Microsoft should stop requiring Gold subs for FTP games ASAP + Crossplay Disaster!

If cheaters have to pay up again when their account gets banned... that could discourage a few.

Do we really need games from the dawn of the Xbox 360 still online, when they've been probably empty for a decade?
 
Isn't it like 60% of xbox accounts don't have gold .. and can't play fornite

I thought the real reason Sony didn't want cross play was because the get a cut of MT bought on their system - so with cross play there's no guarantee they get that money (if they buy it on a different machine) ... the point is - if true - MS is missing out on a ton of F2P microtransaction cash.

Maybe I'm wrong.
 
Dontero said:
I still remember PS3 days when there were flame wars how console players are as good if not better than people on k+m. Then UT3 came that allowed that and discussion ended soooo fast..
Click to expand...

Same happened with GoldenEye on Wii. It was fun.
 
xool said:
You can back up saves to USB on PS4, not on Xbox.

And if you get a corrupted save on Xbox the chances (99%) is that it will be uploaded to the cloud anyway. So if you try to use the cloud backup - still corrupted. It's a real problem
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I was certain that you could back up to USB on the Xbox.
 
I get that paying for online is shit, but I don't understand what the difference is between a FTP game and Destiny for example. Why should we pay for XBL Gold for Destiny but not for a FTP game?

Also your crossplay issue is ridiculous... That's for the developer to handle, not Microsoft.
 
X-Fighter said:
I get that paying for online is shit, but I don't understand what the difference is between a FTP game and Destiny for example. Why should we pay for XBL Gold for Destiny but not for a FTP game?

Also your crossplay issue is ridiculous... That's for the developer to handle, not Microsoft.
Click to expand...

F2P on PC and PS4 is, well, F2P. So why would you defend MS on this?

Just like it was a bad look for Sony to not support crossplay, it's a bad look for MS to charge for access to F2P. It's easy and if you "don't get it" then you and anyone else who thinks alike needs to drink less of the kool aid.
 
X-Fighter said:
I get that paying for online is shit, but I don't understand what the difference is between a FTP game and Destiny for example. Why should we pay for XBL Gold for Destiny but not for a FTP game?

Also your crossplay issue is ridiculous... That's for the developer to handle, not Microsoft.
Click to expand...

I don't get this I mean the only difference is you've had to pay for destiny and nothing for the f2p game but they both bring money to the platforms they are on and if every other platform offers true f2p then why can't ms ?
 
F2P should be free I agree.

The free games and game pass are worth the £40 (£50 now?) a year. It's normally less as I wait for deal then grab a few years. But I spend more on 1 game or two takaways.
 
Thirty7ven said:
F2P on PC and PS4 is, well, F2P. So why would you defend MS on this?

Just like it was a bad look for Sony to not support crossplay, it's a bad look for MS to charge for access to F2P. It's easy and if you "don't get it" then you and anyone else who thinks alike needs to drink less of the kool aid.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending them. Paying for online in general is shit. I'm just wondering why we shouldn't pay for online when it comes to F2P games, but we should when it comes to bought games? So not looking at the brands.

Demon2blades said:
I don't get this I mean the only difference is you've had to pay for destiny and nothing for the f2p game but they both bring money to the platforms they are on and if every other platform offers true f2p then why can't ms ?
Click to expand...
I agree that Microsoft could make it free, but I'm wondering (without looking at brands), why we shouldn't pay for online experience for F2P games, if we're already doing this for bought games.
 
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
I'm not for or against the practice of Gold subs per se, I'm always subbed as a family membership and share the sub/gamepass ultimate across all family members, games and overall think it's solid value. On to my point, aren't there a few features that would get cut that the Xbox Live platform is based on? e.g.
  • parental controls (as a parent knowing what, how long, with who and getting weekly reports emailed for all family members and their xbox activity is a godsend)
  • anti-cheating
  • clubs/friends
  • party chat
  • screens/clips sharing
  • achievements/gamerscore
  • LFG
  • MMR/TrueSkill multiplayer matching
  • privacy settings
  • leaderboards
  • SPOP sign-in/security (pretty rare for MS account to get hacked, really stable system)
Isn't it worth it just to have one gamertag ready to go on all games you install? I'd hate to register account after account with each game/publisher and a lose the ability to manage all my family members in one place across all games.
Click to expand...
I don't see the relevance. You can still have these behind a paywall, I don't think even these should be but hey, nothing stops them from being able to play free to play games for free and have these behind the monthly cost. Everyone else seems to be doing it just fine.

X-Fighter said:
I agree that Microsoft could make it free, but I'm wondering (without looking at brands), why we shouldn't pay for online experience for F2P games, if we're already doing this for bought games.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't even be paying for an 'online experience' for a regular game and the only reason we are is because MS decided to do it and people not only paid but defended paying while the exact same experience was being offered for free on other platforms.
A f2p game relies on a big install base to get a fraction of users who pay for stuff. If you have a small install base and an even smaller install base who are paying to be able to play the game you run into trouble supporting the game.

MS' idea behind this was that they would champion 'crossplay' as some pro-consumer PR, have the large install base to support the game through other platforms yet still have xbox owners paying to play on theirs. It's fucking greedy yet nobody calls them out on it because their PR department works overtime.
 
Last edited:
While we're at it Sony should stop revoking free PS Plus games you've earned if your membership expires.

With Xbox Live you keep the games regardless if your XBL expires. They are yours to keep forever.
 
Last edited:
X-Fighter said:
I'm not defending them. Paying for online in general is shit. I'm just wondering why we shouldn't pay for online when it comes to F2P games, but we should when it comes to bought games? So not looking at the brands.


I agree that Microsoft could make it free, but I'm wondering (without looking at brands), why we shouldn't pay for online experience for F2P games, if we're already doing this for bought games.
Click to expand...

I don't really look at it from a brand point of view I'm also in the camp of free online all around whatever the game there's enough money in gaming now from different revenue streams to offset it ...but f2p games are little goldmines a game like warzone has got to bring in enough revenue for ms to be happy to bring the paywall down for f2p games maybe it's an oversight on Thier part ... what are the arguments against bringing the paywall down we should all be wanting that .
 
Klayzer said:
I think, it may be the last legit criticism of Xbox, that Phil hasn't addressed publicly. Microsoft might eliminate the sub requirement for F2P for the SEX launch.

I do find it interesting that, all the interviews Phil does, nobody (to my knowledge) ever asks him why Xbox still has the requirement, while the competition doesn't.
Click to expand...

My guess is that... Because even on PS4 the huge majority who plays them still pay for PS+.

But yes, I really wish they would remove this limitation.
 
Three said:
We shouldn't even be paying for an 'online experience' for a regular game and the only reason we are is because MS decided to do it and people not only paid but defended paying while the exact same experience was being offered for free on other platforms.
A f2p game relies on a big install base to get a fraction of users who pay for stuff. If you have a small install base and an even smaller install base who are paying to be able to play the game you run into trouble supporting the game.

MS' idea behind this was that they would champion 'crossplay' as some pro-consumer PR, have the large install base to support the game through other platforms yet still have xbox owners paying to play on theirs. It's fucking greedy yet nobody calls them out on it because their PR department works overtime.
Click to expand...
So you have no answer on my question... Like I said, keep brands out of it, and just tell me why you think it's normal we shouldn't pay for the online experience of F2P games but we should in case of bought games. If the answer is "We shouldn't even be paying for an 'online experience' for a regular game" like above, then my answer is that this topic was purely created to hate on Microsoft. And it would have more validity if he would discuss paying for online in general, since now he's singling out Microsoft purely because this happens for a F2P game.
 
I think paying for online has been bullshit since the 360, but I guess charging for it was what Microsoft was able to leverage since they were the first to make online console gaming mainstream.

I didn't pay for Gold on the 360 until I started playing Battlefield Bad Company 2. Before that I played single player games or games with splitscreen (or played games like Halo 3 splitscreen online at a friend's).

Then Sony revealed PS4 would have paid online, which I think would have pissed off PS fans if they weren't riding the high of the Xbone fumbling, and now it's an industry Standard with even Nintendo on board (who I believe said would never charge for online at some point).

As someone else already mentioned I think Microsoft should maybe consider ditching Gold and making Gamepass the new singular subscription. Obviously the free games from Gold would be gone but they could be added to Gamepass to make it more attractive. They could take cuts from F2P games like Sony does too.

Imagine MS doing a 180 and having free online play with the SX and PS5 requiring a sub still. Unlikely I'm sure but hey the game industry is a fickle bitch.
 
MoreLikeSameOldEra said:
You can play F2P games without Gold.
Just not Multiplayer games without Gold
Click to expand...
mmh - technically that's true, I suppose .. though :

tFeIdMY.png
 
Last edited:
theclaw135 said:
If cheaters have to pay up again when their account gets banned... that could discourage a few.

Do we really need games from the dawn of the Xbox 360 still online, when they've been probably empty for a decade?
Click to expand...

At least you can still play some of those games from the dawn of the Xbox 360 on current hardware.
 
X-Fighter said:
So you have no answer on my question... Like I said, keep brands out of it, and just tell me why you think it's normal we shouldn't pay for the online experience of F2P games but we should in case of bought games. If the answer is "We shouldn't even be paying for an 'online experience' for a regular game" like above, then my answer is that this topic was purely created to hate on Microsoft. And it would have more validity if he would discuss paying for online in general, since now he's singling out Microsoft purely because this happens for a F2P game.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, F2P games are more successful with a lower barrier of entry. By charging Gold to play Fortnite, MS is lowering the number of potential players on their platform.

Basically, Sony did the math, and decided that making f2p games not requiring subscription is financially more advantageous than otherwise. They get paid a cut through microtransactions.

This isn't really about benefiting consumers, but about it being choosing which path that lead to more money.
 
01011001 said:
I still think microsoft has to get rid of XBL Gold as a whole.
with how much they closed the gap between Windows 10 and Xbox it is simply a joke that Windows 10 players can play online for free while Xbox players have to pay a fee, for playing the exact same game on the exact same servers using the exact same network.

XBL Gold has to go and I honestly could see Microsoft ditching it as soon as next gen hits. Gamepass could be their new money maker anyways
Click to expand...
They should dump it. You can play the same game on PC for "free" online.
 
X-Fighter said:
So you have no answer on my question... Like I said, keep brands out of it, and just tell me why you think it's normal we shouldn't pay for the online experience of F2P games but we should in case of bought games. If the answer is "We shouldn't even be paying for an 'online experience' for a regular game" like above, then my answer is that this topic was purely created to hate on Microsoft. And it would have more validity if he would discuss paying for online in general, since now he's singling out Microsoft purely because this happens for a F2P game.
Click to expand...
Where did I mention brands? I already answered your question. I don't think we should pay for either. We are paying because it was introduced in the past, also free to play should mean free to play not pay a subscription to play.
 
It honestly doesn't really make sense to charge people for games they pay $60 for, and then NOT charge for... free games they pay $0 for.

The fee sucks for consumers either way, but I don't see how it's logically consistent to charge when you've already paid... and not charge if you haven't lol
 
dvdvideo said:
"NO Cloud Saves without PS+"

Wait, really? So all my progress in ps4 games is toast? That's worse than the issue this thread has brought up. Interesting the ps4 fanboys dont have a thread for that one.
Click to expand...

well not only do you need PS+ for cloud saves but you also get less storage space for that payed cloud storage than you get for free on Xbox.

that's the only really huge thing Microsoft has IMO, because the way cloud saves work on Xbox and Win10 is pretty damn great.
you basically don't need to do anything, everything is automated and synced up on the fly.
 
01011001 said:
well not only do you need PS+ for cloud saves but you also get less storage space for that payed cloud storage than you get for free on Xbox.

that's the only really huge thing Microsoft has IMO, because the way cloud saves work on Xbox and Win10 is pretty damn great.
you basically don't need to do anything, everything is automated and synced up on the fly.
Click to expand...
It's such a basic concept syncing save files seamlessly to the cloud and back that Sony looks real amateur in their implementation. I hope PS5 evolves all this and leaves their legacy shit behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tom Warren: "[Call of Duty hacks] should be a giant wake-up call for Microsoft. Games in the Microsoft Store are older versions or missing features"
2
63
257
Giallo Corsa replied
  • Poll
Nintendo needs a Direct ASAP
Drama  2 3
113
2K
blacktout replied
  • Poll
Should Microsoft and Sony compete directly with Nintendo instead of just making a handheld for their games?
32
1K
LavitzSlambert replied
Stop Killing Games has Reached 1,000,000 Signatures.
News  2 3 4
176
1K
TheSHEEEP replied
GVMERS: The $400,000,000 Disaster of Concord
2 3 4
154
1K
ArtHands replied
Top Bottom