$ony just couldn't help themselves, could they?

[Zeus]

I'm moving this here so it don't get buried in the other thread. I want people to actually know of this major change

With all the goodwill (and loud, standing ovation) they get by just not being Microshaft, they go ahead and still violate gamers from behind by now requiring PS+ to play any multiplayer game online

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/p ... ltiplayer/

Right now, I buy any game I may consider playing online on the PS3 simply because of the fact that Microshaft charges for online play. And I was actually considering PS+ because what they offer for the price is pretty decent. So I have nothing against Plus the way it is now. So this isn't a "Zeus won't pay for anything" rant. It's a "why are we being fucked and no one seems to care" rant.

The fact that they did this at the end of the presentation at the bottom of a "features" slide shows just how much they wanted to hide this fact while the nerds were too busy chaffing themselves that the PS4 allowed used games. Very smart, but very sneaky, move by $ony to announce it when they did. Make no mistake about it, this is not good for consumers in any way and, really, isn't necessary at all.

Don't give me the "it costs money to maintain an online network" shit. It's called a "competitive advantage". Valve doesn't seem to think they need to charge people to play Steam games they just paid 25% or less of the full retail price for. I think if a small company like Valve can make it work without a charge, I'm sure a multinational corporation like $ony can. Guess with how far Microshaft (I use that term alot because I think even the most hardened fanboy is pissed at how bold they're being with the new system) has buried themselves in gamers' eyes, they feel they don't need that advantage anymore. They have it just by their competitors being themselves now.

Other than that, everything else about the PS4 announcement was as expected. Status quo and not a "fuck you" followed by a steel-toed boot kick to the nuts that the Microshaft announcement was

[Blotus]

Opinion in E3 thread.

[Zeus]

In a really stupid way, I can't actually read posts from my work computer but I can post new threads. So I couldn't see that this issue was in that thread.

Regardless, I didn't want this issue to get lost in the nergasms everyone was gonna have over $ony not being Microshaft. It's still a kick to the nuts

[Eric]

I think if a small company like Valve can make it work without a charge, I'm sure a multinational corporation like $ony can.

Er, Valve doesn't host the servers you play games on for PC

[Zeus]

I think if a small company like Valve can make it work without a charge, I'm sure a multinational corporation like $ony can.

Er, Valve doesn't host the servers you play games on for PC

Not even for their games?

[Eric]

I think if a small company like Valve can make it work without a charge, I'm sure a multinational corporation like $ony can.

Er, Valve doesn't host the servers you play games on for PC

Not even for their games?

Er, yes for their games, which is irrelevant, all PC games host their own networks independently or have dedicated servers, or peer-2-peer, it's one of the benefits of PC gaming.

Xbox Live & Playstation Network host their networks for all games under their roof. This is why when PSN went down, nobody could play online.

How Steam works: Game->Connects directly to game server to authenticate game

If steam goes down you can still connect to play any game.

How Xbox Live/PSN work: Game->Connects through XBL Server/PSN Server to authenticate game->Connects to Game Server.

If PSN or BXL go down you cannot connect

[Zeus]

So on PC, game publishers consider it a cost of doing business to set up the servers for online play with the idea of recovering those costs through extra sales from the extra gameplay, yes? So why is this OK for the PC guys to take on these costs and not $ony or Microshaft, who get a royalty on each game sold?

[Eric]

Good questions, research and get back to me with your answer.

[SineSwiper]

So on PC, game publishers consider it a cost of doing business to set up the servers for online play with the idea of recovering those costs through extra sales from the extra gameplay, yes? So why is this OK for the PC guys to take on these costs and not $ony or Microshaft, who get a royalty on each game sold?

Ummm, because it's not the game publisher's cost? Especially for FPSs. Anybody can create their own server for an FPS to host the game. Yeah, it varies which companies do this, but a lot of them do.

Yet, those very same games on the console need dedicated servers to play, purchased and maintained by the console network. Connect to a personal Minecraft server from XBox? Ha!

[Zeus]

Good questions, research and get back to me with your answer.

Simple answer to a simple question: they know the console bitches will accept the ass-fucking without much of a fight for the reach-around. Microshaft proved that with the Xbox 360 so $ony said "it's worth it for us to do it since we're an oligopoly and people will pretty much have no choice". So they put it in place because the cost-benefit analysis says they'll make more money if they do so. Why? Because they know they can get away with it...period.

Why is this accepted in the console market but not even tried in the PC market unless it's an MMORPG? Part of it could be that $ony and Microshaft will have to set up servers for ALL the games as opposed to publishers, who will only have a few. But you start talking about economies of scale and that argument loses a lot of steam. I think it's, again, mostly the consumers that make up the market. Who are the ones who are more willing to pay to play a non-MMORPG online? The CoD Kids and those of the like, mostly. I don't see those people as making up the majority of the PC gaming market like they do the console market who would pay to play online. PC gamers just wouldn't accept it because they're more of the "hardcore" gamers (I don't consider someone who just plays one or two games a "gamer").

Personally, I'm not gay and don't like getting fucked in the ass and will complain and fight tooth and nail if anyone tries it. But hey, if that's your thing and you don't mind it and are willing to not only take it but even enjoy it? To each his own :-)

[bovine]

It was my impression that microsoft gave the option to host multiplayer games on their servers, but probably at a cost to the devs/publishers. This is my impression of why EA games always get their servers pulled - because EA just rolls their servers over to host whatever is new.

Steam recently stepped in and rescued the original company of heroes. The CoH servers or whatever infrastructure held that thing up (gamespy? Is that still a thing?) were being pulled down and valve created their own "steam version" of the game that you can run instead of the OG version to get access to the steam servers.

[Eric]

Why is this accepted in the console market but not even tried in the PC market unless it's an MMORPG? Part of it could be that $ony and Microshaft will have to set up servers for ALL the games as opposed to publishers, who will only have a few. But you start talking about economies of scale and that argument loses a lot of steam. I think it's, again, mostly the consumers that make up the market. Who are the ones who are more willing to pay to play a non-MMORPG online? The CoD Kids and those of the like, mostly. I don't see those people as making up the majority of the PC gaming market like they do the console market who would pay to play online. PC gamers just wouldn't accept it because they're more of the "hardcore" gamers (I don't consider someone who just plays one or two games a "gamer").

Zeus, the PC market not charging has nothing to do with "Hardcore Gamers that wouldn't take it!" The PC market doesn't charge because the PC market is ass to begin with. If a game is multi-platform, then you probably have a very small % of that on the PC, while the console versions sell far superior numbers. You wanna charge that smaller market to play online when there's barely anyone online to play with in the first place? It'd never work. In addition there's not 1 single united infrastructure for everyone who owns a PC is under. If you wanted to charge for online gameplay in the PC market you'd have to do it on a game-by-game basis. If every pc game was on steam, and steam had no competition, you'd probably have to pay behind steam's pay-wall too, fortunately for the PC, and their owners, they don't have to, that's the perk of being on PC, it's just open, and also why you'll never see it happen.

On the flip side, the reason they try to charge for MMOs is because they can guarantee x #s of people to play with you...for a while, before they end up going F2P. This is also why the F2P aka Pay-2-Win, and MMOs are the only PC exclusives you see for anything nowadays. It's a business decision. You'd be hard pressed to name any exclusive PC games with multiplayer that aren't on console, and don't have a gimmick payment system attached to them in order to monetize the loss. Even Starcraft 2(BLizzard wants to charge for premium maps with a market place) and Diablo 3(RL Auction House) aren't exceptions.

Microsoft was first to the online party, they knew they could charge people for online play and get away with it.
Sony was late to the party, it's not that they didn't charge because they were nice, they didn't charge because they were playing catch up, well, they've caught up.
Nintendo is still late to the party, but they have non-existent 3rd party support and can probably afford to not charge for a while until they catch up as well, when they finally catch up with a real online infrastructure, they're gonna charge too. Or if they stick to the strategy of releasing a console and only their 1st party stuff is worth playing, maybe they won't charge for online.

[SineSwiper]

Why is this accepted in the console market but not even tried in the PC market unless it's an MMORPG?

Ummm, because it's not the game publisher's cost? Especially for FPSs. Anybody can create their own server for an FPS to host the game. Yeah, it varies which companies do this, but a lot of them do.

Yet, those very same games on the console need dedicated servers to play, purchased and maintained by the console network. Connect to a personal Minecraft server from XBox? Ha!

[Shrinweck]

You'd be hard pressed to name any exclusive PC games with multiplayer that aren't on console, and don't have a gimmick payment system attached to them in order to monetize the loss

Total War series, Civ 5, Crusader Kings 2, Endless Space, Frozen Syanpse just to name a few of the many strategy games that you HAVE to have a PC for with multiplayer. To name non-strategy PC exclusives with multiplayer - Arma 2 (including that zombie mod), Torchlight 2, Monaco, Counter-Strike GO (or whatever it's called), Magika, Red Orchestra (2), Killing Floor, L4D (2). I don't know - there are more and some of these monetize multiplayer through cheap DLC, but most of them are completely free after the initial price point.

Tons of shit. Not sure it's all exclusive - but you get the point.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

If every pc game was on steam, and steam had no competition, you'd probably have to pay behind steam's pay-wall too, fortunately for the PC, and their owners, they don't have to, that's the perk of being on PC, it's just open, and also why you'll never see it happen.

I would also put money on Valve's cut on a game sold through Steam being much, much higher than the royalties MS and Sony charge to publish on their platforms.