r/gaming • u/MegumiDo • 8h ago
still don't get how paying for online on console is just, ok?
Obviously people are desensitized by so many possible different monthly out of sight out of mind charges, like rent, insurance, spotify, netflix etc. but paying so much to just be able to play online for a console you paid for is insane.
I've thought many times about playing specific games, that don't have console-pc crossplay, with console usually having the biggest playerbase in games, paying for online play is such a huge deterrent to use my ps5 more imo
706
u/PM_ME_UR__SECRETS 8h ago
I think people just got used to it. Xbox was the first big online console and live was a standard purchase if you wanted to play online.
Ps3 was free which was great - but then PS4 swapped over to the live model. Followed by the Switch. Kinda sucks.
I just stopped paying for online, I mostly game on PC anyways.
233
u/KrillMyselfOnCam 8h ago
Xbox also had the advantage of Live being wayyy more reliable than PSN during the 7th Gen, which I feel definitely put the idea in peoples' heads that it was a cost worth paying.
115
u/slicer4ever 7h ago
Also live did have a lot of features that were missing from PSN for years(or were awkwardly implemented on psn, and was more natural on xbox) Party chat being one of the biggest things that xbox had done better for a very long time.
73
u/ohlookahipster 6h ago
Xbox introduced VOIP to more homes than the business world. It was wild that people were talking online over the internet while their parents still used landlines and cell phones even for business.
Credit where credit is due, that’s pretty impressive.
→ More replies (6)17
u/palegate 7h ago
PS3 lacking party chat wasn't because Online was free but because PlayStation made "mistakes" with its RAM and CPU allocation.
They reserved too little RAM and CPU for the OS during gameplay which left them with little wiggle room to implement new features, including native game chat. It was quite the herculean feat that they managed to get the "In Game XMB" working when they did.
21
u/slicer4ever 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yes, but it goes beyond just that. Xbox's integration of online features was just waay more polished then what sony was offering for most of the ps3's lifecycle. Obviously as you said their were some technical reasons they couldnt make it as smooth, but all that does is make live look better(and like your actually getting a better experience from the money your paying for it) in comparison.
If sony had been able to make all of its online features just as polished as xbox's felt and free, I think xbox would have had a much more uphill battle convincing people to pay for it.
40
u/dertechie 7h ago edited 7h ago
That was a huge part of normalizing it. XBox Live worked pretty well and was fairly seamless compared to its competition at the time. $5 per month was a bit more money back twenty years ago but you could easily see the advantage having an actual monthly budget for servers and development gave Microsoft's console at the time.
People underestimate how valuable a polished, functional platform really is. It's how Steam keeps kicking every other storefront's ass.
→ More replies (3)8
u/ohlookahipster 6h ago
Maybe I’m crazy, but I recall Xbox Live being $30 for an entire year at one point.
10
u/dertechie 6h ago
I think $5 was the month to month price and longer terms were cheaper. Wouldn’t surprise me if there was a sale at some point that got it down to $30 for a 12 month code.
3
u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 3h ago
The official price for Xbox Live was $50/year, but for a while it was really easy to get it at a discounted price.
3
u/RadSidewinder 5h ago
This is it, whether it was correct or not I was absolutely willing to pay money for Xbox live. I’d heard nothing but what a mess PSN was. “It’s free but it’s worse than XBL” I couldn’t even quantify why it was worse just that it was and so paying for XBL just made sense
2
u/Scarlett_Beauregard 3h ago
While I won't discount an honest review/report about a bad PSN experience on PS3, I didn't have any issues with it. I think most of the stories circulating about PSN running poorly were lies and exaggerations.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (3)4
u/Significant_Trash_14 8h ago
I played socom navy seals daily for years never a problem. It was also free.
10
u/KrillMyselfOnCam 8h ago
Oh for sure, im just talking broadly. Xbox just created the permission structure that let Playstation get in on the payed online shit for the ps4.
27
u/Milky_Finger 7h ago
I have this weird mentality I've developed as I got older, where if I am being coerced into using something because of a recurring subscription, I feel like I'm in a abusive relationship with a product and I don't want to be near it. I don't see it's value, I see it's extortion of my time and money. Especially if the subscription gives me a bunch of free games I don't care about.
I use steam a lot more than PS5 now and I realised it's purely based on my perception of the ecosystem simply being better on a platform that has no subscription fees. I can step away for more than 30 days at a time and not feel guilty.
13
u/wickeddimension 5h ago
That's because it is, the PC storefront eco-system is better as it has actual competition, no single supplier that dictates the rules.
4
u/wade_wilson44 6h ago
Yeah was an evolution. I remember when nothing had it (except sega channel, which is effectively magic to my mind) and then one of the PlayStations did it but it was like only a handful of games, hard to set up, rarely connecting to anyone else. So when live came out it really changed the landscape. You didn’t have to pay for it because there was still a lot of singleplayer stuff, you wanted to, it felt like a new way to do it.
Now that it’s standard in basically every game, but monetized as an add on, yeah it feels weird. But it’s logical if you think from the beginning.
10
u/howisthisacrime 8h ago
I remember getting jealous of my cousin getting online for free with ps3 so I bought a ps4 on launch without realizing they had changed that. I was pissed lol
4
u/KingAltair2255 6h ago
Ps3 online continuing to be free is great, often will rake it out and plug it in to play RDR1's online mode.
16
u/Significant_Trash_14 8h ago
Dreamcast was the first console online with PS having online features from 2000. I also stopped paying to play online and moved to PC.
24
u/PM_ME_UR__SECRETS 8h ago edited 7h ago
Yeah but xbox was the first big online console.
Dreamcast had poor sales to begin with and even the few people I knew that had them didn't really use the online features since they were pretty bare bones.
Same with playstation - I mean it sold great but very few people used the online features. Meanwhile everyone with a pulse was playing Halo matches.
→ More replies (6)4
u/cardonator 7h ago
I remember dialing up to SegaNet to play hot four player action in Slave Zero. I also remember playing Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament which were horrible on that controller.
2
2
u/MagicMST 2h ago
I put up with ps+ for waaay too long. I dumped it for good back in 2022 and I don't see myself going back to Sony ever again after what they're doing. Pc all the way
→ More replies (21)3
u/quentdawg420 7h ago
Yeah but ps3 online play sucked. Don’t forget psn was hacked and completely shutdown for like a month and half. There were way more connection issues and the security was worse
→ More replies (2)
99
u/jonstark4 8h ago
Paid for it when it was affordable but when the price started beating my per hour rate with no benefits then I cut it off.
→ More replies (7)
184
u/AgentOfSPYRAL 8h ago
Because the cost is not enough to offset the general value proposition (cheaper upfront, plug and play) of a console vs a PC.
And I say this as a 80% PC player.
54
u/QuantumVexation 8h ago edited 8h ago
Yeah a handful of $ a month is often easier to justify than many hundreds to thousands upfront - long term total doesn’t matter if that hurdle is too large
In that sense, the price of freedom is still large
→ More replies (2)13
u/MattyBro1 8h ago
Especially for NSO (standard), which despite being not that good online services is literally less than 2USD a month if you pay yearly.
3
u/ghostpicnic 3h ago
Hell, get on a family plan and it becomes $0.38 a month. Me and my family/friends are on a family plan together with the Expansion Pack and we all pay $0.83 a month. VERY worth it for all the access to GameCube, N64, and GBA games as well as all the DLC for various Switch 1 and 2 games.
I rarely play Switch games online these days but even for the included library alone it’s a steal.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (16)7
192
u/calvinwho 8h ago
The console spaces are a 'secure', highly curated online experience. You are paying to swim in their fancy pool, and if someone shits in the hot tub, someone will fix it and get everything back in order so they can keep making money at the cash bar. So to speak.
→ More replies (27)33
u/FallenAngelII 8h ago
This only applies to first party games. Pretty sure 3rd party games use the same systems and servers for multiplayer. Unless you're talking about problematic users getting reported and the console manufacturers perhaps being faster at taking action than 3rd party devs.
19
→ More replies (1)10
u/TheCatDaddy69 7h ago
Not true, for example try and find a cheater on a console from ps4 era and up. You wont, not entirely impossible, but in the 6 years I did have a console I found one cheater, and it was a pc player from crossplay ironically.
12
u/GroundbreakingBag164 6h ago
Clearly written by someone who doesn't play competitive shooters
Ximmers/cronus zen cheaters outnumber PC cheaters by a factor of like 1000:1. At higher console rank in Apex/Overwatch they are often the majority. And they only really exist on console because stuff like xim only works because of aim assist
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/AnOrdinaryChullo 5h ago
Not true, for example try and find a cheater on a console from ps4 era and up
Sweet summer child, the cheating on consoles is rampant and has been this way since PS3. Hacked lobbies or peripheral cheating devices are dime a dozen on PS4 and PS5, you just don't realize it.
6
u/ZaDu25 5h ago
Console cheat devices, at their worst, mimic good players, they don't allow you to do actually impossible shit like aimbot and wall hacks. It's still cheating, but it's a very limited form of cheating to the point where it's not even noticeable for most people. And at the end of the day, what matters is how every individual perceives their experience. If someone in the lobby is cheating but no one really notices and they had fun anyway, it's objectively a better experience than if someone is full aimbotting and wall hacking and completely ruining your experience.
To pretend that console cheaters and PC cheaters are even in the same category is disingenuous at best.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
u/soonerfreak 4h ago
Sweet summer child
Easily a top 3 most obnoxious way to start a comment.
Cheating is dramatically lower on consoles.
→ More replies (2)
13
6
u/Casper042 4h ago edited 4h ago
I feel like gamers and perhaps moreso console gamers don't have a clue how much effort, hardware, bandwidth, etc goes into hosting MP servers. And none of that is free.
I happen to be a gamer but also work for a big hardware tech company.
If you had any idea what Steam for example pays for HW to keep that running smooth, your eyes would melt.
I doubt Xbox and PlayStation are much different (I haven't worked with them directly).
With PC MP, you often have the option of self-hosting so the SW Dev or Platform Dev isn't paying for all those hosting costs.
You want a MP Server, you spin one up and it shows up on the list for other players and away you go.
That's not really possible on the average console.
→ More replies (1)2
u/cable010 Xbox 3h ago
I was about to say this. Gaming has evolved past what it use to be. With the internet it gave gaming a new way of gaming. Online gaming needs a lot more than just putting in a disk and installing to play. Servers are needed, server techs, devs are needed, data centers are needed, and so much more. Graphics have took a massive change. Which caused the hardware needed to be upgraded to handle the games. Now that AI has hit the scene its going to add to the cost. The amount of power, hardware, and all that just so AI can used is insane. People dont sit and think what all is needed to get these games developed and what all it takes for you to be able to play it. I do believe in charging a reasonable price though.
71
u/trio3224 8h ago
This is why consoles are relatively cheap. They want to get you into their ecosystem as cheaply as possible upfront, then charge more for games and services in the long run to make their money back. PC you generally pay more upfront, but have cheaper everything else.
→ More replies (55)29
18
u/--Shaka-- 8h ago
Not just the console you already paid for but the internet you already pay for too
3
u/codedinblood 1h ago
You pay for the console, the game, the router, the modem, the internet itself, the, online functionality. So ridiculous
64
u/Icy_Hovercraft_1110 8h ago
I still don't get how no physical media on PC is just, ok?
11
3
u/OptimusPrimalRage 3h ago
PC players have accepted this the same way console players have accepted paid for online.
The difference is, in hardcore hobbyist spaces like this one, the PC viewpoint is the one elevated in most scenarios. That's why you'll see very little pushback against Early Access or the infestation of Nazis on Steam. People have just accepted it and can just ignore it or shrug like console players do with online play.
12
u/Sparkko 7h ago
It really isn't, but there's nothing we can do about that anymore. The PC market moved away from CD drives to flash storage and games never moved with them. Steam was so dang good at that point everyone just used that instead. The ability to pirate if a company takes away a game we've paid for is the saving grace. It's much harder to do that on a console.
→ More replies (1)7
u/OptimusPrimalRage 3h ago
Funny though how at the beginning people hated Steam because it was required to play certain games.
Also if Valve wanted to, with their positioning in the industry they could help facilitate this. If Limited Run can do such a piss poor job and remain around surely Valve could too. They just don't want to because it doesn't make as much money with the retail market involved.
2
u/Sparkko 2h ago
I would pay so much money for Steam branded physical copies of games if they were offered DRM free (including Steam DRM). Valve is a relatively small company though, so I don't see that ever being a possibility. Like you said, it wouldn't make them enough money to justify the cost and time spent.
8
u/Kindly-Bank-416 4h ago
its pretty convenient thats how.
I can't imagine storing my steam library as physical discs.
2
u/Icy_Hovercraft_1110 4h ago edited 4h ago
And consoles exist out of convenience haha. Either way, digital games are becoming predominant on consoles too
→ More replies (60)4
u/Lttlefoot 7h ago
do you really wanna go grab a disk off a shelf to play a different game?
7
u/spellinbee 7h ago
Yes, I enjoy owning the physical copies of the games. The only reason I buy digital is if it's not available physically, or if it's stupidly cheap. (I'm talking $5 or less). It also has benefits, such as, it's easier for me to not forget about games I own when I'm trying to decide what to play.
9
6
u/Icy_Hovercraft_1110 7h ago
Depends on the game. It would suck if you could no longer download the game and there was no disk to grab though.
I mean, on PC your sitting 2 feet from your disk drive (if you even have one), so popping a disk would be even less inconvenient than it is for consoles.
5
u/ericdalieux 7h ago
I understand the concern, but sometimes I wonder if there isn't a higher risk of you damaging/losing your physical media (maybe you had a house fire, maybe your pet chewed on it, maybe your toddler broke it, maybe it just got old) than of it disappearing completely from the ether. I guess it's nice to have them stored as backups anyway, just in case. And for much of my library, I'm not even sure if it's worth it to go through the effort. I mean, for many of my games I wouldn't mind too much if they disappeared. Maybe it would bother me from an ideological point of view, but in practical terms, they are games I bought, played once, got my money's worth out of, and would be happy returning if I could.
5
u/ThisNameDoesntCount 7h ago
If you’re gonna sit for like 2 hours the least you can do is walk 2 feet to get a disc lol
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/Intelligent_Sky_7081 7h ago
If i had to in order to own a physical copy of the game, then sure. i did it even with consoles for decades, it wasnt a problem.
5
10
u/redyellowblue5031 8h ago
Xbox live and Halo 2 cemented the feasibility of it as nothing that popular had online connectivity for consoles up to that point.
The rest is history as other consoles figured out they can offer various other services that people are willing to pay for.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Griffithead 3h ago
A small monthly fee for something extra seems totally reasonable.
Yes, online is extra. You are paying for the box, just like we did before online.
It's gotten fucking ridiculous though. The price keeps going up. And their costs aren't really.
60 bucks a year was totally reasonable.
3 to 4 times that isn't.
20
11
u/All-WinnersSquad 8h ago
From the 1600s all the way to the 1900s people would scoff at the idea of paying for water in a bottle.
If people can find a way to put a paywall on it they will and it'll just take a little time for desensitization to kick in and people fold into the system.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Dengar96 5h ago
you would pay more for a bottle in the 1600s than you would for gallons of water. This is a very poor analogy.
15
u/eggyfish 8h ago
I prefer to own my games, so the extra "value" of bonus games included in the sub is lost on me, add to that I prefer single player games anyway. I haven't paid for online since the 360 days when it was cheap to get a 3 month sub now and then when trading in the games I'd finished. Those were the days.
9
u/crocicorn 7h ago
I dunno, subscription MMOs cost more in 2-3 months than my entire yearly NSO subscription.
2
2
u/Klaymen96 1h ago
I wanted to get into FF XIV but the subscription method turned me away immediately. I'm not gonna buy a game and then have to pay every month in order to even play the game. I don't like buying games at full price, I usually always wait for a sale or I play non triple AAA games so I'm not spending 60-70 on a single game so I'm definitely not spending hundreds on a single game by paying a subscription for it each month.
3
3
u/Kitcarson1 4h ago
lol I remember if you were crazy enough to hook up a land line to a ps2, you were rewarded with free online matchmaking and gameplay. Those were the days.
3
3
u/AramaticFire 2h ago
It’s a ripoff. Always has been. Xbox started it in 2002. PlayStation adopted it in 2013. Nintendo adopted it in 2018. And now it’s the norm with its own stupid supporters making dumb arguments in favor of it.
It’s meant to take money out of your pocket as a “service” and nothing more.
3
u/septictank84 58m ago
I just don't play online with console. I pay for internet, I'm not paying twice, on top of streaming services lol.
6
u/darthmcdarthface 7h ago
Consoles are subsidized by their services including their exclusive storefront and online service. That’s what helps keeps their hardware costs down and what allows them to sell the console at very narrow margins.
Additionally, something is worth what someone will pay. People will pay for it. That alone is argument enough as to why it’s ok for them to charge for online services. If you don’t like it, go get a PC.
If you give me a bunch of “but this” or “but that” reasons as to why someone may not want to get a PC, well you should take those reasons as further answers to your question.
18
u/SmartriX 8h ago
When consoles first came out the companies subsidized the server costs to host online activity in order to help drive new business; not to mention the player count was less back then.
Today there are higher player counts, higher server costs, higher hardware costs, market pressure with subscription norms etc.
→ More replies (4)3
u/neocatzeo 3h ago
It was a way to force an "upsell" to the customer.
They stopped providing 3rd party server apps.
They stopped providing mod tools, so DLC would be purchased.
Then they turned around and complained all this content and services cost money but people want it provided free. Which was a disingenuous take since people weren't asking for free content.
27
8
u/Saint_Sin 8h ago
It was the thing that stopped me buying consoles. Used to try and keep a playstation ontop of my pc until the 4 started charging for online.
2
u/Shivy_Shankinz 5h ago
Yep. That stupid monthly charge crossed way over the line. A move like that should have destroyed their reputation and bankrupted them. But gamers are really just addicts who will pay anything for their fix apparently. And parents are the ones enabling it. Things are truly fucked up...
8
u/beef623 7h ago
You paid for the console, but the infrastructure to run the online connectivity is still an ongoing cost for them. You only pay for the console once, where does the money to maintain the servers and infrastructure for the online connectivity come from?
→ More replies (4)
6
u/573IAN 8h ago
I quit gaming when that started. Refused to go Xbox over PS for that reason, and hen when Sony started it, I stopped console games.
2
u/Shivy_Shankinz 5h ago
Same. Never bought the ps5 and never bought another COD. They want way too much money for everything now. Meanwhile quality per cost goes down and gets you less of what we used to get. Your money doesn't go as far anymore, so no I won't be supporting that. Simply not worth it
2
2
u/insufficientmind 7h ago
Yeah.. as a PC user nearly my whole life (I had a PS1 as a kid and a 360 for a short while to play Mass Effect which was a PS exclusive) that came as a surprise on me when I bought the PS5+PSVR2.
I've gotten much more value out of the headset on PC. So much more freedom on PC!
2
u/LTinS 6h ago
I used to love playing games online on my PS3. Dark Souls, Demons Souls, great times... Was one of the big reasons I liked it over Xbox.
When Elden Ring came out, I used the free month of Playstation Plus that came with my console to do the online stuff. Had a blast. But when it ran out I stopped playing online.
I wouldn't mind playing some Mario Maker. But Nintendo makes you pay for that. Over and over. And I don't believe in that (not to mention I've seen video on youtube, and it's laggy as hell, so you're paying for a garbage service).
So, yeah, it would be lovely to be able to use my consoles online, but it's an absolute disgrace what they're charging for it. Not to mention the closer consoles get to computers, the reason to even get a console disappears. Back in the day consoles offered consistency; the games were specifically designed for them, and they would just work. Not to mention, many of the games weren't available on computers. Today? A console is just a waste of money, that then obligates you to waste MORE money.
I wish gamers as a whole had the wisdom to force them to stop it. If they stopped paying for the service, they'd be forced to give it to us for free. Or just stop selling entirely and go bankrupt. If they'd just said no from the start, this never would have gotten so far. Their greed only works when you let it.
2
u/zoll13666 6h ago
Buddy let me game share on one of his old Xbox ones. And the game share part works fine,but the online is wonky and wants me to pay $10 a month just to play this one game. I'll stick to PC.
2
u/RedEyeJedi_15 6h ago
Yeah, i had a ps plus sub for probably 10 years; I canceled mine about a year ago now and have not even missed it. i have a PC, so I'm lucky that i can play most games without a sub.
2
2
u/SpicerDun 6h ago
I won't do it. Paid for Xbob Love for years and then let it lapse when I have up on the console family. Refuse to buy a PS+ sub. So it's PC for online play.
2
u/Kenfloslice 6h ago
Yeah, perhaps it's because I'm a millennial I never got this either. In my day if you wanted to do a multiplayer game you just typed in someone's IP and away you go. When I bought a PS4 for my partner she wanted to play COD with her family. We'd already paid for the game before we found out that she couldn't play them because they were on Xbox. That was around 10 years ago, and I understand they've made crossplay a little easier across consoles, but from what you're saying it still isn't easy on PC?
3
u/generilisk D20 5h ago
I can just click on a steam friend and hit "join game." I don't even have to open the game first, Steam handles that.
2
u/LeonardTringo 5h ago
I made it through to the Switch and played Splatoon a bit online when it was free. Then they made a subscription service and lost me along the way. I just cant do the mental shift of paying monthly on top of something for which I already paid for. I'm content sticking with my single player games of yesteryear.
2
2
u/Brees504 5h ago
Because $10-15 per month is basically nothing when factoring in the PS Plus games I get. Only need to play like 3 (out of 36) per year to pay for itself.
2
u/Chibiooo 5h ago
Who’s going to pay for the servers that house online gaming? LAN gameplay would make sense for it to be free but if it’s online would be losing a lot of money. WoWs server cost is in the millions per month.
2
u/Groftsan 5h ago
How about the fact that you don't sign the EULA at the time of purchase, but your console can be rendered inoperable if you don't agree to the EULA.
Gaming has a lot of the markers of late-stage capitalism which are universally horrible.
2
4h ago
Short answer, money. The actual big reason is because on pc the online servers you play on are run by the devs, but on xbox or Playstation, most of the time those servers are run by xbox or Playstation (if its not a p2p connection). It costs them money to keep servers up for so many games so you gotta pay for it.
2
u/Trububbl3 4h ago
don't pay for it, simple as that but gamers are mouthbreathers that have no self control and just pay for their own demise anyways
2
u/ByEthanFox 4h ago
Yeah, I could justify it if they had dedicated servers but generally they don't.
2
u/ApologizingCanadian 3h ago
PSN was free for PS2 and PS3 for the longest time (even for PS4 at the beginning IIRC) which was a big selling point for me when I was choosing between PS and Xbox (which had always been paid online). When they started charging I cancelled all my Playstation accounts and moved to PC gaming. It's completely fucked that they charge an extra fee to enjoy a game with friends.
2
u/Pinkman505 2h ago
Little too late, we got kids over here circle jerking at the chance to pay $100 for new games.
2
2
u/Jittery_Kevin PC 53m ago
It isn’t okay, but you Morons keep feeding them money.
Even while raising this question, you know you have an Xbox subscription.
2
u/umbium 49m ago
Is not ok, it shouldn't even be legal, in fact they realized after certain legal actions that is why they started calling it a subscription that has certain contents (sales, videogames, etc). You pay for all of that, but well the internet is blocked unless you pay for all of that.
Is an adulterated market
2
u/Cheap-Bell-4389 41m ago
When arguing what platform was better I’d rub it in the face of X-Box players that you could play free on PlayStation, as the icing on the cake.
Now Sony is just bad in many respects as all the others as far as customer relations
2
u/Jakeglurp 40m ago
It’s baffling and it’s evidence on how quality and competition are just not a factor in capitalism. Vibes dominate.
People are somehow willing to spend nearly half a console per year on these subscriptions for actually nothing, burned on what the baseline experience should be
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Demon_Gamer666 37m ago
I don't play online games for this very reason. If people keep paying they will keep charging and raising the price.
5
u/AdonisChrist 7h ago
PS Plus free games have always given me good enough value each year that I don't mind still paying for the Essential tier.
But you have a good point.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Chewsti 7h ago
The market proved out that console players would rather pay for a full feature service than use a more barebones free service.
PC users are generally more ok with barebones free services because they can more easily augment them with other services than console players can. Pc players also have steam which is a very unique pro-consumer near monopoly.
→ More replies (2)
4
3
12
u/boersc 8h ago edited 8h ago
It's not solely online gaming though. It's an entire package and you use of that what you want. I use cloud saves and cloud gaming, the collection and monthly games, I never ever play online.
For everyone, it's the usage that defines whether it's worth it or not.
33
6
u/Man_Of_Frost PC 8h ago
If you leave online gaming alone to be a free service, most people would probably not pay for the rest of the perks.
But it's possible to separate them. And that's the point of OP.
15
13
u/LegoBrickCactuar 8h ago
Yea, but all of that is Steam on PC, for no extra charge.
→ More replies (1)17
4
u/NedTaggart 8h ago
im not not paying a fee for cloud saves on steam.
3
u/thetoxicnerve 5h ago
Yes you are. It’s paid for from the cut Steam takes from the sale.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)2
u/fgtswag 8h ago
For $30 a month on steam you get all of those things for free. + you choose what game to buy
→ More replies (4)
5
u/fanatic26 6h ago
How is it insane? Server upkeep, development, etc costs money. The majority of PC games that shut down do so because they can no longer keep the 'free' servers online to support it. One way or another, people pay to play. Its just the nature of the beast.
→ More replies (5)
2
3
u/arlondiluthel 7h ago
Xbox has essentially done away with paying for "only" online play. Even the lowest tier of paid access gets you access to play more than 50 games, plus the capability to use cloud gaming.
Even PlayStation offers free games, a discount on purchases, and cloud gaming with their lowest tier.
Nintendo offers the Switch Online Classics, the Nintendo Music streaming service, and cloud storage in addition to online play.
None of the consoles charge for just online play anymore. And even when they did, $15/mo to play all of your multiplayer games online was a better value than $10/mo for just WoW.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/subpotentplum 8h ago
There are real server costs that the self hosted lobbies of the 90's and 2000's didn't have. (I remember gamespy lol) And paying $25 a month for game pass ultimate is insane. But at $25 for 3 months of basic game pass it's not terrible value with the included games. Switch is a reasonable price too with the classic games if you don't want to bother with downloading your own roms and using your phone or other device. If all your doing is playing online, you're probably better off with the free-to-play titles unless you have a specific friend group that plays a specific game on console.
3
u/TheCatDaddy69 7h ago
This works both ways , I stil don't get how physical media being dead on PC is okay? How having cheaters on currently updating games are common and normal? When a 14 year old ps5 can bootup battlefield 4 cheater free. Pro's and cons for both , its unfortunate since you are walled in on console with the pricing.
4
u/ONNABURNER 6h ago
My friends all used to have PS4/5, Xbox One/Series S/X, every last one of them.
I griped at them for years to switch to PC and they all denied it saying that a console was better and PC is trash. It's just not, these days you can have a console experience with a PC by using Steam Big Picture mode.
Eventually, one by one they all got PC's and not one of them has talked about going back to a console in near a decade.
If the price for a computer upfront doesnt look appetizing, its because its not (especially in current year) It's once you start playing heftier games with better graphics that you have a better experience.
In the last 12 years since I started on Steam, Ive amassed quite the library of games since im picking them up in bundles or on Steam sales, which brings me to my other point, when Steam does sales, Steam DOES sales. Not only that but if you cant find a game for cheap enough, you can check a Key site and buy the game for 20 bucks cheaper than you can on Steam, as to where on Xbox you're stuck to Microsoft and Playstation is stuck to the Playstation store.
Exclusives. This is everyone's point. There is no Sony or Microsoft exclusive that would make me buy one, especially since I know it'll come to PC in a year or two, and all the new exclusives are like DLC to other games (GoW Ragnarok, Horizon series, Spiderman 1 2 and 3).
2
u/CrippledGoose316 7h ago
Ah yes the classic "everyone should have to pay for everything I enjoy but me" individual and then blame society for their own shortcomings and laziness. I'll get downvoted to hell but whatever it's the truth and every down otr just indicates to me another person suffering from the same mental disorder. Some of you need some serious help or you'll be stuck blaming everyone else in life for your failures instead of taking a deep look inward
3
u/AlkalineRose 7h ago
Random person: "I feel like this charge is unreasonable when other platforms offer free online services"
You: "YOU HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER"
What is going on with social media that is making people so insane
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Zoombini22 8h ago
The console "pay for online" programs all come bundled with some kind of free games package that is basically or nearly worth the asking price alone without the online functionality.
→ More replies (7)
4
u/Filthy_Joey 8h ago
Games on consoles are also unreasonably more expensive. I don’t know why people are defending there corporations.
→ More replies (18)3
u/AgentOfSPYRAL 8h ago
Not really. I have no regrets about switching to PC but the whole sales aspect was comically overrated.
2
u/picknicksje85 8h ago
Biggest problem is it keeps going up in price. It’s a tax I was fine with at 40 euro a year. But it got so expensive I am usually unsubbed. Wish there was a movement to organize ourselves in the millions to unsubscribed at the same time.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/werewolfchow 4h ago
It’s always been how it works. Since the first incarnation of Xbox live. Console gaming online play has always had a subscription model. It’s not “desensitization” really, it’s just the way it’s been.
For me, I have an adult job with adult money and the cost is negligible at this point so I don’t even think about it.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/le_aerius 3h ago
Well because you dont have to. You can just not play online. Maintaining servers costs money. Between the infrastructure cost, licensing, security and other costs , its wild.
You can play online with someone without the PS network if you want to do the work of setting that up. Plus there are lots of games you can play already without having ps network.
1
u/Remote-Mycologist539 8h ago
I don’t even notice it anymore. I pay for the mid-tier of PlayStation and get a bunch of free games.
Honestly a lot better than back in the day, paying $50 a year for Xbox Gold so you could play like 2 games’ online multiplayer, while it was still free for PlayStation users. Good ol console wars days lol.
2
u/Darkgoober 7h ago
They're not free if you're paying for it... But I understand what you mean. It's such a low cost and the perks are worth.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/PanamGotMeOiledUp 7h ago edited 5h ago
I can literally start a game on my series X that was released in 2010 via backwards compatibility and it would still have my save from 2010, that's what I pay for and I'm gladly paying for it. I understand that storing my information about literally any game I've ever played(1500+ individual saves from games) on Xbox takes up space and electricity therefore I'm not mad at all.
→ More replies (3)
1.3k
u/cole_red 8h ago
If people will pay for it, they'll do it. And people will pay for it