• Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes, World of Warcraft certainly had nothing to do with it.

    The gaming phenomena that made billions from their subscription model had absolutely no influence, whatsoever.

    How could Microsoft do this?

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      World of Warcraft ushered in the “games as a service” model, not the “pay to access online features” model. Warcraft doesn’t charge you for accessing the internet on your computer.

      If WOW was available on console, you’d be paying Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo as well as Blizzard. That’s the difference. They are similar, but WOW didn’t cause consoles to go pay only for online games.

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Subscription based games existed well before WoW was a thing. Ultima Online and EverQuest were well established to name the two biggest of the time. There’s also a massive difference between a handful of players on a short lived instance of a game and the requirements for an MMORPG.

      Xbox live subscription, existed before WoW. All it really did (Xbox Live) gave you the ability to use your console to play with other people online. Halo was still P2P hosted by other players. You posted a subscription to do what Steam and Battle.Net already did, for free.

      But you seem to have a real hatred for WoW for some reason. You’ve made 2 posts defending Microsoft by eluding towards WoW… Can I guess your an Xbox gamer in your mid-late 20s?

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Hatred is a strong assumption based on what I’ve said, especially because I’m simply using them as an example.

        Acting like xbox live is the only reason online gaming costs money is silly.

        • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Bethesda brought microtransactions with horse armor.

          Microsoft did online subscriptions for online functionality on consoles. I don’t know why you think it’s silly, they were the first to do it. If things had gone different, it could have been Sega.

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No what I think is silly is the suggestion that somehow being first to the punch makes them responsible… It’s not like the other console makers went “Well, that’s just silly, we don’t need the infinite cash flow that this brings in! That’s nonsense.”

            What you hate is capitalism, Microsoft is just a name.

    • PilferJynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I didn’t mind paying for a subscription for wow back in the day when they constantly added patches and content for no added cost. I don’t know if Microsoft continually added more value for your subscription.

    • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      WoW actually runs servers that cost money and that’s a core part of how the game works. While I’m sure XBL does in some small fashion as well, it doesn’t seem to be wholly necessary to the experience, hence I can play online games from my PC for free just fine. There is no reason why merely to use any game online, I should have to pay.