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.
If they’re young enough, they’ve never known any different.
I’ve never known any different but it still always felt like paying twice to the Internet to me. My first console with online connection was an Xbox which required Live. Before that they just didn’t have any network connectivity at all.
PS2 and GameCube had network adapter for MMOs.
My parents never would have got me something like that just for one or two games.
I know, I got the GC adapter hoping to have multiplayer Mario or Metroid games. So imagine my surprise when those never came.(I was more PC gamer back then and multiplayer is already plenty.)
True, I paid for it on the 360 back in the day to play Gears and Rainbow 6 Vegas. Haven’t since I’ve had a PC.
It’s also the only option if you want to play online with friends and don’t have an expensive PC.
PC is cheaper in the long term though. Or tryna Steam Deck at least.
Right, but as so many other threads have acknowledged, not everyone is capable of paying a large upfront cost to save them in the long-term. That’s one example of why it’s more expensive to be broke. That’s why I’m responding to these comments - it’s not all ignorance or stupidity; people are broke out here.
That’s very true. Being poor is expensive.
Cloud gaming is where it’s at. $10/month gets you access to an enterprise class rig with a 3080 card.
$10
I’m assuming you’re talking about GeForce Now? If so, don’t they have the problem of being able to play only limited number of games?
Not every game is available, but lots are, including game pass if you have that.
I just checked this page and none of the games that I’m playing currently are on it (Diablo 4, Elden Ring, God of War, Jedi Survivor etc). It’s not like the games I’m playing are obscure or brand new either. Not to mention some of the console exclusives that I’m also playing, like TotK on the Switch and Horizon FW on the PS5, but of course, I understand that the cloud provider can do nothing about that.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite enthusiastic about cloud gaming as well and looked seriously into it a while ago, because I wanted to upgrade my PC but the upgrade costs were looking pretty high (this was during the peak of the supply chain issues during COVID), also I wanted to break out of the constant and expensive upgrade cycles.
But everything I looked at had some or the other limitation, either they didn’t have the games that I was playing, or the service wasn’t available in my country (eg Shadow PC), or it didn’t allow you to bring your own games (Stadia), or it was working out to be too expensive (Azure VM), or had other limitations such as not supporting ultra-wide resolutions at 60+ FPS. I think for me, being able to play my own games is a big fan requirement for it to work, and the pricing of things like Shadow could work out for me, but those sort of services have limited availability, and rolling your own VM on a public cloud can turn very expensive if you’re a heavy gamer, as I’ve experienced first-hand in Azure.
Therefore, IMO, cloud gaming, while is the future, just isn’t there yet.
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.
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.
Until hardware manufacturers like Nvidia and Intel start getting thirsty and lock features behind a subscription :/ Only $10.99 a month to use those RTX cores, $7.99 for DLSS.
… Humble monthly? Game pass? EA play? Even PS Plus has subscriptions for streaming to a PC. People buy these things a lot. You can try to excuse Humble monthly but there are far more game pass players than Humble monthly ones. Either way, you can pretend that PC doesn’t tolerate this nonsense but many people are playing Starfield on Game Pass this month. PC players already tolerate this and in some cases, welcome it.
Those aren’t the same or similar. Those are options in addition to buying that allow access to a large library of games (except humble, which is just buying games). They aren’t “pay this subscription or you can’t play the game you bought”.
Ps plus is not that either.
Yes, it is exactly that.
If you buy a multiplayer game and stop paying for plus, you cannot play any more.
Only on the console. This goes for Xbox as well. It’s not really subscription games but instead subscription drm you are upset at.
just get a shitty computer tbh, worse graphics is fine actually.
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.
Depending on the tier you also get a library of free games which is honestly kinda nice, but that’s pretty much it.
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.
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
Pirates get a better experience than paying customers with
oldUbisoft gamesBecause they don’t have to use Uplay
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.
Well, not from me. When money’s tight, shit like this is the first to go. I have no issues skipping multiplayer on my PS system.
deleted by creator
