Why is it ok for companies to charge you to play online?

>>389182021
they ((((need)))) money to pay for servers

>>389182021
Honestly, it's not. Much like politics, Europeans should have supported us more when we were having our price hike. America merely served as a testing ground for the eventual European price gouging. But Euros spoke up so late after our change, that they received almost no sympathy from us.

American gamers failed to support Canada, when Amazon was decimating their Prime benefits, and now look what is happening to us. No discounts for Limited Editions and No two week discount on new games. Once they cut the 20% off discount for pre-orders, I'm exclusively buying from Best Buy. My poor gastank.

free games

Because retards are willing to pay for it.

>>389182021
i rarely play online, i just have ps plus because of the free games, even if they are shit like 8/12 months

>>389182021
Because retarded consolecucks let them get away with it

>>389182432
>>389182383
""""free games"""""

You don't get to keep paying them after your subscription runs out. They're not yours.

File: 1470439352679.jpg (171KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1280x1024px

>>389182543

If your subscription runs out and you renew it at a later date, do your games come back?

>>389182021
If you accept capitalism then yes.

People are simply willing to pay for it - there is no logical business reason to offer it for 'free'.
It recoups losses made from hosting data and managing the servers and the personnel who maintain the servers.

The market is open for competition to offer an alternative though at present the majority of customers clearly believes it holds value to them. If it didn't then the paid service would be removed swiftly.

>>389182518
/thread

>>389182543
I might add UNLIKE XBOX

>>389182021
it was a trend that microsoft started and everyone aside nintendo followed their example, not to exclude nintendo though since they charge WAY too much for their games on their store so I guess it balances out

>>389182629
yes

>>389182021
Because people will pay for it.

>>389182629
Yeah. They don't uninstall or anything they have this padlock on them and can't launch the game.

>>389182629
yes, you just can't play them if you don't have the subscription, right after you renew you have access to them all again

File: 1489869967561.jpg (34KB, 396x388px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 396x388px

>>389182414
tfw I am that retard even though I said I never would.
Same with fallout 4. Just started playing and I'm already regretting it, even if it was only $17 used

>>389182378
Damn, didn't notice they stopped the 20% discount. I usually shop at best buy as long as they still have stock. If you wait too long, you miss out on the 20% off, because they sell through their stock and don't buy more. Less of a concern for big name titles though.

>>389182378
>American gamers failed to support Canada
As if anyone cares about the fucking Leaf people

>>389182378
Wait what? They got rid of the two week discount?

File: 1444316836132.jpg (78KB, 425x503px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 425x503px

>>389182816
Holding your "free" games hostage until you pay for them again because they were "free" and the money you paid wasn't for the "free" games.

>>389182543
$50 a year to get 6 free games a month, sometimes over $1000 in value.
netflix is """"free movies and television"""" you don't get to keep watching them after your subscription runs out. they're not yours

>>389183102
so would you rather pay, for example, just cause 3 was free on ps plus last month, a $30 one time fee for a game, which is half of a 1 year sub to ps plus, or pay $60 a year to get over 50 more games

>>389183369
I'd rather not pay to play video games online.

>>389183369
False equivalency. I'd rather have access to the games I received when paying for the subscription after the subscription expires. That's the point of the post. Your point is that it's a good deal, which has nothing to do with the fucking argument. You'll have to continue paying to play the games that were not free.

If you think this benefits consumers at all you are a fanboy and should acknowledge that shitposting like that is against the rules of /v/.

File: 1463882919326.jpg (90KB, 499x368px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 499x368px

>mfw they keep increasing the price but people still pay for it

>>389183637
My argument to this is the majority of games frankly you complete once (if they are any good) and never touch again.

Ergo why should I end subscription I would not be bothered personally. Everything in this would is finite - if I owned it permanently the only real extra value I may have is perhaps to sell it in the future.

>>389183637
no need to get a stick up your ass, I'm just making a point jesus christ take a fucking chill pill

>>389183815

They increased it once.

>>389184050
That's an even worse point. Illustrating that you're continuing to pay to have access to things you no longer find any value in.

File: 1491336212809.jpg (10KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x250px

THEY SAID WE COULD CHANGE OUR USERNAME

>>389184181
Betcha they'll do it again in the future.

>>389182021
fuck off bernie

>>389183815
Capitalism at work baby, if people didn't see value in it they wouldn't keep paying.
If it wasn't going to be profitable and still retain similar (or better) custom from raising the price then Sony wouldn't do it.

Business 101 - hit that sweet spot of supply and demand, the optimal price of the highest point people will pay to maintain the highest profit possible, everyone is a winner.

>>389184241
Well that is simply an incorrect rebuttal.

I am continuing to pay to continue to get access to new things which I will subsequently play and await the next thing which I find value in paying for.

Nowhere did I say I am continuing to pay to have access to things that I no longer find value in, I am continuing to pay for new things.

Should I no longer find value in the new things or the online service I would no longer have the subscription.

>>389182518
Says the PCbro who pays for mods and let them get away with it

>>389184357
>render a device that costs several hundred dollars useless under certain circumstances unless more money is paid

>>389182021
logically, why is ir ok to get services for free?
who pays for the servers?
You get 10gb online storage, IM, and "free" games per month.

really it was jewish microsoft who started this craze, i doubt sony, and then nintendo would have jumped on the jew train if microsoft didn't start it.

>>389184485
We have fundamentally different ideas about value. I believe I should be able to play games I paid money for regardless of when I want to play them. You are perfectly fine paying for anything they decide you should have and only when you should have it.

>>389184242
gg PopRockKilla13

File: 1499965214047.jpg (139KB, 747x1241px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 747x1241px

>>389182021
Who /single player only master race/ here?

>>389184520
Yep, and people are willing to pay for it knowing that.

Like I said, nothing but simple capitalism at work, people will accept that negative as the overall value is still worth it to them.

>>389184518
I've never paid for a mod in my life
>Consolecucks in charge of delusion

>>389184674
Those people are making the industry worse. For customers and companies.

File: Thumbs_Up.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>389184673

>>389184648
Well of course we have different ideas of value. Value by definition is in the eyes of the beholder.

Value is simply what the individual holds as important enough for them to pay for it.

You are entitled to your own perceptions of value as am I.
Evidently many also hold that this service does provide good value to them, otherwise the service simply wouldn't be offered as it wouldn't be profitable.

>>389182021
Because you idiots keep paying for it. Really that simple.

>>389183117
>you don't get to keep watching them after your subscription runs out. they're not yours
You can also do the old trick of recording it.

>>389185056
fuck off newfag

>>389183117

Can I have your car? Even though you paid for it you have to keep buying gas so it's useless to you.

>>389184773
No, not at all, in fact clearly they are helping to drive the industry.

Although they are not providing value directly to you in your eyes which is causing your frustration to them they are receiving a service they are willing to pay for.

The fact that they pay for this service en masse generates profit.
The generation of this profit causes competitors and other interested forces to join the market.
The more competitors in the market the better these services have to be, the more innovative, and the better service for consumers as they compete.
In addition the more competitors and profit leads to faster technological advancement in the field.

Now you may feel that the model does not provide value to you due to your disputes with how the model offers content. However you, and any other company are welcome to innovate the market with a service built with a different model in mind as the market is clearly a profitable one.

>>389185056
Xbots wasn't really derogatory though was it?

>>389184673
>>389184980
have fun missing out on Destiny 2 fags

>>389185483
>Now you may feel that the model does not provide value to you due to your disputes with how the model offers content.
And yet over the years we've been seeing less and less unique content being created while these "services" run amok.

>>389185483
You are the reason why these companies are allowed to control the market with practices that are very clearly anti consumer.
The worst part about it is that you have delusions of it helping the consumer when over the years we've seen nothing but shameless copies and rehashes being churned out as if they were a junk food.

File: Fuck Amazon!.jpg (159KB, 1279x385px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1279x385px

>>389183085
Yes. They didn't even announce it. Deal seekers like me had to try figuring out why our deals were missing.

File: 1350961277834.jpg (33KB, 491x404px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 491x404px

>>389185754
>Destiny
>good
W E W
E
W

>>389182629
Yes. You can keep the games on your hard drive, if it detects you don't have a subscription it locks the game and prevents you from launching it. This also means you need an internet connection at all times. Pretty gay.

>>389185889
>And yet over the years we've been seeing less and less unique content being created while these "services" run amok.

I would dispute that.
What is 'unique' content? The market has reams of unique content, probably even moreso nowadays than before 2010.
Though it is easy to be jaded with ages we are living in an age with a large indie boom of games which are incredibly unique.

Regardless to the core point people are willing to pay for services like aforementioned, it is as simple as that. It is not a service problem in the slightest - a service is offered which people are willing to pay for.

Could it be improved? Absolutely - and there is nothing stopping a competitor from launching something which innovates further, which will force other services to compete.

>>389186213
Again I will repeat, it's simple capitalism.
People pay for a service, it's profitable. This isn't a bad thing for consumers.
It encourages competition, innovation and growth.

You argue it's anti-consumer but at the same time the consumers see value in it and they pay for it. Should someone release something with less limitations which holds similar value consumers would turn to it.

Being frustrated at a successful model changes nothing. If it makes money and people aren't leaving it in droves then why should it change? If you think a better service can be offered you are very welcome to pursue creating a service

File: 1503414939057.png (39KB, 370x320px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 370x320px

>>389184673
I only have a PS4 for Future Tone. No regrets whatsoever.

>>389185754
>console shooter
Here's your (You).

>>389185056
fucking newfag

This shit is what convinced me to ditch consoles and build a rig

>>389185234
>>389186992
I've been here for 8 years ;^)
How does me not typing a console slur makes me a newfag? If anything, that makes me better than 90% of this board for not starting console wars

>>389185521
What's the derogatory term for Xbox fans?

>>389187338
Xbox fans.

>>389186823
>This isn't a bad thing for consumers.
Despite the fact that consumers are paying more and more for less and less. Notice how single player content in is being put on the back burner for online play. Local multiplayer has almost been eradicated in its entirety outside of fighters and Nintendo systems.

>It encourages competition, innovation and growth.
>innovation and growth.
These things haven't happened in a long time and you know it.
Consoles themselves have ceased to innovate and have only become locked down PCs.
Smaller developers are struggling to find a place among these monolithic names in the industry and receive little assistance from people like Sony and a Microsoft and many are either dying or are being assimilated into different companies to work on said big names.
To top things off the games themselves are becoming more and more similar in their respective genres as the years go on.
We also haven't seen anyone even make an attempt at joining the console market since Microsoft with the Xbox.

Where exactly is this growth and innovation? All that has happened over the years is that everything has been whittled down to their base elements.

>>389185754
i already have destiny 2, its called destiny 1

>>389188291
You are again displaying a narrow mindset.
You complain about single player content - again this argument is flawed as you are relying on your own personal values.
Peoples purchasing power is solely what dictates the move from single player/local multiplayer to online focus -- as a very simplified overview more people now find value in online games and because of this more games are being built for this purpose.

Simple business logic is if a single player focused game with local multiplayer was truly wanted by the majority it would be made but clearly there is more value held by more people to have such features be a lower priority. And thus dev time is spent on the things that have higher value for these consumers.

The mistake you are making is your belief that others hold the same values as you.

The options are in this scenario is to
a) back those that do provide those things which are of value to you
b) target the niche yourself and make that value more desirable by creating a good product offering.

Also you say innovation and growth has not happened but again you are purely looking at it from your values standpoint.
Consoles, the games, online - all of these things are the most advanced they have ever been and are constantly improving with each generation.

You say consoles have ceased to innovate, yet we have seen the Wii, the Switch, we see VR headsets on consoles, we see innovative attempts such as the Move, the Kinect, the PS4 dualshock with its touchpad.
These are all innovations - some of which were less successful than others and some of which we see competitors imitating.

Value that consumers hold and pay for drives this innovation, those failures won't stay, those which succeed will invite competitors and be continually improved (like VR at this current time and its rapid improvements)

You say smaller devs receive little assistance from Sony and MS yet that is simply not true, both offer huge incentives to indie devs to publish[1/2]

File: dayne.png (570KB, 723x944px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 723x944px

Because you're using their network?

It's not that complicated

>>389182378
Best Buy also has a 20% off program except it's only 30 bucks for 2 years and it works on literally any game still in its shrink wrap. 10% off anything pre-owned too.

>>389189372
Except few games are being hosted by Sony servers. EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc take care of hosting or the game is P2P.

>>389188291
>>389189307
[2/2] and Sony and MS both financially support indies as they know that consumers hold high value in them and they will be mutually profitable (for publisher/developer)

The companies which die or become assimilated simply haven't done their job in providing the right value for consumers. And this again is not a bad thing for reasons I have mentioned in posts before.

You say games are becoming more similar, though I'd argue this is not true and that currently we have more diversity than ever before. But even so consumers solely drive what games are popular.

The door is always open for someone to build their own game and it is simply a case of building something which offers value at the right time -- Minecraft for example is a very good example of a game which did something very different and became a massive success.

Nothing is withholding people from creating something very unique, consumers solely drive whether or not it is a success.

Regarding not seeing anyone join the console market it is a case of the barriers to entry being the requirement to have the financial backing and expertise to build the hardware, the teams and the deals. Though that is fine, the door is open for competition as it will inevitably arise - its a booming industry that is constantly growing and competition takes many forms (GoG, the mobile market, steam -- all factors shaping the market)

Finally you ask where is the growth and innovation.

Yet your question is blinded, it is everywhere and I have mentioned just a few examples previously.
are these providing direct value to you? Maybe not, but to the general consumer yes.

>>389182021
Its not about wheather or not its OK, its about if people are willing to or not.
Clearly enough people are willing enough to support the model and so here we are.

>>389182021
Idk. But I'm happy to get free games. Very happy witn some of ps plus's stuff that help me discover games like Dust, towerfall, fez and got me big shot games like Arkham City and borderlands 2 for free. And now I'm about to get Second son. I'm ok with this.

>>389189307
>Simple business logic is if a single player focused game with local multiplayer was truly wanted by the majority it would be made

Not him, but real reason here :
If you remove local multiplayer, the only option to play with friend is to play online, and so to pay for the online.
You think that it's the costumer that made local multiplayer dissapear while it's actually the dev that did that to make online more profitable.

>>389182021
It's not and if I didn't have friends who wanted to play with me I wouldn't pay for it. The price you may to maintain social shit.

Its their service and they can do whatever they want it with. The world owns you nothing kid

>>389189862

>Except few games are being hosted by Sony servers. EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc take care of hosting or the game is P2P.

PSN and Xbox live are still facilitating the P2P connection

>>389190109
>it is everywhere and I have mentioned just a few examples previously.
>are these providing direct value to you?
Not him but you realise that your only examples of "innovation and growth" are Nintendo which goes without saying and minecraft right? The latter not bring innovative because it revolves entirely around building blocks.
Also you mention the Wii and then go on to mention the PS Move which was a shameless copy of the Wii controllers and barely had any support as is.
Then there's the kinect, a peripheral with the same functions as an eye toy only now with voice chat which also lacked support.

VR isn't even a particularly innovative ideas either since many attempted the idea on the past. The only difference now is that it's being applied more to the home.

All you've done is highlight how stagnant this industry has become in the last 15 years or so.
Oh yeah and you go on about values, but that's half of the problem the masses don't see any value beyond easy entertainment which is exactly why this industry can thrive without changing.

As it stands the majority of this industry are just in it for the profit, they don't care about creating or the consumer all that matters is how they can line their pockets.

>>389182021
To see how many stupid people are willing to pay. And to their amazement that's a shit load of stupid people!!! I'm rich, BITCH!!!!!!

>>389191215
Not strictly true, developers don't gain any profit directly from online at all. If a game was published first party then perhaps at a stretch that argument could be made but even then the simpler reason is below.

Local multiplayer has been slowly phased out solely because consumers as a whole don't care for it, it doesn't hold value for most people which makes sense since the majority game as a solitary thing for the most part.

Local multiplayer takes dev time to make, there is little point fulfilling a niche demand when there is greater demand for improvements in either single player or multiplayer in a limited time constraint.

it's not but every company does this

>>389189307
>Simple business logic is if a single player focused game with local multiplayer was truly wanted by the majority it would be made
Dude you're a fucking idiot. They'll don't care about what people want they only care about what makes them money.
Take a look at Capcom, do you think people wanted DmC and mobile Breath of Fire? Of course they didn't but they happened anyway because Capcom thought it would rake in the money. But now look at those IPs they're dead.

>>389191753
If you are going to say things aren't innovative because you're boiling it down to absolute extremes and strenuous links then we will get nowhere. It becomes ludicrous when you argue in such a way, an arbitrary line of 'innovation' based on your values alone is flawed.

File: 1484052931004.png (108KB, 357x368px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 357x368px

>>389182021
Well I mean you get 72 games a year and some cloud saves as well I guess.

>>389192293
>developers don't gain any profit directly from online at all.
Keyword being directly. Ultimately that money is going to be used to pay for their advertising.
It also means that they don't have to deal with making a split screen mode either so it's essentially more money for less work.

Paying money for online is pure judaisim unless either
>Dedicated servers in all games
>It's not entirely mandatory and you get plain old LAN play lie the good old days

>>389192496
You are being narrow minded.

>They'll don't care about what people want they only care about what makes them money.

Guess what, people don't pay for things they don't like. If it didn't have value to consumer it wouldn't be profitable and so the businesses would either need to change or go bankrupt.

And your second point proves this correct - Capcom decided to try and innovate but failed to see what people held in value (particularly regarding Devil May Cry)
It flopped and they made the decision not to continue the series at this present time out of options to continue or to go back to what was successful.

>>389192715
>Ultimately that money is going to be used to pay for their advertising.
Well no not really, it may be used for a variety of things.

Just to clarify things developers don't see a penny of any of the online fee for services like PS+ you know?

>>389192553
>based on your values alone is flawed.
It's less based on my values as much as it's based around the objective meaning of innovation. You can't exactly call any of these ideas new even by a stretch of the imagination because they've been done in the past.
It seems like you're confusing improvement with innovation but even that is a stretch to say the least.

Because fanboys defend and pay for it.

>Xbox has paid online
AT LEAST ITS BETTER THAN PSN, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR, P2P FOR THE WIN!!!

>Playstation has paid online
ITS MICROSOFT FAULT TO BEGIN WITH, AT LEAST WE GET GAMES OUT OF IT!!!!

>Nintendo has paid online
ITS MICROSOFTS AND SONYS FAULT TO BEGIN WITH, I LOVE NINTENDO SO ITS OKAY WHEN THEY DO IT!!!!!

>>389182021
The worst part of PS plus is that I'm afraid to buy any sale games in case it becomes free later,though I realized it's true I only play most games once.

>>389182021
Because gamers are cucks who will eat up anything that's thrown to them
See: Paid online, lack of backwards compatibility, peer to peer, DRM, microtransactions, always online, platform exclusives, etc etc etc
No one complains when they get fucked so it just keeps happening

>>389193102
Your argument is not objective, you are boiling down your value of innovation to a vague simplicity.

Regardless of your personal values the majority did see, for example, Minecraft as a massive innovative success because at the time there was nothing on the market that offered that experience.

With your logic we could take anything you say is 'innovative' and boil it down to even the most primitive things to argue it is not innovative. Sliced bread? Not innovative because people could tear bread.

Do you see the flaw in such logic? You are claiming things are not innovative because of your personal values when in reality the market and their success is a direct indicator of the innovations.

>>389193078
Again, keyword being directly anon. Read read my post for the details and properly this time.
Of course you haven't been doing that for any reply you've recieved.

I'm not sure, but i bet some food analogy will help here.

>>389193313
>Don't pay for ps+ so couldn't care less about their rental service
>Sales are always better if you wait for publisher sales or flash sales

Anyone have that picture about Sonybros turning their coat about this?

>>389182021
The monthly games they give away make it bearable. If you don't play those monthly games though you are probably getting cucked.

>>389193368
Your argument acts like there is some form of conspiracy to make money on online by forcing developers to ace local multiplayer when it is simply untrue.

Refer to:
>>389192293
Local multiplayer has been slowly phased out solely because consumers as a whole don't care for it, it doesn't hold value for most people which makes sense since the majority game as a solitary thing for the most part.
Local multiplayer takes dev time to make, there is little point fulfilling a niche demand when there is greater demand for improvements in either single player or multiplayer in a limited time constraint.

It really is as simple as consumers hold more value to online features so more dev time is proportionally given to develop such features. In the meantime less people value local multiplayer so it is taken out.

Should people demand local multiplayer and decide to play online less for some reason? Devs will react, local multiplayer will be king and online fees will decrease to meet supply/demand

just wait, it'll happen for pc too. just a matter of time.
when windows 11 comes out and completly blocks out steam or any other store other then their own, the anal rape will commence.

>>389193362
>Sliced bread? Not innovative because people could tear bread.
You aren't very smart are you.
The innovation in this case would be both the simple convenience as well as the automation involved in the creation of said sliced bread. Not to mention the clean cut that prevents wastefulness.

Now compare that to two peripherals that share the same function of tracking movement with a camera.
What's innovative there?

>>389193756
If steam would make their "service" paid, PC gamers would pay for it, bet on it.

>>389193768
You're referring to the Move/Wii?

Simple, the innovation is interacting with games in an interesting manner.

The difference between them? Move innovated on the Wii units with greater accuracy and of course by combining with their stronger hardware and first party publishers to innovate in their own unique value proposition.

The innovation is providing a new way to play games for those who wish to be more active/be more 'immersed' and to play titles catered to such a design

Personally doesn't do much to me but given the Wiis massive success and even the Moves success clearly people do see this as an innovation of value

>>389182021
I'm not playing online I just want my free games for ps3 and psvita.

>>389182692
no, you don't get to keep them anymore.

>>389182021
I just create new accounts and get the free 2 week trials :3

>>389194457
Is that not tied to the console?

>>389182021
Because people pay for it anyway.

>>389193670
>Local multiplayer has been slowly phased out solely because consumers as a whole don't care for it
Look who's projecting their values now.
Anyway I'll have to answer that with a big fat no especially given that revisiting older systems with the feature is an extremely common thing to do. I mean it's ultimately basic human interaction and a need for companionship that drives it.
Anyway what's happening is more along the line of making do with what you have. They have absolutely no say in the matter do they just suck it up and deal with it.

It also didn't help that such a thing was free last gen which weaned the people onto online only play.

Oh yeah and another thing that's become popular as of late, microtransactions and loot boxes.
Most would agree that there's no benefit to the consumer but they keep on cropping up. Why do you think this is?

>>389194518
the ps plus features are systemwide

>tfw xbl £30 and psn £50

feels weird

>>389194592
This isn't a projection of values, it's simply logic.
If consumers as a whole did care for it it would be a bigger focus in development and certainly would still be a major part of games now.

The fact is it must not be.
And this is just from a very simple observation, big publishers additionally will have many marketing analysts whose job is to find things like these out as well.

Now should a dev decide to add local multiplayer to a game which becomes a huge hit? Guess what will happen? Games will pop up with local multiplayer added again because it would be seen as profitable.

Right now however it is very clearly people as a whole in the market are NOT interested that much in local multiplayer, they are placing more value on multiplayer online or single player.

In regards to your argument about basic human interaction people are evidently fulfilling this value in online games. The thing is from a simple observation most people play games alone, local multiplayer is rarer to play regularly and online has removed that desire even more so - you also have to look at the cultural context of social interaction in this current age and how digital focused it now is to understand how values have changed.

>Oh yeah and another thing that's become popular as of late, microtransactions and loot boxes.
>Most would agree that there's no benefit to the consumer but they keep on cropping up. Why do you think this is?

Consumers do value it as a whole. They are paying for them so its become a successful model.
It's like clickbait articles, people "say" they don't like the idea of them, but they click them - same principle here.
If you think of a model that people will enjoy more and is as profitable then it would be used but for now its widespread as its a profitable fad - it will soon fade as values shift and people get bored with it

>>389195215
>it's simply logic.
I wouldn't call it logic given you're mistaking a lack of choices for what people want.

>>389194592
To expand on this point
>Most would agree that there's no benefit to the consumer but they keep on cropping up.

The benefit to the consumer is the feeling of pleasure from opening them. It's a fairly simple concept of a skinners operant conditioning box.

People love the feeling of buying to open the mystery within, the same rush as gamblers get.

Now is it good or ethical for the consumer? That is a different question entirely.

But the consumer clearly likes it enough to be profitable and because of that other devs adapt the model as it is successful

>>389195365
It's not a lack of choices, games DO still exist with local multiplayer.
And if people really did want more local player there would be a combination of people outcrying for it and people buying more games that explicitly include local multiplayer.

They do neither, therefore it isn't going to be the focus of majority of the games in the market.

>>389195365
Again circling on this point for some added.

As I said previously nothing is stopping a dev from making a game with a local multiplayer focus to cover this niche.

If it becomes wildly successful you WILL guaranteed see more games with local multiplayer.

As of right now local multiplayer does still exist but the huge drop in games with local multiplayer is purely due to not being enough demand for it.

For some games local multiplayer has high demand (racing games, fighters are often the main ones) but at the same time consumers moreso value playing the majority of games multiplayer through the convenience of online service - which is why that is where the time and money is placed

File: seganetad.png (355KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 450x600px

>hurr durr microsoft started paid online
dumb underage kids

>>389195606
>And if people really did want more local player there would be a combination of people outcrying for it and people buying more games that explicitly include local multiplayer.
Believe it or not the transition phase despite being a quick one was fairly messy with people begging for the local multiplayer modes that were present in previous iterations. Unfortunately they quickly gave up both because of the combination of online being free and the fact that there was no easy way to contact developers at the time.
By the time they all started using Twitter as a means of communication online only was ingrained in their heads.
There's also the fact that generation shifts exist so what one generation sees as unacceptable the next sees as fine. In other words, you are applying your own values to this situation and are seeing these things as worthless.

>>389196540
Not at all, you're not seeing the bigger picture.

You say people begged for local multiplayer modes but how many?
Is it really the majority of consumers in the market?
Or is it a niche of people who hold similar values to your own?

You have to look at the general consumer market. If it really was the case that local multiplayer was so high in demand we would see many things happening:
A) People buying more games that feature local multiplayer
B) Decrying lack of multiplayer being a MAJOR topic on publishers forums / social media
C) The "gaming media" directly making pieces about the lack.

In reality everything points to the fact, as saddening as it may be, that most people simply don't care as much about local multiplayer as you believe.

It is 100% logical that if there was wide demand for it that demand would be met. Even now if there is demand as you say there is there really is nothing stopping someone just making a decent game with local multiplayer which if successful would trigger a resurgence of local MP in games

Games, like any other business that isn't a monopoly is completely driven by consumer spending power and the competition which caters to the strongest values in the market.

In this case it is either there isn't as much demand for local multiplayer as you would like to believe OR there is demand for this niche to be filled by a developer

Considering great local multiplayer games have been released recently which didn't become that successful for its local multiplayer I would say it is the first point.

>>389182021
Because Microsoft realized charging for Word Processing makes them money and then decided to carry that model for other tasks. In this case, online gaming. When people accepted it, it became the norm across the board. Others followed suit.