What's the worst thing these companies has done
Go all out on them?
online fees. although you cant really blame a company for taking advantage of dumb consumers
>TV TV TV
NX having online fees and being the reason why Wii U is dead, and is currently on track of being the next failure
I'm from June 2017 btw
>Sony
not securing their customer's private information
>Nintendo
the wii
>Microsoft
kinect
Sony lies
Nintendo fails
Microsoft jews
For Sony, it would be the rootkit scandal, where they spied on 600k people.
For M$, it's hard to pick.
Nintendo, general laziness, incompetence, and Judaism.
>>339122516
I'd be OK with a smaller fee to cover the actual cost of online services, but I hate being forced to pay for what is essentially a Netflix like game service subscription (GwG/PS+). There should be two tiers, a $15 a year one that just gives you access to things that use online services (like multiplayer for games that use dedicated servers provided by Microsoft/Sony), and a $60 a year one that includes the certain amount of "free" games every month.
>>339122637
how much is it? I'm just gonna play online on PC for free.
>>339122642
Fuck off, the Wii was great.
>>339121412
>Sony
scammed millions of people into thinking they'd get a video game console.
>Nintendo
literally created PlayStation
>Microsoft
Killed Sega and forced the big brother/no fun mentality with paid online
>>339122742
>the rootkit scandal, where they spied on 600k people.
Citation fucking needed.
>>339122826
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
At it's peak, the Sony rootkit infected approximately 600k people.
>>339122826
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/business/media/the-rootkit-of-all-evil.html?_r=0
>>339122764
Video game online play should be free. Fuck paying ANYTHING every month or year to access the other HALF contents of the games I purchase.
>>339122936
Sonyggers will defend this.
>>339122764
No. Don't agree to settle for less when you don't have any reason to.
>>339122825
>the Wii was great
kys, it had some great games and the fact that it was easily hackable was awesome, but everything else from the hardware to the waggle was shit. not just shit, but offensively so
>>339123053
No they won't they just won't say anything about it or pretend it never happened.
>>339121412
>Sony
Account security
>Microsoft
Matchmaking and Software as a service
>Nintendo
Peripherals
>>339122936
Jesus Christ.
How can one company be so incompetent, yet overwhelmingly Jewish at the same time?
>>339122936
Wow that's fucked up.
>>339123267
>it had some great games
>the fact that it was easily hackable was awesome
You fucking kill yourself. That's what the system is for. Games and fun.
>>339123342
>>Nintendo
>Peripherals
lmao yes.
Still have your Wii Zapper? Wii Classic Controller? How about the Donkey Kong Bongos? I hope you kept your Odama/Mario Party microphone. (Remember the Wii microphone?)
>>339123474
you can have fun playing games on a fucking calculator but that doesn't not make it a shit gaming platform
>Nintendo
region locking
>>339122969
Peer to peer content should be free. However, it costs money to build and run dedicated servers. Microsoft and Sony built a lot of online infrastructure for the PS4/Xbox One that they didn't have for the previous generation, I think it is a reasonable policy to charge for access to features dependant on that. Online isn't really free on PC either, it's just included in the cost of the game. It's like saying you got your phone for $200 when your carrier sold it to you subsidized and included the cost of the phone in your subscription. Or in some cases, for games that allow it, the community pays to run their own dedicated servers, which isn't free either.
>>339123230
But there is reason to. They spend a lot of money on their online services, if they don't charge people for it then they'll just include the costs in something else, like raising the price of the console or the cost to publish games on the console or something. At the end of the day, it still comes out of your pocket. I'd prefer console makers take a more transparent approach and charge a more reasonable fee ($15 a year) for only the online features that their infrastructure enabled.
>>339122936
>Sony BMG initially denied that the rootkits were harmful. It then released, for one of the programs, an "uninstaller" that only un-hid the program, installed additional software which could not be easily removed, collected an email address from the user, and introduced further security vulnerabilities.
What the fuck?
>>339121412
>sony
vita memory card
>microsoft
paid online, dlc, trophy, sjw, american culture
>nintendo
Amiibo, crazy pricing
>>339123585
A platform with native gamecube compat, great Wii games, great wiiware games, and emulating literally every Nintendo system is not a shit gaming platform.
I seriously wish the xbone or ps4 did that.
>>339122825
Here comes the nintendrone fedora core.
>>339123702
>he thinks his online subscription goes towards dedicated servers
Oh boy...
>>339123702
>Online isn't really free on PC either, it's just included in the cost of the game
Jesus christmas.
>>339123774
s-shut up scrub. git gud.
>>339123342
>Peripherals
Still better than releasing a "new" console mid-generation- oops
>4 years in november since the release of the WiiU
>3 years since the XB1 and PS4 launched in november
>These companies are already changing hardware
I want this industry dead.
>Sony
Paid online, shitty first party titles, proprietary hardware so no BC
>Microsoft
Started paid online, general dumbfuckery with console launches like RRoD and Xbone, dudebro first party titles
>Nintendo
Completely Jew with 1st party prices, Jewish "account" system, Stupid gimmicks, rehashed 1st party titles, completely limited online ecosystem, lack of basics like mic jack on controllers and no ethernet port on systems, physical "DLC"
>>339123915
You mean like the New 3DS and DSi?
>>339124054
Yes. And the million PSP versions
Either they sell one optimal product, or lower the cost of "upgraded" versions.
>>339124054
The DSi actually added hardware and software improvements. The N3DS not so much.
>>339123881
Some of the money does go to running dedicated servers. But right now, most of it doesn't because Microsoft and Sony spend a lot of that money from online subscriptions on giving away games with those subscriptions. I'm just saying how I think things should work. Online services are not free, even 4chan needs to make money to stay up. What's wrong with the concept of paying for services that cost money to provide to you? If you know about magical servers that are free and maintain themselves, please tell me about them. Until then, I will stick to my beliefs that a smaller fee ($15 a year) for only services that use the dedicated servers provided by Microsoft and Sony would be a better deal than what we have now.
>>339123703
The company as a whole is a giant hot steaming piece of shit that nobody likes. Everyone hates working with them and most of their products sucked.
The only reason anyone gives them money is for their TVs and the Playstation Division which is the ONLY good thing about Sony.
Why do you think people want Sony to sell the PS Division to Samsung? So people don't have to buy another Sony product. That company is the king of greed and jewery.
>MS
Paid online
>Sony
Pushing cinematics in games
>Nintendo
The great Yamauchi reign of terror in their peak years
>>339124310
By allowing people to run their own dedicated servers like on PC.
I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 game for $60, play it's 4 hour movie campaign, and then have to pay an additional $50 just to access the other half of the content that I paid for.
If these companies really want to provide a service they should be allocating money from the sales of their hardware, software, and business to run the online services.
Sony has the PS3 and Vita online play for free, yet the PS4 has somehow a much more "expensive" infrastructure that they have to charge? No my man, it's just a money scheme popularized by MMOs and Microsoft.
>>339124562
The only reason Sony BGM is still around is because they have the catalogs of famous american and european artists from the 60s to get rich off.
>sony
2011 psn outage, they cant make hardware worth a shit, started the whole movies can be games shit, they have the audacity to introduce paid online even though psn is fucking terrible, ps3 launch
>microsoft
made paid online popular, halo, the whole xbone debatical, has a lot of original ips on the og xbox that are dead
>nintendo
have this retarded idea of not being able to compete with microsoft and sony, havent made a good console since the snes, pretty much out of loop of whats going on
>>339124615
>The great Yamauchi reign of terror in their peak years
Well, at least we got some great games at the time.
>>339121412
>Sony
DRM fiasco
proprietary storage devices
poor online security, don't ever fucking forget what happened 2 years ago
>Nintendo
fucked up by pandering to casuals during the wii generation, the games you see on the Wii U would have been welcome during the launch of the Wii
fucked up by driving away 3rd parties with the shit they pulled during the SNES and N64 era
tried VR way too early
>Microsoft
killed their PC division by creating the Xbox
attempted to gain a foothold in Japan, failed yet again
Ballmer DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
pioneered the cancer known as the console online subscription model, you have to pay to play online on top of paying for your internet
>>339125176
>fucked up by pandering to casuals during the wii generation
i dont blame them, every gamecube game that was m or t rated sold like shit
>>339124615
>The great Yamauchi reign of terror in their peak years
I swear, that man did more damage to the company's long run and future than Iwata or Kishima could or will ever do.
The man was so stuck up in his own ways and cause so much issues with third parties that it hurt Nintendo's relationship with them aside from EA, Ubisoft and Konami which had other issues.
I mean he was part of the reason why the Playstation brand is what it is now and lost all those mainline Final Fantasy games.
I don't know why fans looked up to him. What, because of the NES/SNES success and what they did with the Game Boy.
The PS3 launch.
The WiiU Launch.
The Xbox One at E3. It was dead on arrival after that. I'm convince Don Mattrick was a Sony insurgent sent to destroy Microsoft's Xbox division from within, and he succeeded.
>>339123996
>Started paid online
I think Sega did this
>>339124837
>By allowing people to run their own dedicated servers like on PC.
Consoles are a closed system, that's a stupid idea. Just play on PC if you want that.
>I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 game for $60, play it's 4 hour movie campaign, and then have to pay an additional $50 just to access the other half of the content that I paid for.
Let's say Sony removes the PS+ requirement for online, and game developers have to run their own servers for the online features of the game. The end result is that because game developers have to spend the money running the servers instead of Sony, they'll increase the price of their games to cover it. So if that raises the price of a game by $5, as soon as you buy three new games a year you'll have spent as much as what I'm proposing.
>If these companies really want to provide a service they should be allocating money from the sales of their hardware, software, and business to run the online services.
I disagree with that model. I see it like cell phone carriers selling subsidized phones, you still end up paying the full price of the phone. I would prefer to pay for these things a la cart. So if I want to buy a console for single player games only, the cost of the console up front is a bit cheaper for me because the cost of online isn't included in the hardware. If I want online I can pay for it, but if I don't I shouldn't have to pay for it.
>Sony has the PS3 and Vita online play for free
No, it was included in the cost of the hardware and software.
>yet the PS4 has somehow a much more "expensive" infrastructure that they have to charge?
The infrastructure was upgraded, especially for Microsoft, and as I said earlier, most of the cost goes towards providing games with PS+. Which is why I'd prefer tiered options.
>>339125479
not to the extent that Microsoft has instilled in the industry
>>339121412
charged 5 dollars a month for their garbage online service that has more security holes than swiss cheese
>>339125418
>The Xbox One at E3. It was dead on arrival after that. I'm convince Don Mattrick was a Sony insurgent sent to destroy Microsoft's Xbox division from within, and he succeeded.
Fun fact, I swear Peter Moore sabotaged Sega of America in order to work with Microsoft and give them Sega IPs and hardware for the Xbox.
>>339125482
>Let's say Sony removes the PS+ requirement for online, and game developers have to run their own servers
Why do the developers pay? It's sony's system. Sony should be paying the bill just as they were. The developer is only responsible for making software, and even then Sony makes money from each game sold.
Even so, EA runs their own servers and EA games do not have some artificial price increase. Same with Activision which still had (or maybe even still has) open severs for Wii games.
And these niggers are not cellphone companies. You already bought your phone (console) and you're paying for games expecting complete experiences. This isn't some greenlight work in progress shit.
>No, it was included in the cost of the hardware and software.
Then why isn't Sony doing it again with PS4? They literally brag about how they're making a profit on hardware for the first time with the PS4.
>>339125482
>The infrastructure was upgraded, especially for Microsoft, and as I said earlier, most of the cost goes towards providing games with PS+. Which is why I'd prefer tiered options.
Nah,
99% of other companies that aren't Paid MMO's charge nothing for online connectivity.
Sony and Microsoft do it because they're fucking jews, not like they have some infrastructure cost to cover that is excessively overwhelming especially when its going out multiple times a year and its slow as ass
>>339125107
Well yes, but what
>>339125371
says is also true - his actions had repercussions that still haunt Nintendo today.
>>339125852
>Even so, EA runs their own servers and EA games do not have some artificial price increase. Same with Activision which still had (or maybe even still has) open severs for Wii games.
This
every other company doesn't charge for it, Sony and Microsoft don't have to be any different, they do it because they can and want more money. You actually aren't getting anything already and the artificial requirement to even take advantage of online features is literally jewery
>>339126064
this is why I gave up on Sony for multiplayer games, all I play on my PS4 are single player games
>>339123342
>I don't know why fans looked up to him. What, because of the NES/SNES success and what they did with the Game Boy.
Pretty much, yeah. I don't think I can ever really forget what he did during that time. Those were some of the most amazing years of vidya I'll ever experience. I don't like the man personally, and I like his corporate policies even less. But his business sense, I do kind of like. Though I do think he lost his touch in his later years.
>>339125371
>I don't know why fans looked up to him
He literally saved Nintendo several times before the NES and after. He believed in his employees and mentored some of the developers.
He was also into trying new ideas always, even if it might mean failure (of course that's never the goal). If it wasn't for him, Yokoi would have probably never worked on Game & Watch and GameBoy.
>>339126141
I can emulate games that came out during his tenure on a potato of a PC, so that's the best revenge against Yama.
>>339126297
Well, he's dead so I don't think you need to worry about getting revenge against him.
>>339125852
>Why do the developers pay?
Because I'm just using a hypothetical to show that SOMEONE has to pay. And because businesses are not charities, they will pass those costs on to you.
>Sony should be paying the bill just as they were.
The explosion of online gaming combined with Sony/Microsoft footing the bill is what lead to them charging for online in the first place.
>The developer is only responsible for making software
For some games, that software ties into expensive infrastructure in "the cloud". If developers ran those servers, they'd pay for them and pass the cost onto you. If Sony/Microsoft ran those servers, they'd pay for them and pass the cost onto you. Because consoles are closed ecosystems, Microsoft and Sony will insist on running the servers. All I'm asking for is a more transparent pricing model. In the end we're still going to be paying the same amount of money for the same services, but I'd like to pay less if I consume less and pay more if I choose to consume more.
>Even so, EA runs their own servers and EA games do not have some artificial price increase.
So EA discovered the magic of free servers that maintain themselves for free? I'm genuinely curious as to how this works.
>You already bought your phone (console) and you're paying for games expecting complete experiences.
I respectfully disagree on this part. Online services are an experience that costs money to maintain. You can't pay once and get service forever, money only goes so far. I simply want to know how my money is being used by these companies so that I can pay for what I want and not be forced to subsidize what I don't want.
>Then why isn't Sony doing it again with PS4?
Because they can, because so far not many people are demanding much transparency from Sony. Most people must see PS+ as a good deal because they get free games with it, because otherwise I don't see why they keep buying Sony's shit.
>>339126502
>The explosion of online gaming combined with Sony/Microsoft footing the bill is what lead to them charging for online in the first place.
Obviously not, because other developers and publishers would be doing it too, but they aren't because they don't have to.
Sony doesn't have such a ludicrous amount of demand that their infrastructure and maintenance costs are hampering them so fucking much they charge the 5 dollars. PS3 didn't and still doesn't have it, and its officially 10 years old. Microsoft entered the market with immediate pay to play access way back when they released the OG Xbox.
EA doesn't even think about charge mandatory service fees to access their material, its stupid and its a paywall that would prevent their market.
Their server costs are saturated and paid for by the games, software and shit they sell. Sony for YEARS sold the PS3 at a loss because they made up for it in software sales.
Sony and Microsoft do it because of jewery and thats it.
>>339125863
>99% of other companies that aren't Paid MMO's charge nothing for online connectivity.
Those companies have significantly smaller costs to maintain their online services. Last generation, most console multiplayer was peer to peer. We're seeing a lot more games use dedicated servers now. From the very beginning, I've been saying that you shouldn't have to pay for online services that don't use Microsoft or Sony's infrastructure. So if a game uses peer to peer multiplayer, you won't have to pay for online. If they use dedicated servers, you would have to pay for it.
>Sony and Microsoft do it because they're fucking jews
t. cheap ass who is complaining about a proposed $15 A YEAR to cover the cost of what you consume.
>not like they have some infrastructure cost to cover that is excessively overwhelming
I completely agree, which is why I proposed $15 a year instead of $60. Why is everyone ignoring this specific part of my argument?
>>339122516
Remember when Online Passes were a thing? When these companies sat by and let game publishers drain you of an additional $10 - $20 to use a service /you were already paying for/, for one fucking game.
Even thinking about it now still pisses me off. I'm so glad Microsoft's 2013 E3 showcase gave all of these fuckers a reality check. It's only now that I'm finally starting to regain faith in this industry.
>>339126772
>Those companies have significantly smaller costs to maintain their online services.
There are tons of companies that have far higher demands than Sony. Sony isn't even a drop in the pond. Valve has far more users and infrastructure demands than Sony has by far but they don't charge to use steam now do they?
>I proposed 15 dollars a year
fuck that, its still an arbitrary paywall. Make it free like it always was before.
>>339126064
>every other company doesn't charge for it
That's because they either use peer to peer multiplayer, eliminating the costs of online for them altogether, or include the costs of running the servers in their budget for a game. That can be done without a price increase if
A) they take money from elsewhere in the budget to keep the total cost the same
B) adding online features causes more units to be sold, so the increased cost is matched by an increase in revenue, and because this is software with no cost to produce per unit once the game is finished, they wont raise the price if it causes a loss of so many customers that it decreases their total revenue
>>339127000
>That's because they either use peer to peer multiplayer, eliminating the costs of online for them altogether, or include the costs of running the servers in their budget for a game. That can be done without a price increase if
No they don't There are thousands of online games that don't rely on peer to peer.
There are a huge plethora of games that use dedicated servers
Hell I can host fucking VOIP on my personal computer with 32gb of memory and 4 of my 12 threads. Even complex operations that are used in huge games like BF4, ARMA, or any free MMO are also completely dedicated. Your entire point is false purely by the raw number of games that have dedicated hosting without charging users. Stop making shit up
>A) they take money from elsewhere in the budget to keep the total cost the same
Which Sony did for years, they made up for the loss on the PS3 on online sales alone.
>B) adding online features causes more units to be sold, so the increased cost is matched by an increase in revenue, and because this is software with no cost to produce per unit once the game is finished, they wont raise the price if it causes a loss of so many customers that it decreases their total revenue
Which sony is doing now to an extent but the services from the PS3 to the PS4 didn't change but suddenly they want to charge you 5 dollars to play with friends online and to use VOIP when those services have been free for over 20 years
>>339126045
Well, I certainly don't deny that. I guess I'm just saying that the guy isn't all bad. Nor are Kimishima and Iwata all good. Wii was a stroke of genius, but also short-term success, and Nintendo is currently paying the price for that. We've also got Kimishima starting us off swimmingly with mobile phones and a shitty E3.
I just want to put some things into perspective, these executives aren't perfect. Kaz Hirai hit the ball out of the park with PS1, PS2, and PS4, can't say the same for PS3, PSP, and Vita. And Don Mattrick, well he fucked up majorly with Xbone, no one can deny that. Despite some previous successes with platforms like XBox 360.
What I've realized over the years is that these guys aren't Gods. They'll make mistakes, they'll do some dumb shit. They're not all bad though, right?
>Sony
Overpriced memory cards
>Nintendo
Pissing off 3rd party developers and ESPECIALLY pissing off Sony
>Microsoft
Xbox Live Gold. Seriously fuck them, this is the worst shit that happened to past gen
>>339126727
>Obviously not, because other developers and publishers would be doing it too, but they aren't because they don't have to.
No, they are, just in ways you don't see. SOMEONE has to pay for the cost of servers.
>Sony doesn't have such a ludicrous amount of demand that their infrastructure and maintenance costs are hampering them
WHICH IS WHY I WANT A PRICE DROP FOR THE ONLINE. STOP IGNORING THIS POINT.
>PS3 didn't and still doesn't have it, and its officially 10 years old.
Most PS3 games use peer to peer for multiplayer. Games that didn't, like MAG, shut down online when revenue from software sales ceased to cover the cost of servers. Hypothetically they made $2 million at launch which they decided to set aside for running the servers, and it costs $100,000 a year to run their dedicated servers (I have no idea how realistic these numbers are, again they're hypotheticals). They would only run the servers for 20 months. If Sony charged $15 a year for online, which guaranteed that all online titles would be online for the life of the console (again, this is just what I'm proposing as my ideal, I can't say what the actual terms would be), MAG could have stayed online for the life of the PS3.
>Their server costs are saturated and paid for by the games, software and shit they sell.
My preference is that this practice ended and you pay for services you receive a la cart. If this leads to the same cost for the end user who plays online, why do you care if people who don't play online have an option to not pay for it?
>>339127256
>Hell I can host fucking VOIP on my personal computer with 32gb of memory and 4 of my 12 threads
I forgot to mention. For the cost of renting a fucking static IP from my ISP for IPv4 or 6 which is nothing in the long run I can have 1000 users over 250mb/s on a business line for nothing and thats just 1000 users. My bottleneck is my Internet speed and how many cores and memory I choose to dedicate to the system
Sure, Sony has a huge fucking SAN and NAS systems, switches and servers running all these to compute everything but overall the maintenance costs more than the hardware itself over the long term. Even then NONE of these costs are huge enough that they haven't saturated in sales which comes back to they're charging for it because they fucking can and nothing else
>>339126978
>There are tons of companies that have far higher demands than Sony. Sony isn't even a drop in the pond.
Again, read my posts. I fully fucking acknowledged this from the beginning. Which is why I proposed a price drop.
>Valve has far more users and infrastructure demands than Sony has by far but they don't charge to use steam now do they?
But they DO charge for Steam, you just don't get to see how. Valve gets a cut for games sold on Steam, and they use that revenue to run Steam. If Valve charged $x a year for Steam, but didn't take a cut in revenue from game sales on Steam, you'd be paying the same amount to use Steam at the end of the day.
>fuck that, its still an arbitrary paywall.
It's not arbitrary if it is accompanied by an increase in transparency about how they use their money and it results in them not charging for online in the price of the console itself.
>Make it free like it always was before.
There's no such thing a free lunch.
>>339127473
>SOMEONE has to pay for the cost of servers.
I never said otherwise, Every other publisher and company makes up for it in other ways mostly by sales of their software and products.
>WHICH IS WHY I WANT A PRICE DROP...
which should be fucking zero, I'm not more inclined to pay for PS+ if its 15 dollars instead of 60, it should be free.
>most PS3 games used Peer to Peer
hey guess what, GTAV on PS4 is still peer to peer, COD on PS4 is still peer to peer. There are still tons of games (if the publisher or developer chooses) that use Peer to peer on PSN.
>MAG
wasn't even a popular game, the game itself didn't make a whole lot in the long term regardless.
>>339127730
>But they DO charge for Steam,
No they don't I can download steam right now for fucking free. When someone says the cost of usage for a USER is free it means Valve doesn't charge them to use their system or services.
>valve gets a cut for games sold
but they don't charge the user for the service to use their system.
I'm sure Sony takes a cut of game sales but they still charge the user regardless to access it.
>>339122764
>I'd be OK with a smaller fee to cover the actual cost of online services,
>1/3 of Sony Games division income from all 2015 was the online paywall
>>339127256
>No they don't There are thousands of online games that don't rely on peer to peer.
And their servers shut down when they run out of money. Coincidence?
>Your entire point is false purely by the raw number of games that have dedicated hosting without charging users.
WHERE DO THE DEVS GET MONEY TO MAINTAIN THESE SERVERS THEN IF THE COST IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE GAME? I'm genuinely confused as to where you think they get the money from if you think it isn't included in the budget for making the game.
>Stop making shit up
Stop believing that free lunches exist.
>Which Sony did for years, they made up for the loss on the PS3 on online sales alone.
My preference is that they don't. I don't want to subsidize services I don't use. Why is this so disagreeable?
>Which sony is doing now to an extent but the services from the PS3 to the PS4 didn't change
Stop ignoring my point that more games use dedicated servers now than compared to last generation consoles. There was an infrastructure upgrade.
>when those services have been free for over 20 years
You sound like a Bernie supporter. Free anything does not exist. Somebody somewhere paid for those things. I simply believe transparency as to how these things are monetized is better because then I can choose to not subsidize what I don't use.
>>339121412
>What's the worst thing these companies has done
>Go all out on them?
Sony re opened the gates to un controlled shovelware
S and M Pay for Online and bowing down to developer, also lazy on hardware design that created the current "stagnation" (we have been with the same control setup since PS1)
Nintendo would be region lock, censorship
>>339128116
>And their servers shut down when they run out of money. Coincidence?
No they haven't. Valve servers are dedicated and you can still access Half life Team death match via valve dedicated servers 17 years later
>where do devs get the money
sales on their games.
>price included in the cost of the game
what does the dev's game and development costs have to do with Sony charging users to access their online features that were literally free just a few years ago.
You magically think that I'm somehow implying it costs nothing to own despite me saying "devs/publishers make up for it in sales on their products and software"
>I don't want to subsidize services I don't use
then make the entire service free like it is on PS3 still.
>Free anything does not exist
never said it did
VOIP services for EVERY OTHER GAME is free, meanwhile want to play online and play with friends and talk to them? Oops gotta charge you to play online and use VOIP.
I can host a VOIP server for free, I can host it free for 1000 users on piddly hardware
but I have to pay Sony to use their VOIP? It doesn't even have 128kb/s sound quality
>>339125176
>killed their PC division by creating the Xbox
This is something not many people seem to realize.
>attempted to gain a foothold in Japan, failed yet again
To be fair, gaining a foothold in Japan is literally impossible. The 3DS has absurd market penetration, yet the only games it gets are just rehashed monster hunter games and Ace Attorney from Capcom. Capcom's other efforts all go to Sony's consoles. Nintendo might have the edge over them in terms of hardware units, but when it comes to the major Japanese titles, Sony gets them all.
>>339128000
>I never said otherwise
Yes, you did. You said that online was free, not that the end user wasn't explicitly charged for it.
>Every other publisher and company makes up for it in other ways mostly by sales of their software and products.
And I'm asking for transparency for this on consoles. PC is a different story because devs have to run their own servers, so because you are paying for these services from the same provider, putting it on one bill just makes more sense. For consoles, you have third parties making the game and the console maker running the online, so you have to pay both parties.
>which should be fucking zero
I prefer to not subsidize your online experience with the cost of the console when if I buy a PS4, it will be for single player games. Free lunches simply do not exist, why do you object to paying for services a la cart? You still end up paying the same amount in the end.
>hey guess what, GTAV on PS4 is still peer to peer, COD on PS4 is still peer to peer. There are still tons of games (if the publisher or developer chooses) that use Peer to peer on PSN.
And from the beginning, I said you shouldn't have to pay for that. You're not even making an argument against what I've said here. I explicitly said the fee would only be to cover the cost of services that use their infrastructure.
>wasn't even a popular game, the game itself didn't make a whole lot in the long term regardless.
I was using it as an example to show that if people do not pay for online, it will get shut down.
>>339128656
>You said that online was free, not that the end user wasn't explicitly charged for it.
Thats literally what it implies
I could play on PS3 online for FREE
I can't play online PS4 for free, I have to pay for their fucking PS+
>>339128000
2/2
>No they don't I can download steam right now for fucking free.
It's not free. Steam does not charge up front, but they use revenue from game sales to cover the costs of their servers. That is their business model and I'm OK with that as long as consumers are informed as to what Valve does with their money.
>When someone says the cost of usage for a USER is free it means Valve doesn't charge them to use their system or services.
False. Valve takes a portion of the revenue from game sales, this means that a portion of the price of every game you buy is effectively the fee Valve charges you to use their services.
>I'm sure Sony takes a cut of game sales but they still charge the user regardless to access it.
Again, I'm arguing for reforming the system in favor of more transparency. More transparency means Sony would have a harder time charging you twice for services because you have to choose what to pay for a la cart.
>>339128656
You realize that sony charges you to play online even if the companies that made the game host the servers right? regardless of peer to peer or dedicated hosting?
>I only want to pay for Sony services I use
which is funny because there are so few games that sony hosts you'd be playing online without any cost to you
>>339128773
>It's not free. Steam does not charge up front, but they use revenue from game sales to cover the costs of their servers.
I literally said that in the same post you quoted
>Valve takes a portion from game sales,
The games aren't cheaper if I don't use valve, the dev sets the price point regardless
Valve could change the ratio of money it takes and it wouldn't affect the price of the game to you. This is 100% evident by the fact that if I buy witcher 3 on gog, origin or steam, they all have the same price even though I'm sure all 3 take different cuts.
>>339128384
>No they haven't.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/16/ps3-servers-for-mag-and-socom-4-being-shut-off
>Valve servers are dedicated and you can still access Half life Team death match via valve dedicated servers 17 years later
Someone somewhere is paying for those servers.
>sales on their games.
And if I don't use multiplayer, I wouldn't like to pay for it. Why do you disagree with this?
>what does the dev's game and development costs have to do with Sony charging users to access their online features that were literally free just a few years ago.
You're mixing up my points. I said if the developer has to pay to maintain the online, they will charge you for it. If the console maker has to pay to maintain the online, they will charge you for it. That specific example was about PC games, where the console maker doesn't cover online, the game dev does.
>You magically think that I'm somehow implying it costs nothing
You keep using the word free when you're still charged for these services. If you are charged for something, by definition it is not free. Companies want you to think these services are free so that they can charge you however much they want for these services included in the cost of the game.
>never said it did
Stop using the word free in your posts then.
>I can host a VOIP server for free
You're conveniently forgetting about the cost of your computer, the cost to develop the software you use for that, and the cost of your internet. Someone somewhere paid for all of those.
>>339128698
>Thats literally what it implies
Nope.
>I could play on PS3 online for FREE
No, you had to pay for it. If it was peer to peer, your only cost was the cost of your internet, the PS3, and the game. If it used dedicated servers, the cost to run those was included in the game budget and those servers were shut down as soon as they developer ran out of money that they allotted to run those servers.
>>339122516
This. Honestly I can't buy consoles because of that other than nintendo's offering. I just can't submit to something so retarded.
>>339128790
>You realize that sony charges you to play online even if the companies that made the game host the servers right?
I'm about to punch a hole through my fucking wall right now. I am fucking advocating for the end of that. From the very beginning I said that you should not be charged by Sony/Microsoft for services that do not use their infrastructure.
>>339121412
PC has created fanboys who are actually right about the state of the industry and I wish that economically consoles made sense.
>>339128928
>I literally said that in the same post you quoted
THEN. STOP. USING. THE. WORD. FREE.
>The games aren't cheaper if I don't use valve, the dev sets the price point regardless
That's because of the lack of transparency enabling shitty practices, other game stores use Valve's prices and pocket the money Valve charges for themselves without providing the same services.
Now please tell me, if the end result is you paying the same as you do now, or less, for only the services you use, why would you object to having more finite control over what you pay for? Why do you think the cost of some goods and services subsidizing other goods and services that you might not use is a good thing?
>>339121412
>motion gaming
>motion gaming
and
>motion gaming
>>339129575
>I wish that economically consoles made sense.
The price to performance ratio of consoles is actually pretty good. You can't build a PC with new parts for $350 that performs as well as a PS4, and you have to include the cost of Windows in a PC because you need it to play games (and personally I think the cost of a monitor should be included too because most console gamers already have TVs, so when they buy a console they don't need to spend money for a TV, while most people don't have computer monitors before they buy a gaming PC so the cost of a monitor is a very real factor that prevents/delays people from switching to PC). Consoles only end up costing more in the long run because console customers don't protest cheap moneygrabs like Xbox Live/PS+ and over priced peripherals and stuff.
>>339122969
Basically this all the way.
>>339123702
We're not being at all selfish in asking that they not charge for online. Steam charges nothing and they do just fine.
In fact their marketplace pays for itself, that's the only thing running dedicated servers anyways. They make a percentage of every purchase on their respective store and licensing fees on digital, they make a percentage off of licensing fees on physical, and a larger percentage on games they personally publish.
What else do these companies need? You realize they make massive profits despite what ranking their in against each other? Nintendo still makes bucketloads of profit despite being far in last. Imagine what the other two make. Any money losses are purely their own fault for overspending when it's unnecessary to do so. Just like with game pubs that went bankrupt. You can't posit that much wealth and then blame the common customer for failure... and that's assuming that was even happening, which its not.
>>339130240
>Consoles only end up costing more in the long run because console customers don't protest cheap moneygrabs like Xbox Live/PS+ and over priced peripherals and stuff.
That and new releases. On pc you can pick up new releases around 35-40 bux on gmg or gamesplanet vs 60 buck retail on ps4
This is because valve allows other vendors to sell keys as well in direct competition with themselves.
>>339123702
>Online isn't really free on PC either, it's just included in the cost of the game
What? They have the same goddamn cost as console games? So that doesn't explain why console games get the fee plus more every month/year.
>>339123881
basically this.
>>339130632
>We're not being at all selfish in asking that they not charge for online
But you are being a stupid consumer. They include the cost of these services in other things without telling you. When they do that, they have the power to charge you much more than what is reasonable.
>Steam charges nothing and they do just fine.
They do charge for their services, they just hide that cost in other products that you buy from them.
>>339130632
Basically this.
These companies and the people defending them have a problem akin to what I call the leaderboard/"competitive" issue.
It's basically this insane mentality that says if you're not number 1 your terrible. Fighting game players in tournaments are amazing at the game. But if you aren't in the top 3 you're often regarded as shit despite years of practice and obvious showing of skill to 99% of the playerbase.
Same with these companies. They all make massive profits but somehow they're poor because they don't make as much as they/fans think they should be making. Their losers for not gouging people out the ass for no other reason than to rake up points on that profit leaderboard. It's extremely sociopathic behavior over imaginary numbers in a computer that's become very sadly ingrained in modern culture.
>>339130846
>It's stupid to demand better prices.
Okay... what?
I'm not asking them to buttfuck in other ways. They don't HAVE to charge extra. If more people would stand against it by not buying into this garbage they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Or will poeple not accept $120 for the base game + DLC + microtransactions just because they want online?
That's a ludicrous proposition, anon.
>>339130846
I'm curious what you think these are. Because you can get games cheaper on steam than any where else. I mean you aren't defending console online fees at all with this argument. This is very baseless unless you have examples.
>>339130738
>So that doesn't explain why console games get the fee plus more every month/year.
I am at my wits end with you people. I never said that did explain the cost difference to the end consumer. The reason for that is non transparent business practices that allow console makers to charge you an unreasonable amount for things because the cost is hidden, because of the system you are defending, which is that consumers expect services that cost money to be provided to them for free. In the end, they just charge more for their other products and offer some things for "free" to get you locked into their ecosystem, where they can charge you more than they should because you don't what you're buying.
Nothing is free in life, ever. If I see one more person use the word "online" in the same sentence as "free" without "isn't" in between them, I am going to leave. I am genuinely confused as to why people find what I'm saying is so disagreeable. Everyone I've argued with ITT admits the cost for online is included in other products which they use to subsidize their online services. If we can establish that fact, what is it about what I'm saying that turns you off to paying a la cart for only the services you personally use?
>>339122825
nintendo also made xbox. they even made skylanders. here's how it works, approach nintendo about partnership nintendo says fuck you we're king. get salty and make your own product without them.
>>339129283
>Someone somewhere is paying for those servers.
Yes the money they got from customers was enough. Too bad Sony and Microsoft are too greedy to realize this.
I don't think you realize that game money is a consistent revenue stream... just like this free online money Sony/Microsoft are getting. It's not like that money just stops coming. Games keep getting made and exceedingly larger profit is accrued over time. Better to have it be spent back on the gaming ecosystem ala online services, making more games than let it sit in some big ass corporations coffers/bank for eternity further raising inflation because it isn't going into the economy.
>>339131173
>>It's stupid to demand better prices.
You don't get better prices. I've explained this over and over again, when companies don't have to be transparent with how they pay for your "free" services, they can charge much more than is reasonable for them.
>I'm curious what you think these are.
Because I've witnessed this shit happen in my own lifetime. Sony locked people into their ecosystem by luring them in with """""free""""" services, and then they started charging through the nose for them once they knew enough people were locked into their ecosystem.
>Because you can get games cheaper on steam than any where else.
Irrelevant. Valve still has to make a profit on the services they provide to the end user, or else they wouldn't provide them. Valve could stop being so cheap one day in the future because they've got so many people so invested into their ecosystem to leave because they enjoyed the """""free""""" services so much.
>>339131273
>they just charge more for their other products and offer some things for "free"
those free things are called a loss leader, a product or sample is offered for free to get you hooked on it
>>339129283
>>339128116
>>339127000
>>339126502
>>339125482
http://venturebeat.com/community/2010/09/13/xbox-live-gold-the-indispensable-rip-off/
Here's a great article before this generation to prove how much of a rip off online payments are.
>What should be clear by now is that the Xbox Live Gold service is, for Microsoft, a license to print money. Their costs are extremely low and the entire system is designed to place as little burden on them as possible. Their “value added” services like Netflix streaming access are actually “value subtracted” from their free Silver membership. In fact, the more you look at it the more it seems like they must spend a lot of money thinking up creative ways to place something simple, like Twitter, behind a pay wall. And it makes very little sense to deny a Silver member who already pays for Neflix every month the ability to stream through their 360, something that literally costs MS nothing.
>Further, as MS has so many revenue streams available to them thanks to Xbox Live—dashboard ads, XBLA, DLC and avatar items—it is simply inconceivable that the service doesn’t pay for itself. Now, this doesn’t change the fact that for any 360 owner with any interest in gaming online a Gold membership is indispensable. What it does illustrate is the fact that a Gold membership cannot be described as a good value.
They pay for themselves and them some. They don't need to charge or add any additional hidden fees.
(You) trying to prove that companies "will anyways" doesn't defend them doing it. The argument was "will they be nice enough" . It was that they need to justify it. Profit for profit's sake is NOT a noble goal.
>Sony
Rootkit scandal, information leak/hack scandal, and everything associated with their record/movie labels and copyright/DRM
>Nintendo
Antitrust/Anti-consumer/anti-retailer/anti-game developer practices for over a decade from the 80's through early 90's
>Microsoft
Antitrust and anti-consumer monopoly, and extensive spying through modern Windows OS and programs like Skype
All 3 of them have been pretty equally evil looking at the big picture. But I guess if you limit it to just the videogame divisions, Nintendo was the worst evil.
>>339131426
>Yes the money they got from customers was enough.
I simply believe they should get money from customers in a more transparent manner.
>Too bad Sony and Microsoft are too greedy to realize this.
They do, they also realize that they can lock a lot of people into their ecosystems with cheap hardware, which they subsidize by overcharging for things like online and accessories and games.
>I don't think you realize that game money is a consistent revenue stream...
They make most of their money close to release. Very few games consistently get sold for years.
>Games keep getting made and exceedingly larger profit is accrued over time. Better to have it be spent back on the gaming ecosystem ala online services, making more games than let it sit in some big ass corporations coffers/bank for eternity further raising inflation because it isn't going into the economy.
Or people like you are lured in by their "free" online and they use the money they got overcharging you for "free" online on their holiday bonuses or whatever.
>>339131726
I'm very aware of what these are. Which is why I hate them. They exist because they other products these companies want to sell you wouldn't sell on their own merits without loss leaders. Just look how it turned out on consoles when they were sold for a loss and expected to make up for it by overcharging for everything else. Most of this shit would not sell if they had to be sold for their true cost up front on their own merits.
>>339129397
It would be no different for peer to peer. The cost of developing the functionality would be implemented into the games cost dumbass.
You're not explaining why there should be an online fee.
No shit, everything is included in the games cost. But they make enough money off the standard $60 price tag. What EVERYONE is arguing against you is the need for MORE than that standard price tag
And instead you went off on some random ass tirade about shit everyone already knows that doesn't in any way justify consoles charging for online.
>>339129858
Free implies no EXTRA charge past the $60.
Just because you want everyone to use your definition doesn't mean he's wrong.
Get your head out of your ass and stop arguing for the sake of argument.
You know damn well what he means.
>>339131729
>Here's a great article before this generation to prove how much of a rip off online payments are.
My fucking god you are an idiot. From the very beginning, I've never disagreed that the current system is a fucking rip off.
>They pay for themselves and them some.
Because a lack of transparency makes it easier for them to get away with it.
>They don't need to charge
But they do, even for """"""""""free"""""""""" services.
>hidden fees
Hidden fees are exactly what you are advocating when you want """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""free""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" services to be subsidized by non free goods and services.
>>339131517
They can't go past the standard $60.
People wouldn't accept it.
Or since you're obviously a market/economics shill.
"The market wouldn't bare the cost"
But that's okay because guess what?
$60 IS ENOUGH MONEY. It's been proven time and time again in history that games can last for years off of that price tag with NO additional costs.
>>339132239
They have actually
Deluxe edition
Gold edition
Day 1 edition
etc etc
Just cut some content from the game and sell it at 75-100 bucks with it added on
>>339132008
>The cost of developing the functionality would be implemented into the games cost dumbass.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT'S ALMOST LIKE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FROM THE VERY FUCKING BEGINNING. I said that the online fee should be reduced, the cost of other products should go down so that they aren't subsidizing "free" services, and that the online fee should only cover the actual cost of the infrastructure that you use, so if it's just peer to peer you wouldn't need to pay the fee.
>You're not explaining why there should be an online fee.
Please re-read the thread. I said the small fee should exist so that you're not being overcharged on other products to subsidize """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""free"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ones that you use.
>>339131273
>Nothing is free in life, ever. If I see one more person use the word "online" in the same sentence as "free" without "isn't" in between them, I am going to leave.
Holy shit... really? I didn't know this. NEWS FLASH NOTHING IS FREE!
Leave, shit. You haven't proven why online fees need to exist and you haven't defended why companies should charge above the standard $60 price tag. The point was AT THE VERY BEGINNING of this whole debate they don't NEED to charge it so they shouldn't.
You haven't provided any evidence to support that how or why they should/will somehow charge extra if they aren't able to charge for online fees.
Plenty of games in this industry charge $60, have dedicated servers, and have run for many many years. You've been completely proven wrong. You can leave and pout all you want.
>>339132008
Also
>What EVERYONE is arguing against you is the need for MORE than that standard price tag
But what I'm arguing is that the standard price tag is artificially high to pay for "free" things. If you weren't subsidizing those things in the standard price tag for games, the standard price tag would go down.
>>339132102
>Free implies no EXTRA charge
NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT FREE MEANS.
>You know damn well what he means.
No, I don't. I wouldn't be arguing I was taught that free means getting jewed in other regard to pay for "free" things/
>>339131726
>>339131949
While this is a practice that does exist often, it doesn't mean they need to charge extra for online. They make more than enough money to house server costs ala 2 - 3 year devs cycles and $60 releases.
They are just gouging for extra profit.
>tfw the worst thing xbox has done is the kinect
Feels good to be a Xbro.
>>339132497
>Holy shit... really? I didn't know this. NEWS FLASH NOTHING IS FREE!
Then stop arguing that things should be provided to you for free. I'll re state what I proposed again because I have a feeling you jumped into this conversation without reading the whole thread.
1. consoles are not sold as loss leaders so that the cost of peripherals and games is lower
2. the cost of games does not subsidize """""""""""free""""""""""" services
3. now that you have to directly pay for "free" services, the price will be more competitive because it is not hidden in other things. Because it is not hidden, it is subject to market forces and Microsoft and Sony will have to compete on their online prices so that the consumer wins and they stop making such huge profits by over charging us
>You've been completely proven wrong.
No, I haven't. My argument is that the cost of online is included in the games. You're restating this fact as if it somehow disproves me.
>>339132537
Then what the fuck do you want?
What exactly are you trying to propose?
You act as though to defend these shitty practice but in the middle somewhere changed to being jewed?
You realize by defending these practices in ALL of their forms you will be jewed no matter what.
You think that letting them upcharge online services that has gotten rid of the $60 price tag?
No, hell no. This has never been the case, or have you been absent the past decade where costs have risen despite companies making larger profit than ever before in history?
They will charge what they want/can get away with. They are not poor. By pushing them to charge lower we are not making it impossible for them to do business. By not accepting the price tag unless its on our terms we are forcing demand at that price point.
Letting business run willy nilly is why this industry has gotten so fucked in the first place.
Don't try and spin this shit as companies are the heros, bend to their will so that you "may" have mercy at their hands.
>>339132836
Okay. The online play should not be charged as extra on top of the $60... are you fucking happy.
That's all anyone ever meant anyways.
The fact that you can't accept that context changes meaning and so do backgrounds is a horrible ignorance of yours.
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of anything when you can't accept cultural differences and implied meanings.
>>339132575
>it doesn't mean they need to charge extra for online.
YET. A big selling point of the PS3 was that they did not charge for online. A lot of people got attached to Sony's exclusive franchises, and chose to get a PS4 this generation. Now their customers have a lot more reason to pay for PS+ because they have to in order to play their favorite franchises online.
I'm saying that if consumers are more informed about where the money to pay for all these "free" services comes from, they wouldn't fall for it nearly as much.
>>339132836
The cost CHARGED of games and the profits made absolutely can subsidize it. Many games have done this... with the standard $60 price tag. Hell even games without that price tag have managed to keep servers up for long periods of time.
>>339133002
>The online play should not be charged as extra on top of the $60... are you fucking happy.
No. The cost of games would go down if they didn't have to subsidize their online. Paying $55 for a base game and $5 for online is no different than paying $60 for the game with "free" online. I simply want the option to not pay for the online if I don't use it.
>That's all anyone ever meant anyways.
This whole thread has been a failure of communication.
>>339133090
>The cost CHARGED of games and the profits made absolutely can subsidize it.
I hate that, because if I don't play online for that game I still have to pay for it.
>>339133198
Do you have a source that the online fee is included in the 60 or are you just pulling shit out of you ass because you hate how online is free on the pc?
>>339133012
Well okay then. What was the point of this debate then?
Obviously we both want the same thing.
>>339133198
You know damn well that isn't going to happen. You live in an idealistic world to think that they'd do that. No if they could get away with that they would create some other excuses to charge extra. That's what they do.
I'm saying don't accept any of that bullshit and demand cheaper AND no extra charge on top of that.
>>339132848
>You act as though to defend these shitty practice
No, I'm not. I said the current practices are shitty and I want the option to pay $15 a year (or a different price, if it costs $7 per person per year then they should charge like $10, idk) to access the online features only for games that use Microsoft or Sony's infrastructure, and something like Games with Gold should be its own subscription separate from the small online fee.
>You realize by defending these practices in ALL of their forms you will be jewed no matter what.
This is nonsense. People get screwed because they're gullible and believe free services are actually free. Sony already got away with starting to charge for online because they temporarily provided it for free to get you locked into their ecosystem, and they can overcharge for online now because of that. If Microsoft and Sony had to honestly and transparently compete with the pricing of their online services, we wouldn't be getting screwed so hard because nobody would consent to it if they were properly informed consumers.
>>339133198
I think the problem with you're entire argument this whole thread is that you assume they NEED to charge what they charge.
You assume $55 plus $5 for online is what they have to charge. They don't
They don't even need to charge that. Everyone's argument against this is that they shouldn't be charging extra AT ALL. Not the merits of whether they can get away with it or not.
Hell games honestly should be $50 and NOTHING else.
And if customers actually fought for that they would have to. Online would still exist and so would dedicated servers. The companies just wouldn't be able to gouge prices.
>Sony
Was the reason games since post PS1 are more cinematic in nature. Success was there, all others followed, all good was lost. Only present after Nintendo fucked them over.
>Microsoft
Pushed the latest when it really wasnt greatest. Quality of systems are quite poor (but have gotten better as of late). Windows 10
>Nintendo
Restricting Third Party access to systems more than the rest. Lots of potential lost. They always do their own thing (staying on carts, mini dvd, motion control as main input). Weakest hardware (which is good in a number of ways)
>Sega
They needed to stop making a new system every fucking chance they could. Dreamcast was the last hope. Died trying, and now making poor decisions for game development releases (sonic boom for the simplest example)
>Atari
Everything got fucked to death by endless amounts of shit
>>339133560
This is nonsense. People get screwed because they're gullible and believe free services are actually free
I can propose that by today's standard pricing I want no charge (free) on the online service via console's current model AND demand lower prices on games. I'm not somehow tricked because I call it free while you do not. I know they overcharge for games on both fronts (The fee for online and the fee for the game). Some people get tricked but that's why we explain that to them in the first place.
You've not entered anything new into the discussion I think by saying this. Transparency would be important and make the system much better but it wouldn't stop Sony from lying through their teeth to get people to pay more.
>>339133291
>Do you have a source that the online fee is included in the 60
It's called econ 101. Servers are not free. For example, currently EA does not charge you to play Battlefield online on the PC. EA is not a charity, they need to get the money to run the servers from somewhere. Because they pay for the servers, it's pretty fucking logical to assume they allot money for the servers from the revenue of the games.
>>339133312
>What was the point of this debate then?
I don't fucking know. I've been restating my same position this entire thread because people seem to think I'm defending the current practices when I'm not, I'm pointing out how they're the consequence of people falling for the "free" meme.
>Obviously we both want the same thing.
NO. WE DO NOT. You want me to pay $60 for a game if I don't use the online. I want to pay $55 with the option to pay another $5 for online if I want to.
>>339133836
>It's called econ 101.
So you have no source and are just assuming.
Btw a game like fallout 4 costs 60 bucks on release and has no online. Same as those with dedicated servers. You're done buddy. You have nothing. See that other guy you managed to confuse but with me you're dealing with the real thing.
I got all night to make shit up with and I'll call it econ 101 just like you. So let's have at it. You fucked up.
>>339133561
>I think the problem with you're entire argument this whole thread is that you assume they NEED to charge what they charge.
You illiterate piece of shit. I never ever ever ever said that they need to charge what they currently charge. My premise is that these companies need income to pay for their servers. If I have the option to pay for ONLY what I use, then these companies won't be able to get away with charging what they currently charge. They will have to be more competitive.
>You assume $55 plus $5 for online is what they have to charge.
I used those dollar amounts as a fucking example. It could be any dollar amounts, I simply want the option to pay for online services a la cart and the option to not pay for them if I don't want them. You want me to pay $60 regardless of how much of their online services I do or do not use.
>Everyone's argument against this is that they shouldn't be charging extra AT ALL.
My argument is that you are always charged, but the cost is hidden. Hidden costs leads to unfair practices.
>Hell games honestly should be $50 and NOTHING else.
That's a whole other debate. I am ONLY talking about having the option to pay for the services I use a la cart and therefore being free from being forced to subsidize services I don't use when I buy products that I do want.
>>339133749
>People get screwed because they're gullible and believe free services are actually free
You are a troll. There's no other explanation for why you'd think parroting my arguments back at me somehow disproves me.
>I'm not somehow tricked because I call it free while you do not.
You are only an individual. You might be educated as to these business practices, but millions of people are not. They don't know what they're buying.
>Some people get tricked but that's why we explain that to them in the first place.
It would be harder for them to get tricked if these companies weren't so deceptive in the first place.
>You've not entered anything new into the discussion I think by saying this.
Respond to this without focusing on the dollar amounts, only the principle. Should games cost $x+y, or $x with the option to pay for $y if you want it with no obligation to pay for it if you don't?
>>339134021
>So you have no source and are just assuming.
Here is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
The burden of proof is on you to explain where these companies get the money to support their online infrastructure if the cost is not hidden in the cost of their games.
>Btw a game like fallout 4 costs 60 bucks on release and has no online. Same as those with dedicated servers.
I don't see how this disproves what I said. Earlier I said that the cost of online would come out of the total budget for the game, and that would not necessarily effect the total price of the game because software, there is no additional cost per unit produced so they set the price to maximize revenue. The price of Fallout 4 and a game like Battlefield 1 will both be set by the point at where the revenue from each sale multiplied by the total number of people that will buy the game at that price results in the highest amount of revenue. Games that cost $100,000 to produce and games that cost $1,000,000 to produce could hypothetically cost the same because the price is not determined by how much it cost to make a game.
>>339134723
You're the one claiming 55 dollars is the normal price and 5 dollars is the fee not me
The burden of proof is on you from the start and yet you have nothing except biased assumptions.
>>339134814
>You're the one claiming 55 dollars is the normal price and 5 dollars is the fee not me
I'm so, so sorry I used those numbers as an example. I was only illustrating my point that I prefer to pay for $x with an option to pay for $y if I want to, but no obligation to if I don't want to. I could have said $43.61 and $2.78, that's not what matters.
>>339135014
>if I don't want to.
because you can't
You're done you hack. Did you think you could weasel you're way out of this one? Huh?
>>339121412
Nintendo: Still region-locking after everyone else has abandoned it so they can continue with their price fixing and anti-import bullshit.
Microsoft: Paid online which then got Sony to jump in on it.
Sony: The DS4 is worse than the DS3 in every regard except the triggers.
