So is PSN Plus if you pay monthly.
PlayStation Plus 1-Month Subscription $9.99
Nintendo's pricing is a lot more affordable but with far less games and less features.
The delusion that paying for PS+ and XBL pays for multiplayer servers. Why do people still believe this shit?
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
PlayStation Plus 1-Month Subscription $9.99
Nintendo's pricing is a lot more affordable but with far less games and less features.
I remember when people argued that xblive was superior than psn and that was because it was a paid service and because of that had dedicated servers instead of p2p.
In the end it was, and is , another way of revenue, Sony saw the opportunity so make it mandatory, and Nintendo too.
I played for plus before it was mandatory, so at least the change to mandatory didn't affect me as i already was a subscriber. Quality of games had ups and downs, but with discounts i find it a wash, drive i usually pay less than it is full price. But if had to sub to all, my perception wouldn't be the same. I have payed twice for NSO because of my daughters playing splatoon, and really feels like a waste.
In the end it was, and is , another way of revenue, Sony saw the opportunity so make it mandatory, and Nintendo too.
I played for plus before it was mandatory, so at least the change to mandatory didn't affect me as i already was a subscriber. Quality of games had ups and downs, but with discounts i find it a wash, drive i usually pay less than it is full price. But if had to sub to all, my perception wouldn't be the same. I have payed twice for NSO because of my daughters playing splatoon, and really feels like a waste.
To what Walken said it is a unified system. If I'm playing with other people who are playing on Xbox it is simple. You are talking about a corner case. Having to fire up a different app to chat like Discord and having to decide with friends that's where we want to chat on etc. is the inconvenience you don't have to deal with on consoles.
Can't say as I've encountered this particular argument personally. Most seem fully aware the entire concept of the online sub to access multiplayer gaming has always been straight up money grabbing.
They can't even keep old servers up. Gravity Rush 2's servers were shut down after..two years? Less?
This feels like a "who are you talking to?" thread today using delusions from a decade ago, long before the value proposition of XBL and PS+ changed to being far, far less like just a way to subsidize online gaming and more about discounts, cloud storage, free games, etc. Things that are super common for other, similarly unproblematic subscription services.
Arguably with the free games they include now, they're amongst the most bang-for-buck subscription services out there IMO.
Arguably with the free games they include now, they're amongst the most bang-for-buck subscription services out there IMO.
I just found out the limit for screenshots and video captures is 10GB - hadn't realised that was readily available info - which is crappy.
I pay £2.50 a month for 200GB on iCloud. You can get 50GB for 79p. MS should really up the limit as 4K screenshots fill up 10GB quite quickly.
I never choose to upload to Onedrive - I just upload to XBL - unless they are somehow connected without me being aware.
Yeah I'm not sure most people believe its for the online servers themselves outside of Sony's own games.
Some fraction of the money goes toward the store (and download servers), friends and associated account network structures, and third party stuff connects into that.
The majority of it of course, goes into profit but multiplayer - especially p2p - is only ever going to touch authentication servers and then run off client ISPs.
Some fraction of the money goes toward the store (and download servers), friends and associated account network structures, and third party stuff connects into that.
The majority of it of course, goes into profit but multiplayer - especially p2p - is only ever going to touch authentication servers and then run off client ISPs.
I would dispute that, I still think consoles have reached the point of acceptable pricing for enthusiasts, not mass market.
I would say that they're already being subsidised with game and DLC sales. It's not like Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo are allowing unlicenced games on their platform, they all take a cut.
It felt sorta worth it back when xbl first launched in 2002 and a broadband only online service wasn't really a thing yet.
Let's not use convenience to describe Switch's online functionality.
10GB is small but I wouldn't hold your breath for them expanding that. Your best bet is to move them into some other storage.
There's a cost but it certainly isn't 60 USD per person. It most likely can easily be subsidized by the 30% they get from all digital sales.
It is definitely true that the average person believes the money goes towards "infrastructure." Sadly most are either misinformed or don't care about this so they're willing to pay for it and therefore the platform holders take advantage.
It is definitely true that the average person believes the money goes towards "infrastructure." Sadly most are either misinformed or don't care about this so they're willing to pay for it and therefore the platform holders take advantage.
It's probably time to dump the online paywall in general, at least for paid/premium 3rd party games. Platform online subs can still exist for cloud storage, discounts/offers, a curated free game library and 1st party online and the numbers would probably remain the same tbh.
At $30/year (cdkeys), PS+ is alright. Still feels forced but I at least got Fall Guys, SFV, MHW and RE7+, Detroit, Days Gone out of it in 2020. They've also given me $10-$20 in in-currency for RoCo. If you do the math it can almost "pay for itself".
With so many MP games being F2P the paywall is starting to feel weird though. Like at this point it's gatekeeping MP games that need help vs these F2P monsters.
With so many MP games being F2P the paywall is starting to feel weird though. Like at this point it's gatekeeping MP games that need help vs these F2P monsters.
It's basically a tax, yeah. There is a cost to maintain a service like Xbox Live, PSN, or Nintendo Online, but the cost of operations there should largely be offset by the platform holder's various other revenue streams, not the least of which is these online platforms' various other subscription services and, most importantly, stores.
Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus are, essentially, an added tax.
Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus are, essentially, an added tax.
I think they're one and the same, my videos and screenshots that I uploaded to "XBL" back in 2014 were in my OneDrive account. Unless they've changed things since then.
I'm pretty sure the 30% cut taken from digital games pays for digital store capacity and features
Ive personally never thought that, I barely play multiplayer games and I pay for it for the Ps+ monthly games, the cloud space, just in case I do boot up a multiplayer title and the discounts i guess are nice but not that big of a deal. If the MP paywall went away or stayed it would make no difference to me personally and I'd probably still keep it ,but I can understand for other folks that it's an extra cost that shouldn't be necessary.
So yeah all that to say the multiplayer paywall should probably go away and Ps+ should just be bonuses and free games
So yeah all that to say the multiplayer paywall should probably go away and Ps+ should just be bonuses and free games
I'm questioning whether it ever did, but with the prominence of digital gaming and services, mtx and DLC, it sure as hell is irrelevant now. It's just another source of income for them. They need to decouple essential console features from it and make it a bonus service, with stuff like Gamepass or whatever. People will still subscribe but at least those of us who only want them to play a game online won't have to.
it's part of the business model. Sure Valve doesn't charge for steam but they also don't sell 50-100 million consoles at a massive loss that they need to recoup elsewhere.
Cut ps+ and XBL from Sony and MS's revenue and you can be sure to have either
- worse hardware
- more expensive hardware
- less first party games and studios
- all around worse service
Cut ps+ and XBL from Sony and MS's revenue and you can be sure to have either
- worse hardware
- more expensive hardware
- less first party games and studios
- all around worse service
lol huh yeah guess I was wrong. TIL ha
If only there were some platform out there that has lots of games, lots of servers and lots of engineers but didn't charge platform access fees.
It helps pay for the massive online network that the console and all games on the console utilize.
The games have their own servers yes but without Xbox Live each game would need their own friends system too. Remember how much of a pain in the ass that used to be on other platforms?
To insinuate that the cost doesn't go towards paying for any infrastructure and is instead all profit is completely absurd. There is certainly a profit margin but it's not all profit. Maintaining a massive network and digital infrastructure like Xbox live is not free.
And I do not advocate the for price increase to be clear. I thought it was a horrible idea and in glad they backtracked on it.
The games have their own servers yes but without Xbox Live each game would need their own friends system too. Remember how much of a pain in the ass that used to be on other platforms?
To insinuate that the cost doesn't go towards paying for any infrastructure and is instead all profit is completely absurd. There is certainly a profit margin but it's not all profit. Maintaining a massive network and digital infrastructure like Xbox live is not free.
And I do not advocate the for price increase to be clear. I thought it was a horrible idea and in glad they backtracked on it.
I agree w/ this, i like that I can still play my 7th gen favs online like PURE, Split/Second, Splinter Cell Conviction/Blacklist, Skate 3 etc w/ friends still. I definitely don't want that to go away.
Indeed.
Heck, even old MMOs that are barely alive can still keep their servers online. There's also the whole indie scene with MP.
It's always been pure ignorant rationalizing, you can see it even now in this thread. It's never been more than a cash grab.
Plenty of people. At one time I remember seeing commentary that PS3's online was worse than XBL because it was free.
Don't forget that Nintendo withholds a method for backing up your save games locally, so they can be all mobster like and extort you with their shitty scheme. "That's some nice save data you have there for those 100+ hour RPGs, would be a shame if something happened to it". Nintendo is the worst.
Well, In 2002 and even in 2005, Xbox live offered more centralized online services and functions than any other console and even PC offering. At any price. But that isn't the case anymore.
Destruction All Stars Devs be sweating right now. If the game bombs, Papa Sony gonna take their servers out the back real quick.
This is definitely not always true. Third-party publishers *have the option* of putting up their own servers, but they don't have to. EA and Activision often do that, but most games don't. The platform holder (Sony, MS, Steam, etc.) offers the tools and servers to handle matchmaking, leaderboards, stats, achievements/trophies, cloud saves, plus additional features like messaging and voice chat. If you don't believe me, go play an Xbox 360 launch game. Multiplayer still works.
If a game wants to offer additional functionality above and beyond what the platform holder offers, then they'd need to put up their own servers. But this is the exception, not the rule.
When Xbox Live was first born, things were a lot different than they are now. That stuff was far more expensive and also, you didn't commonly have online multiplayer features in console games. If the devs were forced to pay for the above features, they would not have been frequently included, and therefore, they would not have become as commonplace as they are now. You likely wouldn't have seen them in Steam, either.
Is that money as essential now as it was 15 years ago? Likely not. But to act like none of it goes towards the maintenance of the infrastructure is flat-out ridiculous.
Don't forget...because of retail discounts, payment processing, exchange rates, Microsoft Rewards, etc. the average they're making is probably closer to 20-25%.
Last edited:
I've never thought the money pays for servers. Having said that your comparison isn't like for like. Valve don't sell heavily subsidised hardware.
Yea I wouldn't mind paying if they didn't shut stuff down. That includes online storefronts.
