You're viewing a single thread.
Literally argued with a bunch of game-pass supporters on this very topic today, where we don't own shit anymore and everything is rental only. Sick of people gobbling corporate cock.
Years ago I had been out of multiplayer gaming for a number of years and had really only had experiences with PC games, where multiplayer is/was just this standard thing. You already bought the game, playing multiplayer with other people is just a thing you can hop on and do whenever you want for free (provided there's other people to play). I owned consoles, but never played multiplayer games on them, so never dealt with game passes or anything like that.
When my oldest son started getting into gaming, we wanted to play couch co-op on an Xbox game, but then ran into a problem with it requiring an Xbox game pass for a co-op mode (it had been couch co-op in previous games from the series; basically a horde mode where you go against bots, so no reason to go online). Requiring a game pass for that just seemed like a shit way to get more subscriptions.
When I complained about it on Reddit, people swarmed to tell me what a jackass I was and that of course you have to subscribe to play with game pass, like what kind of world was I living in where I expected free multiplayer gaming? Apparently I hadn't realized what a golden age I had lived in when something like free multiplayer gaming was just a standard thing.
That's been my experience as well, the dogpiling crap. I even had someone argue "How are businesses supposed to stay alive if they don't charge monthly!" -- and they couldn't agree that the business could create new IP, or create new games, instead of sitting on the same game for 10+ years.
Apparently I hadn’t realized what a golden age I had lived in when something like free multiplayer gaming was just a standard thing
This was literally never a thing on consoles, so maybe that's the issue?
Multiplayer gaming was and generally still is totally free on PC, but consoles don't have the infrastructure to pull from and have charged since they launched the feature.
For couch co-op?
The issue there is that the game co-op always goes through their servers.
Games that don't run their multiplayer that way don't have this issue, but as multiplayer continues to transition to remote play rather than couch co-op it will likely continue to spread.
You said that (free co-op) was literally never a thing on consoles. It has been a thing since Pong.
I assumed that someone reading this conversation would apply context and thus understand what I was talking about.
I remember Dreamcast, PS2, and Xbox's online service not being charged...?
Xbox live was absolutely a paid service
At E3 2002 Microsoft unveiled its plans to establish an online gaming service for the Xbox called Xbox Live. The membership fee was set at $49.99 a year, which is what it still costs today. Microsoft was adamant about getting users online quickly and easily
Dreamcast doesn't really count as it was more of just a modem, and PS2 initially had no online capabilities. I still get wistful over what Dreamcast could have been.
Nevertheless, due to lack of widespread broadband adoption at the time, the Dreamcast shipped with only a dial-up modem while a later-released broadband adapter was neither widely supported nor widely available. Downloadable content was available, though limited in size due to the narrowband connection and the size limitations of a memory card.[23] The PlayStation 2 did not initially ship with built-in networking capabilities
I don't remember basic multiplayer access was paid service for Xbox, but that maybe me confusing things with Playstation 3's PSN not requiring it. Also, doesn't count? Really? So if it doesn't agree with you, it doesn't count?
Dreamcast had no servers to play from. It has an internal modem. So yes, that's not what we're talking about and doesn't count
Do you understand the difference in that technology? Genuinely asking here - do you know what a modem is?
You mean there exist online game that doesn't have any host at the end point? So games like Phatasy Star Online runs on magic? I'm genuinely asking here.
So if you connect with modem, it isn't multiplayer? If you connect third-party servers, it isn't multiplayer? Connection doesn't care what hardware is present at end point - all it care is that it satisfies authentication then following byte stream is correctly formatted. The fact that it is console doesn't magically make it require different kind of infrastructure from PC to begin with unless someone forces to.
So what is definition of console multiplayer for you anyway? It clearly seems to be not "A session of a game where multiple players are involved locally or via internet" based on what you are saying so far.
We're discussing console play multiplayer, which generally involves things like signing into servers for matchmaking
The Dreamcast allowed point to point networking, which is radically different.
This isn't some weird definition I made up, this is the context of the thread. I don't know why it's so important to you keep to flailing toward being right here but this is just a meaningless discussion at this point
I'm just baffled by someone insisting absurd definition to defend unnecessary enshittification while using all the technical terms and how they function incorrect.
Also, context of this particular thread started with initial comment that PC multiplayer is free, but Xbox online multiplayer (Not any other feature) - which is, identical in its technological basis and requirement - need payment. Then you simply asserted that such functionality was never free on consoles. I don't remember original Xbox requiring me any payment to access XIII's multiplayer mode, but memory is memory, so with no Xbox to test with, I will just accept that point was incorrect on my part.
Then you went off-track stating that method of connection to server or time of implementing technology makes it so that those doesn't count as multiplayer on console. Followed by arguments that is not even possible to do.
If there is anything that I misunderstood from the context is that I just presumed that you were being careful with your claim. Upon reading again, I was indeed very wrong on that. PS3's PSN and Nintendo exists. Consoles always had infrastructure to pull from, the very same infrastructure to PC multiplayer. Companies simply decided to charge more because they could.
GP really isn't that bad imo. There's much better examples.
With GamePass, all the games are still available to buy, often both in the Xbox store and Steam. You also get a discount if you do want to buy it.
But with streaming services, it's much worse since you can't often buy the media. You're forced to use their service every time you want to watch it.
That applies to all digital store fronts and isn't specific to game pass.
No, this is mistaken. If a digital storefront sells their media in a DRM-free format, you receive the files in an unrestricted way, similar to if you bought a physical book, movie, or album.
Unrestricted is not to say given permission to copy and distribute as you'd like, but that's the same as for physical media.
Okay sure, for DRM-free storefronts that's true but I'm talking about arguing that Game Pass is somehow worse than say Steam when the reality is that you can lose all your content on both storefronts. Most aren't DRM-free, which is the issue.
Steam's DRM is optional for publishers at least, and many titles are DRM free. You also at least have access to the files so you can attempt to bypass it.
Fwiw I can see where you're coming from, but I don't really understand why/what for. Game Pass isn't really comparable to Steam or a digital storefront anyway, which already makes the comparison kind of silly. That said, I recognize you were going off the other commenter's framing in the argument there, so not faulting you for following along with it. I did just the same in my reply before giving it some more thought with this one.
Nevertheless, it is worse in terms of ownership, but that was never its selling point to begin with, so it's silly to criticize it in that respect, much as it would be to criticize Netflix for not providing ownership of what it gives access to. Also regarding Steam DRM, xcjs covers that nicely in the other reply here.
You already don't own anything since PC games went digital, I pay the equivalent of 5 USD for gamepass in Brazil, while new games are reaching 80 dollars in price, I will sooner pirate everything than pay that full price.
I've saved literally thousands of dollars with gamepass. I couldn't care less it's a rental and you can still purchase should you want to waste money.
It's less about corporate cock goblin and more about being able to do basic math, identify value, and not spend literal thousands of dollars sticking it to the man.
If you don't see value in ownership, then yeah, you "saved" money. But that's on you.
You're also missing the part where they're undercharging for the service in order to increase adoption, after which they will turn up the costs. So enjoy it while you can.
Sooo currently they are saving money playing multiple games that they most likely won't replay in the future anyway.
Why the hostility if it's a good deal for them? Just to own a game on the tiniest chance you'll play it later? Or just rent till you find a game you like and will play multiple times, buy to own it and also play multiple other games on the pass.
Sure. Until you can't own games anymore because of everyone enabling these companies.
This sounds so slippery slope hypothetical, but this is exactly what Adobe did with Photoshop, Lightroom, and more, which shows that this is actually happening right now.
I don't think Microsoft will do so, at least in the foreseeable future. One of their selling points to devs is that they'll see their sales go up in addition to the GP revenue. There would be a lot of publishers who would pull out if they can't sell their game and have it on GP.
They might do it for their own games, but even that could be a stretch. Starfield saw huge sales on both Xbox and PC in addition to those who are using GamePass.
Sure. Until everyone buying up the game results in $200 copies for a 5 hour game since there are no alternatives and everyone was enabling it by buying bad games.
Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. There is no evidence of rent only games comming anytime soon, it's just doomsaying.
It isn't doomsaying.
Yeah it is, you have no proof of the "rent only" future you are doomsaying about. Movies used to be mostly rented out, yet this hasn't led to the "rent only" situation, quite the opposite.
Movies used to be mostly rented out, yet this hasn't led to the "rent only" situation, quite the opposite.
WAT? Is there some sort of massive increase in people buying blu-rays or something that I'm unaware of?
This has LITERALLY become our reality with movies. It's not something far off in the future, it IS TODAY. Nobody buys movies or songs anymore, they have to pay for a SERVICE to listen to music, tv shows, and movies...
No, it isn't, you have no proof of the "no rent only" future you're so sure is waiting for us.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - you are the one claiming the "rent only" future is comming and that people should "just buy the game" instead of going for gamepass. I don't have to debunk your insane claims, the burden of proof is on you.
Great, you can unsubscribe and just buy the games you want at that point.
Ohhhh scary imaginary future where valve, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, Sony, and the thousands of independent devs are forced to only stream in one platform 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Get real. Gaming is absurdly competitive with an absurdly low barrier to entry.
I remember a day when that list was 100x longer. Microsoft is currently in the process of trying to buy Nintendo, they've said so in court documents that have been uncovered.
So you're just fine with corporate conglomeration where Microsoft turns into the publisher for all US games, kind of like Tencent in China...
Microsoft is not in the process of trying to buy Nintendo. Did they discuss it? Yes, obviously, any company would be idiotic to not at least discuss things like opportunities from purchasing competitors, but I read the emails, at no point did they even sound like it was something they were "trying" to do.
As a matter of fact, and this is just conjecture from me, but to me it read it like, somebody not in the gaming space emailed Phil about wouldn't it be great to buy Nintendo and Phil's response to me read like someone who got a suggestion from a boss that's a dumb suggestion, they know it's a dumb suggestion, but they need to be courteous in their response by entertaining the idea.
What day? Please can you give me a time frame where the were significantly more publishers?
Edit: turns out your memory is powered by a rose tint effect. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1175328/video-game-software-publishing-businesses/#:~:text=The number of video game,video game software publishing businesses.
I agree with you about game pass. Adobe is different though. With Game Pass you rent a whole library of software, and if you really just want to play one game you can outright buy it. With Adobe you are renting maybe a few apps, and if you only want one (like I do) you cannot pay outright for it.
Game Pass even gives you a discount if you pay for the title outright.
Fuck Adobe.