Yes, plus very expensive web hosting of published papers.
There is also peer review. But the peer reviewers typically don't get any money or even recognition for the time they invested. And that peer review happens before the paper is potentially published and then it will be in its final form.
Sites like Arxiv allow you to update your paper if there is feedback (aka post-publication peer review) which allows for a much larger audience of (constructive) critics.
Meanwhile SciHub and Arxiv host papers for free. So yes, it's pretty much only prestige that makes the difference.
A problem that only needs to be solved because of copyright. Get rid of restrictive laws and watch people take care of storage and distribution for a fraction of the cost using decentralized peer-to-peer technologies like torrents and ipfs. Plus there's always the internet archive.
There is also peer review. But the peer reviewers typically don't get any money or even recognition for the time they invested. And that peer review happens before the paper is potentially published and then it will be in its final form.
Sites like Arxiv allow you to update your paper if there is feedback (aka post-publication peer review) which allows for a much larger audience of (constructive) critics.
Meanwhile SciHub and Arxiv host papers for free. So yes, it's pretty much only prestige that makes the difference.