• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Do you have a console bias for some series?

mαrkαsscoρ

Mr. SidleInYourDMs
Joined
May 5, 2012
Location
American Wasteland
When a certain series is multiplat, do you tend to buy the games in that series for a specific platform? Like for instance, if you had a 360 and PS3, would you have only played the Mass Effect series or the Bioshock series for one platform exclusively? Or better yet for something like when Crash went multiplat after the PS1, if you would have continued getting Crash games for the PS2 b/c you just happen to like playing Crash on Playstation, or if that doesn't matter and you wouldn't care getting his games for GameCube or Xbox instead.

Basically something along those examples, where you choose to play a series for a certain platform for no other reason than you just happen to like playing that particular series on that particular platform. Of course it'd be easier to answer this if you did own at least two consoles in that generation.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
I definitely do. For example, I get everything mostly on Xbox because it's my primary choice of console, but when it comes to certain franchises, like Devil May Cry, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot, or Spyro, I keep it on Playstation. Mostly for its history on Playstation and consistence, but also because it beefs up my Playstation library as it's mostly just exclusives.

Same with Nintendo, especially on the Switch. I try to keep platformers, retro games, smaller cartoony games, and indies on there because they go well with the kind of games Nintendo makes, and they're not really so graphically intensive that I'm gonna be missing out on anything by playing on Switch, and of course, that makes them perfect for portability.
 

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
I'd prefer everything being on my PC. I can support every controller I want, better performance, prettier visuals, emulation, mods, and overall more freedom, and especially NO PAYING FOR ONLINE MULTIPLAYER!!!

Free online multiplayer should be the default standard for everyone, not just us PC gamers.

For current Nintendo titles, I play the Switch.

I'm mostly a PC and Switch kinda guy for gaming. The PS4 and Xbox One's less than stellar specs and performance really turned me off, and the only console manufacturer that kept my interest was Nintendo.

But that's how I've been for my whole gaming life, PC for non Nintendo exclusives, Nintendo for its exclusives.
 
Most of my life ive owned Sony and Nintendo consoles so there was never much crossover until now.

Most of my time with Nintendo has been for exclusives and that is still the case. Most multiplat titles between Switch and PS4 I'll still buy on PS4 for multiple reasons; I have 1TB of space on my PS4 as oposed to 128GB on Switch, multiplat games are cheaper on PS4 and Switch games are often gimped in some way like lacking content or the framerate and graphics taking hits so why pay extra for a lesser experience?

I do prefer to play indie games on Swith though, Switch is a haven for Shmups which I love, and the likes of Hollow Knight and Shovel Knight feel at home on Switch so those are the kinds of games i'd play on Switch over PS4.
 

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
I have no specific series but I suppose I have developed a certain a set of criteria without realising it. I generally play on PC, so other than PC exclusives my library seems to consist of multiplats that are a darn sight prettier than most. While the current gen does still hold up fairly well, you can still get better performance on PC even with the most minor of tweaks.

However, one problem I run into with this from time to time is price. Because the PC game industry is almost entirely download only now, if a game is a few years old sometimes it's much cheaper for me to go and buy a used console copy that to buy it online. In which case, that's the direction I go.

Perhaps this is a debate for another thread, but personally I'm quite happy paying for online multiplayer if the service is good and it means I don't have to mess around with firewall settings or sometimes even host my own servers. I understand the pain of switching from PC to console and remembering you need a subscription, but I also remember the pain of just wanting to sit down and play online for an hour on a PC game but I can't because the server I frequent is running an older version now and I have to spend the hour fiddling around with game files instead.

Granted, the latter scenario doesn't happen often. When it does, it makes me more than wish for a cheap service I could have paid for to ensure it never happens again though.
I'm not saying PC gaming is perfect, but free online multiplayer should be available to all gamers, especially when costs of server maintenance don't justify the price of paying for online multiplayer, especially when you factor in that most servers are maintained by the developers of the game.

So console owners are essentially paying double for a service that could be offered completely free. I'd be fine with services like Xbox Live, PS+, and Nintendo's online subscription if the online multiplayer was free, but they offered other things in addition to that free service to make it worth the cost. Such as they are doing now, where you get extra games for paying into their subscription service.

I know I'm making a fuss over ~$12, but over the lifetime of the console, those small costs add up. Costs that a gamer could spend on more games. :)

EDIT: Another way to entice people into paying for their subscription services is massive discounts on games as well, but again, the online multiplayer should be free.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
I'm not saying PC gaming is perfect, but free online multiplayer should be available to all gamers, especially when costs of server maintenance don't justify the price of paying for online multiplayer, especially when you factor in that most servers are maintained by the developers of the game.

So console owners are essentially paying double for a service that could be offered completely free. I'd be fine with services like Xbox Live, PS+, and Nintendo's online subscription if the online multiplayer was free, but they offered other things in addition to that free service to make it worth the cost. Such as they are doing now, where you get extra games for paying into their subscription service.

I know I'm making a fuss over ~$12, but over the lifetime of the console, those small costs add up. Costs that a gamer could spend on more games. :)

EDIT: Another way to entice people into paying for their subscription services is massive discounts on games as well, but again, the online multiplayer should be free.

I think the value is worth it, you get 4 free games a month and you get tons of discounts on games every week. Though, I do agree that attaching that to an online service is a little shady. But considering how much you save and get for free throughout the year, it's kind of hard to complain. Nintendo on the other hand... They have no business charging for online.
 

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
I think the value is worth it, you get 4 free games a month and you get tons of discounts on games every week. Though, I do agree that attaching that to an online service is a little shady. But considering how much you save and get for free throughout the year, it's kind of hard to complain. Nintendo on the other hand... They have no business charging for online.
The fact they offer extra games for the subscription service is not where I take issue. I take issue for the multiplayer itself being stuck behind a paywall. I think that feature should be free.

Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony could easily make the multiplayer free, and still have their subscription service, but use sales tactics and marketing to make their subscription services more enticing to a gamer, such as you mentioned, extra games at no additional charge for the subscription fee, massive discounts, etc.

I think that would be better for the consumer overall. At least, that's my view on it.
 

Quin

Disaster Master
Joined
Dec 26, 2017
Location
Netherlands
I have no bias. I just get the best version of a game that is available, which is mostly on PC.
If it isn't, like with DQ11, I'll get the console version
 

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
Well, again, I would argue that if you're getting a good service then it's something worth paying for. I don't particularly understand why having free online multiplayer on PC means we should have free online on ALL platforms, especially with the rising costs of server maintenance due to more intensive games. If you believe the money is going to the wrong people then I can get behind that. I don't currently know what arrangements there are to compensate developers for having online available in their games, but I would agree that there should be some if gamers are paying for access to it.

I've always disagreed with the notion that online multiplayer should be a free service, as it is a service. Yes, improvements can be made, and yes, if a developer wants to offer free online then that's a great move and one I will always appreciate. I also like it when games offer their players the option to host servers themselves, that way there's no overheads at all for the developers and the players themselves can keep the game alive. However, that simply isn't possible on consoles for games with any degree of complexity to them. So again, you're paying for that service to keep the multiplayer alive

In an ideal world I'd like online multiplayer to be a game-by-game subscription maybe half a dollar a year here and there for the games you want to go online for, with that money going straight to the devs and being put directly toward that maintenance. Maybe for online only games they could offer a year free online with a purchase of the game. That way, popular games can stay alive for longer because their net loss is lower or nothing at all even a few years into its life cycle.

Games are expensive, and online subscriptions make them more so. I'm not against making the practise of being a gamer cheaper, but I am against expecting free services from the developers. If they want to offer them, wonderful. Again, I'll always being appreciative. Wanting free online is fine but expecting it is a different matter.
See, I disagree that online multiplayer is something gamers should pay for.

That feature by itself, as the PC demonstrates (and what Nintendo and Sony demonstrated before), can be completely free. Therefore, if that service can be offered free of charge, why are only console players being charged for that service?

I argue that it's a license for Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft to print money.

Your argument would hold more weight if console players were given the option of having free online multiplayer, but they have no choice. It's either cough up the money, or no online multiplayer at all. That's not a choice at that point, it's a necessity, as you aren't getting the full experience of the game.

Not only that, but Sony proved that consoles don't need paid online multiplayer with the PS3, same with Nintendo. So again, there's no reason for paying for online multiplayer.

I understand games are expensive, but if the game is a game like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat, fighting other people online is part of the experience, then gamers should be getting free multiplayer, especially when they pay $60 for the game.

Why are they being nickel and dimed, and PC gamers aren't?
 
Last edited:

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
To clarify, by "optional subscriptions to paid online on a game-by-game basis" I am referring to the option of the Dev choosing to charge for online, not the option of the consumer to pay for it.
I know what you mean, but as it currently stands, console players are given zero choice there. You either pay the fee, or you don't get online multiplayer, period.

Would you be agreeable, then, to the abolishing of platform based subscription fees and to the introduction of optional subscriptions to paid online on a game-by-game basis as outlined in my previous post?
I reiterate my point here, I have no problems with paid subscriptions, but locking online multiplayer itself behind a paywall is remarkably anti-consumer.

Again, I reiterate, if console players were given the option, which, again, they're given no option whatsoever, then I wouldn't have any issue with paid subscriptions.

I made that point earlier too.

"Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony could easily make the multiplayer free, and still have their subscription service, but use sales tactics and marketing to make their subscription services more enticing to a gamer, such as you mentioned, extra games at no additional charge for the subscription fee, massive discounts, etc.

I think that would be better for the consumer overall. At least, that's my view on it."

It's not the subscription I take issue with, it's locking multiplayer behind a paywall, especially when Sony, Nintendo, and the PC demonstrate that that feature can be offered free of charge, is the problem.

Make multiplayer itself free, companies can still offer their subscription services on top of that if they so choose.

That would win over many customers, especially in this age of microtransactions, lootboxes, and DLC.

With either paid subscription fees, microtransactions, lootboxes, or DLC, the concept itself isn't where I take issue. It's how they're being implemented to nickel and dime customers to unlock core features of a game, or to get the full experience of the gameplay is my main gripe with them.

The aforementioned features aren't scummy or wrong in and of itself, but they way they're being used and implemented is remarkably anti-consumer, and I'm shocked more people aren't crying foul.

Those are definitely flaws in the system, but aren't unfixable. On the other hand, while most PC games have free multiplayer, some such as World of Warcraft are locked behind subscription fees because such freedom to operate in that way is granted to them by the platform. I don't want such freedom taken away from the other, I want more opened up to it, and that can't be done by insisting that all console games have to have free online multiplayer.
WoW is but one example. The vast majority of online multiplayer games don't charge just to have multiplayer.

The exceptions aren't the rule.

And again, why do I get the luxury of free online multiplayer for Street Fighter V: Arcade Edition, but my buddy WHO OWNS THE SAME GAME on a different platform, has to be charged for it, or else he gets no multiplayer?

It's a rhetorical question, there's no reason he should be charged, but I get that feature without paying for it.

On top of that, that's only one example, I can give more examples of this exact same situation in perpetuity.

Again, I reiterate, your argument would have more weight if console gamers were given an option, but they have precisely zero options here. Either pay, or no multiplayer, period.

Don't you see the problem with such a practice?
 

TheGreatCthulhu

Composer of the Night.
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Location
United States of America
Gender
Very much a dude.
I'm not sure I understand you with regards to console players having an option. If a player has the option to play multiplayer for free or to pay for it, why would they then pay for it?
You're getting to the heart of the matter. If a demographic of gamers get free multiplayer, why should anyone pay for multiplayer? Especially if the same games on the consoles have a paywall, whereas the PC doesn't.

If it can be offered for free, then there's no reason for console players to not have the same features PC gamers do. Especially when server maintenance is handled solely by the developers of the games (the actual developers), and not the companies who legally own the IP (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc.)

I'm not referring to the free games or included discounts that come with such paid online subscriptions, I'm solely talking about the multiplayer aspect but I'm uncertain whether this is the cause of my misunderstanding here.
There is no reason for multiplayer for the consoles to be stuck behind a paywall, since that they can demonstrate they can have a decent multiplayer experience for free before.

The only reason companies are doing it is because they make money hand over fist doing so.

The subscription service itself isn't the problem, it's locking a core feature of a game behind a paywall.

At this stage I think we're at a standstill. I don't think what you are proposing is reasonable in insisting that all games should have free multiplayer.
How is what I'm proposing not reasonable?

If console manufacturers demonstrated that they didn't need paid subscriptions for online multiplayer before, then why do we even need to pay for it?

In addition, since the service can, has, and on the PC, currently being offered for free, then why do only console players have to pay for online multiplayer, especially if it's the same game in question?

My proposal is making free online multiplayer available to everyone. Not just a specific demographic. There's no reason not to.

I'm with you, platform based fees to unlock multiplayer functionality is a broken system.
Then there's no reason for paid online multiplayer to be a thing on consoles.

On that we can agree.

However, I believe that developers should have the freedom to charge for multiplayer functionality.
And yes, they absolutely have the right to, but how are options inherently worse than them having no choice whatsoever?

You argued that if there's the option of free online multiplayer, then paid subscription services for multiplayer are inherently worthless.

I argue that paid subscriptions have a purpose, but online multiplayer isn't one of them.

If person A doesn't need to pay for a feature of a game when he buys it, and person B has to even if they bought the same game, how is that fair to person B?

It isn't. There is no value in having to pay for online multiplayer, however, there is value in subscription services, such as discounts, and extra games at no charge.

I'm literally proposing an idea where paid subscriptions and free multiplayer can coexist in a way that's fair to the consumer.

Not the console creators, the developers directly.
Have you ever thought about why game developers don't do that? The costs for the end consumer would be astronomical. All for a feature that can, has, and on the PC, offered completely free of charge.

Assuming each paid subscription of your proposal is a modest $12 a year, which at this point is unrealistically hopeful, the costs for the consumer would be exponential.

Imagine paying a paid subscription for:
  • Capcom
  • Nintendo
  • Sony
  • Microsoft
  • Square Enix
  • BioWare
  • EA
  • Blizzard
  • Activision
  • Netherrealm Studios
  • Platinum Games
  • 2K Nordic
  • Bethesda
  • id Software
  • Bungie
  • Naughty Dog Studios
  • Rockstar
  • Ubisoft
  • Epic Games
  • Gearbox
  • Monolith Studios
  • Game Freak
  • Bandai Namco
  • Arc System Works
  • Sega
Just from these companies out of thousands of game development companies, assuming each charges $12 a year for paid online multiplayer, the cost would be

12 * 25 = 300

Which means $300 a year for multiplayer alone!

Add in the fact that console generations generally last 5-7 years then console gamers, or in your proposal, gamers in general, would be paying

$1800 over the course of 6 years! That cost is PROFOUNDLY anti-consumer, no one would pay such a price, and while it is nice for the developers to make money, many game programmers are against such an idea in the first place.

That kind of money would be better suited for going towards bills, car payments, insurance, food, gas, and to reel it back in the gaming realm, more games!

Buying more games is what most gamers would prefer, and would be a more realistic solution for developers to get the just compensation they deserve for making the game.

You're damn right if free multiplayer was an option, people wouldn't pay a cent for multiplayer online. ESPECIALLY in your proposal.

This would invariably lead to some developers abusing such freedom.
How so? Didn't happen when Nintendo offered free multiplayer, didn't happen when Sony offered free multiplayer, and while PC gaming isn't perfect, game developers hardly abuse such freedom.

That's an unrealistic view to hold.

However they would be sent the same way as developers who have tried to abuse paid DLC, namely being mocked and shamed into good practises or no business.
Yeah, but there again, one of the most anti-consumer companies, EA, still makes boatloads of money literally charging for microtransactions, pay to win, lootboxes, and loads of DLC.

In fact, it was so bad that there's legislation in proposal to consider lootboxes a form of gambling, because quite frankly, it is.

Why add in astronomical prices for a core feature of gameplay to this?

World of Warcraft is an exception to the overall rule, yes. I'm not arguing that WoW is indicative of the overall PC experience. Rather that, while I'm not a player of it it, I'm glad that the PC platform provided it's creators with the freedom to create the game they wanted and have it funded in a way they saw healthy.
But then again, you have other franchises that competed with WoW without the paid subscription, so there again, the point still stands.

On the PC, we're given options, console players aren't given the option, or a similar experience without paying a subscription for online multiplayer.

Again, I'm arguing for free multiplayer to be an option as well as having paid subscription services, you're arguing for developers nickel and diming customers to death, which is even worse than what Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are doing.

At least it's astronomically cheaper than what you proposed.

Costs over time always increase linearly or exponentially, never do they increase on a logarithmic scale.

So over time, those costs add up. And it ain't gonna be cheap.

There are other PC games that fit this bill too.
There again, for any one example you bring forward, there's loads of games that are very similar, that offer a similar experience, that have free online multiplayer.

Again, exceptions don't prove the rule. The vast majority of games on the PC have free online multiplayer. That's the general rule.

That isn't anti-consumer in the same way that providing such freedoms to console Devs would not be anti-consumer.
Oh it is anti-consumer, let's not mince words here. They are duping customers by making them pay for a service or else they don't get the full experience of their game.

The point is even more on the nose when you factor in that there's other games that are in a similar style, similar style of gameplay, that offer a similar experience, but with free online multiplayer.

Again, if free multiplayer can be offered for free, then there is no reason to charge for it.

Let's look about this issue in another way.

Imagine your landlord knocking on your door and saying, "Hey, we're going to charge $5 a month for you to use your door, and if you don't want to pay for that, you're being evicted," that would be INCREDIBLY scummy, very anti-consumer, and plain wrong.

But if he tells you that the reason for the charge is, "It's to help with upkeep of the door, to make sure you have a nice door using experience," you would rightly ignore this, find a new place to live, and report it to the Better Business Bureau.

But all of a sudden when it comes to games with online multiplayer, this point doesn't stand anymore?

Now imagine that if every complex did this, but then you noticed a complex that didn't charge such a ridiculous fee. Now imagine you couldn't afford to move to that complex, and are stuck paying such a fee with no way out?

Does that seem like it's fair to those in complex A?

No. I argue that in both cases, there's no reason for such costs, such costs nickel and dime customers out of their money, making the businesses boatloads of money hand over fist, and is profoundly anti-consumer.

Same applies for game developers, as well as game giants like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo.

I'm not arguing that it is fair for a consoles multiplayer functionality to be locked behind a paywall.
You've been arguing for that quite clearly and literally.

Pro consumer is making the same buying options available to the end consumer. If they aren't, then it isn't fair. That's literally what consumer advocacy is about.

Companies love paid online multiplayer subscription fees. It makes them a lot of money. Sony alone made $12.5 billion USD off of PS+. Not games. Not console units sold. Just from PS+.

That is ridiculous. Not the amount of money mind you, but the fact to assume that's only for server upkeep is a little naive.

I do argue that companies also have rights so they can conduct business, but customers also have rights. Ideal business relationships are forged when both parties consent to the deal.

If I charge customer A $60 for a game that has free multiplayer, fair DLC with fair prices, and no pay to win features, and they agree to buy the game I made under those conditions, that's a fair deal.

But if I turn around that customer's back, and charge customer B, (who games on a different platform from customer A), for online multiplayer, loads of DLC with gouging prices, and pay to win features like lootboxes and microtransactions, how am I being fair to my customers who I want to buy my products?

One is getting nickel and dimed to have the same experience as the other. That isn't fair.

Under that scenario wouldn't customer A have every single right to call me out for anti-consumer practices?

It is my right to charge what I want for the products that are the fruits of my own labor, as you so argued, however. Does that automatically mean that customer A is in the wrong for calling out my anti-consumer practices towards customer B?

The only consistent position to hold is that customer A is in the right for calling me out.

Since console gamers aren't given an option or a way out, that isn't consent, it's coercion. They are forced to pay for multiplayer.

I'm arguing that it is unfair to expect all game devs to provide their multiplayer for free.
We're talking multi-million dollar companies here, not struggling indie devs, and even in the latter case, they still manage to keep their servers up and running, while keeping online multiplayer free.

Companies adapt to consumer demand. In business, if you don't pay attention to the consumers, the market, and what your competition is doing, you're not going to be in business for very long.

Therefore, it makes all the sense in the world to keep your customer base happy. That means being an advocate for your customers. And to be an advocate for your customers, you have to do things that benefit your customers, which will prevent them from going to your competition.

I'm arguing that paid multiplayer isn't a benefit for consumers, it's anti-consumer.

Businesses, in this specific circumstance, are in the wrong.

If we were talking about the price they charge for the base game, DLC, merchandise, peripheral costs (controllers), the console itself, and such, then that would be a different discussion.

As a hypothetical, if everyone stopped paying for online multiplayer, how quickly do you think Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would get rid of the service?

That's what PC gamers did when Microsoft tried to charge for online multiplayer with Games for Windows Live, and look at how quickly that service died as a result.

As much as I agree that businesses need to make money, and have rights so they can conduct business, (yes, even multi-million dollar companies), that doesn't mean that businesses are always in the right.

Again, both parties have to agree to the terms of the contract in order for the business being conducted to be a net benefit for the business and the consumer.

Charging for a service, and giving your customers no option for alternative experiences, isn't consent. It's coercion.
 
Last edited:

Vanessa28

Angel of Darkness
Staff member
ZD Legend
Administrator
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Location
Yahtzee, Supernatural
Gender
Angel of Darkness
Considering the fact I only owned Nintendo consoles and Nintendo games I can't make a proper judgement. But I' ve seen other games on pc and PlayStation so I would definitely prefer the PC. Way better graphics
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom