Paid Online Multiplayer On Consoles Is No Longer About “Recouping Costs” Now

A new online game you’ve been looking forward to just came out, and you’ve finally bought it, the excitement is through the roof. You boot the game up and suddenly remember your PS Plus subscription ran out a while ago. You’ve spent all your savings on your game and unfortunately can’t renew it. Imagine yourself in this scenario. What would be your thoughts?

Like it or not, this little thought is bound to cross your mind. “This wouldn’t have happened if I was on PC.” Consoles have tons of advantages and are even cheaper, but little things and situations like this are when you notice the flaws of the “walled garden” system.

The Origins of “Paid Online Multiplayer”

Consoles requiring a paid subscription to provide online multiplayer in contrast to no such restriction on PC is common news at this point. Of course, there’s valid reasoning for this, what with consoles being a restricted ecosystem with less initial costs, and PC an open platform that demands more first-time investment. However, what if I tell you that this online multiplayer was not always paid?

Xbox Live Gold is required for online multiplayer gaming on Xbox One, But not Windows 10.
byu/nabergallb inxboxone

That’s right, when online gaming became a thing, the feature was available without any extra cost. It was Microsoft that introduced the paid online multiplayer scheme with its Xbox Live model for the Xbox 360. The PS3, its direct competitor, had free online multiplayer. The paid Xbox Live was a better experience, as it should be, and everyone wanted to play Halo those days so they paid without argument.

The Xbox 360 led the console race of its time, but do remember that the PS3 eventually outsold it. However, Sony too got the idea that “We can get away with charging for online multiplayer? Yay, more money.” The upcoming PS4 came with a paid online model then, following in the footsteps of the oh-so-generous Microsoft. Nintendo soon followed suit with the Switch as well.

Once these companies realized people would pay them for even the most basic of services, there was no way they were going to provide it for free after that. Some people desperately wanted to play Halo, and we’re paying the price of that even now.

Comment
by from discussion
ingaming

Online Multiplayer Is No Longer A Luxury

However, it’s not like I don’t understand why it went paid back then. With the PS3/Xbox 360 era, online play was in its early, developmental stages. Though PS2 had online support, it was pretty barebones and “incubatory” back then.

In a time like that, charging for what was a luxury can be justified. You’re hosting servers and providing a buttery smooth online gaming experience in a time when the technology is still limited, it’s no wonder you’d want to charge for that. As I mentioned earlier, the paid online of Xbox 360 was day and night compared to the PS3’s free version.

In the war between Xbox 360 and PS3, gamers became convinced that paying for online gaming on consoles is required for good online performance.
byu/ConstructionMather ingaming

The thing is, the situation is much different these days. Online multiplayer is no longer a luxury, a newly emerging feature that requires too much effort. Now, online play is practically a necessity, and almost effortless to manage now compared to back then. As such, they should no longer be paid.

However, will these giant, money-hungry companies drop the model out of the goodness of their hearts? I really doubt that. People still pay for necessities, and they’ll continue to do so. These corporate giants are making good cash, why would they stop now?

Comment
by from discussion
ingaming

It’s Not About “Recouping Costs” Anymore

This model was created as an extension of the consoles’ policy of recouping costs by miscellaneous charges. As you’re aware, consoles are sold at a loss as compared to something like PC. You can get a console at almost half the price, and then these companies make back those costs in other ways, like taxing the online multiplayer for example.

Comment
by from discussion
ingaming

This might’ve been true back then, but circumstances are way different now. For starters, the existence of game subscription services has skyrocketed the profit for these console companies. Why they continue to keep the online multiplayer paid when there’s plenty of incentive to buy these services already is beyond me.

Take a look at the subscription count of the PS Plus Essential and Extra tiers. If Sony makes online multiplayer free, will people stop buying PS Plus Extra? I don’t think so. That game catalog is more than enough reason. The same is the case for Xbox Game Pass. The subscriber count will not be reduced by making online multiplayer free again, but you and I both know that’s not going to happen.

Besides, the “recouping costs” argument is a sham these days anyway. There are many ways to “recoup” those costs, not just online multiplayer. Considering how much you can save a year with extreme discounts and deals on Steam has made PC a fairly equivalent expense in the long run. Yet consoles continue to charge even for the most basic services because they can.

Waiting for the next steam sale
byu/rsgenus1 inSteam

PC Master Race Indeed

After all this, the “PC Master Race” argument feels more and more grounded in reality. I know it’s an open platform compared to the closed ecosystem of consoles, and how you’re bound to play by their rules if you buy their products, but there are so many advantages to PC that the higher initial cost almost seems worth it at this point.

CMV: Gaming on PC is better than on console.
byu/polyvinylchl0rid inchangemyview

Especially when you’re forced to pay hundreds of dollars just to maintain online play functionality in an ecosystem governed by greedy corporates, the freedom and openness of PC become a lot more desirable. Even more so because of the savior that is Steam.