony is doing all the shitty stuff that MS did last-gen. Meanwhile, MS has done some pretty cool things like allowing you to play their games on Xbox or Windows 10. Make no mistake, MS is hardly a saint (the Windows Store is utter garbage and there's no reason why DX12 should be exclusive to Windows 10) but they've been more "pro-consumer" than Sony this gen.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Then the anti-trust monopoly stuff comes up again. Microsoft discriminating against 3rd parties. That's probably the most complex scenario.
you honestly think sony and ms monitor a tiny little forum on the internet? you have to be kidding.
Senua
Gold Member
Hilarious.
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
Shooting dogs is no laughing matter. My dog lost his leg last time Microsoft went off the rails. In all seriousness, let's be a bit less antagonizing guys.
I see that you still haven't answered the most important question...
Did Microsoft shoot your dog?
Louis Cyphre
Banned
I really don't get what your point is. We all know Microsoft doesn't have many 1st party titles and once they did this everyone would be asking why do third party charge. Why is Sony charging to play MLB The Show on PS4 but not PS3 and Vita? There is no simple solution and your ignorance to just focus on Microsoft is alarming when very few games of theirs represent all of what is available on the PC to somehow conclude because it's free there it should be free on the Xbox. Now you're just throwing out ideas because you know your argument was never very strong to begin with.
Zog
Banned
Yes it does. It's Sony who charges a fee for online play on the PS4, not any third parties. It's not hypocritical when Capcom doesn't charge for online play on the PC because they also don't charge for online play on the PS4. How is this so hard to understand?
Well, the comment overall was most certainly a joke. But yeah, of course they do. This place has been around for a long time, many insiders posted here before, the press covers this place, and shit, the press would even source this place for stories.
Fox Mulder
Member
I'm never going to play PC games, so the fact that it has free online is irrelevant to me and plenty of people. I buy Live codes on sale, so like $30 a year is nothing really.
I've been fine with paying for Live since like 2007. I could see why Sony people would still be raw since it was a recent change.
I've been fine with paying for Live since like 2007. I could see why Sony people would still be raw since it was a recent change.
Zog
Banned
I said this in post 204: There would also be people who dismiss the MSRP of the service because you can always find 'Steam Connect' (patent pending) cards for less than MSRP.
It's a certainty that people will dismiss the MSRP every time this discussion comes up. I will admit though, the subsidizing the hardware excuse was new to me.
gioGAF
Member
I wouldn't consider this an oxymoron. Personally, I don't think cross platform play is smart at all for many different reasons. The problems it leads to will hurt the consumer experience. It isn't as simple as "let them play".
Sony and Nintendo aren't masters of the online space. They need to focus on their own ecosystems to provide players with the best experience possible. I personally don't think either of them would be too competent at managing the intricacies of cross-platform play. It is much easier to manage a closed system.
I don't hold grudges against any company in particular, I just don't forget past transgressions as easily as you or most other people seem to do (RRD, scratched discs, apps behind paywall, X1 reveal <-- represents MS corporate strategy). The most damning thing is by far the X1 plan, that is how MS sees gaming, that is what they want, that is what their ideal future holds. I don't want to "rent" games. The option to buy or rent should always be there. However, the word "option" is not in MS's vocabulary.
trufflepigg
Member
simple answer is because we let them do it, we pay for it, they keep charging us. Try it on PC, nobody will pay for it, so they don't charge for it.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
That's odd, you can buy the physical games. Game Pass is indeed an option. You're whole speech is unfounded and again just bias. I don't care what you think they will do.
Zog
Banned
I almost want Steam to try and charge for online play just to prove that most PC gamers will roll over and pay it.
Similar threads
- Locked