Paying for online access on consoles

[robertmac43]

I have been thinking about getting Game Pass for Xbox, do people think its worth it?

 

[aleshemsky83]

I have been thinking about getting Game Pass for Xbox, do people think its worth it?

For sure, especially the 3 months for a dollar they're offering. It might still be around.

 

[x Tame Impala]

For sure, especially the 3 months for a dollar they're offering. It might still be around.

I think it’s just “first month for $1” as of now.

 

[LarKing]

I don’t think most people have a problem with it. It’s like $5 a month. Less than Netflix or Hulu and the servers almost never have problems from what I’ve experienced.

Do I wish it were free? Of course but it’s not a bad deal and very low on my list of financial concerns.

 

[Jussi]

If you buy the year subscription it comes out to $5/month for Gold...pay up buttercups.

Depends where you buy it from. I've been on Xbox Live since December 2004 and have never paid full price.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I think it’s just “first month for $1” as of now.

That's common, but there is also a 3 months for a dollar offer out there. I got it.

I don’t think most people have a problem with it. It’s like $5 a month. Less than Netflix or Hulu and the servers almost never have problems from what I’ve experienced.

Do I wish it were free? Of course but it’s not a bad deal and very low on my list of financial concerns.

I guess the question is, what are you paying for? It'd be like if they locked Netflix behind PS plus. Many of these servers are run by the publisher/dev and still locked behind PS plus. I've actually never heard of a server being shutoff where it wasn't done by the publisher/dev.

The free games are nice but they expire once you cancel. Doesn't do much for me. (Actually, a little known thing, any game that has an Xbox 360 or PS3 release never expires when you cancel. But those are few and far between, only ones I have are tales from the borderlands and lumo)

 

[Warden of the North]

I have been thinking about getting Game Pass for Xbox, do people think its worth it?

Depends on your interest. I already owned everything that would make it worth it for me. Halo series, Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Wolfenstein 1/2, Doom 2016, Skyrim off the top of my head. Ive played a few games that I wouldnt have otherwise bought through to completion; Rage 2, Gears 4, Gears 5. I tried a few games which I thought I would like but didnt really, so glad I did (Monster Hunter World, Elder Scrolls Online, ARK, The Outer Worlds).

I'll sign up again when Halo Infinite launches for a month, play through the campaign and then cancel. IMO thats its biggest benefit; first party games available at launch.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I have been thinking about getting Game Pass for Xbox, do people think its worth it?

Absolutely IMO. It's got a ton of great stuff.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I feel like that's kind of a 'high ticket prices are because of player salaries' type argument. If publishers find an extra way to make money of their customers, they'll do it. Static sales prices can be offset by a growing market and increased sales, as the cost is pretty much entirely in the development of the product and not the product themselves. It's also not rocket science here: we expect x sales and will sell the game at y price so therefore our budget is z. And finally I'm highly skeptical of the argument that 'customers will only accept a $60 price tag' when you consider just how much all these extra's balloon the final cost. It's more like if you're going to buy the latest game from one of the big publisher the final pricing model is more like $120 a game.

None of this 'they have to do it because costs'. Publishers are endless trailing after the latest gravy train and right now that's a pseudo SaaS model (Software as a Service) for games, the same direction a lot of software companies have been moving for a while now.

But, ticket prices do rise because cost of business rises like player salaries. I agree, customers do accept a price tag higher than $60 because they do pay more than $60, but people feel like they pay less overall because the costs are segmented instead of being all encompassing. If you breakdown how much it costs to play 2-3 console games per year, it seems way more expensive if they just charge $80+ for each game instead of having the games a bit cheaper at $60 and then charging add-ons for online access and in-game purchases.

Software as a Service and Cloud services carry more costs for the provider than on-prem models. That's why it will cost the customer more over the long-term. Companies prefer SaaS and cloud lately because it eliminates some internal risks for them and allows IT professionals to focus on areas that enhance the company's performance instead of focusing on just keeping the lights on and everything running. It's really not comparable to the consumer gaming world.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I love how people defend these multi billion companies as if they wouldn't survive with a subscription fee. They make more money in a day than most of us will make in a life time.

They'll charge people for anything people are willing to pay for. If you think they can't survive without a subscription fee for online gaming you're an idiot to be quite honest. Look at Valve for example, they never had a subscription fee. They're one of the biggest gaming companies in the world, even if they don't really make games anymore. They literally just take a cut of every game they sell only on the Steam store front, they don't even get anything for keys you buy elsewhere such as the Humble store or GMG, and host everything else at no additional fee to anybody. Meanwhile I still hear how bad the download speeds are if you buy a full game on the Playstation store and I'm downloading games as fast as my 1Gbps internet will let me.

This is just a silly take. No one is defending them as if they wouldn't survive. They provide a service and the consumer base deems it good enough to pay for. If the consumer base really didn't like it, the service would fail, just look at Stadia.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

This is just a silly take. No one is defending them as if they wouldn't survive. They provide a service and the consumer base deems it good enough to pay for. If the consumer base really didn't like it, the service would fail, just look at Stadia.

That's exactly how I see it. They're providing a service and I value that service, so I'm paying to have access to it. I'm the last one to defend billion-dollar companies, but just because they wouldn't collapse without my subscription fee doesn't mean I shouldn't pay it.

I have been thinking about getting Game Pass for Xbox, do people think its worth it?

I definitely think it's worth it. I've played a handful of games on it already and I have really enjoyed. I like that they include some old ps2/Xbox360 HD remasters as well, which are things I wouldn't have bought at release, but am happy to play now. Also, having a lot of big-name titles on release is pretty awesome as well.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's exactly how I see it. They're providing a service and I value that service, so I'm paying to have access to it. I'm the last one to defend billion-dollar companies, but just because they wouldn't collapse without my subscription fee doesn't mean I shouldn't pay it.

Yeah, and we can compare it to how some companies in gaming push micro-transactions, and how many of them have gambling mechanics. The gambling mechanics are what are truly scummy. I would rather the game just cost more up front if it meant we would never see micro-transactions again in a AAA game.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Yeah, and we can compare it to how some companies in gaming push micro-transactions, and how many of them have gambling mechanics. The gambling mechanics are what are truly scummy. I would rather the game just cost more up front if it meant we would never see micro-transactions again in a AAA game.

I agree entirely. While in theory I don't mind games being cheaper if other people want to buy micro-transactions (cuz I sure don't), but in practice it seems to result in lower quality games...

The gambling style mechanics should just be abolished IMO, but that's just my opinion of course.

I also think the service provided by the PS+/Gold/Nintendo Online services are pretty good for the price, and arguably worth it depending on your situation, independent of the multiplayer access.

The multiplayer access being gated behind that same subscription is where I trip up a little. I think it feels like a double charge for people who wouldn't subscribe to the above services for their value adds, if that makes sense. If you would anyway, then it doesn't really affect you.

I do wonder what would happen if they removed that gate, and just sold the subscription for the perks. I think a lot of people would still subscribe, but I obviously have no data to back that up.

I probably would have in the past for a few months at least, just for the games they provided.

 

[aleshemsky83]

But, ticket prices do rise because cost of business rises like player salaries. I agree, customers do accept a price tag higher than $60 because they do pay more than $60, but people feel like they pay less overall because the costs are segmented instead of being all encompassing. If you breakdown how much it costs to play 2-3 console games per year, it seems way more expensive if they just charge $80+ for each game instead of having the games a bit cheaper at $60 and then charging add-ons for online access and in-game purchases.

Software as a Service and Cloud services carry more costs for the provider than on-prem models. That's why it will cost the customer more over the long-term. Companies prefer SaaS and cloud lately because it eliminates some internal risks for them and allows IT professionals to focus on areas that enhance the company's performance instead of focusing on just keeping the lights on and everything running. It's really not comparable to the consumer gaming world.

If players played for free, do you really think ticket prices would change one dollar? I certainly don't. Hell, the salary cap is based on revenue, it's literally impossible for salaries to affect ticket prices. You're confusing cause and effect.

 

[x Tame Impala]

If players played for free, do you really think ticket prices would change one dollar? I certainly don't. Hell, the salary cap is based on revenue, it's literally impossible for salaries to affect ticket prices. You're confusing cause and effect.

Ticket prices go up due to demand (Leafs/Habs/etc...) or Cup wins. The Hawks tickets are still going up in price because they're very popular and fans get to watch players play who've won 2-3 Stanley Cups. Despite them most likely picking in the top 10 the last 3 years.

 

[bleedblue1223]

If players played for free, do you really think ticket prices would change one dollar? I certainly don't. Hell, the salary cap is based on revenue, it's literally impossible for salaries to affect ticket prices. You're confusing cause and effect.

And notice with no in-game revenue the reality of a decreased salary cap for next season being decreased is a real possibility. Salary cap is based on the previous season's revenue, so yes if the ticket prices dramatically change, then that will affect salaries, either positively or negatively. A rise in the cost to do business will result in an increase of price for the consumer. For a team to spend more, they will need higher revenue, which means increasing ticket prices. This can only be done if there is demand if the team is performing well.

It's why leagues that make more money that have a higher in-game experience cost are able to pay players more and leagues that have a lower cost experience pay players less.

 

[aleshemsky83]

And notice with no in-game revenue the reality of a decreased salary cap for next season being decreased is a real possibility. Salary cap is based on the previous season's revenue, so yes if the ticket prices dramatically change, then that will affect salaries, either positively or negatively. A rise in the cost to do business will result in an increase of price for the consumer. For a team to spend more, they will need higher revenue, which means increasing ticket prices. This can only be done if there is demand if the team is performing well.

It's why leagues that make more money that have a higher in-game experience cost are able to pay players more and leagues that have a lower cost experience pay players less.

you're saying the exact opposite now though. Before you said players salaries affect ticket prices.

 

[Commander Clueless]

When did this become a business of hockey thread?

 

[x Tame Impala]

The multiplayer access being gated behind that same subscription is where I trip up a little. I think it feels like a double charge for people who wouldn't subscribe to the above services for their value adds,

But isn't THE value add having access to online multiplayer? What other features of Xbox Live would even begin to be able justify a subscription price? I've been playing on xbox live since about 2002 (Counter Strike ) and i'm assuming most of us here in this discussion have been playing for a similar amount of time.

All of these things like voice chat, parties, text chat, friend's list, UI, etc...exist to support the main draw of online multiplayer. So what else is there if not access to online multiplayer? The store/marketplace? A lot of people are already tentative paying $10/month for Game Pass, I can't imagine people would've been eager to pay any sort of monthly fee for the ability to but games online.

 

[bleedblue1223]

you're saying the exact opposite now though. Before you said players salaries affect ticket prices.

If a team like Ottawa, New Jersey, or any other non-Cap spending team wants to increase their payroll, how do they do that? If a team spending near the cap is losing money on a yearly basis, what can they do to try and stop losing money? To act like there is no correlation between cost and what drives revenue is silly.

 

[aleshemsky83]

If a team like Ottawa, New Jersey, or any other non-Cap spending team wants to increase their payroll, how do they do that? If a team spending near the cap is losing money on a yearly basis, what can they do to try and stop losing money? To act like there is no correlation between cost and what drives revenue is silly.

They certainly would not raise ticket prices, because they would make LESS money, not more.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They certainly would not raise ticket prices, because they would make LESS money, not more.

It depends on supply/demand if they would make more or less. It's certainly an avenue they would look into. This is a silly argument anyway and now it's way off-topic.

 

[Commander Clueless]

But isn't THE value add having access to online multiplayer? What other features of Xbox Live would even begin to be able justify a subscription price? I've been playing on xbox live since about 2002 (Counter Strike ) and i'm assuming most of us here in this discussion have been playing for a similar amount of time.

All of these things like voice chat, parties, text chat, friend's list, UI, etc...exist to support the main draw of online multiplayer. So what else is there if not access to online multiplayer? The store/marketplace? A lot of people are already tentative paying $10/month for Game Pass, I can't imagine people would've been eager to pay any sort of monthly fee for the ability to but games online.

I think in the early days of Xbox Live that was pretty much exclusively the case, but now not as much. Nowadays you get access to games through PS Plus and Gold, as well as other perks. Why would they add that stuff if it was just for the multiplayer?

PS Plus started out on PS3 as a service that was just for the perks, and had nothing to do with multiplayer.

Game Pass and PS Now certainly make things interesting, but they operate differently and independently from the games you receive from Gold or PS Plus, do they not?


If what you are saying is true, I don't understand why a subscription for multiplayer purposes only applies to select premium games or select features in games? You can get buy using those same services without ever paying for them, depending on which games you play, no?

Or do some games like Fortnite pay your subscription for you perhaps?

From what I know (admittedly limited knowledge), you can still use pretty much all of the online features listed except parties without the paid subscription.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I think in the early days of Xbox Live that was pretty much exclusively the case, but now not as much. Nowadays you get access to games through PS Plus and Gold, as well as other perks. Why would they add that stuff if it was just for the multiplayer?

PS Plus started out on PS3 as a service that was just for the perks, and had nothing to do with multiplayer.

Game Pass and PS Now certainly make things interesting, but they operate differently and independently from the games you receive from Gold or PS Plus, do they not?


If what you are saying is true, I don't understand why a subscription for multiplayer purposes only applies to select premium games or select features in games? You can get buy using those same services without ever paying for them, depending on which games you play, no?

Or do some games like Fortnite pay your subscription for you perhaps?

From what I know (admittedly limited knowledge), you can still use pretty much all of the online features listed except parties without the paid subscription.

I've only had xbox so i'm not sure what PS+ offers, but what do you mean "access to games" through Gold? Is that Games for Gold? Because that's essentially worthless with the quality of games they make available.

What were the early-day perks of PS+ that weren't multiplayer based?

I don't understand what you mean by a subscription only applies to premium games/select features. I don't play Fortnite

 

[Commander Clueless]

I've only had xbox so i'm not sure what PS+ offers, but what do you mean "access to games" through Gold? Is that Games for Gold? Because that's essentially worthless with the quality of games they make available.

I only really had experience with PS Plus myself, but yes I believe Games with Gold is what it is called. Just last month I thought I read they had the Batman telltale game (I rather enjoyed that one myself).

The quality varies on PS4 as well as I recall, but some months have had some real gems. I remember getting Rocket League from it back in the day - really helped offset the cost of

What were the early-day perks of PS+ that weren't multiplayer based?

Similar, as I recall. Games were included in the subscription as well as (if I recall correctly) sales and in game stuff. Sort of like a digital loot crate of games.

Difference was you could play PS3 multiplayer without any additional fees.

I don't understand what you mean by a subscription only applies to premium games/select features. I don't play Fortnite

I don't play it either, so I admit my information may not be exactly accurate.

Here are examples of what I'm talking about:

-Free to play games that use the same infrastructure (at least on PS's side of things) do not require the subscription to play online. Premium games (i.e. games you pay for up front) are normally the ones that require it. Interestingly enough, the F2P games tend to be the most popular.
EDIT: It was pointed out that you do, in fact, require Gold to play on Xbox. I didn't realize that. I assumed it was similar to PS Plus. My apologies.

-The Destiny games allowed you to play the always-online game, but not to do the raids, so only specific multiplayer content was gated (again, as I recall - could be mistaken).

-Almost all of the functions you listed (voice chat, UI, friend list, parties) are available for anyone without the subscription,with (I believe) the exception of parties requiring the sub. You don't even need an Xbox to use many of the features, just a free app.

-Heck, I use Xbox Game Pass off of my PC and play multiplayer using Xbox's own system with my gamertag (sometimes playing with other people using an Xbox even) without paying for a gold sub. (Don't tell them - I don't want them getting any ideas )