[RUMOR] Microsoft possibly to remove pay-to-play online. What do you think this means for PS+?

[Mayellie]

As stated in the title, Microsoft could be removing the pay-to-play MP games. The 12-month tier of its Xbox Live subscription service has been discontinued (not a mistake, as it was confirmed by Microsoft). The one month and 3 months subscription options are still available, though.

 

There is speculation that it was discontinued to push players to buy the more expensive "Game Pass Ultimate", which would be a massive price increase since it sits at $180. As a result, Microsoft could simply remove pay-to-play MP games.

 

Again, this is just rumors and isn't written in stone. If it turns out to be true, how do you feel about PS+ going forwards, or about paying for PS Plus to play online when multiplayer is free on Xbox?

 

I think it would be interesting to hear the community's thoughts, even if this turns out to not be true. A place for discussion.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Mayellie
Spelling mistake

[Solid-Fisch]

I think it's not gonna happen. 

[Golem25]

On the one hand, I don't see the discontinuation of Xbox Live happening. On the other hand, if there is one company that can afford to piss away millions of Dollars and ditch this money maker for whatever ill-informed reason, it's Microsoft.

 

If it happens, I hope it will more or less force Sony to follow suit and stop charging us extra to use our own damn internet connections to play the games we bought. Since 2013, I've paid for Plus for just one month and I realistically will never be a regular subscriber again. The paygate existing simply serves as an extra reason for me not to bother with online games and I know this to be the case for many others.

[DaivRules]

I don't see Microsoft removing paying for MP. This is the company that is trying to shift to subscription models for all their products (Office 365, etc). 

 

This rumor is a reach of epic proportions.

 

It doesn't mean much for Plus, since it's just a rumor and doesn't have a shot of playing out as implied.

[Phoenixgaming1]

These subscriptions have always been a Bullsh*t pay-wall. I'll be happy to see it go. It's one of the main reasons I've been slowly transitioning to PC. I doubt PS+ will follow if Microsoft does it though.

[majob]

1 hour ago, Golem25 said:

On the one hand, I don't see the discontinuation of Xbox Live happening. On the other hand, if there is one company that can afford to piss away millions of Dollars and ditch this money maker for whatever ill-informed reason, it's Microsoft.

 

If it happens, I hope it will more or less force Sony to follow suit and stop charging us extra to use our own damn internet connections to play the games we bought. Since 2013, I've paid for Plus for just one month and I realistically will never be a regular subscriber again. The paygate existing simply serves as an extra reason for me not to bother with online games and I know this to be the case for many others.

You pay to access PSN servers not use your own online. If that were the case then simply connecting your console to the internet would require a subscription of some sort.

 

As for this, it's highly doubtful MS is going to stop charging to play online when they were the ones who introduced the model in the first place and Gold Subscriptions make a hefty chunk of the Xbox Divisions revenue. It's most likely pulled because they're going to be offering a different 12 month deal which includes Gamepass

[Eyjabria]

10 minutes ago, majob said:

You pay to access PSN servers not use your own online. If that were the case then simply connecting your console to the internet would require a subscription of some sort.

 

As for this, it's highly doubtful MS is going to stop charging to play online when they were the ones who introduced the model in the first place and Gold Subscriptions make a hefty chunk of the Xbox Divisions revenue. It's most likely pulled because they're going to be offering a different 12 month deal which includes Gamepass

 

PSN is free for any PlayStation user. PS Plus is an additional paywall created to get more money from consumers. Sony doesn't host the game servers (except for their own games) that you supposedly are paying to connect to. Funny how on PC it's free to have access to online multiplayer via Steam, GOG, etc.

 

As for the rumored removal of online multiplayer fees on Xbox, that would be great for players who use the services. I'm just hoping they won't raise the price of Xbox Game Pass for PC (which is amazing value for only 3.99 € / month).

[majob]

33 minutes ago, Eyjabria said:

 

PSN is free for any PlayStation user. PS Plus is an additional paywall created to get more money from consumers. Sony doesn't host the game servers (except for their own games) that you supposedly are paying to connect to. Funny how on PC it's free to have access to online multiplayer via Steam, GOG, etc.

 

As for the rumored removal of online multiplayer fees on Xbox, that would be great for players who use the services. I'm just hoping they won't raise the price of Xbox Game Pass for PC (which is amazing value for only 3.99 € / month).

PSN is free. Accessing PSN servers which all multiplayer games have to connect with, isn't.

[Phoenixgaming1]

4 hours ago, majob said:

You pay to access PSN servers not use your own online.

Yes but actually no. Sony doesn't own the servers which games run on. For example a game like Fortnite. Epic Games buys the servers they use from amazon Sony has nothing to do with that. But if it wasn't a free game they'd still lock it behind PS+ Even tho they don't pay for the servers in which the game runs on nor do they own it. They get free money and only the tiniest fraction goes to their own servers.

[AJ_Radio]

Microsoft has been losing subscribers and their player base ever since their Xbox One fiasco. Plus there is really nothing on their consoles that you can't already get on Windows. Their console in more ways than one, not a particularly good investment.

 

I think the company needs new leadership. Some of the shit Phil Spencer has said in the past few years has just furthered my intentions to not buy their products. The Nintendo Switch in my opinion is a much better option, you get some good exclusives and they got the indie game market working in their favor.

 

The Xbox 360 was successful because they offered good online multiplayer and good networking at a time when Sony was suffering from the abysmally slow start the PlayStation 3 had. Even when they finally got going when Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War 3 came out, their online system wasn't quite as good as Microsoft's. The 360 was a solid competitor.

 

I don't know how Microsoft is going to handle their products going forward, but as someone who was once a Xbox supporter and gamer they will need to pull a fucking miracle if I'm going to go back to them. Sony has too many good and solid exclusives, something that Microsoft hasn't had for a long time.

[ladynadiad]

3 hours ago, Spaz said:

The Xbox 360 was successful because they offered good online multiplayer and good networking at a time when Sony was suffering from the abysmally slow start the PlayStation 3 had. Even when they finally got going when Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and God of War 3 came out, their online system wasn't quite as good as Microsoft's. The 360 was a solid competitor.

 

The Xbox 360 was successful at the beginning of last gen for a few other reasons:

 

1. The 360 console itself was less expensive than a PS3 thanks to their decision to go with DVDs instead of Blu-Ray.  While Blu-Ray was better, the choice to go DVD definitely helped the Xbox early in the gen to get a larger playerbase.

2. XBL has never had a security breach on the level that PSN did back in 2011.

3. The 360 had some solid exclusives and hadn't lost most of the Japanese market yet.

4. The 360 had some backwards compatibility with the original Xbox.  Only the first run PS3s had backwards compatibility.

5. Microsoft actually did a good thing and extended the warranty for people who experienced the known issues with the red ring of death.  Sony has yet to do anything like that for anyone who experienced a known fault with a console.  Sony also charged more for repairs than Microsoft did.  Stuff like this is a huge thing that will gain goodwill from users who experienced issues and prevents them from going to the competition instead of getting their broken console repaired.

 

Plain and simple, Microsoft made some good decisions at the beginning of last gen that made the 360 an overall successful console, but by the end of the gen the PS3 gained back all the ground they lost.  One of the biggest issues Microsoft has had from the beginning is the fact that the Xbox hasn't gained much appeal outside of the west and what little they had was lost last gen.  Japan is a huge market and while Sony did lose to the DS, the PS3 definitely won out to the WiiU and that means Sony had the majority of the Japanese console market.  That pretty much has left Microsoft only able to appeal to the niche of western gamers when Sony is capable of appealing to gamers worldwide.

[AJ_Radio]

29 minutes ago, ladynadiad said:

 

The Xbox 360 was successful at the beginning of last gen for a few other reasons:

 

1. The 360 console itself was less expensive than a PS3 thanks to their decision to go with DVDs instead of Blu-Ray.  While Blu-Ray was better, the choice to go DVD definitely helped the Xbox early in the gen to get a larger playerbase.

2. XBL has never had a security breach on the level that PSN did back in 2011.

3. The 360 had some solid exclusives and hadn't lost most of the Japanese market yet.

4. The 360 had some backwards compatibility with the original Xbox.  Only the first run PS3s had backwards compatibility.

5. Microsoft actually did a good thing and extended the warranty for people who experienced the known issues with the red ring of death.  Sony has yet to do anything like that for anyone who experienced a known fault with a console.  Sony also charged more for repairs than Microsoft did.  Stuff like this is a huge thing that will gain goodwill from users who experienced issues and prevents them from going to the competition instead of getting their broken console repaired.

 

Plain and simple, Microsoft made some good decisions at the beginning of last gen that made the 360 an overall successful console, but by the end of the gen the PS3 gained back all the ground they lost.  One of the biggest issues Microsoft has had from the beginning is the fact that the Xbox hasn't gained much appeal outside of the west and what little they had was lost last gen.  Japan is a huge market and while Sony did lose to the DS, the PS3 definitely won out to the WiiU and that means Sony had the majority of the Japanese console market.  That pretty much has left Microsoft only able to appeal to the niche of western gamers when Sony is capable of appealing to gamers worldwide.

 

The Xbox 360 was more prone to the red light of death than the PlayStation 3's version of it, which I know first hand because that happened to me. But that's another topic for another time.

 

Halo, Gears of War and Forza are/were basically all western franchises. Halo was sort of Microsoft's version of Call of Duty because it attracted that kind of audience. There is nothing I see from Microsoft that appeals to the Japanese market. Sony has so much more to offer in terms of appealing to the Japanese market and elsewhere. Microsoft doesn't. I have always considered them to appeal to a western audience, and even then their core audience was America. Even within the United States their numbers have been falling.

 

Sony has done everything the Xbox 360 tried to achieved or did achieve last generation, and they went far beyond that with the PlayStation 4. Here was the Xbox One suffering from poor sales and a declining player base. No seriously, I have gone by a number of Microsoft stores in cities like Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington, San Francisco California and elsewhere. There was hardly anybody coming in and asking those employees about the Xbox One, let alone be interested in purchasing one.

 

Back in 2008 - 2011 you would of seen a lot more people go into a GameStop or just a Microsoft store to purchase a Xbox 360. Even internet sales show the Xbox One has not done all that well. The original Xbox back in the early 2000s did a lot better.

 

Microsoft took advantage of Sony's slow start. None of us would of thought their next console would bomb in such a fashion that we would make them a laughing stock. Phil Spencer must be happy sitting there with his dwindling audience. He is clueless, because he is a business executive who knows next to nothing.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Spaz

[Rozalia1]

Unlikely and bad optics for the brand. Makes them appear desperate.

 

Now I could be wrong but I do concur with @Spaz on Phil Spencer. His constant promotion of PC not just in words but also putting everything Xbox has on there means there is little reason to ever get an Xbox, like, you can't even say "X years later on PC"?. It almost seems like upper management has given the order to move as many people over to PC gaming before they scrap Xbox.

He does seem to get away with it a lot though due to his predecessor being Don Mattrick. At least Mattrick was pushing the Xbox brand the whole time and his failure was less sheer incompetence as people say and more that he got tricked by Sony into destroying himself (Microsoft only did what they did as they believed it was set that Sony was also doing it).

[ladynadiad]

9 hours ago, Spaz said:

The Xbox 360 was more prone to the red light of death than the PlayStation 3's version of it, which I know first hand because that happened to me. But that's another topic for another time.

 

My thought there was more along the lines of the issues the first run of the Playstation 2 had where eventually it would stop reading discs. That was a rampant issue, and Sony sure didn't extend warranty for that.  I'm sure that issue also didn't help the PS3 starting out because enough early adopters were burned by the PS2.

[AJ_Radio]

On 7/21/2020 at 5:17 AM, Rozalia1 said:

Unlikely and bad optics for the brand. Makes them appear desperate.

 

Now I could be wrong but I do concur with @Spaz on Phil Spencer. His constant promotion of PC not just in words but also putting everything Xbox has on there means there is little reason to ever get an Xbox, like, you can't even say "X years later on PC"?. It almost seems like upper management has given the order to move as many people over to PC gaming before they scrap Xbox.

He does seem to get away with it a lot though due to his predecessor being Don Mattrick. At least Mattrick was pushing the Xbox brand the whole time and his failure was less sheer incompetence as people say and more that he got tricked by Sony into destroying himself (Microsoft only did what they did as they believed it was set that Sony was also doing it).

 

Don Mattrick wasn't great either but I had more support for him than Phil Spencer.

 

Microsoft.... not really knowing what they're doing. Rather sad, because they were a good competitor to Sony.

 

On 7/21/2020 at 8:30 AM, ladynadiad said:

 

My thought there was more along the lines of the issues the first run of the Playstation 2 had where eventually it would stop reading discs. That was a rampant issue, and Sony sure didn't extend warranty for that.  I'm sure that issue also didn't help the PS3 starting out because enough early adopters were burned by the PS2.

 

I had this problem as well. My old Playstation 2 stopped reading discs back in 2008 or so, by which point I moved on to the Xbox 360.

 

Another issue that you already pointed out was the PlayStation 3 costing a lot more money. I still remember seeing the launch console at Costco, Sony wanted at least $600 for it. Microsoft's Xbox 360 was much cheaper. Halo 3 and Gears of War just looked a lot more appealing as well, so it's no wonder they did so well in the early PS3/360 era.

[PostalDudeRus]

Fact both companies charge you money for playing online in 2020 is bullshit. And they both advertise it as some kind of a miracle to play online nowdays. I wouldn't say anything if Sony ran 3rd party servers on their machines, that means I know they will never shutdown until there will be 0 players online on daily basis. But most servers we play online in games on is on developer/publisher site to take care of. So what we are paying of? Just access.

 

Spoiler

When I was teenager, we used to play games like Unreal Tournament, Quake and many others. And they all came with 3 things: 1 - game, 2 - editor to make your own maps/models/whatever you want and 3 - ABILITY TO HOST YOUR OWN DAMN SEVER. Now this times are past, now we paying for being able to play. Fuck this.

 

[AJ_Radio]

29 minutes ago, guy who says bruh said:

Fact both companies charge you money for playing online in 2020 is bullshit. And they both advertise it as some kind of a miracle to play online nowdays. I wouldn't say anything if Sony ran 3rd party servers on their machines, that means I know they will never shutdown until there will be 0 players online on daily basis. But most servers we play online in games on is on developer/publisher site to take care of. So what we are paying of? Just access.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

When I was teenager, we used to play games like Unreal Tournament, Quake and many others. And they all came with 3 things: 1 - game, 2 - editor to make your own maps/models/whatever you want and 3 - ABILITY TO HOST YOUR OWN DAMN SEVER. Now this times are past, now we paying for being able to play. Fuck this.

 

 

Sony has made so much money off of PlayStation Plus they would be stupid to just drop it, because as you very well know, most people have Plus to play online multiplayer.

 

I can't seem them changing that anytime soon.

[DaivRules]

Doesn’t look like MS mentioned anything about this rumor today at their event. 
 

Let’s see if it gets mentioned at the next event. 

On 7/22/2020 at 8:57 PM, Spaz said:

Sony wanted at least $600 for it.

That’s not true. There was a model at launch that was $100 cheaper than that. And it was the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market at that price point at that point in time. 

[AJ_Radio]

44 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

That’s not true. There was a model at launch that was $100 cheaper than that. And it was the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market at that price point at that point in time. 

 

I vividly remember the launch PS3 console in late 2006. They wanted a lot of money for it, around $500 - 600. The Xbox 360 had a better selection of games, but the big downside was it could only play DVDs, it did not have a Blu-ray player.

[DaivRules]

14 minutes ago, Spaz said:

 

I vividly remember the launch PS3 console in late 2006. They wanted a lot of money for it, around $500 - 600. The Xbox 360 had a better selection of games, but the big downside was it could only play DVDs, it did not have a Blu-ray player.

 

Yes, that's correct. 20Gb at $499 and 60Gb at $599, so there was a $500 option, not only a $600 option. The 360 had different games (better is subjective), but launched with a standard DVD drive. The optional HD-DVD drive was an external, purchasable add-on for around $100 and the big competition for Blu-Ray before Warner Bros tipped the scales and made Blu-Ray the winner. The much cheaper 360 Core had no hard drive (another $100 for the proprietary connector), a wired controller, and a composite AV cable, no HDMI output, no ability to play Xbox games. The 20GB pro was $400 and came with the hard drive, Xbox backward compatibility, and a wireless controller. Also, note Xbox already had their Silver/Gold Live memberships making them money at that point in time.

 

Point being that there were a lot of things to consider when choosing between the 360 and the PS3 at that point in time, not only the price. And the price for the PS3 was not "at least" $600. The PS3 started at $499. I worked retail at the time and my company had a much harder time keeping the PS3 and Wii in stock than the 360s.

[AJ_Radio]

Sony did not have enough good exclusives when it launched. The Xbox 360 had already been out a year by the time the PlayStation 3 launched. Plus the PS3 itself was hard to code for, which explained why a lot of indie games did not make it to that console. Super Meat Boy came out for the Xbox 360 back in 2010, it wasn't until 2015 when it got ported over to the PlayStation 4, which by that point the indie game market was already porting a lot of games over from Steam.

 

Sony also had that infamous May 2011 PSN shutdown which made Microsoft's Xbox 360 look even better. So yes, the 360 was probably the best competitor Sony ever had. Nintendo hasn't been a valid competitor since the Nintendo 64, which is going back to a long time ago.

 

Paying for Xbox Live was one of the downsides. You could not play online with just a Silver membership, you had to get Gold. I know this well because I've bought plenty of Xbox Live game cards from various retail stores.

 

Now it's all about Sony. Phil Spencer is just a business executive, he doesn't know what makes a good game and how to innovate anything.

[Z1MZUM]

MS say this every year since god know when , it's never happened and it won't concern Sony if it does.

[StressEater]

It would be interesting to see if they actually do this. The thing is, in the very beginning PlayStation allowed you to play online for free. The problem was that Microsoft was able to use that money they made on making players pay to play online to buy exclusive content that only Xbox players could get. Which really hurt PlayStation. Games like Call of Duty, you were able to get the DLC a month early with Xbox. This forced PlayStation to start charging so they could stay competitive. There were a couple times that Sony was struggling and the only department making any money was their PlayStation. For me, I could care less if they charge or don't charge. I have 3 years on my plus subscription. I buy a couple of them when they go on sale for $30 on Black Friday. I do however look forward to the day when they have the PS Plus and PS Now bundle.

[Solid-Fisch]

3 hours ago, StressEater said:

I do however look forward to the day when they have the PS Plus and PS Now bundle.

I hope that actually too. 99,99 Bucks for the bundle would be a good price. The question is how many bundles Sony could sale with this offer. I actually think the target audience is not that big.

[StressEater]

46 minutes ago, Solid-Fisch said:

I hope that actually too. 99,99 Bucks for the bundle would be a good price. The question is how many bundles Sony could sale with this offer. I actually think the target audience is not that big.

 

Yeah, you're probably right. I picked up the PS Now awhile back and really enjoyed it. There are so many great games that I either loved playing and would like to play again or I would like to play for the first time. It is also a trophy hunters dream. They have tons of games to really boost up your profile. But, like you said, the target audience is probably not all that big. Which is sad. I don't think the price is high for what you get. The only reason I do not have it now is because I am trying to focus on my backlog. Plus, I have that GameFly program. I use it for the games that I want to play but know that I will never play again. That way I don't waste full price on a game. I usually only buy the games I know that I am going to get a lot of mileage out of. Good examples would be Skyrim, Fallout, Port Royale, Civilization, Diablo, etc. For me, those are games I still play even after I platinum them.