I still wonder why console players allowed their online services to require subscriptions in the first place.
Because back in the days of original Xbox and 360, it was a better service than what you got for free elsewhere.
That, and it was slightly more justifiable when these companies were first setting up and operating networks for the services and matchmaking. Economies of scale should have nullified that by now, though.
The other big one I don't see people mentioning, but that I remember clearly, was that if you wanted to use Netflix on 360, you had to pay for Live. I think that, above anything else in my friend group, was the move that normalized paying for online services on a console.
i miss when you could watch netflix with your avatar and invite friends to watch with you. only got to do it one time ever
Idk about with your avatar, but I still have movie nights with friends that I stream things to over Discord and Emby (like plex)
I literally just finished a "movie classic" night with a friend in New York where we watched ALIENS together and chatted about how awesome Sigourney Weaver's performance is. 👏 🍿
It might be interesting to do it with little Wii characters, but we had fun regardless.
yeah xbox used to have a feature where you watch netflix with a friend, and it even had theater seats and your avatar at the bottom of the screen and you could do emotes and stuff
I don't think it was a choice. Xbox did it first and that's why I bought a ps3. Then sony introduced it. Then nintendo. It's still less expensive than a PC hobby. Consumers don't have much say in what these companies do or how they operate.
It’s still less expensive than a PC hobby
Only if you plan on either never paying for an online sub for the console or paying for an online sub for less than 5 years on the console, and also take into consideration that a PC can both game and be a computer you can use for other things.
A gaming PC has a higher upfront cost, but it’s a better long-term value. Let’s say you buy a PS5 for $500, and then pay for 5 years of PS+ for the old price, $60. That’s $800 for a friggin console already, but let’s also consider that most people either have a laptop or a tablet for doing computer-related tasks. Reasonable people would pay probably somewhere in the $400-$600 range, but let’s give the console a chance and say we got a $400 laptop. That’s $1200 now.
Using that $1200 as a budget, you can get a computer with a 4060ti, a 12th gen i5, a 1TB NVME SSD, and 16GB RAM for around $1100. Note that, say, 5 years down the line from buying this PC, you can just swap in and out parts as you want and be able to sell old parts for some money back, so staying up-to-date to play whatever current games can be cheaper too depending on the part prices.
Also anecdotally parts seem to be lasting much longer than they used to. Maybe I'm just playing fewer games, maybe I care about graphics less, or maybe there actually is a technical reason but in the early 00s when I first started building computers I was essentially forced to upgrade about every 2 or 3 years but now I'm still running on my 7 year old desktop with a 1070 -- I was going to upgrade the graphics card but the crypto mining boom priced me out and lo and behold I'm still able to play whatever I want with nary a difficulty. Even Baldur's Gate 3 runs just fine, with a little chugging.
The percentage of the industry that can afford to push modern graphics to their limit has only shrunk over time as the development time required to make games that taxing has increased. That's why most of what you play isn't particularly high-spec.
Need to add a good quality mouse and keyboard to your numbers at minimum. Consoles come with controllers.
Should also add a $99 Windows license too.
Ok. Logitech G203 for $20 and a Redragon K552 for $45 - a tiny bit cheaper than a PS5 controller which retails at $70 before tax.
Windows you can literally get for free from Microsoft directly. You’re basically paying a license to get rid of the “Activate Windows” bit and to be able to change wallpapers, but functionally you can play games and do computer things with an unactivated Windows license. You can also opt to play on Linux instead since Steam offers Proton with their Linux version, and you can also use WINE for games that won’t run on Proton. Linux is also free.
Those are not in the same quality tier at all, at least include a wireless rechargeable mouse.
Consoles don’t have licensing issues with their OS. You can’t run every PC game issue free on steam OS or Linux.
You know, you see thus argument every so often online. I've had an excellent and subscription free Linux gaming experience over the last three years. If you enjoy console gaming and getting nickel and dimed for increasingly shitty online services then power to you
Now you’re just arguing in bad faith lol.
If you want a mouse with a good sensor for competitive games and a linear switch mechanical keyboard with NKRO, those are generally the two best entry-level options. Rechargeable wireless mice can be a bit pricey, which is why I’m assuming you used a vague descriptor of “quality” and specifically mentioned it just for the sake of being arbitrarily on par with what a PS5 offers. But if you want a good budget option for a wireless gaming mouse, you can with a Logitch G305 for around $50.
As for the OS stuff, that’s a good point, and it’s true - if you’re talking about 5 or so years ago. Once Steam said “hey, we’re integrating Proton into our Linux version of Steam”, it’s been leaps and bounds in improvements for Linux gaming. By the way, fun fact: the PS4 used FreeBSD for the system’s OS which is based off Unix - and surprise, Linux is also based off Unix. Wouldn’t be surprised if the PS5 OS is also based on FreeBSD.
I think this debate can get lost in the numbers when it's more about the user. For some people that upfront cost is going to make sense, for others it won't. The math isn't the hard part. Specifically though, a PC hobby isn't exactly a cheap hobby.
It’s still less expensive than a PC hobby
just with the sales and free online/cloudsaves PCs are cheaper in the long run
And mods are an added value, we can even include fanmade patches that fix what developers don't into that added value
Consumers don’t have much say in what these companies do or how they operate.
Yes, they do. Microsoft tried to incorporate Xbox live onto PC and it was a failure because PC consumers didn't bought it
The same goes with paid mods, Valve and Bethesda tried to make people buy mods and it was rejected by the consumer so the have to backtrack.
Consumers have all the power in their wallet they decide what course the companies take. If a company does something that goes against your interests as consumer is as easy as stop giving them money, if you hurt them economically, they'll have to go back to the business model that gave them profits (this works only if the average consumer is intelligent enough to protect their own interest/rights)
Used or loaned games (provided you have libraries offering them in your area) are still a huge benefit for (most, ie physical media "enabled") consoles.
The subscription model is broken by default, regardless of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, and is only good and cheap until it isn't anymore.
Agreed that consumers have a say, to some extent, however some are too far "into the ecosystem" to either care or be willing to boycott or make a change that would inconvenience them, so they'd rather give in.
100% agree with that, but even then the sharing of physical media seems like it’s being slowly replaced with sharing digital libraries. PS4 allows a hokey way of sharing libraries between two people, and Steam does offer a similar janky way of sharing libraries between multiple people. With GOG, you should be able to download a standalone installer on a USB and then give that to a friend (which now I think about it, is the PC equivalent of lending your friend the disc lol).
Wondering how long it will be until people go “remember when we used to share discs with each other?”
just with the sales and free online/cloudsaves PCs are cheaper in the long run
This may be true, but then i think this is just annother example of how it is more expensive to be poor. Even if PCs are cheaper in the long run, it's hard to scrounge up the $1000+ upfront to buy a worthwhile PC if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck. Over 60% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. If you are living that way, it's much easier to come up with the $300-500 for a console (in the US, that's an average tax refund amount), and then the $15 a month for gamepass/PS plus. And don't tell me you can buy a lowend PC for that price - any PC you buy for $500 is gonna play games worse than the comparable console.
In cases where our only power is in our wallet, people with bigger wallets will be the only ones with actual power.
If you use your PC for anything other than gaming then it's not more expensive.
Laptop + Console costs about the same as a Desktop PC. The MacBook + Console combo I see a lot is even more expensive than a PC.
You might pay for a subscription-based future, but I will stay on PC where this sort of nonsense is not tolerated.
I'll never understand how console peeps can justify paying for online access as a necessary thing.
Coming from someone whos never had to play for online play, i understand it cause the main driving force for someone to get x console over p console is what their friends have. The amount of ppl who only own a playstation to play COD with their friends is staggering, and moving all their friends to pc is a big task.
They'll try again. Be wary.
I’ll stay on NES where once you get a game that’s the game, bugs and all. No DLC, expansion, nothing. That’s the game.
just get a shitty computer tbh, worse graphics is fine actually.
I realized the only game I play online is FFXIV, which doesn't require PS+. I almost never play the "free" games they add to the service, and spend a non-zero amount of time browsing said free games in an effort to find something to play rather than something in my backlog. So I just canceled.
My membership is up in December and I doubt I'll even notice when it's gone.
What's the point of PS Plus anyway? What multiplayer games on PS5 cannot be played on PC?
The point is to get the GamePass like tier.
For the price of 2 games (or 1 and a half if it goes on sale, and it always did before), you can game all year. I've had mine for a year now, and not bought a game for it yet (apart from GoW Ragnarok which came bundled with it, and likely BG3 next week).
The top tier is kind of a bust. I picked it up because I thought I might play those PS1/2 games but I haven't used that at all. There's plenty of PS4 and 5 games still to play, and you can emulate up to PS3 on PC quite easily if you want to play old stuff. There's scant few PS1 games anyway. It's far from comprehensive. They should have done so much better here.
This. And if you have kids that just want a large catalogue of random games, it’s perfect.
Doesn’t seem many people commenting here like the idea. But for me personally, and my family situation, saves me heaps of money.
Yeah my kids don't have gaming PCs (yet?) but have fun playing through a bunch of the plus stuff when they are not on Minecraft or (shudder) Roblox on their tablets.
Depending on the tier you also get a library of free games which is honestly kinda nice, but that's pretty much it.
I was going to consider Assassin's Creed Mirage on PC instead of PS5. Then they announced it wouldn't be available on Steam. Now I won't consider it on PC and likely won't get it at all in any format.
There are reasons PC gaming is still stupid, and it's mostly various companies fault.
Yeah that’s on Ubisoft. Third party launchers are always stupid. I bought Splinter Cell Blacklist a while ago and couldn’t get it to act right with their stupid Ubisoft connect or Uplay or whatever so I just returned it.
But the worst is how I bought splinter cell conviction years ago via steam, and can’t even play it anymore because of how they shittily implemented their DRM/launcher. Not buying any more games from them. Used to be my favorite dev back in the day.
Pirates get a better experience than paying customers with old Ubisoft games
We're not really headed to a subscription-based future. People like Game Pass, but it has no exclusive content. Nintendo's the only one trying to make a catalog of games exclusive to their service, but they're all retro games, and Nintendo can get bent, because we can all pirate and emulate those games better than Nintendo can rent them to us. They could get be getting some revenue from actually selling those old games to customers in the places they want to play those games, but Nintendo isn't interested in that. If this particular situation gets worse, then I might be worried. There's just too much diversity in the game industry for this to be a threat. There's no central cartel or representative group for games the way there is in movies and music to dictate those markets away from what the customer actually wants. In video games, you can switch to Xbox or, more likely, PC when Sony raises prices. PCs have gotten easier, and they've always been more open, and I think the gaming market has demonstrated that they value the openness.
Nope. I did not subscribe to PS+ and probably never will unless I really want to play an online game there, which I find unnecessary at this point.
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.