Xbox360 (Paid online): Best online features, almost 0 lag on games
PS3 (free online): Almost 0 online features (no parties was just THE WORST), lot of lag on most games.
Wii (Free Online): 99% of the library was unplayable online. 0 online features (not even voice chat).
This gen:
XboxOne (paid online): Lots of online features, almost 0 lag on games.
PS4 (paid online): Lots of online features, almost 0 lag on games.
WiiU (free online): 0 online features (no parties, no voice chat on most games), games run much better than with Wii but still a LOT of games have a lot of lag (those slow-mo Smash Bros battles on 4 man melee)
It can be just a coincidence...but since the last gen the consoles with paid multiplayer got the best services and features.
Xbox360 (Paid online): Best online features, almost 0 lag on games
PS3 (free online): Almost 0 online features (no parties was just THE WORST), lot of lag on most games.
Wii (Free Online): 99% of the library was unplayable online. 0 online features (not even voice chat).
This gen:
XboxOne (paid online): Lots of online features, almost 0 lag on games.
PS4 (paid online): Lots of online features, almost 0 lag on games.
WiiU (free online): 0 online features (no parties, no voice chat on most games), games run much better than with Wii but still a LOT of games have a lot of lag (those slow-mo Smash Bros battles on 4 man melee)
It can be just a coincidence...but since the last gen the consoles with paid multiplayer got the best services and features.
You and I have completely different experiences of lag and terrible online connectivity on Xbox360 PS3, Wii, PS4, Xbox One, and WiiU - albeit intermetintly concerning connectivity but regularly for latency. Worse still is the amazingly abysmal content download speeds particularly on both new and old gen consoles. It's ridiculous
The only qualitative difference is Party Chat. That's literally it. Write down a feature list for yourself if you don't believe me.
The anecdotal aspect of correlation, is that when every game you play is P2P, is it more or less likely that people willing to pay an extra fee on top of their existing net connection are paying for a decent connection in the first place.
Xbox360 (Paid online): Best online features, almost 0 lag on games PS3 (free online): Almost 0 online features (no parties was just THE WORST), lot of lag on most games.
Wii (Free Online): 99% of the library was unplayable online. 0 online features (not even voice chat).
This gen:
XboxOne (paid online): Lots of online features, almost 0 lag on games.
PS4 (paid online): Lots of online features, almost 0 lag on games. WiiU (free online): 0 online features (no parties, no voice chat on most games), games run much better than with Wii but still a LOT of games have a lot of lag (those slow-mo Smash Bros battles on 4 man melee)
It can be just a coincidence...but since the last gen the consoles with paid multiplayer got the best services and features.
Alright these are simply untrue. PS3 was pretty bearable playing online, it just wasn't as good as 360. Wii was absolutely the same, save Smash Bros... which is a problem with who was making it and not the Wii itself, seeing as Smash 4 still has poor online. Mario Kart Wii/Wii U (heck even DS too) run pretty well, as does Splatoon and as did Super Mario Strikers. On the PS3 side, SFIV still ran pretty well too. I'm not sure where you're drawing your conclusions from
Just a random thought...The fact that Microsoft is not charging PC gamers for online multiplayer on Play Anywhere games is proof to me that they don't need that money to provide the service. The opinion that the money is needed for servers and infrastructure and without it online gaming wouldn't be possible is BS. It would've been cool if MS actually delivered on their cloud promises to add value to the Xbox Live subscription. They said that your Xbox would be 3x as powerful and Xbox Live had the entire computing power of the world from 1999. Those promises never came to fruition but Microsoft still happily charged $60 a year for the service.
I guarantee that if there was another competitor that was just as popular and didn't charge for online multiplayer MS and Sony would follow suit. Sony got away with locking online multiplayer behind PS Plus because everyone was so thankful that they didn't implement the DRM policies that Microsoft was putting on the Xbox One. Most people including myself were singing Sony's praises during that time and didn't notice or care that we now had to pay for online multiplayer.
Free online at this point is just a goodwill service. It can't be a unique selling point. It is comparable to places which don't charge extra for takeaway food, have no service charge, or offer free shipping, maybe free flow of drinks, etc. In the end, while that's all nice to have, the thing that matters most is whether anyone wants the primary service and goods in the first place.
No one is going to give a shit about free online play if their friends are all playing on another system. Just like how the resturant with no service charge will still lose your business if all your friends want to eat somewhere else instead.
Maybe Nintendo should consider charging for online. At the very least, they might be able to subsidize some of that 3rd party support people are always going on about.
Well that's exactly it, when considering what console to buy none of my friends got a 360 for that exact reason. Many of which aren't PC gamers, they just defaulted to the PS3 since it didn't have the extra charge.
No doubt that many just go where their friends are, and this gen many people didn't really have a choice in consoles, but last gen it is really strange to me that the 360 did as well with the service as it did.
Maybe Nintendo should consider charging for online. At the very least, they might be able to subsidize some of that 3rd party support people are always going on about.
Just a random thought...The fact that Microsoft is not charging PC gamers for online multiplayer on Play Anywhere games is proof to me that they don't need that money to provide the service. The opinion that the money is needed for servers and infrastructure and without it online gaming wouldn't be possible is BS. It would've been cool if MS actually delivered on their cloud promises to add value to the Xbox Live subscription. They said that your Xbox would be 3x as powerful and Xbox Live had the entire computing power of the world from 1999. Those promises never came to fruition but Microsoft still happily charged $60 a year for the service.
Microsoft charges for online because they can get away with it. They can't get away with it on PC, so those services are going to stay free. Sure some of those fees will find it's way into network infrastructure, but most of it will go straight into the profit column.
Maybe Nintendo should consider charging for online. At the very least, they might be able to subsidize some of that 3rd party support people are always going on about.
Sadly, they really are leaving money on the table by not doing so. However, Nintendo games are generally not very online oriented so they might just end up ticking off their customers by making such a move.
Just a random thought...The fact that Microsoft is not charging PC gamers for online multiplayer on Play Anywhere games is proof to me that they don't need that money to provide the service. The opinion that the money is needed for servers and infrastructure and without it online gaming wouldn't be possible is BS. It would've been cool if MS actually delivered on their cloud promises to add value to the Xbox Live subscription. They said that your Xbox would be 3x as powerful and Xbox Live had the entire computing power of the world from 1999. Those promises never came to fruition but Microsoft still happily charged $60 a year for the service.
I guarantee that if there was another competitor that was just as popular and didn't charge for online multiplayer MS and Sony would follow suit. Sony got away with locking online multiplayer behind PS Plus because everyone was so thankful that they didn't implement the DRM policies that Microsoft was putting on the Xbox One. Most people including myself were singing Sony's praises during that time and didn't notice or care that we now had to pay for online multiplayer.
It has nothing to do with not needing money. Microsoft is trying to get PC gamers to purchase games on their digital store and they recognize that charging for online for PC games would deter those customers.
I'm about to cave and get PS+. I want to experience what Destiny, and other MP games have to offer. None of my family plays games, and most of my friends are offline single player only gamers.
I had PS+ on the PS3, and stopped the subscription with the PS4. I refused to support paying for something that is free on other platforms.
For me, free online multiplayer totally is a selling point, if not an expectation outright. It's the dealbreaker reason as to why I chose a PS3 over a 360 last gen; and it's a major reason why this gen I only have a Wii U and am really not in a rush to pick up a PS4 (and if I do, I certainly won't be buying into PS+). I speak as someone that doesn't own many online games, but with the few online games that I do have spend a fair amount time playing them with random people/friends. Very grateful Nintendo still provides online services for free, even if it's not as good as XBL and PSN, and I hope they continue to do so on the Switch.
And speaking which, I'm putting a large emphasis on "not as good" because...
Exactly this! Speaking for myself, I'm honestly astounded with the amount of people outright calling the entire PSN's service on the PS3, and everything that goes with it, as "shit", with or without comparison to the Xbox Live. Functionality/maintenance and download speeds (which seems to the most common against it, whatnot with the PSN hack and all) when compared to that of its competitors is one thing (which I can agree with), but PSN as whole being outright terrible...is not an argument I'm inclined to support, to put it mildly.
Saw your other post about PSN being down, crashing on PS4 the first 3 years. XBL seemed to get worse when the XBO came out too. I dont think this gen its because Sony charged for online multi player.
I'm pretty sure his argument is that PSN's service on the PS4 has gotten worse in spite of Sony now charging for online, not because they started charging it. Hence a previously-cited reason in an earlier post in the thread about the frustration not so much relating to having to pay for online itself, rather than whether said service that online play is now tied to is worth paying for.
Which, for as much as the PS3 got flak for its iteration of PSN, I find to pretty hilarious in hindsight, considering the amount of complaints I've seen levied against the PS4's PSN service. Remember the PSN 2.0 / #BetterPSN campaign thread from last year, and the list of requests for various improvements to the service? How much has any of those that have been listed in the OP come to pass ever since the initial campaign push, let alone since Sony raised the cost of PSN in NA back in August this year?
The answer is one--games and apps now being pre-patched, so players no longer have to separately download and patch them.
Personally speaking, I'm not really interested in additional features that PS+ and Xbox Live offers in regards to offering discounts or free games. I actually admired PS+ on the PS3 for offering such deals for people that would interested with that stuff without taking the obvious bait of locking online behind it that Sony later did on the PS4.
Just look at the 180 the Sony faithful did when this was annoucned for PS4. Last gen they were so veyr quick to point out free multi-player (as well they should have been), but immediate rationalization fo rthe yearly fee appeared as soon as Sony annoucned it.
It's also worth noting that at the time online multiplayer was clarified to be locked behind PS Plus, the closest console competitor at the time that could offer a similar experience --the Xbox One in its "DRM" phase-- was almost-universally everyone's favorite whipping boy and pariah.
I'm pretty sure complaints would had been considerably more noticeable if Microsoft hadn't dropped the ball so badly with the Xbox One's reveal. That IMO gave Sony a fair amount of plausible rationalizations for its decision, namely on the basis that having to pay for online was a fair trade-off because the PS4 was still had other major aspects people expected from consoles that the Xbox One was originally going to drop at the time.
The answer is ms and sony have closed systems so they can pretty much do what they want as long as consumers support it (which they do). Some of the included games are pretty good. Really the main reason I paid for plus the last couple of years was for Destiny which I can't get on PC.
On what planet would EA rather sell more PS4 versions than Pc versions? Pc versions bring them nearly 3 times more profit than a consoel retail sale, and nearly twice more for a digitla one, since they have their own digitla store front on PC.
Have they confirmed these numbers? Not disagreeing but that seems pretty high. The digital
Store front costs money to run. I'm sure they also lose sales on PC because their games are no longer available on the biggest platform on PC.
Exactly. These are businesses. It is about making more money, generating growth and so on.
If making online play free would leed to more revenue/profit or a superhuge growth they would do it.
Valve couldn't introduce this because of the open nature of the PC, and they probably would lose money from such an approach at least in the longterm. Their business model is a different one from Sony's and MS's console approach.
MS/Sony charge it, because they can. Someone above posted that Sony would make 1,5 billion a year with 50million ps4s and 50% subscriber rate. Isn't excact (and probably less), as we don't have numbers and don't know costs related to that to provide a network for 20+million users but it shows how much they potentially make from PSN+.
Making PSN+ free would not lead to more revenue for Sony. IMO that is pretty clear (although I can't prove that). So they don't do it. Sure it would be nice if it was free - but that's not how it works. Apple could sell iphones at a loss - and they would still make huge profits. But why should they?
It is not a question that free online isn't a selling point.
Freemium or F2P work very well - but I assume that the current console business model is not at that point to function like this, as their is still an initial investment for the console.
It's not like that with a free PSN+ they could double their hardware sales.
And don't believe that free online wouldn't lead to other monetization models, like for instance ads. Most free services also introduce subscriptions later.
In the end it is always about the money. The tricky part is that customers don't feel ripped of. With more users the subscription rate will probably go down. At some point it will be more profitable to make it free, as more money will be spend on digital sales (especially from those who don't play online at all).
Exactly. These are businesses. It is about making more money, generating growth and so on.
If making online play free would leed to more revenue/profit or a superhuge growth they would do it.
Valve couldn't introduce this because of the open nature of the PC, and they probably would lose money from such an approach at least in the longterm. Their business model is a different one from Sony's and MS's console approach.
MS/Sony charge it, because they can. Someone above posted that Sony would make 1,5 billion a year with 50million ps4s and 50% subscriber rate. Isn't excact (and probably less), as we don't have numbers and don't know costs related to that to provide a network for 20+million users but it shows how much they potentially make from PSN+.
Making PSN+ free would not lead to more revenue for Sony. IMO that is pretty clear (although I can't prove that). So they don't do it. Sure it would be nice if it was free - but that's not how it works. Apple could sell iphones at a loss - and they would still make huge profits. But why should they?
It is not a question that free online isn't a selling point.
Freemium or F2P work very well - but I assume that the current console business model is not at that point to function like this, as their is still an initial investment for the console.
It's not like that with a free PSN+ they could double their hardware sales.
And don't believe that free online wouldn't lead to other monetization models, like for instance ads. Most free services also introduce subscriptions later.
In the end it is always about the money. The tricky part is that customers don't feel ripped of. With more users the subscription rate will probably go down. At some point it will be more profitable to make it free, as more money will be spend on digital sales (especially from those who don't play online at all).
And, once companies get used to making a profit they tend to not decrease prices. They usually increase them. Sony increased the annual subscription of PS Plus from $50 to $60 despite selling the most consoles. And they did this without adding any new features to the service.
MS must have tricked some into thinking they offered free games before PS+. Because they didnt until this gen started. Ppl have been paying for Gold since the 360 launched.
And they offer free 360 games free and clear. Not tied to a subscription.
PS+ is more than free games. Its discounts too. Gold also has discounts.
I see why some mentioned Amazon Prime. Its kinda like that just no free shipping.
Not hosted by Valve, which is the comparison here. It's not a comparison between Playstation and all of PC gaming since the dawn of fucking time. If we're comparing online costs, we're looking at current-gen AAA titles on console and current-gen AAA titles on Steam.
Besides, I mentioned as much above. That's the fucking point. PC multiplayer has been free forever because it's never been under a unified system with a single platform holder holding the keys to dedicated servers. Everyone did their own thing and it was all free ... and everyone continues to do their own thing and it continues to be free. That's literally exactly what I just said...
I'm actually doing the exact opposite and pointing that because of how PC is structured, from the distribution platforms, to the history, to the customer base - it's fundamentally different than how either Microsoft or Sony has structured XBL or PSN. And because of those structural differences, a comparison between the two - specifically in regards to why one is priced as a subscription and the other is free - is fucking stupid.
It's like asking why WoW still has a subscription when 90% of other current MMOs are free. The answer is ... because they can. They have a different market, a different game, a different history, and critical mass. We can all circle-jerk about how great <insert favorite free online MMO> is but does that affect WoW? No. It doesn't. Neither does pining over Valve (and PC's) free online in comparison to consoles.
If it mattered that PC (or Nintendo) was free, PSN and XBL would also be free.
...
In the end it is always about the money. The tricky part is that customers don't feel ripped of. With more users the subscription rate will probably go down. At some point it will be more profitable to make it free, as more money will be spend on digital sales (especially from those who don't play online at all).
And, once companies get used to making a profit they tend to not decrease prices. They usually increase them. Sony increased the annual subscription of PS Plus from $50 to $60 despite selling the most consoles. And they did this without adding any new features to the service.
Theoretically if customers push back and their subscriptions go down, Microsoft and Sony would have to back down. Since that's unlikely to happen, nothing is going to change.
And, once companies get used to making a profit they tend to not decrease prices. They usually increase them. Sony increased the annual subscription of PS Plus from $50 to $60 despite selling the most consoles. And they did this without adding any new features to the service.
Just like with horse armor, give them an inch and they will take a mile. People seemed to complain about the increased price, but they continued paying.
Microsoft tried to charge for live on PC a while ago and no one was having that, so it's free even with their new xbox live on windows 10. PC gamers have options.
Because PS4 is PS+ or no online play unless the game is free to play, I pretty much never play on it now. Another account on my PS4 now has PS+, I could play games online if I wanted to, but after a year I'm sure that PS+ will not be renewed (was a mistake to get it in the first place).
PC is where it's at for me. Free online MP, better graphics, more freedom with the games, modding second to none. Still though, darn you Sony.
Have they confirmed these numbers? Not disagreeing but that seems pretty high. The digital
Store front costs money to run. I'm sure they also lose sales on PC because their games are no longer available on the biggest platform on PC.
The cost of a digital sale on PC for EA Origin is negligible. Bandwidth is pretty much it. The cost of the service itself we don't know, but I doubt it amounts to much per transaction when we're talking abotu milliosn of transactions a quarter. Would be ncie if anyone has numbers.
The cost to EA for a retial console sale = sunk in costs of manufacturing and shipping, reatil's cut, license fee to MS/Sony.
I'd happily wager all my income in the fact that if you were to ask any executive at any large publisher what they'd rather do: sell all of their units on a console retial marketplace, or sell all of their units digitally through their own store, they're going to choose the latter. Every time.
It's a weird statement the one I was repsonding to anyway. Kind of nonsensical, not only becaus eit's obviously fals,e but also, because it doesn't matter. Market realities mean that they need to put their games everywhere.
And, once companies get used to making a profit they tend to not decrease prices. They usually increase them. Sony increased the annual subscription of PS Plus from $50 to $60 despite selling the most consoles. And they did this without adding any new features to the service.
Sure. I'm not saying that this is good for gamers. It is just business.
If Sony can actually raise the price, it is a strong indictication that enough users seem to accept those fees. They wouldn't do this if nobody wants to subscribe.
There are a lot of things to criticize - sure! But as long as enough consumers are willing to accept those fees, those companies will demand them. This is just business. No trickery here.
Doesn't matter If you personally like it or not. Don't subscibe or tell more people to not subscribe and they might change it.
But there is no "why" here. Making more profit is no reason to reduce prices.
That is true for every business.
The only thing that companies have to avoid is a perceived overcharging which would lead eventually to less revenue/profit. Any business will aim for the sweet spot, where the revenue/profit is as high as possible.Could be that this leads to not charging at all or the opposite. Sony and MS are not your friend - they are just businesses.
It's definitely a selling point for me. It's actually a deal breaker for me too.
This is the first time I haven't bought a Playstation since Playstation was invented. I thought I was going to skip this console generation entirely, but then Nintendo decided not to charge for online (I was certain they would) so I ended up getting a Wii U. I'm primarily a PC gamer and there's no way that I could ever be persuading into buying a console that has online behind a paywall (again. Stupid Dead Rising). That being said, I understand why Sony joined the party this generation. I mean... if people are willing to pay a competitor for virtually nothing, how could Sony pass it up? Most of my buddies are like me. We buy all the consoles, tons of games, and all the other video game related bullshit out there. This generation was the end for me but some of my friends (which have really nice rigs) still picked up the One and the 4! Still blows my mind. My battlefield crew offered to buy me a PS4 so that I would join them (instead of using our way better PCs for some reason) but I declined because I knew I was still going to have to spend $200 or $300 just to be able to play the damn thing. Fuck that bullshit.
You know how many PC games I can get for $300 dollars? Lots. Lol.
Anywho, yeah, my PS+ lapsed and it has been a deal breaker for me as well; $60 on top of a game(s) to get that up and running to get my n00b ass beaten down till I git gud? Hrmmm.
Oddly enough, I'm perfectly fine with MMO subs provided the MMO is worth beans to begin with.
Anywho, yeah, my PS+ lapsed and it has been a deal breaker for me as well; $60 on top of a game(s) to get that up and running to get my n00b ass beaten down till I git gud? Hrmmm.
Oddly enough, I'm perfectly fine with MMO subs provided the MMO is worth beans to begin with.
