-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why does Fortnite require Xbox Live Gold and not PS+?
- Thread starter Segafreak
- Start date
We need media coverage about this subject
That moose count article is fascinating.
My nephew had PS plus to play GTAV. I noticed he started playing fortnite and didn't have PS plus anymore.
So that's definitely true. Good thing Sony doesn't care.
i know its not valid but we are talking about free2play games here. im subbed to netflix myself cause i get tons of content for what i pay for.
Didn't Sony state that next gen free to play will need a subscription too. Something along the lines they did not access the model correctly or something. I could be wrong but I swore I read that somewhere.
I didn't have Gold and I was able to play. It's a F2P game and F2P games on Xbox do not require Gold. I have also played Path of Exile without Gold.
If you buy an Xbox and Xbox games Microsoft get a cut
If you pay for your internet and TV Netflix don't get a cut
Nobody is stopping you.
Well, with net neutrality ending in the US.. you never know.
User Banned (2 Days): Inflammatory System Wars
It's ok, I don't have an Xbox so I don't have to face the false advertisement on Xbox daily. Sucks to be an Xbox owner tho, being constantly lied to..oh well not my problem if that's what you can stomach. Remember it is all about the biggest player base for games possible until it isn't but hey it is what it is.
The short answer is because it is currently MS policy that you always pay to play online. Even if the game itself is free to play, that don't apply to its online use.
Sony on the other hand decided to make free to play, truly just that.
Also, every indication seems to be once Nintendo online is launched- Fortnite will require it).
So, you see, there are no good guys and bad buys. Sony is good on one issue, bad on the crossplay, while MS/Nintendo are better on crossplay, but there will no online at all unless you pay up.
Sony on the other hand decided to make free to play, truly just that.
Also, every indication seems to be once Nintendo online is launched- Fortnite will require it).
So, you see, there are no good guys and bad buys. Sony is good on one issue, bad on the crossplay, while MS/Nintendo are better on crossplay, but there will no online at all unless you pay up.
F2P games aren't free to play on Xbox, this is a holdover from early this gen, just like when apps were behind the gold paywall. It's ridiculous and arbitrary, just like paying for MP in general, when the console manufacturer isn't actually footing the bill at all in any way.
There's no slippery slope though, the game is either F2P or it's not. Your example doesn't even make sense, a standalone F2P multiplayer component is nothing but a F2P game. If a publishers wants to release a F2P game instead of wanting to charge 60 bucks there's nothing stopping them.
This whole "I like consistency!" -thing makes absolutely no sense, what exactly do you gain from F2P games not actually being F2P? Like, what aspect of this is supposed to be preferable to not having to pay for F2P games?
It benefits F2P games with MTX opposed to $60 games. I thought ERA users weren't a big fan of MTX... ;)
That justification rings hollow for the reasons identified by other posters. F2P developers do not receive any upfront payment for their work and so deserve access to the largest player base possible. A key distinction.
Yes, F2P games make money entirely through MTX because they don't charge you $60 up front, congrats for figuring that out.
You're not able to play online games without Gold on Xbox Live. Path of Exile is an online game? News to me. It's a F2P game but it's not online as far as I know.
Lol bringing up Microsoft charging for multiplayer in F2P games now is the "but but Hillary's emails" of gaming arguments.
And you get a lot for your Live/PS+/Nintendo sub - free games, cloud saves, online infrastructure, online gaming, etc. Whether that is worth the fee is something only you can decide.
I'd prefer no fee at all, but given that there is a fee, what difference should it make whether the game is F2P or not? The rule MS have made is pretty clear cut - online gaming requires Gold, regardless of the game. And as a paying subscriber to Gold, I'm ok with that.
The exception Sony have made to the rule for F2P games is unquestionably better still, but as a paying subscriber anyway (because of playing other games online) would be of little consequence to me.
So I really don't mind if F2P games are locked behind a Gold sub, purely because I am already paying the sub for non-F2P games. At least both MS and Sonys approaches are consistent. For me the bigger argument is whether to put *all* online gaming behind a paywall or not.
Agree. I don't think there is a debate about Sony's approach being better (apart from the reason I named above; it benefits F2P MTX loaded games), so I hope Microsoft changes their mind. But MS isn't being shady about it or something.
We need media coverage about this subject
Norweigian moose.... moose.... MOOSE ?!
oh, sorry, I don't. It's just something I wouldn't be surprised if Sony did it too.
It's an easy answer, they like money.
But I guess it's a valid question when you hear a lot about 'Good Guy Microsoft' and about how much they've changed and their 'for the gamers' especially with Phil at the helm.
So why would they be doing something that inconveniences gamers and is an undeniably worse stance than other publishers? Could it be that, along with pushing for cross-play. they're only doing what's best for them as a company?
But I guess it's a valid question when you hear a lot about 'Good Guy Microsoft' and about how much they've changed and their 'for the gamers' especially with Phil at the helm.
So why would they be doing something that inconveniences gamers and is an undeniably worse stance than other publishers? Could it be that, along with pushing for cross-play. they're only doing what's best for them as a company?
Lol perfection.
But isn't it normal that corporations just want money?
That was touted loads in the threads.
Nah, its a legit shitty practice and MS should catch flack for it.
I don't think that's a fair argument though - Microsoft don't get a cut from me paying for my internet and TV either? I need both a TV and internet for both Netflix and Live Gold - neither Netflix nor MS see money for either of those. I need a subscription to Netflix and Live Gold, which Netflix and MS see money from respectively. I also need an Xbox for Live Gold, which MS also get money from. But that is the barrier to entry for their service.
I think this a conflation of store and service provider, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. Netflix are only a service provider, so I pay my sub and get my service in return. MS are both a store and service provider, so if I pay my sub I get my service in return, but I can also purchase things from them. It's like probably better to compare them to Sky TV in the UK - I can subscribe to Sky to get access to their TV channels and on-demand (which also requires internet and TV), but I can also buy movies from Sky *on top* of my subscription fee, of which Sky get a cut.
Spencer should be taking bill gates lead and run Xbox like one of Bills charities.
It sucks. Having to pay to play online period is shit. However, this seems to be a problem that affects very few since most everyone that owns an Xbox for the purposes of online play also has Xbox Live. This requirement impacts that sliver of people that have zero interest in online and have no plans on playing online, except for the fact that they want to play a ftp game online. It still sucks, it just impacts far fewer people than the crossplay fiasco that touches literally everyone that one multiple consoles (or has friends that own opposite consoles).
It's really not. It's a shitty policy that hurts way more people than cross play.
The level of whataboutism due to the backlash against sony here is just off the charts wow, not even hidden.
Should MS charge for xbl for f2p games? Tough question.
• F2P games generate $ for the platform holder through MTX: So? Paid games do it that way or dlc or just being bought. Making online access free "so people feel better about paying more" is kind of a weird argument.
• Do F2P games gain benefit from platform technologies? No idea. Probably differs from game to game.
• Who pays for the people who play but never spend? This has always been my biggest argument about F2P games - they are predatory by nature. This is just a thing to keep in mind, who knows if it has an effect on policy
• I think XBLG will be changing significantly in the next year - but I do not want to see a change in policy equate to the development of XBL services slow down.
• The cost of running things (like the cost for internet and servers, excluding cost for employees and development) has gone down a lot in the last few years, due to tech MS owns.
• "Steam runs it for free, therefor (x)" - Is valid in some ways, and not in others. I will just go down the memory hole and remember a time when sony didnt fund their online services well and there was some huge issue with all that. You remember that, right?
• Staying with steam, remember, valve has much lower overhead to deliver you services (vs a console). You buy the os. You buy the hardware. You pay the ISP. Valve makes an app and basically the minimum amount of ancillary tech to keep it viable. Console makers have constant overhead for running a console business now - constant hardware development, OS development, online services development (which have made leaps and bounds in the last years on both consoles). It might be 6 of one yadda yadda, but it also might be worth keeping in mind.
• I can't decide if having everyone who plays online contributing to paying for infrastructure is better than just those playing online with paid games. I guess you would have to see how much more per-player sony is getting by having it free (coupled with how many more players come to their platform for that). Again, I would hate to see these teams get shorted on funding if xbl/ps+ subs even actually go to "defending their existence"
Conclusion - I think it would be nice for a change in policy, but it's not that big of a deal atm, since I assume people play more than just one ftp game only on their console.
Should MS charge for xbl for f2p games? Tough question.
• F2P games generate $ for the platform holder through MTX: So? Paid games do it that way or dlc or just being bought. Making online access free "so people feel better about paying more" is kind of a weird argument.
• Do F2P games gain benefit from platform technologies? No idea. Probably differs from game to game.
• Who pays for the people who play but never spend? This has always been my biggest argument about F2P games - they are predatory by nature. This is just a thing to keep in mind, who knows if it has an effect on policy
• I think XBLG will be changing significantly in the next year - but I do not want to see a change in policy equate to the development of XBL services slow down.
• The cost of running things (like the cost for internet and servers, excluding cost for employees and development) has gone down a lot in the last few years, due to tech MS owns.
• "Steam runs it for free, therefor (x)" - Is valid in some ways, and not in others. I will just go down the memory hole and remember a time when sony didnt fund their online services well and there was some huge issue with all that. You remember that, right?
• Staying with steam, remember, valve has much lower overhead to deliver you services (vs a console). You buy the os. You buy the hardware. You pay the ISP. Valve makes an app and basically the minimum amount of ancillary tech to keep it viable. Console makers have constant overhead for running a console business now - constant hardware development, OS development, online services development (which have made leaps and bounds in the last years on both consoles). It might be 6 of one yadda yadda, but it also might be worth keeping in mind.
• I can't decide if having everyone who plays online contributing to paying for infrastructure is better than just those playing online with paid games. I guess you would have to see how much more per-player sony is getting by having it free (coupled with how many more players come to their platform for that). Again, I would hate to see these teams get shorted on funding if xbl/ps+ subs even actually go to "defending their existence"
Conclusion - I think it would be nice for a change in policy, but it's not that big of a deal atm, since I assume people play more than just one ftp game only on their console.
The f2p problem for Xbox games has been around for about a decade. I can't remember what was the first f2p online game on Xbox 360, but games like Happy Wars, Doritos Crash Course 2, Harm's Way, Warface, etc. always required Live Gold. Sony blocking your account in Fortnite is a more recent news, what with Fortnite being a newer game, crossplay and crossprogression activated relatively late, and so on. The Xbox situation is inconvenient, I currently have a couple years stacked of Gold so I don't care, but back in the day I was in school and I couldn't always afford to renew my Gold right away, and it was annoying as fuck to have to drop my multiplayer games (free or otherwise) until I paid more money to Microsoft. But this is a discussion that keeps on coming up every now and then. The reason the Fortnite issue is the hot topic right now is simple: it's news, as in it's a pretty new problem. Also, Fortnite is one of the biggest games on the planet, one that mainstream media talks about, so if there is something fucking users up it's bound to arrive to mainstream attention.
Oh boy.
The whataboutism isn't the only thing that's not hidden.
Timing is everything on the posting of this thread. Sony has been catching flack for THEIR shitty practice and OP decided that some good old fashioned Whataboutism might ease the pressure.
The current issue with Sony isn't crossplay (although that is one of the roots) - it's them requiring Epic to reset your Fortnite account and all of your progression and purchases if you want to play on Xbox or Switch.
It's a hypothetical example, not necessarily a great one! :) My point though is exactly what you just said - a standalone F2P multiplayer component is nothing but a F2P game. It's unlikely I admit, but imagine if suddenly EA and Activision decided to release the multiplayer mode for every one of their games as a separate, standalone, F2P component because they wanted to circumvent Gold/PS+ requirements in the hopes that people would be more likely to spend money on MTX because they haven't paid for a sub. Suddenly MS see Gold subscriber levels drop because it becomes much less of a requirement for the majority of games people want to play online.
As I say, I *know* this is a weak, far-fetched example, my point is just that there are tenuous arguments against the exception.
As I said in a recent post, MS have a hard and fast rule - online = requires Gold. The exception Sony have made to this rule for F2P games is unquestionably better. I'm not arguing that in the slightest. All I said was that, for me, it's mostly a non-issue - I am *ok* with the consistency (online = requires Gold) purely because I am already a Gold subscriber as I also play other, non-F2P games online. And I imagine that most people who would play a F2P game online are probably also already subscribers because they also play other, non-F2P games online.
For me, the bigger battleground is whether any online game should require a sub, rather than exceptions for just F2P games...
True, but developers also know what the rules are for each platform before they publish to it, so I guess the decision on whether it is viable is theirs to make.
And whilst F2P developers do not receive any upfront payment, this is only because their games follow a different model whereby revenue is generated during the life-cycle of the game via MTX.