I know what people in this forum thinks about PC online game clients like Steam and Galaxy, but for you that have a console, what do you think about Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Nintendo Switch Online clients?

When these console online clients shutdown, all of the online content will be unplayable like how Nintendo shutdown Nintendo Network for Wii/Wii U games, and none of these Wii/Wii U games had LAN support, or how Microsoft shutdown Xbox Live for the Original Xbox.

I have two physical disc games where most of the content is unplayable because the server shutdown with no LAN and no offline bot support. (Splatoon and Battlefield 3) Did "only buy physical" save me from these "evil digital stores that can take away your game at anytime" No, these two physical discs are more doomed than most of the digital games i have bought. For Battlefield 3 i would rather play the DRMed digital only PC version i have on Origin/EA App than play the physical disc PS3 version as that DRMed digital only PC version has mods to play on self hosted private servers so it's actually more preserved than the physical PS3 version.

Even after reading hours of "digital versus physical" arguments in the internet I never heard of any "only buy physical" console gamers say online clients like Xbox Live has ruined console gaming like how DRM-free PC gamers say online clients like Steam has ruined PC gaming. and most of these physical console gamers are still happy buying online only games that are more doomed than any digital only game like COD Black Ops 6... a online only game that streams all textures from cloud servers has reached top 1 in physical game sales despite the always online DRM.

And to play online on console, you need to rent to a monthly subcription which was never a thing on PC,

You also need a internet connection and a monthly subscription to backup your saves on console... while on PC you have no restrictions on backing up save games unless it's a online only game.

I miss when games were more like Unreal; small enough to self host and not so self-serious as to require a drudgery of self-inflicted dreadmill FOMO.

Well, most console gamers just don't care enough to complain. That's really the crux of it.

I remember playing Battlefield 3 12v12 servers on an Xbox 360 at 720p. At the time PC gamers were boasting 1080p 60fps and 32vs32 servers, and not needing to pay for multiplayer. The PC experience was objectively better but I just didn't care since I was still having fun on my console.

There's a shift in mindset once you're on a PC, I guess because you feel as though you should be in more control of your system?

Not always, There's this list of DRM-free multiplayer games you can play forever out of the box even after the developer shuts down the official servers or the GOG store shuts down because they had LAN, Direct IP, or come with dedicated server software so you can self host your own dedicated server.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drmfree_multiplayer_list_of_games_that_actually_are_100_drmfree/page1

There is also already a DRM-free online only MMO game like Ryzom.

Meanwhile after Nintendo Network shutdown for the Wii U... all online content stopped working as none of the games i "own" have LAN support. especially Splatoon which was a multiplayer focused game and all the stores in the hub area require a internet connection.

When you put corporate behaviors into a sentence. It sounds predatory. Like something out of a National Geographic voice over, of lions hunting prey.

Clients are for the prey.

See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LithTech

The multiplayer-only first-person-shooter Gotham City Imposters is still active for that very reason.
It's too common a problem. Opting for less expensive hardware and smaller titles are the sensible thing to do as a consumer that isn't drooling over specs.

Drudgery though? I would not have considered that. I think a better question is...
Do the serves outweigh the fun? Hardware limitations aside, is paying full price for a game that will not be in service worth the investment of a console? Sure, there are less threats and accessibility but it's not permanent.

Personally, I barely had enough to buy all the DLC that my school-friends would boast about in XBOX live parties, but on the other hand, they can't host their own client as a result, meaning they spent a lot of money for a game that essentially expires.

Unfortunately the DLC thing is just a matter of life, I couldn't play on certain servers with my friends due to DLC, and there were games they owned which I didn't and vice versa.

As for whether it's worth investing into a service that'll eventually lose its value, objectively no. But the value is subjective in the end. Like with the BF3 example, I don't necessarily care where that game is today because I haven't played it in forever, I got my money's worth and moved on. But there'll be people who still played the game who'd be quite annoyed.

Consider if you will, grinding out a seasonal battlepass that expires whenever they want you to either buy the new content or reset the ladders.

They're unintrusive most of the time unless you want to go online or use some functionality, but then again I only have experience with that on the Vita and PS3.

Yes, some games get the bucket kicked on these services. But just like on PC, fan servers are still possible because at the end of the day they're (annoying) APIs. MotorStorm's servers kicked the bucket years ago, didn't stop me from hopping on a revived MS fan server about a year or two ago and race with real people. There's even ambitious projects like the revival of PlayStation Home for the PS3. Seriously.

The issue is if these services shut down and you "own" games on there, then you're 90% hosed. The 10% relies on you having a copy of the game already if it's singleplayer, maybe. This is why even on consoles I go for physical. Sure. You don't own Battlefield 3's servers, you only own the singleplayer game and the assets for multiplayer, but at least you own the files, the essentials to play the singleplayer game which happens to be my focus most of the time.

Of course how much it sucks depends on who is your devil. Nintendo sucks hardest, PlayStation the least (unless you're one of those few who own a PlayStation Portable Go, then you're very unlucky). Ideally it'd be nice if multiplayer, etc, on these consoles weren't reliant on these services, but as far as I know, prior to them we barely had online content on consoles - if at all.

I don't think it's that "unintrusive" if you need to rent every month to play online... or need a internet connection and need to rent to Playstation Plus, Xbox Live Gold, or Nintendo Switch Online to backup your singleplayer saves. They work very similar to the Steam client for PC games.

Atleast you don't need a Playstation Plus subscription on PS3 which was the last console where you owned online games... But for PS4, you need a Playstation Plus subscription to play online and for PS5 you now need a Playstation Plus subscription to backup singleplayer saves.

I have a physical copy of Battlefield 3 and Splatoon but it didn't save me from 90% of the game content becoming unplayable after the server shutdown in 2024... For games with a big multiplayer focus like Battlefield 3 with a short bad singleplayer campaign this means EA has taken away my "rented" physical copy of Battlefield 3 by shutting down the servers with no offline bots and no LAN support so i don't own the physical copy and more doomed than most of the digital games i have bought... Nobody plays Battlefield games for the campaign.

This is not always the case though, for example my PS3 physical copy of Red Dead Redemption GOTY has LAN support for multiplayer and LAN works without Playstation Network so Rockstar and Sony cannot take away the multiplayer from my copy and will still work after the official servers shutdown. Especially since the new PS4/Switch/PC versions don't have the multiplayer content included so the official multiplayer servers for the PS3/X360 versions could shutdown at any time...

Another game i have a PS3 physical copy with LAN support is Ghost Recon Future Soldier. Tested it on 2 systems and the LAN multiplayer mode still works even after Ubisoft already shutdown the official online servers two years ago. Sadly LAN support is very rare now since 2013 and the 8th generation of consoles...

Well, let me put it this way. As soon as I found any digital game I bought on Switch had to occasionally check in to verify it so I could launch it I made sure to buy physical only carts when I could.
Sadly there are digital only purchases like the GMode collections which really sucks given a large portion of those are early Japanese Smartphone ports, pre-iOS when they put full games on the phone just like the console and PC market. As it stands I do think they are being irresponsible not having a cart. I will figure out a way to back them up as I bought them and also for the sake of archiving them so people can play them later. I mean freaking "War Of Genesis: Supplementary Story" may be unplayable now since it was developed as a Korean Smartphone game.

Issue is I don't play online that often if at all, and in that single player regard, getting asked to log into PSN is not common because I don't have to do that to enjoy the singleplayer stuff I have.

That is true, some games will have way less content after the shutdown of their servers, but this is not so much different than on PC when the same happens. On both platforms fans typically manage and sometimes get away with hosting fan servers for these games.

On the flipside, I have physical copies of completely single player games (or at least games with a major focus on) and I'll be able to enjoy them whenever the heck I want to so as long as my PS3 isn't randomly YLOD'ing (I suspect it is having a case of cracked BGA joints, ugh). Tomb R2013ider let's me see Queen Himiko's dark past, there's no part of Sonic Generations that can't be experienced offline. Skyrim, in all its glory (unless you want non-QoL mods).

For Naughty Dogs' games yes you miss out on the multiplayer, no revival projects for Uncharted 2, 3 and The Last of Us are present yet, but these games have a strong singleplayer campaign and this is their selling point (I did not enjoy TLoU much I'll admit).

Then you have a PS3 first party game that is literally multiplayer only, and this game is, yes, completely hosed at the moment. I don't remember its name but it's easily recognizable - nevermind it's MAG. There were WIPs of a private server but nothing got released yet.

I've owned a PS4 for a while now, but it's a distant second to my PC in terms of time spent with it, and I use it for physical copies I buy second hand pretty much exclusively. For years it wasn't even connected to the Internet. So it's a >shrug< for me.

After buying new content? That sounds excessive. Glad I have minimal experience with anything resembling that.
I really wonder why that even occurs in the first place. Greed seems too simple a solution, and apparently it works as a business model. Damnation.