Paying for online access on consoles

[aleshemsky83]

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




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 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 Xbox/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.

-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 )

yeah this pretty much sums it up

All you need to do is switch to a user that doesn't have ps plus I'm pretty sure (by the way Im 99% sure you need Xbox Live Gold even for free games this is just ps) and you'll see, free games don't need ps plus for multiplayer and paid games do. All ps plus does for free games is give you some free premium currency every once and a while(for some games).

 

[Commander Clueless]

(by the way Im 99% sure you need Xbox Live Gold even for free games this is just ps)

Oh really?

Well that further complicates things.

 

[Dolemite]

Why is this still a thing? Why do we accept that we have to pay for XBL Gold or PS+?

In an ever increasing digital and connected world it seems really, really out of place. Its time for games media to actually ask and press for real answers on this.

Because the servers you play on cost money to keep up and they're not cheap. Duh. Would you rather pay for the service or the actual server?

 

[Warden of the North]

Because the servers you play on cost money to keep up and they're not cheap. Duh. Would you rather pay for the service or the actual server?

Enter: Free to play games that dont require a subscription. Dont they shoot holes in that theory?

 

[LarKing]

Enter: Free to play games that dont require a subscription. Dont they shoot holes in that theory?

Im not an expert on servers by any means but I think they’re making enough via micro transactions or just getting more people to their game series. I downloaded warzone because a lot of my friends were into it. Ended up buying the full game because I wanted to play all the other modes.

 

[Beau Knows]

Because the servers you play on cost money to keep up and they're not cheap. Duh. Would you rather pay for the service or the actual server?

Then why don't you have to pay on PC?

 

[Commander Clueless]

Im not an expert on servers by any means but I think they’re making enough via micro transactions or just getting more people to their game series. I downloaded warzone because a lot of my friends were into it. Ended up buying the full game because I wanted to play all the other modes.

It's a fair point, but then we circle back to the games that do require the subscription often have micro transactions as well....so somewhere in there the logic gets muddled a little. Somebody is double dipping....

Because the servers you play on cost money to keep up and they're not cheap. Duh. Would you rather pay for the service or the actual server?

Are the subscription fees even going to the people paying for the servers?

 

[LarKing]

It's a fair point, but then we circle back to the games that do require the subscription often have micro transactions as well....so somewhere in there the logic gets muddled a little. Somebody is double dipping....



Are the subscription fees even going to the people paying for the servers?

Yeah it’s hard to say. I don’t exactly know why it is that way. But I do know that the service I’m getting for my $5 a month or so is well worth it so I have no issue with paying.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Yeah it’s hard to say. I don’t exactly know why it is that way. But I do know that the service I’m getting for my $5 a month or so is well worth it so I have no issue with paying.

And that's fair too. If you feel you are getting the value for your money, that's all good.

I do still think it's fair to ask why it exists when it seems to be a little vague. Apparently this annoys some people


I think this is no big deal for people who use multiplayer constantly, and no issue at all for people who don't play multiplayer games.

The problem is for people like me who use multiplayer sparingly. For example, I want to play NHL20 with my buddy on my PS4 but we only play a little together. So do we pay the sub for a few games of NHL? It makes for a terrible value proposition....

 

[Warden of the North]

Yeah it’s hard to say. I don’t exactly know why it is that way. But I do know that the service I’m getting for my $5 a month or so is well worth it so I have no issue with paying.

Oh I know the reasons

1.) $$$

2.) Because they can

 

[Warden of the North]

Other oddities which shoot holes in the various theories

Warzone and Apex (not sure about Fortnite) require XBL on Xbox but not PS+ on Playstation.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Yeah it’s hard to say. I don’t exactly know why it is that way. But I do know that the service I’m getting for my $5 a month or so is well worth it so I have no issue with paying.

Well, you just said the reason, because you and others are willing to pay for it.

I don't consider that providing value though, especially when a ton of games have peer to peer online with little or no cost or effort on Sony's behalf. It'd be like locking the Netflix or Disney+ app behind ps plus and rationalizing it as adding value to ps plus.

Only real value to me is the free games, but those get locked away from your account if you don't renew your sub. Only exception being games with a PS3 or 360 port I believe. Those games actually are permanent. The games are alright but a lot of times not.

 

[LarKing]

Oh I know the reasons

1.) $$$

2.) Because they can

Haha well I meant I don’t know why some do and some don’t. If it’s simply a matter of making more money every platform would do it. There’s obviously other variables involved though such as other services believing they’ll make more with micro transactions if they provide it for free.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Enter: Free to play games that dont require a subscription. Dont they shoot holes in that theory?

No, because the whole point of free to play games is to convince you that you are getting a great deal because it's "free" and that makes you a lot more willing to end up spending more money on it over the long haul with micro-transactions. It's why those games, console and mobile are worth an absurd amount of money. The whole point of them is to not charge anything free up front or on a recurring basis to trick you into spending money on a impulse basis. You buy more on an impulse because you aren't spending much time evaluating the decision, compared to the amount of time you evaluate whether a subscription is worth it or not or a game is worth purchasing or not.

Those games just need a few whales to outweigh many users that don't purchase the micro-transactions and they'll make way more money than if they just had an initial purchase price or a subscription. It's why quality of sports games have tanked, it's why a lot of single-player games have suffered.

 

[Commander Clueless]

No, because the whole point of free to play games is to convince you that you are getting a great deal because it's "free" and that makes you a lot more willing to end up spending more money on it over the long haul with micro-transactions. It's why those games, console and mobile are worth an absurd amount of money. The whole point of them is to not charge anything free up front or on a recurring basis to trick you into spending money on a impulse basis. You buy more on an impulse because you aren't spending much time evaluating the decision, compared to the amount of time you evaluate whether a subscription is worth it or not or a game is worth purchasing or not.

Those games just need a few whales to outweigh many users that don't purchase the micro-transactions and they'll make way more money than if they just had an initial purchase price or a subscription. It's why quality of sports games have tanked.

It's sound logic. It makes you wonder why the majority of games aren't free to play these days...at least the multiplayer ones. It's a good way to entice players to get a foot in the door, speaking from personal experience.

That said, Xbox still requires the subscription apparently. Does Sony have a special deal perhaps? Bigger cut of the micro-transaction money maybe?


Also, I think sports games are crap now because they mostly focus on the ultimate team stuff. That's where the big bucks are at. Also, they have effectively cornered the market and complacency makes sense.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's sound logic. It makes you wonder why the majority of games aren't free to play these days...at least the multiplayer ones. It's a good way to entice players to get a foot in the door, speaking from personal experience.

That said, Xbox still requires the subscription apparently. Does Sony have a special deal perhaps? Bigger cut of the micro-transaction money maybe?


Also, I think sports games are crap now because they mostly focus on the ultimate team stuff. That's where the big bucks are at. Also, they have effectively cornered the market and complacency makes sense.

Right, sports games suck because of Ultimate Team because that's where the micro-transactions are, and that's how the free-to-play monetize their games. Sports games are the worst, along with other AAA titles because they both charge for the game and push micro-transactions.

The reason why free-to-play won't be more adopted is because it's very risky. If the game isn't an instant hit, then they wasted a lot of there money developing the game. With AAA titles, as a consumer you are more invested in sticking with the game because of the upfront investment, but if you get bored with a free-to-play, you'll just move on to the next one, especially if you didn't buy micro-transactions or at least not many of them.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Right, sports games suck because of Ultimate Team because that's where the micro-transactions are, and that's how the free-to-play monetize their games. Sports games are the worst, along with other AAA titles because they both charge for the game and push micro-transactions.

The reason why free-to-play won't be more adopted is because it's very risky. If the game isn't an instant hit, then they wasted a lot of there money developing the game. With AAA titles, as a consumer you are more invested in sticking with the game because of the upfront investment, but if you get bored with a free-to-play, you'll just move on to the next one, especially if you didn't buy micro-transactions or at least not many of them.

True, but on the other hand, if your game isn't an instant success while being sold you won't make much either.

I wonder if something like Anthem wouldn't have been better served as a free to play - give them more time and leeway to improve over time.

 

[bleedblue1223]

True, but on the other hand, if your game isn't an instant success while being sold you won't make much either.

I wonder if something like Anthem wouldn't have been better served as a free to play - give them more time and leeway to improve over time.

Sure, I guess what I was trying to get across was free to play games have to do a lot to maintain a player base, while AAA games already have loyalty from people that bought it because they don't want to feel like they've wasted their money and at least want to get some level of enjoyment out of it. The difference between main revenue being up front vs over the long haul.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Sure, I guess what I was trying to get across was free to play games have to do a lot to maintain a player base, while AAA games already have loyalty from people that bought it because they don't want to feel like they've wasted their money and at least want to get some level of enjoyment out of it. The difference between main revenue being up front vs over the long haul.

Makes sense, but it seems like a lot of modern AAA games want it both ways - hence we get the "live service" phenomenon.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Makes sense, but it seems like a lot of modern AAA games want it both ways - hence we get the "live service" phenomenon.

Yeah, that's the real issue in gaming IMO. AAA titles that charge what they do up front, need to either get rid of micro transactions or make the content that they add in "live service" be actual high quality. Live service ends up being an excuse by them of delivery a game that is not complete and then making it complete in the live service phase. And like you said, sports games are just a disaster with ultimate team modes.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Yeah, that's the real issue in gaming IMO. AAA titles that charge what they do up front, need to either get rid of micro transactions or make the content that they add in "live service" be actual high quality. Live service ends up being an excuse by them of delivery a game that is not complete and then making it complete in the live service phase. And like you said, sports games are just a disaster with ultimate team modes.

Doesn't that once again kill your point though? The fact that Fifa and Overwatch make 90% of their money from online microtransactions and very little from the sale of the game? Why wouldn't online be free for them too and not just f2p games? Also why doesn't Xbox do that same thing? F2P games still need XBL gold to play online

I think ultimately the answer comes back to, they charge money because they can. Remember, there used to be no free games with it, Sony started that, and it didn't even originally include online, that was free. It was only in the PS4 era that it included online. Suddenly Xbox can include 2-4 free games and still be able to afford servers?

The truth is likely that a lot of young gamers just probably had no idea that online gaming was something that was usually free on PC and just had the marketing convince them into buying something that looked like (and is) a lot of fun, and they've been paying for it since.

 

[Osprey]

It seems like the answer isn't one or the other, but both. They charge the fee because they can and because it reduces risk and helps pay for servers, software upgrades and support staff. Sure, they could survive without it, but that's not necessarily a reason to get rid of it, since it helps them run a better service, which makes things better for the customer.

Even though PC gamers don't have to pay any such fee, they also don't get some of the perks that Xbox gamers do. On top of the free games, I presume that an Xbox gamer can call the Xbox hotline for any issues with hardware, software, network and games. If a PC gamer has an issue running a game, does he call Microsoft (because he's using Windows), his PC manufacturer (Dell, Toshiba, ASUS, etc.), Valve (because he bought and is launching the game through Steam) or the publisher of the game, itself? Some PC gamers may know the best ones to call, but a lot don't, and the former can still easily get the run around by being told to call someone else. PC gamers have to rely on their own resourcefulness and each other (by seeking out support forums online) more than I presume that console users have to.

 

[RandV]

Haha well I meant I don’t know why some do and some don’t. If it’s simply a matter of making more money every platform would do it. There’s obviously other variables involved though such as other services believing they’ll make more with micro transactions if they provide it for free.

Well you have PC and console which are apples and oranges, and this example every orange does do it. No one owns the 'platform' on PC, rather places like Steam which does provide similar services so you could say why don't they charge are more accurately described as store fronts. If Gamespot started charging you $5 a month to be able to shop with them, you wouldn't suck it up you'd just go to Best Buy.

They'd do it if they could but the first one to try would lose all business. It succeeded on console because that's slightly different, it started as a new service and Microsoft was able to take the plunge first and not lose any business from it. Same with paid DLC, where despite the financial success of "horse armour" it's been a struggle and DLC made inroads but PC has still managed to hold onto mods where it counts.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Doesn't that once again kill your point though? The fact that Fifa and Overwatch make 90% of their money from online microtransactions and very little from the sale of the game? Why wouldn't online be free for them too and not just f2p games? Also why doesn't Xbox do that same thing? F2P games still need XBL gold to play online

I think ultimately the answer comes back to, they charge money because they can. Remember, there used to be no free games with it, Sony started that, and it didn't even originally include online, that was free. It was only in the PS4 era that it included online. Suddenly Xbox can include 2-4 free games and still be able to afford servers?

The truth is likely that a lot of young gamers just probably had no idea that online gaming was something that was usually free on PC and just had the marketing convince them into buying something that looked like (and is) a lot of fun, and they've been paying for it since.

It's a service that they provide and it brings a value to the table, that point has been made, and you can disagree with it, but that's why they can charge for it and why people pay it.

 

[chicagoskycam]

I think at this point Live from Xbox is a bit outdated, it served it's a point early on to get every game consistently on-line on one platform. Now you have a game pass which is an excellent value and Microsoft recently had an add for a game pass for $1 a month to Xbox Live for the life of the contract.

I think they need to include a couple of years of Live on their next console and steer away from this model but they won't.