Sony Demands Cash For PlayStation 4 Online Play

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

This is how Sony makes up for the cheaper price of the console. Is it more expensive than Xbox Live and how do the connection speeds compare?

I don't know about the connection speeds, but Playstation Plus is cheaper than Xbox Live Gold.

 

[Tanakh]

...Which is essentially the same as MS falling flat on their face while Sony doing a glory pose.

Tomato Tomahto dude. Don't be so pedantic.

Yeap:

- Changing the release price and the hardware included 4-6 months before release probably eating on their earnings 150,000,000 million dollars.

- Modifying the focus on a million dollar presentation.

All in the few hours between Xbox and their presentation.

This effort is obviously comparable to "doing a glory pose". What was I thinking.

 

[Something Amyss]

Also, I still remember the first time I got PS+, it was about 2 years ago. I never got it before because I thought it'd be pointless as I was still a huge Xbox person. Then the week I got it every FF game was 50% off...and I never looked at Xbox Live the same way again. XD

I needed a new PS3, and the buncles kind of sucked. So I bought the PS+ bundle, figuring I'd just cancel in a year. I've had it for long enough now that there's no chance of me cancelling. It's just too good. Ironically, I now have most of the bundle games offered last year. Maybe not ironically.

50 bucks a year gives me access to games I might not have bought otherwise, and allowed me to discover a couple I really like. Plus, the sales do help. It's easily paid for itself. Which kind of makes the whole online thing moot, far as I'm concerned. I might not bother if it was an online service only, but...Yeah.

As for the cards, I always buy the cards and never store credit card information, or in my case debit card since I don't have a credit card, on my consoles. I feel safer with having the card, and it's a good thing that Live got rid of the point system because it was just plain stupid and often times it forced you to buy more and more cards to get one thing since they only sell the cards in 1600 and 4000. >.>

I do very much appreciate the option.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

...Which is essentially the same as MS falling flat on their face while Sony doing a glory pose.

Tomato Tomahto dude. Don't be so pedantic.

Yeap:

- Changing the release price and the hardware included 4-6 months before release probably eating on their earnings 150,000,000 million dollars.

- Modifying the focus on a million dollar presentation.

All in the few hours between Xbox and their presentation.

This effort is obviously comparable to "doing a glory pose". What was I thinking.

You give them too much credit if you think it cost them that much. Also, I doubt having to change a few slides on a powerpoint (if they had to at all) would cost anything.

 

[comraderichard]

I'm noticing a trend with this specific contributor 'Sony Demands' while 'Microsoft Drops' or 'Microsoft Stops' or 'Microsoft Gives'. I don't want to throw any accusations out there (oh, who am I kidding?) but I think he might just be the slightest bit biased.

 

[Tanakh]

-snip-

No, I know how to add and subtract, quite handy tools.

They are going to sell around 2 M PS4 if released in schedule (the most a console has sell is around 3.8 M in a month, this is a new console but is breaking pre order records and looks strong as heck), they had a $500 USD price point before the xbox presentation that included the camera, the camera will be sold for around $60 bucks now which means it's production costs for sony should be around 25-30 USD.

That means they changed the product to cost 100 USD less and cost them 25-30 USD less, while having expected sales between 1.5M and 2M units, which in turns eats on their profit for this fiscal year something between 105M USD and 150M USD. All projections are very conservative tbh, I think it's very likely that it will be at least 150M, unless the console flops and sells badly this xmas.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

-snip-

No, I know how to add and subtract, quite handy tools.

They are going to sell around 2 M PS4 if released in schedule (the most a console has sell is around 3.8 M in a month, this is a new console but is breaking pre order records and looks strong as heck), they had a $500 USD price point before the xbox presentation that included the camera, the camera will be sold for around $60 bucks now which means it's production costs for sony should be around 25-30 USD.

That means they changed the product to cost 100 USD less and cost them 25-30 USD less, while having expected sales between 1.5M and 2M units, which in turns eats on their profit for this fiscal year something between 105M USD and 150M USD. All projections are very conservative tbh, I think it's very likely that it will be at least 150M, unless the console flops and sells badly this xmas.

Oh you meant profits? I got confused.

If all you're arguing is that "they changed the price to look better than." We and the other guy were talking about the

1. PS4 will NOT require an online connection to be used
2. PS4 will NOT interfere with the used game market.

Yeah, ok changing the price is a marginally big deal. That's ONE thing they've actually done. But they aren't going to earn points from me for it.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

I figured that eventually Sony would have to start charging for online play. I imagine that the infrastructure needed to support all these titles must be expensive, and Sony has to make up this revenue somewhere.

At least they're being brutally honest about it, instead of masking it under some shit like "Providing a better online experience."

 

[Covarr]

Oh snap, Xbox Live gold costs $5 a month now. They used to charge $60 a year, I wasn't aware they'd changed it. My bad.

At any rate, this isn't just PSN access. This still has everything PS+ already had, namely a shitload of games, and discounts on the PSN store. Yeah, the basic online service is mediocre at best, but I get the impression that's exactly why they're charging for it now; presumably, this'll help them to bring it up to XBL Gold quality. Even if it doesn't reach that point... it's still got all the PS+ stuff it already does, and is therefore still a better deal.

P.S. Thanks

Um, $5 a month is $60 a year...

I was tired and I forgot about November and February.

P.S. Thanks

 

[theApoc]

No it isn't. It is exactly the same.

Sweet, where do you go to turn on the automatic cloud backups for XBL? And where's the instant game collection feature? I know they're doing a limited run of free titles, but this is a core feature of Plus, so I'm assuming there's a larger deal going. I can enable automatic updates, right?

[
They charge you $50 if you just buy the full year, and at times if you have a PS+ account already you can buy more time for cheaper. The time stacks.

It's worth nothing that comparable subscription always leave Plus cheaper at retail. You can get sales on botj subscriptions, so the base price is the primary factor. XBL is 25 for 3 months and 60 for 12. PSN is 18 for 3 months and 50 for 12.

The 5 bucks per month model for XBL is only true based on the base price for a year, which means that the comparable cost for PSN+ is just over four bucks. Similarly, a three month subscription is a little over 8 bucks for gold and six bucks for Plus.

I mean, just to clarify things a little.

Um, XBL has cloud backups now. They add more titles, free and otherwise, all the time. And a few bucks cheaper doesn't mean a whole lot when you compare the infrastructure and content. I have never read anything claiming PSN to be as polished and well maintained as XBL. I am sure that will change with the new console generation, but with XBL, I can promise you, you get what you pay for, and then some.

If we were talking $10-$15 cheaper, you might have a point, but we are the actual difference in the grand scheme of things is minor.

 

[Lightknight]

I guess it still looks like a good deal, but i don't want to endorse consoles charging for their internet, even if they need it to survive, i guess i'm a selfish bastard
At the very least, it looks better than xbox live, i don't know if ill ever get it, but if i do, there's that

It's not that they need it to survive, it's that this is a product that gamers need to be good. Powerful servers that are capable of handling large multiplayer environments in real time like COD, Halo, and other such games are necessary for multiplayer gamers. These servers are immensely expensive to maintain and to keep secure. If Sony's ps+ hadn't been successful the disparity between the two systems would have been severe.

I can't think of a legitimate reason to demand that a company provide a hugely expensive service for free. Just be glad they're only requiring it for online multiplayer games so this move only impacts people who actually use the service. Compare this to the 360 that requires a live membership just to access Netflix.

So the fact is, they don't need the servers to be good, we do. That Microsoft, a company who is more capable at making server farms, is charging more for the same service is somewhat laughable.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Yeah, that's one thing I'm not going to like all that much about the PlayStation 4. My computer gets great online play.

Servers must exist for the companies that don't want to pay, though. And I guess that's what Sony hopefully have in mind. If I want to play an online fighting game, I can just go through Sony's servers rather than Arc System Work or Capcom or whomever. This means something like maybe a never disappearing servers for certain games like Demon's Souls 2.

Still, I'd rather pay per month on the PC for online and keeping servers up rather than through a console. I haven't run into too many server problems with the PC. So this, again, seems like mostly a console problem. And if the problem ever hit the PC, I'd gladly pay to keep the servers of a game that I like up and running.

I don't really know the specifics, but this seems unnecessary. The PC is still better for online gaming, anyway. And I vastly prefer it. PC gaming has its limits. For instance, a lot of Japanese games, particularly single player offline ones, which are my favourite type of game, don't come nearly as often to PCs as consoles. On the other hand, paying a premium for something like online play, which PCs have already done well for free, for years, isn't any good.

To the defense of Sony, you can't really expect a better offer out of Microsoft. And PlayStation+ gives a lot of free games. I'd be happy to use PlayStation Plus just for the free games. All of the free games on PlayStation plus is really the closest console competitor to Steam.

 

[Lightknight]

It does make me wonder if pc game making is going to start involving some kind of server cost defrayment. Perhaps that's part of what steam offers. That developers get a cut every time instead of preowned games hitting them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Um, XBL has cloud backups now.

It has cloud storage as a save destination. Half the space and backups are not automatic. Plus automatically updates your local save files to to cloud.

They add more titles, free and otherwise, all the time.

Political answer, but doesn't actually say anything. If you compare the "free" content on both services, Microsoft is left in the dust.

And a few bucks cheaper doesn't mean a whole lot when you compare the infrastructure and content.

That could be especially true if Live had comparable content. It doesn't. I'll give you infrastructure, but....

I have never read anything claiming PSN to be as polished and well maintained as XBL. I am sure that will change with the new console generation, but with XBL, I can promise you, you get what you pay for, and then some.

Yes, it will likely change this generation. You know, the only generation where it's really going to mean anything. And of course you're getting what you're paying for, as you're effectively paying for multiplayer. They toss you a few bones, like content that isn't locked behind a paywall anywhere else (Netflix) and weekly Gold deals which are repetitive and oft underwehalming.

M

If we were talking $10-$15 cheaper, you might have a point, but we are the actual difference in the grand scheme of things is minor.[/quote]

 

[Black Reaper]

I guess it still looks like a good deal, but i don't want to endorse consoles charging for their internet, even if they need it to survive, i guess i'm a selfish bastard
At the very least, it looks better than xbox live, i don't know if ill ever get it, but if i do, there's that

It's not that they need it to survive, it's that this is a product that gamers need to be good. Powerful servers that are capable of handling large multiplayer environments in real time like COD, Halo, and other such games are necessary for multiplayer gamers. These servers are immensely expensive to maintain and to keep secure. If Sony's ps+ hadn't been successful the disparity between the two systems would have been severe.

I can't think of a legitimate reason to demand that a company provide a hugely expensive service for free. Just be glad they're only requiring it for online multiplayer games so this move only impacts people who actually use the service. Compare this to the 360 that requires a live membership just to access Netflix.

So the fact is, they don't need the servers to be good, we do. That Microsoft, a company who is more capable at making server farms, is charging more for the same service is somewhat laughable.

I am not quite understanding you, but i can't stand the new Ps4 online costs because the Ps3 let you play online for free, new consoles should add more things rather than take them away, if the Ps3 required you to pay to play online, i (probably) wouldn't be very upset about this

I play games online often enough that this affect me, but no often enough that i may be getting my money's worth, i don't know if it a logical reason to not like this, but it might not be since i am not exactly on good terms with logic(i was once cutting carrots with a sword, it didn't end well)

 

[Lightknight]

I am not quite understanding you, but i can't stand the new Ps4 online costs because the Ps3 let you play online for free, new consoles should add more things rather than take them away, if the Ps3 required you to pay to play online, i (probably) wouldn't be very upset about this

I play games online often enough that this affect me, but no often enough that i may be getting my money's worth, i don't know if it a logical reason to not like this, but it might not be since i am not exactly on good terms with logic(i was once cutting carrots with a sword, it didn't end well)

The ps3 straddled a generation of gaming where online console gaming became more of a norm than the exception. Thanks to Halo, COD, and several other shooters, the cost of server farms to process them skyrocketed and is likely the reason why Sony implemented the ps+ program to try and defray those costs to make it out of the generation. This is why the Xbox has always had this. They knew what they wanted Halo to be and were ahead of the game. Had Sony predicted the move, they may very well have done the same back then.

If you do not play multiplayer games, do not become a ps+ member. It's only necessary for multiplayer sessions. If you do, then understand that you are using a road and so you're paying taxes to maintain that road. The bigger/better the road, the faster you can get from point A to point B and the less crowded (lag) it feels. Demanding that Sony maintain current gen servers at a loss when the game has quite literally changed is pretty unrealistic.

 

[Foolery]

I am not quite understanding you, but i can't stand the new Ps4 online costs because the Ps3 let you play online for free, new consoles should add more things rather than take them away, if the Ps3 required you to pay to play online, i (probably) wouldn't be very upset about this

I play games online often enough that this affect me, but no often enough that i may be getting my money's worth, i don't know if it a logical reason to not like this, but it might not be since i am not exactly on good terms with logic(i was once cutting carrots with a sword, it didn't end well)

The ps3 straddled a generation of gaming where online console gaming became more of a norm than the exception. Thanks to Halo, COD, and several other shooters, the cost of server farms to process them skyrocketed and is likely the reason why Sony implemented the ps+ program to try and defray those costs to make it out of the generation. This is why the Xbox has always had this. They knew what they wanted Halo to be and were ahead of the game. Had Sony predicted the move, they may very well have done the same back then.

If you do not play multiplayer games, do not become a ps+ member. It's only necessary for multiplayer sessions. If you do, then understand that you are using a road and so you're paying taxes to maintain that road. The bigger/better the road, the faster you can get from point A to point B and the less crowded (lag) it feels. Demanding that Sony maintain current gen servers at a loss when the game has quite literally changed is pretty unrealistic.

Except that several titles such as COD or Halo never used dedicated servers hosted by Sony or Microsoft. It was all done peer to peer. So, then. Why should I pay them, if I'm already paying for internet?

 

[AWAR]

Wow, these online leaderboards must be really expensive to maintain.
Poor console peasants :'(

 

[Dragonbums]

I was going to get a PS4 along with a WiiU, but this is a deal breaker for me personally.

Payed $60.00 for the game. I expect to get the whole game. Including online.

I pay for internet once. That's it.

Sorry.

I'm cheap, and frugal with my money.