Game servers cost money to run so paying to play online is 100% justified

[Deleted member 8001]

Just like it costs money to host a website on a server, it also costs money to host a server for a game, and then then you have to make sure the server has decent latency for gaming.

You can look at an example of this with GameSpy where the company was losing money due to lack of funds and had to shut the service down.

https://www.engadget.com/2012/12/14/gamespy-multiplayer-server-shutdown-result-of-failure-to-pay-by/

GameSpy Technologies has also responded to the issue on its Facebook page, and says that the server shutdowns are a result of the game developers choosing not to pay their service fees, and that "in some cases this lapsing ranges back as much as four years."

Click to shrink...

GameSpy Technologies tells players that it "cannot be expected to provide a service free of charge," and that's why these servers went down.

Click to shrink...

Sony on their introduction of paying for online essentially states the same thing.

https://www.destructoid.com/sony-explains-why-you-ll-have-to-pay-for-online-with-ps4-256158.phtml

After being asked what went into the decision to charge for online gameplay, Sony explained that online features and services are going to be a "big pillar" of the PS4 experience. They go on to note, "we've already talked about the share button, sharing features, second screens...if we continue to invest into online infrastructures, that costs money. If we continue free service for online multiplayer, from a business standpoint, there's pressure to recover costs.

Click to shrink...

That's when we decided 'let's ask the people who are most active in playing online to share some of the cost so we can invest more.'" It has also been noted that some F2P PS4 games will not require PlayStation Plus, including Planetside 2 and DC Universe Online (the latter of which will feature cross-platform play).

Click to shrink...

So because they don't have to shell out cash for the service entirely, it allows them to give us more features with online at that. There's essentially nothing wrong with payed online, you're paying for something that costs the company money to host.

 

[SirKai]

Then game services and online functionality on these platforms should NEVER be shut down, outages and downtime should briskly and occur infrequently, and customer service better be fucking on point. Otherwise, why am I paying extra to play Rainbow Six Siege, Tekken 7, or Overwatch on PS4 and XB1? Ubisoft, Namco, and Blizzard manage to host those games perfectly fine on their own services (or on Steam) on PC with as-good or more reliable performance compared to console and don't ask for any extra service charge.

I'm a pretty reasonable guy, and I'm understanding of paying to play online for consoles, but let's be real: the amount Sony and MS ask for is total horseshit and the amount put in is clearly not being used to make outstandingly better services.

 

[Tygre]

Game consoles are walled gardens, so paying to play online is 100% due to the monopolistic practices that allows.

You have no choice, there is no Xbox Network or PlayStation Live style competitor, so they can (and do) charge you for whatever they like.

 

[Deleted member 8001]

Game consoles are walled gardens, so paying to play online is 100% due to the monopolistic practices that allows.

Click to shrink...

Did you not read the OP? That isn't true.

 

[dude]

Game servers are provided by the publisher or developer though, and not by XBL or PSN...

 

[Deleted member 8196]

Well, but at the same time we have Steam with huge servers located across the globe and the online is free.
Same for Battlenet.

 

[Deleted member 8001]

The game servers are provided by the publisher or developer though, and not by XBL or PSN...

Click to shrink...

Explain how shutting down Xbox Live caused all Xbox games to go offline then.

 

[STGHMAAV]

Not justified when the game uses P2P or when the game uses external servers, I mean, if Rocket League uses Psyonix servers, why I should pay Sony or Microsoft for their servers if the games I play don't use them?

 

[Geese Howard]

The game servers are provided by the publisher or developer though, and not by XBL or PSN...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, and even Sony's servers, the ones used for PSN downloads, only have abysmal speeds.

 

[shaneo632]

It should be the cost of doing business, really.

 

[Hektor]

Yea except that many multiplayer games use peer2peer technology and that no videogame server infrastructure in the world requires nearly ten bucks per user per month to cover the cost lmfao

 

[kadotsu]

I wonder how iOS, Android, Steam, PC F2P, Amazon, MS on PC manage to provide this expensive service free of charge.

 

[MuchiMuchiPink]

Explain how shutting down Xbox Live caused all Xbox games to go offline then.

Click to shrink...

Matchmaking servers are run through the providers.

 

[Tygre]

Did you not read the OP? That isn't true.

Click to shrink...

I read the OP and it is exactly true.

For evidence, I'd like to direct you to the existence of an open platform, a platform on which playing online has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than on consoles, and yet on which playing online has remained mysteriously free at the point of use. It's called the PC.

 

[Skeleton]

If you pay for a service it should be one you're willing to pay for, PSN is not the case, download speeds in stores, amount of downtime, it isn't invested enough into.

It should had never been able to have been hacked as many times as it has, Xbox live is a much better service for online and communication when playing games.

 

[Alvis]

Hahahaahahahahahahahhahahah

Remember when Microsoft tried to make PC online gaming paid via GFWL? The community said no, they backtracked, and no one died.

Every PC game has free online while the console versions have paid online. And it works fine.

Free online has never been a problem. But companies are probably very happy that you think otherwise.

 

[Jingo]

Then you have p2p horrible conections, if xbox and sony charge only they should at least press the companies to have dedicated servers to their games.

 

[omf]

This would be the case if Sony and Microsoft were running dedicated servers for all games on their platforms. And why is this 100% justified fee tied to a game subscription service?

 

[Lappe]

I have never had a issue with paying online. I've always seen it as a console thing, and never even actually questioned it.

But if i'd have to choose, I wouldn't pay for PSN if it weren't necessary. It's just not as good as Live.

 

[KosmonavtTomas]

Explain how shutting down Xbox Live caused all Xbox games to go offline then.

Click to shrink...

AFAIK only matchmaking goes through Xbox Live so players can join servers. But if a game runs on dedicated servers, developers handle these servers themselves.

 

[ViviOggi]

You just couldn't post this in the thread huh

Console online games this generation are largely p2p-based, and when they're not the servers are provided by the game's publisher, not the platform holder. Paying platform holders for online play is a scam, plain and simple.

 

[Deathknell]

That's why i play on pc.

 

[Arulan]

Considering how many games continue to use peer-to-peer networking, this is pretty hilarious. Also, as evident by the PC, an open-platform encourages real competition, which might encourage platform-holders (Valve for example) to offer these services for free. And for many games on PC, the players themselves can decide to locally host or setup dedicated servers instead.

 

[Geese Howard]

AFAIK only matchmaking goes through Xbox Live so players can join servers. But if a game runs on dedicated servers, developers handle these servers themselves.

Click to shrink...

If that. Usually it goes over to P2P in which case everyone's PS4, the thing you already paid for, is doing most of the work.

 

[Deleted member 8196]

I mean, if we had dedicated servers well, the paywall is kinda """justified""" but we are stil locked to shitty p2p connections.
So no, that's bullshit.

 

[impingu1984]

Well a service that acts as a store front (either games being purchased or selling loot boxes / mtx) doesn't need to charge additional money for online.

There are plenty of these that also have multiplayer services for free.... All are on PC of course....

GoG, Steam, Origin, Uplay, Battle.net, Windows Store

These seemly continue to offer multiplayer game services via free access (If you own the game of course) without a multiplayer subscription and turn a profit still.

But if console players are willing to pay, the corps will happily charge for it.

The point is a successful business model exists for free.

 

[Kida]

PSN hasn't got any better since they started charging. They still close down unpopular/old games.

At least MS keeps the vast majority of it's back catalogue online where possible.

And of course PC gaming has always been free.

 

[dude]

Explain how shutting down Xbox Live caused all Xbox games to go offline then.

Click to shrink...

Because XBL provides matchmaking and probably other services required to set up an online game. You could argue that these services should cost money because someone developed them, but that's quite different from server costs, and these sort of services are provided for free on Steam for example.

 

[Vault]

No your just getting ripped off by greedy corporations

 

[LuigiV]

PSN plus and Xbox Live don't pay for game servers, the devs/publishers pay for those themselves.

 

[MuchiMuchiPink]

I'm not even question that the infrastructure costs money, but why are we running free pr for these companies?

 

[Deleted member 8001]

You just couldn't post this in the thread huh

Console online games this generation are largely p2p-based, and if when they're not the servers are provided by the game's publisher, not the platform holder. Paying platform holders for online play is a scam, plain and simple.

Click to shrink...

Nope I couldn't, it deserves its own thread.

Final Fantasy XIV is pay to play and has microtransactions for cosmetics, this is really no different. Servers cost money, service for servers cost money, and additional content such as cosmetics costs money for them to design. I don't agree at all.

 

[Haunted]

Nah, I'd rather the manufacturers shoulder these costs so I have more incentive to invest in their hardware, software and [walled-off] ecosystem.

But that's just me, the consumer, talking. I'm sure it's more profitable for them this way.

 

[Axass]

You're out of your mind, online has been free on PC for decades. Console manufacturers are profiting like crazy from it, it's as simple as that. Not to mention shutting down support for games one or a few years out, even though you're supposedly covering the costs anyway, and frequent downtowns without any compensation for the consumers.

 

[Ge0force]

When you buy a console game, a significant amount of what you pay already goes to the platform owner. For EACH game, even if it's singleplayer only or if the devs are providing their own servers.

I'm pretty sure that the royalties from 3rd party games are more than enough to pay for the servers and services that the platform owner provides. So I refuse to pay a second time for online gaming by taking a paid subscription.

 

[danmaku]

Hahahaahahahahahahahhahahah

Remember when Microsoft tried to make PC online gaming paid via GFWL? The community said no, they backtracked, and no one died.

Every PC game has free online while the console versions have paid online. And it works fine.

Free online has never been a problem. But companies are probably very happy that you think otherwise.

Click to shrink...

So much this.

If you think you have no other option, or the service is worth paying for, more power to you. Just don't try to justify the paywall with these ridiculous excuses. They want more money from you because fuck you give me money. That's the reason.

 

[philm87]

Wish EA would front up for some dedicated servers though. I understand there's still servers needed for online platforms like Ultimate Team and the matchmaking, controlling results etc.

I think I read it's down to the developer whether they require PS+ or Gold to play online, so I'm guessing they must get something back from Sony/Microsoft?

I really don't consider £35 much to pay for a decent service though for 12 months. I probably pay enough of the PS+ games to cover that, plus play a lot online. Having all saves backed up is great peace of mind.

Like the OP says, they're going to need to cover the costs somehow. So you're going to be paying for it somehow.

 

[duckroll]

I too love passionately defending a restaurant's right to charge me a few dollars for water on top of my 50 dollar meal because clearly there is a justifiable cost of labor and resources for it! Unfortunately for me there isn't an ongoing thread bitching about restaurants charging for water, so I won't get as much attention for making a reactionary thread.

I support the OP in spirit tho! Capitalism ho!

 

[Deleted member 8001]

I too love passionately defending a restaurant's right to charge me a few dollars for water on top of my 50 dollar meal because clearly there is a justifiable cost of labor and resources for it! Unfortunately for me there isn't an ongoing thread bitching about restaurants charging for water, so I won't get as much attention for making a reactionary thread.

I support the OP in spirit tho! Capitalism ho!

Click to shrink...

Aren't you a FFXIV player?

 

[Maxi]

I understand paying for online as it is an expensive service to run especially due to the size the services they have become but I don't agree with the OP on everything.

MS and Sony treat their paid service as much as an advertisement platform and storefront as the free service so they re-coup a lot of their costs through advertisements and their storefront the same way Steam can be such a large stable platform on PC without charging. The same goes for mobile platforms, Amazon and all other manor of cloud services as your data is worth more to a company than your low monthly cost these days!

Also developers also have to pay for the servers most of the time depending on how the servers are provided for MP gameplay but yet they don't see a cut of the PSN/XBL pie, it's the other way around.

 

[A Strong Latte]

Just get whales to fund everyone else by covering server costs with microtransactions, easy

 

[duckroll]

Aren't you a FFXIV player?

Click to shrink...

Don't have a current subscription, but yeah? I love capitalism. I also defend the right for lootboxes to exist and I buy a lot of DLC. You have an ally in me.

 

[Ge0force]

Explain how shutting down Xbox Live caused all Xbox games to go offline then.

Click to shrink...

Because your online status, account information etc are handled by Microsofts/Sony's servers. If PSN is down, the publishers servers won't find anyone online to match with.

 

[Geese Howard]

Nope I couldn't, it deserves its own thread.

Final Fantasy XIV is pay to play and has microtransactions for cosmetics, this is really no different. Servers cost money, service for servers cost money, and additional content such as cosmetics costs money for them to design. I don't agree at all.

Click to shrink...

If this is about revenue streams to create new content for MMOs, why is the OP implying game server costs justify PS+ and Xbox Live Gold? Those things aren't related at all when the PS+/Gold fees go to neither game servers, nor developers.

 

[Deleted member 932]

Which is why we pay for the games in the first place.
Also, playing online on PC is just as good, if not better, than playing on console. So explain that to me.

 

[A Strong Latte]

Like what does PS pluse and Xbox gold even go to the services are garbage slow, feature light and unreliable

 

[KonradLaw]

As a pcgamer I think online should be free after launch. It's core functionality and we pay for it by buying the game and add-ons. This can't go forever obviously, but that's why every multiplayer game should also allow for dedicated servers and allow users to host them after the official support is done.

 

[Bulbul]

Why is online free in everything except PSN and Xbox live??

 

[Airbar]

Seems to me OP has actually no clue how networking on consoles/PC work and just opened this thread to defend his favourite brand.

 

[BlacJack]

Well, but at the same time we have Steam with huge servers located across the globe and the online is free.
Same for Battlenet.

Click to shrink...

Or Riot. And these guys maintain the biggest online games out there.

The price of the game goes towards maintenance of the game and its servers. That's why MMOs have monthly fees or cash stores for in game items. A company charging to access online is not encompassed in that. 3rd party games dont get access to these servers unless they provide their own.

You are paying the company to allow you to play a console you already bought off them, online.