IlludiumQ36
Member
In this regard, they're following in the footsteps of Nintendo & Apple.H_Prestige said:
-
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.
Annual Xbox Live Sales Top $1 Billion
- Thread starter Pooya
- Start date
The thing is, PS3/PSN lags behind 360 for reasons that don't require a monthly cost to maintain; mainly a poor interface. That might where some of the salt over paying a fee is coming from.
I'm a new 360 owner, coming from years of PS3. I came to appreciate a lot of the little things live offers in terms of features and interface. It's definitely markedly superior in those areas.
The justification by MS to charge a fee is to maintain online play; but the thing is though, it's not the actual online play that makes Gold worth it; it's the interface and feature set, things that are already mostly done and require little upkeep.
I have SSF4 on both PS3 and 360. Outside of better matchmaking on 360 (which may have something to do with more players being on 360) the online play feels identical to me on both platforms in terms of lag and delay. One is free, the other is not.
Hats off to MS for laying an excellent foundation to justify the cost of an ongoing subscription. Sony is probably jealous as hell, which is probably why they cobbled together Plus to try to siphon more money from their PSN members.
I'm a new 360 owner, coming from years of PS3. I came to appreciate a lot of the little things live offers in terms of features and interface. It's definitely markedly superior in those areas.
The justification by MS to charge a fee is to maintain online play; but the thing is though, it's not the actual online play that makes Gold worth it; it's the interface and feature set, things that are already mostly done and require little upkeep.
I have SSF4 on both PS3 and 360. Outside of better matchmaking on 360 (which may have something to do with more players being on 360) the online play feels identical to me on both platforms in terms of lag and delay. One is free, the other is not.
Hats off to MS for laying an excellent foundation to justify the cost of an ongoing subscription. Sony is probably jealous as hell, which is probably why they cobbled together Plus to try to siphon more money from their PSN members.
Beer Monkey
Member
chixdiggit said:
You can actually get motion control.
If you want to be REALLY general, you can probably try to argue that PC has all 'experiences', but is missing tons of specific experiences that should not be missed (note that I said experiences, not genres). Sure, I can play an ancient Metal Gear game, but I can't play the cinematic marvel that is MGS4. I can play Tomb Raider, but I can't play the superior Uncharted. There are sort of shooter/action games, but there's nothing like Crackdown co-op. Several open-source rhythm games, but nothing that compares to the audio/visual experience of Rock Band Beatles or DJ Hero. What is like Mario Galaxy on PC? What in the PC space is an exact match for the experiences offered by stuff like Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio, No More Heroes, Rez, Phoenix Wright, and so on? When will I play Child of Eden on my desktop (not talking about the motion control)? And please don't use the emulation argument as you often have to wait for years and deal with all kinds of bugs.
Why do you have all three consoles if you feel they aren't offering you experiences that you can't get on PC?
Conversely, PC whips up in the WRPG space, the RTS space, the flight and driving sim space, and so on. Tons of unique games that are either completely unavailable on consoles or that just don't deliver the same experience on consoles because they don't play as well there.
Domino Theory
Crystal Dynamics
Interfectum said:
It's called Business.
Deal with it.
What I want to know is, why does it bother people that I happily pay (about $30 because I buy the time cards on sale) money every year for XBOX live and then congratulate Microsoft on their success? I feel like they have spent my money wisely in continuing to improve and refine their system and I'm glad they have more resources to keep doing it.
chixdiggit
Member
Beer Monkey said:
I thought you were talking about features and capabilities not about the games.
And yea, I have the consoles for games I can not get on the PC.
Vinci said:
Gamers that play online multiplayer games are getting more out of Live than ones that like to play single player games or don't care too much about online gaming.
The argument is coming from individuals that can't really see the value in the service from another gamer's perspective.
Just like all arguments that ever take place. Muahaha
Beer Monkey
Member
Teetris said:
Bobby thinks CoD is HBO when it is really ESPN.
Domino Theory said:
Not only this, but it has been smart business. The actual paying base has grown by leaps and bounds this generation while the same arguments have been made about paying for the whole "p2p" based service since the at least the start of this gen. So yes, 12.5 million give or take are actually voting with their wallets. They keep adding features and content to the service every year that the $30 or so I pay a year really is small potatoes in my eyes. Obviously they have stated this is a high margin business and this will only grow as the generation continues and their overall base grows. Still they have to continue to evolve the service as it is far from perfect and there are still many areas they can improve upon and likely will improve upon. The transition for Live from this gen to next is going to be really interesting.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
XBL is starting to be like cable tv. It's a pay to use service overloaded with advertisements. And like cable, I wouldn't be surprised if there's enough revenue generated by advertisements to pay for the service 3 times over. I got rid of my cable because I don't believe in paying to watch commercials. When a good enough alternative to XBL comes I'll probably cancel my XBL script.
Beer Monkey
Member
Vinci said:
No way is Microsoft or Sony is going to allow pandora's box to open and have individual games charging monthly access fees unless they are MMO. And MMO shooters are an unproven paradigm.
Beer Monkey said:
Why is there a discrepancy between a MMO and any other game? MS and Sony both allow DLC. If Activision says, "Hey, we're making a COD Online for both your systems, you'll get X% of whatever we make on the subscription fees, etc.," you really think Sony and MS are going to say no?
The fact that they're an 'unproven paradigm' has nothing to do with this.
Beer Monkey
Member
Vinci said:
Yes. It would open the floodgates, they would have to allow every game to charge, and the goose that lays golden eggs will be killed as the gamers become alienated.
Bobby knows that MS and Sony will fight this and this is why he is begging PC makers to make PCs that compete in the console space.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
Beer Monkey said:
Kinda of like Live and DLC?
Beer Monkey
Member
PopcornMegaphone said:
Do you honestly not see the difference between the option of buying DLC and being forced to pay monthly per-title access?
Beer Monkey
Member
Vinci said:
Online gamers I know play several titles online. If all of a sudden they are paying $10-$25 a month to keep playing they are going to be EXTREMELY alienated. I can't see any chance of this flying unless the price is really, really low (50 cents a month per game?). Hell, I'm willing to pay a couple of bucks a month for ALL my online console gaming, but if they start charging per title I'm headed straight to PC for all my online gaming (where I will apparently not be playing CoD).
SuperSonic1305
Member
I pay $60 a year for XBL and half the features aren't even available in my country. I love Microsoft.
Vinci said:
I doubt that a subscription service will work unless a) it is dirt cheap, and b) it includes access to real content.
We generally pay $3-$4 per month for the entire service. I personally wouldn't add another $10 per month just to play one game. I'd go play a different game. Live justifies its price. That scenario definitely would not.
SYNTAX182 said:
I don't think he'll have a choice. They're closed platforms. Sony and MS say yes or they don't. Kotick isn't likely to go running back to PCs with the series after all this.
And Beer Monkey, not every game is going to turn subscription based. Just like not every RPG has been turned into a MMO following WoW's success. Hell, the only reason COD is being considered is due to its massive popularity.
RedStep said:
It'll be under $10 per month. I originally figured $7.95 would be a good price-point for it. And it will include real content, otherwise they lose their subscriptions. Activision has Blizzard in their pocket - you don't think they've seen how this subscription stuff works?
Diablohead
Member
I was just going to say "so why pay?" but I realised that I only have a live account to play with a cousin, a few friends and that's not all that often anyway. Good thing I have about 1.5 years to go before my account expires, all that time for freeSuperSonic1305 said:
charlequin
Banned
Vinci said:
Well: that's basically what you can say about everyone who's ever been in the catbird seat in this industry, right before they make an unforced error and fuck it up completely. :lol
I do agree that, absent a whopper of a screw-up on Microsoft's part, this particular niche of home console gaming is unassailably theirs; I just like to work in a particularly large margin of error for whoppers.
whatsinaname
Member
Beer Monkey said:
And what is the difference between paying monthly per-title access and monthly all-title access?
Either way, it boils down to the fact that you have to pay money to play online. I could understand if playing online was free but added features like cross-game voice chat was something you payed for.
Something about paying 300$ for a console, 60$ for a game and having to pay some more to play the game online seems off to me. It's basically like saying, this games costs 65$. Why not say that outright?
Disclaimer: I game on the Xbox 360 , PC and PS3, never play online. So this is more of a comment from a neutral observer.
Hot Coldman
Banned
I declare that to be an illegal amout of money!
And the rich get richer! It's called good business, hate it or love it. I myself was an on and off user. It was a good, not great, service. There's defiantly some polices in place I wish they would change, and improvements in overall offerings to be made. Still though, at the moment, it's a consistently better service that what the competition(on consoles) is offering. It's definitely come a long way since the old Xbox days and I seriously doubt PSN(which I currently only use) would have improved as much as it did if it weren't for XBL laying down the groundwork.
The fact some are really upset, or overly joyous, about this news is pretty hilarious, though.
The fact some are really upset, or overly joyous, about this news is pretty hilarious, though.
Beer Monkey
Member
Vinci said:
Yes, gamers will line up to pay $96 a year for access to a single console FPS. :lol
MS and Sony will NOT allow this. And Bobby knows it. That's why he's crying about the 'walled gardens' and pining for 'consoleish' PCs.
Bobby Kotick said:
Read that carefully. Bobby wants all of the CoD players to switch to PC because he knows MS and Sony aren't going to allow him to kill the golden goose.
flyinpiranha
Member
whatsinaname said:
I've played online with my PC, PS3, and 360 and 360 is by far the easiest to get going out of the box and is easily worth the money no matter what the master race says.
The problem with pay per game is subscriptions, people want different games sometimes, etc ... I honestly don't think that 1/2 of the COD players would still play COD if it goes to a pay structure. Completely just a guess but not EVERY COD player is a die-hard, all day playing person. I know a few people just on my friends list that I see playing it once or twice a week or so ... they won't pay. (conjecture and anecdotal, I know!).
A solid monthly unified payment is what I want. I can't think of a single 360, PS3 or even PC (besides MMO's) that I would even pay for with a subscription. Definitely not anything on the market right now.
charlequin
Banned
Beer Monkey said:
Interesting.
To extend this metaphor perhaps past its breaking point, if CoD is ESPN, what is HBO? (Or, for that matter, what's NFL Sunday Ticket?)
Vinci said:
Well, for one thing, because you can't really offer a comparable experience to compete directly with an MMO without monetizing yourself on a monthly basis, whereas it's pretty close to trivial to undercut a Call of Duty with an online fee by, err, releasing a high-quality Call of Duty-alike without one.
DLC, at worst, repurposes game-expenditure dollars that would have gone to other game purchases, but via a medium where Microsoft gets a bigger cut of the total expenditure. Unless it gets so out of hand that the way content is distributed between the retail game and the DLC is innately offensive to a wide swathe of gamers (and despite a few particularly dedicated anti-DLC people on GAF, this has unquestionably not occurred) DLC has no ability to actually hurt the fundamental business model; it's all upside.
Monthly fees for individual games actively disincentivize additional game purchases above and beyond the game-spending money they repurpose by making it in someone's best interest to spend all their time playing the game they're paying the monthly fee of. That's actively counterproductive to the interests of platform holders and Beer Monkey is completely correct in suggesting that neither Sony nor Microsoft would be likely at all to allow this for games that don't provide the type of service that would actually necessitate it.
(Your argument here is basically the "well if people will pay $60 for games, why not $70? If they'll pay $70, why not $80?" of monthly fees. Looking at every popular thing that people pay for now and thinking, "how can I nickel and dime those people for more profit without offering a single bit more value for their money" is not actually a good business strategy basically ever.)
EDIT: Also, per-title fees would create a race-to-the-top condition where no one would ever want to play multiplayer for anything but the best and most popular multiplayer game -- which is good for whoever has that #1 game (Kotick) but terrible for the platforms, whose best interests are served by maintaining as diverse and active a multiplayer ecosystem as is humanly possible.
CozMick said:
I can't speak toward Nintendo's plan, but I think Sony ended up finding their revenue stream with Home and the Store. If those free-to-play MMOs are still coming, that's another place they can pull money from. Until we see actual (updated) numbers, we'll never know, of course, but it's not unreasonable to assume that the market can support two entirely different, competing ways of making money from the install base beyond just games.
charlequin said:
Then titles will be released that don't have subscription fees and are distinctive from the COD Online experience rather than simply mirroring it. I just don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Content is content. Players may retain a subscription to COD Online while they purchase a new FPS that is distinctively different from COD Online and doesn't have fees but might have DLC someday. This is a publisher concern, not necessarily one of the platform holder.
SamBishop said:
Well, from what I recall on some of Nintendo's quotes in the past about online, they want to keep their online free but they have mentioned charging for extra features that doesn't hinder multiplayer modes while updating and revamping their system to be more robust. As for Sony, they already started charging and mimicking Microsoft so there goes that hope.
Beer Monkey
Member
charlequin said:
I'm the first to admit that the metaphor is shaky, but I do see an interesting parallel in that ESPN has worked VERY hard over the last couple of decades making sure that cable providers are NOT charging an extra fee for their channel. They desperately want to be part of a large premium cable package because they are concerned about losing goodwill and customers if all of a sudden people start looking at a $5 charge for ESPN channels on their monthly bill. Activision should be VERY happy to make $500 million on a CoD game without trying to stand out in the online space as an expensive a la carte item each month, but then again we're talking about a company that was dumb enough to chase off the most successful creative talent in the console shooter business. WoW is HBO or Sunday Ticket. It provides a much more unique experience than CoD does, there is no Bad Company or Medal of Honor waiting to eat WoW's lunch. HBO probably isn't the draw that it was during the heyday of The Sopranos and Sex in the City, though their original programming is still really, really strong.
charlequin
Banned
Vinci said:
So your argument is, basically, that current market-leaders and genre-kings will charge dramatically more for precisely the same experience that is available for free now, everyone else in the industry will look at this and know in their heart of hearts that they can't compete, and as a result this approach will only be taken by the games that can completely justify it rather than being loaded into every title in the industry in an effort to capture revenue?
This industry is demonstrably willing to wholeheartedly support business models that fuck everyone but the toppest of the top dogs six ways from Sunday if the alternative is letting a scant few companis self-sort into an unduplicable position of power and profitability. It is completely unbelievable that a per-game multiplayer fee would not play out similarly.
charlequin said:
It hasn't played out that way in the PC space, though. That's my point. WoW is clearly the top dog. Yes, publishers have attempted to create competitive products against WoW. Some have succeeded and do all right, though they're nowhere near WoW - while others haven't and have either backed off from the MMO space or have died. But not everyone making PC games is making a MMO or trying to compete with WoW, yet they still somehow continue to make money.
Why would the same situation not play out in the console space?
Beer Monkey
Member
Vinci said:
The reason why is it is a closed platform, and Sony and MS will decide what is best for their overall business, not what might be best for one of their many, many publishers that share that platform. This is what Apple does with the iPhone and iPad, they decide exactly what content is allowed and how it is allowed to be monetized. The platforms aren't the same, but the overall concept is the same. Look, read the article, Bobby knows this and this is why he is crying. Consoles are not the wild, wild west like PCs are and the platforms will remain very different and many things will not end up playing out the same way.
charlequin
Banned
Vinci said:
Errr, that's exactly how it's played out in the PC space. There are a limited number of genres -- in fact, exactly one -- that can support a monthly fee; in that genre, there's one monumental genre king, with such a severe and unassailable lead that every single title that attempts to go after it directly (i.e. fantasy Dikus) crashes and burns spectacularly; then there are a few weird outliers that manage to cling to life with a particularly unusual premises and gameplay approaches, with everyone else basically staying out of the pool. MMOs are dramatically more top-heavy than most genres because it's inconvenient to play more than one at once and network effects can easily make playing an underpopulated MMO completely pointless.
What you are ignoring here is that the issue is already well-settled in the marketplace about what is "worth" a monthly fee. MMOs manage it because they offer a unique bullet point -- a persistent world offering both synchronous and asynchronous interaction with thousands or millions of other players -- that no other genre does. (They also consistently provide an amount of free content to players as a result of those fees that dwarfs what is provided for games of any other genre.)
Online shooters do not offer any comparable bullet point to make such a fee worthwhile, nor have they changed in any way that makes their current implementation more worthy of such a fee than was previously true. There is nothing about their implementation that justifies such a fee or explains persuasively to people what they are getting for said fee. It is, in basically every way, the equivalent of Bobby just slapping a $100 price on the front of the next Call of Duty because he thinks he can get away with it.
People can whine all they want, but if they don't want to pay, then don't.
I think the fact that there are many people out there who pay to play online on 360, and yet barely if EVER play online for free on the PS3 if they own one also speaks volumes about how far ahead they are.
I barely play any games online on PSWii.
If Nintendo and Sony turned around and started charging, but lifted the quality level to that of Microsofts, I'd pay for those too.
It would be awesome to be able to play Mario Kart with friends, and still chat easily.
I think the fact that there are many people out there who pay to play online on 360, and yet barely if EVER play online for free on the PS3 if they own one also speaks volumes about how far ahead they are.
I barely play any games online on PSWii.
If Nintendo and Sony turned around and started charging, but lifted the quality level to that of Microsofts, I'd pay for those too.
It would be awesome to be able to play Mario Kart with friends, and still chat easily.
CozMick said:
I thought I worded it to indicate an anecdotal example. Sorry if I didn't.
I have many friends with PS3s and 360s (like myself). We all pay for XBL and pay regularly, but none of us really, if ever play online on PS3, despite it being free. I have played some Resistance, Uncharted 2, a dab of Killzone 2, but nothing much really.
I'm sure we're not the only people in this scenario.
Similar threads
- Locked