Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Did MS ever comment on Live profitability during the original Xbob?

XBob, the dim-witted half-brother of Xbox.

 

[Slayer-33]

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.

I don't get "raped" at $30-40 a year depending on the special offer I get.

Better service is better, there's not much else to this whole argument.

 

[flyinpiranha]

I've been playing online games for free since the 90s. I'm not going to start paying for it now when there are multiple free services available.

Great, so have I. I also paid $1600 for a Pentium 2 PC.

Shit changes.

I mean seriously? "because it was free" is an excuse? Are you still paing $14.99 for "internet"?

I don't mean to be a dick if I seem to be ... just saying, things change and prices change. I also paid $39.99 for PC games back then and now they are all starting at $49.99.

 

[FLEABttn]

Great, so have I. I also paid $1600 for a Pentium 2.

Shit changes.

I mean seriously? "because it was free" is an excuse? Are you still paing $14.99 for "internet"?

I don't mean to be a dick if I seem to be ... just saying, things change and prices change. I also paid $39.99 for PC games back then and now they are all starting at $49.99.

If you're going to pay for online gaming, and you're going to use the "it's improved" argument, the online gaming needs to have improved. Leaving recorded messages and cross game invites aren't $30 per year in improvements, and paid peer to peer gaming is a backwards step.

I mean, shit, it's not like cross game invites didn't exist back in 2000. It was called AIM and it was called alt-tab.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

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.

You think the price of XBL will go down next gen?

 

[Zoe]

...which happens to have the only service that charges for playing it. I think he wanted to skip right to that point.

Correlation != Causation

 

[SamBishop]

Great, so have I. I also paid $1600 for a Pentium 2 PC.

Shit changes.

I mean seriously? "because it was free" is an excuse? Are you still paing $14.99 for "internet"?

I don't mean to be a dick if I seem to be ... just saying, things change and prices change. I also paid $39.99 for PC games back then and now they are all starting at $49.99.

He's right. I'm not sure what the context of the PSN quote is, but unless it's (and likely may be) extensive R&D, the PSN as a whole is profitable, though it may be the video store that is killing it. The fees put on devs for things like updates might hurt, but Home makes.... Holy shit.... Home is a GOLDMINE.

 

[Mileena]

The issue being that 95% of the PSN players (in my experience) don't have, or don't use mic/communication.

The fuck is this? :lol

It's more around 75% have mics from what I've seen. Doesn't matter, I instantly mute everyone that I'm not in a party with. People are loud and annoying.

 

[RustyNails]

Great, so have I. I also paid $1600 for a Pentium 2 PC.

Shit changes.

I mean seriously? "because it was free" is an excuse? Are you still paing $14.99 for "internet"?

I don't mean to be a dick if I seem to be ... just saying, things change and prices change. I also paid $39.99 for PC games back then and now they are all starting at $49.99.

You're acting like XBL is the next step in online gaming. Its not. For reference, see Steam.

 

[Gareth Bale]

Get PSN up to the quality of XBL and I seriously doubt they'll be saying that.

Not with the timed exclusive DLC they won't

 

[TouchMyBox]

Pay to play confirmed.

I'm curious, since most people here seem to have more than one gaming platform preference. Would you be willing to pay for online play on more than one platform ala Xbox Live? I'm thinking it would be similar to the WoW effect where the vast majority of MMO players are already playing WoW and can't afford/be bothered to pay monthly for more than one MMO, hence the rest all have to move to free-to-play models.

 

[onken]

Wasn't the PSN cards dilemma in europe due to the real money thing?

Considering something like 99% of the Euro market is covered by two currencies, I don't see why that would be such a problem.

He's right. I'm not sure what the context of the PSN quote is,

Read the thread.

 

[flyinpiranha]

If you're going to pay for online gaming, and you're going to use the "it's improved" argument, the online gaming needs to have improved. Leaving recorded messages and cross game invites aren't $30 per year in improvements, and paid peer to peer gaming is a backwards step.

I mean, shit, it's not like cross game invites didn't exist back in 2000. It was called AIM and it was called alt-tab.

I didn't really say that it's the next step in "internet gaming" ... my stronger point earlier that he replied to was whatever the person deems as worthwhile.

While I play online (PC) for free I still find the value in Live. It's really that simple. It's like telling somebody that the $50 figurine of their favorite anime isn't "worth it".

You're acting like XBL is the next step in online gaming. Its not. For reference, see Steam.

Nah, that last post wasn't meant to say that. And Steam is great ... but it's not where my friends are.

It's all about value to the consumer, and so far millions of people see the value in it. Would you pay for something you didn't want? Neither would people that pay for Live. If the competition is "really" just as strong, they would be there.

 

[adelante]

Correlation != Causation

..and I don't think he's even implying that? The fact remains, the game IS selling most on the platform that charges for playing online.

 

[Kittonwy]

People don't have to pay to use Steam, and Steam is profitable, what Sony needs to work on is the content, if you're only providing the same fucking third-party published content as XBL but XBL has a bigger userbase, people like to play with their friends and naturally that would cause them to lean towards XBL.

Sony needs to provide content and experience only available on PSN, and they need to show the initiative to corner the market with their own IPs, like MS did with HALO FOR YEARS.

 

[vodka-bull]

Considering something like 99% of the Euro market is covered by two currencies, I don't see why that would be such a problem.



Read the thread.

Still, PSN cards are tied to a specific country in europe as far as I know.

 

[Agent X]

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

I agree. Although most of this discussion is between Sony and Microsoft, when looking at the overall situation, I'd place a fair amount of blame on Nintendo for not stepping up their online efforts with the Wii. If the Wii had at least gained some of the functions that PSN had even back in 2006, then having two strong online competitors would've put enormous pressure on Microsoft to make Xbox Live free to play online.

 

[Neuromancer]

I'm curious, since most people here seem to have more than one gaming platform preference. Would you be willing to pay for online play on more than one platform ala Xbox Live? I'm thinking it would be similar to the WoW effect where the vast majority of MMO players are already playing WoW and can't afford/be bothered to pay monthly for more than one MMO, hence the rest all have to move to free-to-play models.

This is a good point. Right now I just don't play enough PS3 games online to warrant spending any $ for it, and anyway I can't see spending money for both. That's why I'm glad it's free.

 

[Kintaro]

Sony needs to provide content and experience only available on PSN, and they need to show the initiative to corner the market with their own IPs, like MS did with HALO FOR YEARS.

What?

Quest for Booty, Pixeljunk games, Uncharted/Warhawk/Resistance maps and DLC, and more. Sony has plenty of content. Not counting PS1 games either.

Next gen, PSN will be pay to play. Really all there is to it. Blame MS and the market.

 

[Sydle]

What?

Quest for Booty, Pixeljunk games, Uncharted/Warhawk/Resistance maps and DLC, and more. Sony has plenty of content. Not counting PS1 games either.

There's far more Live content and there's more regularly added every week. Sony needs to put more effort into making PSN a regular destination.

What?

Quest for Booty, Pixeljunk games, Uncharted/Warhawk/Resistance maps and DLC, and more. Sony has plenty of content. Not counting PS1 games either.

Next gen, PSN will be pay to play. Really all there is to it. Blame MS and the market.

Blame Sony for not stepping up their game fast enough.

 

[FLEABttn]

It's like telling somebody that the $50 figurine of their favorite anime isn't "worth it".

To be fair, just because someone likes something, doesn't mean it's not a piece of shit. Maybe their favorite anime is Angel Links. Maybe they like thyroid cancer as well.

If the competition is "really" just as strong, they would be there.

Not with the kind of upfront costs it takes to switch. Not with the vendor lock in involved with owning a console.

 

[Kittonwy]

What?

Quest for Booty, Pixeljunk games, Uncharted/Warhawk/Resistance maps and DLC, and more. Sony has plenty of content. Not counting PS1 games either.

Next gen, PSN will be pay to play. Really all there is to it. Blame MS and the market.

But you're talking about those games like they merely provide variety by "being there", but it should be more about how much of a critical mass of players you can draw, it shouldn't be about "filling niches", it should be about genre-leading IPs.

The problem is the first-party stuff isn't as heavily marketed as the third-party stuff, and your platform is simply not going to be defined by third-party content, if you have a blockbuster AAA title like Uncharted 2, you better make sure that Uncharted 2 is THE online multiplayer action-shooter game to play on the system if you're going to be selling Uncharted 2 map packs, you need to corner the fucking market with your own stuff and hook in your userbase on games that only you can offer. You don't fucking bundle PS3s with Need for Speed, for your racing bundle it can ONLY be GT5, for action-shooter it can ONLY be Uncharted 2, bundle in Pixeljunk games, push your own content and build that critical mass of players for your own IPs. It's not "oh you can play Call of Duty on the PS3, oh and we have some exclusive stuff too", your exclusive stuff needs to be front and center.

If you look at Nintendo, Zelda is not "one of" many third-party action games that provide that action-adventure experience, it's the fucking game in town, it comes first no matter what third-party publishers decide to drop on the platform, same with Mario, the userbase will always play Mario first over any other platformer regardless of quality, THAT is what Sony needs.

 

[flyinpiranha]

To be fair, just because someone likes something, doesn't mean it's not a piece of shit. Maybe their favorite anime is Angel Links. Maybe they like thyroid cancer as well.

.

And to also "be fair" ... where is it our place to tell them how to spend their money. I didn't mention the quality of anything, just that people find it worthwhile to pay for.

 

[onken]

Still, PSN cards are tied to a specific country in europe as far as I know.

OK, but how would using a different, universal currency change anything? Seems like if they wanted to make them cross-compatible now they could, why change to a different currency, it's not the problem.

 

[FLEABttn]

And to also "be fair" ... where is it our place to tell them how to spend their money. I didn't mention the quality of anything, just that people find it worthwhile to pay for.

When how they spend money impacts my gaming.

 

[vodka-bull]

I honestly doubt that Sony will make a huge step up next generation. Microsoft is one of the biggest software developers ever existed on this planet, Sony could barely catch up to them if it comes to R&D in online business.

 

[androvsky]

He's right. I'm not sure what the context of the PSN quote is, but unless it's (and likely may be) extensive R&D, the PSN as a whole is profitable, though it may be the video store that is killing it. The fees put on devs for things like updates might hurt, but Home makes.... Holy shit.... Home is a GOLDMINE.

It probably is. Like I said earlier, Sony's working on a universal DRM solution for all future and many current media devices (including Apple if Apple ever gives in). Covers music, movies, and books, allows one account on multiple devices so a family can share (zomg gamesharing argument all over again). Even allows for multiple stores, so you could buy from Amazon, PSN, XBLA (MS is an Ultraviolet member too), and you can transfer the media between systems.

It's basically the world vs. Apple (and possibly Disney), trying to break free of iTunes. I got the impression a while back that Sony's leading the charge, and this level of infrastructure and R&D can't be cheap for them.

http://www.uvvu.com/experience.html

I think Qriocity is the first service to actually use Ultraviolet. Not sure though.

I don't think Kaz is talking about PSN as the gaming service.

 

[Sydle]

It probably is. Like I said earlier, Sony's working on a universal DRM solution for all future and many current media devices (including Apple if Apple ever gives in). Covers music, movies, and books, allows one account on multiple devices so a family can share (zomg gamesharing argument all over again). Even allows for multiple stores, so you could buy from Amazon, PSN, XBLA (MS is an Ultraviolet member too), and you can transfer the media between systems.

It's basically the world vs. Apple (and possibly Disney), trying to break free of iTunes. I got the impression a while back that Sony's leading the charge, and this level of infrastructure and R&D can't be cheap for them.

http://www.uvvu.com/experience.html

I think Qriocity is the first service to actually use Ultraviolet. Not sure though.

I don't think Kaz is talking about PSN as the gaming service.

Ultraviolet is being developed by a consortium of like 50 companies, including Microsoft.

 

[Nemo]

Goddamn, it boggles my mind about how consumers can defend this pay2play online stuff. Seriously :/

--

But you're talking about those games like they merely provide variety by "being there", but it should be more about how much of a critical mass of players you can draw, it shouldn't be about "filling niches", it should be about genre-leading IPs.

The problem is the first-party stuff isn't as heavily marketed as the third-party stuff, and your platform is simply not going to be defined by third-party content, if you have a blockbuster AAA title like Uncharted 2, you better make sure that Uncharted 2 is THE online multiplayer action-shooter game to play on the system if you're going to be selling Uncharted 2 map packs, you need to corner the fucking market with your own stuff and hook in your userbase on games that only you can offer. You don't fucking bundle PS3s with Need for Speed, for your racing bundle it can ONLY be GT5, for action-shooter it can ONLY be Uncharted 2, bundle in Pixeljunk games, push your own content and build that critical mass of players for your own IPs. It's not "oh you can play Call of Duty on the PS3, oh and we have some exclusive stuff too", your exclusive stuff needs to be front and center.

If you look at Nintendo, Zelda is not "one of" many third-party action games that provide that action-adventure experience, it's the fucking game in town, it comes first no matter what third-party publishers decide to drop on the platform, same with Mario, the userbase will always play Mario first over any other platformer regardless of quality, THAT is what Sony needs.

Isn't that what Sony is doing now? When PS4 hits all these titles will be on that level where it defines the platform. It already is for the hardcore fans this gen

 

[androvsky]

Ultraviolet is being developed by a consortium of like 50 companies, including Microsoft.

I know, I even mentioned Microsoft. Also, like I said, I've gotten the impression Sony's putting a lot into it.

 

[tzare]

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.

there's an infrastructure behind PSN. Maybe not as polished as XBL, but it is there. It is not the same having standard features from the start than implementing on-the-go. That will probably change when next console arrives, but again, that ain't what you pay for. You pay FOR matchmaking. I can access all those easy guide button functions being silver, but when try to play online.... however ,on PSN ,most games have that same option in the in-game network menu, which may be a little slower, less convenient but you don't need a degree to find those options as some pretend. If i am playing SSFIV and see a incoming PM, i check it, it is an invite to play XXX? i put the game, go to network menu, check invites and that's it, i jump to the lobby.

I honestly doubt that Sony will make a huge step up next generation. Microsoft is one of the biggest software developers ever existed on this planet, Sony could barely catch up to them if it comes to R&D in online business.

they have almost done that step THIS gen. They screwed up not being able to deliver from start, and now they are lagging until next gen. Adding all those features found in XBL would probably create issues with old games.

 

[jonabbey]

Consider, what is costing them money?

-P2P matchmaking and a handful of dedicated servers

Sony doesn't do matchmaking in game or game state conveyance with their servers, oddly enough. That's not part of PSN. That's one of the things making it difficult for them to duplicate what Live has in terms of cross-game chat, lobbies, etc. All the game companies have to do their own matchmaking and in-game communications, which is why you occasionally see the GameSpy logo on games.

Microsoft provides the servers to do all of that stuff with Live.

Sony do have to maintain the database servers and bandwidth / a content distribution network for online friends tracking, trophies, the store, text messaging, chat, etc.

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?

As Untold Dreams said, there's a lot more under the PSN group than just PSN on the PS3. They're presumably spending money for development on things we haven't seen yet, as well.

 

[SolarPowered]

This does not bode well at all for free online multiplayer. I'm kind of hopeful that it's more of an issue with optimization and streamlining of services as opposed to free online.

I've only read half of the first page so I'm hoping there are a few nuggets of wisdom between the pages. This could have a serious impact on whether or not I go full PC...

 

[Ninja Scooter]

This does not bode well at all for free online multiplayer. I'm kind of hopeful that it's more of an issue with optimization and streamlining of services as opposed to free online.

I've only read half of the first page so I'm hoping there are a few nuggets of wisdom between the pages. This could have a serious impact on whether or not I go full PC...

Why? did you read the whole article? He says they expect it to start turning a profit. Very few endeavors start out profitable, it takes money (and losing lots of it) to start something like PSN im sure they were expecting it to not be profitable at first.

 

[slipknot2009]

/steps on soapbox

Not to go all SDF on your ass in the OP, but that quote is out of context. They've doubled their revenue over last year. If the PS3 is supposed to have a 10 year life cycle then they're doing just fine. A free play service isn't necessarily supposed to be the main profit sector.

/steps off soapbox

 

[Drkirby]

The moment they charge for online gaming is when I sell my PS3 (or don't buy a PS4). I really don't give a shit if they charge for voice chat or some other stuff.




Where did you pull that number from?

Spoiler

I sure as hope you're not gonna say Pacther

Also :lol at "steam doesn't count".

Interview with 1C:
http://www.mcvuk.com/features/808/OPINION-Retail-vs-Steam

It is assumed the fee is similar for all publishers.

 

[SolarPowered]

Why? did you read the whole article? He says they expect it to start turning a profit. Very few endeavors start out profitable, it takes money (and losing lots of it) to start something like PSN im sure they were expecting it to not be profitable at first.

Yeah I JUST made a second read through it. I'm glad that it's this close to making profit as a whole and I'm not surprised by it at all. I spend most of my gaming time on live so I rarely get to see what happens on PSN, but every time I come back to it they've always got a ton of new features on display. That is why the title caught me off guard at first.

The title is misleading to say the least...

ugh

 

[Mako_Drug]

Why? did you read the whole article? He says they expect it to start turning a profit. Very few endeavors start out profitable, it takes money (and losing lots of it) to start something like PSN im sure they were expecting it to not be profitable at first.

Exactly. This thread is what happens when fanboys (of all sides) read what is cold hard fact about business and try and apply their skewed and uninformed consumer logic.

"They're losing money? I don't like losing money! They obviously didn't plan for this!"

People act like they know what companies are developing internally, where the money goes, how much they're bringing in, what the net profits are etc but the truth is we don't know jack.

 

[catchabad0ne]

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.

Oh believe me, I am well aware of my 'problem.' I am usually late to the party, prefer to play games locally, and usually only play multiplayer games in genres (puzzle, strategy, arcade) that are not all that popular anymore. I'm not judging the service as a whole. Just what I have experienced. Also, my examples of Wii online seem to be the opposite of everyone GAF. I feel like the only person who has had no problems with it. Again, I do not play many games online at all.

I did mention that paying for an online gaming service has next to zero value for me. I guess what I should have mentioned is that I'd happily pay one or two dollars per game for a monthly fee, if it could ensure a userbase. Paying 50$ or whatever it would be per year, for no guarantee that there will be anyone playing anything besides games where you shoot each other just doesn't seem like a good value proposition. I'd happily pay 2$ a month to play Puzzle Fighter online, as long as they openly published the number of subscriptions or something so I knew how likely it would be to find someone.

I am also fully aware that most people probably do not feel this way.

 

[flyinpiranha]

When how they spend money impacts my gaming.

And when did that happen? PSN is free. PC is free. XBLive is (surprise) still a pay service since 2002.

 

[catchabad0ne]

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

Sorry I missed this earlier and didn't reply in my last post but...you would gather by reading GAF that Mario games are played by 5 year olds and girls and 'casuals' or what-have-you. I played Dr. Mario online for well over a year and seriously never had a problem finding anyone to play. I would imagine that many would consider Dr. Mario less 'hardcore' than Super Puzzle Fighter. I know people consider the Wii to be less 'hardcore' than the PS3. I would imagine that Super Puzzle Fighter sold better than Dr. Mario (though I have no basis for this assumption). So why can I never find anyone to play SPF with? Why can't I play any game online apparently besides, COD, Warhawk, or Uncharted? It seems that if you want to shoot other people you have plenty of people to play, but if you are interested in anything else than you might as well pretend playing multiplayer over PSN doesn't exist. It really isn't a big deal to me because again, I play mostly local multiplayer and I only really ever check online for games if I am bored out of my skull. I think paying per game per month is a better option than an annual fee, if there must be some sort of fee for playing online.

 

[Meier]

I'd say there's 5% chance at most that PS4 will have free online. There's no reason for them to do it since we know MS won't offer it.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

It really makes me feel so so dirty to admit this, but I'd probably pay for PS+ if the next season of "The Tester" was exclusive to +.

 

[Ashes]

It really makes me feel so so dirty to admit this, but I'd probably pay for PS+ if the next season of "The Tester" was exclusive to +.

Goodness Gracious Me.

 

[Kintaro]

The problem is the first-party stuff isn't as heavily marketed as the third-party stuff, and your platform is simply not going to be defined by third-party content, if you have a blockbuster AAA title like Uncharted 2, you better make sure that Uncharted 2 is THE online multiplayer action-shooter game to play on the system if you're going to be selling Uncharted 2 map packs, you need to corner the fucking market with your own stuff and hook in your userbase on games that only you can offer. You don't fucking bundle PS3s with Need for Speed, for your racing bundle it can ONLY be GT5, for action-shooter it can ONLY be Uncharted 2, bundle in Pixeljunk games, push your own content and build that critical mass of players for your own IPs. It's not "oh you can play Call of Duty on the PS3, oh and we have some exclusive stuff too", your exclusive stuff needs to be front and center.

This isn't even true for MS though. Halo is big, sure, but it's not THE first person shooter on XBLA. Forza isn't THE racing game on 360. Etc. Xbox is known as the console where 3rd party games play. It's not the Halo box, it's the Call of Duty box.

Where the heck are you seeing Need for Speed bundled with PS3?

 

[Gadfly]

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™!

What I found very surprising about this turn of event was that even though a lot of people complained about losing backward compatibility (when it eventually happened), few complained about Sony coming across as being hypocrites when back in 2006 they listed this as a big advantage for PS3 and ridiculed Microsoft every chance they got for lack of complete backward compatibility.

What this tells me is that if Sony ever decides to charge for on-line play, a lot of people will complain but few will remember how Sony every opportunity they got touted free on-line as the reason to get a PS3.

 

[alr1ght]

What this tells me is that if Sony ever decides to charge for on-line play, a lot of people will complain but few will remember how Sony every opportunity they got touted free on-line as the reason to get a PS3.

Kind of like how people rationalize the increased Live fee.

 

[Lard]

Jesus, I can already hear Pachter gloating.

 

[Gadfly]

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.

Yes, like installing a root kit when you bought a song from them.

Give me a break.

 

[RustyNails]

Yes, like installing a root kit when you bought a song from them.

Give me a break.

:lol