By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Are subscriptions good for the industry?

 

Are our games better because of it?

Yes 20 24.69%
 
No 36 44.44%
 
Maybe 19 23.46%
 
Results 4 4.94%
 
Go visit a shrink 2 2.47%
 
Total:81
sethnintendo on 05 February 2017

No



Around the Network
Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 05 February 2017

I certainly dont like them... It might be good for Sony, MS and Nintendo but as a consumer, I dont see much value in them at all. If they made it optional with free online, great but making them mandatory is the lamest thing they could do in my eyes.

Hence why I wont be buying any of them at launch and buy them at mid generation at the earliest. So I can get a discount on games and the console



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

sethnintendo on 05 February 2017
Bandorr said:
Alkibiádēs said:
Sony and MS are definitely ripping people off for asking $60 a year just to play online games.

And giving you games. New games. And games you get to keep.

For example Sony gives away 6 games (and usually more than that because of crossbuy) a month. That value of that last year was over $1000.

Microsoft gives away 4 games that can all be played on one system. Worth $930.

Along with lots of features, and discounts.

Of course it would be better if it was like the PS3.  Free online, but pay if you want the games and features.

 

So what do you have to say with Microsoft approach of gimping games if you don't pay for Live? There are numerous games where you can't play offline multiplayer if you don't have Live account active (Forza Horizon) or can't even save offline profiles for games.

Alkibiádēs on 05 February 2017
Bandorr said:
Alkibiádēs said:
Sony and MS are definitely ripping people off for asking $60 a year just to play online games.

And giving you games. New games. And games you get to keep.

For example Sony gives away 6 games (and usually more than that because of crossbuy) a month. That value of that last year was over $1000.

Microsoft gives away 4 games that can all be played on one system. Worth $930.

Along with lots of features, and discounts.

Of course it would be better if it was like the PS3.  Free online, but pay if you want the games and features.

If I care about a game I'll buy it myself, I don't want to play games I don't care about, even if it's free. And the selection of games on PS+ or Live isn't very good anyway.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

okr on 05 February 2017

Nein



Around the Network
Alkibiádēs on 05 February 2017
sethnintendo said:
Bandorr said:

And giving you games. New games. And games you get to keep.

For example Sony gives away 6 games (and usually more than that because of crossbuy) a month. That value of that last year was over $1000.

Microsoft gives away 4 games that can all be played on one system. Worth $930.

Along with lots of features, and discounts.

Of course it would be better if it was like the PS3.  Free online, but pay if you want the games and features.

 

So what do you have to say with Microsoft approach of gimping games if you don't pay for Live? There are numerous games where you can't play offline multiplayer if you don't have Live account active (Forza Horizon) or can't even save offline profiles for games.

Lol, that's down right terrible. And people actually defend that shit? 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Alkibiádēs on 05 February 2017
Bandorr said:
Alkibiádēs said:

If I care about a game I'll buy it myself, I don't want to play games I don't care about, even if it's free. And the selection of games on PS+ or Live isn't very good anyway.

Good for you. You don't have to play games you don't care about. And when the people look at the ONE nes/snes game that you are "allowed" to play once a month and say "that isn't very good" - they will be allowed that opinion as well.

That doesn't mean anyone is getting ripped off.  $60 with games I get to keep > $15-25(or whatever number they make up next) with no games I get to keep.

I think the Nintendo service will be a gigantic rip off. Ranging from everything related to the games (the amount, the keeping them, how very old they are) to the fact you may have to do voice chat through a phone.

That doesn't mean it IS a rip off though. It just means I find the service not worth the value assigned.

Nintendo will add online functionality to these games, so only making them available for a month makes sense otherwise you'd find no one to play these games with online. This will most likely be like community events. Perhaps similar to NES Remix. 

Nintendo actually adds something to their old games by adding online functionality, none of the other console companies do this. Therefor it's justified to charge a price for it. 

Besides, a month is more than enough time to finish a game anyway. I don't replay most games, only the really good ones. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

sethnintendo on 05 February 2017
Bandorr said:
sethnintendo said:

 

So what do you have to say with Microsoft approach of gimping games if you don't pay for Live? There are numerous games where you can't play offline multiplayer if you don't have Live account active (Forza Horizon) or can't even save offline profiles for games.

I would need to read about that. Do you have the sources I can read about?

 

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/forza-horizon-3153787/offline-splitscreen-29307685/

Maybe it was the nature of how they designed the first Forza Horizon.  Not sure but maybe they never designed it for offline multiplayer and only online.  I just ran into problem at friends when we tried to click on multiplayer it just said it can't because not online.  I saw that other Horizons had offline multiplayer though while looking.  I'm not that much of Horizon expert but we were able to play Forza 4 offline multiplayer.  I never owned Microsoft systems but I'm sure someone else can probably clarify it more.  I just know that while we were looking at gamestop for some cheap old games for my friends 360 the employee mentioned a couple times like oh here is a good game then she would be like oh it doesn't support offline multiplayer (I believe she even said this for one of the Halos also).  She knew we were just looking for offline multiplayer games so that is why she brought it up that the game didn't work for offline multiplayer unless having a Live account.

They seem to be more keen on removing local split screen mutliplayer from their games considering Halo 5 didn't even have splitscreen.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/101815/20151031/people-really-mad-halo-5s-missing-splitscreen.htm

According to a friend he ran into problems with DLC he bought for Borderlands 2.  He lost access to the DLC once he stopped paying for Live.  So there is that problem also with some games you lose access to DLC if you are no longer on Live.



m_csquare on 05 February 2017
Alkibiádēs said:
Bandorr said:

Good for you. You don't have to play games you don't care about. And when the people look at the ONE nes/snes game that you are "allowed" to play once a month and say "that isn't very good" - they will be allowed that opinion as well.

That doesn't mean anyone is getting ripped off.  $60 with games I get to keep > $15-25(or whatever number they make up next) with no games I get to keep.

I think the Nintendo service will be a gigantic rip off. Ranging from everything related to the games (the amount, the keeping them, how very old they are) to the fact you may have to do voice chat through a phone.

That doesn't mean it IS a rip off though. It just means I find the service not worth the value assigned.

Nintendo will add online functionality to these games, so only making them available for a month makes sense otherwise you'd find no one to play these games with online. This will most likely be like community events. Perhaps similar to NES Remix. 

Nintendo actually adds something to their old games by adding online functionality, none of the other console companies do this. Therefor it's justified to charge a price for it. 

Besides, a month is more than enough time to finish a game anyway. I don't replay most games, only the really good ones. 

yeaaaa you mean capcom, not nintendo. Sony and microsoft dont need to do this, because most of their games already have online functionality since prev gen. This is just nintendo trying to catch up with anyone else



Alkibiádēs on 05 February 2017
m_csquare said:
Alkibiádēs said:

Nintendo will add online functionality to these games, so only making them available for a month makes sense otherwise you'd find no one to play these games with online. This will most likely be like community events. Perhaps similar to NES Remix. 

Nintendo actually adds something to their old games by adding online functionality, none of the other console companies do this. Therefor it's justified to charge a price for it. 

Besides, a month is more than enough time to finish a game anyway. I don't replay most games, only the really good ones. 

yeaaaa you mean capcom, not nintendo. Sony and microsoft dont need to do this, because most of their games already have online functionality since prev gen. This is just nintendo trying to catch up with anyone else

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Sony and MS weren't even in the gaming industry during the NES and SNES era.

NES and SNES games didn't have online multiplayer because the technology didn't exist back then (not at an affordable price anyway). What does Capcom have to do with this? 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides