-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Prediction: Pay to Play Fees will Force Hardcore Gamers to Choose A Side
- Thread starter Liberty4all
- Start date
Fonz72
Member
I payed and played both sides this generation, albeit quite late (2010) on the 360. It is really not that much of an investment. Even if you pay full price for each membership (which you would be crazy to do after the first year) it is only the price of two games new games. Factor in the games you get from PS+ and that pretty much negates the price.
No offense to anyone's financial situation, but if the cost of a $60 online subscription is what keeps you from buying both consoles you probably shouldn't spend the extra $400-500 anyway.
No offense to anyone's financial situation, but if the cost of a $60 online subscription is what keeps you from buying both consoles you probably shouldn't spend the extra $400-500 anyway.
disastermouse
Banned
This is what gets me wondering too. Heck, I'm not getting an Xbone right off the bat, but I'll probably get TESO and gladly pay $15/month if it's a worthwhile MMO, so an XBL script won't exactly kill me when I eventually get one.
Because you're thinking about this with the logic of only paying the 3-5 monthly.
It's $50 up front. Some people don't have the $50 right now, and would rather not save money each month to purchase it at the end of the year.
Not to mention (from my end), lots of other monthly fees that I'm paying already make me not want to pay for two different vidyagame subscriptions
tokyostomp
Banned
Plus has a much better value. you get discounts, "rentals" etc.
X-Box is doing the free with gold games, now...but it's a not a ongoing thing to compete with Plus.
I made the mistake of getting 2 consoles last gen. I found myself constantly picking and choosing what multi-plat games I wanted to get on what system (often, it was on both).
I'm sticking with one console this time around, just for easy pick up and play.
Ultimately going to go with PC-based gaming as in the long run it is so much cheaper
X-Box is doing the free with gold games, now...but it's a not a ongoing thing to compete with Plus.
I made the mistake of getting 2 consoles last gen. I found myself constantly picking and choosing what multi-plat games I wanted to get on what system (often, it was on both).
I'm sticking with one console this time around, just for easy pick up and play.
Ultimately going to go with PC-based gaming as in the long run it is so much cheaper
Melchiah
Member
IIRC, the PS4 Plus service is said to provide one game per month, of which some are indies. So, less free games, at least for starters, which is understandable in the beginning of the generation, as we're mostly getting a bit older games now.
Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
Sadly I'm going to have to pay for gold while my friends and I talk on party chat. But even if I was planning on getting a xbone, the sheer value is insane with sony.
NullPointer
Member
Thats what I want to know too. And will MS just raise the bar that much further?
Liberty4all
Banned
I can't think that way. 60 bucks a year times 7 years = 480 dollars.
that's 7 retail titles, a Wii U plus 3 retail titles, or a ps4 plus one retail title, or almost a xbone (haha), ....
its alot of money.
Liberty4all
Banned
*shrug* it is what it is. Plenty of gamers are strictly multiplayer gamers. I made exceptions for stuff like Journey (which I enjoyed 10 times more with coop), but honestly there's nothing wrong with having a preference for mp ... I can only assume the season pass stuff we are seeing is part and parcel a trend of gamers to multiplayer competitive gaming.
akachan ningen
Member
I never paid for gold but I will pay for plus because it has free games and lots more.
Redshirt
Banned
Why would you pay this much?
Amazon sells it every day for $45 ($315), and Newegg sells it at least four times a year via eBay for $35 ($245).
Why should I decide up to a year in advance whether I'm going to want to play multiplayer games, or always pay and then be pissed afterwards because I didn't have time to play? Subscriptions suck.
If you're going to charge for multiplayer, here's how you get me on board: charge me $1 per hour and bill me every half a year for what I actually used, capped to $25 so people who play an hour of multiplayer every week or more will pay the same as before.
Also, they should hand out a bit of free multiplayer time to draw people in, especially if they stick with subscription model. Why not give non-subscribers something like two free hours of multiplayer a month? Then when a non-subscriber picks up a new game, they'd probably at least dip their toes in multiplayer, and might eventually find a reason to start subscribing. It's not just the money; it's also the hassle of having to consider and weigh payment options, having to consider whether you have to remember to cancel or they'll keep charging you, etc. Taken together these are enough to stop most mildly curious people in their tracks.
Ultimately, I think the reason they get away with subscription is that only a tiny minority of people looks at total cost when buying something. When I was buying a console the last time, I pretty much considered the 360 as two separate consoles: a $300 console with no online play, and a $550 console with online play.
If you're going to charge for multiplayer, here's how you get me on board: charge me $1 per hour and bill me every half a year for what I actually used, capped to $25 so people who play an hour of multiplayer every week or more will pay the same as before.
Also, they should hand out a bit of free multiplayer time to draw people in, especially if they stick with subscription model. Why not give non-subscribers something like two free hours of multiplayer a month? Then when a non-subscriber picks up a new game, they'd probably at least dip their toes in multiplayer, and might eventually find a reason to start subscribing. It's not just the money; it's also the hassle of having to consider and weigh payment options, having to consider whether you have to remember to cancel or they'll keep charging you, etc. Taken together these are enough to stop most mildly curious people in their tracks.
Ultimately, I think the reason they get away with subscription is that only a tiny minority of people looks at total cost when buying something. When I was buying a console the last time, I pretty much considered the 360 as two separate consoles: a $300 console with no online play, and a $550 console with online play.
Liberty4all
Banned
Canadians don't get the same deals as the states. With that said, yes I can get it on sale if I try hard enough but between working 40 hours a week and family stuff ... I can't be bothered expending extra energy trying to save a few bucks on a subscription I don't need anyways on a second console I also don't seem to need this gen.
If I'm going to get it I'll go to the store and pay whatever it costs. Which is partly my point ... casual gamers won't scour the internet trying to find a deal on a one year Live sub ... for the average person "it is what it is" and either you pay it or you don't.
And even if I were to find it on sale 7 years in a row, $245 and $315 is alot of money. I don't buy into the "it's only pennies a day". No it's X amount over the life of the console. Which in this case isn't worth it (to me) given that the services are so similar. I'd rather go get a Vita or WiiU with the cash I'm going to save or get more retail titles.
Not to mention it's just another bill I don't need in my life. Everyone's trying to squeeze "just 6 bucks a month!" out of me, that shit adds up.