Oh my Gee Wiz, Sony!

[michealo]

He meant gay as in "happy", I think.

On a side note, I hope PSN charges for multiplayer next gen just so the drama goes away.
However, lots of people are not going to pay for two services purely for that reason. I can see Sony just rolling it into PSN+ if they are set on doing it.

[TheAnalogKid]

He meant gay as in "happy", I think.

On a side note, I hope PSN charges for multiplayer next gen just so the drama goes away.
However, lots of people are not going to pay for two services purely for that reason. I can see Sony just rolling it into PSN+ if they are set on doing it.

I don't know if that would make the drama go away, or make it intensify two-fold.

I hope they dont charge for basic online play. If they do, they better put out a new console before MS and get a head start, because i'm definitely not paying for two services that offer the same damn thing.

[Badger3920]

Haha, I'm nowhere near upset.

Oh, sorry I wasn't careful there. I wasn't making any sort of pejorative "u mad" arguments - I was saying that the point of this was not for you to feel upset with having to pay MS. It was my response to you saying that you feel it's worth your money. I was basically saying, that's just fine - my intent isn't for you to feel otherwise.

He meant gay as in "happy", I think.

On a side note, I hope PSN charges for multiplayer next gen just so the drama goes away.
However, lots of people are not going to pay for two services purely for that reason. I can see Sony just rolling it into PSN+ if they are set on doing it.

I think it would be much worse. As it is now, the two services are very nearly equal. One costs $50/yr but has gamer teleconferencing. The other lacks that feature because the hardware is insufficient, but the service is free. So, all of our discussions remain superficial because they never really get past the price argument.

Once both services charge - it will be far more mundane. You'll have a lot more direct comparisons of features and performance, and then hecklers with "LOL remember when you guys used to bitch about live fees!!! LOL!!" and lots of fabricated accusations of people claiming they'd never pay, but now are.

[coldfoot]

On a side note, I hope PSN charges for multiplayer next gen just so the drama goes away.
However, lots of people are not going to pay for two services purely for that reason. I can see Sony just rolling it into PSN+ if they are set on doing it.

They're not going to be charging for MP with PSVita, and they're even giving voice chat away for free.
I can see charging for party chat, but console makers already get a cut of each game sold, it's pure evil to charge for multiplayer.

[CorruptedDragon]

Oh, sorry I wasn't careful there. I wasn't making any sort of pejorative "u mad" arguments - I was saying that the point of this was not for you to feel upset with having to pay MS. It was my response to you saying that you feel it's worth your money. I was basically saying, that's just fine - my intent isn't for you to feel otherwise.



I think it would be much worse. As it is now, the two services are very nearly equal. One costs $50/yr but has gamer teleconferencing. The other lacks that feature because the hardware is insufficient, but the service is free. So, all of our discussions remain superficial because they never really get past the price argument.

Once both services charge - it will be far more mundane. You'll have a lot more direct comparisons of features and performance, and then hecklers with "LOL remember when you guys used to bitch about live fees!!! LOL!!" and lots of fabricated accusations of people claiming they'd never pay, but now are.

hell yeah. You know I will be the first to do so I am already fabricating some scenarios in my mind.

[hdinred]

I did find that quote from the Sony executive that I mentioned a couple times recently. This was before PSN+:

During an interview with Nikkei Japan, Sony's CTO Masayuki Chatani touches on the growing number of ways the PlayStation 3 has to accept payment, including the dreaded "monthly fees."

Last month during a Sony investor presentation, the company made mention of a potential subscription service for the PlayStation Network. While there's still nothing to announce on that front, Chatani once again brings up the possibility of monthly fees while discussing the cost of maintaining the PlayStation Network.

Servers and the like have running costs, and we would face difficulties if our business depended solely on the sell-and-forget model. After we sell the hardware, though, we continue to sell products such as content and services. We expect to see considerable growth in digital content, such as game download services, avatar items and the like. We can also accept payment in a growing number of ways. In addition to single-payment packaged software, there are also schemes like monthly fees or per-item charges. I think this variety of payment methods will bring about a diverse range of playing methods, too.

[coldfoot]

I did find that quote from the Sony executive that I mentioned a couple times recently. This was before PSN+:

Why do you keep taking quotes out of context. There is a cost to maintain servers, but it's minimal, no more than a $1/year, which could easily be included in the cost of the console. As you said, that was before PSN+, and Sony has found a way to have a subscription model.

There is absolutely no excuse and no defending pay to play online MP. It's like defending Hitler.

[hdinred]

This is from 2010.. how could a service with $434 million in sales be in the red with virtually no costs??? Digital goods have a high profit margin.. what gives?

Sony's free-to-use PlayStation Network has yet to turn a profit, SCE President Kazuo Hirai informed Reuters Japan.

The PlayStation Network generated around 36 billion yen (approx. $434.3 million USD) in 2009 sales. That number "nearly doubled" in 2010, but nonetheless the network remained "in the red," according to Hirai. Sony aims to make the network profitable next year -- its new PlayStation Plus service will help pave the road to profitability.

http://www.psu.com/PlayStation-Netwo...a010310-p0.php

[cuco33]

things that make you go hmmm

[RedRedSuit]

This is from 2010.. how could a service with $434 million in sales be in the red with virtually no costs??? Digital goods have a high profit margin.. what gives?

This exact line of attack was already levied and rebutted back when this was posted in this forum back then (with most of the same participants too). I guess we can go around that particular circle yet again, but it sounds boring. The result will be the same.

[hdinred]

This exact line of attack was already levied and rebutted back when this was posted in this forum back then (with most of the same participants too). I guess we can go around that particular circle yet again, but it sounds boring. The result will be the same.

I don’t recall.. was the “Sony is lying” defense used in that thread also? LOL…

The evidence we have, from Sony themselves, shows us that there are significant costs to running PSN, and no question, XBL also. While you can take a small snapshot “peer-to-peer” gaming and say it shouldn’t cost that much, you leave out security, infrastructure, datacenters, customer support and a bunch of other costs. Making up those costs on the content you sell is one way, but obviously that wasn’t working out for Sony and of course, that eats into your margins for that content.

[hdinred]

There is a cost to maintain servers, but it's minimal, no more than a $1/year, which could easily be included in the cost of the console.

Not sure where to begin with this one.. false number with a bad business idea..

[RedRedSuit]

I don’t recall.. was the “Sony is lying” defense used in that thread also? LOL…

ND didn't lie when they said keeping servers cost money. They lied when/if they claimed that this is significant and is the reason to charge for online passes. Anyone can see it's to prevent used sales. Hence why Batman: AC charges for a pass for single-player content. (Or is that somehow to offset networking costs too?)

But we've been over this in this thread already.

The evidence we have, from Sony themselves, shows us that there are significant costs to running PSN, and no question, XBL also. While you can take a small snapshot “peer-to-peer” gaming and say it shouldn’t cost that much, you leave out security, infrastructure, datacenters, customer support and a bunch of other costs. Making up those costs on the content you sell is one way, but obviously that wasn’t working out for Sony and of course, that eats into your margins for that content.

All of this has been rebutted multiple times. You're just making people repeat themselves.

- No one said there aren't significant costs to running PSN/XBL. Storing PMs and allowing for peer-to-peer game lobbies, however, IS NOT a significant cost. Therefore it can be free -- as it has been since time immemorial.

- Charging money for something that costs next to nothing, in order to make up for something that does in fact cost significant money -- such as running an online store, hosting demos, and spinning up new networks like Qriocity -- is certainly a business practice. That however does not change the fact that running a P2P game network is not a significant cost.

- "Security" has nothing to do with P2P game networking. It has to do with storing credit card numbers and personal info; something that is not needed for P2P networking.

- "Customer service" has nothing to do with P2P game networking. It has to do with resolving hardware issues and purchase issues -- both unrelated to online play.

- "Datacenters" and "infrastructure" are not a significant factor when all you're providing is some small amount of space to store PMs and some lobby servers. All other, significantly present, datacenters and infrastructure have nothing to do with online play.

If you want to recoup costs utterly unrelated to basic online play by charing people for online play, then that is a business decision. It however does absolutely nothing to dispel the contention that online play is not a significant cost. It is not. MMOs are... and in a different ballpark altogether.

[Badger3920]

I'm not sure, now, how many times we've seen Michaelo single-handedly back people into corners and whittle xbox live fees down to basically paying for matchmaking and party chat lobbies. I don't understand why this continuously needs to be done.

[cuco33]

I personally like the 'Sony is lying' defense better. Good one