Ninja Scooter
Member
Can a mod please lock this thread. Don't know where this thread is going anymore and it seems my question has already been answered.
tank u
Dont be coppin pleas now, money.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why is Sony shutting down online services for games?
- Thread starter Remark
- Start date
Dont be coppin pleas now, money.
InsaneTiger
Member
Can a mod please lock this thread. Don't know where this thread is going anymore and it seems my question has already been answered.
tank u
Why? Thread seems fine to me. Plus your question was never really answered because Sony hasn't replied to you.
.... Do you think servers are free or something?
People seem to think selling a lot of ps4s == massive profits. That's not the case I bet the profit margins on a ps4 itself are very slim. They need big selling games to make money.. the order was a dud. Bloodborne could be thier first major success on the ps4.
They are probably pushing hard on a gran tourismo because they know that will sell big.
Sony as a company is still in financial woes. Budgets are low.. Anything minor that isn't bringing in money is going to get cut.
They are probably pushing hard on a gran tourismo because they know that will sell big.
Sony as a company is still in financial woes. Budgets are low.. Anything minor that isn't bringing in money is going to get cut.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't XBL automate some things which Sony and individual publishers must run dedicated servers for on PSN? Things like basic matchmaking, leaderboards, etc. A lot of old games on XBL still have functional online play and leaderboards, while their PSN equivalents have been shut down.
A basic example is Bizarre's The Club. Sega shut off its P2P matchmaking and even scoreboards on PSN. But on XBL those functions are handled by the service itself?
A basic example is Bizarre's The Club. Sega shut off its P2P matchmaking and even scoreboards on PSN. But on XBL those functions are handled by the service itself?
Tryna get out with my account in tact fam >.>
Sony ain't replyin this lol.
InsaneTiger
Member
Hahahaha. Haha. Joke, right?
BibiMaghoo
Member
As I said in another thread yesterday, it seems very much in the interests of consumers that this is regulated in some way, that being a minimum period of 'game life' being mandated for consumer protection.
A game that loses money will need to be shut down, but it also needs to be maintained for a reasonable time, and what is reasonable needs to be clearly defined. I hope we see this someday.
Also, the ''we pay for online now'' thing is a bit backwards. We pay now to use the PSN service online, not to support the cost of an individual games servers. They are not remotely the same thing, and frankly if I was asked to pay to support each individuals games servers I would tell them to jump, as would you. It's a strange thing to bring into this.
A game that loses money will need to be shut down, but it also needs to be maintained for a reasonable time, and what is reasonable needs to be clearly defined. I hope we see this someday.
Also, the ''we pay for online now'' thing is a bit backwards. We pay now to use the PSN service online, not to support the cost of an individual games servers. They are not remotely the same thing, and frankly if I was asked to pay to support each individuals games servers I would tell them to jump, as would you. It's a strange thing to bring into this.
BaronMonstro
Member
Sony's quick trigger finger on shuttering online games is definitely one of my biggest problems with them and always makes me weary of buying into online games on their platforms.
Well that and PSN just generally being kind of shit.
Well that and PSN just generally being kind of shit.
You shouldn't look at it from "is this costing them money" You should look at it from "does keeping servers open make them money"
If the cost is greater than 0, and they can get a better IRR with those resoruces somewhere else, they should shut it down.
Moon_frogger
Member
It sucks but they aren't going to maintain resistance psp servers so you and 10 other people can play occasionally.
That's the problem, though. Are you going to make a law that says "you have to keep the servers for this game running for at least two years, even if the game is losing money" ?
Think about the unintended consequences of this law: companies would NEVER make a new game that has any sort of server backend. If it's losing money, the law would force them to keep that server running, thus losing more money for at least two years. No one would want to take that risk except for the biggest, most popular games.
autoduelist
Member
.
That was always a bit of mis-reporting by some online outlets.
From would promise something like 'We'll keep servers up till at least 20xx', and then when that date started approaching, online outlets would report 'omg From are going to close down Demon's Souls' but From would just extend their promise.
That is, they never said they were -shutting down- on that date, but rather that they'd keep it online until 'at least' that date. Very different in intention, but media outlets liked to put up more 'end of the world!' type headlines.
That was always a bit of mis-reporting by some online outlets.
From would promise something like 'We'll keep servers up till at least 20xx', and then when that date started approaching, online outlets would report 'omg From are going to close down Demon's Souls' but From would just extend their promise.
That is, they never said they were -shutting down- on that date, but rather that they'd keep it online until 'at least' that date. Very different in intention, but media outlets liked to put up more 'end of the world!' type headlines.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Probably has more to do with popularity than upkeep money.
But you know with sports games they may try to force you to next years iteration like 2K does.
But you know with sports games they may try to force you to next years iteration like 2K does.
Meanwhile, you can still play PC games online older than a decade. Completely for free! Gran Turismo 5 on PS3, despite selling 10 million and not older than three years got shut down. For no good reason at all but to force people to buy GT6.
Console online gaming is being suffocated by the near-complete monopoly Sony and MS hold in their respective ecosystems. And people don't care. They're still happy paying monthly for what is basically a basic matchmaking server. It's a strange world we live in.
Console online gaming is being suffocated by the near-complete monopoly Sony and MS hold in their respective ecosystems. And people don't care. They're still happy paying monthly for what is basically a basic matchmaking server. It's a strange world we live in.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I think those consequences could well be positive ones. Let's say it's two years. That matches a standard warranty in the EU, that says a product is fit for purpose for no less than that time. That doesn't stop people making washing machines and microwaves. It stops them making bad ones. It ensures a level of quality that meets that consumer protection.
This is obviously different in that it costs the producer money continually, but should the consumer who has purchased that game shoulder the risk from day 1? I don't think so at all. It isn't fair on the consumer to sell a games multiplayer component on the basis that it will only work if it makes money out the door. What about a game that is only mutiplayer? Should a day 1 Titanfall buyer be concerned that the game will stop working unless all their friends buy it? Or should that consumer be protected from that for a set time?
I think it's clear, and it's something that needs to happen. The FTP structure that profits from in game items that cease to exist without the service should not be exempt from this either. Yes, it will almost certainly prohibit some games from being made, but it will ensure those that are made have a level of protection for consumers who spend their money within.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
"It can't cost that much money" - says someone who doesn't know how much it costs
"They're shutting down games that have been released 2 years ago!" - says someone who does not own or even play that game online
"Other people play that game online!" - says someone who doesn't know that other people don't play it online that is why they are shutting it down
They don't shut down games that have people playing. No one is playing. No one gave a shit while the server was still up, why do they care after the life of the title?
"They're shutting down games that have been released 2 years ago!" - says someone who does not own or even play that game online
"Other people play that game online!" - says someone who doesn't know that other people don't play it online that is why they are shutting it down
They don't shut down games that have people playing. No one is playing. No one gave a shit while the server was still up, why do they care after the life of the title?
Listening to last week's Bombcast and Brad reminiscing that he was told, before being sold, Gamespy kept servers for every single game going because it would cost them more in poor publicity. Considering the hundreds of fringe, aging games Gamespy hosted servers for over the years, I drew the conclusion that this statement meant server costs were miniscule.
After the buyout, Glu shut them down because they were literally trying not to go out of business.
...
sony post if ur ok
After the buyout, Glu shut them down because they were literally trying not to go out of business.
...
sony post if ur ok
aspiegamer
Member
Threads don't get closed by OPs' request, especially not when they're just frustrated because they're being mocked in the replies.Can a mod please lock this thread. Don't know where this thread is going anymore and it seems my question has already been answered.
tank u
Look. Sony is a business. Is it "nice" to turn off services? No. It's downright dickish! But they're a business. There is no way to quantify costing "that much" to operate, but that's moot. If it costs any more than $0.00 with no expected remaining revenue to offset those costs, it's an entirely natural and logical business decision. I'm sure there's often consideration regarding possible increased revenues from moving players on to new games (ie MLB series) and even consumer backlash. Dickish? Yes! But, again, they're in this to make money (and maximize that amount).
Can I assume you also hate Microsoft for dropping Win3.1 or Win95 support a decade ago? I can't cost "that much" to maintain and staff a team, right?!? It's soooooooo mean to the people out there who still use it! And before you cry "but no one uses those!", 1) That's you contradicting yourself about the game services, and 2) There are millions of PCs that do still run on this stuff.
So you're willing to cut out server interaction (leaderboards, stat tracking, character storage, online play, daily challenges, etc) from all games except CoD, GTA5, and a handful of others in order to pass this law? Because that's what would happen.
No small budget or indie game would have any server interaction. There is no way that management would take the risk of being required to lose money for 2 years. Even if there's a 50/50 chance of the game being profitable, management would still decide to not have any server interaction.
That doesn't sound like a good situation, at all.
A couple of dozen gamers on a server on a regular basis means it no longer makes financial sense to keep it online sadly.
If people want corporate sponsored/managed dedicated servers, they have to deal with the repercussions down the line when those servers are mostly empty and get shut down. This is only going to get worse as time goes on.
If people want corporate sponsored/managed dedicated servers, they have to deal with the repercussions down the line when those servers are mostly empty and get shut down. This is only going to get worse as time goes on.
CambriaRising
Member
Either because the costs don't justify the player-base anymore, or the new version is coming out (MLB) and they want people to upgrade.
One of the things I've always liked about Sony is the way they seemed to be willing to take a minor hit for the good of the brand. They don't seem to mind releasing a game that is unlikely to make money if it means another genre/niche is covered and they will continue to support a console right to to the end of it's active life and long after a successor has been released.
Historically that's meant I can buy their consoles and have some faith that they're in it for the long haul as opposed to say Microsoft's late life 360 release schedule.
Now with Sony shutting down services early and their treatment of the Vita they've pissed away some of that goodwill they've built up over the last couple of decades, I no longer have the faith they'll put long-term good of a console ahead of short-term profits.
Historically that's meant I can buy their consoles and have some faith that they're in it for the long haul as opposed to say Microsoft's late life 360 release schedule.
Now with Sony shutting down services early and their treatment of the Vita they've pissed away some of that goodwill they've built up over the last couple of decades, I no longer have the faith they'll put long-term good of a console ahead of short-term profits.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole "support a product because of the overall brand health" something that Kaz Hirai enforced actively? Could be that with the change of SCE's higher-ups and Kaz no longer directly involved in SCE that those priorities changed into a more profit-driven business rather than a brand-driven one. I feel the same aswell. Call me a Kaz fanboy if you want, but I doubt Vita would've ended the way it did if Kaz was the top dog still. He always struck me as Sony's ace-in-the-hole guy.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I hope DC doesn't dip too low, otherwise it's going to be a bloodbath...
I give it a year and half more. Wouldn't surprise me if the numbers aren't that much for overall online races right now. Unless they patched and fixed things, the online races used to be really bad and unfun, they needed to ghost the cars or lessen the colloision or the penalties, because it was just idiots crashing into each other and had pretty much nothing to do with skill. Then again online servers kinda need to stay up for other things and the single player content is good, but that only lasts so long for some people.
EDIT: the more I think about it, they really wouldn't be able to close down the servers without making some changes to the game overall. So much of the game even in teh single player content is based off the online functionality like Club Cars you use in the Single Player as well as the challenges. Plus maybe the single player players are counted among the total online since so much of the game is based on online systems outside of just the multiplayer. I can see the mutliplayer base dropping low in numbers, but I'm sure there will still be a decent amount playing the single player, at least until a new Gran Tursimo gets announced/released.
Lastgengamer
Member
It's great to see this getting some attention here on gaf, really Sony should have cloud based servers in place so it doesn't have to keep on shutting down games so soon.
Thank you for making this thread.
Thank you for making this thread.
Arkam
Member
It really is that simple. If you game does not make a healthy profit at release how is it feasible to expect the online service to be paid for a year(or more) after?
Khaos_Knight
Banned
Xbox LIVE has far more funding and infrastructure to remain viable. With that being said, they're not exempt from having shut down servers. They closed down the entirety of original Xbox LIVE in 2010. Inevitably, online support for the seventh generation will likely be dropped in the coming years as well.
It's a sad thing to see online multiplayer disappear, and it will likely hit the seventh gen harder than ever.
Birgitte2004
Member
I for one am glad that my PS+ $ aren't going to pay the amount it takes to keep servers up for games practically no one is playing.
I'd much rather they put those $s somewhere useful. It sucked when GT5 went down but it was for the greater good so I move on.
I'd much rather they put those $s somewhere useful. It sucked when GT5 went down but it was for the greater good so I move on.
You can't be shutting down a thread that I'm reading on it's first day. Damn, you're worse than Sony!!!Can a mod please lock this thread. Don't know where this thread is going anymore and it seems my question has already been answered.
tank u
Hexa
Member
The way Sony's network is set up, or at least all the evidence we have so far, suggests that Sony's network is based on each game having separate servers, and thus those dedicated servers must be supported if Sony is to support the game. This is a bad use of resources if the games have a dead community, so its best that they are taken down.
However, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but a lot of you seem to be acting like this is a problem that has to continue and Sony can't solve. This is absolutely not the case, and can be solved through the 'cloud'. One of the uses of cloud computing is to have generalized use of resources, so instead of having servers for dedicated games, you just have servers that can run anything when necessary. So servers would only be used for games when people are using them and switch to something else otherwise.
Now cloud infrastructure isn't easy to develop. Sony developing something at the level of Microsoft is so ridiculous that it isn't even worthy of being discussed. However, they can use cloud solutions from other companies. So why aren't they doing that? Well, they are, to some extent. Cerny stated in an interview they fully understood that it had some benefits such as for match making. For example, Naughty Dog uses Amazon. However, unlike with Microsoft where Microsoft controls everything on XBL powered by the Azure cloud, Sony exerts far less control over the network, and as a result various services are used by both first and third party. Sony themselves utilize various services from HP, Amazon, RackSpace, etc. and third parties are probably even more varied. So the end result is a mess where the service is distributed in a lot of different places, and some aren't using it at all.
One of the biggest reasons why this is such a mess is that current cloud solutions don't work all that well with each other. Developing for different cloud platforms is a very different thing and you can't just copy things over. And Sony as far as I know doesn't want to favor any single platform so it becomes difficult for them to really support the cloud beyond what single developers use. I think that over time all developers will end up on the cloud eventually naturally, but it would be best to avoid it being too messy.
The solution to this is OpenStack. The goal of OpenStack is to deliver an open scalable solution to cloud computing. It isn't just for gaming, and looks like it could have a lot of potential. NASA is significantly invested in it. If Sony supports and develops with this standard, it wouldn't matter that everyone was using different services or cloud providers as long as they fit the standard. Sony and other publishers could set up their own cloud as well and it could feed well into PSN overall.
Sony has already been working with RackSpace, the other big supporter other than NASA of OpenStack, to develop for OpenStack, so I'd be surprised if a significant amount of progress hasn't happened already. It isn't going to be an instant thing that they can announce. Its going to be a slow thing with new games that are released being more and more cloud based for multiplayer. Still, I think even of the games being released this year, I doubt many of them won't be cloud based, and I don't think this'll be an issue much longer.
However, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but a lot of you seem to be acting like this is a problem that has to continue and Sony can't solve. This is absolutely not the case, and can be solved through the 'cloud'. One of the uses of cloud computing is to have generalized use of resources, so instead of having servers for dedicated games, you just have servers that can run anything when necessary. So servers would only be used for games when people are using them and switch to something else otherwise.
Now cloud infrastructure isn't easy to develop. Sony developing something at the level of Microsoft is so ridiculous that it isn't even worthy of being discussed. However, they can use cloud solutions from other companies. So why aren't they doing that? Well, they are, to some extent. Cerny stated in an interview they fully understood that it had some benefits such as for match making. For example, Naughty Dog uses Amazon. However, unlike with Microsoft where Microsoft controls everything on XBL powered by the Azure cloud, Sony exerts far less control over the network, and as a result various services are used by both first and third party. Sony themselves utilize various services from HP, Amazon, RackSpace, etc. and third parties are probably even more varied. So the end result is a mess where the service is distributed in a lot of different places, and some aren't using it at all.
One of the biggest reasons why this is such a mess is that current cloud solutions don't work all that well with each other. Developing for different cloud platforms is a very different thing and you can't just copy things over. And Sony as far as I know doesn't want to favor any single platform so it becomes difficult for them to really support the cloud beyond what single developers use. I think that over time all developers will end up on the cloud eventually naturally, but it would be best to avoid it being too messy.
The solution to this is OpenStack. The goal of OpenStack is to deliver an open scalable solution to cloud computing. It isn't just for gaming, and looks like it could have a lot of potential. NASA is significantly invested in it. If Sony supports and develops with this standard, it wouldn't matter that everyone was using different services or cloud providers as long as they fit the standard. Sony and other publishers could set up their own cloud as well and it could feed well into PSN overall.
Sony has already been working with RackSpace, the other big supporter other than NASA of OpenStack, to develop for OpenStack, so I'd be surprised if a significant amount of progress hasn't happened already. It isn't going to be an instant thing that they can announce. Its going to be a slow thing with new games that are released being more and more cloud based for multiplayer. Still, I think even of the games being released this year, I doubt many of them won't be cloud based, and I don't think this'll be an issue much longer.
Muscle Wizard
Banned
What PC games older than a decade can you can still play online for free? Fan servers don't count.
Wolfenstein; Enemy Territory. Completely free to play aswell. There are probably even more examples. Isn't UT99 still active?
autoduelist
Member
The rush to legislate everything we don't like is extremely dangerous. You're not thinking about the repercussions. How can you possibly expect a business to be able to promise to keep a service in operation 2 years from now? What if that very act is what puts them out of business? What are you going to do, fine them? Now they're going out of business that much sooner.
This is very different from a 'warranty'. At least with a warranty you have one warranty per product actually purchased.
Online games die. That's just part of their lifecycle. And even ones that don't die young often get upgrades and expansion and facelift DLC that you're effectively required to buy if you want to keep playing alongside others. Why? Because all this stuff costs money.
The one person crying about [insert PSP game here] servers being taken down wouldn't even be able to find a game if the servers were kept up.
It's not like Sony is looking at something like Destiny of Spirits and saying, hey, this is popular and makes money! Let's take it down! Rather, they know exactly how many people are playing, what it costs to keep up the servers, and what the people are actually spending. It's always been F2P... that doesn't mean 'free to drain resources forever'. If enough players of F2P games don't pony up real cash, the game comes down... you've got people in the DoS thread talking about how they played 100s of hours w/o ever paying a dime, and people wonder why the game is being taken out to pasture?
Pretty much this.
They still take those chances. Think about all the PS3 AAA games we got at the very end of it's lifecycle -- across many genres.
Don't confuse taking down a F2P game, or the issues with youtube killing it's APIs, or the server life of PSP games with their support of what we're actually playing.
Heck, the reason the Vita is alive (and i dearly love mine) is because they went above and beyond to find it new life. It just so happened they found we want indies and localizations, and didn't want to buy AAA games like KZ: mercs and Tearaway. Don't put that on Sony, put that on us. We very clearly voted with our dollars, even if we kick and scream when Sony calls us out on it.
Lol... most of them...
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Not command and conquer
As far as I'm concerned that's the only old game with multiplayer that matters
To Far Away Times
Member
I feel sorry for devs who work on online modes only to see them lost to history only a few years later.
I'd like to play Tetris DS, Bleach DS, and a few other games online but those are offline only now. =(
I'd like to play Tetris DS, Bleach DS, and a few other games online but those are offline only now. =(
There are innumerable PC games that "matter."
Also, I'm not sure which C&C you're referencing, but as long as it supports LAN, it can be played online.