At E3 2002 Microsoft unveiled its plans to establish an online gaming service for the Xbox called Xbox Live. The membership fee was set at $49.99 a year, which is what it still costs today. Microsoft was adamant about getting users online quickly and easily

Dreamcast doesn't really count as it was more of just a modem, and PS2 initially had no online capabilities. I still get wistful over what Dreamcast could have been.

Nevertheless, due to lack of widespread broadband adoption at the time, the Dreamcast shipped with only a dial-up modem while a later-released broadband adapter was neither widely supported nor widely available. Downloadable content was available, though limited in size due to the narrowband connection and the size limitations of a memory card.[23] The PlayStation 2 did not initially ship with built-in networking capabilities

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't remember basic multiplayer access was paid service for Xbox, but that maybe me confusing things with Playstation 3's PSN not requiring it. Also, doesn't count? Really? So if it doesn't agree with you, it doesn't count?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dreamcast had no servers to play from. It has an internal modem. So yes, that's not what we're talking about and doesn't count

Do you understand the difference in that technology? Genuinely asking here - do you know what a modem is?

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean there exist online game that doesn't have any host at the end point? So games like Phatasy Star Online runs on magic? I'm genuinely asking here.

So if you connect with modem, it isn't multiplayer? If you connect third-party servers, it isn't multiplayer? Connection doesn't care what hardware is present at end point - all it care is that it satisfies authentication then following byte stream is correctly formatted. The fact that it is console doesn't magically make it require different kind of infrastructure from PC to begin with unless someone forces to.

So what is definition of console multiplayer for you anyway? It clearly seems to be not "A session of a game where multiple players are involved locally or via internet" based on what you are saying so far.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We're discussing console play multiplayer, which generally involves things like signing into servers for matchmaking

The Dreamcast allowed point to point networking, which is radically different.

This isn't some weird definition I made up, this is the context of the thread. I don't know why it's so important to you keep to flailing toward being right here but this is just a meaningless discussion at this point

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm just baffled by someone insisting absurd definition to defend unnecessary enshittification while using all the technical terms and how they function incorrect.

Also, context of this particular thread started with initial comment that PC multiplayer is free, but Xbox online multiplayer (Not any other feature) - which is, identical in its technological basis and requirement - need payment. Then you simply asserted that such functionality was never free on consoles. I don't remember original Xbox requiring me any payment to access XIII's multiplayer mode, but memory is memory, so with no Xbox to test with, I will just accept that point was incorrect on my part.

Then you went off-track stating that method of connection to server or time of implementing technology makes it so that those doesn't count as multiplayer on console. Followed by arguments that is not even possible to do.

If there is anything that I misunderstood from the context is that I just presumed that you were being careful with your claim. Upon reading again, I was indeed very wrong on that. PS3's PSN and Nintendo exists. Consoles always had infrastructure to pull from, the very same infrastructure to PC multiplayer. Companies simply decided to charge more because they could.