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

  • 180 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#151 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

Well thats easy.... Because they wana play games, nobodys going to buy a new console, get caught off guard by a paywall and then move on with their lives..... They figured "Hey, I might aswell do it"

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
#152 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (8351 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

I disagree. They tried it on the PC and PC gamers said no. They then abandoned it.

"They" ?

MS GFWL

MS never charged for GFWL

I think they did right at the beginning unless I'm mistaken. But it wasn't long before they dropped it.

@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

I disagree. They tried it on the PC and PC gamers said no. They then abandoned it.

pc had other options, consoles don't

Like DLC. If it was never accepted like it is, it would never have caught on.

let's be real here, microsoft had multiplayer hostage, people didn't have a choice but to pay, on pc they would just use another platform, program or method.

If enough people chose not to, it wouldn't have caught on. If MS wasn't getting the online turn out, they would have had to rethink their business model for online.

hi, reality is calling you, for that to happen most people would have to go years without playing multiplayer, not going to happen.

Years lol, like 3 months. If the majority of people failed to show interest, you think it would have taken MS years to react? Look how quickly they've been 180ing on everything since the unveiling of the X1. This is the company that dropped the X1 Kinect vision at the first sign of trouble, even though they said they wouldn't. And you think they wouldn't change their online practices too?

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#153 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -
@HalcyonScarlet said:

@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

I disagree. They tried it on the PC and PC gamers said no. They then abandoned it.

"They" ?

MS GFWL

MS never charged for GFWL

I think they did right at the beginning unless I'm mistaken. But it wasn't long before they dropped it.

@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

I disagree. They tried it on the PC and PC gamers said no. They then abandoned it.

pc had other options, consoles don't

Like DLC. If it was never accepted like it is, it would never have caught on.

let's be real here, microsoft had multiplayer hostage, people didn't have a choice but to pay, on pc they would just use another platform, program or method.

If enough people chose not to, it wouldn't have caught on. If MS wasn't getting the online turn out, they would have had to rethink their business model for online.

hi, reality is calling you, for that to happen most people would have to go years without playing multiplayer, not going to happen.

Years lol, like 3 months. If the majority of people failed to show interest, you think it would have taken MS years to react? Look how quickly they've been 180ing on everything since the unveiling of the X1. This is the company that dropped the X1 Kinect vision at the first sign of trouble, even though they said they wouldn't. And you think they wouldn't change their online practices too?

again, in the real world people won't stop paying for multiplayer, that's my point, what you talk about the majority of people just stopping playing multiplayer (let's just say it's 3 months as you said) is not going to happen, don't get me wrong, it would be a great thing to happen but not going to.

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
#154 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (8351 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:
@HalcyonScarlet said:

@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

I disagree. They tried it on the PC and PC gamers said no. They then abandoned it.

"They" ?

MS GFWL

MS never charged for GFWL

I think they did right at the beginning unless I'm mistaken. But it wasn't long before they dropped it.

@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@Krelian-co said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@MonsieurX said:

They don't have a choice

I disagree. They tried it on the PC and PC gamers said no. They then abandoned it.

pc had other options, consoles don't

Like DLC. If it was never accepted like it is, it would never have caught on.

let's be real here, microsoft had multiplayer hostage, people didn't have a choice but to pay, on pc they would just use another platform, program or method.

If enough people chose not to, it wouldn't have caught on. If MS wasn't getting the online turn out, they would have had to rethink their business model for online.

hi, reality is calling you, for that to happen most people would have to go years without playing multiplayer, not going to happen.

Years lol, like 3 months. If the majority of people failed to show interest, you think it would have taken MS years to react? Look how quickly they've been 180ing on everything since the unveiling of the X1. This is the company that dropped the X1 Kinect vision at the first sign of trouble, even though they said they wouldn't. And you think they wouldn't change their online practices too?

again, in the real world people won't stop paying for multiplayer, that's my point, what you talk about the majority of people just stopping playing multiplayer (let's just say it's 3 months as you said) is not going to happen, don't get me wrong, it would be a great thing to happen but not going to.

I know, it would only have happened at the beginning if it was going to. I don't see there being any change now. Lems could have resisted at the 360 launch and cows at the PS4 launch.

Avatar image for tormentos
#155 Posted by tormentos (28760 posts) -

@darkangel115 said:

lol oh poor tormentos. I didn't come up with the nicknames lol. But it surely goes back to the PS2 xbox days (if not earlier) where the xbox had a built in hard drive and broadband and sony was still selling memory cards and then sold a hard drive and dial up modem add on to the PS2.

Also there was no other place to play online really back then. especially on broadband. It was considered a risk because a lot of people didn't have broadband when it was launched but it allowed for the best online experience and a unified network, something sony didn't even have launched until several years later.

So yeah online was charged by MS from the start, but that was because it was the only way to play online and online gaming wasn't nearly as big as it is now, but MS helped usher in that age. Sure MS has done its fair share of milking with accessories during the 360 age, I don't deny any facts because I'm not biased towards a system like you.

This gen, who is doing the milking then in your opinion?

I know you didn't come with it i just say it is stupid and fit more actual lemmings than cows even on the PS2 vs xbox days.

HDD and Broadband adapter were sony's ideas which MS stole and implemented on the xbox to try to beat sony to the punch,HDD had an advantage for saves and music but restrict you since you no longer had the ability of taking your saves or make characters into a friends house like you could with the PS2 memory reason why MS also sold them apart so you could take your saves to your friends.

What good was to have a build in ethernet port if you were going to charge people for using it.? The xbox had ethernet but was useless if you didn't pay for xbox live $50 a year making it the most expensive concurrent rip off the generation,the network adapter was $39.99 and was both 56k and broadband after you bough it online play was always free,you didn't have to pay any more,and on the Slim and onward the broadband adapter was free and build into the unit,unlike Live which never stop been $50.

You are sad if you are going to debate at least take the time to learn about what your arguing online play by Broadband arrived first on PS2 than on xbox,the xbox came with and ethernet port but XBL didn't make it until late 2002 by that time Socom was out online ready on dedicated servers and with voice chat to,online play hit the PS2 before the xbox,and socom 2 was so popular than it was getting more play hours at one point than all xbox live games combined,it wasn't until Halo 2 that MS was able to pass sony and because Halo unlike Socom 2 sold 8 million units.

Online play has been going on since the dreamcast at least competitively the PS2 also had online play before the xbox did learn a thing or to about gaming bro.

They charged you $30 for a dvd remote if you didn't buy it you could not watch DVD movies because MS lock it away,when it was one of the biggest selling point of the PS2,in fact what MS did was pass the DVD license fee to you and a cheap 3 dollar remote.

Oh and the HDD sony sold latter on was 40GB came with Final Fantasy 11 and was $99 make the xbox 360 one look like crap when it was half the size 20Gb with no games and cost the same,if anything the PS2 HDD was a better deal.

Both milked people but MS did way more specially in the 360 age,now they had to change because they were losing badly so they drop XBL pay wall for Netflix and all that crap but they started the gen with it.

Both companies are ripping people off by hiding online play behind paywalls,PSN+ was a good value without online been tied to it,hiding it under a pay wall was a shitty move by sony.

Avatar image for tormentos
#156 Posted by tormentos (28760 posts) -
@HalcyonScarlet said:

Years lol, like 3 months. If the majority of people failed to show interest, you think it would have taken MS years to react? Look how quickly they've been 180ing on everything since the unveiling of the X1. This is the company that dropped the X1 Kinect vision at the first sign of trouble, even though they said they wouldn't. And you think they wouldn't change their online practices too?

MS did a 180 on everything to bring people back,even at the start of the gen they still hard head and still were hiding apps and features like tv recording behind live.

It was when the PS4 obliterated the xbox one sales wise that MS budge,online play has been free since the dreamcast days,on PS2 and PS3 and MS didn't care they just didn't in fact the majority of the xbox and xbox 360 user base didn't pay for xbox live and they still didn't care and continue to charge those $50 and then $60.

Live is one of the things MS will never drop.

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
#157 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (8351 posts) -

@tormentos said:
@HalcyonScarlet said:

Years lol, like 3 months. If the majority of people failed to show interest, you think it would have taken MS years to react? Look how quickly they've been 180ing on everything since the unveiling of the X1. This is the company that dropped the X1 Kinect vision at the first sign of trouble, even though they said they wouldn't. And you think they wouldn't change their online practices too?

MS did a 180 on everything to bring people back,even at the start of the gen they still hard head and still were hiding apps and features like tv recording behind live.

It was when the PS4 obliterated the xbox one sales wise that MS budge,online play has been free since the dreamcast days,on PS2 and PS3 and MS didn't care they just didn't in fact the majority of the xbox and xbox 360 user base didn't pay for xbox live and they still didn't care and continue to charge those $50 and then $60.

Live is one of the things MS will never drop.

The majority of Xbox gamers didn't have live because it wasn't a big thing back then and you needed a credit card.

Do you really believe that when the 360 came out, if no one had accepted the fee based business model, MS wouldn't have changed it? Keep in mind that last gen was when online became an integral part of consoles. Not being online has like having half a console, that wasn't the case with the Original Xbox.

I think at the very least MS would have cut the price right down if they kept it.

Avatar image for JPala84
#158 Posted by JPala84 (35 posts) -

Simply put, online pay-walls only exist because Microsoft and Sony can get away with them. There is absolutely no reason why they need to charge money for them. Companies like Nintendo and Valve with Steam prove this. Paying for online access is about as ethical as micro transactions, DLC (day 1 and on-disc), and releasing buggy games with promises to patch in the future.

Avatar image for happyduds77
#159 Posted by happyduds77 (1688 posts) -

It baffles me too. I don't understand why most people are willing to spread their ass open .

Avatar image for SexyJazzCat
#160 Posted by SexyJazzCat (2796 posts) -

Because $50 a year is chump change. No one cares.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#161 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19582 posts) -

You get what you're paid for and game companies will do everything to gain consumers interests, why else no one reads the fine print? That's how companies are able to add hidden fee's into their services because they know the consumer (gamer) is dumb enough to fall for these practices.

Anyways, since I do own an Xbox One, I have found a way to get gold every month without paying for it LEGALLY, without caving into my credit card or going to the store. It's more of a loophole that Microsoft has not discovered yet and it involves using Bing and getting Bing Rewards.

Avatar image for EG101
#162 Posted by EG101 (1965 posts) -

MS's initial investment to get Xbox Live up and running was $500 Million dollars. That was back in 2002. Xbox Live is now much bigger than it was back then using many more servers. There are costs associated with maintenance and up keep. The cost of running these servers 24/7/365 days.

How can anyone expect these global businesses to be profitable if they have to keep giving self entitled gamers everything away for free??

For all the people that believe Live and PSN should be free I ask you this question: Would you invest over $500 million dollars without expecting a return on it??

Avatar image for Floppy_Jim
#163 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25838 posts) -

3/4 or 6 games per month depending which brand you're subscribed to outweighs the anti-consumer guff of paid online. It's still shite but I don't care so much anymore.

Avatar image for tormentos
#164 Posted by tormentos (28760 posts) -

@EG101 said:

MS's initial investment to get Xbox Live up and running was $500 Million dollars. That was back in 2002. Xbox Live is now much bigger than it was back then using many more servers. There are costs associated with maintenance and up keep. The cost of running these servers 24/7/365 days.

How can anyone expect these global businesses to be profitable if they have to keep giving self entitled gamers everything away for free??

For all the people that believe Live and PSN should be free I ask you this question: Would you invest over $500 million dollars without expecting a return on it??

For god sake that is the shit MS feed people for years,the only servers MS had since 2002 were the ones running friends list,match making and stats,all connections were P2P basically which mean to have actual gameplay your connection connected to another user console,on 360 for almost the same crap and they raise the price by $10.

MS investment in servers was minimal like always they over blow the so call value just like the say they spend 1 billion in games on xbox one and the console has total shit to play and less games than the PS4,yeah from the billions more than half probably for DLC exclusivity for a month or 2.

Hell Sony actually used dedicated servers for most of its game since the PS2,socom ran on dedicated servers and even that Socom 1 and 2 came before Halo 2,both games outlive Halo 2 servers which is a joke since sony didn't charge 1 cent for online play.

The PS2 was hugely profitable and online play was free,PC is profitable and online play is free,the PS3 didn't do money because sony loss billions on hardware not on running PSN which not only had free online play it had things like Playstation Home free,when MS would even charge you for Netflix the only platform on the planet that actually charged you for something every one got free,and to add insult to it it was superior on PS3..lol

MS didn't invest $500 million in servers,live was P2P now if you tell me they spent 1 billion in azure yeah i believe that but azure is not just for xbox live,the xbox one can die tomorrow and Azure would still live still be healthy and still would be use by other MS services,in fact i think Office 365 has been running longer on Azure than the xbox one has,so it is a question of MS taking advantage of something they have already and not just building it for xbox live.

Online play could be free without problem and sony charge for it now because MS charge people for it,and like my farther use to say it is the bad things the things that people learn faster,so yeah sony copy one of MS most horrible schemes paywall.

Avatar image for Boddicker
#165 Edited by Boddicker (4458 posts) -

Servers cost money. Welcome to the real world.

/thread

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

@tormentos said:

@EG101 said:

MS's initial investment to get Xbox Live up and running was $500 Million dollars. That was back in 2002. Xbox Live is now much bigger than it was back then using many more servers. There are costs associated with maintenance and up keep. The cost of running these servers 24/7/365 days.

How can anyone expect these global businesses to be profitable if they have to keep giving self entitled gamers everything away for free??

For all the people that believe Live and PSN should be free I ask you this question: Would you invest over $500 million dollars without expecting a return on it??

For god sake that is the shit MS feed people for years,the only servers MS had since 2002 were the ones running friends list,match making and stats,all connections were P2P basically which mean to have actual gameplay your connection connected to another user console,on 360 for almost the same crap and they raise the price by $10.

MS investment in servers was minimal like always they over blow the so call value just like the say they spend 1 billion in games on xbox one and the console has total shit to play and less games than the PS4,yeah from the billions more than half probably for DLC exclusivity for a month or 2.

Hell Sony actually used dedicated servers for most of its game since the PS2,socom ran on dedicated servers and even that Socom 1 and 2 came before Halo 2,both games outlive Halo 2 servers which is a joke since sony didn't charge 1 cent for online play.

The PS2 was hugely profitable and online play was free,PC is profitable and online play is free,the PS3 didn't do money because sony loss billions on hardware not on running PSN which not only had free online play it had things like Playstation Home free,when MS would even charge you for Netflix the only platform on the planet that actually charged you for something every one got free,and to add insult to it it was superior on PS3..lol

MS didn't invest $500 million in servers,live was P2P now if you tell me they spent 1 billion in azure yeah i believe that but azure is not just for xbox live,the xbox one can die tomorrow and Azure would still live still be healthy and still would be use by other MS services,in fact i think Office 365 has been running longer on Azure than the xbox one has,so it is a question of MS taking advantage of something they have already and not just building it for xbox live.

Online play could be free without problem and sony charge for it now because MS charge people for it,and like my farther use to say it is the bad things the things that people learn faster,so yeah sony copy one of MS most horrible schemes paywall.

I love how you talk about 10 years ago, but right now MS has invested billions in XBL and all their games run on servers, meanwhile sony added a paywall, has no servers, and are still down for over 24 hours. I still can't log into PSN

Avatar image for tormentos
#167 Posted by tormentos (28760 posts) -

@darkangel115 said:

I love how you talk about 10 years ago, but right now MS has invested billions in XBL and all their games run on servers, meanwhile sony added a paywall, has no servers, and are still down for over 24 hours. I still can't log into PSN

No MS has invested Billions in Azure which still will work and still will be use if the xbox one was totally gone tomorrow and that is a fact Azure actually predates the xbox one and office 365 has been using for longer time Azure is just a clusterfu** of servers from MS with a name.

No not all games run on servers that is a total lie and EA games still run on EA servers as well,stop talking crap if you don't know what the hell you are saying.

Yep sony added a pay wall and sites and people have say shit because MS charged for P2P since 2002 and only in late 2013 is that they started using dedicated servers for some games,after 11 years of paying for something that every one has got free,should i mention that online on 360 still is P2P.? That that still is $60.? Should i point how the PS3 continues to be free.?

XBL was also down so STFU about it the so call service that was hack proof really wasn't..hahahaa

Avatar image for thegreatgeneral
#168 Edited by TheGreatGeneral (717 posts) -

@darkangel115: @cainetao11: At first I wanted to reply seriously, but after reading your conversation, you guys reminded me what lowlife corporate dicksuckers, lemmings truly are, so forget it.

Still, here you go OP, darkangel115 and cainetao11 are the best example why paywalls are now acceptable.

Avatar image for bldgirsh
#169 Posted by BldgIrsh (3044 posts) -

@SexyJazzCat said:

Because $50 a year is chump change. No one cares.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#170 Posted by cainetao11 (36500 posts) -

@thegreatgeneral said:

@darkangel115: @cainetao11: At first I wanted to reply seriously, but after reading your conversation, you guys reminded me what lowlife corporate dicksuckers, lemmings truly are, so forget it.

Still, here you go OP, darkangel115 and cainetao11 are the best example why paywalls are now acceptable.

Yes we, who did not resort to vulgar insults are low lifes.

Avatar image for thegreatgeneral
#171 Posted by TheGreatGeneral (717 posts) -
@cainetao11 said:

@thegreatgeneral said:

@darkangel115: @cainetao11: At first I wanted to reply seriously, but after reading your conversation, you guys reminded me what lowlife corporate dicksuckers, lemmings truly are, so forget it.

Still, here you go OP, darkangel115 and cainetao11 are the best example why paywalls are now acceptable.

Yes we, who did not resort to vulgar insults are low lifes.

Funny how you try to get on the high horse when you were the one who insulted me first.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#172 Posted by cainetao11 (36500 posts) -

@thegreatgeneral said:
@cainetao11 said:

@thegreatgeneral said:

@darkangel115: @cainetao11: At first I wanted to reply seriously, but after reading your conversation, you guys reminded me what lowlife corporate dicksuckers, lemmings truly are, so forget it.

Still, here you go OP, darkangel115 and cainetao11 are the best example why paywalls are now acceptable.

Yes we, who did not resort to vulgar insults are low lifes.

Funny how you try to get on the high horse when you were the one who insulted me first.

Stand corrected, and apologize for my drunken post that night. But I never assumed the position that my way is THE RIGHT WAY FOR ALL, as you did.

Avatar image for thegreatgeneral
#173 Posted by TheGreatGeneral (717 posts) -
@cainetao11 said:

@thegreatgeneral said:
@cainetao11 said:

@thegreatgeneral said:

@darkangel115: @cainetao11: At first I wanted to reply seriously, but after reading your conversation, you guys reminded me what lowlife corporate dicksuckers, lemmings truly are, so forget it.

Still, here you go OP, darkangel115 and cainetao11 are the best example why paywalls are now acceptable.

Yes we, who did not resort to vulgar insults are low lifes.

Funny how you try to get on the high horse when you were the one who insulted me first.

Stand corrected, and apologize for my drunken post that night. But I never assumed the position that my way is THE RIGHT WAY FOR ALL, as you did.

Not the right way, just the way for corporations not to **** as us much. But many people love getting fucked by corporations. Just ask apple fans, they are famous for loving it.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#174 Posted by cainetao11 (36500 posts) -

@thegreatgeneral said:
@cainetao11 said:

@thegreatgeneral said:
@cainetao11 said:

@thegreatgeneral said:

@darkangel115: @cainetao11: At first I wanted to reply seriously, but after reading your conversation, you guys reminded me what lowlife corporate dicksuckers, lemmings truly are, so forget it.

Still, here you go OP, darkangel115 and cainetao11 are the best example why paywalls are now acceptable.

Yes we, who did not resort to vulgar insults are low lifes.

Funny how you try to get on the high horse when you were the one who insulted me first.

Stand corrected, and apologize for my drunken post that night. But I never assumed the position that my way is THE RIGHT WAY FOR ALL, as you did.

Not the right way, just the way for corporations not to **** as us much. But many people love getting fucked by corporations. Just ask apple fans, they are famous for loving it.

In truth I don't believe people 'love getting fucked by corporations". They just weigh, for themselves what is worth their own money and fighting for. And $4-5 a month is not high on their lists, which is what PSN+ and Gold amount to. I don't blame them. I wish there was no fee, but in the grand scheme of things people pay more for water, their cell phones, cable, gas each month. Now depending on where you live, gas is a necessity. Not for me as I live in NYC. A cell phone has been accepted as the normal thing, but humans survived for decades without others having 24 hour access to us. Cable? I don't watch TV, I watch Netflix, or other online services. But people are up in arms over $5/per month? It pales in comparison to the other issues in people's lives, and they're not stupid or less than you for not feeling the same way as you on this.

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

@thegreatgeneral: since when is being ok paying for a service being a corporate cocksucker? Do u have a cell phone? U purchased the phone but still have to pay for talk, text, and data right?

Avatar image for EG101
#176 Posted by EG101 (1965 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@EG101 said:

MS's initial investment to get Xbox Live up and running was $500 Million dollars. That was back in 2002. Xbox Live is now much bigger than it was back then using many more servers. There are costs associated with maintenance and up keep. The cost of running these servers 24/7/365 days.

How can anyone expect these global businesses to be profitable if they have to keep giving self entitled gamers everything away for free??

For all the people that believe Live and PSN should be free I ask you this question: Would you invest over $500 million dollars without expecting a return on it??

For god sake that is the shit MS feed people for years,the only servers MS had since 2002 were the ones running friends list,match making and stats,all connections were P2P basically which mean to have actual gameplay your connection connected to another user console,on 360 for almost the same crap and they raise the price by $10.

MS investment in servers was minimal like always they over blow the so call value just like the say they spend 1 billion in games on xbox one and the console has total shit to play and less games than the PS4,yeah from the billions more than half probably for DLC exclusivity for a month or 2.

Hell Sony actually used dedicated servers for most of its game since the PS2,socom ran on dedicated servers and even that Socom 1 and 2 came before Halo 2,both games outlive Halo 2 servers which is a joke since sony didn't charge 1 cent for online play.

The PS2 was hugely profitable and online play was free,PC is profitable and online play is free,the PS3 didn't do money because sony loss billions on hardware not on running PSN which not only had free online play it had things like Playstation Home free,when MS would even charge you for Netflix the only platform on the planet that actually charged you for something every one got free,and to add insult to it it was superior on PS3..lol

MS didn't invest $500 million in servers,live was P2P now if you tell me they spent 1 billion in azure yeah i believe that but azure is not just for xbox live,the xbox one can die tomorrow and Azure would still live still be healthy and still would be use by other MS services,in fact i think Office 365 has been running longer on Azure than the xbox one has,so it is a question of MS taking advantage of something they have already and not just building it for xbox live.

Online play could be free without problem and sony charge for it now because MS charge people for it,and like my farther use to say it is the bad things the things that people learn faster,so yeah sony copy one of MS most horrible schemes paywall.

MS announced way back in 2002 that they invested $500 Million dollars on Xbox Live. Just because you don't understand what they spent the money on does not mean the money was not used.

Just about everything you Post on these forums is fanboy drivel that you pull out your rear. Grow the hell up.

Avatar image for roler42
#177 Edited by Roler42 (1067 posts) -

Because console gamers got convinced by Microsoft that paying for the online paywall was like joining the "cool kids club", no one on xbox 360 did anything to stop the paywall and now both lems and cows are paying for it, literally...

Avatar image for ShepardCommandr
#178 Posted by ShepardCommandr (4939 posts) -

@blueinheaven said:

Because people are INCREDIBLY fucking stupid. Any other questions?

Avatar image for Wasdie
#179 Edited by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

It boils down to this. People with gaming consoles have no choice as there will be millions of other people who will gladly pay. Even though I'm against the fees there is nothing I can do with my PS4 or XBone. I want to play the games online so I'll pay.

So it really doesn't matter. If you want to play console games online then you pay. If you don't want to pay then you don't play online. Best just avoid consoles if you don't want to pay.

PC gamers who happen to own a console have an option to get around this for 90% of titles. Console gamer who do not have a PC have no choices.

This argument is ultimately pointless as bitching about it won't change the minds of millions of console gamers who won't buy a PC as an alternative and be able to give up the subscription.

Avatar image for Demonjoe93
#180 Posted by Demonjoe93 (9869 posts) -

Because gamers are suckers.

Avatar image for jsmoke03
#181 Posted by jsmoke03 (13697 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

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.

tl:dr version...lemmings fault

psn + is better than xbl when it comes to "free"games

Avatar image for dxmcat
#182 Posted by dxmcat (2568 posts) -

They saw how Console online was seriously gimped. So Xbox beat everyone to the punch by carbon copying the Online PC gaming services days of old (Mplayer) and shoveled it to consoles. Now its OMG XBL IS BEST ONLINE.

PCs / Gaming got rid of that shit for a reason.

Avatar image for SolidTy
#183 Posted by SolidTy (49991 posts) -

@jsmoke03 said:

@SolidTy said:

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.

tl:dr version...lemmings fault

psn + is better than xbl when it comes to "free"games

tru dat, homie.