Platform infrastructure like PSN costs an inordinate amount of money. People owning games they paid for does not cost you any money.you already made your money back by selling them the ownership.
Sounds like excuses when PS3 and Nintendo Wii, WiiU, and Nintendo DS had free multiplayer and it was after Sony decided to start charging Nintendo also jumped onboard because they saw peope like you were easy to take their money.
I don’t even know why you’d have a problem with Xbox charging more for their subscription when you already argue for paid online.
Yes, charging customers for a product that costs you money to maintain is an excuse, and a valid one. Sony and Nintendo were giving away an expensive service for free to the user. It was generous, and a way to reduce friction with onboarding new users.
They jumped on board because maintaining that infrastructure has become exponentially more expensive to maintain today than it was 20 years ago.
I don’t even know why you’d have a problem with Xbox charging more for their subscription when you already argue for paid online.
Because unlike paid user services, game ownership is not something that costs them any money. They aren’t recouping their costs for a service they provide, it’s just rentseeking.
I don’t mind subscriptions for ongoing infrastructure as much. My problem is with using a subscription to replace ownership.
If they are charging to multiplayer why wouldn’t they want to replace ownership too so they get money every month.
Platform infrastructure like PSN costs an inordinate amount of money. People owning games they paid for does not cost you any money.you already made your money back by selling them the ownership.
Sounds like excuses when PS3 and Nintendo Wii, WiiU, and Nintendo DS had free multiplayer and it was after Sony decided to start charging Nintendo also jumped onboard because they saw peope like you were easy to take their money.
I don’t even know why you’d have a problem with Xbox charging more for their subscription when you already argue for paid online.
Yes, charging customers for a product that costs you money to maintain is an excuse, and a valid one. Sony and Nintendo were giving away an expensive service for free to the user. It was generous, and a way to reduce friction with onboarding new users.
They jumped on board because maintaining that infrastructure has become exponentially more expensive to maintain today than it was 20 years ago.
Because unlike paid user services, game ownership is not something that costs them any money. They aren’t recouping their costs for a service they provide, it’s just rentseeking.