• Light/Dark
  • 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.

Time for Sony and Microsoft to release a “lite” online sub to compete with Nintendo?

Do you skip online gaming on PS4/XB because of the 60$ price tag?

  • Yes

    Votes: 162 27.1%

  • No

    Votes: 435 72.9%
  • Total voters
    597
HighFive

HighFive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,636
Exactly how many players around the globe just dont want to pay for PS+ XBL Gold is unknown, perhaps a majority simply dig the 60$ price tag to play online and get some freebies along the way. Nintendo jump a bit in the same boat, but with a more reasonable price of 20$, but the freebies that comes with it are just retro games.

Dont you think its time for the other two to release a half content ( let say without the free games ), which will make you play online, cloud save , voice chat only, at like, let say around the same low price range of 20-25$?

Im just curious to know if you would drop like your Plus membership and go toward a Plus Lite if it would exist.And i add a pool to know if playing 60$ per year influence you to not play multiplayer games and do that on other platform instead.
 
Reckheim

Reckheim

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
9,391
great idea, I could do without 95% of the ps plus games. I only pay to play online with my brother (wish he was more into pc gaming).

honestly tho, paying for online gaming in 2019 is ridiculous. Fuck MS for making it normal.
 
HammerOfThor

HammerOfThor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,861
I'm sure the free game is the least of the costs associated with running the online infrastructure. And $60 isn't much at all. Plus the yearly passes are constantly on sale for a nice discount.
 
BreakerofChains

BreakerofChains

Alt-Account
Banned
Oct 24, 2019
520
Nah, they don't need to worry or compete against this at all. It's inconsequential. Nintendo is not competing in the online front..at all.
 
Starlatine

Starlatine

533.489 paid youtubers cant be wrong
Member
Oct 28, 2017
30,468
The only semblance of justification for charging towards the service is the extra fluff. If they take it out to release a service to just have multiplayer, might as well make it free already

And you know, on xbox im already getting several deals of gamepass and gold for one buck per month so.... huh that seems pretty light to me.
 
gardfish

gardfish

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,629
I would 100% be on board for this. PS+'s pricetag is an absolute no-go for me; I'm mildly irritated by having to pay for online on the Switch, but $20 is a lot easier to swallow than $60. I get that there are bonus games in the mix, but fundamentally what I'm paying for is online play.
 
Prine

Prine

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,724
Not trying to be flippant, but Nintendo isnt competition online.
 
MrBob

MrBob

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,670
You can find these yearly subs on sale for 30-35 dollars during the year at times. Buy it then.

Nintendo's sub is the worst of all even at 20 dollars. Finally almost barely worth it just for the snes games.

So wait for a sub sale and buy, you get near the price you want.
 
Diarrhea Day-Lewis

Diarrhea Day-Lewis

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,767
Don't they have like tens of millions of subs? No.

if there is proof Nintendo subs take away from them maybe but i doubt it, there may be more Ps+ subscribers than Switch units sold altogether, much less NSO subs.
 
Anomander

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,469
Answering the question in the title: Yes, I neither wanna pay more for the "free" games nor do I have time to play them. But Nintendo being the competition here is just lol.
 
roly82

roly82

Member
Apr 2, 2019
1,488
Yes please, without free games, Celeste is the only one I played from there this year.
 
Fiel

Fiel

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,265
How to win next gen battle;
Step 1: Free online multiplayer on your platform
 
Kolx

Kolx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,505
You pay 20$ for Nintendo online because the service is garbage and lacks basic functionality, not because it's "lite".
 
Ze_Shoopuf

Ze_Shoopuf

Member
Jun 12, 2018
3,945
I mean if you can't afford $60/year (which is routinely on sale for $45) then maybe you should have other priorities.
Also Nintendo Online is such a bare bones service, there should be no comparing it to Xbox Live or PSN.
 
AmFreak

AmFreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,508
Are they loosing subscribers left and right because of Nintendo?
There is your answer.
 
OP
OP
HighFive

HighFive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,636
SoaringDive said:
They should release a lite version priced at $0.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You know, as much as i hate to say this, cause i am not of fan of paying for online sub, i just dont want servers who will not be maintained , full of hackers. Paying to play online seem to give a better experience than free platforms ( not saying all have problems here ) , im just having difficulty to spend a full price game price for online gaming , special prices, freebies. If the service was cut in half for just online, the amount like Nintendo is charging would be very welcome. Its not because i cant afford it, its more of a principle that giving me better discount, freebies dont make me swallow the pill better.
 
FelipeMGM

FelipeMGM

#Skate4
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
3,012
I probably would for PS+, for Xbox Live, GPU is the way to go for me


But not sure why they would do it. Comparing PS+ and NSO for example, looking at the latest data (and those should be updated this week) the attach rate for these services is kinda similar and PS+ ahead actually (NSO 27% and PS+ 36%), so there isnt anything that suggests they should have an option modeled after NSO

I am very curious to hear the kind of impact SNES games had on the service though
 
Earthed

Earthed

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Sep 26, 2019
494
I think services like PS plus (the free games every month part) work because they're reliant on people essentially paying for something that they otherwise wouldn't pay for.
 

Deleted member 17403

User Requested Account Closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,664
I think so, they should just make a tiered system that has increasingly greater value the higher up you go. $20 gets you online, $40 gets you tier 1 with PS+, and $60 gets you tier 2 and PSNow. That's how I would go about it.
 
jelly

jelly

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
33,841
I don't think I've ever paid full price for Xbox Live except in the early days. I still think Microsoft would be onto a winner if they made online play free and stuck to game pass sub but you know, a company doesn't give up money. Microsoft also gives you free cloud saves anyway so you would basically be axing discounts and games with gold. I do think Games with Gold has lost it's lustre now and considering the Ultimate bundle upgrades you are getting, I don't care that much these days but maybe people still do.

I don't know really, maybe next gen will see them realigning or culling some things to make it more simple, I dunno. One can dream online play being free bombshell annoucement but perhaps thy're fine with just gamepass ruffling some featheres by itself next gen.
 
Last edited:
Shalashaska

Shalashaska

Prophet of Regret
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,428
We are never getting cheaper version of PS+ or XBL, it's too big of a revenue generator for both companies. The only reason a lot of people have either is because they need it to play online. Most people don't care about the games, as proven by the low PS+ subscriber numbers back when it was just a games service. It didn't start ballooning until online play was included in the sub, and its gone from the low millions back then to over 30 million now. So splitting out online play into a cheaper sub would dramatically lower the amount of revenue each month.

If anything I expect a price bump with the PS5/Scarlett. Too much money to be made there and people don't really have a choice if they want to play online.
 
Sensei

Sensei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,536
this thread is made based on an assumption that sony needs to worry about competition with nintendo switch online, which doesnt make sense at all
 
Nekro

Nekro

Member
Oct 30, 2017
102
How about remove the online sub requirement completely?

Online play should be free.
 
Decarb

Decarb

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,646
Make the online MP free, then they can charge whatever they want for the "free" garbage. I can afford $60/year, I just don't like flushing money down the toilet.
 
Windu

Windu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,641
How about lite as in Free. Paying for online gaming. /sigh.

Have a $5 sub for a small selection of games if you want, but end the pay for online multiplayer please.
 
Nano-Nandy

Nano-Nandy

Member
Mar 26, 2019
2,302
BlackLagoon said:
I suspect they're more likely to just cut the games and keep the price the same.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much.
When the PS4 launched, Plus was recquired for online multiplayer, but the ganes given out were not centered around PS4 for obvious reasons.

Back then it consisted on mostly PS3, Vita games and a few indies for PS4. So PS4 users had to pay the same for games that were not even playable on the PS4, for a service that overall was the same as PS3 (it worked for what it was intended: online multiplayer, but it was not a drastically better online experience that was worth the price).

Since then, they upped the price and give less games.

With time I could see them removing individual games and just include PSNow with it.
 
DarthWalden

DarthWalden

Prophet of Truth
The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
6,030
I would like this but I don't see how this makes sense for Sony/Microsoft.

Only reason Nintendo Online is cheaper is because it is trash and few games actually are required to use it. They'd price themselves out at 60$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.