Why is everyone so accepting of online paywalls?...

  • 180 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#1 Edited by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

Someone please explain to me why locking online multiplayer behind paywalls is now an accepted part of playing games? Everyone just shrugs and pulls their wallets out.

WHY?

Why did no one move a finger when sony quietly jumped into the XBL gold digging machine?

(...edited mistake...ARR does not require PSplus on PS4)

Also, in what dimension is the subscription revenue NEEDED when the pricing model of the console gaming scene remains THE SAME from the previous gen when only Microsoft conned people with shit like XBL? PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY CLAPPING, CRYING AND CHEERING AT SONY'S ""PRO-CONSUMER""FORTEHGAMERZ""" ATTITUDE EARLY THIS GEN! WHAT?!?!?!

"YES I'LL TAKE A SUBSCRIPTION IF IT MEANS NO DRM AND ABILITY TO PLAY USED GAMES WHOOO"

Soo... people are happy with locking online behind their credit cards in exchange of... having the same fucking rights they had last gen??? WTF

Just how dumb is the gaming community?

And before someone says PSPlus is a good deal. No its fucking not, is an absolute shit one that locks free games I never asked for behind a retarded monthly fee that only exists because people seem to be happy paying for made up services that offer something they already paid for.

I paid for three months of PSplus and felt dirty as shit. I have since sold all of my online focused PS4 games (Battlefield, COD:AW, Destiny bye bye) and will from now on refuse to pay to play online. Thank god for my PC, PS3, Wii U and 3DS...

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#2 Edited by lundy86_4 (49813 posts) -

If I didn't pay, there would still be paywalls. I want to play my games, so I pay the fees. It's bullshit, but unless a significant amount of people stop paying, then the corporations will continue to not give a shit.

Avatar image for blueinheaven
#3 Posted by blueinheaven (4295 posts) -

Because people are INCREDIBLY fucking stupid. Any other questions?

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#4 Posted by MonsieurX (37731 posts) -

They don't have a choice

Avatar image for ConanTheStoner
#5 Posted by ConanTheStoner (17370 posts) -

I'm not. I paid for Live with the original Xbox because it seemed worth it at the time.

That said, I haven't paid for Live since 07 and I haven't ever paid for PSN. Never will.

Beyond that, I've never paid for any microtransactions or shady DLC. Outside of water parks and amusement parks, I'm not even sure what a season pass is. Don't care.

I can safely say that I've avoided all the new age bend-over-and-ask-for-more bullshit that oh so many gamers have adopted with open arms.

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#6 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

Yes they do. Enough people made just enough noise to make Sony backpedal on the DRM and used game restriction nonsense. And believe me, they were just waiting to see how receptive people were towards those absolutely retarded "features".

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#7 Edited by MonsieurX (37731 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

Yes they do. Enough people made just enough noise to make Sony backpedal on the DRM and used game restriction nonsense. And believe me, they were just waiting to see how receptive people were towards those absolutely retarded "features".

Not really,there's more people that will pay anyway

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#8 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@Thunderdrone said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

Yes they do. Enough people made just enough noise to make Sony backpedal on the DRM and used game restriction nonsense. And believe me, they were just waiting to see how receptive people were towards those absolutely retarded "features".

Not really,there's more people that will pay anyway

That means they made their choice though, and are perfectly happy paying to have permission to play their $60 game online.

Avatar image for blueinheaven
#9 Posted by blueinheaven (4295 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@Thunderdrone said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

Yes they do. Enough people made just enough noise to make Sony backpedal on the DRM and used game restriction nonsense. And believe me, they were just waiting to see how receptive people were towards those absolutely retarded "features".

Not really,there's more people that will pay anyway

Yep, because people will pay their internet fees twice that is the world we live in. Average IQ these days I'll be amazed if it reaches double figures.

Avatar image for ConanTheStoner
#10 Posted by ConanTheStoner (17370 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@Thunderdrone said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

Yes they do. Enough people made just enough noise to make Sony backpedal on the DRM and used game restriction nonsense. And believe me, they were just waiting to see how receptive people were towards those absolutely retarded "features".

Not really,there's more people that will pay anyway

Gamers pushed back against a truck load of bullshit with Microsoft and won for the time being. This proves that gamers can indeed make the difference. Unfortunately, as a whole, gamers have shown that we are collectively a bunch of suckers.

The industry knows this and now they're just seeing how far they can bend us over.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#11 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

I'm pretty sure you don't need to pay for PS plus to play MMOs like FF14....

Avatar image for general_solo76
#12 Posted by General_Solo76 (455 posts) -

I don't play games online. I never have to worry about any subscription nonsense.

Avatar image for R3FURBISHED
#13 Posted by R3FURBISHED (12408 posts) -

I've payed for Live for seven years, and I guess I would stop when the service no longer appeals to me. DLC for video games I rarely buy as I rarely have a desire to go back into the world regardless of how good the game is/was (Shadow of Mordor is a prime example)

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#14 Edited by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

If I was sony I'd put a limit on console startups. After 200 startups you have to pay 20% of whatever the PS4 costs at that point. To make that deal super sweet I'd offer KNACK, DRIVECLUB and TLOU:R and a 5$ PSN coupon FOR FUCKIN FREE at the time of payment.

3 fucking games and a coupon for free guys holy shit what a deal!!

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#15 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

I'm pretty sure you don't need to pay for PS plus to play MMOs like FF14....

Someone misinformed me then. Point still stands though

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
#16 Posted by Minishdriveby (10519 posts) -

I don't/wouldn't pay for XBL or PSN.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#17 Edited by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:

Someone please explain to me why locking online multiplayer behind paywalls is now an accepted part of playing games?

large portion of gamers didnt know it any other way.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#18 Posted by LJS9502_basic (164206 posts) -

@blueinheaven said:

Because people are INCREDIBLY fucking stupid. Any other questions?

Pretty much....the let it happen and now everyone is screwed.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#19 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

The amount of free games and PS plus deals you get yearly more then makes up for the subscription fee. While you may not think it's a good deal, I really enjoy the service. I've had my vita for about 6 months now, and I have yet to pay a penny for individual games thanks to ps plus.

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#20 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -
@Heirren said:

@Thunderdrone said:

Someone please explain to me why locking online multiplayer behind paywalls is now an accepted part of playing games?

large portion of gamers didnt know it any other way.

A large portion of gamers don't know the definition of feminism yet that doesn't stop them from flooding Gamergate related stuff by the truckloads just to generate noise and make waves.

Avatar image for Basinboy
#21 Posted by Basinboy (13582 posts) -

Sony effectively made gamers focus on the benefits that would come with the subscription, like their money was going to something other than just access. It was brilliantly delivered.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#22 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:
@Heirren said:

@Thunderdrone said:

Someone please explain to me why locking online multiplayer behind paywalls is now an accepted part of playing games?

large portion of gamers didnt know it any other way.

A large portion of gamers don't know the definition of feminism yet that doesn't stop them from flooding Gamergate related stuff by the truckloads just to generate noise and make waves.

That isn't the same thing. These are kids that likely recieved the consoles as gifts, and parents just want to make them happy with what they recieve. Money talks. Simple as that. I agree with what you are saying though--it is sort of related in the opinion sense. The internet has made people stupid.

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#23 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

The amount of free games and PS plus deals you get yearly more then makes up for the subscription fee. While you may not think it's a good deal, I really enjoy the service. I've had my vita for about 6 months now, and I have yet to pay a penny for individual games thanks to ps plus.

You paid for those games. You are paying to play them. You are paying for them monthly...

And no matter how cheap they are, in the end THEY are choosing what to offer AND when you should be offered these "treats".

Avatar image for blueinheaven
#24 Edited by blueinheaven (4295 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED said:

I've payed for Live for seven years, and I guess I would stop when the service no longer appeals to me. DLC for video games I rarely buy as I rarely have a desire to go back into the world regardless of how good the game is/was (Shadow of Mordor is a prime example)

It's great that paying them AND your ISP for your internet connection for all those years appeals to you. Hopefully you don't wake up one day with a few extra brain cells and realise they are laughing at you. That would not be good.

Avatar image for EZs
#25 Posted by EZs (1460 posts) -

It's OK when Sony did it, because they give free games.

Xbox is a ripoff, paying for P2P multiplayer match.

Avatar image for darkangel115
#26 Posted by darkangel115 (4449 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:

Someone please explain to me why locking online multiplayer behind paywalls is now an accepted part of playing games? Everyone just shrugs and pulls their wallets out.

WHY?

Why did no one move a finger when sony quietly jumped into the XBL gold digging machine?

(...edited mistake...ARR does not require PSplus on PS4)

Also, in what dimension is the subscription revenue NEEDED when the pricing model of the console gaming scene remains THE SAME from the previous gen when only Microsoft conned people with shit like XBL? PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY CLAPPING, CRYING AND CHEERING AT SONY'S ""PRO-CONSUMER""FORTEHGAMERZ""" ATTITUDE EARLY THIS GEN! WHAT?!?!?!

"YES I'LL TAKE A SUBSCRIPTION IF IT MEANS NO DRM AND ABILITY TO PLAY USED GAMES WHOOO"

Soo... people are happy with locking online behind their credit cards in exchange of... having the same fucking rights they had last gen??? WTF

Just how dumb is the gaming community?

And before someone says PSPlus is a good deal. No its fucking not, is an absolute shit one that locks free games I never asked for behind a retarded monthly fee that only exists because people seem to be happy paying for made up services that offer something they already paid for.

I paid for three months of PSplus and felt dirty as shit. I have since sold all of my online focused PS4 games (Battlefield, COD:AW, Destiny bye bye) and will from now on refuse to pay to play online. Thank god for my PC, PS3, Wii U and 3DS...

why do people feel entitled and want everything for free?

Avatar image for darkangel115
#27 Posted by darkangel115 (4449 posts) -
@EZs said:

It's OK when Sony did it, because they give free games.

Xbox is a ripoff, paying for P2P multiplayer match.

FYI all MS games are on servers for X1, No PS4 games have servers. your argument makes no sense

Avatar image for Joedgabe
#28 Posted by Joedgabe (5134 posts) -

While it's not something i'm okay with it's something i do use when i game so i do pay for it. And in the end going out to dinner with friends cost more than a year at times more than 2 years subscriptions to PS + or gold. Gaming is my hobby and i enjoy it. My family rented a place to have a thanksgiving party for 1 night and we got it for 250 dollars in new york that is really very cheap. ( it was like a 50' x 50' place. So just imagine what my opinion is for that 50 - 60 dollars a year to keep my hobby up. You can argue that the cost of it doesn't help the other cost of life but honestly the cost of life is too fking expensive to the point i'm studying for a career i don't give a shit about. So coming home after a day at work and school and playing a game like Dragon age Inquisition, i couldn't give a damn about that price because i earned my free time and i'm going to enjoy it. While not really the most acceptable methods it can be quite alright depending if you use it or not. If you don't play online with the console don't bother getting it.

Avatar image for davillain-
#29 Posted by DaVillain- (30661 posts) -

Because I got money to pay for it.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#30 Posted by foxhound_fox (97243 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

If I didn't pay, there would still be paywalls. I want to play my games, so I pay the fees. It's bullshit, but unless a significant amount of people stop paying, then the corporations will continue to not give a shit.

Because this.

It's good to know that karma is catching up with the companies though. Ubisoft is getting their comeuppances for releasing half-finished games.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
#31 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (10547 posts) -

I don't game online, but I understand why it should cost more to do so. I'm no expert but I assume it's not total BS that there are associated costs and infrastructure involved not just in running the internet but in keeping an online gaming service going. I assume that that is the reason why MS's online service was better than Sony's for so long.

In principle, not charging for it might bleed into extra costs elsewhere to make up the difference. As a non-online gamer I don't see why I should have to pay for that.

Avatar image for onesiphorus
#32 Posted by onesiphorus (2427 posts) -

Because not everyone think online paywalls are evil.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
#33 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (13078 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

Yes they do. Enough people made just enough noise to make Sony backpedal on the DRM and used game restriction nonsense. And believe me, they were just waiting to see how receptive people were towards those absolutely retarded "features".

Microsoft*

Avatar image for mikhail
#34 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

Peasants gonna peasant

Avatar image for Seabas989
#35 Edited by Seabas989 (13231 posts) -

Because SWs = hypocrisy.

Avatar image for starwolf474
#36 Edited by starwolf474 (983 posts) -

I never understood why some people complain about an online service fee. There are costs associated with maintaining and continuing to develop a quality online service and all they ask of the customer is $5 per month at it's normal price and even less than that if you subscribe during one of the many discounts that they have throughout the year. That's pocket change and well worth it for the amount of fun I get from playing online.

I like paying a fee to play online because by paying a fee it forces them to deliver a quality service because if they don't deliver quality then people won't pay for it. I had all of the consoles last gen and I rarely ever played online on my PS3 or Wii even though it was free; instead, like many people, I chose to play online on Xbox Live even though I had to pay a fee for it. Why? Because Xbox Live provided a far better quality online experience with more features and the paywall was the reason that it was better. Sony and Nintendo had no incentive to deliver a great online service because they weren't making money off of it. Microsoft, on the otherhand, needed to justify their subscription fee by providing the best online service so customers would pay for it, and they delivered.

You get what you pay for and when a company delivers a great service that is far better than the free alternatives; I feel that they have earned my money especially when it's less than $5 for an entire month of fun.

Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
#37 Posted by SolidGame_basic (22994 posts) -

because some of us having decent paying jobs and $35 a year is really not that big of a deal?

Avatar image for mikhail
#38 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

because some of us having decent paying jobs and $35 a year is really not that big of a deal?

Nope, it's because Sony and Microsoft don't give you a choice in the matter. It's pay or don't play.

I make very good money and I wouldn't dream of paying for a service like Xbox Live or PSN.

Avatar image for R3FURBISHED
#39 Posted by R3FURBISHED (12408 posts) -

@blueinheaven said:

@R3FURBISHED said:

I've payed for Live for seven years, and I guess I would stop when the service no longer appeals to me. DLC for video games I rarely buy as I rarely have a desire to go back into the world regardless of how good the game is/was (Shadow of Mordor is a prime example)

It's great that paying them AND your ISP for your internet connection for all those years appeals to you. Hopefully you don't wake up one day with a few extra brain cells and realise they are laughing at you. That would not be good.

Don't you hate when what you do turns out to be perceived as a personal affront to some random nobody on the internet?

Avatar image for SolidTy
#40 Edited by SolidTy (49991 posts) -

It sucks.

The consumers voted and they voted to pay. Xbox Live opened up the floodgates back in 2002 and if things had played out differently over the years (example: GFWL on PC) we wouldn't be in this fix. Xbox Live could have eventually went down in price as they lost subscribers, and even become free. That didn't happen. More and more people opted to pay. Companies noticed from EA to Activision to Ubisoft and of course Sony. It used to be the American company charging for GFWL and XBL vs. the two Japanese companies offering free. Then PC gamers voted with their wallets and forced GFWL became free but the console front got more and more popular. Sony joined that side...now it's Nintendo alone with the free online, but their online is wack. It's not even Dreamcast level yet with Nintendo IDs tied to hardware. It's a mess.

The positive is Sony brought free games and big discounts making the bitter pill easier to swallow. It was such a good idea, M$ completely aped it for Xbox Live Gold. Both companies took a page out of each others books. Sony also allowed Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc to work without a paywall, something else Xbox adopted recently. Xbox did allow you to keep your GWG games after your sub ended, but they retracted that for Xbone. Also, there was a big shitfit when the PS4 PS+ announcement was made here, you just weren't here I guess.

Funny thing is, I don't even hardly play online on my consoles anymore...I am subscribed for the "free" games and hugely discounted games. On the PS4 alone I got 27 PS+ free games and on my Xbone I got 9 GWG free games. If I added PS3 PS+ games, Vita PS+ games, and 360 GWG...it would be a huge list, especially just on the PS3 side. I also enjoy PC gaming and enjoy the discounts, but I don't like the DRM. It's a trade off.

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#41 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29703 posts) -

Consolites be all "Xbox Live is better!" or "NO! PS+ IS WAY BETTER!"

and Hermits be all like "AOL died years ago, Peasants."

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#42 Edited by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@darkangel115 said:

why do people feel entitled and want everything for free?

For free? As most people, I paid for my PS4. I paid for all of my games. Sony didn't give me shit. What free stuff am I exactly asking for here?

What exactly is this subscription money needed for? To compensate for cheaper retail releases? No. To reward 1st and 3rd party dev houses with monetary bonuses? Nope. To have dedicated in-house online servers across all game releases? LOOOOOL **** no

Sony created a paying service that offers discounted/"free" games monthly and purposefully locked online multiplay behind it because that was the entire point of doing it. They pulled a random fee out of their asses and people gobbled it up. Same thing for MS obviously.

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#43 Edited by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

Because it's peanuts, and because it's easier than building a gaming rig that I'd hardly use.

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#44 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

because some of us having decent paying jobs and $35 a year is really not that big of a deal?

I hope you are better at managing other things in life, since money and principles are clearly not a priority here.

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#46 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (29703 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:

@darkangel115 said:

why do people feel entitled and want everything for free?

For free? As most people, I paid for my PS4. I paid for all of my games. Sony didn't give me shit. What free stuff am I exactly asking for here?

What exactly is this subscription money needed for? To compensate for cheaper retail releases? No. To reward 1st and 3rd party dev houses with monetary bonuses? Nope. To have dedicated in-house online servers across all game releases? LOOOOOL **** no

Sony created a paying service that offers discounted/"free" games monthly and purposefully locked online multiplay behind it because that was the entire point of doing it. They pulled a random fee out of their asses and people gobbled it up. Same thing for MS obviously.

Not to mention you have to PAY for your ISP in the first place. So not only are you paying for your Internet, but NOW you have to pay for ACCESS TO your Internet.

Kind of Mind Blowing, imagine if Firefox, Google Chrome or any Web Browser decided to go and pull an AOL where you have to Pay to use the Web Browser.

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#47 Edited by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@Thunderdrone said:

@darkangel115 said:

why do people feel entitled and want everything for free?

For free? As most people, I paid for my PS4. I paid for all of my games. Sony didn't give me shit. What free stuff am I exactly asking for here?

What exactly is this subscription money needed for? To compensate for cheaper retail releases? No. To reward 1st and 3rd party dev houses with monetary bonuses? Nope. To have dedicated in-house online servers across all game releases? LOOOOOL **** no

Sony created a paying service that offers discounted/"free" games monthly and purposefully locked online multiplay behind it because that was the entire point of doing it. They pulled a random fee out of their asses and people gobbled it up. Same thing for MS obviously.

Not to mention you have to PAY for your ISP in the first place. So not only are you paying for your Internet, but NOW you have to pay for ACCESS TO your Internet.

Kind of Mind Blowing, imagine if Firefox, Google Chrome or any Web Browser decided to go and pull an AOL where you have to Pay to use the Web Browser.

Yeah, its mind boggling. People are literally paying to be "allowed" to connect the game they bought to the internet they paid for.

The fact that they quickly threw together the PS+Free/Discounted games program is the most transparent admission that the whole thing is dumb as hell as there is no reason you should be paying to play with others in servers they aren't even maintaining.

If the free game program is so good it should be its own subscription based thing. Why is it tethered to the online multiplay paywall? hmm ;)

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
#48 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (29703 posts) -

@Thunderdrone said:

Yeah, its mind boggling. People are literally paying to be "allowed" to connect the game they bought to the internet they paid for.

The fact that they quickly threw together the PS+Free/Discounted games program is the most transparent admission that the whole thing is dumb as hell as there is no reason you should be paying to play with others in servers they aren't even maintaining.

If the free game program is so good it should be its own subscription based thing. Why is it tethered to the online multiplay paywall? hmm ;)

It also blows my mind that Sony isn't even putting their Game Rental Service (PS Now) with PS+ (which is also a game rental service as in the Free games are only Free as long as you pay for the service.)

Why isn't PSnow available to ALL PS+ subscribers? Why do they have to pay more to play a game on PSNow?

Honestly they should just treat PS+ like Netflix. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it then.

Xbox Live I just never liked, but at least they let you keep your Free Games if you decide not continue paying for their Toll Booth.

Avatar image for Thunderdrone
#49 Posted by Thunderdrone (7154 posts) -

Wait, PSNow is going to be a separate pay2play service?

HAHAHAHAhauhkjqdgiqwuedgeipqw holy shit

Avatar image for arkephonic
#50 Posted by arkephonic (6734 posts) -

It is stupid and I unsubbed. I'm not gonna use either again. I play online on PC. I work through single player backlogs on consoles. What's funny is that I realized these subscriptions were really halting my progress through my backlogs. Now that I play single player only on consoles, I'm actually working through my massive, and I mean MASSIVE, backlog now.