• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How can Steam offer such freedom, ex; free cloud saves and online play but console still can't?

Anthony Soprano

Anthony Soprano

Member
I wasn't planning on buying a PS5 this gen since I have a good PC. I bought one so my girlfriend and I could play FF7 Rebirth on launch day. Imagine how disappointed I was finding out that cloud saves still aren't a thing unless you pay for their monthly service. Not only that, but they still lock them down to the console and don't let you back them up to USB. The worst part about the save situation? FF7 Remake Intergrade, the previous game, had save data that was cross-compatible from PS5 to PC if your system was modded. So if I wanted to double dip and buy the game on PC when it comes out, I would have to completely start over despite the save data being just out of my grasp and cross-compatible. How ignorant is this? It has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I'm contemplating just selling the console for this reason, but I know my money is already in Sony's pockets so it won't really affect anything.

Then just the other day I wanted to see what else the PS5 had to offer; it's been a hot summer and my PS5 will probably generate less heat than my computer, so I'll do some console gaming for a change. I downloaded some PS4 games I had purchased the previous gen. Great! I started with Tetris Effect: Connected. Now I can just hop into online play, right? Nope, you need a paid membership -- womp womp. Why? I could hop on any of the Tetris games on PC and play them for free online without a stupid membership. Aren't the console's third-party developers and publishers the ones who are footing the bill for the dedicated multiplayer servers -- if so, what right does Sony have to impose a Sony membership requirement? My understanding is that online membership requirements no longer exist in the Xbox console ecoystem -- but it does exist in Nintendo's, which is mind boggling to me since they offer the weakest online presence, with the poorest infrastructure and laggiest gaming experiences without purchase of a separate USB LAN adapter.

Why exactly are console gamers still OK with subscription hostage tactics in 2024? Why aren't more gaming journalists challenging this in the public eye -- are they that afraid of their industry contacts and reputation being marred? Moreover, how can Valve do all of this for free on a platform where piracy is completely rampant and still be able to offer discounts, mod support via workshop and so much more?

Aaron Paul He Cant Keep Getting Away With This GIF by Breaking Bad
 
lh032

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
because console maker wants consumer to invest in their own separate ecosystem (besides distributing games), which means they have to find a way generate their own additional income.

However, xbox may drop the subscription fees and go for third party if they really decided to abandon the console space, who knows.
 
Last edited:
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
Because PC gamers are no mugs, and due to the open nature of the platform, if anyone attempts any bullshit then they are at risk of a backlash along with losing customers very quickly.

Prime example, when Microsoft attempted to shoehorn in paid online via GFWL. They quickly found out, and a lot of distrust PC gamers have towards them and any of their storefronts stems from that and the subsequent fallout.
 
Last edited:
Pejo

Pejo

Member
This is why i always harumph when people talk about how shitty Steam is for their 30% game sales cut. They offer a ton of stuff for no additional cost to the customers (cloud saves, steaminput, remote play, and now game recording), they are expanding compatibility into Linux, have good customer support, have clear refund policies, unobtrusive DRM (unless the publishers add Denuvo or some 3rd party shit), forums, mod support, etc. Do the devs and publishers wish they'd take less of a cut, of course, but as a gamer and a customer Steam is one of the few gaming companies that kinda swing things in our favor for a change.
 
Generic

Generic

Member
Pejo said:
This is why i always harumph when people talk about how shitty Steam is for their 30% game sales cut. They offer a ton of stuff for no additional cost to the customers (cloud saves, steaminput, remote play, and now game recording), they are expanding compatibility into Linux, have good customer support, have clear refund policies, unobtrusive DRM (unless the publishers add Denuvo or some 3rd party shit), forums, mod support, etc. Do the devs and publishers wish they'd take less of a cut, of course, but as a gamer and a customer Steam is one of the few gaming companies that kinda swing things in our favor for a change.
Click to expand...
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo also charge 30%.
 
A

asdasdasdbb

Member
GHG said:
Because PC gamers are no mugs, and due to the open nature of the platform, if anyone attempts any bullshit then they are at risk of a backlash along with losing customers very quickly.

Prime example, when Microsoft attempted to shoehorn in paid online via GFWL. They quickly found out, and a lot of distrust PC gamers have towards them and any of their storefronts stems from that and the subsequent fallout.
Click to expand...

Running the servers does cost money. How much I can't answer.

IIRC when MS started charging for online on XBox they were also hosting the servers as well that were used. I assume that is no longer the case. Presumably the developer is eating the cost and not Steam for instance.

lh032 said:
this doesnt make sense, as Nintendo has worse online functions and they also charge the fees.
Click to expand...

OP is talking about emulation/piracy.
 
Last edited:
March Climber

March Climber

Gold Member
RhyDin said:
I wasn't planning on buying a PS5 this gen since I have a good PC. I bought one so my girlfriend and I could play FF7 Rebirth on launch day. Imagine how disappointed I was finding out that cloud saves still aren't a thing unless you pay for their monthly service. Not only that, but they still lock them down to the console and don't let you back them up to USB.
Click to expand...
The last two consoles that tried to keep things free were the PS3 and Wii U. As a matter of fact, if Xbox 360 never existed and took off in popularity like it did, I'm not sure if either of them would have ever considered paid subscription for online services on their next consoles, but also their online service offerings would have also been severely behind PC if it weren't for Xbox 360's user friendliness.
RhyDin said:
Why exactly are console gamers still OK with subscription hostage tactics in 2024?
Click to expand...
I'm not. I actually thought that with Xbox finally getting rid of 'Gold' and changing to 'gamepass tiers' that they would have let go of this foolishness, since their new golden goose egg would be gamepass and it's features.

I was wrong. They have stupidly split the bottom gamepass tier into two versions that cost the same price, one that offers some Xbox library games for free* and the other that simply gives you the ability to play online. This side-tier just for online play didn't need to exist in our current generation of free to play and other games having their own battlepasses and services, and it's aggravating that it still does.
RhyDin said:
Why aren't more gaming journalists challenging this in the public eye -- are they that afraid of their industry contacts and reputation being marred?
Click to expand...
It has been almost 20 years since Xbox 360's version of Xbox Live hit the market running. That's long enough for people to stop caring. The Xbox 360 won over the west, and with it came features locked behind subscriptions.
RhyDin said:
Moreover, how can Valve do all of this for free on a platform where piracy is completely rampant and still be able to offer discounts, mod support via workshop and so much more?
Click to expand...
Because Gabe is a good guy and there's no other competition that the playerbase will accept. Steam has developed it's own insulated community to where their users don't want their games on anything else but Steam. They won't accept Epic Games Store. They won't accept Amazon. They won't accept other publishers' apps unless the game is too big to ignore (GTA series). They won't accept cheaper native downloads from a developer's own website. They barely accept gamepass but don't accept Xbox Store. They barely tolerate GoG and Itch IO.

They will simply wait until the game, from these other platforms, finally reaches Steam before buying.

I could turn this around and ask you why everything ever needs to be on Steam (as others here have brought up this problem before), but that would end up a different conversation that I don't want to argue about with others here.
 
Gp1

Gp1

Member
Open structure vs walled garden

That's why i'll never buy a console again as long as PC keeps this way
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
asdasdasdbb said:
Running the servers does cost money. How much I can't answer.

IIRC when MS started charging for online on XBox they were also hosting the servers as well that were used. I assume that is no longer the case. Presumably the developer is eating the cost and not Steam for instance.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, nobody cares.

We don't want or need them to host any servers outside of those for the games they publish. As the saying goes, don't try to fix what isn't broken.
 
Last edited:
March Climber

March Climber

Gold Member
asdasdasdbb said:
Was just a rebrand.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't. It was a deliberate change. The original gold was online + 3 free* games per month.

Gamepass bottom tier A no longer offers monthly games. So now it is just essentially a gate for online services.
Gamepass bottom tier B offers games, but no online services.

If you ask me, this is a downgrade.
 
Team Andromeda

Team Andromeda

Member
Paulistano said:
That is the Microsoft legacy to the console business originally Sony and Nintendo had free online play.
Click to expand...
Actually SEGA Japan were the 1st to ask console users to play to play online on the Saturn via the card system on the Net Link (Japanese unit)

SEGA America also looked to have users pay a monthly subscription free for its sports games Ect online on the DC .

SEGA leading the way like usual. I do think that cloud saves are free on the Xbox mind
 
A

asdasdasdbb

Member
GHG said:
And we don't need them to be the gatekeeper and responsible for hosting online servers for all PC games (which is what they were attempting to do with GFWL).
Click to expand...

Right, but there wouldn't be anything stopping a developer from outsourcing the MP to a third party who charges for access.

Or maybe MP games will be nothing but GAAS from here on out.
 
Buggy Loop

Buggy Loop

Member
asdasdasdbb said:
Running the servers does cost money. How much I can't answer.

IIRC when MS started charging for online on XBox they were also hosting the servers as well that were used. I assume that is no longer the case. Presumably the developer is eating the cost and not Steam for instance.
Click to expand...

Almost everything on consoles and majority of PC online games are p2p. There was no hosting of servers by Microsoft unless they wanted to do it for their first party games, otherwise publishers handled that. Gears of War 1 is peak host advantage of p2p.

PC has games of course with dedicated official servers from dev side too, Rust comes to mind. Most of them also offer community run dedicated servers, because they can. Counter-strike 2, Dota 2 and countless games do that.

Free.

And cloud saving, probably the biggest chunk of data taking in actual servers ran by Valve, free.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Phoenix

Mr.Phoenix

Member
This is because Steam... is first and foremost a store. Not a platform (until the steam deck came along, and even then its still a store)

Consoles are platforms. The very hardware you buy on the side of the console is even subsidized. I am not saying I condone what they do, but that I can understand why they do it.

And lets be fair here, while online gaming on consoles is not "free", it does come with a minimum of 24 free games every year ($80/year PS+ Essential). Even if only two or three of those interest you, that could cover its price of admission.

Again, not saying its a perfect system, but I understand why they would do it. Oh... and of course because Xbox.
 
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo

ChorizoPicozo

Member
because steam saved PC Gaming. it was a no man's land.

consoles have always had competition and these companies need to make games to make you buy their console. Valve doesn't really have an incentive to make games anymore.

so, when you look at output of gaming across all platforms I will argue that the significance of these exclusives games really skew the medium in favor of consoles.

... it's a tradeoff and both complement each other
 
A

asdasdasdbb

Member
Buggy Loop said:
Almost everything on consoles and majority of PC online games are p2p. There was no hosting of servers by Microsoft unless they wanted to do it for their first party games, otherwise publishers handled that. Gears of War 1 is peak host advantage of p2p.

PC has games of course with dedicated official servers from dev side too, Rust comes to mind. Most of them also offer community run dedicated servers, because they can. Counter-strike 2, Dota 2 and countless games do that.
Click to expand...

There's obviously some amount of servers involved on the developer's end, even if it's just matchmaking. Dedicated Servers like back in the olden days just offloads the costs to whoever runs it.
 
proandrad

proandrad

Member
Steam has monopolized pc gaming by being too awesome. Hopefully, England puts them in their place so the competition can force the consumer to use a product.
 
Last edited:
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
asdasdasdbb said:
Right, but there wouldn't be anything stopping a developer from outsourcing the MP to a third party who charges for access.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happened at the time. What makes you think the outcome would be any different now, and why?
 
P

PauloRoberto

Member
Core business, IMHO.

See, the core business of Steam is to make a buyer keeps buying things, so the focus of Steam Store is to facilitate these actions. It's not the focus of Steam, for example, garantee that the product (normally, a game) will work on an user machine (Steam does not care of your combination of processor and videocard and memory, for example).

For a console, the core business is to maintain the user inside its system, so you are paying for a better garantee that the game will work, that the antipiracy system won't affect the gameplay (should not, at least), that the hardware and software will work nicely, etc etc..

Different approachs for the same endgame (no pun intended, and no, Steam Deck is not a primary business today to be consedered a rival of traditional consoles).
 
Buggy Loop

Buggy Loop

Member
asdasdasdbb said:
There's obviously some amount of servers involved on the developer's end, even if it's just matchmaking. Dedicated Servers like back in the olden days just offloads the costs to whoever runs it.
Click to expand...

Right, and consoles are offloading this to publishers too just like PC. It's basically dev dependent. Sony ain't giving money to Ubisoft to run Division servers nor are they hosting servers for that.

So why is it free on PC.
 
AmuroChan

AmuroChan

Member
Valve is a private company. Sony, MS, and Nintendo are publicly traded companies. The latter have fiduciary duty to their shareholders to grow their revenue at a certain rate every year. Gabe doesn't give a shit and doesn't answer to anyone. He's content with the billions Steam is making him without him really needing to do anything.
 
Buggy Loop

Buggy Loop

Member
AmuroChan said:
Valve is a private company. Sony, MS, and Nintendo are publicly traded companies. The latter have fiduciary duty to their shareholders to grow their revenue at a certain rate every year. Gabe doesn't give a shit and doesn't answer to anyone. He's content with the billions Steam is making him without him really needing to do anything.
Click to expand...

...

So why Epic games is free online then? They're bound by shareholders. So is CDPR for GOG
 
Loomy

Loomy

Thinks Microaggressions are Real
Valve makes a lot more money from their video game business than Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo is still trying to figure out how make adding a friend a delightful experience.

Sony & Microsoft have to nickel and dime people to continue making a profit. Valve knows you have no other realistic option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Final Fantasy VII Rebirth & my bittersweet farewell to Sony Consoles.
Drama Platform 2
80
3K
ChorizoPicozo replied
Consoles should never be like PCs (to consumers)
2
56
2K
rodrigolfp replied
CNET hands on with the PS5 Pro
2 3 4 5
215
18K
Heisenberg007 replied
Xbox officially launches Game Pass Standard
2
88
5K
Nydius replied
  • Poll
Timed Releases and Console vs PC
2
89
5K
Pejo replied
Top Bottom