Why do we have to pay for online in consoles?

[Canny McTin-Face]

PS4 is nice and all but they make you pay money for online for some unknown reason. why consoles in particular are the ones that do this anyways?

[Mikasa Ackerman]

the reason is simple , if you bought a playstation 4 (Pro) with games and stuff , what option do you have besides paying for it , they are the only provider for the online , they could make a fee for single player games ( and force an online check ) , you cant just say " you know what , i go play on uplay , origin , battle.net , league of legends whatever

there is only one option for playing online theres no competition

[E3kHatena]

Unlike with PC, games on consoles are running through that company's servers and other hardware. Running that stuff, especially enough of it all over the world to keep, say, the 70.4 million PS4s that have been sold, online for games and file sharing. As a result, monthly/yearly fees for online features were implemented to recoup those costs as Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo only keep a handful of actual retail sales as they also have to pay their hardware manufacturers, staff, and third-party developers. Online costs are 100% kept by them and thus can be used to improve and expand upon the networking hardware to improve the online experience. Some of that money also likely makes its way into the hands of cybersecurity firms to lessen the blow of a data breach.

Between peer-to-peer, Steamworks, Battlenet, Origin, community dedicated servers, etc., the newtorking load for PC gaming is spread rather thin and most of the companies that own their own servers there usually keep almost every cent of game purchases (such as EA or Bethesda with their launchers) or in Steam's case just makes an absolute killing to the point where they can run the servers for free.

[Canny McTin-Face]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από E3kHatena:

Unlike with PC, games on consoles are running through that company's servers and other hardware. Running that stuff, especially enough of it all over the world to keep, say, the 70.4 million PS4s that have been sold, online for games and file sharing. As a result, monthly/yearly fees for online features were implemented to recoup those costs as Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo only keep a handful of actual retail sales as they also have to pay their hardware manufacturers, staff, and third-party developers. Online costs are 100% kept by them and thus can be used to improve and expand upon the networking hardware to improve the online experience. Some of that money also likely makes its way into the hands of cybersecurity firms to lessen the blow of a data breach.

Between peer-to-peer, Steamworks, Battlenet, Origin, community dedicated servers, etc., the newtorking load for PC gaming is spread rather thin and most of the companies that own their own servers there usually keep almost every cent of game purchases (such as EA or Bethesda with their launchers) or in Steam's case just makes an absolute killing to the point where they can run the servers for free.

what about nintendo though? and why didn't they had to start that when online was a new thing on consoles?

[-V-]

I don't have to do that and I have a ps2 AND a wii.

[Daxank]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Canny McTin-Face:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από E3kHatena:

Unlike with PC, games on consoles are running through that company's servers and other hardware. Running that stuff, especially enough of it all over the world to keep, say, the 70.4 million PS4s that have been sold, online for games and file sharing. As a result, monthly/yearly fees for online features were implemented to recoup those costs as Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo only keep a handful of actual retail sales as they also have to pay their hardware manufacturers, staff, and third-party developers. Online costs are 100% kept by them and thus can be used to improve and expand upon the networking hardware to improve the online experience. Some of that money also likely makes its way into the hands of cybersecurity firms to lessen the blow of a data breach.

Between peer-to-peer, Steamworks, Battlenet, Origin, community dedicated servers, etc., the newtorking load for PC gaming is spread rather thin and most of the companies that own their own servers there usually keep almost every cent of game purchases (such as EA or Bethesda with their launchers) or in Steam's case just makes an absolute killing to the point where they can run the servers for free.

what about nintendo though? and why didn't they had to start that when online was a new thing on consoles?

simple. What this man just said is the BS they'll tell you to justify why they're charging it. When in reality it's just a complete lie.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από -V-:

I don't have to do that and I have a ps2 AND a wii.

Damn! It's been a long time since I last saw you here

[E3kHatena]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Daxank:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Canny McTin-Face:

what about nintendo though? and why didn't they had to start that when online was a new thing on consoles?

simple. What this man just said is the BS they'll tell you to justify why they're charging it. When in reality it's just a complete lie.

I mean, I've actually worked with and spoken to people in the games industry as well as Information Technology majors and professors. It's not some greedy conspiracy, maintaining and upgrading hardware to keep people connected is stupid expensive and it's become more and more difficult as more and more games use online features and require them to be more and more advanced. With the early days of the PS2 and up to about the Wii/PS3, a great deal of games were offline or offered rudimentary online play (Smash Bros. Brawl's infamously laggy Wi-Fi battle mode or the simple gameplay of Animal Crossing Wild World are the two big examples from the dawn of Nintendo WFC). As the games became more complex and faster servers were needed, and as more and more games were coming online, the number of servers required and the transfer speeds had to increase, and Microsoft jumped ahead and started XBox Live's premium membership as a means to cover those costs. Sony did the same sometime during/after the PS4 launch, and Nintendo is doing the same in September as the likes of Smash Bros. and Fortnite launch on the console and as more and more of them are being sold.

Can this be seen as unfriendly against the consumer? Absolutely, but almost entirely online subscriptions ensure that the companies have room in the budget to maintain and upgrade online functionalities instead of slashing budgets for first-party games or royalties on third-parties. In the long run, maintaining positive connections with your third parties and developers is what keeps a console going and maintains its success, and faltering third-party support has killed multiple consoles before (the Wii U and Vita come to mind). In a best-case scenario, they wouldn't have to, but putting some of the costs on comsumers keeps their relations with their developers up.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από E3kHatena:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Daxank:

simple. What this man just said is the BS they'll tell you to justify why they're charging it. When in reality it's just a complete lie.

I mean, I've actually worked with and spoken to people in the games industry as well as Information Technology majors and professors. It's not some greedy conspiracy, maintaining and upgrading hardware to keep people connected is stupid expensive and it's become more and more difficult as more and more games use online features and require them to be more and more advanced. With the early days of the PS2 and up to about the Wii/PS3, a great deal of games were offline or offered rudimentary online play (Smash Bros. Brawl's infamously laggy Wi-Fi battle mode or the simple gameplay of Animal Crossing Wild World are the two big examples from the dawn of Nintendo WFC). As the games became more complex and faster servers were needed, and as more and more games were coming online, the number of servers required and the transfer speeds had to increase, and Microsoft jumped ahead and started XBox Live's premium membership as a means to cover those costs. Sony did the same sometime during/after the PS4 launch, and Nintendo is doing the same in September as the likes of Smash Bros. and Fortnite launch on the console and as more and more of them are being sold.

Can this be seen as unfriendly against the consumer? Absolutely, but almost entirely online subscriptions ensure that the companies have room in the budget to maintain and upgrade online functionalities instead of slashing budgets for first-party games or royalties on third-parties. In the long run, maintaining positive connections with your third parties and developers is what keeps a console going and maintains its success, and faltering third-party support has killed multiple consoles before (the Wii U and Vita come to mind). In a best-case scenario, they wouldn't have to, but putting some of the costs on comsumers keeps their relations with their developers up.

this is false , how come steam is growing yet the whole online and community stuff is almost free ( almost since you need to spend money on steam to get full access to community features , but thats one time and can be spend on games

[Daxank]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από E3kHatena:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Daxank:

simple. What this man just said is the BS they'll tell you to justify why they're charging it. When in reality it's just a complete lie.

I mean, I've actually worked with and spoken to people in the games industry as well as Information Technology majors and professors. It's not some greedy conspiracy, maintaining and upgrading hardware to keep people connected is stupid expensive and it's become more and more difficult as more and more games use online features and require them to be more and more advanced. With the early days of the PS2 and up to about the Wii/PS3, a great deal of games were offline or offered rudimentary online play (Smash Bros. Brawl's infamously laggy Wi-Fi battle mode or the simple gameplay of Animal Crossing Wild World are the two big examples from the dawn of Nintendo WFC). As the games became more complex and faster servers were needed, and as more and more games were coming online, the number of servers required and the transfer speeds had to increase, and Microsoft jumped ahead and started XBox Live's premium membership as a means to cover those costs. Sony did the same sometime during/after the PS4 launch, and Nintendo is doing the same in September as the likes of Smash Bros. and Fortnite launch on the console and as more and more of them are being sold.

Can this be seen as unfriendly against the consumer? Absolutely, but almost entirely online subscriptions ensure that the companies have room in the budget to maintain and upgrade online functionalities instead of slashing budgets for first-party games or royalties on third-parties. In the long run, maintaining positive connections with your third parties and developers is what keeps a console going and maintains its success, and faltering third-party support has killed multiple consoles before (the Wii U and Vita come to mind). In a best-case scenario, they wouldn't have to, but putting some of the costs on comsumers keeps their relations with their developers up.

Ok then, explain to me what expensive servers they need to pay for when most online games on console work by p2p

[BanOphobia My Struggle]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryuko Matoi:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από E3kHatena:

I mean, I've actually worked with and spoken to people in the games industry as well as Information Technology majors and professors. It's not some greedy conspiracy, maintaining and upgrading hardware to keep people connected is stupid expensive and it's become more and more difficult as more and more games use online features and require them to be more and more advanced. With the early days of the PS2 and up to about the Wii/PS3, a great deal of games were offline or offered rudimentary online play (Smash Bros. Brawl's infamously laggy Wi-Fi battle mode or the simple gameplay of Animal Crossing Wild World are the two big examples from the dawn of Nintendo WFC). As the games became more complex and faster servers were needed, and as more and more games were coming online, the number of servers required and the transfer speeds had to increase, and Microsoft jumped ahead and started XBox Live's premium membership as a means to cover those costs. Sony did the same sometime during/after the PS4 launch, and Nintendo is doing the same in September as the likes of Smash Bros. and Fortnite launch on the console and as more and more of them are being sold.

Can this be seen as unfriendly against the consumer? Absolutely, but almost entirely online subscriptions ensure that the companies have room in the budget to maintain and upgrade online functionalities instead of slashing budgets for first-party games or royalties on third-parties. In the long run, maintaining positive connections with your third parties and developers is what keeps a console going and maintains its success, and faltering third-party support has killed multiple consoles before (the Wii U and Vita come to mind). In a best-case scenario, they wouldn't have to, but putting some of the costs on comsumers keeps their relations with their developers up.

this is false , how come steam is growing yet the whole online and community stuff is almost free ( almost since you need to spend money on steam to get full access to community features , but thats one time and can be spend on games

Obvious point the console clients produce and sell console hardware at a loss. Valve don't sell gaming PC's at a loss.

[Daxank]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Lost "N" Spaced:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryuko Matoi:

this is false , how come steam is growing yet the whole online and community stuff is almost free ( almost since you need to spend money on steam to get full access to community features , but thats one time and can be spend on games

Obvious point the console clients produce and sell console hardware at a loss. Valve don't sell gaming PC's at a loss.

you were saying ?
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/steam_machines

[BanOphobia My Struggle]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Daxank:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Lost "N" Spaced:

Obvious point the console clients produce and sell console hardware at a loss. Valve don't sell gaming PC's at a loss.

you were saying ?
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/steam_machines

Are Value funding those builds of a tiny % of PC hardware?

Do Valve make a hardware loss on every PC built that runs games on the Steam client?

The statement you made lacks equivalency between my point and the point you made.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Lost "N" Spaced:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryuko Matoi:

this is false , how come steam is growing yet the whole online and community stuff is almost free ( almost since you need to spend money on steam to get full access to community features , but thats one time and can be spend on games

Obvious point the console clients produce and sell console hardware at a loss. Valve don't sell gaming PC's at a loss.

valve doesnt sell pcs at a loss since they dont really make pcs ,arent steam machines from other companies like dell or something ?

and even if all steam machines were made by valve , most pc gamers build their own rigs

[just chillin, Drew.]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Canny McTin-Face:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από drew!:

why do you have to act like a console peasant man?

i forgot that people use the phrase "console peasant" in a non-joking manner

ok, so?

[just chillin, Drew.]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Lost "N" Spaced:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Canny McTin-Face:

i forgot that people use the phrase "console peasant" in a non-joking manner

PC gamers who don't have a console are gaming peasants, because they never enrich themselves with the full gaming experience.

"full gaming experience" ahaha .Third person action adventure games with stealth elements on 30fps, witch sometimes even struggle staying at 30fps, is this your full gaming experience? i think i will pass.

[It's Chase]

I don't mind honestly. $60 a year is cheap. You even get free games out of it, so it's not that bad.