Yeah I don’t buy it. Nintendo does free across multiple hardware then when they saw they were the only one decided they’d start taking money too, since it is in a companies nature to maximize profits exponentially.
And then there’s Steam. Also in the hardware business and hosting games and mods and a bunch of other services even Epic with their Fortnite money hasn’t matched. Yet online is free.
You just sound like a consumer who iust accepts whatever methods companies try to exploit consumers and defend as necessary. More a stockholder than a consumer.
You don’t buy… the fact that infrastructure that has to scale to millions of users globally, and the salaries of the many employees who maintain it cost money…? Buddy that shit costs literal millions a year.
Nintendos online user services were never free. They went from not having them, to having them and charging money.
And yes Steam is eating a metric shit ton of costs to give you those services for free. Because PCs are an open platform, they have to compete to keep you on their storefront. They eat all those costs because you don’t have to buy new hardware in order to switch.
These are very, very simple concepts you’re failing to grasp.
Youre failing to grasp the fact that Sony didn’t need that infrastructure in the first place. Things worked great before they charged simply for you to play online.
Steam is a perfect example, they don’t charge for anything except a #% fee or tax on the game when you buy it. As well as their market fees.
I understand your point, though I agree with OP, it was foolish to start paying PS in the first place when literally every other console had free multi-player. It’s why I left XBOX and never got a PS. PC is just free after you pay your internet bill
Sony didn’t need that infrastructure in the first place. Things worked great before they charged simply for you to play online
What you’re both failing to grasp here is that the infrastructure existed when it was free. They always needed the infrastructure, and it always cost money. There is no “before”. They were just eating the costs as a marketing strategy to attract Xbox players who at the time had to pay for Xbox Live.
As console adoption increased, so did the cost of the infrastructure and the salaries of the many people it takes to maintain it, it just wasn’t feasible to provide those services for free when it cost so much money to maintain.
it was foolish to start paying PS in the first place when literally every other console had free multi-player
Every other console did not have free multiplayer. Xbox Live always cost money.
Company gets cut of every single game sold, gets more customers over the years, and because they are making even more money than ever they can’t stay afloat without charging for online.
Yeah… Okay… I wonder how Valve hasn’t gone bankrupt.
Company gets a cut of every game sold, gets exponentially more customers that use your infrastructure on a day to day basis, meanwhile the price of games stays the same for 20 years and game development cycles get longer while games and infrastructure gets more expensive to make.
I wonder how Valve hasn’t gone bankrupt.
I don’t. Valve is in a super sweet spot in the market and their near-monopoly on PC game sales and lean business model gives them a lot of breathing room that Companies like Sony don’t have. Some benefits Valve has:
They don’t need to worry about R&D of exclusive hardware often sold at a loss just to capture a user base. Valve has dipped its toes into hardware now, but even if its competitors eat some of its market share, those users will still buy games from Steam. On the other hand If people buy an Xbox instead of a PlayStation, Sony just loses out on the customers.
Valve doesn’t have to operate a number of first and second party game studios to churn out increasingly more expensive games.
Steam being a storefront on another company’s operating system means it can rely on external infrastructure to handle user services in many of its games.
Valve is a privately owned company so they have a lot more wiggle room to tread water and “stay afloat” when necessary and aren’t being driven to an ever-increasing profitability targets year after year.
Valve literally can’t charge you for their user services because you’re not stuck on their hardware. The very moment they do, they’ll lose all the user goodwill that has made them the default in their space and everybody can just pack up and move to another storefront or even just pirate their games. Valve has to eat those costs at the expense of everything else.”, they have no choice.
It’s console brain basically of just never wanting to admit the cons. How many generations and decades went by before they finally admitted 60 fps and above is ideal after years of arguing 30 fps is enough.
Difference for me was I too move over to PC after the PS4, since why would i accept paying more for what is free on another platform.
Yeah I don’t buy it. Nintendo does free across multiple hardware then when they saw they were the only one decided they’d start taking money too, since it is in a companies nature to maximize profits exponentially.
And then there’s Steam. Also in the hardware business and hosting games and mods and a bunch of other services even Epic with their Fortnite money hasn’t matched. Yet online is free.
You just sound like a consumer who iust accepts whatever methods companies try to exploit consumers and defend as necessary. More a stockholder than a consumer.
You don’t buy… the fact that infrastructure that has to scale to millions of users globally, and the salaries of the many employees who maintain it cost money…? Buddy that shit costs literal millions a year.
Nintendos online user services were never free. They went from not having them, to having them and charging money.
And yes Steam is eating a metric shit ton of costs to give you those services for free. Because PCs are an open platform, they have to compete to keep you on their storefront. They eat all those costs because you don’t have to buy new hardware in order to switch.
These are very, very simple concepts you’re failing to grasp.
Youre failing to grasp the fact that Sony didn’t need that infrastructure in the first place. Things worked great before they charged simply for you to play online.
Steam is a perfect example, they don’t charge for anything except a #% fee or tax on the game when you buy it. As well as their market fees.
I understand your point, though I agree with OP, it was foolish to start paying PS in the first place when literally every other console had free multi-player. It’s why I left XBOX and never got a PS. PC is just free after you pay your internet bill
What you’re both failing to grasp here is that the infrastructure existed when it was free. They always needed the infrastructure, and it always cost money. There is no “before”. They were just eating the costs as a marketing strategy to attract Xbox players who at the time had to pay for Xbox Live.
As console adoption increased, so did the cost of the infrastructure and the salaries of the many people it takes to maintain it, it just wasn’t feasible to provide those services for free when it cost so much money to maintain.
Every other console did not have free multiplayer. Xbox Live always cost money.
Company gets cut of every single game sold, gets more customers over the years, and because they are making even more money than ever they can’t stay afloat without charging for online.
Yeah… Okay… I wonder how Valve hasn’t gone bankrupt.
Company gets a cut of every game sold, gets exponentially more customers that use your infrastructure on a day to day basis, meanwhile the price of games stays the same for 20 years and game development cycles get longer while games and infrastructure gets more expensive to make.
I don’t. Valve is in a super sweet spot in the market and their near-monopoly on PC game sales and lean business model gives them a lot of breathing room that Companies like Sony don’t have. Some benefits Valve has:
Valve literally can’t charge you for their user services because you’re not stuck on their hardware. The very moment they do, they’ll lose all the user goodwill that has made them the default in their space and everybody can just pack up and move to another storefront or even just pirate their games. Valve has to eat those costs at the expense of everything else.”, they have no choice.
It’s console brain basically of just never wanting to admit the cons. How many generations and decades went by before they finally admitted 60 fps and above is ideal after years of arguing 30 fps is enough.
Difference for me was I too move over to PC after the PS4, since why would i accept paying more for what is free on another platform.