Indiana Jones was supposed to be on PS5 but deal with Disney was changed post acquisition by Microsoft.

[Nhomnhom]

Fortnite and Warzone being able to bypass gold and ps plus subscriptions while every other major online game does not is clear favoritism.

Sony should immediately end Warzone bypassing ps plus paywall. As well as Fortnite.

Sony never charged for F2P. While MS used to even have Netflix and the webrowser behind a paywall. Xbox is by far the most anti-consumer company in games and their track-record backs that claim up.

To be clear, this is different than f2p games, MS has freed those from the online paywall a while ago... But not the "free" gamepass games.

By a while ago you mean 2 years ago? After charging for it for more than a decade... while Sony never charged for it.

Xbox did all that while being the least sold console, just imagine what they would impose as the market leader.

 

[Vertigo]

Keep on writing dumb comments today..

Nothing is bypassing anything.

All Free to Play games have no requirement to have PS+, it was like always like that for all games.
Xbox had that under payed gold but even they removed it.

There’s only 3 relevant f2p games on the market. Fortnite, Warzone and Apex. Everything else on console is paywalled.

I said online games. Not strictly f2p. All other players in the space are handicapped do to favoritism. It will hurt newer efforts in the space.

 

[Vertigo]

Sony never charged for F2P. While MS used to even have Netflix and the webrowser behind a paywall. Xbox is by far the most anti-consumer company in games and their track-record backs that claim up.

I’m well aware of all this.

There is no reason to have f2p paywalled when there’s many online games sold upfront that do require access. GTA, Rainbow Six, Destiny, Diablo, all require the paywall. It’s not right

My concern is having a fair playing field for game makers. I don’t even think it’s wise to launch any game for free to begin with. That risk is too great for most games without giant pubs behind it.

Either remove it or put it all behind the paywall.

And it hurts Activision.

 

[Nhomnhom]

I’m well aware of all this.

There is no reason to have f2p paywalled when there’s many online games sold upfront that do require access. GTA, Rainbow Six, Destiny, Diablo, all require the paywall. It’s not right

My concern is having a fair playing field for game makers. I don’t even think it’s wise to launch any game for free to begin with. That risk is too great for most games without giant pubs behind it.

Either remove it or put it all behind the paywall.

To me what is not right is to charge for online in any way when those game also include micro transactions.

PC got it right and the fact that it's behind a paywall on console is shameful and we have MS to thank for it. The introduction of paid online on console probably costed gamers multiple billions over the years.

Before Sony came up with PS+ and IGC you didn't even get any game with Gold (that MS quickly gave up on and turned into a complete joke as well).

What a shitty company.

 

[Vertigo]

To me what is not right is to charge for online in any way when those game also include micro transactions.

PC got it right and the fact that it's behind a paywall on console is shameful and we have MS to thank for it. The introduction of paid online on console probably costed gamers multiple billions over the years.

Before Sony came up with PS+ and IGC you didn't even get any game with Gold (that MS quickly gave up on and turned into a complete joke as well).

What a shitty company.

Saying pc does it better is sorta debatable these days when the best deterrent towards cheaters is paywalls. Many online gamers know these pains and this is what keeps consoles relevant in this space as well. Cheaters can be disastrous to a game if the other end of the player experience is just pain.

 

[Nhomnhom]

Saying pc does it better is sorta debatable these days when the best deterrent towards cheaters is paywalls. Many online gamers know these pains and this is what keeps consoles relevant in this space as well. Cheaters can be disastrous a game if the other end of the player experience is just pain.

The reason consoles have less cheater has nothing to do with paid online. they also have less cheaters on F2P games.

Do PC games have worse servers or cost more? No if anything it's the opposite. The money for paid online is just something they get to pocket for something that they would be offering for free anyway if charging for it wasn't normalized on console.

No other platform charges for online play, except consoles. Consoles are also the first to shut down servers and make old games unplayable, so it's not like the money is being used to provide a superior experience.

 

[Vertigo]

The reason consoles have less cheater has nothing to do with paid online. they also have less cheaters on F2P games.

It’s just the risk of how many accounts you’re willing to get nuked. It’s not a good reason it’s just what happens. The more paywalls. The less cheaters.

F2P (& any) games that wall-off pc crossplay will be a better experience on the console end typically for instance.

 

[Nhomnhom]

It’s just the risk of how many accounts you’re willing to get nuked. It’s not a good reason it’s just what happens. The more paywalls. The less cheaters.

F2P games that wall-off pc crossplay will be a better experience on the console end typically for instance.

So you are saying that Xbox charging for F2P games was making those games better on Xbox? While at the same time they were making a late push for games to add crossgen with PlayStation and PC (plataforms that don't charge for F2P)?

Please stop. coming up with excuses. If console manufactures and devs cared about cheating they could issue console bans and that is more costly than having to buy the game again, it has nothing to do with charging for F2P or not.

 

[Vertigo]

What? I’m not coming up with excuses for Xbox. I’m indifferent whether the paywalls exist or not. I like playing online games and on console. I have to pay these costs. Would I prefer I not? Sure. Would I also prefer that Warzone and Fortnite didn’t get free passes? Yes.

 

[Nhomnhom]

What? I’m not coming up with excuses for Xbox. I’m indifferent whether the paywalls exist or not. I like playing online games and on console. I have to pay these costs. Would I prefer I not? Sure. Would I also prefer that Warzone and Fortnite didn’t get free passes? Yes.

Free passes for what? Both were always free on PlayStation and so was every F2P game.

 

[Vertigo]

Free passes for what? Both were always free on PlayStation and so was every F2P game.

Free passes to a larger playerbase by not having an online paywall. There is no reason why any other online multiplayer game of any kind should be denied that.

If Sony wants to dive deeper into online gaming and services why would they give their competitors an advantage over their own software.

It needs to end and it hurts Activision.

 

[Nhomnhom]

Free passes to a larger playerbase by not having an online paywall. There is no reason why any other online multiplayer game of any kind should be denied that.

If Sony wants to dive deeper into online gaming and services why would they give their competitors an advantage over their own software.

It needs to end and it hurts Activision.

There is no online paywall for non-F2P CoD on PlayStation? I didn't know about that, sounds absurd.

 

[Vertigo]

There is no online paywall for non-F2P CoD on PlayStation? I didn't know about that, sounds absurd.

So all online games are free to play? Are all service games f2p? Please enlighten me gamer who doesn’t like online games….

 

[Nhomnhom]

So all online games are free to play? Are all service games f2p? Please enlighten me gamer who doesn’t like online games….

What are you even talking about? All F2P games have free online on PlayStation, all paid games require PS+, that's how it always was. I was just asking a question since you were the one implying CoD and ABK are treated differently.

On Xbox for a long time they charged Gold for both F2P games B2P games (including games on Gamepass). Recently they stopped requiring Gold for F2P.

 

[Vertigo]

Yea because they saw the money coming in from the forthcoming BR boom.

It’s designed to serve those biggest money makers. Activision was a part of that. It should no longer be designed to play in their favor.

It should make no difference if the game is f2p or not.

 

[Nhomnhom]

Yea because they saw the money coming in from the forthcoming BR boom.

It’s designed to serve those biggest money makers. Activision was a part of that. It should no longer be designed to play in their favor.

It should make no difference if the game is f2p or not.

F2P behind no paywall precedes Fortnite by many years, was always the case on PlayStation platforms.

You want Sony to start to charge for F2P to punish Activision? None of what you are saying makes any sense.

The idea of putting free games and software made by other devs behind a paywall is such an absurd idea that only MS could think of it and insist on it for so many years.

 

[Vertigo]

F2P behind no paywall precedes Fortnite by many years, was always the case on PlayStation platforms.

You want Sony to start to charge for F2P to punish Activision? None of what you are saying makes any sense.

It’s either that or remove it for online gatekeeping altogether. There’s no reason why any online functionality should be paywalled just to serve Fortnite and Warzone revenue streams. Especially considering their own forthcoming push. Most of those will be paywalled from a larger audience if it’s designed like this.

Many of the industry’s most successful online games are paywalled.

You do realize that MS wants Activision for its PlayStation money right? Why would you keep the market designed in Activision’s favor. These are all power plays

 

[Gediminas]

F2P behind no paywall precedes Fortnite by many years, was always the case on PlayStation platforms.

You want Sony to start to charge for F2P to punish Activision? None of what you are saying makes any sense.

The idea of putting free games and software made by other devs behind a paywall is such an absurd idea that only MS could think of it and insist on it for so many years.

you still wasting your time?

 

[Deleted member 223]

Vertigo brings up a solid argument. The current system in consoles, originated by MS with Xbox Live and copied by Sony to a large extent makes absolutely no fucking sense, except to force a subscription buy for traditional multiplayer games in order to make loads of money at the advent of the COD/Shooter era becoming the most popular genre in premium gaming. Some devs do decide to go F2P partially because of that but not just for that reason. I think that is one of the lower end reasons why a dev decides to go F2P but it does factor into the decision-making process to an extent - the goal being to ultimately reach as many gamers as possible unimpeded.

Forcing F2P online games to be behind a paywall is not a solution.
Allowing F2P to skip a paywall while traditional multiplayer titles on boxed retail $70 are gated behind a paywall is also not a fair shake for devs/pubs who decide to make traditional MP games. What this does currently, is to incentivize devs to go F2P GAAS, and it should be obviously avoided at all costs because that is not a favorable result for consumers. It's not favorable for consumers neither on the paywell aspect (paying more to open a gated door) nor on the type of products the industry should be incentivized in making which is the end-product the consumer will eventually have as a choice to consume.

Neither Sony nor MS care to fix the problem cause they make way too much money of it with little to no consumer pushback. Oligopoly problems, bad precedents being followed by the competition (MS -> Sony) problems ("the where you gonna go? I got you by the balls"problem).

Consumers can only watch and bicker amongst themselves.

Vertigo is thus correct, online gatekeeping should die, for everyone, or imposed on everyone. Can't have a two tier "justice" system so to speak.

 

[ManPhlaps]

Firstly good. Exclusives are good. Yeah bleat on about Spencer's lies, blah, blah, blah.

Secondly, do any of you even play any fucking games? I came back here to check out your diablo thread, doesn't even look like you've got one despite your fish obsessed old geezer being a big fan. I'm loving it but I guess it's a potential MS get therefore needs shitting on.

Sad state of affairs, if you want this forum to survive longer term get your fucking act together.


Big love