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.