NightDragon83 said:
Mr.Playstation said:
NightDragon83 said:
So many things wrong with OP... first of all, M$ wasn't the first of the 4 major console manufacturers to charge a subscription fee for online, you know. That distinction technically belongs to...
*drumroll*
NINTENDO!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview
And Sega also charged a nominal subscription fee for SegaNet back during the Dreamcast days, and the GameCube's one and only online title Phantasy Star Online II required a... *drumroll again*... monthly fee to play online as well!
PS2 was the only console of the gen to truly offer free online gaming (with the exception of FFXI which was a subscription based MMO)... but that was because there was no centralized network a la Xbox Live, and it was up to 3rd parties to set up their own servers.
M$ was the first to offer a unified online service for their console, and they did so at a time when broadband internet access was still very limited for most of the US. They were also the first to offer broadband networking capabilities and an HDD built right into the console (the DC initially shipped with only a 56k modem, and broadband was not widely supported... the PS2's Network Adapter and HDD were sold separately).
And once the 360 was launched, XBL was opened up to anyone with a console and a broadband connection without a fee... it was only required for multiplayer and later most multimedia apps. They've since updated their model so that essentially only multiplayer requires a subscription, with nearly everything else free, same as PSN.
Not surprisingly, Nintendo's online network continues to lag behind in pretty much all areas, so they'd have no justification to charge a subscription based fee... though don't think Nintendo wouldn't if they could justify it... remember, they've already done it before. |
During the begening of the thread I stated that paying for online became popular when Microsoft regained a huge marketshare, while using the online pay model and so other console manufacturer's followed suit. None of the previous attempts were succesful because none of them had a huge marketshare, if people did not pay to play online on xbox the future would be extremly different with no console manufecturer requiring you to pay to game online.
We need to stop for this mentality that we need to pay for a better service, if it was free before it should be free now. If people had not payed for online all online gaming on consoles should be free and manufacturers would be fighting for a better online ecosytem to bring more customers to buy their consoles.
|
But it wasn't "free" before... as i stated in my post, it never really was save for the PS2 (which required you to spend another $100 for the broadband adapter if you did want to play online, and another $100 for the HDD + subscription fee on top of that if you wanted to play FFXI). And if M$ were just being greedy and charging for online because they can and Sony is so great and noble to the gaming community, then why did Sony switch to a subscription based paywall for online gaming this gen for the PS4 when it had been free for the previous two generations?
Answer: Because maintaining a proprietary online network infrastructure IS F'ING EXPENSIVE!!!
But I know I know... it should be free. Just like everything else in life. And we shouldn't be paying $60 a game either, and all DLC should be included in our initial purchases instead of costing extra.
|
1. The ps2 slim which was a released in 2004 did not need the broadband adapter.
2. In my first post I already had an answer to your last sentence in the first paragraph.
3. You honestly think that mantaining an online network infratructure is alot for a compony worth billions.
4. I never said anything about games,I'm talking about something which was free and now costs money. Dlc's are fine if they don't start becoming a need for games which at this rate mark my words is gonna happean.
