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

Forums - Gaming - Charging for online is worse than in-game purchases

I’m gonna disagree. For starters I have never minded paying for Live because it is far superior to either of the other networks. It also encompasses all games on the platform with a unified UI and standard set of features you can use in every game. But more importantly, the games are virtually free of hackers and hardcore cheaters, unless you open up matchmaking to include PC. Even then, the amount of cheating you can see is overblown by console warriors, but it’s still there.

I do also game on PC and do it online, we have to use various apps to accomplish what XBL/PSN can do, and even then it’s not perfect. And the games have way more cheaters/hackers in them.

They’ve also added the benefit of monthly games, but most of them suck. I think the cost should be lower, but it’s a good service. Of course, now it’s part of GamePass Ultimate, which alone is an amazing value, so Gold is like icing on the cake.

It also depends on what type of MTX you’re talking about. Many games do them fine. Many do not. Amiibos are the worst thing in the industry imho.



Around the Network

I agree although I have gotten plenty of games through PS+ that I probably wouldn't have played that I ended up loving. Getting Yakuza Kiwami through PS+ got me hooked on the series, and now I'm playing though them on gamepass.



twintail said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

But unfortunately people only go wild against micro transactions and loot boxes so we will never have free online again

This is it. That's the thread

I have no reason to complain about paying for online when I get more than my money's worth from the added games.

Of course that's assuming you have enough time to play those games. For the time I have available, 60€ a year or so is just way too much.



This is among the main reasons why I stick with PC most of the time. That, and the amazing library of games with no issues of lacking backward compatibility.

I don't buy in-game items for real money and I don't pay for online, simple as that.



RolStoppable said:

Paying for online means to pay a second time for something you've already paid for, so yes, it's bad. However, it has very little to no effect on game design, so calling it worse than in-game purchases is a stretch.

I suppose the premise of this thread is that you'd like to play online while you can easily avoid in-game purchases, but objectively there's much more damage to gaming coming from in-game purchases.

It's hard to believe online have "very few impact" on game design in this day and age. We now have games specifically build and designed for online multiplayer and the online is sometimes a selling point

From the top 10 of best selling Switch games 4 are online multiplayer-heavy (MK8, Animal Crossing, Splatoon and Smash). Pokemon also have online multiplayer, but I guess not exactly a selling point

On PS4 the numbers are similar. GTA V, Red Dead Redemption 2 and two COD games. There is also FIFA, but I have no idea about the current state of FIFA online multiplayer

 

A game with heavy focus on multiplayer and competition, let's say Overwatch, will need me to keep the membership on going until you really feel done with the game



Around the Network

Agreed, I don't like it... especially when it's free on PC it seems like console gamers are taxed for no reason. If the rumors of Xbox Live Gold going free once Gamepass hits a certain milestone are true I hope it pressures the rest to do so.



IcaroRibeiro said:
RolStoppable said:

Paying for online means to pay a second time for something you've already paid for, so yes, it's bad. However, it has very little to no effect on game design, so calling it worse than in-game purchases is a stretch.

I suppose the premise of this thread is that you'd like to play online while you can easily avoid in-game purchases, but objectively there's much more damage to gaming coming from in-game purchases.

It's hard to believe online have "very few impact" on game design in this day and age. We now have games specifically build and designed for online multiplayer and the online is sometimes a selling point

From the top 10 of best selling Switch games 4 are online multiplayer-heavy (MK8, Animal Crossing, Splatoon and Smash). Pokemon also have online multiplayer, but I guess not exactly a selling point

On PS4 the numbers are similar. GTA V, Red Dead Redemption 2 and two COD games. There is also FIFA, but I have no idea about the current state of FIFA online multiplayer

 

A game with heavy focus on multiplayer and competition, let's say Overwatch, will need me to keep the membership on going until you really feel done with the game

of thouse, both mario kart and smash are complete games without online, and animal crossing's updates are free and don't require online either.

only splatoon i'd consider truely online dependant, and doesn't it come with 12 months of online?



RolStoppable said:

Paying for online means to pay a second time for something you've already paid for, so yes, it's bad. However, it has very little to no effect on game design, so calling it worse than in-game purchases is a stretch.

I suppose the premise of this thread is that you'd like to play online while you can easily avoid in-game purchases, but objectively there's much more damage to gaming coming from in-game purchases.

GT Sport? Can't do much offline, single player design has taken a backseat to online multiplayer. GT7 postponed until PS5.

Positive of the online income for GT Sport is all the extra monthly content for years. Or is that a negative, release half the game first then finish it while people are paying for ps+ to keep playing it.

Same with FS2020, it's on gamepass, but it's a 10 year project. Did it release (too) early to get more 'online' income. or is the continued subscription that makes it possible to be supported for 10 years. Of course, FS2020 as a sim is the mother of all in-game purchases. (Although first time it has an in game marketplace afaik)

Anyway I paid up front for FS2020, play on PC no online fee, and avoid buying from the marketplace (because the monthly updates keep breaking add-ons) so best of both worlds? or worst...



TheBraveGallade said:

of thouse, both mario kart and smash are complete games without online, and animal crossing's updates are free and don't require online either.

only splatoon i'd consider truely online dependant, and doesn't it come with 12 months of online?

Smash and Mario Kart are very dull without multiplayer, their selling point is competition even if on friendly matches. In the past it used to be local coop, but social relationships changed over the time and nowadays kids and teens are more likely to play online with their friends

For Animal Crossing I can imagine playing without online but would be a far worse experience. It's a social interaction game, look how the franchise popularity exploded after pandemic, people were using this game as a way to socialize

Funny, Splatoon is, among those, the only one who I think could really work as a solo game, even if somewhat smaller

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Nintendo release a full single player Splatoon spin off. But yeah, online is the bread and butter for this one. And I think those 12 months online were offered only before Nintendo Switch online was released



IcaroRibeiro said:

Funny, Splatoon is, among those, the only one who I think could really work as a solo game, even if somewhat smaller

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Nintendo release a full single player Splatoon spin off.

Funny thing is that Splatoon 2 uses the Octo Expansion DLC as the solo spin off.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"