• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Do you have a console bias for some series?

Oct 14, 2013
For most games I prefer Nintendo consoles ie Switch. I just like it's pro controller more.
The only thing changing that is games that run better and are much cheaper on PS4. This is really rare as I bought a PS4 Slim for exclusives. Though I do own DW8XL and New DOOM on PS4. The former I got on PS4 before the Switch port happened and I'm not re-buying it on Switch even though I really like the game. The latter I got for $20. I'm not a new DOOM fan and that's all I wanted to pay for it.

I think I double dipped twice. I own Yooka-Laylee on PS4 and Switch. I beat it on Switch but I wanted the PS4 version as well, because it's a great game and Playtonic are amazing. I've also pre-ordered DQXI-S. I own the gameon PS4 and finished it but I will easily replay it on Switch, for the new features and because I really like the game. It's one of my favourite games.

I don't play docked much at all. I'm just a Nintendo person at heart. I started gaming in the height in the Nintendo vs Sega 8-bit wars. When the PS came around, I was not really into gaming, well I was a lot but the N64 was the only console that I purchased after launch. A long time after launch. For lots of reasons I really was not in a position to get a new console back then. So I stuck with Nintendo. I only bought a PS4 Slim for the few games I wanted. I must say it's the same for Nintendo, but I like a lot of Nintendo exclusives so I keep getting their hardware.

My next question is will I get Ni No Kuni on Switch or PS4. It's port vs remake. Also I do have Ni No Kuni 2 on PS4. I ended up getting the steelbook edition with DLC included for $45. A good deal I thought. I could have gotten the Kings edition with the figurine thing for $99 on sale but I didn't think it was worth it as the game is not that good . . . or so I thought. I've put about 40 hours into it now and it's no masterpiece but it's still very good and I like it a lot.


Darkest of all Dark Links
Oct 28, 2012
Usually I hate playing on the PC due how unreliable it is, but with TES games....console commands are a must.


Composer of the Night.
ZD Champion
Jan 22, 2016
United States of America
Very much a dude.
This is what I'm trying to get at, and a point you seem to be missing. The paywall isnt something Im arguing for, merely the option for devs to charge for multiplayer if they wish. Not the platform or the company behind it, the individual devs and only for individual games. With such notion, if a company were to provide free multiplayer for their PC version but not console versions of the same game eyebrows would be raised and their practises called into question.

As above, if a dev were to offer free multiplayer one one platform and not another, their practises would be called into question. However, I believe a dev is well within their rights to charge for an online service to game on a game-by-bame basis, but not necessarily platform by platform (more on exceptions to this later)

But, again, the console market has changed. Services in the past do not reflect the reality of services today. Some games cannot have a decent multiplayer experience fir free and others can. If those that can offer a decent service for free do so, then great. If not, and they find a way of allowing bamers to host their own games, fantastic. If no to either of the, and they provide a good service for a decent price then I see no wrong in that. To reiterate, I'm talking on a game by name basis here. Not platform by platform or dev by dev.

You keep coming back to this but I feel it has already been answered so I will leave this point for now

Again, I feel I've answered this above but just give me a shout if I need to be clearer

I'm not proposing that no paid online multiplayer should be a thing on consoles and I'm worried that got lost in translation somewhere. I'm proposing that MANDATORY paid online multiplayer should be abolished, and developers should have the option to provide free multiplayer if their business model allows. Devs that do have the circumstances to provide such service for free, but dont, would be abusing such freedom and should rightly then be called out for it.

I would only view that as fair if PC gamers had the functionality of hosting their own servers, therefore the dev does not have to foot foot the bill of hosting, and there is no way to feasible make such functionality work on console games. In such scenario consoles gamers would not have the capacity to host their own games therefore the dev is footing the bill and therefore I would view a fee as entirely fair. A reasonable fee of course. As it stands, this is not how console multiplayer works hence why I would like to fix it.

Well my initial points are not about subscriptions that do not provide online functionality. Whether they can coexist or not holds no relevance to my stance on taking away a devs freedom to charge for their services.

This isnt what I proposed at all, so I'm worried you didnt read my post outlining that I would only want to fix the system by having individual games have individual subscriptions of only a dollar or two. My experience with games has been that I only tend to play 3 or 4 at any given time, so if a subscription to online multiplayer for each was only 2 dollars I would be paying 8 dollars a year. And that's if the devs chose not to provide free multiplayer for those games.

In the sense that some devs would charge for online functionality despite offering little to no service.

I'm not arguing for that at all and I would appreciate you didnt conflate my points in such a reductive manner. I am having fun discussing this but wont do so for much longer under insinuations that I am arguing for customers to be robbed of money. Please consider that I am a gamer too, PC and console at that, and therefore I of course want a fairer cheaper system for everybody. That's what I'm trying to outline but you seem to be reading my comments as some defence of expensive console based online paywalls, which is in stark contrast to what I've actually proposed.

I am not using such exceptions to prove a rule. I am using them to demonstrate that, if they so wish, a developer has the option to create a paid subscription service for online access to their game, and it can work in a fair manner for both parties. I'm not saying most PC games have paid multiplayer, I'm not saying that most games need it, I'm saying that some games have it and I love the fact that PC provides the freedom to use such methods. I want that same freedom for consoles.

The idea of charging for a service is not anti-consumer. Charging extortionately, or for a service below standard is. As an example, when I purchased my house I hired a solicitor. Some solicitors offer a "no sale no fee" policy, some dont. Is it therefore anti-consumer of such soliticotrs to not offer a no sale no fee policy? If they abused that by offering subpar service, or if they were the cause of the sale falling through and then expected me to pay, absolutely yes that would be poor business. However the notion of itself of charging for their service without a no sale no fee policy is not inherently anti-consumer. They are providing a service, at expense to themselves, even if the sale doesnt happen.

If a home buyer does not wish to use a solicitor without that policy they are free to walk away and use another solicitor. In the same way, I believe that if a consumer does not wish to play a game because it doesnt offer free multiplayer, they should be free to walk away to another game. However, it would be unreasonable of my to knock on a solicitors door and demand they offer me no sale no fee and accuse them of being anti-consumer in the same way I believe it is unreasonable to expect every game to provide free online multiplayer. To clarify, I'm not saying that NO games should have free on,one multiplayer be them on PC or console, I'm saying that not ALL games should be forced to provide such.

You're right, that would be scummy of the landlord. I am not at all arguing that your console should be locked behind a paywall, in the same way that I would not argue that your door should be levied by your landlord. However, is it not reasonable to expect, say, a theme park to charge you for entering their property? Your console should absolutely have access to online functionality and therefore be able to take advantage of the theme parks that do allow free access ,in the same way that you should be able to walk out of your front door and into any free to access areas of your local area.

If a theme park wishes to charge you for admission, should they not be free to? If a theme park chooses instead to charge you a one time fee, but free access from them on, should they not be free to? What about if they try to charge you a one time fee, and then try to charge you an extortionate yearly subscription fee. Absolutely they would be laughed out of business, and rightly so, but I believe they should be free to if they choose to (and have very poor business service sense). The proposal I have provided gives developers the freedom to do choose, rather than a consoles gamers entire experience being "one time fee plus yearly subscription).

It would then be up to developers to treat this freedom responsibly (which some wouldnt, some would still try to 'nickel and dime their customers as you say. As evidenced by companies like EA abusing DLC and lootboxes), it would be up to us as consumers to stay savvy on what were spending our money on, and it would be up to governmental powers to ensure such developers are providing a fair service at a fair price and therefore remaining pro-consumer.

Not at all. If I've been unclear in my arguments with this then j apologise, but I'll be quite clear here. I do not believe that a gamer should have to pay to access online features of their console. I believe every gamer should be able to utilise online features and games without paying for their console to be capable of such. What I do believe is that if a developer chooses to offer free online multiplayer for their game, they should have the capacity ti di so. Likewise, they should have the capacity to charge for access to online features that they are providing.

And to clarify again, when I state this, I believe it should on a game-by-game basis. No subscriptions to companies, or devs, but games. Such subscriptions should always be at a fair price and be providing a fair service for that price.

If a game comes with online multiplayer that features gamers hosting their own games and developers try to charge for it, I view that as anti-consumer. If a game is advertised with online being a key feature, and does not make it clear that their will be a subscription fee, I view that as anti-consumer. I do not view it as anti-consumer to provide a service on your own servers and charter a reasonable price for it.

I am also not proposing that a game featuring online functionality on the developers servers HAS to charge for such. They should have the capacity to offer it for free if they wish. The existence of such developers would not invalidate games which do not offer free multiplayer in the same way a solicitor who offers no sale no fee does not invalidate a solicitor who does not.

I am not advocating for developers providing different functionality on different platforms. I am instead trying to give them the freedom to provide the same. Devs cannot free multiplayer on consoles as it stands, as the platform dictates the fee. By abolishing the platforms control over how much a customer is charged and instead giving it directly to the developer then they are free to provide free online multiplayer for their game across all platforms. Likewise, if they choose, they are free not to. If a developer unfairly chooses to provide free online on one platform but not another, I'll be right there alongside you with a torch and pitchfork to protest such practise.

However, lets remember again that PC provides the capability for some gamers to host their own games rather than having them run through developer servers. If a developer can provide such functionality on PC, but has to run console multiplayer through their own servers because of hardware limitations on such devices, then I do not view this as unfair as long as they are providing a good service at a reasonable price. They may wish to foot that bill themselves and provide free multiplayer on all platforms regardless of hardware limitations, and I would view them in a good light for doing such. I simply cannot make the leap of saying that they should be legally mandated to foot the bill themselves.

Its absolutely ridiculous that SONY makes so much money off their PS network, you're right. At no point have I argued otherwise. My argument, again, if that devs should have the option to provide free multiplayer and that your consoles should not have functionality locked behind a paywall. You should be able to go online with your ps4 without a subscription. But I do not believe I have the right to insist that all games, regardless of type, technical scope or gameplay style, offer their services for free. Your confusing such belief with me saying "all online games should be pay to play" and that is in stark contrast to my actual stated stance.

I'm not aware of many, if any indie devs that run free multiplayer entirely through their own servers. There may well be some and perhaps you could point me in the direction of them, but all of the indie games I have ever played on PC with multiplayer has featured multiplayer that is hosted by the players rather than the dev. Multiplayer hosted by players should never be charged as they aren't providing a service, I'm talking about multiplayer that must be hosted by the developers at their expense. Yes, they should be free to provide free multiplayer, and yes they should be expected to provide such free multiplayer across all platforms if that's the case.

Locking functionality behind a paywall, ie making players pay to access servers other players are hosting, is scummy. Charging money for a service, that service being running official servers through your own hardware, is not scummy.

I am not familiar,liar with the window live example, however I do not argue that consumers should not fight against what they view as unfair practises or prices. If a developer charges for multiplayer to an online game, and the consumers are not happy with the way it is handled, then they should absolutely boycott it and companies should change in response. If everyone stopped paying for services they believed were unfair we would greatly benefit as consumers.

I want Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to do away with locking their consoles online capability behind a paywall as much s you do, the only place we differ is that I believe individual games should be capable of charging their own subscription fee should they want to. If they do so unfairly, extlrtiknately, or deceptively with their marketing, again, I'll be right their with you with the torch and pitchforks.

I disagree that this is necessarily true. If I, as a dog groomer for example, charge for my customers to groom their dogs, is it coercion for me to not offer a free grooming service alongside that? Would it be coercion even if one of my competition were offering free dog grooming for some reason?

Why would it be coercion any more if my proposed system were introduced in which individual games could make the choice between paid or free online?

I apologise if there are any formatting or spelling errors in here. I'm on mobile and haven't the screen space to catch all of my mistakes
There seems to be a disconnect here.

I have reiterated before that paid subscription services aren't the issue, but locking a core feature of gameplay behind a paywall is inherently not in the consumer's best interest.

And thanks for clarifying your point, as it seems you want to give the developers the choice of offering paid and free multiplayer, I'm making the point that businesses charge prices for services that customers are willing to pay for.

If customers find no value in paying for online multiplayer, especially when a demographic wasn't even charged for that service, then offering that service is inherently valueless.

If I release a soda, say its the same formula, same brand, same coloring, same advertisement, and all else being equal, but for one demographic it's caffeine free, and in order to add caffeine in, it's a $2.00 charge per liter to add caffeine in, and the other gets caffeine in their sodas at no extra charge, me offering that caffeine adding service to one demographic is unfair, simply because I proved that I can add caffeine at no additional cost.

That means the inherent charge to add caffeine in a soda in this instance is valueless.

Sure, companies have every right to charge what they think is a fair price for their product or service. I'm arguing that without a happy consumer base you have no income.

This is why I argued that the best way to conduct business is to have a consenting, but fair trade of goods and services is what is the net benefit for the consumer and the business.

Giving them the option to charge for online multiplayer, as we currently know, led to outright scummy business practices that gouged consumers before.

Wouldn't it be more fair if gamers as a whole expected free multiplayer, and refused to buy a game that offered a paid subscription fee for it? How fast do you think businesses will change their tune?

See, where I think the disconnect happened was because you're arguing that companies charge for that service, under the guise that it's their right as a business to do so.

I argued that they do have the right, however, whether or not it's fair or in the consumer's best interest is another matter.

Frankly, businesses can adapt to such a demand, and find another way to make their paid subscriptions work in a way that's a net benefit to gamers.

Such as in my proposal, free multiplayer included, but with the paid subscription, access to extra games at no additional cost, maybe a game streaming service, massive discounts on games, etc.

Hopefully we can at least agree that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft charging just to use internet you already have a bill for is inherently wrong.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom