You pay your internet provider $60-80 once every month to access the internet on any device capable of doing so...

You pay your internet provider $60-80 once every month to access the internet on any device capable of doing so. That's okay because you're paying for a service just like water and electricity.

You don't have a monthly fee for an Apple or Google account. You don't have a monthly fee for a Steam or League of Legends account.

Why is it okay to have a monthly fee on your gaming consoles? Sony had a well established system where you created an ID and added your friends on it for an entire console generation. Why can't we have that for the this one or the next? Does it actually cost money? Can't something like ads just take care of that cost? Microsoft keeps the ads on Xbox One, so what the hell is going on?

Other urls found in this thread:

steampowered.com/steamworks/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

it isn't. I feel like this is the peak.

To sell their next consoles, one of them willl get rid of the cost and people will go nuts

It's not okay and the only reason they're doing it is because gamers are a bunch of spineless fuckers and they don't vote with their wallet when it actually matters.

It didn't hurt Sony or Microsoft to have a pay-for-online model. So why would it hurt Nintendo?

Consolebabbies will accept it as always, domesticated as they are.

I pay $35, somebody is getting scamed by comcast

>Why is it ok to charge for any online service? I mean I already pay to access the internet????

This is you.

It better be. I don't think I'm getting a PS5 if they continue this shit.

It's acceptable because people are willing to pay for it. Same thing with Netflix increasing their monthly fee. If the income for them goes up and doesn't present any immediate risk, then why not?

It worked well with Xbox Live so everyone joined the party after they realized that it wasn't a risky move. It's "normalized".

see
You entitled little shit

I don't agree with the policies, but hey, it's the truth. Sorry, man. If it works for one guy, they're all going to jump on the bandwagon if they can make a buck out of it.

>you pay for things
>this means you should pay for more things!
>this also means you should pay for things that are free before!
Jewish logic 101, son. Don't question your overlords.

im thisyou got it all wrong fucking normie, i never said it was ok, everyone is just used to it

You realize most online services on consoles that cost money are p2p services, right?

>pay for a console
>get a console

>pay for a game
>get a game

>pay for online services
>get online services
It's not that difficult to understand guys.

Someone took theire knowledge and expertise and applied it over several years to make a network environment so everyone could play games together, and then secured it, and push our updates regularly.

Do you even think about the people who make this happen? Do they not deserve compensation for their efforts?

And no, a "thanks" doesnt pay bills.

Because the online services they provide are hosted on their servers and maintained by their employees, who get a paycheck for their work. It's cool that they stayed free for as long as they did but they aren't going to be able to afford more in-depth functionality without bringing in money to support it. The real issue arises with how much it will cost and what functionality you cannot access without paying.

>Why is it okay to have a monthly fee on your gaming consoles?
It's not ok. But people are paying it so they keep doing it.

Paying for online servers is becoming the norm, and it's a good thing, because it prevents our online games to become like on PC; with no people playing or with no servers running.

that's just plain wrong there are alot more on pc, kys nigger japjew nintendrone/sonygger. you just a virgin trying to protect ur integrity

>That's okay because you're paying for a service just like water and electricity.
I fucking WISH it was a utility. But no they limit torrents and other data types, fucking squirrels.

No, it is entirely ok. Thats what im saying.

And everyone in this thread saying its becoming the "norm" - well it is, but not because NORMIES ARE STUPID XDDDD

It's because technology on the scale of Nintendo or gaming in general costs a lot to obtain, and maintain. As it advances, it costs more and more as specs increase.

It's inevitable that the company needs to start charging to cover costs. Its the way the world works.

>It's not that difficult to understand guys.
It is. When others provides equally good service for free on other platform (and/or that the service were free on the previous gen), you can't help but feel scammed.

In addition, it fucking locks shit behind paywall. You buy a fucking game full price, and the online mode, like, often half the tile, is not accessible unless you throw money at it again. How is that ok?

There's no such thing as voting with your wallet. If people stopped paying for online services they wouldn't magically make them free, they'd just close them down.

But your logic is wrong.
It's
>pay for a game
>get half of the game

>pay for online services
>get the other half of the game

>It's because technology on the scale of Nintendo or gaming in general costs a lot to obtain, and maintain. As it advances, it costs more and more as specs increase.
Yes, look at how PCfags have to pay for their online. Like, holy shit, PS4 that want to play BF4 online have to pay, but Mustards don't, even though it makes virtually no difference for the players. Holy shit, you're right, paying was a necessity.

Stop thinking from the consumer perspective, i.e. your head up your ass, and start thinking about the people who work to make it happen

>BUT IT SHOULD BE FREEEEEEEEE

Shut the fuck up.

>There's no such thing as voting with your wallet. If people stopped paying for online services they wouldn't magically make them free, they'd just close them down.
Hahahahahaha

Ho wait, did you really believe that?

right which is why PS3 multiplayer stopped working years ago

game companies charge for online because they can. it's a huge part of most games nowadays, so they charge money because they know people will pay.

whether or not it's "acceptable" is irrelevant. I think it's kinda sad how much shit companies can get away with nowadays that would be considered outrageous a mere 10 years ago but hey that's capitalism for you

Because a company who built their empire on selling "licensing" and "digital" with no production cost to play games that other dev's have to pay to put their shit on, and not only have to pay but have to pay a cut to that company.

But damn dude yea u are right same thing.

>You pay your internet provider $60-80
I pay $10 for 100Mb/s up and down.

>If people stopped paying for online services they wouldn't magically make them free

Explain F2P games.

And yet many game are still p2p matchmaking.

>Because the online services they provide are hosted on their servers

You're retarded. We all know WHY they charge it. They charge it because they want more money and theyt know they can suck it out of the consumer wallet without major negative impact except maybe shit like frustration thread on Sup Forums.

Believe it or not, nor the servers hardware, the people or the general maintenance cost are justifying the expensive fee they charge you. That's what they would like you to think, but that isn't true. They could charge way less and still makes a profit. It's just greed and/or good old capitalism, and yes, it COULD (from any perspective) be free, and (from a consumer perspective), SHOULD be free.

You're paying for access to their servers.
PC doesn't have to and has much greater versatility since players can host their own servers and run their own rules for the game.

The way its designed, cheating should be less on consoles but I've found it's about the same.

Make your choice.

Hilarious strawman, yea networks dont exist without servers.

upboat +1 i like it

Did they just walk up, slowly, and charge for online?

>"Nobody's going to make their service infinitely more attractive than their competitors, that'd just be silly! They'd go broke in a week!"

China can and does flood foreign markets with cheap goods at a small loss to themselves to kill competition that can't afford to ever lose money, so that they're the only game around when they raise prices again.

You think Sony and Microsoft couldn't afford to lose money for a year or two if it meant killing off the other?

What?

BF4 is published by EA software. The server you play on are likely managed and paid by them. On PC, you access them through Origin, which is also owned by EA. All of this is free. On console, it's not. People complain. Fair enough.

>We all know WHY they charge it. They charge it because they want more money and theyt know they can suck it out of the consumer wallet without major negative impact except maybe shit like frustration thread on Sup Forums

So no. You dont know why they charge it.

>That's what they would like you to think, but that isn't true. They could charge way less and still makes a profit. It's just greed and/or good old capitalism

You are so embroiled in your own opinion it's disgusting

>it COULD (from any perspective) be free, and (from a consumer perspective), SHOULD be free.

You're right, it could be free. and you get brawl online tier internet, and shit infrastructure.

WHICH IS A GREAT BUSINESS MODEL because people dont shit on nintendo enough for their online capabilities.

>You're right, it could be free. and you get brawl online tier internet, and shit infrastructure.
Yes, sure, because when it's free, it's automatically absolute shit, would it be global service like Steam or the countless perfectly fine F2P online games you can find.

>95% of games are still p2p
>Literally everything Sony and Nintendo have done is just copying what Microsoft did with the 360 years ago
>still all have shit download speeds
>still have ads
So what exactly are we paying for? Some incompetent sysadmins to do nothing?

that price is nut's i pay 40

No offense, but some ISP's do charge you an additional service fee on top of your monthly internet charges, which is essentially what you're complaining about for the console. Same thing for smartphones.

You use nintendo's equipment to connect to their online service.

You use your own to connect to steam.

See the difference?

>$60-80
>americans actually pay this much for sub 100mbps connection with data caps

So what exactly are we paying for?
You're paying for the two indian intern that are hired each time Sony Online service get hacked and the user info stolen.

online multiplayer games are shit anyway.

My parents pay €15 for a 1000/1000 fiber connection.

Yeah, while I get it, it makes it sound even worse. Like:
Nintendo: "You already paid us by buying our console, thanks, please pay again for our online service."
Steam: Whatever, even if you use a toaster bought for 100 bucks on ebay, you can use our service for free.

Doesn't steam take a small cut for themselves whenever you buy a game or use the market?

Nintendo online is shit. If you had to pay for it in the past no one would've and they would have either learned their lesson or added more features in response to justify the price. Right now is not the time to be fucking up and trying to fit a price tag on a service no one is used to paying for on lesser used console even among people who own it. At least is the case of the Wii and WiiU.

Yes, but that implies you have to use the market or buy a game 'on' steam, when you can easily third party it from any key site.

But then wouldn't the other sites get a cut? I mean, you're still paying for it, just indirectly.

>locking peer to peer connections behind a paywall

Wait, so two Switch's cant connect locally without both having paid for online account?

I have no idea, I'm just here to shit on paid online in consoles.

Competition. Steam can't really charge a fee because it's not the only game in town, and charging users a fee would reduce the sales numbers that they take their cut from.

Internet providers get to charge inflated prices (in the US anyway) because there's functionally no competition. Cable at a high price, fiber if you're lucky is even higher, or you go DSL.

Microsoft can charge whatever they want, because there is actually no competition. You can't use a different service to play your xbox games online, you pay their rates or you fuck off. The people that don't care don't pay, but wouldn't use it in the first place. The people that do care have to pay. Free online is just leaving money on the table. in that environment.

And the internet will be terrible and the game will look like hot garbage, which comes back around to the cost of the technology they have to cover.

see >Consolebabbies will accept it as always, domesticated as they are.

They're too scared or dumb to get into PC gaming so they stick with consoles.

No. LAN is not counted toward online service.

Because Sony, MS, and Now Nintendo have all realized that consumers are little bitches who will bitch and moan about the fees online but will still buy the consoles anyways

Oh fuck. Don't bring rational logic into this thread. This is a Nintendo-hate thread. Business sense and logic are not needed here.

>Doesn't steam take a small cut for themselves whenever you buy a game or use the market?
If you buy it on steam, yes it does. Although you could use their infrastructure with some game you bought elsewhere without them having a cut. But otherwise, yes, totally, you're right.

That said, Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft are also taking a cut already when you buy any game for their console, even in physical format in store. It's called Plateform Royalty and it's around 12% of the total price, and explain why Console game are often more expensive than their PC counterpart.

They'll try to "compromise" first. Give you 10 hours of MP for free each month, no games with gold or ps+ required. Cough up if you want to play any more than that and get your "free" games. I'd be okay with that. I don't play much online MP.

>And the internet will be terrible and the game will look like hot garbage
In which case, in that example? Steam service or Nintendo online service?

Nintendrones are defending this. What a world.

What part of PEER to PEER do you have trouble understanding?

Microsoft first saw that console users can be exploited by making them pay for what they are already paying. Later sony thought the same and finally nintendo.

It will never be stopped because consumers are just that dumb to realize why allowing such actions will force more actions of the same type that can exploit the user.

You do have a monthly fee for PC accounts, don't you remember?

Hey, I'm just pointing out that even services like Steam isn't really as free as people claim it is.

>But then wouldn't the other sites get a cut?
Not really. For instance, you could by a game on HumbleBundle, make the dev cut to 100% without anything to charity or Humble tips and still play on steam.

That's really going full length to prove it's possible, though, I'll grant you that.

>Does it actually cost money?
No, and it especially doesn't cost Nintendo anything seeing as how they're going to outsource all online features to a fucking iphone app that you need to use on your own phone instead of, you know, having voice chat built into the console's OS. The fucking PS2 had more competent multiplayer.

I don't have Internet or cable tv. Feels great

MS Sony and Nintendo also charge devs to release games on their consoles.

Your example:

>Steam: Whatever, even if you use a toaster bought for 100 bucks on ebay, you can use our service for free.

No quality control for the experience of the game. It's entirely dependent on the user.

With nintendo, its not. It meets a standard in the form of the console.

>Hey, I'm just pointing out that even services like Steam isn't really as free as people claim it is.
Well, sure. Even if you go extra mile not to give them anything (see ), you could still argue that they might get revenue from ads (that you can hide, but still) or information that they probably collect and sell, but that's kind of missing the point. Sony or other console plateform also takes a cut, have ads and probably collect user information, but they still charge you on top of that.

>With nintendo, its not. It meets a standard in the form of the console.
The standard is pretty fucking low, though.

>You don't have a monthly fee for a steam account

I'd bet money we'll see this in the next couple years, even if they start out as an "optional premium service"

>people actually being corporate apologists itt
>"they need to make money too guys, come on, online services aren't cheap to maintain even though it was free for 3 generations"
Where the fuck did it all go so wrong, please tell me it's just trolling, it must be, people can NOT BE THIS STUPID AHHHHHH

You should find that out because I'm interested, upset, and if true you'd could probably tear Nintendo a new asshole

Opinion, but nonetheless maintained by a team of people that must be paid.

I've never paid for any online gaming services, never saw the point as I pretty exclusively do single player and while some neat multiplayer was implemented last gen it was free (PS3) and the games could easily do with out it. Maybe if sales for shitty multiplayer games weren't so goddamn high they wouldn't feel so justified charging for it.

>Opinion, but nonetheless maintained by a team of people that must be paid.
So is Steam, by the way. It isn't ran by magical fairies. Or Online structure for F2P online game. Or Sony PS3 online shit that was free and had your golden "quality control by hardware".

I love Splatoon so much but I'm not paying a monthly fee just to play one online game that I want to play. I'm so against paying for online services that I'm willing to forfeit Splatoon 2. The nintendo online is still going to be dogshit anyway.

B-b-but servers cost a fortune to maintain! Think about the electric bill!

>yfw the games use p2p networking anyway

If they actually started providing dedicated servers for games, then I could see why they charge the money.
But all of the games use Peer 2 Peer matchmaking, which doesn't cost them any bandwidth at all.
And digital sales on consoles is a minute amount of their already tiny software revenues compared to Steam.
And Steam doesn't charge a cent for their service.
You are literally just paying money to get a basic feature you should have for free and defending it out of brand loyalty. A basic feature you have got for free for years on consoles and PCs until now, when all the current-gen ones lock you out of online for no reason except to make more money out of you.
You have to be an idiot to even think it's remotely acceptable.

Just think, user. Next year the people born in 2000 will turn 18, and then you'll really see this board turn to shit.

They're already posting here user.

>thinking the underageb& rule is some magical shield to prevent highschool kids from posting here

hate to be the first one to break it to you

People* who were born in 2005 are posting here right at this very moment.

*"""people"""

Fanboys are sheep. I knew Nintendo fans will accept this after seeing Sony fans bend over to take it after years of mocking Xbox fans.

Not just ads, but the licensing fees attached to every game sold AND on their online store every sale gives them a % of the money made as pure profit. This ALL would pay for it 10 times over. It's just greed and "fans" are playing into it.

But steam does not maintain its own service, except for a few games. It is mostly a online selling/distribution platform.

Not the same as nintendo.

Rationalise it all you want, buddy.

Same, "muh free online" buddy.

Someone has to pay for it.

steampowered.com/steamworks/

If we wanna talk about costs, lets talk about their revenue.

>Ads
>licensing pay from every game released on their console
>percentage of money paid for every game sold on their digital store front

None of these have costs and all are free money to pay for said service. If anything, the game sellers should be the one's charging, not Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. But they can't get away with it.

But none of that matters anyways. The point is that, no one should give two fucks about their costs. They should care about their own costs. You don't have to pay for online and nor should you. But you just let it fucking happen because people like you feel sorry for a multi-billion dollar company that's somehow convinced you that their poor and in need of free donation money otherwise they just couldn't offer you the services that other competitors (like PC) offer for no extra cost... Imbeciles.

>But steam does not maintain its own service

Steam is responsible for all download bandwidth, which if you looked at the stats; is 5-10x the amount of bandwidth Sony and MS expend combined in a week, in a period of 24 hours.

>But steam does not maintain its own service
It goes down every single Tuesday for maintenance. You either do not use Steam or you are lying.