By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kumagawa on 24 April 2014
Edit Thread
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
kumagawa said:
JoeTheBro said:
Things are changing. Back when online meant player to player connections, it was a joke to pay for online. Now with dedicated servers and all the very real costs associated with the online portions of games, paying for it is logical.


What servers? Activision has dedicated servers for it's Call of Duty games and the server cost is out of the $60 you pay for the game.  Are Sony's exclusive multiplayer games in such demand that they need an additional fee when the 3rd party publishers don't?

Sony's Servers are hosting everything. Not just a single game. They switched multiplayer to PS+, so that the increased subscriptions would bear the brunt of the PS4 features and the legacy PS3 and Vita. While I personally dislike the practice, I understand it.

A year of Plus/Live essentially costs a retail game, so I won't buy the year till I need it like in the summertime.

MS's servers are in similar requirements, but XBL's fee is more out of tradition then neccesity for them, then again it might be neccessary to convince investors of the viability of the project.

LOL no if you play CoD or anyother 3rd party game on a Xbox or Playstation all the servers are owned by the publisher, Microsoft and Sony do nothing except make money charging you to connect your console to your ISP.