"Today, PlayStation revealed that its PS5 has sold 40 million units. Microsoft doesn’t share hardware numbers typically, but court documents, math, and slides from an ID@Xbox in Brazil seem to suggest the Xbox Series X|S line-up is around 20-23 million units sold globally. That essentially puts the PS5 at a 2:1 advantage against Xbox, but perhaps the split is even worse than that beneath the surface. "
If you haven’t figured out why you’re paying for online play in 2023 I’m afraid you never will…
If you don’t understand or can’t figure why a service like Game Pass requires a fee, then you are either woefully ignorant of how technology and security works, or you are being willfully disingenuous motivated by loyalty to a specific platform.
I was talking about the ability to simply play games that I already purchased online. Game Pass was a different paragraph and context.
If you really think Microsoft or Sony requires this yearly subscription fee to keep the service running, just look at equivalent PC services like Steam (or, you know, Xbox Live online play, which is free on PC) and realise how wrong you are. Microsoft and Sony get a big chunk of game sales (30%+), they are fine.
Actual game servers are hosted by the game publisher, not by Microsoft or Sony (unless it’s a first party title, of course). Publishers don’t get a single piece of the subscription.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. These services cost actual money and MS historically has had a significantly more reliable online service and a huge reason why is the Live charge. Sony only managed to have a reliable service when they started charging for it. I feel like a lot of people with the sentiment above didn’t play games when online CONSOLE multiplayer was born.
I’m not. I’m playing on PC 95% of the time, and I play the Sony exclusives only in single player on my PS5 anyway.
What I’m saying is that this could be a differentiator for Microsoft that they just don’t seem to be interested in (it would obviously lose them a lot of revenue from existing customers at first). I feel like more people would get an Xbox for multiplatform games if they save over 50 bucks a year because they don’t have to pay for online play. Heck, I’d probably spring for a Series S for the odd round of Sea of Thieves and the likes on the big screen TV (I know, I could connect my PC, but it’s just very comfortable that way). But having to pay for online is a no-go for me, especially because it’s not my primary platform.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the folks that only play FIFA or the likes would get a Series S if it’s marketed correctly, and they didn’t have to pay for online play.
That was a royal “you” in direct response to the question in your post. Regardless, the cost of multiplayer on consoles has been a factor since multiplayer started and will continue to be because it’s a guaranteed way for those companies to subsidize the massive overhead that is their server farms.
And console manufacturers will scratch their heads as to why they’ve been slowly losing market share to PC.
I don’t think anyone is scratching their heads over this lol Microsoft is just as happy to have everyone on PC.
Fair. Sony and Nintendo will scratch their heads though. They for sure don’t stand to gain by sending their customers to PC.
Consoles have so many first person shooters and very few support mouse and keyboard. Subscription for online play and meh