-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony: Playstation Network Is Unprofitable
- Thread starter Mr_Brit
- Start date
Stripper13
Member
Scooter said:
I doubt you'll find many XBL subscribers who feel they are being 'ripped off' for the service. Would I like it to be free? Sure would! Do I think charging for P2P networking is justified? Not really. Do I think charging so I can play games with all of mates, have cross-game chat and access to demo's blah blah blah is okay? Absolutely.
The gap between XBL and PSN in terms of ease of use, simplicity and just overall 'being better' is significant. I'll quite happily use my PSN account to buy a PSN game or play Uncharted 2 online from time to time... but I groan every time I do. I think when you look at it as XBL only offers P2P networking - it is a ripoff absolutely. But the whole experience is a lot smoother, optimized and designed better to the point where paying a nominal fee is absolutely something I do not regret.
As for 'Sony not wanting to rape their customers'... well you can guarantee if they had a service that was even half as good as XBL up their sleeve at launch they would have charged for it. They have made great strides in making the system comparable to XBL in features and content but still have a while to go - and more importantly, they effectively have a money losing (at least at the moment) service that is not as good as the competition (better than Wii obviously) with no real way to convince people to pay to be a member for the time being... Why Sony made the decision to go free (I doubt it was because they did not want to rape/charge their users) I do not know... but it was a poor decision and one they cannot fix anytime soon.
Stripper13
Member
Zoe said:
The issue being that 95% of the PSN players (in my experience) don't have, or don't use mic/communication.
The XBL community has a significant portion of these players too, even more if you consider many are in party/cross-game/private chat and don't communicate to the rest of the team... but it's still a night and day difference between the two services, and one that makes for a better experience while playing a game.
Honestly, paying money to play online just rubs me the wrong way.
It's something I've been accustomed to getting it for free for the past 15 years and now they want to charge $60 dollars a year for an inferior version of what I've always had connection wise.
And those OS features that probably doesn't cost MS much if, any to run isn't worth it.
It's something I've been accustomed to getting it for free for the past 15 years and now they want to charge $60 dollars a year for an inferior version of what I've always had connection wise.
And those OS features that probably doesn't cost MS much if, any to run isn't worth it.
While it is obvious that XBL has the lead as an overall online experience, PSN is pretty close today. And it will probably be closer in the future and for sure when next-gen is launched.
The thing is, especially for those who find 'great' to keep paying for XBL, if that model is sustainable as a user if Sony and Nintendo (and PC, steam for example) started to charge for their online services. Any multiplatform user should pay an insane amount of money just to be 'able' to play.
Now live is affordable partially because other services are free. If that changes, if you wanna play smashbros, halo and uncharted online you will have to pay 3 times.
I think sony did the right move with PSN+, it can improve though, but basic services should be free, and only pay for extra services/content. C'mon, you pay the hardware, the game, your ISP. And most games are p2p. Paying for XBLgold is just paying for matchmaking.
The thing is, especially for those who find 'great' to keep paying for XBL, if that model is sustainable as a user if Sony and Nintendo (and PC, steam for example) started to charge for their online services. Any multiplatform user should pay an insane amount of money just to be 'able' to play.
Now live is affordable partially because other services are free. If that changes, if you wanna play smashbros, halo and uncharted online you will have to pay 3 times.
I think sony did the right move with PSN+, it can improve though, but basic services should be free, and only pay for extra services/content. C'mon, you pay the hardware, the game, your ISP. And most games are p2p. Paying for XBLgold is just paying for matchmaking.
TheSeks said:
Exactly. Sony have no one but themselves to blame. They promised online gaming in late 1999/early 2000 to steal the Dreamcasts thunder then put any plans they had on the shelf. Neversoft tried to nudge it back into play by putting online play in THPS3 with a list of possible supported routers. Sony still didn't budge. Then Xbox Live was released in late 2002 and suddenly Sony had to throw something together. Ok, so MS have had years of networking experience, but the point is Sony didn't take it seriously when they had the chance and have spent the last few years playing catch up.
The only reason Sony has never charged is because they didn't have the features to justify the price back then. Over the years they've been adding to the service and it has come a bloody long way but still don't have any backbone infrastructure that developers can utilize. One games online features are missing from another, you only have to compare Uncharted 2 to GT5, one has invites, one doesn't and one of those games didn't take 6yrs to make.
There is a reason why the people who pay for Xbox Live are happy and that's because it is a very highly polished and stable environment that still gives the user control, from cross game invites to party chat while in seperate games, muting screaming 12yos, how much of your profile is visible to friends and non friends, adding downloads to your Xbox from a website etc etc.
Like a few people have said, PS4 will most likely be pay2play, it's not a bad thing, it's just the service needs a major overhaul before it is worth it.
vodka-bull
Member
Because being the only one who owns a damn mic improves communication with strangers?Zoe said:
flyinpiranha
Member
SalsaShark said:
I'll never understand the "principle" argument. Online gaming, games, everything that comes with it is just something you must deem for yourself as something worth paying for. It's not like people are forced to buy 360's and pay for online.
If you think it's worth it, you pay for it. Much like MANY games out there ... do you think Black Ops or GT5 or LBP are worth $60? Some do, some don't.
It has nothing to do with a principle.
Hell, there's free to play MMO's, does that mean people shouldn't pay for them? Same with games, tons of free games out there, should you stop paying for them? (not talking about Yarrrr!).
Shin Johnpv
Member
Paco said:
I disagree personally. I lucked out and got a 12 month live card when I got my 360 a few years ago for 30 bucks. After 1 year I felt completely ripped off, and have not renewed my subscription at all. Completely not worth the money. Granted I've also played PC games for years. Years of free online multiplayer. Nothing done on XBL felt worth the money I paid for it.
I hope PSN continues to be free.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
sillymonkey321 said:
If I don't know you, I don't use a mic.
In fact, I block all communication from strangers via the privacy settings.
Sorry Internet, you're jerks. That privacy setting is another nice thing about XBL.
However, SOCOM 2 came bundled with a headset and nobody listened when I played that.
To hell with strangers on the Internet.
Gareth Bale
Member
Some people need to understand that Live and PSN aren't mutually exclusive. I pay for Live because I value its service. But if I want to use PSN then I can. It isn't going anywhere. PSN is my safety.
As a business decision, Sony made a mistake not to charge for PSN. It would be naive to think that it's free because they love their customers. They obviously didn't have enough confidence in their service to think that they could challenge Live in a subscription based model.
As a business decision, Sony made a mistake not to charge for PSN. It would be naive to think that it's free because they love their customers. They obviously didn't have enough confidence in their service to think that they could challenge Live in a subscription based model.
vodka-bull
Member
Point is it's not assured that your PSN teammate/opponent owns a headset, whereas I always consider that my XBL counterpart got one.Zoe said:
You don't have many online friends, do you?The Take Out Bandit said:
Free PSN is not necessarily a mistake. The article says it exceeded the target this year. So they expect a profit starting next year.
It will go up further with more content and services. We only get more videos during the second half of this year. Same for Home, 1.41 is pretty good now. Revenue tripled this year. Music is coming soon. So they should be able to make more money from casuals and core gamers.
Once they beef up PS+ with more values, and promote sales via Rewards, there should be more uptake as well. They have come a long way indeed.
It will go up further with more content and services. We only get more videos during the second half of this year. Same for Home, 1.41 is pretty good now. Revenue tripled this year. Music is coming soon. So they should be able to make more money from casuals and core gamers.
Once they beef up PS+ with more values, and promote sales via Rewards, there should be more uptake as well. They have come a long way indeed.
Stripper13 said:
Like I said you're making excuses to feel better for getting ripped off. "If Sony had a service half as good as Live"? Are you serious? I can talk to to my teammates and invite them in all the latest AAA games. Cross-talk is a nice extra feature but it's not worth 60 dollars and doesn't make the service twice as good. You haven't even explained why Live is twice as good or why it has better ease of use, you're just talking out of your ass without even supporting what you say.
That's the kind of cognitive dissonance I'd expect from people who pay money for P2P gaming while I still play many games with dedicated servers on PSN for free.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
vodka-bull said:
It's the Internet.
I only trust people who have got my back when the chips are down.
Got plenty of IRL friends, however I admit I need to replenish the inventory as they're all getting hitched and crapping out kids.
vodka-bull
Member
Just sayin, my friends I'm playin with were all strangers once.The Take Out Bandit said:It's the Internet.
I only trust people who have got my back when the chips are down.
Got plenty of IRL friends, however I admit I need to replenish the inventory as they're all getting hitched and crapping out kids.
Krispy Killa v3
Neo Member
Bandwidth costs are too high I imagine
I think there's a lot of 360 owners who don't mind paying a subscription fee so I wonder if this perception would lead to an increase in the adoption rate for Xbox Live Gold when next gen starts, compared to what it was when the 360 launched. Considering how much loss they usually make on each new consoles they sell in the first couple years, that's some tidy profit potential up front...
jonnybryce
Member
Stripper13 said:
What? Buying things is super easy on PSN, even easier than 360 because it's actual money and not the points system made to mislead and confuse you. This thread is derailing majorly but there really isn't this huge difference in quality imo.
I don't think it's Sony thinking PSN isn't good enough to charge for, it's them wanting to keep that advantage and selling point.
Gareth Bale
Member
patsu said:
everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg
I can't see PS+ being too popular in the future. Hardly anyone knows about it outside of the hardcore demographic, and weren't a lot of the early adopters in the thread on GAF disappointed with it?
onken
Member
Loudninja said:
I have meticulously retranslated the relevant portion of the article and I don't it's that clear at all:
Now it's possible I suppose that Kaz was referring to all online services when he said PSN, but that's quite a gaffe if so. Also the article goes out of it's way to define what PSN is, so again, it doesn't seem like that's the case.
bigtroyjon
Member
jonnybryce said:
There isn't now but things were different when the consoles launched. Microsoft wouldn't have put the resources into Live like they have without the revenue from the subscriptions, and therefore PSN would still be mediocre without people paying for Live. Sony only gamers should be happy as hell that Microsoft charges. It's improved PSN immensely.
H_Prestige
Banned
jonnybryce said:
That and paying for matchmaking (that's all you gold members have ever been paying for no matter how you spin it) are the two things that I wish MS would change about the Xbox. Why can't they just use real money for all downloadable content? They already do it with games on demand. Points system just means I might have to pay more than the thing I'm trying to buy is worth.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
A) Free service doesn't make money? Mind blown.
B) I will never pay dime to play online. Ever.
B) I will never pay dime to play online. Ever.
Well, maybe a few bucks. But $60 a year, etc., can kiss my ass.
Drunkenthumbmaster
Banned
PSN needs to charge if they are losing money. If not charge they need to go completely open like the PC does and just have devs do whatever they want and forgo the unified system if it's causing them money. Why should they continue to lose money and not see any thing for there efforts.
As it stands now PSN still sucks IMO. How many times does a Multiplat game comes out and the PSN online is screwed the biggest game of all time Black op's is having issues sure it may get fixed or may not but guess what it worked on XBL day 1. The first LBP online was so bad at launch that the single player suffered lag. GTA 4 online was screwed at launch on PSN. Gran Tursimo lack of online features in a Racer after years of dev is disgusting. Uncharted 2 over a year after launch I'm still having to jump through hoops to connect and I keep getting "network failed synch" errors. Live works there is the occasional hiccup but nothing near as bad as the travesty of PSN.
Then download speeds OMG what the fuck. I know the Sony apologist will want to blame my connection but I dl'ed the Dead Space 2 demo on Live withing minutes (about 15 or 20) It took hours on the PS3 went to work for a 8 hrs came home and it still wasn't done. And both are connected wirelessly.
Sony's retarded ass DRM on Video content I bought a movie on a old PS3 upgraded to slim but since I didn't deactivate my PSN video account (didn't even know there was a sep account for video content) I can't access the movie anymore and not only that I can't buy new movies on my PS3 before I deactivate the old account unless I sign up for a new PSN I D. Idiotic Yet the games have game share which people trade among friends lol.
It's come a long way but it's still not up to bar it's the worst unified online system of any platform. Wii doesn't count because it's not unified. And they can't charge for it.
There is one thing I absolutely love about PSN though. And that's there support of Player created content in games like LBP and Mod Nation Racers and even Unreal Tournament 3.
But overall the service isn't up to par and still hasn't even eclipsed the OG xbox version of Live. Sad for a company that actually had online gaming before MS.
As it stands now PSN still sucks IMO. How many times does a Multiplat game comes out and the PSN online is screwed the biggest game of all time Black op's is having issues sure it may get fixed or may not but guess what it worked on XBL day 1. The first LBP online was so bad at launch that the single player suffered lag. GTA 4 online was screwed at launch on PSN. Gran Tursimo lack of online features in a Racer after years of dev is disgusting. Uncharted 2 over a year after launch I'm still having to jump through hoops to connect and I keep getting "network failed synch" errors. Live works there is the occasional hiccup but nothing near as bad as the travesty of PSN.
Then download speeds OMG what the fuck. I know the Sony apologist will want to blame my connection but I dl'ed the Dead Space 2 demo on Live withing minutes (about 15 or 20) It took hours on the PS3 went to work for a 8 hrs came home and it still wasn't done. And both are connected wirelessly.
Sony's retarded ass DRM on Video content I bought a movie on a old PS3 upgraded to slim but since I didn't deactivate my PSN video account (didn't even know there was a sep account for video content) I can't access the movie anymore and not only that I can't buy new movies on my PS3 before I deactivate the old account unless I sign up for a new PSN I D. Idiotic Yet the games have game share which people trade among friends lol.
It's come a long way but it's still not up to bar it's the worst unified online system of any platform. Wii doesn't count because it's not unified. And they can't charge for it.
There is one thing I absolutely love about PSN though. And that's there support of Player created content in games like LBP and Mod Nation Racers and even Unreal Tournament 3.
But overall the service isn't up to par and still hasn't even eclipsed the OG xbox version of Live. Sad for a company that actually had online gaming before MS.
vodka-bull
Member
Wasn't the PSN cards dilemma in europe due to the real money thing?H_Prestige said:
tzare said:
You're missing the point, I mean the actual infrastructure behind the service, not a developers programming skills.
Look, basically XBL is a glorified MSN and the guide button is like pressing Shift+Tab. Everything else like invites and multiplayer in the games are tied to the service but with the PSN service each game requires the devs to put their own effort in, that is why not every game has cross game invites, or you can't just click on a name in your friends list and choose to 'Join Game' whther you're in a different game or watching a movie/browsing PS Store etc etc.
So many people are saying Gold is just to pay money for pay2play but it still offers specials and a few other features it's not much different to PS+, except with PS+ you just get less for your buck and you can't keep some of the content when you cancel your sub.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Persona7 said:
Sony's inability to effectively charge benefits us, the consumers, greatly.
Sony will look at the numbers. CoD is selling most on PS3? Windows? Xbox360?
It is selling most on the only service which charges for playing it.
So "free online play" might make a difference for a minority of players, but most of them don't care (or they even say, "Hey, I am happy to pay for it.").
And my guess is, that most of the CoD Players are on auto-renewal for XboxLive.
And Bobby is probably now telling Sony that he wants to see some money on PSN (as he stated he is getting money of XboxLive now).
So the PS4 will charge for online play.
It is selling most on the only service which charges for playing it.
So "free online play" might make a difference for a minority of players, but most of them don't care (or they even say, "Hey, I am happy to pay for it.").
And my guess is, that most of the CoD Players are on auto-renewal for XboxLive.
And Bobby is probably now telling Sony that he wants to see some money on PSN (as he stated he is getting money of XboxLive now).
So the PS4 will charge for online play.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Get PSN up to the quality of XBL and I seriously doubt they'll be saying that.boingball said:
vodka-bull
Member
None of us is happy to pay, it's not like we have too much money that we need something to pay for. It's just that some of us know that there's no comparable service out there on video game consoles.boingball said:
Similar threads
- Locked