Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?

I think with the sheer size of the player base and the evolution of PS Plus’ catalogue, multiplayer should be free. It’s mental you can buy Battlefield or COD for £70 and not have access to 90% of the game without paying Sony.

We've been paying for multiplayer for ages now. I have no problem things staying status quo for next gen, and the next gen, and then the next gen. I will no longer support xbox products, so they can do whatever they want. i don't really care about them anymore. they have no say in how I feel about playstation and there's nothing xbox can do to sway me either way

£1300 for the next xbox and it going after PC gamers they have to do it. I'd rather pay less for the hardware and keep paying for PSN+. As some of the rumors have said the PS6 could be 1/2 the price of the Xbox.

I wouldn’t say “happy”, but with the perks I’d continue to pay. I do feel I get great value for what I pay.

If they rolled out just access to online multiplayer for free, I think that’d be great. But honestly I’d still subscribe for PS+ for the cloud saving and “free” monthly games even just online for free was an option.

No. Companies never should have charged for multiplayer to begin with.

@Nexozi exactly. The title of this article makes it sound like xbox will be releasing a typical console like every other gen, but out of good will for botching up the last 2 gens, they will be going consumer friendly and letting you play online for free, as a thank you for letting them crap all over the industry. lmao

>> If that really is the case, Sony's PS6 could be the only next-generation console still charging for the privilege. <<

You probably know more about Nintendo‘s plans for Switch 3‘s online service than Nintendo itself.

I pay for ps plus mostly for the cloud saving and the occasional good monthly game. Don't care to play online so this is a non issue for me

I don’t have PS Plus essential for the online play. I don’t play online in general save for the occasional game of Helldivers 2 or random month of FF14. And FF14 doesn’t require Plus anyway.

I have it for the monthly games, access to years of said monthly games accumulated, and cloud saves. Online play is a bonus for those rare times I feel the need.

Never liked paying for online, and still avoid doing so when at all possible to this day. That's part of why I built a gaming PC.

I'm not paying today, so double no for me. I never understood the requirement for a subscription on consoles to do something that is free on PC.

You pay for the console, for the game, for your internet connection. Why is it required for paid games that can only be played online? They know it's wrong. This is why they give out games monthly. To try to justify the price.

@dskatter I feel the same way. I occasionally play online but that’s it. I pay for all the other perks, not online

If they can subsidize the next console, and keep the price around $599-$699, then it’s fine for me. I don't wanna pay $1200 for a console, even if online is free.

Its like what, $7 a month for PS+ Essential? When you take into account the 3 games and other perks you get, it’s like you’re not paying for online at all.

But if Xbox does away with paid online for their next console, then Sony will at least have to consider doing it as well in my opinion.

Like a free tier, where you only get online access, but not all the other perks you get with Essential. All the other tiers would stay the same

I don't play online much. I pay for games so obviously I'd like a drop. But there's a coat for everything and Microsoft is having to do a lot to claw back from its self induced mare.

I greatly suspect that all of those people who want PSN for free were not around when PSN went down for a month after being hacked in 2011.

Let us be clear about what "free" means in reality. It means "cost cutting because we are making no money off this service."

If something is "free", all you are doing is paying in some other way down the line. Never forget that.

Correct me if I’m wrong but f2p titles like marvel rivals, Fortnite and overwatch are still free to play multiplayer on PlayStation, right?

If I have to pay for it, I can demand a high-quality service.

If it’s „for free“ (mind you we still pay Sony even for third-party games), the service quality can be poor and we can’t complain with reason.

I prefer a high-quality service.

@LifeGirl my step-mum bought a VW iD3 a few years ago, automatic headlights were “free” when she bought the car - they’re now a subscription enabled feature.

It could be said that items or services that were once free and are no longer are a result of corporations looking to squeeze their consumers and increase their profit margins. Also, there’s no actual guarantee that any of the revenue generated is being put towards improving the service that was once free.

In the case of VW - they’re just profiteering at the expense of the consumer. The service they’re charging for is identical to the one that was previously “free”.

Honestly not sure, mostly because I'll believe it when I see it, seeing as I'm pretty sure it was MS who started the practice in the first place. Can't see a company chasing profit dropping the practice unless the next "xbox" is actually just an xbox branded pc like the ally stuff

I'm not "happy" to pay for it now, lol

cloud saving should already be free

Highly doubt that anyone is “happy” paying for online gaming. But I’ve been doing it since the 360 era, so I’m used to it. And the “free” games and cloud saves are nice value (though Microsoft offers the latter for free, as far as I know). I highly doubt Sony will make it free; too much money to be made and too much of a hassle. Also, Sony are showing their arrogance this gen and know they’ve got a lot of us by the short and curlies. They’ll just tout the “great value” of PS Plus and continue to charge for it (and increase prices of course). Having said that, the “free” games this year have been a noticeable step up in quality. But why not also give away some older PlayStation exclusives as well (like Returnal, Demon’s Souls, etc.)?

Don’t pay for ps plus now anyway so it doesn’t make a difference. Compelling single player games will draw me in.

Could have included the option "I don't play online multiplayer games" in the poll.

Following Xbox is what got us here in the 1st place.

Sony has completely failed to justify why online multiplayer is still paywalled when even their own games release day one on PC with free online and has crossplay enabled by default.

The previous excuse of providing a secure walled garden or paying for server costs doesn't cut it when you allow another platform full access to the exact same servers at no charge.

I would like it so that access to play multiplayer would be free but I use my playstation, all the time, I very rarely play multiplayer either but I definitely get my money's worth every month, no problem, it's the only subscription I pay for

This is their move to get back in the console war. They're far from done. Was very obvious. I pay for plus for the monthly games on essential and extra. Have no problem continuing to pay. Multiplayer access is just a nice bonus in my eyes.

It all reality the next Xbox is probably going to sport 2 models. My guess is $999.99 for the "S" and from what I've read if they want to be competitive with modern hardware- $1499.99 for the X. if Sony can come in at $599.99-$649.99 for the 6 and $499.99 or less for the portable device its an easy W for Sony and paying for Plus seems fine under a scenario like that. Just my opinion of course.

I don't pay for PS5 multiplayer now.

I pay for Plus, but not for multiplayer.

I pay for the online game backup (especially since the PS5 doesn't allow local backups to an external device), I pay for "free" games in the Essential or Extra tier, and - because they had more than 2 of them when I got a deal on an upgrade to Premium - I pay for "free" PSVR2 titles that were exclusive to the Premium tier.

The fact that Plus is required for online multiplayer has ALWAYS been ridiculous, even though I rarely ever take advantage of that benefit from my subscription.

Clicked “Unsure” only because it’s technically possible they could continue to charge for mp and yet offer some sort of compelling side benefit to make it seem worthwhile. Do I think they will? Absolutely not. But if I’m wrong and that’s what happens, I could see a state of affairs where it’s not as big a deal as people might think. I would prefer no charge of course, as no one in their right mind wants to waste money when they don’t have to, but I’m not so sure Sony feels the same way…

I'm ok paying but only if the value remains there for PS+

1. Xbox is not dropping the payment requirement for the online multiplayer. They're just making a PC. That's it. Dropping it implies that they had the option to include it in the first place, which is obviously not the case.

2. No. Ps6 will NOT be the only next gen console to have a paid online requirement. Switch 3 will also have it.

I play all my online games on Xbox so i don’t use PSN. So it wouldn’t bother me cause my PS6 will be the same, a few single player games here and there. With the next Xbox being said to combine the best things of Console and the best of PC, i am happy to hear they might get rid of the paywall. That is the better part of PC.

@Balaam_ I'm really hoping that Sony is working hard to unlock the PS3 Library through emulation for PS6. I personally think that would be a big W. If anyone can do it that wizard Mark Cerny is the one. Its clearly a huge problem, requires some genuis level attention and would just be amazing if accomplished. Being able to play MGS4, FolkLore, Resistance Trilogy, Killzone 2 and 3, the Motor Storm games, the InFamous titles.

I don't really pay for Playstation Plus for the multiplayer, I pay for the three free games per month and the Extra/Premium catalog.

But if the PS6 is costing £600 and the next Xbox costs £1200 you could buy the PS6 and 10 years of Playstation Plus Essential for the same price, but you would also get 360 free games during those 10 years.

So it's either Xbox for £1200 with free online multiplayer but no free games or the next playstation for £600, £600 for 10 years of online but with 360 free games. I know what I'd rather have.

I think it's important to point out that Microsoft aren't pivoting towards free multilayer, they're shifting their entire brand to being Xbox-branded PCs, and the issue there is quite simple; PC platforms don't yet charge for online. They're not doing it to be kind to customers, they're doing g it because launching a PC gaming platform that requires membership to play online is effectively asking to be killed immediately.

@truerbluer it costs a lot of money and man power to deal with your own online ecosystem. I mean even the article reminds us what can happen if its free....that was one of the largest security breaches EVER. Id imagine aside from the obvious "money" Sony shudders at the thought of another breach like that. They are probably OVERcompensating in that department which costs even more. I know, record profits and all that.

My opinion as a brazilian gamer: no, I'm not happy to pay to play online, that's why i don't pay for PS Plus. That's the TL;DR version

Now, the long version. PS Plus prices were raised by a large margin here in Brazil, add this to the fact that almost every game on Playstation Store in Brazil is way more expensive than games on Xbox, Steam or even Nintendo, and you have a situation where someone like me is stuck in a platform for lack of options while paying more money just to play the same game other people in other platforms pay less to play

PC isn't the best option for me because:

a) they're insanely expensive here in Brazil

b) most PC ports are lacking in optimization + other complications, like drivers breaking games, shader compilation stutters that usually can't be fixed by us users and so on. I switched from PC back to consoles last year because of these issues

The next Xbox hardware could, in theory, be the best option for me, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure this thing will cost an arm and a leg here in Brazil, so that's a big no for me. Too bad because their idea of a hybrid PC and console sounds really interesting, though I'm not sure how this is going to work

So i guess I'll stick to PS6, not 100% sure yet, but one thing I'm certain of: not gonna pay to play online, ever. Of course you have other benefits on Plus, like the catalogue of games to play and etc, but i usually buy these games anyway, and i don't like the idea of having access to a game just as long as I'm paying for a service

Now, the saving grace in all of this could be the PS6 price and the hope that one day Playstation will stop converting dollars to whatever currency X country use and do the same thing as Xbox and Nintendo is doing, which is to regionalize their prices according to each country. If they do this i would glady buy every Playstation console in the future and never rely on PC ever again

My brother in Christ, it has always been and always will be absolutely INSANE that you have to pay for a sub to get to play multiplayer.

If it was not required, I would have never registered for Plus, and the moment they drop the requirement I'm unsubbing.

@Shepherd_Tallon Yeah, having access to hundreds of games, and 36 games to keep (as long as your subbed) per year is worth £10.99. Cloud saves and online multiplayer are just a bonus.

I'm not getting full value for my buck with plus as I don't play online. I just pay for the games

Very surprised how many people here have justified the needless costs of online multiplayer with some ill-conceived pretense.

PlayStation Plus offers enough perks to exist, be profitable, and contribute to Sony's servers without gatekeeping the functionality of half the PS5's library. It's fine if you are so content with paying for PS+ that it doesn't matter much either way for you. Any justification beyond 'eh,' though, is borderline Stockholm syndrome.

If PC marketplaces and, allegedly, future Xboxes can function without charging their users for the privilege to play games online — in a market where most games are made to be played online — PlayStation can do the same. As can Nintendo. Thinking otherwise just means you fell for the same type of marketing that convinced people bacon is a part of a balanced breakfast and eco-responsibility is in the hands of the individual.

Also the Switch 2 is Sony's main competition and Nintendo charge for online multiplayer (with less multiplayer games available) so I don't see Sony changing it because of Xbox.

Plus PC has offered free online since the beginning, if any console players cared that much about free online then they would have moved to PC years ago.

It sucks but at least you can pay for the sub to get games.

@UltimateOtaku91 But Nintendo isn't much of a competitor when it comes to these loyalty subscriptions. Hence why Nintendo's offerings are a fraction of the price; Nintendo themselves know they can't really compete with GamePass and PS+.

For the gamer that predominantly plays online games and hasn't bothered to get into PCs — i.e., what I'm convinced are half of the PS5's userbase — the neXt-box having free online multiplayer would be a big deal. It would, hence, be a big deal for Sony to match that feature. Otherwise they might risk losing a great deal of market share.

I mean, I've never been happy multi-player for online multiplayer. Most of the time I don't play games online enough to warrant the expense, but now I do play online weekly and I get PS Extra, so I kind of forget I'm evening paying for MP rather than just game catalog.

I would love to see online gaming on PS6, but I suspect if Sony does anything it will be highlighting all of the other Plus benefits, so you're not thinking about the MP cost. But also, they may do nothing if the next Xbox is as PREMIUM as insinuated, which will make up the cost difference.

I play games to get away from people, so no multiplayer free or otherwise

@DarkTron I would argue, from the perspective of gamers, that isn't actually an important point.

If you just want to give Microsoft ethic-brownies for such a pro-consumer move, sure. It should definitely be noted they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and are instead trying to craft compelling hardware in a somewhat different space with its own norms.

But arguing which multi-million dollar company is more ethical is for fanboys and overzealous enthusiasts. To the average gamer, the 'why' doesn't matter. All that matters is how it affects them.

It's a weird tale this...
1. XBOX makes multiplayer cost money
2. Playstation makes multiplayer free
3. Playstation adds monthly games for a cost
4. XBOX adds "free" games to their paid multiplayer
5. Playstation removes free multiplayer but adds it to their monthly paid games.
6. XBOX adds a good value subscription model, but removes their free games from the paid multiplayer
7. Playstation adds an OK subscription model but otherwise keeps things the same
8. XBOX raises price of their previously good value sub model
9. XBOX makes multiplayer free again?
10. ???

No way at all would i be happy i dont pay ps plus essential for multiplayer i pay it for the 3 ps plus games a month

lol no. We should not be paying to play online period. I’ll gladly pay for the service but they need to drop the online pay wall thus lowering the cost of all services.

@rusty82 and me as well thats all I buy it for

Microsoft are such rebels - no exclusives, free online.

I don’t think Xbox is the trend setter, more like looking for subs

@RoomWithaMoose This. A lot of people in the comments are bending over backwards to justify paid multiplayer and pretending like they own the free games they get from plus. It's sad to see, really.

Most likely yes, I rarely play multiplayer but personally get a decent amount of value from the other aspects of plus so its worth the cost to me

I have never been happy paying and I never will, I hope Sony follows Microsoft in this department. At least make a less expensive tier that is just for online play.

It's going to be free because it's a PC and online has been free on pc for decades

If the rumours (specifically PC like / No cost for MP - the 2 go hand in hand) are all true, the 'next Xbox' IS NOT a console, and we need to stop considering it as one - It will be a PC! (with limited set up)

No. What would stop them from bringing it back?

In case everyone forgotten-- and I know people did because everyone made gamepass one of the leading arguments for Microsoft for 2 gens... they made that move when they weren't doing so hot. I see moves like this as desperate and even more importantly, it doesn't fix their other problems. Problems that Sony themselves get judged for all the time and at least Sony tries to fix things bit by bit-- if not also actually making moves that help the industry in different ways instead of destroying it.

I'd be nothing but suspicious both in the quality and their intentions simply because of their track record. But if anyone else wants to take the bacon placed under their nose again, please find us later that same gen and tell us how it goes.

I come from the era when we didn’t pay for multiplayer gaming and also cloud saves at the beginning.
I find Sony put more behind paywalls, like I only get cloud saves on my PS essentials account.
On Xbox any one signed in with their account on my series x get the cloud saves as well.
Also with switch 2 as long as I make them family members.
With tight Sony you have to all be a least essential members.

@truerbluer The main issue is that most people only talk about the paying for online multiplayer part but forget about the other benefits every-single-time. Had those not existed, then this would make sense as an argument.

I'm not even sure WHY this keeps coming up as an argument when people on PC used game subscription services like Gamepass too(That's why the recent outrage was so loud).

And just like that, almost everyone is paying anyway.

Even people who stick to F2P or single player can technically reap benefits from services like PS+, but it won't seem that way if everyone just zeros in on the same paying for online thing over and over again.

@LifeGirl Sounds like a pretty baseless suspicion. It's more likely that people calling for multiplayer on PlayStation to be free remember when it was free, and didn't find the service to be significantly worse in any way. Or, you know, are aware of how free and functional online multiplayer is on PCs.

Also not much reason to believe the infant PSN wouldn't have been down for a month post-hack in 2011 had it been a charged service. It's not like 10+ years of paid PSN has been free of outages. Or that they haven't been hacked. Plus that whole thing with AWS just happened, and that's an incredibly profitable venture.

Of course I don’t love paying for things, but Sony would really have to go out their way in fumbling to get me to consider an Xbox in the first place…the subscription cost barely factors into that equation for me.

@Nyne11Tyme It’s not really all that difficult if I can play literally all PS3 games on my PC thanks to an app that fans made, without the massive breadth of documentation that Cerny has access to. The only reason PS3 emulation isn’t on PS5 is because Sony said no.

@_Nightsever_ Well, see, the thing is, if there are a compelling amount of benefits and perks to these services to the point, for instance, where people on PC would subscribe to GamePass for PC despite not needing it for online multiplayer, it makes significantly less sense that such an essential feature of modern consoles would be locked behind a paywall in the first place.

No one is saying to completely kill PS+, GamePass, or NSO. We're just questioning why we have to pay for a bunch of extra features we might not want just to gain access to 60% of Battlefield 6's content.

Sometimes, I wonder what some console players would do if they actually got their way:

• No cost for MP
• PS Store prices the same as Steam
• Hardware prices kept very low via subsidisation

Oh, hang on Sony have cancelled the PS6 (and any future consoles) as they now can't make money off it.
Sony will now become a publisher like XBox on PC and maybe Nintendo.

Be careful what you ask for...

They’ll probably never do this, but my vote would be for having a menu of a la carte services that we can select from to add to our PS+ menu and have each service have a separate charge. So (for example) $5/mon for each, online access, cloud saves, monthly games, share play, etc.

I subscribe to Premium, but I have no interest or use for the online multiplayer service. I would be happy to give it up. But I want my cloud saves, cloud streaming, monthly games and the Extra library. I have no use for the game trials, the classic collection, or the Sony pictures movie library.

An alternate idea as opposed to a la carte is keep the levels of essential, extra, and premium, but then let us pick and choose which services we want. So for example with an essential sub I could choose 3 from the list, so I could do: Cloud saves, monthly games, and cloud streaming. And someone else may choose: online multiplayer, classics catalogue, and game trials. And yet we both pay the same essential sub price and still get what we want rather than a bunch of stuff we don’t use.

Or another thought: have an option to do one swapped service for your sub. So I subscribe to essential but I swap the online access for cloud streaming. Something like that would be great.

I don't really care what they do with multiplayer, just let me backup PS5 saves locally and easily for goodness sake!

@RoomWithaMoose but what you are missing is your paying for it abyway because your paying for Gamepass.

So the reality is paying for online is already built in.

And I probably can see already that the data is showing anyone who is playing multiplayer on xbox probably has gamepass anyway.

So even with xbox not making it essential to pay for online on pc, the majoriry will be paying into gamepass and reality is most will not bother and just stay on steam anyway.

At least right now playstation offers 3 games at a low price each month and really I dont even play online games but I still pay out for extra.

And playstation games on steam dont really require its online section already.

@nessisonett exactly this. ps3 emulation is in a great place now, no reason Sony can't do it

@Rich33 How's that even a bad scenario? I'm a console gamer, and I like having consoles. But Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all becoming 3rd-party publishers — or, maybe preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems — is not some dystopic gaming future. It's basically the best case scenario for this industry, where everyone can play everything with everyone else, and the biggest names in the industry have to focus on software first and foremost.

Of course it's going to be free multiplayer on the next Xbox, it's a PC with an Xbox sticker on it.

It's be like trying to make every PC gamer pay for multiplayer, impossible!!

I’d prefer Sony drop it, of course, but it isn’t that big of a deal to me.

@Bez87 I don't see how this point is relevant. For one, I don't personally pay for either PS+ or GamePass, but would buy and play multiplayer games on both platforms if they didn't stupidly require subscriptions. This is really the only reason I've yet to play darlings like Helldivers 2. So, already, I'm evidence of a gamer where the price of online multiplayer matters and the service itself isn't a foregone conclusion of the holistic offerings.

But, more importantly, how is this supposed to make anyone swindled into regular payments for a basic feature that's free elsewhere feel any better about being swindled? How many people do you think sub just for multiplayer access and rarely, if ever, engage with the service's other offerings? Is it fair to them that they have to pay an extra subscription on top of a game's price of admission just to access its full suite of content?

I'm prepared to pay a premium for a curated online play system on console, to avoid all the cheating on the more open PC systems.

My complaint is with Cloud saves. I'm paying good money for the game, yet they want to make me pay extra for them to store a tiny little save file?

That is truly heinous.

I mean if the next Xbox includes the option to use steam , Microsoft has to get rid of the online paywall which will decrease the number of game pass subscribers. Doesn't Nintendo also charge for online play, so Sony wouldn't be alone even if Microsoft got rid of it.

@RoomWithaMoose

Very surprised how many people here have justified the needless costs of online multiplayer with some ill-conceived pretense.

Most just seem to understand that subsidizing hardware comes with certain tradeofs. One of which is paying for online play. But most dont seem to be that bothered as its only $7 a month, and it comes with 3 games and many other perks.

Over a typical 7 year console generation, you may pay $499 for a PS5 and $560 total for PS+ Essential. Thats $1059, and that includes more than 250 games.

Now compare that to spending $1200 on a PC with no games included.

And let’s not forget, its not obligatory to have PS+ Essential, plenty people who dont play multiplayer games do perfectly fine without it.

So yeah, some tradeoffs are not ideal, but its what keeps consoles affordable in the first place. We cant have affordable hardware and free services. That’s why the next Xbox is rumoured to be much more expensive

This is how I feel:

Multiplayer games on pc do not need another service to play(ie ps+, gpu), huge plus. Multiplayer games on pc are plagued with cheaters/hackers, etc., huge con.

Multiplayer games on consoles tend to avoid the pitfalls of pc when it comes to cheaters/hackers, etc., huge plus. Multiplayer games come with an additional cost of $10-$30 a month to play the game you just spent $70+ on, huge con.

I'd be happy with how it WAS on console and charge me $60 a year for online play only. I don't care about your rental catalogs or your lame perks.

I've never been happy to pay for multiplayer. For as much as people gripe about the cost of pc gaming, they dont consider that you save a ridiculous amount of money over the 7 or so years of a console life by not having to pay for the priviledge to play with friends every month.

I stopped paying for online when I started playing on PC.

Knowing Microsoft they will get that money out of it's players someway.

@RoomWithaMoose

But Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all becoming 3rd-party publishers — or, maybe preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems — is not some dystopic gaming future. It's basically the best case scenario for this industry, where everyone can play everything with everyone els.

If all of them went multiplatform, i can’t see a scenario where all of them survive.

If all games are available on all platform, then what would be the point in owning more than one? Eventually one would dominate and create a monopoly. Which company should that be? 🤔

Imagine Netflix getting acces to all of Disney’s IP’s. Do you think they would both thrive? Or would people just subscribe to one and cancel the other?

It may sound good in theory to have everything be an open ecosystem, but it would probably kill all diversity and competition

I'm not happy to pay in the first place. What is this question?

If they did but kept everything else it would still feel like it is getting paid for so I'm unsure.

@LogicStrikesAgain Most people seem to baselessly assume PS+ significantly subsidizes hardware costs, you mean.

Given that GamePass, PS+, Xbox Series consoles, PS5 models, and Nintendo's Switch family have all seen price increases as of late, it's a little hard to see the sub models actively keeping the price of hardware down. Unless they would, otherwise, see a minimum of $200 price increases. Also worth mentioning that the Nintendo Switch, and presumably the Switch 2, are sold at a profit, yet Nintendo's still charging for NSO. Almost like it's another revenue source, or something.

As for the dystopic future comment: the competition is in selling games. You know, back in the day, movie theaters were actually owned my production studios. It was not a boon for competition within the movie industry, to say the least. If there were no exclusives, Mario, Master Chief, and Aloy would be vying for the attention of the same player-base — there's your competition. The big three could still be making hardware, it's just they wouldn't be sold on the merits of software — so there would still be competition in that respect. And, if console ecosystems weren't limited to a single manufacturer, technically anyone could make a spiritual Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo — MORE COMPETITION. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! Netflix is not solely available on Netflix's hardware. It is software that you can access on 90% of applicable hardware. If PSN was similar — i.e. not tied to hardware — it would still exist in a competitive space. Heck, then Steam would actually have worthwhile competition — MOAR COMPETITION.

Whether paying up front for online play is "taken away" by any platform, they'll reap the money another way, per game will be more expensive for a start.

I'll pay if I have to. Though going forward, the need to do so in my situation is becoming less and less.
And never have I ever paid full price.
Anything less than 30% off I wouldn't consider.

A few comments above reference cost of console Vs higher cost of PC.
Yeah, I paid a good sum for a great gaming rig a few months back, played loads of playstation and Xbox games on it, and haven't paid a penny. At all.

Yo ho yo ho etc

@RoomWithaMoose One of the most primary benefits in question is simply just having a library of games(newer but also old-- sometimes touched up with features on Sony's end)to pick from and easily accessed for a single price. That's not locked away, that's just a proper service like anything else, and the folks on PC were paying for that because it was a cheaper option.

I'm afraid I need an elaboration on the Battlefield thing. I tried to look into it but I could only find that there was a skin that you would normally pay for offered for free with Plus and maybe some bonus xp for playing on the platform. Is there something more substantial locked there? Unless it's single player content, I kind of feel like you're already in the clear since it's a multiplayer game though. I don't think I've ever heard of a game having a lot or even a little blocked outright by PS+ before. Maybe access to a beta or something but usually they just do stuff like this or give a little currency/consumable bonus.

Sony’s online multiplayer costs are egregious. Haven’t paid for it in ages, would rather spend the money on software. Bummer though..

Sony raising the cost of essential to $80 made me build a PC. Now I play free 2 play games with my console friends and multiplayer on PC. Most of my favorite games on ps5 are single player games anyway

@RoomWithaMoose
I think you may have misread what I was saying.
If Sony cannot make enough money off closed ecosystem things like PS Plus for MP, or from their store, they will simply stop producing consoles - which they often end up losing money on - remember its not just the hardware build price, its the R&D, +support etc.

Why should they make consoles if they can only make money on games? Then they can focus on just making games for PC, and maybe Nintendo.

It would be wise for Sony to follow any pro consumer moves especially the online pay wall as younger generations will see this as a positive and are more likely to remain loyal to the brand.

The key to the future is to get newer players to remain loyal for the long term health of the PS brand.

@RoomWithaMoose Dude, i’m all for discussion. But maybe take it down a notch, people are taking things way too serious lately.

The Netlifx/IP analogy is meant to show what would happen if all games were available on all platforms.

I can come up with a rebutall, but honestly im not that emotionally invested as you seem to be. No need to yel in all caps, i can get the argument just fine

@LogicStrikesAgain It was two phrases and one sentence in all caps among 2 long paragraphs written normally. I mostly intended the all-caps for comedic affect. If that wasn't apparent, that's on me.

But I don't really see the point in this response if you're not going to engage with anything besides the caps. They're easy to ignore, as they only augment repetitious emphasis and unsubstantial vitriol.

The Netflix analogy doesn't make sense, was my point. This is about the dynamisms between hardware and software, basically vertical integration, and the possibility of monopolization thereof. Netflix does not have any comparable vertical integration, so alluding to them and the streaming wars as evidence of the necessity of branded hardware doesn't really make sense. It also ignores that the high-competition of the streaming wars is fairly anti-consumer, in its own right.

And, frankly, I'm not emotionally invested. I'm very bored, at a very boring job, and am procrastinating utilizing this boring time to do actual things I could otherwise be doing with no immediate work and access to a computer. Which I guess is still pretty lame of me... Really, I'm just not adjusting to suddenly being bored at work for extended periods of time very well.

That's the main reason I dropped online gaming. I used to play a lot on PS3 when it was free.

I don't really mind it to be honest. Would it be nice for it to be free? Sure but like it has been said it's not like that's the only reason to pay for the subscription. And if that's the trade-off for not needing to drop $1000+ for a next-gen console then I'll take that trade.

There isn't a chance in hell I'm dropping $1000 on a gaming console/PC. Not up front at least.

@Rich33 Why would it matter if they aren't making consoles if they are still making games?

I don't really see what the misunderstanding was. You're saying that, if Sony were to eliminate several of their revenue streams, they could no longer justify producing consoles and would focus on software. I'm questioning why them not producing consoles would be a bad thing. Unless you're tacitly implying this would affect their software output, I don't see the disparity. I'm trying to offer the perspective that most people wouldn't be too miffed by such an outcome.

if xbox make a console, and it has free multiplayer, that's one thing., and I'd expect PS to follow suit... but from all I read, Xbox is releasing a super expensive PC in disguise, so no different to any other PC... that isn't comparing apples with apples.

Id love to see Xbox do this. Because it would put the pressure on Sony to bring down PS Plus.

@_Nightsever_ My Battlefield comment is referring to the multiplayer aspect itself. For a game that predominantly sells itself for its massive online battles, it's a shame its main value is locked behind paywalls for console players. Especially considering it's a $70 game to begin with.

I don't actually care much about skins (or — gasp — Mega Evolutions) being locked behind paywalls, per se. But to lose a significant amount of the game's function because you don't pay $100-200 annually is, I think, ridiculous.

Why should we be paying for it at all? I can play all my games on Steam for free.

I’m just going to c&p what I said in a different thread. I will add one thing here first. Based on the comments in this thread thus far a majority of people don’t pay for it (multiplayer) now. Look at how much money there is to be made from allowing the online aspect to be free in terms of what I mention below. Also, it’s unfortunate that we live in times where companies look at competition and say, “If they can do it, we can do it”. What they should be doing is lowering the tiers (or free for online) and allowing more people to buy-in at a lower point. Can you imagine all the xbox players that have come and will continue to come over to PS. That alone (and with things mentioned below), should be more than enough to make up the difference. Why push people away? Give them a reason to come in and support your platform (all of your platform).

I’m not going to feed into this too much, as this is likely not ever going to happen until at the very least MS does it (even then not likely) especially after these companies saw how easy it was to soak consumers for it. (I fully understand servers aren’t free.). In the type of society these companies run in which includes soaking the customer for as much as you can for as long as you can, good luck.

In my opinion charging for online multiplayer in 2025 is an antiquated business model and one that Sony added after seeing what MS was doing. These companies want you to support them by buying their hardware and being a part of their ecosystem and then charge you for online when playing online via a pc (with no money made on hardware) is free. Makes no sense. Obviously, you can play single player games in full, fine. That’s not issue though, it’s online play.

Why wouldn’t you want your customers you enjoy the game fully as intended especially if there paying $70-$80 for it? Charging that much and then getting them on the back-end for multiplayer is foolish. Part of the reason free to play games are so popular are because they are easily accessible and people don’t have to worry if their friends have a paid subscription to a service to play.
There are many newer and more customer friendly ways to add value to these subscriptions and still get people to subscribe. Forcing paid online is not one of them. Imagine how great it would be for a dev. or publisher to know that spending the time and money to add multiplayer and online elements into their game will most likely get much higher usage from game owners because the buy-in is essentially zero. Also, I know we don’t like micro transactions, but again companies could add in many more “sensible” add on dlc content, etc. and know pretty much all customers have access to it if they want it.
Point is, right now no one is paying for extra online content unless their playing the game online. That’s money lost. Get rid of the whole wall and there’s a lot of money to be made. From Sony perspective there’s a lot of cheap/zero money required to add high value to the current subscription service’s that I won’t get into in this post. If companies would change their way of thinking, it would be much more consumer friendly.

We’ll see what happens next.

I'm completely fed up of having to pay for at least 'Essential' tier just to be able to play the Games I want and have 'purchased'. Some games, not just Multiplayer games, are locked behind a Paywall - you can't play some games, even if you've bought them without paying for a subscription.

I know you can get it cheaper if you buy in bulk, but a month of Essential is currently £10, which if you pay for 'monthly' over 5yrs adds another £600 on top of the Hardware costs and lets be honest here, Hardware isn't that 'cheap' compared to PC these days with a much more limited library and locked to a single store and owner who has complete control over what games are on their Platform.

With Sony now releasing on PC, Xbox is already on PC and of course you have the other PC Platforms/stores like Steam, GoG, Epic, Battlenet etc - all without Games, features etc locked behind a paywall. Social gaming should NOT be locked.

I didn't expect to be buying the next Xbox, but if its a Xbox PC (more like their Xbox Ally Handhelds) and not Xbox Console with a Subscription fee for 'basic' features like Social Gaming or Cloud Saves, then I'll consider that over a PC and certainly over ANY Console with 'Essential' Sub fees.

Sony are releasing their games on PC now - ok so I won't play them Day/Date on a Playstation in the future, but to be honest, Sony's games aren't that 'special' to me. There Single Player games have been good, but now feel like I've played them before, that they are nothing 'special' as some AA or even indie games deliver more compelling Game-play loops that are just as polished or 'cinematic'.

I'm sure MS will still do Game Pass - maybe like their curent Game Pass tiers on their Xbox PC Platform, but that will be optional, not necessary to unlock the entire library and features you buy Hardware to play/use. I cannot play probably half the games/content in my Playstation Library without a Sub and don't get Cloud Saves either so I feel BLACKMAILED to pay which has now reached breaking point for me so I intended to leave Consoles behind next gen for that reason as PC Hardware, whilst it may have a higher upfront cost, has much cheaper ongoing costs and far more games - inc Playstation games (inc old PS1-PS3 era games via Emulation, as well as Nintendo, Sega, Xbox, NeoGeo etc console games too)

£300 and a £5 a month for a console and Social Gaming was a great value way to play the latest 'biggest' game releases that you'd need a £2k+ Gaming PC to play otherwise, but now a £500 Handheld Gaming PC will play those games too at 'Console' like settings for the Hardware. Computer Gaming Hardware is cheaper now and you don't need the Latest/greatest GPU's to 'beat' Console performance, its achievable for little more than Console Hardware so the 'better' value is becoming the PC...

@RoomWithaMoose My bad, didnt realize it was for comedic effect. Im sure you notice many people get way too emotional about these things lately. But honestly your last paragraph has pursuaded me to reply again, as i can totally relate to it lol.

Going back to the Netflix argument. The reason i personally think its valid and does make sense, is it shows how if every game became available for every platform, it would make all but one platform redundant.

Even if we ignore the hardware. Let’s say PS, Xbox and Nintendo had their software platforms next to Steam on PC. If all of those platforms had the same games, because they all went multiplat, than eventually, only one would remain.

It’s like if every IP from Disney, HBO, Paramount, Apple was on Netflix and vice versa, there would be no need for all those platforms anymore. And eventually people would probably just subscribe to one platform, killing all competition.

So in the end it might not be “MOAR competition”, but just one monopolistic platform.

I’m not an expert in markets and business, all im saying is that, all gaming companies going full 3rd party with all their games might not necessarily be the best case scenario as you said. But that’s probably all i have to say about the matter, as this is just hypothetical theory at best. And maybe you are right, and opening up everything would be better

I already don’t pay for PS+. The only online sub I pay for is Switch online but that’s mainly just to access the N64, GBA, and GameCube I grew up with. I say drop the subs lol.

@RoomWithaMoose
Leaving just PC with its inherent downsides, or low powered Nintendo hardware as the only viable options - I can't see everyone being exactly happy with that choice! (With proof of that being just how popular PS5 has been)

I see a LOT of people here saying some variation of "the next Xbox will just be a PC." You're all missing two points.

First, the CURRENT Xbox is basically a PC - it's running a version of Windows under the hood, with DirectX for everything just like a Windows PC. It's just a locked-down game-centric PC that can only play games from the XBox store.

Which brings me to the second point - if the next XBox can play games from the XBox store, then it won't be "just" a PC unless they open that XBox store to all PCs. If the store remains locked to XBox-branded hardware, then that hardware won't be "just" a PC, even if it's even more PC-like than it is now (with the ability to run Steam or Epic or GOG or whatever).

Now, there's a lot we don't know yet, and a lot of time for Microsoft to change their mind on anything we think we know.

Why would anyone be happy to continue paying for a service that used to be free and was an arbitrary cash grab in the first place? This is the fanboy mentality in full display. Why would you not prefer the more consumer friendly free service? I have a PS5 and switch and no Xbox this gen but the new Xbox having free online may sway me because after 5+ years of $110 CAD per year for ps plus essential, the supposed price gap between consoles would likely equal out but you’d be left with a more powerful machine and access to any pc/playstation/xbox game.

If it happens, Sony should absolutely follow suit and remove the pay wall for online play. Hell, in an ideal word we shouldn't be paying for online access anyway!

Besides, Sony can keep the Playstation Plus Extra and Premium tiers for those who want access to the games on offer, with the subscription prices adjusted accordingly of course.

80 bucks a year for plus is still a deal. 3 free games a month, and massive discounts. Strand is coming, we just got Alan Wake 2. They gave us Plauge Tale 2 and many more for the cost of one game. On Playstation the gamer wins. Not to mention they gave us that goat simulator.

@LogicStrikesAgain BORING JOB CREW!!!

I think in a specific market, you would be correct. In the specific market I'm picturing, where 'consoles' are just glorified set-spec PCs that can be made by any manufacturer and software clients are able to differentiate themselves and garner unique feature-sets and support, I'm correct.

It depends on a lot of variables. I do think my vision is closer to how it would pan out, though. Already, on PCs, there's Steam, EGS, and GoG. All of them basically do the same thing, and Steam is the clear market leader, but they've all carved out some kinda niche appeal for themselves. Say Microsoft's client is all about GamePass integration, Nintendo's focuses on retro console emulation, and PlayStation does some other third thing. There is reason to believe they could all co-exist. Not to mention, they could technically still have exclusives within their clients — 1st-party or otherwise. I'm really talking about hardware exclusivity, not exclusivity as a concept.

On the hardware front, it'd be just like the portable PC market right now: everyone can make a console that has access to every client and every game. Gamers would just buy whichever one best suits them. Power can play a huge role in it. Something like the Switch's hybrid capabilities could still be a HUGE appeal. Like, literally, just imagine all the consoles we have now, except Mario's on PlayStation, Gravity Rush is on Switch, and every one has full access to Steam. I think such a market is entirely feasible, and might actually be more pro-consumer in the end. Personally, I would love just owning one console that plays everything I want with the only limitation being its power. That also might be better for the majority of developers, as they won't have to optimize for several SKUs and would have more bargaining power when it comes to licensing expenses.

In your defense in regards to Netflix, I did realize immediately after that last comment that they do practice vertical integration (production and distribution), and, in fact, their vertical integration practically mirrors the oligopoly of Old Hollywood I referenced. I still don't think it's a great comparison to gaming's console manufacturers (production/distribution vs. product distribution/means of using product distribution.../production? — wait, maybe I'm wrong... Or maybe all this behavior is trending towards monopolistic...). Well, regardless, it's always a little murky comparing markets to markets in any but the most vague ways. Cable companies used to co-exist despite offering 99% of the same content. It really just came down to price, availability, and features. Does that tell us the streaming market or game market can stay competitive without exclusivity? Dunno, really; all of these markets function very differently.

Nintendo says hello.

P.S: I wrote too soon, the article later on mentions Nintendo. Still, Switch 2 is next-current generation in the same sense PS6 Portable will be.

@Rich33 I did say "preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems," and further explored what I meant by that with LogicStrikesAgain.

I'm not advocating for PlayStation specifically dying. Though, I also question if making online multiplayer free on their console would even kill the brand (they could just, like, make cheaper consoles if they're that dependent on PS+ to make hardware profitable). And wasn't even picturing a market with only PCs and Nintendo consoles when I wrote that comment. But, ya know...I wouldn't mind that much, either. If PCs got every game besides Nintendo's, and Nintendo kept making hardware with notable features that differentiates itself from a PC, I would be fine with that.

Honestly it should be free and PS+ should house all of the extras that you can get from paying.

It doesn't really concern me as I dip in and out of the service. Based on the month.

Also interesting to see that people really want Steam to be a monopoly in gaming and the console business to die.

If Microsoft ditches the paid requirement for online multiplayer it will be a master stroke indeed.

Here’s the thing about their next console that people haven’t caught onto: it will be substantially more powerful than PS6. Also, PS6 buyers will have to buy both the PS6 and PS6 Pro to get the performance gains on par with the next Xbox which will mean they’ll pay as much if not more than what the next Xbox costs.

Also, don’t rule out a weaker, cheaper console for those who want to get into next gen Xbox although it could be that Rog Ally serves that purpose albeit in handheld form.

I don't know who the hell that started this silly rumor but i seriously doubt MS gonna make their multiplayer free.

And without MS dropping their paywall, i already dislike having PS+ as a must requirement for playing multiplayer. I didn't renew to PS+ since August and if there's no good discount for Essentials then i will not renew.

@RoomWithaMoose Hell yeah!!! 👊🏼😆

Yeah, i think where we kinda veered off was that i thought you meant the emphasis on them all being 3rd party, meaning all games on all platforms. But then i understood what you meant was for all platforms to be hardware agnostic, and i actually agree with that.

The way i think it will play out though is actually pretty similar to movie streaming. It might not be what people want, but i think most people probably know its inevitable that games streaming is the future. I mean it’s already possible, and Nvidia has shown with low latency streaming, but there are still a few roadblocks before it can go fully mainstream.

But i think we’ll get there sooner than we might expect. I think the future you're envisioning, where Sony, Xbox and Nintendo platforms are all available on multiple types of hardware, from TV’s to PC, will be a thing ‘relatively’ soon. And eventually, their own dedicated hardware will fade out, much like the way we consume movies mostly through streaming

I haven't had an Xbox since the 360 and never seen a game I would miss,.

I'm not subscribed to PSN any more due to the cost. I could pay for a much cheaper sub that only includes online play and cloud saves. I don't need the monthly games and the other stuff.

Those "free" games get locked behind the subscription paywall when you stop subscribing anyway.

This is one thing Nintendo does right. The cheapest sub gives online play, cloud saves and access to tons of the best SNES, NES and Gameboy classics for a yearly cost of $19.99.

Why does the PS Plus Essential cost $79.99? Remove those monthly rental games and give me a sub that costs 20 bucks a year that only gives cloud saves and online play like Nintendo does and I'd get it in a heartbeat. PS Plus Essential is just way too expensive for what it is.

So my PS5 is just for single player games now. Online games I play elsewhere, although I'd rather play them on my PS5 if Sony could get their act together on the PS Plus pricing tiers.

I never payed and it would be in everyone's best interest for them to drop it.
All it did was grow the PC online playerbase.
It's daft to bar 60% of your playerbase from your online features. That is a lot of playerbase growth they waved away.

I’d keep paying for the Premium catalogue anyway, and would still likely have to keep it for streaming to the Portal. And I need the cloud save too.
If I could pay less and leave out the playing with others component then I’d be up for that, as I don’t do social gaming anyway (apart from the occasional local co-op with the wife).

It's a reductive poll though isn't it. Effectively, 'would you like to pay for something or would you like it free?'

I mean, come on.

@LifeGirl I was around when the PSN was hacked in 2011 and want free online, what does one thing has to do with the other? If not like of paying would have made it more secure, PS+ existed back then, only difference was online was free.

@Krlozgod nope wrong. The infrastructure and security is much better with ps+ now or so I'm lead to believe. The protocols are much better.

@UltimateOtaku91 Do we get to keep the games? If we stop paying for PS+ ?

@OldGamer999 When I abandoned ship after the Xbox One reveal, the cloud save situation legit bugged me. I paid for it of course. Brand new PS4 in hand (I still feel the Launch PS4 was beautiful lol), and a copy of Killzone, I wasn't going to miss out on the multi-player. Around 2017? My wife bought a XBone S, and we were shocked her old save data was still there.

I do think the cloud saves really need to be free.

At this point it should be free to play games and save online. But I think we should have to pay for other perks. Then let people decide if they need them. I don't play online games but enjoy said perks. Others are the opposite.

@11001100110zero
Yes that’s one thing Xbox are good with is the cloud saves. Sonys cloud saves work just as well but they paywall them a bit more and totally to one person only.

It’s also the same with the games structure on Sony console. I don’t have to have my Xbox as my home console for others logged in to play my games or any sharing on, as long as I’m logged in, in the back ground, everyone can play my games.
With PS that console has to be your main shared console.
What Sony are good at is cutting out any loop holes be it cloud saves or game sharing so you all pay some money.
I think Xbox are more, well ok it’s all right and a little more open and relaxed.

I am going to be honest, I am already not paying for PS+, and I haven't for a couple years now. The price increases in Canada ultimately caused the price of even Essential to go up to $80 a year, and I am not comfortable paying that much every year for something that I am mostly only using for cloud saves and very infrequent online play.

This is actually an area where Nintendo comes out ahead; NSO's cheapest tier is absurdly cheap even in the absolute worst possible case (single person paying annually), and options to mitigate the cost like the family groups can bring the cost down even lower. It's incredibly hilarious to me that the only online I am currently paying for is NSO, because the couple dollars I pay for it a year is proportionate to my usage for it (which is cloud backup and intermittent online play).

Game Pass and PS+ both priced me out 🤷

@11001100110zero No you don't get access to any of the PS Plus games and monthly games if you stop your subscription. They will still show up in your library, but if you try to install or play any PS Plus gane you are told you need to subscribe again to get access.

So no, we don't get any monthly games to keep. We only get access as long as we keep paying.

@PressTurn Exactly the same here. NSO is the only sub I'm willing to pay because the price is alright. And I also get cloud saves, online play and access to the best SNES, NES and Gameboy classics which I grew up with. Those classics are worth far more than any of Sonys monthly games. All for $19.99 yearly.

And even cheaper during sales. I think I subbed for 2 years when the yearly was at 40% discount even, which makes it about $12 a year! And Sony wants $80 a year for the same?! They seem to have stopped PS Plus subscription sales as well. No thanks.

Sony has no incentive to offer free online services since it operates within a closed ecosystem tied to its hardware platform, following the traditional model of a hardware platform holder. As a market leader, Sony generates substantial revenue from premium online services, subscriptions, and 30% cut from third-party sales and microtransactions.

The next XBOX hybrid console will essentially feature PC hardware, built on an open PC ecosystem. It will support both Steam and Game Pass through a new gaming-focused Windows that combines the XBOX OS with console libraries and backwards compatibility. As a PC-based platform, the XBOX hybrid will need to offer free online access since stores like Steam don’t require premium online play.

If the Xbox hybrid console successfully competes with Sony in third-party market share through Steam and Game Pass, offering cheaper games at a lower cost, Sony might be compelled to enhance its services to stay competitive. This could include abandoning premium online services and providing free online access, similar to the Xbox hybrid model.

In this generation, Xbox's key selling point has been the Game Pass subscription service, competing against Sony's premium full-price model. With Game Pass reaching its subscription growth limit, the next generation with hybrid consoles will likely see Steam becoming a major competitor alongside Game Pass, challenging Sony's premium full-price approach.

I think Sony will stay the market leader in the next generation because, as Phil Spencer mentioned, most console gamers built their digital libraries within the PlayStation ecosystem during the PS4 era, tying them to it. However, I believe the upcoming Xbox hybrid console will be a competitive open platform that could capture a portion of the market share in third-party sales within the stagnant console market, as Spencer pointed out. Even a small loss in third-party sales could result in revenue losses for Sony's ecosystem.

The next Xbox hybrid console aims to merge PC gaming with the console market, creating a unified ecosystem for the first time in gaming history. This is the new era Spencer has been referencing over the years. The future of gaming revolves around competition in services across all hardware devices. Imagine having Steam and Game Pass on the same hybrid hardware, competing side by side. Offering multiple hardware options ensures access for millions of consumers without restricting exclusive content to a single hardware platform.

The believe in MS/xbox to make gaming cheaper does not seem to know any limits. Didn't they just raise the price of their subscription services ? And didn't they just talk about their lofty goals of a 30% profit margin ? Where will they get the money from if they lower the service fee ? Maybe reduce the cost of developing games by just AI-generating them ?

Anyway somebody has to pay the cost for running cloud service for multiplayer, cloud saves, streaming (electricity, hardware, maintenance). So the MP fee will be just moved to somewhere else e.g. game price or game pass, or the game quality or scope will be reduced.

Good things cost money. If nobody is willing to pay for them they will disappear.

Even if they drop the direct cost you’ll pay for it one way or another.

@gaston

"And didn't they just talk about their lofty goals of a 30% profit margin ?"

Game Pass growth, game sales across all platforms, microtransactions, and mobile games. The revenue from the Xbox storefront and online premium is minimal, making it irrelevant to Xbox's financials. However, that 30% profit margin target is unrealistic, because historically speaking, no other gaming company in the world has managed to achieve such high profits for years.

@Striker21

The revenue from the Xbox storefront and online premium is minimal, making it irrelevant to Xbox's financials

They are literally the 2 highest margin items in the video game business. Getting 30% of the games other people make(plus 30% of all DLC, MTX etc.) and getting people to pay money for online play.

Would I be happy to pay for online play? No, and I’m not happy to pay it now. I can’t imagine anyone is actually happy. It is what it is though.

Who knows, maybe I’ll play all online games on the PCboX. I’ll probably just stay in my comfort zone and do everything the same way I already do. This is the nature of people, just as much as the nature of a scorpion is to sting dudes.

@SeaDaVie

The Xbox Store faces challenges in generating sufficient profit from its 30% revenue share due to a limited user base on Xbox consoles and Steam's dominance on PC. Both the console and PC versions of the Xbox Store have lagged behind in competition with the PlayStation Store and Steam. Xbox has shifted its business model to stand apart from Steam and Sony, which earn significant revenue from third-party sales as dominant storefronts on console and PC. Xbox's new strategy focuses on creating and selling software across all platforms and subscription services like Game Pass.

Having to pay to play online or getting it for free is a no brainer no matter how many cosmetic things you add free is free.

@cainhurst94 "Also interesting to see that people really want Steam to be a monopoly in gaming and the console business to die......so Microsoft entered the console war to kill it off Interesting very interesting...and something didn't sit right with me since the original xbox came out it could be just that clever very clever.

I am not going to pay additionally to play with my friends.
Greed of sony and microbe-soft simply has gone too far.
I am ready to hardpass next gen consoles if needs be.

@Striker21 I mean no disrespect, but did you have Chat GPT Write that? Not being nasty, it is word for word how AI summaries are spat out.

@11001100110zero

Nope, I use Grammarly AI assistant to quickly fix any grammatical or spelling mistakes while I type, but I make my own comments.

@Striker21 and that is why they will reduce their revenue even further by giving up on online fees ? I am pretty sure they'll find a way to recoup that money.

@gaston

The lost revenue from the premium online and the XBOX store's revenue cut is so minimal because it is not the main source of revenue for XBOX. Xbox isn't generating much profit from these services, so it might be worth abandoning them to build a more valuable ecosystem with the next hybrid console. XBOX can easily recoup the lost revenue by further boosting game sales, and Game Pass increased revenue following the price hikes.

Paying for online has always been a scam. I have not paid, and will continue to not pay.

I don't do multiplayer.

I dont play multiplayer games anymore, I sub to ps+ for the games and make use of the cloud saving. Buying a game and not having access to all its features without also paying for a subscription is farcical but there are running costs that need to be covered, we won't just get something for free.

if they drop the ps+ requirement, you'll probably see games jump in price ro compensate instead so I'm perfectly fine with them covering costs through a required ps+ sub.

Question was related to 'multiplayer' specifically, and therefore I find it absolutely insane, that any 'consumer' here in their right mind would say they're happy to 'pay' for something they may not have to.. Bonkers..

Well, i don't pay for multi-player, couldn't care less, its just a feature packed into a bunch of other stuff I DO want..

Xbox is a dead platform, so it may not be a fair comparison.

Happy? Heck no. I doubt anyone is actually happy to pay it. The biggest scam in gaming has always been having to pay to play your games online on consoles. We pay only because they force us to, not because we're "happy" to do it.

@JustMyOpinion you only have to look at Black Friday to see punters love a bargain. There is no better bargain than free im with you whole things bonkers.

They're probably only doing it because users have left due to the game pass price increase so it's damage control “maybe the players will come back if we make online play free” but really they aren't going to get back any players who have gone to steam or psn.

Did the title of this article change?

Crazy how xbox started this and might be ending it

It really comes down to where your friends are playing and what hardware you own. I might get a PS6 but multiplayer has been PC only for me since I finally built one a few years ago. Most multiplayer games are multiplatform so I'm not going to pay for no reason. Some folks will stay on the PS ecosystem and may not have a choice but compared to many of our entertainment expenses nowadays, it's still worth it for those folks in my opinion.

I don't play MP games on PlayStation precisely because I'd have to pay. I usually only buy a month of PS+ at a time and usually so i can play through games added to the catalogue.

Mandatory paid subscription for basic online and backup features needs to end. If they want to charge me for monthly games, fine, but don't make me have a sub just to do anything online.

I'm on PS4, can make local backup saves, and have not played online since 2024 and will not until whenver GTA6 is finally released and I might then purchase a PS5.

The deal is I want Plus Extra but there is a paywall of needing to also pay for Essential which I do not need, including the 'free" games I rarely play.

MS and then Sony may drop the fee for online play, but both will not want to lose such easy money. Both will likely then raise prices elsewhere to maintain that easy income. Cloud backup saving should not carry a fee when local backup saving was removed.

Actually, I'm not using PS Plus anymore. The last year I payed wasn't used that much.
And with these high prices in the meantime, I have no interest anymore.
I'm using Game Pass Essential, which is cheaper a year. And If that's really true with the next Gen Xbox, I'm totally in again with Microsoft.
Sony could have a really hard time in the next gen.

@JustinTimberlake what are you talking. That's Sony Fanboy thinking.
If the rumors about the next Xbox are true, you can use Steam, gog and anything on it. It wouldn't make sense to charge Xbox gamers anymore than. Plus PC Playstation ports can also be played on it.

@Nintendo4Sonic how can i be a sony fanboy when i own a pc and a series x? The last sony product I owned was a base PS4 and if you check my comments history on pushsquare and pure Xbox I'm highly critical of both Xbox and Sony so...

Nobody who has left Xbox is gonna come back until they revert the insane game pass price hike/scam, nobody asked for ubisoft slop to come to the service that doesn't justify two major price hikes in a year. The only way I'll come back to Xbox is if i get around to buying a cheap ultimate key which i have no motivation to do because outer worlds 2 is probably a stinker like avowed was

@JustinTimberlake oh sorry, of course I didn't check your profile history. Why should I...
This only sounded like typical fanboy talk.
And even your answer makes no sense.

So what are you trying to tell here? That Xbox and Playstation suck and only PC is good?
And my opinion about the Game Pass Ultimate price hike is, that now it's starting to cost as much as it should cost.

@JustinTimberlake Naw, it's not to retain the players. They really are attempting to bridge the two ecosystems. One of the main draws for me, to PC gaming was the free multiplayer. I paid for PS Plus from Feb. 2014- up until 2021. Then I made the Series X my main system for a while. Shortly into 2023 I was already planning and ordering for my PC build. Yeah, the yearly subscription saved me money, but it was still money I wouldn't have spent if it were free.

Those costs alone, added an additional $420 to my PS4. That Means I paid nearly $850.00 for the Ps4, and the online access. I was a total fan boy too, so I took it with a smile. Vita, Vita TV, PS3, PS4, then the PS4Pro. I wasn't going to miss out. A $900-$1,100 system is a great option. More power mainly, better deals and game prices, and you pay what you would have if you kept a PS-PRO console anyways.

Free online is a serious draw for ton of people. There is way too few PC gamers willing to accept that and hop over to consoles.
I feel the aim is to use this new device to migrate people to PC instead. A nice step up from consoles, at a good price/ performance ratio.

So yeah, not to save the people they have left. More like making the step into a PC space more accessible, with showing them a MAJOR benefit of PC.

for me the only problem is that because my ps5 isnt primary i cant play couch co-op games online (like sports games for example) with a second account in my console. i am paying ps plus almost exclusevily for the monthly games and because after all these year the library from the membership is big and needed from time to time. the thing i hate most with ps plus is that the discounts are not offered to current member, which is a disgusting tactic from sony.

@Hesse I am of the same opinion on this. Hell, I barely play online, and I still pay for PS Plus because the free games are a fun surprise, and I do play a lot of them

If Xbox drop the cost then Sony will too, they're not stupid lol

@RobN Microsoft merged their 'Xbox' Console Gaming division into Microsoft about a decade ago and since then, Xbox has been their entire Gaming brand.

Microsoft started as a PC ONLY developer, making games for their Windows platform - games like Flight Simulator for example, one of their oldest IP's and older than 'Xbox'

However, about 25yrs ago, PC gaming was extremely niche as many different Graphics cards were all being developed to deliver 3D gaming so MS decided to 'neglect' their PC Platform to focus on mainstream affordable gaming, a way to make their DirectX API essential for devs who had to use it for their Console and so would use it for PC. That's how Xbox got its name - DirectX in a Box.

Merging into MS about a decade ago though killed Xbox Console sales as 'Competition' to Sony/Nintendo Consoles as that meant ALL their games would now release on BOTH their Platforms - their 'neglected' PC platform and Console.When they announced ALL games coming to PC Day/Date back then, EVERYONE said 'Why buy an Xbox when Xbox is on PC?' yet still struggle to comprehend why Xbox hardware doesn't sell like other Consoles or why MS claim PC's as part of their 'Xbox' ecosystem despite Xbox being their gaming Brand. However, it also meant with the full might of MS backing and making games for their PC, Console and Cloud Platforms, MS went on a massive gaming expansion spree, buying up Studios etc...

Of course Xbox PC doesn't play Xbox Console versions or ice versa, but that's why you have Game Pass on BOTH their Xbox Platforms, both locked to Xbox and MS store. Also why Play Anywhere and Smart Delivery give you both the Xbox PC and Console versions and deliver the correct version for whatever 'Xbox' platform you are on.

3rd Party Published multi-platform games are NEVER Xbox or Playstation games as they are owned entirely by the Pub/Dev and chose to release a version for your specific Platform. However, if you buy a Xbox game on a 3rd Party Platform, like Playstation or Steam, you are contributing to Xbox revenue and engagement - you are a Microsoft customer who bought their product...

Like you say, Both a PC and Xbox both have Microsoft OS driving the Hardware, both have MS's DirectX in a Box (so both Xbox) - but is a 'different' Xbox platform and the PC is also open to 3rd Party Gaming Platforms too - not locked only to MS's store/gaming Platform..

If you stopped paying for plus you could possibly say goodbye to 12 years of 'free' games if you lose the sub. Hopefully they'd just award you the games, but it's Sony after all.

I already say. Play online should not cost anything! We play they games so they want us playing right?! So... no pay!

For now we only hear leaks, rumors and some expectations. Truth is, I don't know yet.

This generation I own all of them: PS5, XSX, Switch and only passed on PC few years ago.
If MS delivers on their promises like Steam, Epic, GOG and other shops availability on their console as well as PC games running and free multiplayer... I can see myself buying their Box assuming the max price to be around $1500.
If it happens I would just pass on PS6, and just keep the Switch.

Even though I don't have a PC for few years, I often buy games at Steam or others to my library there so finally would have some equipment to run it. Also waiting a year or so for Sony to release their games on a Steam isn't a problem. Can wait. PC games are just cheaper to buy as well.

@Neither_scene My car is from 2010 the Lights work fine without then being automatic making a non problem and making you pay for the sollition. Easy fix dont buy a VW next time or if you buy them tell them to leave out the option.

Doesn't effect me I don't care for online. So said unsure as 'follow suit' doesn't really fit my answer at all. I don't play free to play games because the content isn't compelling, don't care for skins, don't care for eh content drops. I want quality and quality isn't in free to play games, or other slop so why would I bother.

Do people care for cloud storage via PS+? The extra games per month? Beta access or other things? Or just online?

For server upkeep, additional money from customers or other reasons sure. Whatever they structure the other tiers for the services for Gamepass, PS+ and more. But how do they entice people to go over to it at all either?

What do they do about the free games on Essential tier then? Do people have to play online? Socialize? Have human competition games to play? Eh doesn't matter to me but I just looking at the service from different angles.

Bot mode sure, doesn't need PS+ at all. Co-op split screen sure but no PS+ at all. No online co-op nonsense.

But online modes nah. Give me singleplayer any day.

I look at games with internet DRM and no PS+/etc. services from time to time but not into them, but GT Sport/7/Outriders are fine games, not great but still.

I buy my digital PS+ Premium games individually, I don't sub. So I don't have to care about them at all.

Online to me has less interesting modes or content over the years and even then I don't see much point I don't get a thrill out of it the way I do mechanics or level design well crafted, aka older games not modern singleplayer slop made to be accessible, familiar, boring content, themes, settings, basic human/animal movesets and garbage skill trees/other nonsense and bland with graphics/dialogue focus.

Gameplay first any day. Or genres with that focus any day. Story can be there but not a selling point too far as the 'only reason' to and sub par to bad gameplay or else no purchase.

Nobody likes to be paying for online if they get a cheaper option and let me back up my saves on PS5 and all the rest ill be really happy.

It’s absolute lunacy that a corporation ever tried charging you to use your own internet service in the first place. To hell with Microsoft for starting in on this. Like every other corporation isn’t trying to gouge you for everything. Come on.

I still think it's tight of Sony to not allow USB saves for PS5 games but are still fine with the PS4 saves (on PS4 or PS5).
Only tend to use PS+ for game saves and occasional drops into Nirn on ESO.

@RoomWithaMoose Sorry, for the late reply! Busy weekend.

I think there are a few problems with looking at it based on what type of game it is even with the required payment.

1. The subscription itself could have scored you the very game you're playing multiplayer with making that entire cost included. Not even including all the other games you'd get, you wouldn't need much of this to add up and make it worth it in the end.

2. Sony themselves have released some of their own fully multiplayer games at around $40 bucks new. Not likely to always be the case, but that's a pretty big deal for a new game in general. We could jokingly say they shaved off the single player price.

3. The folks on Xbox have been doing this since the very first console with both fully multiplayer games or games known for people hopping on multiplayer asap even with a single player experience on the side. This is arguably the loop for any popular and/or competitive multiplayer game, even with the appreciation of having a single player included.

Bonus: Again-- the benefits didn't even exist when people were paying just to play online on Xbox for 2 entire generations. Just the online experience the platform has and that's it. And yet people talk favorably about those times. By comparison, PSN had a LOT of issues during PS3, the era where online was free. Heck, they even got hacked. Having an investment for an online experience forces these companies to uphold some level of quality. They have their own network to worry about in which certain level of things are meant to be guaranteed. Might even be part of the reason why the old stores are still up.

I dont think they will follow if Xbox stops charging.

I say that because they charge us for cloud save something that is free on Steam and on Xbox.

I’m not happy paying for multiplayer at all but I don’t think Sony would drop it. People didn’t abandon Xbox 360 for PS3 online. They happily supported it. So I don’t think Sony will need to worry about it.

But I do think they should drop it. And only charge for PS+ for the extras including providing a great service with some bonuses.

With free to play games not requiring it, I think they could increase their numbers by making it free. Not everyone wants to pay for online so they stick to single player. But if it was free then maybe they will be more numbers for engagement.

@_Nightsever_
1. That's all fine and good. But if I'm paying to buy a game, I should have access to the full experience. You're basically saying being a patient, savvy consumer justifies companies paywalling essential features.

2. The budget releases are kinda nice in this respect. It would make more sense if, for something like Battlefield 6, the single-player and multiplayer experiences were different purchases. Say $30 for SP, and $40 for MP. That would be cool. But, regardless, lower prices doesn't change the fact that we're stripping a game's functionality and hiding it behind subscription services. Helldivers 2 is essentially worthless without a PS+ sub, and that's a little scummy.

3. I'm not too bothered by Sony and Microsoft charging for multiplayer in the past. I mean, it's still lame, and I think that any game with multiplayer as its main selling point should have circumvented the sub requirement. But I understand that, back then, it didn't really make sense for either of them to build a comprehensive multiplayer infrastructure without financial inventive.

But that was back then; nowadays, Xbox Live and PSN have grown into a full-ass suite of services and perks. They don't sell themselves on online play — they don't need to. So why do gamers uninterested in their features get denied full-functionality for the games they outright buy? Also, unlike then, now half of games are made either exclusively for online play or primarily for it. And multiplayer on PC has exploded in popularity, and has remained entirely free. There are less and less reasons to gatekeep online multiplayer.

Even the whole, "they charge to uphold quality," argument feels moot at this point. It really always felt moot, as I doubt charging for online play would've made Sony's unprecedented 2011 hack fallout any less severe. Cybersecurity isn't really a problem you can solve by just throwing money at it. But, ignoring that, they can still make enough money to support their online efforts through all their service's benefits and perks. I'm sure the majority of people on this site would stay subbed to PS+ if they made online free, as I'm sure the majority of GamePass subscribers don't sub for access to online play. NSO is the only one I subscribe to, and that's mostly because of Nintendo Music and Nintendo Classics; even an objectively worse service offers enough to be worthwhile divorced from multiplayer access.

@RoomWithaMoose
I wouldn't say the patience has too much to do with it. The idea is to use it in tandem with your usual gaming purchases and benefiting whenever it is works out. Not always meant to be used for your most desired games but maybe games you simply didn't get to or happen to be on there day one. Even with all the focus on gamepass offering games day one, PS+ absolutely have their cases of this as well.

Maybe for the first Xbox we could say it was about things just starting but people continued to not have an issue with paying for subs on the 360. Who even knows how long this could have gone on had Sony not decided to add games to the mix.

Some performance numbers are very innate to certain platforms. Sure PC doesn't have a sub fee to play online, but also most people have a PC in general. Nintendo games sell like crazy and chart all the time, but they also have a very family friendly fanbase where some purchase are almost dutiful with kids. But I think when we're talking about how multiplayer exploded, there are other reasons. The crossplay aspect added more to PC than you think. They've been paired with Sony for the longest but not with the numbers everyone has now. That was thanks to how open crossplay got towards the end of last generation. We also got another boom to the hobby in general with Covid. Everyone experienced a major growth.

NSO has a long way to go to compare as they aren't covering a good deal of their previous gen's games still and are probably the worst example of online quality. In fact, these guys have closed their stores multiple times making some purchases feel like dejavu sooner than later. They make probably the worst argument for charging less and I think people would jump at the chance to get some of their games cheaper as some almost never drop in price to begin with. I also don't think something as easily accessible as music counts quite as heavily here, but if we're saying that, couldn't we count Sony Pictures Core being included in Plus?

The main thing is Nintendo's competition at least allows people to either pop in their old games or have their network remember that they made the purchase all those years ago and in some cases, offer some of those games for free because of it. All that without a sub to begin with. People also still have all the games they added to their library from 2 generations ago through the subscription service as well. Not only that, but their trophies and gamerscore are tracked too, even after all this time. That's a lot to keep for around 20 years and on some platforms people don't even own anymore.

@_Nightsever_ I feel like there's some misunderstands happening here. I'm not saying PS+ isn't worth it. Quite the contrary; I'm saying it's so worth it, they don't need to gatekeep multiplayer to have a successful subscription.

And all these comparisons between the big 3's offerings is irrelevant to me. I'm not saying NSO is better than PS+ or GP just because I pay for it. I think all of these are compelling services — Nintendo's is the worst, I just happen to value its offerings for its price. But they're all s***ty in the sense that they gatekeep online play.

@RoomWithaMoose
That's fair! But as cool as it would be to have it free again, they weren't exactly making a lot when it was either. We can both talk about how it's worth in value without the requirement for multiplayer now, but I don't think they're quite at the point where they can rely on the general public for the support either. The goodwill shift could go a long way now that all consoles are doing this... but they definitely have more to lose suddenly dropping something that has not only worked for others before them, but is very clearly an important part to their stability.

The leverage part is very important to the sustainability of all. I DO get seeing it as scummy leverage, but I feel like Microsoft kind of showed us what giving too much of a good deal does when you have the responsibility of a company that makes platform/games, and owns studios, have to put out physical media, etc in this day and age. Fewer results, even more shut downs... and the reckless spending didn't help either. PC, or rather digital distributors like Steam don't have to deal with that kind of stuff very often.

@Striker21 right by increasing the game pass price i.e. instead of paying for online directly You pay for it indirectly ....