Support NeoGAF

[GavinGT]

Playstation Plus is the extra charge if you want it. Sony won't charge for online play on top of Plus.

Plus isn't bringing in the dough for Sony. If they decide that they need to monetize online play, Plus can still exist as an optional service.

I could see them rolling out a $25/yr charge for online. Then the new PR line would be "less than half the price to play online!"

 

[WillyFive]

Xbox live was my first exposure to online gaming, so I am just used to paying for the service. Even though microsoft increased the price of live it is still relatively cheap ($60 for a 12 month gold subscription is not that bad). Even though you get online play for free on the PC, you're still not saving that much money compared to someone who pays for xbox live. You probably have invested thousands of dollars in your PC that is probably now outdated. And on top of that most a lot of pc games released are ridden with glitches and some aren't even getting any DLC. So paying to play online is not that ridiculous.

That's terrible. You have gotten accustomed to the worst possible way to play and have gotten to think it's better. It's ridiculous you think actually paying $60 a year is 'not that bad', and even more ridiculous that you think PC games are like that.

 

[Majine]

Plus is quite a genius creation, since Sony can automatically make a profit because they are in control of the content being handed out.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

The hilarious part about XBL, outside of being charged to use stuff you've already paid for, is paying to use Netflix. I'm sure this is rationalized as "Microsoft is letting you use Netflix on their console"; which is bullsh*t as it's still THE ONLY PLATFORM where you need to pay to view the service you're paying for on the Internet service you're paying for.

ugh.....

 

[RustyNails]

Xbox live was my first exposure to online gaming, so I am just used to paying for the service. Even though microsoft increased the price of live it is still relatively cheap ($60 for a 12 month gold subscription is not that bad). Even though you get online play for free on the PC, you're still not saving that much money compared to someone who pays for xbox live. You probably have invested thousands of dollars in your PC that is probably now outdated. And on top of that most a lot of pc games released are ridden with glitches and some aren't even getting any DLC. So paying to play online is not that ridiculous.

The lengths to which some people go to justify their monetary rape by corporations. So your answer is...more lube? Seriously?

 

[Sydle]

The hilarious part about XBL, outside of being charged to use stuff you've already paid for, is paying to use Netflix. I'm sure this is rationalized as "Microsoft is letting you use Netflix on their console"; which is bullsh*t as it's still THE ONLY PLATFORM where you need to pay to view the service you're paying for on the Internet service you're paying for.

ugh.....

Microsoft: *laughs*

Anywho, I don't know anyone who has a LIVE subscription just for Netflix.

 

[.GqueB.]

That's not a very good example. Amazon Prime is basically a discount program for frequent customers. You pay an upfront fee and get cheaper shipping. It's kind of like buying a Season Pass or getting stuff in bulk. You buy in because you save money if you use it a lot.

Not exactly my point. What I was trying to get across was the fact that Amazon Prime is a compelling enough service that people are fundamentally willing to pay to shop.

I understand what it actually is (Im currently enjoying a free trial) but aside from the specifics, at its core Amazon Prime is a compelling enough service that frequent users of amazon are willing to pay money for it (in the end, you're paying for better shipping). If it werent compelling people wouldnt pay for it. Its as simple as that. PSN needs to have some amazing features (outside of playing catchup with xbl) in order to be worth a yearly fee.

 

[jdmonmou]

The lengths to which some people go to justify their monetary rape by corporations. So your answer is...more lube? Seriously?

Its not rape if I like it

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

They could charge for absolutely anything they want to as long as it's free to play online I'm fine.

 

[Jackl]

See heres the thing. You talk about not paying to play online on pc but... its not really free. Go check out how much it would cost you to host a bf:bc2 32 person server. Someone is paying for your servers either through third party hosting or they are paying more for an amazing connection to host on. Pc gaming is not free.. its just free for the leechers. Why do you think theres servers out there asking for donations and such? Its costing them a damn pretty penny compared to paying for something like xbl. (its a lot better than xbl as well but cost a lot more)

Anyways I paid for vent/game servers once when I was a clan retard. So everytime I hear someone say "PC GAMING IS FREE" I say like hell it is.

Yes, but the cost is held upfront by the enthusiast rather then Casual Joe.

And you know whats amazing? I know right now if I wanted to I can log into a decade old Unreal/Quake game and find dozens of server to play in. How are those Halo 2 servers doing?

 

[Gadfly]

I think more people would pay for PSN+ if they had more compelling practical uses for it. When you have to use bullshit like "background downloading and updating of firmware and patches" as a paid feature of your service, then you've got problems.

What??

There was a thread on what PSN+ is all about. I don't remember this particular item but I remember the delta between regular PSN and PSN+ was nowhere close to delta between XBL Silver and Gold. (I am talking about delta here and not whether PSN and PSN+ are worth more or less compared to XBL Silver and Gold).

They are charging for the wrong feature sets.

 

[Zeliard]

The hilarious part about XBL, outside of being charged to use stuff you've already paid for, is paying to use Netflix. I'm sure this is rationalized as "Microsoft is letting you use Netflix on their console"; which is bullsh*t as it's still THE ONLY PLATFORM where you need to pay to view the service you're paying for on the Internet service you're paying for.

ugh.....

What's also hilarious about it is that people genuinely tout Netflix streaming as a "feature" of Xbox Live Gold - as a reason the cost is worth it.

 

[Tom Penny]

They're the geniuses who decided not to charge. Silly rabbits.

 

[GavinGT]

The hilarious part about XBL, outside of being charged to use stuff you've already paid for, is paying to use Netflix. I'm sure this is rationalized as "Microsoft is letting you use Netflix on their console"; which is bullsh*t as it's still THE ONLY PLATFORM where you need to pay to view the service you're paying for on the Internet service you're paying for.

ugh.....

It's still a deft business decision by Microsoft. It ensures that they make money even if people are only using their boxes for Netflix.

 

[soldat7]

It's just a ton easier to find content on XBL. You can tell, especially with movies, TV, and general advertising, that MS puts more effort into the system.

Go look for Holiday movies for kids on both services (non-Netflix) and you'll see a huge difference.

 

[Gadfly]

Umm... Hold the horses this is inaccurate.
http://jp.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idJPnTK049554820101222

The actual Japanese article indicates the online service structure including their music play for QRIOCITY as well as E-Book and no doubt anything digital was not making money YET. That includes the video store.

They use the term PSN as the amalgram of their entire online digital play. That as an aggregate cost assessment and has not yet yielded profit due to the simple fact that its still being built.

This is NOT a quote from Kaz Hirai saying PSN games are not profitable. That's completely out of context for the article.

Those aspects of online services that GAF did not consider part of the PSN (music play, E-Book, video store, etc.) should not be contributing to the loss. If anything, they should be offsetting some of the loss. Apparently they are not offsetting the loss enough. And more likely when they talk about their online services becoming profitable, those are the services that they expect will pull their weight and then some.

 

[UntoldDreams]

Those aspects of online services that GAF did not consider part of the PSN (music play, E-Book, video store, etc.) should not be contributing to the loss. If anything, they should be offsetting some of the loss. Apparently they are not offsetting the loss enough. And more likely when they talk about their online services becoming profitable, those are the services that they expect will pull their weight and then some.

...
The reality is that the original article is saying SPECIFICALLY that the costs of the cloud networking infrastructure (video, music, books, etc) are keeping them in the red and they have an 11 year road map to success.

*** If you want to say "I don't like what the article in reality is saying! I want to believe my own fantasy football league is real and reality is fake".

Sure go ahead. Have fun.

 

[alr1ght]

Anybody who is internet-savvy does not pay full price for Live. Besides, if PSN was as good as Xbox Live, I would be more than happy to pay for it. It's a chicken or the egg situation though, since if Sony charged for PSN in the first place, it would likely be a strong full-featured Live competitor.

Are we really back to this defense?


Pay to pay online for PS4 = me moving to PC.

 

[Face it Tiger..]

Does PS Home count in all of this?

 

[Snuggles]

Are we really back to this defense?

It only costs .16 cents a day!

 

[alr1ght]

It only costs .16 cents a day!

oh, this is way worse

Whats wrong with people?


I game on PC and 360 online, I don't see what the issue is. Shit is trivially cheap, I don't pay Microsoft for live I just get cards on discount.

My staying power has a lot to do with a specific game franchise, Forza and it's online community etc.. Although I'm not active very much at all because of work and working out... All the live shit, achievements, friends, my avatar and XBLA etc keeps me coming back.

I reeeeeally hope that was just bad grammar.

 

[rezuth]

Joystiq



Man that's got to sting, MS have been raking in billions from Live all this time. The good thing is that Sony's offering next gen should be much more up to scratch from launch than the PS3 was so as to ensure that the PSN is as integrated into potential buyers' minds as Live is to 360 purchasers.

Can anyone afford to run a major(aka millions of users) unified online system without some sort of service charge? I'm fully expecting Sony to go pay to play next gen. Steam doesn't count as they aren't fully unified and make money from the game sales.

Edit: I think if Sony/MS offer a service with the perks of steam and the tight unification/integration for $30 a year next generation that they've got a winner as it gives people the best of PC gaming and Xbox live for a reasonable price which Sony have proven they need as you can't run a major unified network for free and expect profit.

So does MS and Sony.

 

[vodka-bull]

No wonder they don't make any profit out of the awful PSN. Sony even had once the idea to make a successfull paid servicebut still no cross game chat and still no party chat, not to mention that the chatquality in general sucks in PSN enabled multiplayer games, it's just pathetic compared to microsoft. I would gladly pay the same amount I pay for Xbox Live if they would give me a service that's worth paying for, but Plus is just terrible.

 

[Carl]

How is it a selling point if its free ? derp

If you mean the console itself.. i dont know man, dont really think so.

Really? I know several people who bought a PS3 over a 360 because you don't have to pay for online...

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Xbox live was my first exposure to online gaming, so I am just used to paying for the service. Even though microsoft increased the price of live it is still relatively cheap ($60 for a 12 month gold subscription is not that bad). Even though you get online play for free on the PC, you're still not saving that much money compared to someone who pays for xbox live. You probably have invested thousands of dollars in your PC that is probably now outdated. And on top of that most a lot of pc games released are ridden with glitches and some aren't even getting any DLC. So paying to play online is not that ridiculous.

:lol

Saying my PC is "outdated" is pretty rich when the hardware in the 360 is 5 years old.

 

[Slayer-33]

oh, this is way worse


I reeeeeally hope that was just bad grammar.

Well I mean I get xbl subs cards on eBay or amazon/buy/dell.com


Way below retail prices is what I mean.

lol I don't really consider that paying MS directly..

:lol

 

[APZonerunner]

Do people honestly still believe that PS4 won't have PSN cost money? Sony is looking at how much money MS makes from Live and salivating over it.

I think this too, to be honest. It may not be right from the perspective of the gamer, but Sony is essentially passing up a bucket load of free money here. I think PS+ is a step towards it, and the only reason online play didn't switch to paid is doing it on an existing system would've caused outrage. I fully expect the PS4 to have PS+ to evolve to include online play, though hopefully it'll be cheaper than LIVE, and the free option will still keep features like Netflix and the like.

 

[Neuromancer]

Even before this news came out, I had pretty much assumed the next PS system was going to be a paid online system. The writings been on the wall with PS+ for awhile now.

 

[alr1ght]

If they had PS+ at the beginning it would have many more customers. I see the deals it gets and while it may look nice to new users, I usually have most of the content they're discounting.

 

[Nessus]

36 billion yen in revenue and they still can't turn a profit?

36 billion yen = $430 000 000 USD

How the fuck are they spending more than $400 000 000 in upkeep on PSN? For the most part it's P2P, I seriously don't get it.

And the cost of downloads should cover their own bandwidth.

 

[Shalashaska]

Cost of online + RROD kept me away from buying a 360. I'm going to assume MS doesn't release a borked console next time, so if Sony goes pay online I'd have to strongly consider switching over to MS' next console. Especially if it ends up being the lead platform again.

 

[DMeisterJ]

If Sony goes pay to play online, I'll just stick with an XBL subscription since it's much more fleshed out. I don't think they will though, they need to keep this feather in their hat.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

If Sony goes pay to play online, I'll just stick with an XBL subscription since it's much more fleshed out. I don't think they will though, they need to keep this feather in their hat.

This is the company that mocked the 360 for not having proper backward compatibility at E3; then removed it themselves. :lol

Playstation 3, No Longer Future-Proof™!

 

[Carl]

No wonder they don't make any profit out of the awful PSN. Sony even had once the idea to make a successfull paid servicebut still no cross game chat and still no party chat, not to mention that the chatquality in general sucks in PSN enabled multiplayer games, it's just pathetic compared to microsoft. I would gladly pay the same amount I pay for Xbox Live if they would give me a service that's worth paying for, but Plus is just terrible.

Troll much?

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Troll much?

It helps the hurt of paying for XBL to keep the lies alive.

Come on Xbox-GAF; XBL is not massively "better" than PSN in any way, shape, or form. Game invites and ease of joining is nice, and so is sending little voice messages instead of text; but that crap isn't worth $60 a year.

You're high.

None of these companies should be trying to rip us off, the reason they do is console gamers are inherently dumb; have no frame of reference, and are eager to BELIEVE.

Really is a shame Sony and Nintendo couldn't pull a two pronged FREE ONLINE attack to change minds this generation.

 

[catchabad0ne]

Might not be the best thread for this but...playing games online on PS3 has been a joke so far for me. I've only ever found one person to play a game with on PSN. Honestly I don't really play online games much, and apparently the games I play have absolutely zero people playing them ever.

For example, I have had my PS3 since February or March I think. Anyway, I downloaded Super Puzzle Fighter immediately. Mostly play local, but have checked probably an average of 2 times a month since I bought it. Never have found a game online. Next I bought Worms. Admittedly, not a very good Worms game so maybe that has something to do with it. Searching many, many times, I found one person, not one game mind you, but one person. Played a round with him and then he disappeared. Never have found another game of Worms. Now, my third attempt at playing games online has been NBA Jam. I have only had it for about 2 weeks, only checked online for games 3 or 4 times probably. Have yet to find anybody to play with. I am lucky I mostly play local and am pretty cold to the idea of online. There is definitely no way in hell I'd pay to play online without a guarantee of a user base to play against. I know people will probably say I'm playing the wrong games, or should have got in on the games when they were originally released or something, but ehh whatever. And no I am not going to go play FPS #3590.

The funny thing is, I never have had a problem finding people to play with on Wii. I've never not found anyone on Dr. Mario, Mario Kart, or Mario Strikers. (However I have not played Mario Strikers in a few years so maybe that is dead)

So with all that said, they better not charge for PSN. It has almost zero value to me as of now and I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am not alone.

 

[Mr Jared]

With 17 million users, I would say it's a bit popular.

As someone who used to work on PS Home, I need to debunk this already. PlayStation Home absolutely does not have 17 million users. What they mean is that since the launch of Home, 17 Million PSN ID's have LOGGED IN, not that they have 17 million ACTIVE users. It's impressive, yes, but globally, PS Home does not have a million active users, if even 500,000.

 

[DMeisterJ]

This is the company that mocked the 360 for not having proper backward compatibility at E3; then removed it themselves. :lol

Playstation 3, No Longer Future-Proof™!

Circumstances are a quite a bit different. The EE + GS were always supposed to be removed from the PS3 per interviews w/Kutaragi before the launch, and the PS2 emulation was to be handled by the Cell and RSX, but the RSX doesn't do a good job of emulation the GS or something to that nature, so that's why there is no bc... I don't think we'll have a paid online for PS4. They'll just stick with the PS+ model.

 

[UntoldDreams]

Might not be the best thread for this but...playing games online on PS3 has been a joke so far for me. I've only ever found one person to play a game with on PSN. Honestly I don't really play online games much, and apparently the games I play have absolutely zero people playing them ever.

For example, I have had my PS3 since February or March I think. Anyway, I downloaded Super Puzzle Fighter immediately. Mostly play local, but have checked probably an average of 2 times a month since I bought it. Never have found a game online. Next I bought Worms. Admittedly, not a very good Worms game so maybe that has something to do with it. Searching many, many times, I found one person, not one game mind you, but one person. Played a round with him and then he disappeared. Never have found another game of Worms. Now, my third attempt at playing games online has been NBA Jam. I have only had it for about 2 weeks, only checked online for games 3 or 4 times probably. Have yet to find anybody to play with. I am lucky I mostly play local and am pretty cold to the idea of online. There is definitely no way in hell I'd pay to play online without a guarantee of a user base to play against. I know people will probably say I'm playing the wrong games, or should have got in on the games when they were originally released or something, but ehh whatever. And no I am not going to go play FPS #3590.

The funny thing is, I never have had a problem finding people to play with on Wii. I've never not found anyone on Dr. Mario, Mario Kart, or Mario Strikers. (However I have not played Mario Strikers in a few years so maybe that is dead)

So with all that said, they better not charge for PSN. It has almost zero value to me as of now and I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am not alone.

Hold the train...
Are you saying... Mario games are popular?!?!?

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

For example, I have had my PS3 since February or March I think. Anyway, I downloaded Super Puzzle Fighter immediately. Mostly play local, but have checked probably an average of 2 times a month since I bought it. Never have found a game online. Next I bought Worms. Admittedly, not a very good Worms game so maybe that has something to do with it. Searching many, many times, I found one person, not one game mind you, but one person. Played a round with him and then he disappeared. Never have found another game of Worms. Now, my third attempt at playing games online has been NBA Jam. I have only had it for about 2 weeks, only checked online for games 3 or 4 times probably. Have yet to find anybody to play with. I am lucky I mostly play local and am pretty cold to the idea of online. There is definitely no way in hell I'd pay to play online without a guarantee of a user base to play against. I know people will probably say I'm playing the wrong games, or should have got in on the games when they were originally released or something, but ehh whatever. And no I am not going to go play FPS #3590.

So with all that said, they better not charge for PSN. It has almost zero value to me as of now and I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am not alone.

Bolded is your problem.

I would not judge the virtue of PSN based on that alone. That's just ridiculous.

And don't come back telling me you couldn't find anybody to co-op Untold Legends online with.

 

[Sydle]

It helps the hurt of paying for XBL to keep the lies alive.

Come on Xbox-GAF; XBL is not massively "better" than PSN in any way, shape, or form. Game invites and ease of joining is nice, and so is sending little voice messages instead of text; but that crap isn't worth $60 a year.

You're high.

None of these companies should be trying to rip us off, the reason they do is console gamers are inherently dumb; have no frame of reference, and are eager to BELIEVE.

Really is a shame Sony and Nintendo couldn't pull a two pronged FREE ONLINE attack to change minds this generation.

I don't know how to qualify "massively better", but I think the LIVE experience is superior enough to keep my 360 as my main online console when playing with friends. Enough to be a subscriber for three consecutive years.

 

[BoilersFan23]

Bolded is your problem.

I would not judge the virtue of PSN based on that alone. That's just ridiculous.

And don't come back telling me you couldn't find anybody to co-op Untold Legends online with.

Puzzle Fighter II is an old game which next to no one plays, same with Worm. Very few bought NBA Jam on PS3 or 360. I had issues finding games since release. However, if that person was playing games like Warhawk, Resistance 2, Uncharted 2, etc., they probably would not have many issues finding players.

I completely agree with you there, those are terrible games to judge PSN off of.

 

[Scooter]

ITT 360 fans make excuses to make themselves feel better for getting ripped off and laugh at Sony because it went out of its way to not rape its customers like Microsoft does.

 

[Zoe]

Bolded is your problem.

I would not judge the virtue of PSN based on that alone. That's just ridiculous.

And don't come back telling me you couldn't find anybody to co-op Untold Legends online with.

Calling All Cars got its servers shut off--PSN bomba confirmed!

Spoiler

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Calling All Cars got its servers shut off--PSN bomba confirmed!

Spoiler

It's a shame. I waited to get a PS3, and by the time I got one, CaC was dead and it wasn't even a year!

I don't think the game had any legs unfortunately. Really is a shame it wasn't given a fair shake.

Also keeping servers for games online for the lifetime of a console would be an incentive for me to actually pay for the service Microsoft and Sony. Just sayin'.

 

[onken]

Consider, what is costing them money?

-P2P matchmaking and a handful of dedicated servers
-demo/video download bandwidth

OK, so what is making them money?

-PSN games (including disc-based games, PSP stuff and minis)
-Game archives (PS1, PC-Engine, NeoGeo etc)
-DLC/micro-transactions
-Movie rentals/Qriocity
-Bandwidth fees from publishers for hosting demos
-PSN+

How the fuck are they losing money? Seriously, how?

 

[Loudninja]

Consider, what is costing them money?

-P2P matchmaking and a handful of dedicated servers
-demo/video download bandwidth

OK, so what is making them money?

-PSN games (including disc-based games, PSP stuff and minis)
-Game archives (PS1, PC-Engine, NeoGeo etc)
-DLC/micro-transactions
-Movie rentals/Qriocity
-Bandwidth fees from publishers for hosting demos
-PSN+

How the fuck are they losing money? Seriously, how?

I'm out of here but I did provide you guys (I'm looking at you OP) fair warning that what the original Japanese article is talking about is that the Sony Online Infrastructure is costing a lot of money to phase into existence (music, video, games, ebooks) and that keeps them in the red. Its not specific to PSN gaming or dedicated servers or fighting with LIVE or anything like that.

The article also says they have an 11 year road map to their (world domination) profitable digital future (Sony Online Network). Every stage of their business plan starts in the RED INK due to spin up costs and you can imagine how much it will cost for them to fight it out with iTunes and other digital companies.

Have fun chaps!

.

 

[olimpia84]

If they charge online services for the PS4 I'm not buying it.

 

[vodka-bull]

Come on Xbox-GAF; XBL is not massively "better" than PSN in any way, shape, or form. Game invites and ease of joining is nice, and so is sending little voice messages instead of text; but that crap isn't worth $60 a year.

Making better scores at online games by communicating with my team, even though they're complete strangers, is definitely worth $60 a year.

As someone who used to work on PS Home, I need to debunk this already. PlayStation Home absolutely does not have 17 million users. What they mean is that since the launch of Home, 17 Million PSN ID's have LOGGED IN, not that they have 17 million ACTIVE users. It's impressive, yes, but globally, PS Home does not have a million active users, if even 500,000.

I guess my 3 accounts (J, US, EU) are counted in that statistic too...

 

[Persona7]

ITT 360 fans make excuses to make themselves feel better for getting ripped off and laugh at Sony because it went out of its way to not rape its customers like Microsoft does.

Sony did it for the sake of the community? They aren't trying to pry every dime out of my wallet like every other company in business?