Quantcast
Online subscription. Fair or not fair?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Online subscription. Fair or not fair?

Is paying to play online fair?

No. 37 58.73%
 
Yes. 21 33.33%
 
Don't know. 5 7.94%
 
Total:63
Neodegenerate said:
Flilix said:

Of course people suscribe to play online, but why can't it be free? It doesn't cost them millions to maintain their servers.

It doesn't cost them $0 to maintain their servers.  And thats why it can't be free.

Not $0, but I'm quite sure the cost is nowhere near the amount of money they make with these subscriptions.



Around the Network
Neodegenerate said:
Flilix said:

Of course people suscribe to play online, but why can't it be free? It doesn't cost them millions to maintain their servers.

It doesn't cost them $0 to maintain their servers.  And thats why it can't be free.

So then, why is it the platform holders and not individual developers who are charging for the servers?

Good thing you already pay money for the ability to access the game's content before you pay for an online subscription. 

If this service was a requirement, than Steam and Origin would cost money to use, too ...



Flilix said:
Neodegenerate said:

It doesn't cost them $0 to maintain their servers.  And thats why it can't be free.

Not $0, but I'm quite sure the cost is nowhere near the amount of money they make with these subscriptions.

No certainly not.  However, there aren't many items that cost close to what you pay for them.  Capitalism demands profits.  Is our unfortunate reality.



Neodegenerate said:
Flilix said:

Not $0, but I'm quite sure the cost is nowhere near the amount of money they make with these subscriptions.

No certainly not.  However, there aren't many items that cost close to what you pay for them.  Capitalism demands profits.  Is our unfortunate reality.

The profit margins on online subscriptions are very high. That will hold true for Nintendo with their $20/year, so you can figure how much Sony and Microsoft make.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Flilix said:
Neodegenerate said:

It doesn't cost them $0 to maintain their servers.  And thats why it can't be free.

Not $0, but I'm quite sure the cost is nowhere near the amount of money they make with these subscriptions.

It's not only the cost to mantain servers on, but pay a team to keep working on the games to bring new content and so forth, it is heavy mainly in MMOs.



Around the Network

Online fees for consoles PS4, Switch and XboxOne are pure money making, thinking they are something else is naive. They hype their features and "free" games etc., but that doesn´t change the facts. Those profit margins are huge and they could be free now and have been free in the past. Excuses are for those that want to feel better about paying for online play.



Not fair, but that's a poor example. Not having to deal with the shitty COD online community and only being able to play it offline makes it a better game so...



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Birimbau said:
Flilix said:

Not $0, but I'm quite sure the cost is nowhere near the amount of money they make with these subscriptions.

It's not only the cost to mantain servers on, but pay a team to keep working on the games to bring new content and so forth, it is heavy mainly in MMOs.

Isn't that what buying expansions/DLC is for? Why should you need to pay for a subscription if you're already paying for the new content they're working on?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
Birimbau said:

It's not only the cost to mantain servers on, but pay a team to keep working on the games to bring new content and so forth, it is heavy mainly in MMOs.

Isn't that what buying expansions/DLC is for? Why should you need to pay for a subscription if you're already paying for the new content they're working on?

Most MMOs are either subscription or F2P/microtransaction only, being the majority F2P (Aion case) or B2P (Guild Wars 2 case) with microtransactions because it attracts more players than  having a sub, the old sub model is getting more and more unpopular as the time goes on, [WoW for example has all 3 models at once (buy the game (B2P)/pay sub/has microtransactions) which explains why it is losing players on a steadily basis].

 

The F2P + microtransactions model is what is attracting more players today. Lots of games make billion+ yearly revenues being free to play with only having microtransactions, like League of Legends.

Last edited by Birimbau - on 20 March 2018

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Neodegenerate said:

It doesn't cost them $0 to maintain their servers.  And thats why it can't be free.

So then, why is it the platform holders and not individual developers who are charging for the servers?

Good thing you already pay money for the ability to access the game's content before you pay for an online subscription. 

If this service was a requirement, than Steam and Origin would cost money to use, too ...

Because the architecture behind a network is far more intensive than setting up P2P servers. When you play a game online on PS4, you're playing it on PSN, not the server list that varies wildly from dev to dev. While netcode isn't created equal, you know the product will work.

To summarize all the work that has gone into it as the same thing as digital storefronts or to deny the leaps and bounds in product quality.... Man, I don't even know what to call that. Blissful ignorance? It's like how people falsely say that PSN/XBL are doing the same thing as Steam when Steam hosts absolutely nothing off store. They don't offer the same product at all.

If you don't think the value is worth the cost, then don't buy it. I will pay for it because I place very high value on cloud saves, PSN discounts, and free games.