Will you pay to play online console games

Well with the obvious direction and the amount of unhappy people sounding off about it lets find out where are crew here stands on this issue

**** them. Even my favorite game company Sega. I make exceptions for no one(not to be confused with nO-One ).

LMAO

we have 4 votes and we have all 4 options at 1 a piece

I was the probably not guy but might weaken

[Bladez]

**** them.  We shouldn\'t need to pay for on-line gaming.

**** them. We shouldn\'t need to pay for on-line gaming

Then you run a server @ your house and let thousands of ppl freely join. After all, it costs no money to provide an online service, right? :rolleyes:

There\'s a difference in online games. For example..

If I was able to host a SFII server myself (using my cablemodem) and Ethugg could join so I could whoop his @$$ (just messin with ya thugg) then that should be ok. There\'s no need to pay for peer-to-peer connections. Thus is the way with Half-life, Quake, etc.. (on the PC anyway) .. However, for a persistent online world, or any servers that are being provided by the company 24/7, it takes maintenance, upgrades, repairs, etc,. to keep those servers running. Therefore you need to pay. One thing that sucks about online-console-gaming is that they don\'t allow (not yet anyway) user-to-user connection. I provide my IP, Ethugg connects, ddaryl connects, and as many ppl that my bandwidth allows and we can set off and adventure together. I hate that they don\'t offer that.

Half-life is one game that has tons of people playing online. Yet Valve doesn\'t provide not even one server. All the servers run on the gamer\'s pc\'s. Oh well, enough rambling.

- dm
- the trick is to keep breathing.

[Bladez]

Originally posted by datamage


Then you run a server @ your house and let thousands of ppl freely join. After all, it costs no money to provide an online service, right? :rolleyes:

I would.  I just think it kind of sux we have to. :crap:

Originally posted by datamage
Half-life is one game that has tons of people playing online. Yet Valve doesn\'t provide not even one server. All the servers run on the gamer\'s pc\'s. Oh well, enough rambling.

Exactly... so why can\'t the developer release a windows or Linux version of their server software designed to work with PS2 clients, and let gamers run their own servers?  Just like Quake / Half-Life / Unreal, etc.  I think this decentralized decontrolled model is MUCH superior to any system where the publisher owns and runs the servers.  It also permits you to play the game at LAN parties even long after the game has been abandoned by everyone else.

you buy the console... then you go buy the game... then you gotta pay for it monthly to play it online?
i\'m paying for too many things already! hell no i aint paying more...

Originally posted by datamage


Then you run a server @ your house and let thousands of ppl freely join. After all, it costs no money to provide an online service, right? :rolleyes:

There\'s a difference in online games. For example..

If I was able to host a SFII server myself (using my cablemodem) and Ethugg could join so I could whoop his @$$ (just messin with ya thugg) then that should be ok. There\'s no need to pay for peer-to-peer connections. Thus is the way with Half-life, Quake, etc.. (on the PC anyway) .. However, for a persistent online world, or any servers that are being provided by the company 24/7, it takes maintenance, upgrades, repairs, etc,. to keep those servers running. Therefore you need to pay. One thing that sucks about online-console-gaming is that they don\'t allow (not yet anyway) user-to-user connection. I provide my IP, Ethugg connects, ddaryl connects, and as many ppl that my bandwidth allows and we can set off and adventure together. I hate that they don\'t offer that.

Half-life is one game that has tons of people playing online. Yet Valve doesn\'t provide not even one server. All the servers run on the gamer\'s pc\'s. Oh well, enough rambling.

- dm
- the trick is to keep breathing.

Let the game company factor the server costs into the games budget, and raise the price of the game accordingly. I will never pay per month for any online service in addition to my cable modem.

ONLY FOR FFXI

well from the early results of this poll. Its obvious we gamers are pretty much _ucked and will be force to pay to play

I have way way to many bills already and dread adding a monthly pay to play bill.

Obviously most gamers aren\'t willing to make the stand.


What I want to know is. When there are 3 or 4 MMORPG\'s or other massive pay to play online games out, and you as a gamer want to play 2 or 3 of these games.

Are you going to dish out the $10 - $25 a month to play them and keep them running ?????
Not to mention the $40 - $55 a piece you\'ll pay to just own the games themselves.



I would rather see these online games sell for $75 and include lifetime online capatabilities

[nO-One]

I have no intention to play games online.I never do,I just play to have fun,not to compete with other people.

I might try a game or 2,if I got to play against some people from our fair forums,otherwise I couldn\'t care less about online gaming.

I think it\'s totally a waste of money...payin\' 50 bucks for a game is enough pain...hell no with 20 more a month...

[nO-One]

Woah,20$ a month? I should have read up before I posted/voted.

Hell no.Jeez I wouldn\'t pay that much for sex........errr ignore that :sconf:

Who the hell said $20 a month

If you we\'re playing 2 or 3 of these games online you\'d have a $20 a month bill but I seriously doubt $20 a month for a single game would succeed at all