Gucci Messiah
Banned
This is like swearing off pizza because Little Caesars was the first thing you tasted
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
MGO3 highlights why I can't justify Paid Online
- Thread starter Klossen
- Start date
toddhunter
Member
The feel of better P2P networking.
OP, I'll give you the tip. If you are ever going to judge something in the game industry and are using Konami as your example? It is time to get more data points.
RagingAvatar
Member
Good work using MGO3 as an example.. It's P2P not dedicated servers.. :/
Hamster Plugin
Member
That would be an argument if the quality of the games didn't drop like a stone this year. Sony knows that people don't pay for the games any more, they pay for online play so they don't even need to care. Even the PS3 games were trash this month.
This year we got Rocket League the 20 game, not really worth 50 a year.
That's the point though. What are you paying for in P2P matchmaking. Why does Sony need a fee for that?
The answer is obviously because they can, but it's still shitty.
They should maintain some quality standards.
You can't cselect the games you'll get so, no it doesn't.
I've been all 2015 with PS+ (did it for Bloodborne, which also had a pretty shitty online experience), and so far i've barely played any of the free games.
I'll concede though, YMMV.
Indie games are cheep as fuck though, so you probably might as well buy the couple of ones you care about, and own them forever.
Then, perhaps Sony is providing you the connecting links to Konami so that everything runs 'smoothly'. Without the PSN accounts system, everyone would have to make accounts with Konami. PSN handles any money transactions. PSN integrates with the party system of MGO too. It also handles delivery of all patches for the game. I want to assume PSN also provides barriers for hacking and handles all the player discipline stuff. But I'm teaching at this point.
I don't agree with that at all, the quality of games is still pretty high. I have enjoyed tons of the psn plus games released this year including ones I didn't know what it was until I got it on PS+.
RagingAvatar
Member
Sony don't provide the servers for games.
They provide infrastructure - friends, matchmaking, invites etc.
None of that is actually true. ISP does not provide a physical line, the infrastructure is there regardless, usually made either by the government or a completely separate private enterprise (depending on the country). All your ISP provides is a router that allows you to connect to their service (change the ISP, you need their new router, the line remains the same).
So just like PSN, providing you a "route" to reach Konami from your console.
Sakura
Member
You do not need PS+ in order to get patches, or to make a PSN account, etc.
All you are paying for, is for Sony to go "OK, we will allow you to use your internet connection in order to connect to Konami's servers".
They aren't doing anything. How do you think games on Nintendo platforms, PS3, PC, PS2, etc allow you to play online without a fee...?
People call it a paywall for a reason.
If they want people to pay for a "service" then there should be (better) quality standards in place.
Last gen, MS provided all the servers to matchmake players or to hold the server pools. Sony left it up to developers, which was fair enough, it was free. The cost of XBL last gen wasn't enough to provide dedicated servers to all games simply due to how expensive it is, especially back then. This common platform created a more seamless experience for gamers.¯_(ツ_/¯
Throughout the PS3 generation I was told XBL was a better service and the phrase "you get what you pay for" was used quite a bit, never understood why back then, and nothing has changed that perspective for me.
This gen, MS provide dedi's to all the first party games and subsidise for 3rd party. That justifies the cost to me personally. Sony on the other hand, charge and still provide nothing on that front. Although their costings will probably pay for all the huge game downloads/updates which plague this gen, bandwidth is expensive. They don't have the sheer advantage of already having Azure for example.
Steam games use dedi's, but people pay for their own servers.
Chobel
Member
What are we supposed to find here?
Yeah, I'm gonna need source for the bold. And you know when you payed for the game you actually payed for its dedicated servers, right?
I'm pretty sure no game ever has charged for a friend lists or matchmaking - because that's not things that need that much money to be paid for (assuming P2P of course).
I'm also pretty sure the friend list is free on PSN anyway.
The only value here is the 24 games thing, cloud saves? Make that shit free. Playing online? Make that shit free. Updating in sleep mode? Why the fuck isn't that shit free?
Edit: As said in the post above mine, paying for P2P is a god damn ripoff. I'd be sort of okay with a multi tiered online system though, say P2P games are free to play online and games using dedicated servers require you to pay for the online service. Maybe.
But I'm a longtime PC gamer so I kind of take all of these things for granted most of the time.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
Firstly, blame Microsoft for "setting the standard" of paid online on consoles.
Secondly, while Sony provide the access, it's ultimately up to the developer/publisher to ensure things work on their end because there's no "Sony server", as such, it's Konami's servers. Sony's system is working on the basis you are logged in, online, and able to connect to Konami's servers. MGO2 wasn't any different and it was free online. I'm pretty sure this issue is the same across all consoles, so you can't really blame Microsoft or Sony for Konami's shit servers/netcode. PC will probably be the same.
Secondly, while Sony provide the access, it's ultimately up to the developer/publisher to ensure things work on their end because there's no "Sony server", as such, it's Konami's servers. Sony's system is working on the basis you are logged in, online, and able to connect to Konami's servers. MGO2 wasn't any different and it was free online. I'm pretty sure this issue is the same across all consoles, so you can't really blame Microsoft or Sony for Konami's shit servers/netcode. PC will probably be the same.
Just because it doesn't require PS+ to get patches, doesn't mean your $50 isn't funding patch delivery. I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how online systems work. I pretty sure it's not as simple as a literal 'paywall' on your internet connection to Konami. You asked, "What does PSN do?" and I posted how I think PSN interacts with Konami. But I think you already have your own opinion on the matter. I've put forward my points, I'm pretty sure you've put up yours.
I don't see how you could enforce fixing most of what's in the OP. Micro-transactions, bad decisions such as not re-hosting the game if the host disconnects, lack of people using microphones?
But again, I understand the sentiment, and coming from the ps3 and the pc, I was not super happy when Sony decided to charge for online.
On the other hand, one bad example is not going to make me swear off an entire service which I've found to be worth the annual 49 after playing hours of flawless online in Rocket League and TLOU.
Especially as I got the first through IGC, and the second was cheaper because I was a ps+ member.
fabricated backlash
Member
Yeah no, all the backlog threads would suggest otherwise. Also the often cited: I can't hold all these free games.
XBL and PSPLus lock you into an ecosystem by gating off access to your friends unless you pay.
I just fail to see value in paying for a service that I get elsewhere for free (with more perks like mods, dedicated servers, and equal if not better prices)
Others might, but I can't justify paying for this again. For me it devalues a console as I simply don't buy the excuse that they need to charge for P2P services.
Sakura
Member
If PSN was the same as an ISP then you wouldn't need an ISP to play your PS4 online...
Even if you already had the wire going to your house, how would data get there without an ISP? They are doing a service. Sending the data back and forth on the physical line. Giving you an IP address so you can communicate on the internet. Etc.
Sony is not providing you a route to reach Konami from your console. That's what your internet does.
Sony is allowing you to use your internet to reach Konami.
I didn't ask what PSN does.
I'm asking what you are getting for PS+ service.
If you want someone to pay in order to play online, then it is natural for people to have certain expectations on what they get when they pay.
And come on now. Steam has patches, accounts, etc. Nintendo does too. How on earth do they afford it without a subscription fee?
You could require dedicated servers for one?
Or allow games that are only P2P to be free?
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
I agree update in sleep mode should be free and while cloud saves should prob also be free its more understandable to include in the charge as its something Sony needs to fund.
My point really is that you have to look at the service as a whole and then decide if its a rip off or not. Don't just pick one thing and say they charge £40 for it.
For me its fine because I will play a few of the IGC games each year and like cloud storage etc.
Whether it's a rip off or not, we know why they added online to psplus. It's just money on the table. Microsoft proved people would pay for it so from a business side of things they would be mad to not do it to.
Plus if they are going to do it they need to make all games online be included because if they say p2p doesn't need it then Devs might all use that, and i don't really fancy all online games being p2p again.
You are just not understanding the process...
I am not saying Sony=ISP in all aspects. They are the same in this example of playing a Konami game online.
You cannot access NeoGAF without ISP same as you cannot access MGO3 on PS4 without PSN.
So Sony IS providing a route to reach Konami - go ahead, plug your PS4 into your router, do not connect to PSN and see how you can reach Konami without it.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
All I can say is that if I am paying for XBL or PSN, I would expect dedicated servers. I would also expect dedicated servers to be in my general region and not solely in one area. There are a few exceptions to this, but yeah...
On PC I can download a free to play game and get better dedicated servers more reliably than a high priced game on console that you have to pay to play online, in addition to the retail price. I even recall hearing that blacklight retribution, originally a PC exclusive f2p, when ported to ps4 did not have dedicated servers, while on PC they've never not had them (I played that game in closed beta on PC as well).
Cloud saves on steam (and origin) are also 100% free.
To be fair, this seems like a publisher decision, on whether to have the connection p2p or dedicated. And yet, it doesn't diminish how much it sucks to pay for access to an online service and not really get the benefits you would expect to have (for free if you're playing on PC).
On PC I can download a free to play game and get better dedicated servers more reliably than a high priced game on console that you have to pay to play online, in addition to the retail price. I even recall hearing that blacklight retribution, originally a PC exclusive f2p, when ported to ps4 did not have dedicated servers, while on PC they've never not had them (I played that game in closed beta on PC as well).
Cloud saves on steam (and origin) are also 100% free.
To be fair, this seems like a publisher decision, on whether to have the connection p2p or dedicated. And yet, it doesn't diminish how much it sucks to pay for access to an online service and not really get the benefits you would expect to have (for free if you're playing on PC).
To be honest, I don't know enough about the inner workings of the psn to really understand where Sony's role stops and Konami takes charge.
If the only thing Sony does is allowing you to pass, then sure, make that free.
But crappy netcode/p2p is only one point in OP's grievances list.
neogaffer1
Banned
the whole idea behind xbox live's conception and the reason they charged for it is that j allard had a very specific vision of a world where people could connect with each other over the internet in a very social and deep way that up to that point had yet to be executed upon, and he viewed an online gaming platform as a way to not only unite family and friends together but also unite those people with strangers that may be on the other side of the world in an unprecedented way. in order to do this, they had to sink millions into R&D and set out to create a system that hadn't existed before, while making sure they delivered on a final product that hit all of their self-set goals: safety, consistency, accountability, simplicity, flexibility, fairness, and value. this also required the xbox team to create "the most extravagantly-designed server center in the world" made up of 300 servers--which is really pricey for a service that wasn't going to be used by a lot of people. remember, og xbox sold 20 million units in its lifetime, and how many of those were actually going to go on to xbox live? they sold people on a $50 subscription because they had something nobody else had--some ps2 and gamecube games may have had networking but that was entirely on the publisher and could range from barely working to incredibly smooth, while xbox live promised something that always worked the same across all games thanks to "technical game managers" sent to every publisher to get every game working just right.
in other words, what we have today, a unified global network where the platform holder has created a foundation for games to live upon was prototyped and first designed by microsoft, while it wasn't free for consumers, it was a service worth paying for.
so the idea that ms "tricked" consumers into paying a fee for something they should have had for free and required "no overhead" for ms isn't remotely true.
Didn't GameSpy and Steam already do that years before Live was launched for free even? While less ambitious in scope perhaps, I'd say they were the initial platforms for online gaming. Blizzard's online platform was fairly early launched aswell.
That's not how the internet works. Engineering effort was undertaken to restrict it to PSN subscribers. If you had the IP for a Konami server, you'd be able to ping it, if they're stupid and haven't disabled ICMP anyway...
neogaffer1
Banned
they specifically mention diablo in the article and how it was ruined by cheaters and modders, so they did certain things to prevent that.
steam launched after xbox live, and gamespy was just middleware for game devs, it wasn't very consumer facing and it wasn't anything like ms was doing with xbox live.
I disagree. Many of the IGC games these days are worthless to me. I prefer the arrangement Sony had last gen.
Some years ago Microsoft took me on a tour of the server banks running Xbox Live. And this was for the original Xbox. I can only imagine what they're like for Xbox One.
If you think you're being swindled, I understand it. But if you've seen what I've seen, you know it's absolutely not true.
If you think you're being swindled, I understand it. But if you've seen what I've seen, you know it's absolutely not true.
KojiKnight
Member
test_account
XP-39C²
I'm pretty sure that is just a funny way to say that there are too many games and too little time, and/or that they feel that the value is good. Afterall, the games arent free, you have to pay for the subscription. The backlog threads often contains mention of PC as well (like too many games due to Steam sales and Humble Bundle). But i'm just saying that i doubt people are trying to boost their ego with getting "free" games. If that was the case, there are other alternatives that can do the same, or even better, like PC for example. Or mobile, there you can get thousands up thousands of games without paying a cent
Yeah, you cant play online on Xbox 360/Xbox One and on PS4 with your friends unless you pay (except for Free2Play games on PS4), that is true. But you're locked into those ecosystem regardless of online play costing money or not though. PS3 and Vita also has PS+, but online play is free on those systems. You're still locked intot those ecosystems as well, in the sense that you can only use whats officially offered (unless that its possible to hack the system of course). The same goes for the other systems that i mentioned earlier. Even PC does it to a certain extended, where you have to be within a certain ecosystem (Steam or Origin) to be able to play the many games, unless i'm mistaken.
That is more than fair enough
The value proposition is afterall a subjective thing. Personally, online play being behind PS+ doesnt affect me because i got PS+ for some years before online play was added to it, and i'm satisfied with the service. For those who doesnt care about the other stuff besides online play, it might suck to pay for it though, i can see that.thesuperfunk
Member
So you need PS+ to play MGO on the PS4? ... How does it work on the PS3 then [as I still haven't got round to opening my copy]?
Unknown One
Member
Pretty much. Reason why I only buy single player games on PS4.
Yet Steam exists, for free, while hosting huge amounts of user generated content, again, for free.
The Cartographer
Member
You don't have to pay anything on PS3.
Sumio Mondo
Member
And that's the issue that is going right over people in this topic's heads, by the looks of it, running straight to protect their beloved.
FloorEssence
Neo Member
As opposed to Steam which does all of that for free? While also having features like free name changes
dude wth, ISP is a telecom company, they own the cables, also pay other ISP to use their bandwidth. Why do you think 56k modems used to plug to phone cables?
BibiMaghoo
Member
I don't believe any of the problems listed are the fault of either service that charges for online play...
I would never pay just for that, and thankfully both services offer games for their subscription.
I would never pay just for that, and thankfully both services offer games for their subscription.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Pretty much. I really like MGO's core gameplay, but a lot of its infrastructure is years behind good contemporary online games.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
No one knows, but I don't see them putting MORE effort into a PC version.
http://majornelson.com/2013/10/17/x...osting-to-our-xbox-one-development-community/
I think it came out as free during development but costings on actual launch? Fair to say it's never been used, which is a shame. Although, I understand. It'd cost more to have two separate implementations of a client/server model rather than the same method for two platforms.
No, the cost of the game pays for the people who made the game. You'd be having a laugh if you thought game costings paid for the on-going cost of the infrastructure behind it.
No platform subsidises server cost in the game price. It's not a thing because it's not financially feasible.
family_guy
Member
It really depends on the game. PSN is just a proxy in a way that you have to pay for to access the game's services.
Dick Justice
Banned
Pretty much. No one wants to accept the fact that Sony saw the MS gravy train, and decided that they wanted to board it. Some of the excuses in this thread are laughable.
Unless you know, I don't want those games.