Paid Online

Good or bad? Do you pay extra to play vidya online?

Other urls found in this thread:

digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-playstation-network-nintendo-profits/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Paid online was never normal. Microsoft normalized it with Xbox Live and console players just went with it cause they didn't know better.

I personally think it sucks. Game costs are already inflated to hell, and paid online just makes the hobby even more expensive for no real reason. Have companies used their metric shit tons of money in any meaningful way? For the most part, no.

However, single player games are virtually extinct for some fucking reason, so here I am paying for all these damn subscriptions.

its bad, unless you are a brianwashed console peasant, then you pretend it's not

This.
Though I will say singleplayer games are making a comeback. Yakuza 0, Nier Automata, P5, it's been amazing.

toy gate that you must pass to play online

the online will never get better and you know for a fact that the money will be used to recoup the cost of building the structure

its shit

Paid online is shit. I already pay internet why must I pay extra to use it? Don't get me started on these faggots who defend it. Their only retort is constantly saying you're poor-- we'll guess what? I AM!

Eww why are girl's feet so fucking gross.

i like that it keeps BRs from playing mmos, but it doesn't seem to improve the quality of players on console at all

For some reason only Ps4 gets single player games :/

>Game costs are already inflated to hell

Games are cheaper now than ever.

do girls really drink tea with their feet?

>Game costs are already inflated to hell
Actually, with inflation, games should cost more than $60 at this point. Not complaining, but still.

God I want to lick her foot.

Hm. Seems you guys are right. To re-word that: games are already expensive as hell

Can you do what she's doing Sup Forums?

Yes.
Source: i'm a grill.

That's a pretty shitty foot.

t. a guy who knows a lot of girls with nice feet

i cant give a rat's ass about that kind of game

George Foreman?

There are also more people playing games now than there were before and distribution is cheaper. It is not so simple to determine how well off developers are at the current price point compared to the past.

yeah but people dont get more money, the pays stay the same

Because they don't have to really try, and when they do try, they think they deserve the world in return

I think it's only acceptable for MMOs, and only if they are constantly getting updated. Most online shooters and whatever don't even have dedicated servers anymore.

me too

Bad of course, it's only acceptable for games where you regularly get significant content updates as part of the subscription, like with the traditional MMORPG business model. Paying for online multiplayer when the game is probably P2P too is a complete crock of shit.

I might when Red Dead 2 comes out, but probably only for that year

This.

Be honest Sup Forums how much do you pay for online across all platforms?

>PS Plus:$24.99 (three months)
>PS Now:$44.99 (three months)
>Xbox Live:$24.99 (three months)
>WoW: $14.99 (monthly)

imagine
this question asked in 2000something

He didn't say that the problem was that the devs were too well off, he said that games are too expensive. But when you factor in inflation, they've never been cheaper

Bad. I do pay for Xbox Live though (currently not subscribed since I've been playing single player games these last couple of months)

Adding (((free))) monthly games for GWG and PS+ really adds value. Pay $50 for a year of membership and you get your money's worth tenfold in games by year's end.
I admittedly wouldn't pay for membership just for the free games if online play wasn't behind the paywall, but since it is I'm making the best out of it. No regrets

yeah but im not paying for $60 for a 10-20 hour non-sandbox single-player game like an assassins creed thats just fucking retarded, game publishers are greedy fucks who dont care about the industry

I hope she lives in london.

Hell, even if you DON'T factor in inflation, a lot of N64 games were like $70

>yeah but im not paying for $60 for a 10-20 hour non-sandbox single-player game
What would you price a 10-20 hour single player game at?

Although I'm sure the money is used for server costs and stuff, they're probably charging for more than those costs incur.
It's basically a hidden cost for the console.
Modern consoles can't make money off of the hardware anymore because they're sold at a loss. They'd lose competitiveness if they didn't. Charging for an online service sort of makes up for that, but the whole situation is kinda bullshit.

$30 or $40 depending on the amount of content like side quests and shit

I don't. I own a 3DS, Wii U, Switch, Vita, PS3, PS4, and PC.
The only online I pay for is for my PC.

but we are talking about third-parties like Ubi or EA, if the game is a smaller title we shouldnt be paying up the ass for a smaller expierence, I understand if its a Online FPS like Battlefield or Destiny because it has replayablity automatically with MP and you need to maintain a server but other than that fuck no

That does make sense that we are better off now. I was just trying to point out that there are probably good reasons why game prices have not gone up with inflation. I would not want prices to increase with the excuse that they are cheaper now when developers could be making more profit. I had gotten ahead of myself since you were not actually trying to make that argument.

>"You need to pay for online to cover the cost of dedicated servers!"
>sounds reasonable
>people pay for online
>companies realize they can pocket 100% of that cash if they use peer-to-peer connections
A decent idea ruined by corporate greed. If the online experience was any better paid than it was when it was free it could'a been neat, but they've just made things worse and worse while making you pay to experience the loss.
It's almost amazing

Bad.

I already pay my ISP for my connection, I shouldn't have to pay some other company even more just to make use of something I already have to pay for.

It would make sense if pretty much every game didn't use p2p. Right now though? No.

Publishers would make more money if they just made their audiences happy then more people would be willing to buy their games, why these fucktard execs dont see that the cheaper you sell a game the more its going to sell because more people can afford it/willing to play it they could double their sales but no they want to be assholes.

>they could double their sales
Yeah, but if they decrease the price to $30 and get double the sales (Which they probably wont), they'd make the same amount of money anyways.
>the cheaper you sell a game the more its going to sell
Not necessarily.

I want to throw that tea out and give her some coffee

You don't mean that

There are people on Sup Forums that will unironically defend paid online. Care to out yourselves?

I will never pay $60 for a single-player game, its simply not affordable to buy a game at that price then buy another one when you finished the game espically if its a ubisoft open-world style game, bigger RPGs like Skyrim are more understandable but still.

too busy getting laid to get into an argument with you autistic virgins

I like feet pics.
Vidya games too.

I'm sure they have done their research to find the optimal price that will get the most profits. The only debate left is if direct paid online is actually more profitable than the Valve/Blizzard's gambling system.

If you're paying extra money for what's basically a peer 2 peer service then you're a straight up fucking retard and only serve to feed these companies more bullshit justification for them to bleed you out of more money.

So that's anyone that owns a modern console, essentially.

>build PC year and a half ago
>feel like PSN is a scam now
it IS a fucking scam. will shamefully subscribe again once EDF5 comes out

Consoles are only sold at a loss early on. Throughout a console's lifecycle manufactures are able to bring the cost of production down, usually through sourcing parts for cheaper, to the point where they break even if not sell at a profit. Otherwise companies wouldn't be able to cut the prices on their consoles, and IIRC both the PS4 slim and Xbone S are sold at a profit.

Charging for online doesn't "make up" for anything, it's almost pure profit. In fact at one point Sony PSN sales (which includes PS+ subs) brought in more revenue than the entirety of Nintendo

digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-playstation-network-nintendo-profits/

yeah, but that means you're getting scammed twice

Paid online was and always has been a stupid idea, along with other backwards and outdated concepts like "exclusivity". I tried suggesting a brainstorm about other better alternatives, but all I got was shitpost answers.

Paying for online never started with dedicated servers on console. You could use your own prexisting ISP to play on the Dreamcast (Seganet was a ISP (AT&T)) and Xbox Live never provided dedicated servers to third party devs, it was sold on the basis of Matchmaking and TruSkill.

Your mentality is why more and more publishers are focusing on online multiplayer games where they can profit more on subscriptions and microtransactions than with SP games.

I think ultima online was the first major title with paid online

>I will never pay $60 for a single-player game
So I'm guessing you didn't play any console games in the 80's and 90's? Not only were games generally shorter, but they were also more expensive
Given your attitude towards economics, I'm guessing you weren't even alive then

I remember pokemon stadium being like $120 in the late 90's.