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.
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.
The truth is nobody actually WANTS or NEEDS a ps6 now or in 2027. Will people buy day one sure? But, not because they NEED it but because they are early adopters or want to be the first on the block to get it.
As far as the adoption rate, the install base of the ps5 is pretty solid. All Sony has to do is what has been going on for a long time. When the ps6 is released, ALL games or at least the premium games get released only for the ps6. It’s worked for a long time and nobody will be mad at that. We all know if want or need what the new game offers then you buy the device needed to play it, simple.
As far as Sony gaming going forward and into the next gen, until Sony lands a couple of solid live service games of it’s own, it will continue to slow release big first party titles. With the amount of money that is being made from these sorts of titles unfortunately Sony would be crazy not to pursue them. That being said, they should put the correct studio’s on them and not put all studio’s on them.
I would like to know why capcom continues to sell physical copies of all mega man collections for ps4 but stopped selling or making available physical copies of the Mega Man Legacy collection for ps4. The only way to get a new copy is on fleabay. You know what that means. No thanks. Makes no sense.
The difference here is that we are to believe they purposely did not implement local co-op because THEY believe it would break the immersion during split-screen. You lose, they win. Oh, wait. I guess we’ll see. Crazy I get it especially if you read my post above.
This post may not get very many eyes on it especially if this article is not popular, but these type of games just bring up a bigger problem with the fact that online play is monotized. (I know microsoft does it as well.). Sure you get a friend pass but even if you have a “friend” or person you know that you would like to play with they both have to pay for online play in order to do it.
From a development perspective I understand what their trying to do but from a buyer standpoint you just made it a bigger problem at the buyer’s expense. Try telling a buyer that we could of put in co-op but because we didn’t feel that it fit, you will need two system’s and pay for online twice in order to enjoy the way YOU want to.
This isn’t the first game with this issue and I know that, but being so many years into online gaming, it’s time to stop monotized online play. Enough money has been made from online play and by now there are many other ways to add value and help keep these “subscriptions” a need for consumers. (I won’t mention ideas here. This can be part of a future article)
Why allow the monotization of online play be the gateway between consumers and the monotization of online multiplayer features, etc. There’s a lot of money to be made from consumer’s that don’t currently play multiplayer games because the lowest subscription package doesn’t have enough value.
I have no doubt this game will be a success and that’s great. I just think it opens up a much bigger conversation to be had.
Most likely this will get lost in the many comments here but I believe it’s important.
I just wanted to say it’s a real shame the state of the industry. From where its been to where it is, it’s just ridiculous. I’m trying not to read to much in to this, but I feel like we’ve already seen it from Xbox, so how can anyone second guess.
Xbox goes third party and users are not happy. Understandable. Xbox doesn’t care and is in third place anyway. Based on that and the recent ABK deal, it makes some sense to go third party.
Fast forward to now, and Sony seems to be looking to do the same thing. Although many here seem to think it may only be live service games (I hope you’re right), I fear like Xbox, it will eventually be most first party games at some point.
What I don’t understand is that despite obvious issues with ps, they are above Xbox regarding their console. What incentive does Sony really think they have bowing down to Xbox’s level?
Some issues: 1)Xbox console/platform minus gamepass is dying 2)Xbox users don’t BUY games 3)Gamepass in its current form most likely won’t last a) most devs (not all) don’t like it and don’t want to support it b) will likely go up in price shortly
They can probably just take a look at how many Helldivers 2 they sell to get an idea of future possible profit from the Xbox side.
So again, I don’t see the upside. As someone above mentioned something similar, my analogy is, Xbox gives the winning team a free ball to score, and Sony returns it to the opponent’s goal and gives them the point. So not only does Sony go super light on games so far this gen (a choice they made due to mostly focusing on live service games) but on top of that gives their users the middle finger and bows down. What kind of logic is that? The company doing better doesn’t take a knee to the loser.
Seems like the only company that actually has a plan going forward is Nintendo even though their platform is second tier (performance-wise).
Comments 7
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
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.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
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.
Re: Talking Point: PS6 In 2027 - How Do You Feel About Sony's Next-Gen Console?
The truth is nobody actually WANTS or NEEDS a ps6 now or in 2027. Will people buy day one sure? But, not because they NEED it but because they are early adopters or want to be the first on the block to get it.
As far as the adoption rate, the install base of the ps5 is pretty solid. All Sony has to do is what has been going on for a long time. When the ps6 is released, ALL games or at least the premium games get released only for the ps6. It’s worked for a long time and nobody will be mad at that. We all know if want or need what the new game offers then you buy the device needed to play it, simple.
As far as Sony gaming going forward and into the next gen, until Sony lands a couple of solid live service games of it’s own, it will continue to slow release big first party titles. With the amount of money that is being made from these sorts of titles unfortunately Sony would be crazy not to pursue them. That being said, they should put the correct studio’s on them and not put all studio’s on them.
Re: An Unthinkable Amount of Mega Man Is Coming to PS5, PS4 in New Star Force Collection
I would like to know why capcom continues to sell physical copies of all mega man collections for ps4 but stopped selling or making available physical copies of the Mega Man Legacy collection for ps4. The only way to get a new copy is on fleabay. You know what that means. No thanks. Makes no sense.
Re: Preview: Teamwork Is the True Terror of Little Nightmares 3
@SuntannedDuck2
The difference here is that we are to believe they purposely did not implement local co-op because THEY believe it would break the immersion during split-screen. You lose, they win. Oh, wait. I guess we’ll see. Crazy I get it especially if you read my post above.
Re: Preview: Teamwork Is the True Terror of Little Nightmares 3
This post may not get very many eyes on it especially if this article is not popular, but these type of games just bring up a bigger problem with the fact that online play is monotized. (I know microsoft does it as well.). Sure you get a friend pass but even if you have a “friend” or person you know that you would like to play with they both have to pay for online play in order to do it.
From a development perspective I understand what their trying to do but from a buyer standpoint you just made it a bigger problem at the buyer’s expense. Try telling a buyer that we could of put in co-op but because we didn’t feel that it fit, you will need two system’s and pay for online twice in order to enjoy the way YOU want to.
This isn’t the first game with this issue and I know that, but being so many years into online gaming, it’s time to stop monotized online play. Enough money has been made from online play and by now there are many other ways to add value and help keep these “subscriptions” a need for consumers. (I won’t mention ideas here. This can be part of a future article)
Why allow the monotization of online play be the gateway between consumers and the monotization of online multiplayer features, etc. There’s a lot of money to be made from consumer’s that don’t currently play multiplayer games because the lowest subscription package doesn’t have enough value.
I have no doubt this game will be a success and that’s great. I just think it opens up a much bigger conversation to be had.
Re: Sony Job Listing Implies More PS5 Exclusives Will Be Ported to Xbox, Nintendo
Most likely this will get lost in the many comments here but I believe it’s important.
I just wanted to say it’s a real shame the state of the industry. From where its been to where it is, it’s just ridiculous. I’m trying not to read to much in to this, but I feel like we’ve already seen it from Xbox, so how can anyone second guess.
Xbox goes third party and users are not happy. Understandable. Xbox doesn’t care and is in third place anyway. Based on that and the recent ABK deal, it makes some sense to go third party.
Fast forward to now, and Sony seems to be looking to do the same thing. Although many here seem to think it may only be live service games (I hope you’re right), I fear like Xbox, it will eventually be most first party games at some point.
What I don’t understand is that despite obvious issues with ps, they are above Xbox regarding their console. What incentive does Sony really think they have bowing down to Xbox’s level?
Some issues:
1)Xbox console/platform minus gamepass is dying
2)Xbox users don’t BUY games
3)Gamepass in its current form most likely won’t last
a) most devs (not all) don’t like it and don’t want to support it
b) will likely go up in price shortly
They can probably just take a look at how many Helldivers 2 they sell to get an idea of future possible profit from the Xbox side.
So again, I don’t see the upside. As someone above mentioned something similar, my analogy is, Xbox gives the winning team a free ball to score, and Sony returns it to the opponent’s goal and gives them the point. So not only does Sony go super light on games so far this gen (a choice they made due to mostly focusing on live service games) but on top of that gives their users the middle finger and bows down. What kind of logic is that? The company doing better doesn’t take a knee to the loser.
Seems like the only company that actually has a plan going forward is Nintendo even though their platform is second tier (performance-wise).