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.
Yeah I don’t buy it. Nintendo does free across multiple hardware then when they saw they were the only one decided they’d start taking money too, since it is in a companies nature to maximize profits exponentially.
And then there’s Steam. Also in the hardware business and hosting games and mods and a bunch of other services even Epic with their Fortnite money hasn’t matched. Yet online is free.
You just sound like a consumer who iust accepts whatever methods companies try to exploit consumers and defend as necessary. More a stockholder than a consumer.
You don’t buy… the fact that infrastructure that has to scale to millions of users globally, and the salaries of the many employees who maintain it cost money…? Buddy that shit costs literal millions a year.
Nintendos online user services were never free. They went from not having them, to having them and charging money.
And yes Steam is eating a metric shit ton of costs to give you those services for free. Because PCs are an open platform, they have to compete to keep you on their storefront. They eat all those costs because you don’t have to buy new hardware in order to switch.
These are very, very simple concepts you’re failing to grasp.
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.
Yeah I don’t buy it. Nintendo does free across multiple hardware then when they saw they were the only one decided they’d start taking money too, since it is in a companies nature to maximize profits exponentially.
And then there’s Steam. Also in the hardware business and hosting games and mods and a bunch of other services even Epic with their Fortnite money hasn’t matched. Yet online is free.
You just sound like a consumer who iust accepts whatever methods companies try to exploit consumers and defend as necessary. More a stockholder than a consumer.
You don’t buy… the fact that infrastructure that has to scale to millions of users globally, and the salaries of the many employees who maintain it cost money…? Buddy that shit costs literal millions a year.
Nintendos online user services were never free. They went from not having them, to having them and charging money.
And yes Steam is eating a metric shit ton of costs to give you those services for free. Because PCs are an open platform, they have to compete to keep you on their storefront. They eat all those costs because you don’t have to buy new hardware in order to switch.
These are very, very simple concepts you’re failing to grasp.