Support NeoGAF

[prag16]

It is annoying and the reason I have not gotten another console since my ps3. I was gonna get a switch to compliment my 3ds but that paid online is a no go.

Realistically, I hope one of the competitors like say ms just gets rid of the fee and forces the other to go through with it. Sony won't even think about it at the moment and nintendo seems to be contemplating but ultimately they will charge as well.

Would not surprise me one bit to see MSFT phase it out at some point. Windows 10 users are already getting Live Gold type features for free.

 

[Radec]

Hey atleast online pass didn't survived last gen.

I remember my Resistance 3 game has that shit.

 

[The Artisan]

How I do it is easy: I don't.

I was part of the problem tho since I paid for XBL in 7th gen.

i feel like you won't get the most out of your console if you don't have the online subscription for it.

 

[dsk1210]

Would not surprise me one bit to see MSFT phase it out at some point. Windows 10 users are already getting Live Gold type features for free.

Microsoft were the first to implement the paid subscription model and tried to do it on PC with tremdous forceback.

They are not taking away that gravy train.

 

[ArtHands]

As it has already been pointed out, the console manufacturers don't pay for upkeep of game servers, nothing goes to any developers except maybe the first party. Everything Steam, Origin, GOG or Uplay do is derived from a cut of game sales.

Yah. The console manufacturers are earning via console sales and 30% cut from 3rd party game sales. And also this online gaming fee

 

[zerokoolpsx]

It really boils down to if its worth it to keep it.

Once they price hiked it and didn't add any other feature, there was just less incentive to keep resubbing. Even easier if you don't play multiplayer as much. Only thing I miss is the cloud saves.

If my friends needed one more for a heist on GTA V, I gotta resub. It is, what it is.

 

[Gravy Boat]

You're one of the very few people I've ever seen use the phrase "watch a free show on Netflix". You and the other handful of people I've seen say this only do so in the context of defending the people who say the games that come with PSN are free.

It's just a bizarre phrase, like something a paid spokesperson would say.

I’m defiending them because anyone who brings up the whole ‘they’re not really free’ point is just being pedantic in lieu of having an actual point to make. Everyone knows what people mean when they say ‘free games’. They know they’re not really free, you’re just pointlessly arguing semantics. It’s such a tired old argument that doesn’t lead anywhere.

Edit: After posting this I’ve just seen someone refer to them as ‘free ‘games’ while criticising PS+, so there goes your ‘only the defenders’ nonsense.

 

[Tapejara]

you did not pay for the servers, matinence and other things that sony and microsoft have to provide.

it’s not a scam, you can buy things you have to buy other things to fully access.

Okay, so I think some clarification is necessary. First of all, no matter what platform you're on, publishers and developers tend to run their own servers. If I want to play Rainbow Six Siege on PS4, Xbox or PC, I'm playing on Ubisoft's servers. If I'm playing Overwatch, I'm using Blizzard's servers. Call of Duty and Destiny? Activision's servers. Battlefield and Titanfall? EA's servers. Indie devs might go for player-to-player connections depending on budget. While it is true that some PC games allow you to host your own servers, this isn't the case for the big budget releases anymore. I can't host my own Overwatch, Titanfall, or Rainbow Six Siege server, for example. I played Rising Storm 2 recently, which let me. CSGO does too, but if I want to play the competitive mode I have to use Valve's servers. Call of Duty Black Ops 3 added player owned servers just last year, but most people play on the Activision run servers.

Sony and Microsoft do provide services like friendslists, universal player IDs, and party chat, but these are also services that Valve provides as well. The majority of Steam multiplayer games will use Steamworks to pull the same data, such as Rising Storm 2, various Call of Duty games, Dark Souls, Bethersda and 2K titles, and PUBG (which uses it for friendlists, etc). The only exceptions are of course games that aren't on Steam, or those that require you to set up a third party account (Ubisoft titles).

Microsoft and Sony don't need your $60 to run their service. Valve offers the same services for free. Sony and Nintendo used to offer the same services for free. The only reason they're charging for it is because we told them we're happy to pay for it.

and your anecdote is wrong. you have access to the game without paying the fee just not all of it. I can’t access ps4 pro features on my ps4 slim even though I already paid for the game. I’d have to pay again for a new console. I can buy a TV and use it for physical media, is it ridiculous that I can’t access the netflix app pre installed until I pay netflix and the cable company for internet? I’ve already paid for the netflix app!

it’s wonderful that on PC gamers can have their own servers or developers subsidize the service, but it’s not a scam that console makers don’t.

We're talking about having to pay a charge to use something you already paid for. Saying "I can't access PS4 Pro features on my slim" is a bad example because you didn't pay for a PS4 Pro, you paid for a PS4 slim. Now if you bought a PS4 Pro and had to pay an extra $60 a year to use the extra power otherwise it functions like a slim, that would be a more accurate comparison. Because you bought a full game, and can't use half of it without paying $60 a year.

"I can buy a TV and use it for physical media, why can't I use it for Netflitx!" Because Netflix is very obviously a separate service, whereas online used to be a free service that is now being charged for. Also, it's a free app whether it's pre-installed or not.

"Why do I have to pay my internet company to use Netflix!?" Because you're paying for a utility. This would be like people complaining that they need to pay their power bill to turn on their console, or pay their internet bill to play online multiplayer.

 

[bugulu]

Lets not forget that to reap the full benefit of PS plus you need to have all 3 PS machines....and they probably haven't heard of stuffs like Humble Bundle.

You seem to be assuming that people who pay for PS Plus don't have access to a gaming rig. You might be right, or you might be wrong, I would lean toward the latter option.

Perhaps people can afford both setting up a gaming PC and also purchased several consoles to enjoy both sides? I understand people that are nitpicking about the price, seeing as they don't have the financial status to be able to afford something that cost a few dollars a month. But if that's the case and their wallet suffers from such a miniscule cost, they ought to reconsider just sticking toward PC and getting hold of their games in less legal and ethical manners.

Or is it just nitpicking for the sake of being able to nitpick?

Is paying for online access a bad business model? In a financial standpoint, it's a brilliant move. But with regards to their consumers? Not so much.
But once again, cost is so trivial compared to other daily expenses.

 

[CadetMahoney]

PC gaming has really spoiled me. I think it's possible for the console makers to do an online service that appeals to me enough to pay for it, but it just hasn't happened yet.

Yea me too. It's just real off-putting paying for online multiplayer.

 

[Castorp]

How the fuck do you all do it? And how the fuck do they get away with charging for one of the most basic features of the internet?

I don't, and i wait everyone to do the same, for they stop charging for online. Meanwhile, i play on PC.

 

[Durante]

Well, blame PC players who made this "scam" happen. MMO genre on PC was a trojan horse, where you need paid monthly "for delivering your food", not XBL and PSN.

I'm sorry, but that's an inane comparison. MMOs on PC, especially at the time they first appeared, actually required unprecedented ongoing infrastructure investment -- without continuously taking 30% of all transactions made on a platform. Particularly since at that point things like microtransactions were unheard of.

The true "online paywall" -- as in a game is not allowed to offer P2P multiplayer without first checking an arbitrary system flag to see if the player has paid up -- is entirely a console innovation.

Perhaps people can afford both setting up a gaming PC and also purchased several consoles to enjoy both sides? I understand people that are nitpicking about the price, seeing as they don't have the financial status to be able to afford something that cost a few dollars a month

I could certainly afford to, rather easily in fact. Have you heard of "principles"?

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Perhaps people can afford both setting up a gaming PC and also purchased several consoles to enjoy both sides? I understand people that are nitpicking about the price, seeing as they don't have the financial status to be able to afford something that cost a few dollars a month. But if that's the case and their wallet suffers from such a miniscule cost, they ought to reconsider just sticking toward PC and getting hold of their games in less legal and ethical manners.

Sometimes its not about money, but about principle? I paid for PS+, I can easily afford my PC, PS4, Switch and I still dont see why I should pay to use my own connection (P2P) to be able to play online.

 

[bugulu]

I'm sorry, but that's an inane comparison. MMOs on PC, especially at the time they first appeared, actually required unprecedented ongoing infrastructure investment -- without continuously taking 30% of all transactions made on a platform. Particularly since at that point things like microtransactions were unheard of.

The true "online paywall" -- as in a game is not allowed to offer P2P multiplayer without first checking an arbitrary system flag to see if the player has paid up -- is entirely a console innovation.

I could certainly afford to, rather easily in fact. Have you heard of "principles"?

Sometimes its not about money, but about principle? I paid for PS+, I can easily afford my PC, PS4, Switch and I still dont see why I should pay to use my own connection (P2P) to be able to play online.

Principles are fine and dandy, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't want to pay for the subscription, that's certainly fine and your choice. But there are also those that chose to actually pay the fee, and that's within their rights as well.

Where things are going wrong is when do-gooders are attempting to enforce their principals, which they believe is the "good" and "correct" option, on those that don't share their mindset.
This thread here is a prime example of the latter case where blaming lies on those that choose to pay for the subscription.

If people want to take a stand on things, they should consider putting in the effort into things that actually matter. A PS plus subscription is trivial and is a mere drop in the ocean when there are far more concerning matters that actually affect people's lives.

Note that most don't pay for the subscription anyway. According to Sony, there are 20 million PS Plus subscribers out of 60 million active Playstation users. The majority don't pay for the service as it wouldn't benefit them, only a portion of that is probably those users that would want it but can't justify paying the price just for mere online access.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Where things are going wrong is when do-gooders are attempting to enforce their principals, which they believe is the "good" and "correct" option, on those that don't share their mindset.
This thread here is a prime example of the latter case where blaming lies on those that choose to pay for the subscription.

I am not blaming anyone for paying it. I did it too. I am just saying that its not consumer-friendly of Sony to let you pay to play online if its a P2P online game because essentially you are using your own connection to play and the only connection to the PSN servers is the check whether you have PS+ or not.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

If they actually know what it means, they wouldn’t call it free. If they know its not free and still call it free, the only logical explanation is when they want to make themselves feel better.

Except it's colloquially referred to as that. The only explanation for nitpicking is to make you feel better having found some small crevice to pick at that's largely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[bugulu]

I am not blaming anyone for paying it. I did it too. I am just saying that its not consumer-friendly of Sony to let you pay to play online if its a P2P online game because essentially you are using your own connection to play and the only connection to the PSN servers is the check whether you have PS+ or not.

You are not doing that. Others are though.

I agree with you. As I pointed out earlier, it's not consumer-friendly, but from a financial standpoint, it's a good revenue of income for them.
I don't like the practice either, but I'm not gonna abort my subscription just for the sake of having principles as I consider it trivial at best.

 

[Rellik]

I am not blaming anyone for paying it. I did it too. I am just saying that its not consumer-friendly of Sony to let you pay to play online if its a P2P online game because essentially you are using your own connection to play and the only connection to the PSN servers is the check whether you have PS+ or not.

And for the special privilege to upload your save file to Sony's special diamond encrusted cloud servers which are personally managed by the highest paid gentleman in all of Japan.

I mean, that's why we pay for access to that while everyone else gives it for free, right?

 

[_Clash_]

Nintendo should do a backflip on the paid service

it's going to slow their gravy train

 

[YohandR]

Nintendo should do a backflip on the paid service

it's going to slow their gravy train

From what has been announced so far, it seems way more affordable than PS+/XboxLive, I don't think it's going to be a real issue.

 

[Spinky]

This is why I repeatedly buy PS+ trials on eBay for like £1.

 

[dragonyeuw]

I understand people that are nitpicking about the price, seeing as they don't have the financial status to be able to afford something that cost a few dollars a month.

Man, what a leap. You think, on a enthusiast board full of people who spend thousands of dollars a year on gaming, that some speaking out against PSN/Live online fees are doing so because they can't afford it?

 

[Fugu]

I'm defiending them because anyone who brings up the whole ‘they're not really free' point is just being pedantic in lieu of having an actual point to make. Everyone knows what people mean when they say ‘free games'. They know they're not really free, you're just pointlessly arguing semantics. It's such a tired old argument that doesn't lead anywhere.

Edit: After posting this I've just seen someone refer to them as ‘free ‘games' while criticising PS+, so there goes your ‘only the defenders' nonsense.

Using the word "free" like that drops a very important distinction between games that are actually free and those that require me to be a subscriber to a thing to get them without paying an additional cost. It's all well and good to presume that a PS4 owner is going to be paying that fee anyway but that doesn't change the fact that you're still paying something.

OpenGlad is an example of a free game. I don't have to pay anything for it. Indeed, because it's released under the GPL it fits a whole lot of other definitions of "free" too, but that's secondary to our main discussion. If we all started using free the way you do, the distinction between something like this - which costs absolutely nothing and takes only seconds to own - and the litany of "free" things that paid subscribers get for being paid subscribers would be lost. I could see how that would be pretty beneficial to the proprietors of subscription services but not anyone else.

I understand people that are nitpicking about the price, seeing as they don't have the financial status to be able to afford something that cost a few dollars a month.

If you're sitting at home on your computer insinuating that people who don't agree with your purchase of PS+ are just poor then it's probably time to log off.

 

[Patch13]

Man, what a leap. You think, on a enthusiast board full of people who spend thousands of dollars a year on gaming, that some speaking out against PSN/Live online fees are doing so because they can't afford it?

There are a lot of unemployed 20 somethings and college students who are into gaming. They might have received the console as a gift, or bought it with the bounty of a summer job. But they might now be cash strapped enough that dropping $60 on a Live/PS+ subscription conflicts with dropping $60 on the new AAA release that everybody is talking about.

Or they might be rich people who are weird about money. I run into a lot of those ...

My hot take is that I wish we actually paid more for services that we use. There'd be fewer shenanigans with loot crates, ads, p2p servers, etc, if it were normal to do the old WoW thing, and pay a chunk of cash upfront, plus a monthly subscription to pay devs for servers and updates. Life is better when the costs are transparently surfaced to the customer.

 

[ToxicPhantom]

The Live fee is not that much. Also, who pays full price for Live? I always find deals for around $35-45/year. There are times I see two years for $80.

Not sure why people get up in arms when Live or PSN service has a cost. It's not new or all of the sudden.

Honestly, $35-45 for the entire year is not that much.

 

[dragonyeuw]

There are a lot of unemployed 20 somethings and college students who are into gaming. They might have received the console as a gift, or bought it with the bounty of a summer job. But they might now be cash strapped enough that dropping $60 on a Live/PS+ subscription conflicts with dropping $60 on the new AAA release that everybody is talking about.

Or they might be rich people who are weird about money. I run into a lot of those ...

.

Sure. But that was a pretty arrogant statement that I responded to. There's plenty of settled 30 and 40 somethings who can afford any console, gaming rig, support all the platforms AND pay for PSN/Live, but may not want to pay for the latter for reasons well stated in this thread. There is absolutely no financial issue preventing me from paying for PSN/Live, and I've subscribed to both. I was an Xbox Live customer from 2003 till about 2014. And my finances (currently) are better now then they were then. I *choose* to no longer pay for those services because I am now into PC gaming and the value is no longer there for me. Surely, the value is there for others and I'm not trying to argue that it's 'right or wrong' either way. It's an individual thing. It was actually Sony charging for Ps4 online, and I was still subbed to Live at the time, that made me really think about the whole thing( shit I have to pay for TWO online subs now??!!). And of course, Nintendo isn't going to leave that money on the table when the others are doing it. Enough of the community has given the loud message that they're willing to pay; as previously stated so was I, clearly. But it was getting into PC gaming and being perfectly satisfied with the free online services that basically killed any existing reason for me to pay Sony/ MS annually for said services. I barely play online as it is, and I don't need to pay a sub in order to access better discounts( Plus and Gold savings) when you've got multiple PC storefronts keeping each other in line as far as pricing.

 

[GSG Flash]

After my PS+ subscription ends at the end of the year, not going to resubscribe. I'll be PC exclusive for multiplayer games.

 

[bill0527]

I see people keep making these comparisons, "bu...bu...but...Steam!!"

Steam has an incredible amount of overhead and cost to run their service. They're just charging someone other than you for it. The game makers are the ones that pay for it because Valve takes such a massive cut. Think about that next time you enter and post in a thread decrying this business model from Valve.

 

[Durante]

I see people keep making these comparisons, "bu...bu...but...Steam!!"

Steam has an incredible amount of overhead and cost to run their service. They're just charging someone other than you for it. The game makers are the ones that pay for it because Valve takes such a massive cut. Think about that next time you enter and post in a thread decrying this business model from Valve.

But Valve doesn't take a bigger cut than any console platform holder (who is then also asking gamers to pay a fee).

 

[Phoenix RISING]

I was NEVER going to pay for console online service, but my son purchased Overwatch for his PS4.

FML

Well this all of reminds me that I need to download Infamous Second Son while it's still free.

 

[bill0527]

But Valve doesn't take a bigger cut than any console platform holder (who is then also asking gamers to pay a fee).

That's another reason why Valve's model is so favorable to gamers.

 

[blue_phazon]

It's insane to me how people think this is a good value proposition considering you'll lose all those "free" games you've piled up during those 7 years as soon as you stop paying the fee, or as they decide to shut down the service.

I don't care about losing the free games 7 years later because I would have already played them.

I don't have enough time to replay old games anymore

 

[Nev]

I see people keep making these comparisons, "bu...bu...but...Steam!!"

Steam has an incredible amount of overhead and cost to run their service. They're just charging someone other than you for it. The game makers are the ones that pay for it because Valve takes such a massive cut. Think about that next time you enter and post in a thread decrying this business model from Valve.

You were already destroyed with just one sentence but anyways.

Think about checking your facts before you enter a thread. Sony and Microsoft get the same cut and they have a paywall that Valve doesn't.

What a poor try.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Would not surprise me one bit to see MSFT phase it out at some point. Windows 10 users are already getting Live Gold type features for free.

It’s a large part of their business on console. I don’t see them giving away that cash tbh.

 

[Patch13]

Sure. But that was a pretty arrogant statement that I responded to. There's plenty of settled 30 and 40 somethings who can afford any console, gaming rig, support all the platforms AND pay for PSN/Live, but may not want to pay for the latter for reasons well stated in this thread. There is absolutely no financial issue preventing me from paying for PSN/Live, and I've subscribed to both.

Fair enough. I've actually let both subscriptions lapse, because my 360 finally got relegated to a shelf in the basement, and even my PS4 is currently feeling sad and ignored due to all the stuff hitting the Switch. It just wouldn't inspire me to post to Neogaf were I to fire up the PS4 for around of something, and have to drop a bit of cash to re-up my sub.

 

[Tapejara]

It’s a large part of their business on console. I don’t see them giving away that cash tbh.

I could see Microsoft offering a revamped Xbox Live Silver with online play at some point. Gold is certainly a reliable revenue stream for them as is, but there was once a time where them putting every Microsoft Studios game on PC, promoting cross-play and implementing a refund system all seemed relatively out of reach. I don't think free online is as likely as those mind you, but Microsoft's been getting increasingly pro-consumer this gen to the point that I wouldn't put it completely out of the question.

I'd definitely keep my Gold sub if they did this, btw.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

But Valve doesn't take a bigger cut than any console platform holder (who is then also asking gamers to pay a fee).

Yeh, instead they pollute Steam with unnecessary bollocks to further their cash cow and refrain for as long as possible from doing anything to actually combat a number of the problems it has. Their cut may be the same but let's not pretend they haven't got shitty practices running alongside the cut from the store they get.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[Forward]

Principles are fine and dandy, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't want to pay for the subscription, that's certainly fine and your choice. But there are also those that chose to actually pay the fee, and that's within their rights as well.

Where things are going wrong is when do-gooders are attempting to enforce their principals, which they believe is the "good" and "correct" option, on those that don't share their mindset.
This thread here is a prime example of the latter case where blaming lies on those that choose to pay for the subscription.

If people want to take a stand on things, they should consider putting in the effort into things that actually matter. A PS plus subscription is trivial and is a mere drop in the ocean when there are far more concerning matters that actually affect people's lives.

Note that most don't pay for the subscription anyway. According to Sony, there are 20 million PS Plus subscribers out of 60 million active Playstation users. The majority don't pay for the service as it wouldn't benefit them, only a portion of that is probably those users that would want it but can't justify paying the price just for mere online access.

Wow, if not WoW.

No. Just... no.

The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the console makers who make it mandatory to pay them to use the internet service connection that one already pays her ISP to provide to her. The connection is already bought and paid for - the console maker adds nothing to the equation, other than hardware that locks the gamer out of a service that she has already paid for. If anything, that is grey theft by the console maker.

This isn't like Meth dealers and junkies. In that equation, it takes two. This is like Meth dealers getting to tell non-Meth addicts that they cannot enjoy their rolled ciggies, that they have already bought both the paper and tobacco for, without paying the Meth dealer for the right to use said paper. It is nefarious, and it is absurd.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Like what?

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums. There are quite a few elements of Steam that are unattractive.

I can't actually tell if you're serious when you suggest Steam hasn't been polluted if you've used it for any length of time.

 

[sleverfunk]

It's bullshit. Growing up with pc gaming, I can't just accept it. Me and my friends have ps4s but none of us pay for online. We always comeback to pc because it's free.

 

[bugulu]

Man, what a leap. You think, on a enthusiast board full of people who spend thousands of dollars a year on gaming, that some speaking out against PSN/Live online fees are doing so because they can't afford it?

If you're sitting at home on your computer insinuating that people who don't agree with your purchase of PS+ are just poor then it's probably time to log off.

Both of you are right; it certainly was a leap.
But I still believe that it's such a trivial cost that it's not worth making a fuss about it.

 

[wonderful103]

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums. There are quite a few elements of Steam that are unattractive.

I can't actually tell if you're serious when you suggest Steam hasn't been polluted if you've used it for any length of time.

The only console maker who I've had good customer support experience with has been Nintendo over the years (and I've owned all brands).

The issues that Steam has certainly doesn't take away from the main point that you're paying for basically *nothing* on consoles.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

The only console maker who I've had good customer support experience with has been Nintendo over the years (and I've owned all brands). The issues that Steam has certainly doesn't take away from the main point that you're paying for basically *nothing* on consoles.

I was saying that Valve is a poor example to hold up when discussing companies having enough money from store cuts without venturing down other, muddier, avenues.

 

[bill0527]

You were already destroyed with just one sentence but anyways.

Think about checking your facts before you enter a thread. Sony and Microsoft get the same cut and they have a paywall that Valve doesn't.

What a poor try.

You have completely and utterly missed my point.

 

[Abilidebob]

I was saying that Valve is a poor example to hold up when discussing companies having enough money from store cuts without venturing down other, muddier, avenues.

Is any of these muddier than not offering refunds for digital purchases?

 

[Armaros]

I see people keep making these comparisons, "bu...bu...but...Steam!!"

Steam has an incredible amount of overhead and cost to run their service. They're just charging someone other than you for it. The game makers are the ones that pay for it because Valve takes such a massive cut. Think about that next time you enter and post in a thread decrying this business model from Valve.

Console holders have the same cut from sales, paid online AND licensing fees to even have a game on their console.

Cards, complete lack of a decent support system, little to no action against ratings abuse for a long time – and even then a band-aid fix, events that now seem to only focus on promoting things that give them more money relative to those they used to do, no consideration for moderation of the store and outsourcing it to players, and developers for the forums. There are quite a few elements of Steam that are unattractive.

I can't actually tell if you're serious when you suggest Steam hasn't been polluted if you've used it for any length of time.

And PSN's paid for cloud saves, lack of any sort of refund system, lack of the ability to change account info, random poor bandwidth for many users is better then your Steam criticisms?

Or how about Sony banning policies? That can lock you out of your purchases?

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Is any of these muddier than not offering refunds for digital purchases?

You keep trying to insinuate that I'm defending the console practice with that post, I'm not. Again, I was saying that Valve is a poor example to hold up when discussing companies having enough money from store cuts without venturing down other, muddier, avenues.

And PSN's paid for cloud saves, lack of any sort of refund system, lack of the ability to change account info, random poor bandwidth for many users is better?

See above. I was disputing the validity of an example.

 

[Armaros]

You keep trying to insinuate that I'm defending the console practice with that post, I'm not. Again, I was saying that Valve is a poor example to hold up when discussing companies having enough money from store cuts without venturing down other, muddier, avenues.


See above. I was disputing the validity of an example.

And you failed and your arguments have been countered many times.

 

[jonscrambler]

I could see Microsoft offering a revamped Xbox Live Silver with online play at some point. .

that's just not happening, it's a cashcow for them now, and prices are only going up

I wish Sony gamers remember what they think of paying to play online in the PS3 days