-
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.
how the F did we just accept paying for online on consoles?
- Thread starter Mezati99
- Start date
Or lets not blame Sony because they had no fault in charging for online service. It's all MS fault.
Sega Genesis had a rudimentary online service as well, but it was basically an online game streaming service ... which ... sounds crazy, but it was a thing in 1994. I remember being hyped for it and my parents (wisely) told me I couldn't subscribe, and thank god they did I would have been so disappointed.
Two seconds later....
"are you sure it wasn't Xbox?"
I'd say there were about 4-5 years where XBL was justifiably $60 better than the alternatives as a cohesive online system. I subscribed a little bit past that. I think that it's past time for most console online multiplayer functions to come back out from behind a paywall but I don't begrudge the early years requiring a fee if the development costs needed a business to back them up.
Sega Channel was a game subscription service.
Xbox Live Gold is an online multiplayer walled garden.
They have absolutely nothing in common.
It's all Microsoft's fault. They put a gun to Sony and Nintendo's head and told them to follow suit, "or else!"
Nah you changed my mind. Innocent Sony just started to charge for the exact same service they had been providing for free, so it's 100% Microsoft's fault since they created a new service with new features that didn't exist in the space at the time, and charged for it.
This is obviously only a Microsoft and maybe Nintendo too problem /s
When Xbox Live did it it was the right time and place. It always looked absurd to PC gamers but for console gamers, only a minority played online on the Dreamcast or PS2, so there was an opening for people who weren't used to hopping on servers for free. Universal voice chat was seen as a big important feature at the time, too.
That they did this while also having players host most of the games anyway was actually absurd. I couldn't believe it back then. But to be fair here, Xbox Live was insanely polished. Having integrated friends lists, universal voice chat... it really was a generation past what everyone else was doing. It made sense that a regular gamer would pay in and get all those features and feel like they got their money's worth.
It really shouldn't have happened, though. Without Halo 2 bringing millions in, paying for online probably wouldn't exist outside of MMOs.
That they did this while also having players host most of the games anyway was actually absurd. I couldn't believe it back then. But to be fair here, Xbox Live was insanely polished. Having integrated friends lists, universal voice chat... it really was a generation past what everyone else was doing. It made sense that a regular gamer would pay in and get all those features and feel like they got their money's worth.
It really shouldn't have happened, though. Without Halo 2 bringing millions in, paying for online probably wouldn't exist outside of MMOs.
Last edited:
Not to be a corporate shill but servers cost money to keep up. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
also most services offer "free games" or other initiatives to keep us hooked. This coming from the person who joined Nintendo online for the Fire Emblem 3H online functionality (need that free battlefield xp)
also most services offer "free games" or other initiatives to keep us hooked. This coming from the person who joined Nintendo online for the Fire Emblem 3H online functionality (need that free battlefield xp)
Nintendo's online service is less than two bucks a month and they're giving me some free games. No complaints here.
It's not just that, I remember getting BioShock Infinite less than a year after release on PS+ for the short period I was subscribed to it. I don't remember seeing any of these kinds of high profile games since they started charging for online and its complete bullshit.
Almost none of these games had servers to keep up. You're the one hosting them for other players.
That's different now but for two full generations -- and a good amount of games even now -- these were peer to peer services.
I feel like someone makes this exact same thread every month on here. It's not like we really had a choice. Microsoft started it last gen, and Sony and Nintendo said "hey that works for them, let's do the same for extra cash". It sucks, but it is what it is.
Because Xbox got away with it and people had the mentality that it was better cause they paid for it. So everyone else got away with charging to provide functional online play.
Gravity Rush 2 had servers. Demons Souls had servers.
I loathe to think what an Overwatch ps4 or a Destiny 2 would play on a free peer to peer connection on PS4. Who pays for the man time to trouble shoot online issues? Or to implement upgrades to stability? I'm all for free stuff but $5 a month to make sure my online games run (most of the time..) is not a big deal to me.
Demon's Souls servers were not run by Sony, and were on a platform where you did not have to pay for online.
Gravity Rush 2 was on a paid service... and no longer has servers.
Whilst the cost can't be defended it was charged for because Live was head and shoulders ahead of anything that came before it. Brought everything together from messaging, voice chat, friends lists and cross game parties to form a new standard on console. They provided the tools for any developer to plug their game in to the service and instantly support all of the above. Live was extremely streamlined.
As much as people don't want to hear it, Microsoft pulled Sony kicking and screaming in to making their online up to scratch.
As much as people don't want to hear it, Microsoft pulled Sony kicking and screaming in to making their online up to scratch.
People will pay when they 1. Don't have a choice and 2. Think the service is worth it. Back when online launched on Xbox is was really good and just continued to improve above PSN to an insane amount.
Back when I was a console gamer I gladly paid the 60 a year for the service even when PSN was free. It was just no comparison.
We often hear how PC gamers would roundly reject it but we rejected games for windows live. Which was awful and had a competitor that did everything better. Now the real test would be if Steam ever tried something similar. I think there would be a huge backlash but I doubt there would be a mass exodus that terribly hurt the service. Thankfully Valve doesn't seem to care for that.
Back when I was a console gamer I gladly paid the 60 a year for the service even when PSN was free. It was just no comparison.
We often hear how PC gamers would roundly reject it but we rejected games for windows live. Which was awful and had a competitor that did everything better. Now the real test would be if Steam ever tried something similar. I think there would be a huge backlash but I doubt there would be a mass exodus that terribly hurt the service. Thankfully Valve doesn't seem to care for that.
There was plenty backlash, people just grew to accept it after everyone started doing it, personally i was ok with paying for xbox live for the 360 since it was so much better than the absolute train wreck of early psn.
What does this even mean?
just being edgy or do you mean companies paying for Azure.
RIP Gravity Rush 2. Game did not need servers.
Anyway, I don't trust corporations so throwing them a few coins a month to give me random monthly games and a stable connection is ok by me. It's annoying but I don't trust the alternative of them throttling our online experience because of "budget" or whatever they would use to rationalize a free but shitty online experience (on consoles, which are basically walled gardens run by our corporate overlords)
Well first we had no real online.
Then we had some online.
Then we had Microsoft with proper online behind a paywall.
Then we had Sony with online without a paywall.
Then we had Nintendo without a paywall.
Then Sony added a paywall.
Then Nintendo added a paywall.
Then we had some online.
Then we had Microsoft with proper online behind a paywall.
Then we had Sony with online without a paywall.
Then we had Nintendo without a paywall.
Then Sony added a paywall.
Then Nintendo added a paywall.
No, Stadia has a premium 4k HDR paid subscription and will add a 1080p service.
The 4k HDR streaming requires the paid package but anyone can use the 1080p service without paying for Stadia.
Edit: you'll need to buy games for Stadia of course.
Thank you. I have to give Stadia a try. I want to support platforms that don't charge for online play.
Yeah. Nintendo does kind of get away with it for fully embracing the social aspect of those kinds of mechanics. It looks weird as hell from the age of "disc locked content" though.
Yeah, the one note is that the 1080p service will launch later in 2020 (aka the real launch)
It was a subscription service. And I'd say that it was still better than some modern day equivalents, as I don't recall another service that let you play games weeks before they hit retail, let you play some imports that had no plans for a proper localized release, and occasionally held speedrun contests on special promotional versions of the games.
My parents got me an SC subscription in exchange for not spending any more money on game rentals and damn was that more than a fair deal.
That, and the handful of Mega Drive games that did have proper online play were direct-connect and didn't cost anything to run (other than what your phone company would charge you for the call).
The modem never made it outside of Japan though.
First page came through in the clutch. Excellent work.
I'm literally copy-pasting from the last time. We really do have this thread every few weeks now.
Initially, it happened because Microsoft wanted developers to actually include online features in ALL of their games. How did they do this? By setting up a huge infrastructure and providing developers leaderboards, matchmaking, lobbies, and other features FOR FREE, in a way that developers didn't (and still don't) have to run their own servers to provide them. But of course, someone had to pay for these things. Microsoft shifted the costs from the developers to the gamers, who would actually make use of the features. It was and still is optional. Don't want to play online? No problem, then you don't have to pay to support the developers.
The strategy worked. Developers included the features in a lot more games. Now, online features are standard even in tiny indie games, and developers still don't have to run servers (but they can if they want to). It takes almost zero effort for devs to implement all of these things. I'm sure that the yearly fees don't need to be as high as they currently are to support this stuff, but anyone who thinks "this should all be free!" probably wasn't aware of the fact that it all IS free...but for developers, not them. The money has to come from somewhere. And yes, I know that Steam does it for free, but, well, Steam chose to do it for free (and that's likely part of why they take a 30% cut).
As a developer with a near-zero budget, I'm very glad that it works this way, because if it didn't, I would never be able to implement leaderboards into my games. I make arcade-style games that prominently feature score, so the replay value would definitely be hurt if they weren't in there. And as a gamer, I pay for Xbox Live every year because I enjoy occasional online play on their high-quality service.
Now can we stop posting this thread constantly? I feel like I've written this post at least half a dozen times.
Looking at how this thread came to the conclusion that Microsoft is the only one to blame for the online multiplayer paywall on consoles, I am really looking forward to revisit it after e3 2020 when Microsoft will announce that there will be no more online multiplayer paywall on Xbox consoles. I have a feeling this thread won't age well.
My argument still stands. The cost of development of the games and the relatively low price of games at retail comes at a price. There is a cost for running servers - they are not free, whether the developer or publisher sees money out of Plus or Gold is irrelevant as the cost still exists. Microtransactions and DLC are additional monies that get split up along the line of commerce. If people are so appalled by such a small amount of money, then don't pay for Gold or Plus or just game on a PC.
But the whole point is that your money is not going towards running the servers. Paying for Plus or Gold has no effect on your gameplay experience. The developer can't afford better servers with your sub money because they're not getting any of it.