Analysts: Sony could defray costs by stripping down PSN’s free services

[Dennis Dyack]

Yep exactly. But some people in this thread seem to think just because we're predicting that Sony will charge means that we want them to charge. Dont understand that one.

Yeah, that makes no sense.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Sufi]

What makes no sense to me is the fact that people are predicting that it will be fee-based when we have no idea how it will be...for all we know, it will be slightly better than the Vita one.

I'll be happy with the Vita version.

[radgamer420]

What makes no sense to me is the fact that people are predicting that it will be fee-based when we have no idea how it will be...for all we know, it will be slightly better than the Vita one. I'll be happy with the Vita version.

I cant speak for anybody else but I think I made it pretty clear that my "prediction" is speculation at this point just like the people who are "predicting" that PSN will remain free are speculating. I even said that I'm hoping to be proven wrong. Heck if I'm wrong I'll even make a thread about it. lol

[Soldier 95B]

Yeah, that makes no sense.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Indeed. Hell I wish everything was free lol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[MATRIX 2]

What makes no sense to me is the fact that people are predicting that it will be fee-based when we have no idea how it will be...for all we know, it will be slightly better than the Vita one.

I'll be happy with the Vita version.

Uhh, because sony could use the change. Most if not all their divisions are hurting. The PS3 will not give the PS4 the advantage the PS2 did for the ps3. Even sonys 1st party games/exclusives don't seem to make much of a difference. So the only way they can hop to compete with the next xbox and be successful doing so is to drastically improve everything. That takes money and charging for online gameplay is one of the easiest ways to do that.

Not to mention the Wii U will be more of a direct threat to the PS4 and next xbox than the wii was.

[Sufi]

I cant speak for anybody else but I think I made it pretty clear that my "prediction" is speculation at this point just like the people who are "predicting" that PSN will remain free are speculating. I even said that I'm hoping to be proven wrong. Heck if I'm wrong I'll even make a thread about it. lol

Well, I'd say three reasons.

1) PSN being free has always been a huge plus with the PS3 and Sony knows that.

2) Sony has said before that they will keep PSN free...surely that doesn't mean always but it's something they're aware of.

3) I don't see any signs so far that they will improve the service to the point where it is worth the money (looking at PS Vita as a hint).

Uhh, because sony could use the change. Most if not all their divisions are hurting.

Of course, I know that things can change but I think you guys are expecting some extreme changes. That's like saying if MS made the next console as stable as Sony's...I'm not willing to bet on that. Maybe they will make it more stable than their own previous console but we all know Sony knows hardware better.

MS knows Operating Software...and I'm not going to bet on Sony coming out with something as good as that...will it be good enough for me? Likely. I'm not expecting it to be so good that they need to charge us for it though.

The PS3 will not give the PS4 the advantage the PS2 did for the ps3. Even sonys 1st party games/exclusives don't seem to make much of a difference.

So you think PS3 would've sold the same amount without exclusives?

Just because it's not outselling the 360 doesn't mean that the exclusives didn't help. It's just that the strategy MS has chosen has helped them more than what Sony chose. I don't personally agree with MS' strategy in the long run but it's been keeping them in lead.

I could make a similar argument by saying that Live didn't help MS this generation because it still hasn't outsold the Wii in LTD numbers. Would it make it true?

So the only way they can hop to compete with the next xbox and be successful doing so is to drastically improve everything. That takes money and charging for online gameplay is one of the easiest ways to do that.

They could drastically improve everything without making it cost money. PS Vita's OS is a drastic improvement over PS3's.

The only thing they need to do is bring all the bells and whistles that a home console would be able to accomplish with its power. They aren't charging for Xperia Play...what could they drastically improve about it that would make anyone want to pay money?

They have cross-game chat...what else do you need? Cross-game movie-watching? All I'd expect from PS4 is more efficiency, more ways to connect with friends and a more thorough gamer profile.

Not to mention the Wii U will be more of a direct threat to the PS4 and next xbox than the wii was.

Wii U is not a direct threat to PS3 and 360 so far. That all depends on how good the games are for it...and what PS4/Xbox 3 will bring.

[lordAlucard]

Honestly they could just improve on PS Plus make it more eye catching with more exclusive content and features. Paying for MP or a few thing like a video store which is pointless to me is silly enough to warrant a sub.

[radgamer420]

@Sufi - Youre propably right. I got the new Game Informer today and it had an interview with Sony. Sony talked about PSN going forward and it sounded to me like Sony plans on keeping PSN free and also having more free to play games like Dust 514 while expanding their PS+ service. They also seemed to be happy with PS+ subscription numbers. Time will tell I guess but it sounds like PSN might continue with free online play afterall. At least thats how this interview sounded.

[Sufi]

@Sufi - Youre propably right. I got the new Game Informer today and it had an interview with Sony. Sony talked about PSN going forward and it sounded to me like Sony plans on keeping PSN free and also having more free to play games like Dust 514 while expanding their PS+ service. They also seemed to be happy with PS+ subscription numbers. Time will tell I guess but it sounds like PSN might continue with free online play afterall. At least thats how this interview sounded.

Another problem with making it subscription-based is that they'll be in direct competition with Live.

Think about it. If Sony starts charging for their service and there's no way for me to play free online unless I buy a Nintendo console then I will compare PSN with Live directly.

And it could be a deciding factor on which console I might get.

There's no way Sony can ever beat MS with their online service...MS has been in the OS business for decades...they're the world leader in it...why fuck with a giant?

This way they actually keep their advantage...no matter what the state of PSN is...it's free and that's something Live can't do so it can never be directly compared to PSN.

It'll be a suicide if they tried competing because that means they'll have to seriously ramp up their OS department and I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain why that wouldn't work against MS' thousands of software engineers that they can tap in (leverage from other divisions). Why compete with something that big when you can keep it low-cost, offer it for free and keep that unique advantage?

[radgamer420]

Another problem with making it subscription-based is that they'll be in direct competition with Live. Think about it. If Sony starts charging for their service and there's no way for me to play free online unless I buy a Nintendo console then I will compare PSN with Live directly. And it could be a deciding factor on which console I might get. There's no way Sony can ever beat MS with their online service...MS has been in the OS business for decades...they're the world leader in it...why fuck with a giant? This way they actually keep their advantage...no matter what the state of PSN is...it's free and that's something Live can't do so it can never be directly compared to PSN. It'll be a suicide if they tried competing because that means they'll have to seriously ramp up their OS department and I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain why that wouldn't work against MS' thousands of software engineers that they can tap in (leverage from other divisions). Why compete with something that big when you can keep it low-cost, offer it for free and keep that unique advantage?

Yeah good point. And that would be good news for me because I hardly ever used any of Lives extra features anyway with the exception of some occasional cross game voice chat and PS4 will most likely have that feature since Vita already does.

[MATRIX 2]

Well, I'd say three reasons.

1) PSN being free has always been a huge plus with the PS3 and Sony knows that.

2) Sony has said before that they will keep PSN free...surely that doesn't mean always but it's something they're aware of.

3) I don't see any signs so far that they will improve the service to the point where it is worth the money (looking at PS Vita as a hint).


Of course, I know that things can change but I think you guys are expecting some extreme changes. That's like saying if MS made the next console as stable as Sony's...I'm not willing to bet on that. Maybe they will make it more stable than their own previous console but we all know Sony knows hardware better.

MS knows Operating Software...and I'm not going to bet on Sony coming out with something as good as that...will it be good enough for me? Likely. I'm not expecting it to be so good that they need to charge us for it though.


So you think PS3 would've sold the same amount without exclusives?

Just because it's not outselling the 360 doesn't mean that the exclusives didn't help. It's just that the strategy MS has chosen has helped them more than what Sony chose. I don't personally agree with MS' strategy in the long run but it's been keeping them in lead.

I could make a similar argument by saying that Live didn't help MS this generation because it still hasn't outsold the Wii in LTD numbers. Would it make it true?


They could drastically improve everything without making it cost money. PS Vita's OS is a drastic improvement over PS3's.

The only thing they need to do is bring all the bells and whistles that a home console would be able to accomplish with its power. They aren't charging for Xperia Play...what could they drastically improve about it that would make anyone want to pay money?

They have cross-game chat...what else do you need? Cross-game movie-watching? All I'd expect from PS4 is more efficiency, more ways to connect with friends and a more thorough gamer profile.



Wii U is not a direct threat to PS3 and 360 so far. That all depends on how good the games are for it...and what PS4/Xbox 3 will bring.

When I said change, I meant money as in spare change.

Considering Sony's track record this generation, I wouldn't be surprised if both Sony and Microsoft significantly step up their console quality equally. To believe otherwise is to be narrow minded.

Sony exclusive games may have helped keep the ps3 afloat (since it gets killed by the 360 with multiplats) but, it has not made a difference in the ps3 catching up to and overtaking the 360. (and with a likely 360 pricecut later this year and Halo 4, I doubt that will happen (if at all) before the next xbox launches in 2013. Though there does seem to be a void for the 360 in 2013 as microsoft transitions to the successor console.)

And you would have a hardtime making that argument about live since it has helped MS financially which is more important than hardware numbers.

I can't say what sony has to do to match the xbox in the next generation since I have no idea what MS's plans are. But at the very least they have to make the psn equal to xbl today when the PS4 comes out.

And the wii U is a threat. Unlike the wii this generation, wii u owners won't be screwed on multiplat titles. And the wii u will likely be able to give a comparable experience (graphics, better than what we are getting with the 360/ps3) to the PS4 and next xbox.


As for the pricing of a paid PSN subscription, they could always make it cheaper than MS.

$24.99-$29.99 would generate a decent amount of revenue for them while distancing them from the $59.99 (MSRP) price of xbl gold.

And who know what nintendo will do with the wii u's online service, it makes no sense to expect anything great from them in that area. IMO best case scenario they match what PSN offers today. (and their service will likely be free)

[Sufi]

When I said change, I meant money as in spare change.

Considering Sony's track record this generation, I wouldn't be surprised if both Sony and Microsoft significantly step up their console quality equally. To believe otherwise is to be narrow minded.

What sort of track record are we speaking about here?

Sony will never be beaten in hardware. Sony has backward integration. Which means they actually make most of their parts...you have total control over quality, efficiency and cost. MS does not. That's why it's unfair to expect MS to beat Sony in hardware quality and Sony to beat MS in OS quality.

Sony exclusive games may have helped keep the ps3 afloat (since it gets killed by the 360 with multiplats) but, it has not made a difference in the ps3 catching up to and overtaking the 360.

I'm not getting this argument. Sony had the more expensive console, an average online service and the only things that made them outsell the 360 (all this time) were price and games. What else was there?

Also, I'm not getting how PS3 needed help to keep afloat when they've been selling more than the 360 every year except last.

And you would have a hardtime making that argument about live since it has helped MS financially which is more important than hardware numbers.

Actually I beg to differ. Hardware numbers do mean profits in the end. More hardware out there = more game sales = more royalties = more profits.

I'm pretty sure Live has helped MS with hardware as well. Which is the point I'm trying to make, that's what they did well this generation. That's their core competency.

Without Live, it would be hard to see MS having much of an advantage. The biggest issue people have had with the PS3 has been price and lack of a decent online structure. Go figure.

I can't say what sony has to do to match the xbox in the next generation since I have no idea what MS's plans are. But at the very least they have to make the psn equal to xbl today when the PS4 comes out.

What do you think Vita's doing? Does that cost money?

And the wii U is a threat. Unlike the wii this generation, wii u owners won't be screwed on multiplat titles. And the wii u will likely be able to give a comparable experience (graphics, better than what we are getting with the 360/ps3) to the PS4 and next xbox.

I think that's too early to say yet. I'm positive it can be comparable to PS3/360 and might even be better but I'm not sure if it will be comparable to next-gen yet.

As for the pricing of a paid PSN subscription, they could always make it cheaper than MS.

$24.99-$29.99 would generate a decent amount of revenue for them while distancing them from the $59.99 (MSRP) price of xbl gold.

What do you think they should offer with that subscription?

And who know what nintendo will do with the wii u's online service, it makes no sense to expect anything great from them in that area. IMO best case scenario they match what PSN offers today. (and their service will likely be free)

[MATRIX 2]

What sort of track record are we speaking about here?

Sony will never be beaten in hardware. Sony has backward integration. Which means they actually make most of their parts...you have total control over quality, efficiency and cost. MS does not. That's why it's unfair to expect MS to beat Sony in hardware quality and Sony to beat MS in OS quality.


I'm not getting this argument. Sony had the more expensive console, an average online service and the only things that made them outsell the 360 (all this time) were price and games. What else was there?

Also, I'm not getting how PS3 needed help to keep afloat when they've been selling more than the 360 every year except last.


Actually I beg to differ. Hardware numbers do mean profits in the end. More hardware out there = more game sales = more royalties = more profits.

I'm pretty sure Live has helped MS with hardware as well. Which is the point I'm trying to make, that's what they did well this generation. That's their core competency.

Without Live, it would be hard to see MS having much of an advantage. The biggest issue people have had with the PS3 has been price and lack of a decent online structure. Go figure.


What do you think Vita's doing? Does that cost money?


I think that's too early to say yet. I'm positive it can be comparable to PS3/360 and might even be better but I'm not sure if it will be comparable to next-gen yet.


What do you think they should offer with that subscription?

Outside of the CPU and GPU these consoles use off the shelf components. As long as both companies use good quality components from companies with good track records and have proper QC checks, things will be fine.

And considering the history MS (and to a lesser extent, Sony) have to overcome in this area, they will do everything they can to make the hardware as reliable as possible.

Not to mention, tech only advancements since 2005/2006 make that easier for them since TDP's for cpu's/gpu's have been greatly reduced.

You can consult with others to improve hardware, but that is much more difficult to do with software. (OS)

The main draws for the ps3 are the 1st party games and free online gameplay. Initially they also had the blu-ray advantage on their side. This no longer exists, but has been partly replaced with the cheaper price advantage.

It is really hard to see what would happen to the PS3 if there were no 1st party games/exclusives for it? It would be killed by the 360, since the free online service would not likely trump the better online experience and better run multiplat games on the 360.

Hardware sales do nothing for profits if your selling them for a loss. This is especially true if your customers aren't buying games for every ps3 sold. (i.e. some bought the ps3 just for bluray, others as additional consoles, some people bought it to be a media hub, ect.) Ps3's sold for those reasons are unlikely to cause more game sales (higher attach rate) which isn't good for sony making profits.

Sure live is essential to MS's success, but even the the original xbox days, live back then still had advantages over the PSN on the ps3 in its early years. So there isn't much point on dwelling on a "what if" scenario.

I do not have nay experience with the vita, so I can't comment on it. However I don't think all its online advancements will transfer so easily to future version of the PSN on traditional playstation consoles.

Going back to the XBL advantage for the xbox, do you think xbl would be as good as it is today (and therefore as valuable to the xbox) if it was a free service ans MS didn't gain money from subs every year for continual improvements?

The wii sold people this generation purely based on its controls. Just imgaine what they will do when they no longer lag much graphically. And if they have a decent online service next generation, that is yet another advantage for them.

Remember, nintendo will likely beat MS and Sony on price for the next gen consoles. If they can offer a better experience than the ps3/360 (at the same/similar price) yet remain competitive with the next xbox and PS4, (significantly undercutting those consoles in price) they could win quite a few customers that way.

It would be foolish to dismiss nintendo so readily when they got the jump on Sony and MS this gen.


At the very least, I would think sony would offer all the current PS+ features (perhaps with certain improvements and additions) with the normal paid subscription for psn on the ps4. This would be along with any advancements made to the service to better compete with xbl.

That would probably be the baseline.

Sony may no longer be able to use the free online card against ms with the PS4, but they would likely benefit from lower pricing for their online service.

[Sufi]

Outside of the CPU and GPU these consoles use off the shelf components. As long as both companies use good quality components from companies with good track records and have proper QC checks, things will be fine.

Sony has better engineers working on designing the console. I believe PS3 won an award for having the cooling system it came out with.

MS doesn't have a history of manufacturing, they don't have the experience or skill.

I've never heard of Sony using outside manufacturers except obvious things like HDD. Where are you getting this information?

And considering the history MS (and to a lesser extent, Sony) have to overcome in this area, they will do everything they can to make the hardware as reliable as possible.

Not to mention, tech only advancements since 2005/2006 make that easier for them since TDP's for cpu's/gpu's have been greatly reduced.

You can consult with others to improve hardware, but that is much more difficult to do with software. (OS)

I'm not sure how it differs between hardware and software when it comes to consulting. Speaking from the history of both companies, Sony seems to have more control over how their console is designed and they put more time into it as well.

It is really hard to see what would happen to the PS3 if there were no 1st party games/exclusives for it? It would be killed by the 360, since the free online service would not likely trump the better online experience and better run multiplat games on the 360.

Your point? You're just making my point more solid. The games on PS3 have kept it competitive.

You don't think 360 would be killed off without Live being superior to PSN? I'm not understanding how you're only seeing one side and not the other.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. That's what I've been saying.

Hardware sales do nothing for profits if your selling them for a loss. This is especially true if your customers aren't buying games for every ps3 sold. (i.e. some bought the ps3 just for bluray, others as additional consoles, some people bought it to be a media hub, ect.) Ps3's sold for those reasons are unlikely to cause more game sales (higher attach rate) which isn't good for sony making profits.

Actually movies can make them money as well but that's beside the point.

This is irrelevant because you're speaking about a very specific situation. Generally hardware sales means more profit.

It's not possible to tell if those sales helped or not but the general idea is that you sell more hardware to be profitable.

Kinect sold a lot of 360s...are we going to argue that it's somehow pointless?

Sure live is essential to MS's success, but even the the original xbox days, live back then still had advantages over the PSN on the ps3 in its early years. So there isn't much point on dwelling on a "what if" scenario.

Why is there no point? Back in the day, the only reason Xbox survived was due to Live and Halo...now it's much more than that but Live is still the creme de la creme. Any way you slice it, it's the truth.

I do not have nay experience with the vita, so I can't comment on it. However I don't think all its online advancements will transfer so easily to future version of the PSN on traditional playstation consoles.

You're saying that what we saw with Vita will not be seen on PS4? Could you clarify that?

Going back to the XBL advantage for the xbox, do you think xbl would be as good as it is today (and therefore as valuable to the xbox) if it was a free service ans MS didn't gain money from subs every year for continual improvements?

Yes and no. They're not necessarily improving it because they're making money on it, they're improving it because they know how to and they're charging for it because they know it will be valued since they have no competitor in that field.

They obviously have to give it bells and whistles to give the perception that it should cost money but none of the features that gamers want, should cost virtually anything. We're talking about x-game chat, gamer profile, invites, p2p connection etc.

The wii sold people this generation purely based on its controls. Just imgaine what they will do when they no longer lag much graphically. And if they have a decent online service next generation, that is yet another advantage for them.

In my opinion, if they had the games to deliver and they had used the controls right (and I can't blame them because neither did MS or Sony), I would've given it a shot without the online service, nor the graphics disadvantage.

I honestly don't feel any different about the Wii U than I did for the Wii. It'll be cool to see a new console that's more advanced but unless they deliver better experiences that are desirable...what's the use?

Remember, nintendo will likely beat MS and Sony on price for the next gen consoles. If they can offer a better experience than the ps3/360 (at the same/similar price) yet remain competitive with the next xbox and PS4, (significantly undercutting those consoles in price) they could win quite a few customers that way.

But we're back to the same problem. Is Wii U comparable in its experience to the PS4 and Xbox 3? It'll basically be the same issue we're getting this generation. But until we know how it turns out, I can only assume that the next-gen consoles will offer more.

It would be foolish to dismiss nintendo so readily when they got the jump on Sony and MS this gen.

They could redo the entire generation but that doesn't change the fact that people didn't care about the Wii...other than the non-gamers who bought it and never played it again.

Does it matter if they do that again? Does it help gamers in any way? Are you excited about the Wii U more than the next Xbox?

At the very least, I would think sony would offer all the current PS+ features (perhaps with certain improvements and additions) with the normal paid subscription for psn on the ps4. This would be along with any advancements made to the service to better compete with xbl.

That would probably be the baseline.

Sony may no longer be able to use the free online card against ms with the PS4, but they would likely benefit from lower pricing for their online service.

Before I go further, I don't think Sony would ever be able to compete with Live.

Now for the rest, why do you think they wouldn't they be able to use the free online card? They could certainly use it again and more efficiently too.

If they gave me the same features from Vita and kept it free, I'd be happy...at least until MS shows me something that I can't resist. Then I might expect more.

I used to be an occasional PC gamer as well and I don't know what you guys are thinking that MS is going to pull out of its hat but there's not much else left other than making the online experience more efficient and streamlined.

When I'd game on PC, other than roger wilco or teamspeak, I didn't have anything else running...maybe the occasional web-browsing and that's already there in Vita.

What else do we need? What more can you do that would justify a price?

MS charged for Live because they came up with a great idea to charge for online play...that's all there is to it. They're an OS giant, they would've made Live amazing either way...maybe with less bells and whistles (again because people want to think that their service is worth the money so they throw in extra features that are useless to gamers but useful for people that love extra features) as I mentioned earlier but they knew this was their advantage over Sony.

It's not that money caused MS to make Live an amazing experience, it's that the lack of progress on Sony and Nintendo's side that makes online console gaming look so bad that Live looks like it should cost money.

[Dennis Dyack]

I'm a big Xbox fanboy but the PS3 is a fan fantastic console. Their exclusives are the best. Except for Halo there isn't another Xbox exclusive that makes me want the 360 over the PS3. I'm only playing PS3 exclusives right now but except for some XBL friends, I'm finding it hard to stick with the 360.

That being said, I think Sony needs to dump the handhelds and stick with the big boy console. There is just too much competition and they are too far behind to really make a profit with the Vita.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Sub-stance1]

I'm a big Xbox fanboy but the PS3 is a fan fantastic console. Their exclusives are the best. Except for Halo there isn't another Xbox exclusive that makes me want the 360 over the PS3. I'm only playing PS3 exclusives right now but except for some XBL friends, I'm finding it hard to stick with the 360.

That being said, I think Sony needs to dump the handhelds and stick with the big boy console. There is just too much competition and they are too far behind to really make a profit with the Vita.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

But apparently, profits don't matter to some. Its about the games...lol

[MATRIX 2]

Sony has better engineers working on designing the console. I believe PS3 won an award for having the cooling system it came out with.

MS doesn't have a history of manufacturing, they don't have the experience or skill.

I've never heard of Sony using outside manufacturers except obvious things like HDD. Where are you getting this information?


I'm not sure how it differs between hardware and software when it comes to consulting. Speaking from the history of both companies, Sony seems to have more control over how their console is designed and they put more time into it as well.


Your point? You're just making my point more solid. The games on PS3 have kept it competitive.

You don't think 360 would be killed off without Live being superior to PSN? I'm not understanding how you're only seeing one side and not the other.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. That's what I've been saying.


Actually movies can make them money as well but that's beside the point.

This is irrelevant because you're speaking about a very specific situation. Generally hardware sales means more profit.

It's not possible to tell if those sales helped or not but the general idea is that you sell more hardware to be profitable.

Kinect sold a lot of 360s...are we going to argue that it's somehow pointless?


Why is there no point? Back in the day, the only reason Xbox survived was due to Live and Halo...now it's much more than that but Live is still the creme de la creme. Any way you slice it, it's the truth.


You're saying that what we saw with Vita will not be seen on PS4? Could you clarify that?


Yes and no. They're not necessarily improving it because they're making money on it, they're improving it because they know how to and they're charging for it because they know it will be valued since they have no competitor in that field.

They obviously have to give it bells and whistles to give the perception that it should cost money but none of the features that gamers want, should cost virtually anything. We're talking about x-game chat, gamer profile, invites, p2p connection etc.


In my opinion, if they had the games to deliver and they had used the controls right (and I can't blame them because neither did MS or Sony), I would've given it a shot without the online service, nor the graphics disadvantage.

I honestly don't feel any different about the Wii U than I did for the Wii. It'll be cool to see a new console that's more advanced but unless they deliver better experiences that are desirable...what's the use?


But we're back to the same problem. Is Wii U comparable in its experience to the PS4 and Xbox 3? It'll basically be the same issue we're getting this generation. But until we know how it turns out, I can only assume that the next-gen consoles will offer more.


They could redo the entire generation but that doesn't change the fact that people didn't care about the Wii...other than the non-gamers who bought it and never played it again.

Does it matter if they do that again? Does it help gamers in any way? Are you excited about the Wii U more than the next Xbox?


Before I go further, I don't think Sony would ever be able to compete with Live.

Now for the rest, why do you think they wouldn't they be able to use the free online card? They could certainly use it again and more efficiently too.

If they gave me the same features from Vita and kept it free, I'd be happy...at least until MS shows me something that I can't resist. Then I might expect more.

I used to be an occasional PC gamer as well and I don't know what you guys are thinking that MS is going to pull out of its hat but there's not much else left other than making the online experience more efficient and streamlined.

When I'd game on PC, other than roger wilco or teamspeak, I didn't have anything else running...maybe the occasional web-browsing and that's already there in Vita.

What else do we need? What more can you do that would justify a price?

MS charged for Live because they came up with a great idea to charge for online play...that's all there is to it. They're an OS giant, they would've made Live amazing either way...maybe with less bells and whistles (again because people want to think that their service is worth the money so they throw in extra features that are useless to gamers but useful for people that love extra features) as I mentioned earlier but they knew this was their advantage over Sony.

It's not that money caused MS to make Live an amazing experience, it's that the lack of progress on Sony and Nintendo's side that makes online console gaming look so bad that Live looks like it should cost money.

Funny you mention the PS3's cooling system since it has essentially guaranteed every "fat" ps3 to suffer YLOD or otherwise fail.

Internal experience doesn't matter. Outside experts can easily be hired to help with the design process, this stuff really isn't that complicated.

It's common sense, outside of the cell, psu and perhaps the optical drive, every other component of the ps3 doesn't involve sony products.

RAM is made using flash memory from various suppliers. GPU made by Nvidia HDD made by various HDD manufacturers. Wifi chip made by a 3rd party. Same with card readers, usp ports, Bluetooth chips, ect. Motherboard was built by somebody else to sony's specifications. Cooling system is the same way.

Who would tell MS how to make their console outside of MS? That is a baseless statement. There are several books available on the history of the xbox and 360.

What I'm trying to say is the ps3 exclusives keep it selling, but they are not enough to propel the ps3 over the 360.

I admitted that Live is an essential reason behind the 360's success.

Movie sales don't count towards Sony's gaming division. The entire point of why blu-ray was put in the ps3 was to win the format war. Had it not been put in HD-DVD would have likely won, and the ps3 would have been a lot cheaper. (more competitive)

I am not speaking to a specific situation. For Sony and MS the first several years of console sales have not brought profits on the hardware. They both count on game sales to make up for the lack of profits until tht hardware costs can be reduces so they can sell the console for a profit.

Once Blu-Ray won the format war, it provided a boost for the ps3 while standalone players were more expensive and inferior. It helped keep the ps3 afloat until good exclusive games started to be released in significant numbers and the price dropped so more games would buy the ps3.

I don't know if we have the numbers to know how many consoles sold with kinect, but I'm fairly sure the Kinect hardware was profitable by itself and did not need to be sold with a console to make MS money.

What can be argued is the effect Kinect had on game sales, which is effectively nill.

The xbox succeeded because it was the most powerful console and had games with graphics not found on the gamecube or ps2. (Like Halo, among others) XBL wasn't much of a factor at the time since broadband penetration was rather low. IIRC, by the end of the xbox there was around 1-1.5 million xbl members. (all gold since there was no free service on the original xbox)

1-1.5 million xbl members to ~24 million consoles.


It is unclear how the advancements made on PSN for the Vita will translate over to the PS4.


Kind of hard to say what costs money and what does not when you don't have the figures for what goes on in the background. Even without dedicated servers, there is a lot MS has to do on the back end to keep Live running smoothly.

And I can certainly guarantee you if MS didn't make money off of Live, it wouldn't be updated nearly as much.

Have you seen the wii u controller? It's more traditional for a reason. So that is more compatible with multiple games and traditional gamers.

Considering all that they are putting into the wii u, it is hard to fathom them not creating a better experience for the user/gamer.

It would be naive to think that nintendo would just create a wii with better graphics and no other major changes. Nintendo know they got lucky this generation. They know they can't use the same trick again and still be successful. They also know Sony and MS have counters to their alternative controls. They know they need to step their game up if they want to continue being successful. So yes I think the user experience will be better and the online system will be valuable based on how its handled.

Obviously, I'm note more excited about the wii u. But they took away what people previously disliked about the wii and made the wii u more of a legitimate traditional competitor to the playstation and xbox.

Not to mention they will have a ~1 year headstart on MS at the very least. (not sure about sony)

If Nintendo ever had a year that it would win E3, this would be it.



All signs point to Sony not being able to improve the PSN on the PS4 if they don't start charging for it.

And we don't know for sure what MS will do for xbl in the next generation, but you can bet it will be significant. IF it was not they would have already done it on the 360. They are already taking care of the non gaming entertainment stuff on xbl on the 360 today, that gives them the time and resources to make the xbl gaming experience better.

As for possible improvements, I'd look back on concepts/ideas discussed around the time of the 360 unveiling and launch. There is still a lot that can be done.

Even something like home could be remade to be a much better and useful service for gamers. This is partially due to hardware and software advancements, but also due to the quality of internet connections improving to make the upgrade and expansion of home possible.

[radgamer420]

But apparently, profits don't matter to some. Its about the games...lol

As long as the games are still being made then as a consumer/gamer it is about the games unless I'm a stockholder in that company. As a consumer what good is a more profitable company that gives its consumers less choices compared to a company thats profitable enough to keep the games coming and by doing so gives its consumers more choices? As a consumer/gamer I choose the latter. If I was a stockholder then yeah I would choose the former. Anyway Sony will be just fine.

[Abdou23]

Actually i don't mind paying a reasonable price for the online on PS3,the service have been amazing for me ironically i have a lot of problems with the paid one ( Live ) i experienced lag in all 3 games i tried: Halo reach - Crysis 2 - MW3,a lot of on demands games i can't purchase and the Wi-Fi is crap,Everything about the Online on PS3 have been perfect for me.

[Nitey]

Profits matter to Sony, not to me. The beautiful thing about Sony right now is yeah they're taking losses, yeah lots of people are armchair-ing their financials as if they know what their talking about, yeah there's doom and gloom - but for the past few years they've given us unique and exclusive experiences on the PS3, as well as taking a massive risk with the Vita, in terms of how much the market has changed since the PSP launch.. but they're still bringing it, and will continue to bring it.

Of course profits matter... To Sony, but somehow they're managing to still give and give, therefore profits to me don't matter, they'll figure it out while at the same time giving me what I want as a consumer. I don't understand why I'd sit here and pretend like they matter to me, or try and over-acknowledge that they matter in general, especially since Sony are providing.

It's good as a gamer knowing that a portion of the money that Sony makes gets reinvested right back into bringing us more games/experiences, I couldn't really ask for anything else. Would I like it if Sony was making more money? Hell yeah, maybe it would mean they would give us more games/experiences, or maybe it would mean they'd sit there on a pile of cash doing God knows what? Who knows. But as of right now, whatever they are doing, is perfect - from a consumers point of view . My view would be completely different if Sony started heavily winding down their support of the PS3, I'd pretend to strategise the kind of decisions they could make to milk a profit, but that hasn't been the case and so as a consumer I'm not giving much of a fuck naturally. Obviously some will disagree, but just my 2 pence

[Dennis Dyack]

But apparently, profits don't matter to some. Its about the games...lol

Well, when it's convenient to matter.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[radgamer420]

Profits matter to Sony, not to me. The beautiful thing about Sony right now is yeah they're taking losses, yeah lots of people are armchair-ing their financials as if they know what their talking about, yeah there's doom and gloom - but for the past few years they've given us unique and exclusive experiences on the PS3, as well as taking a massive risk with the Vita, in terms of how much the market has changed since the PSP launch.. but they're still bringing it, and will continue to bring it. Of course profits matter... To Sony, but somehow they're managing to still give and give, therefore profits to me don't matter, they'll figure it out while at the same time giving me what I want as a consumer. I don't understand why I'd sit here and pretend like they matter to me, or try and over-acknowledge that they matter in general, especially since Sony are providing. It's good as a gamer knowing that a portion of the money that Sony makes gets reinvested right back into bringing us more games/experiences, I couldn't really ask for anything else. Would I like it if Sony was making more money? Hell yeah, maybe it would mean they would give us more games/experiences, or maybe it would mean they'd sit there on a pile of cash doing God knows what? Who knows. But as of right now, whatever they are doing, is perfect - from a consumers point of view . My view would be completely different if Sony started heavily winding down their support of the PS3, I'd pretend to strategise the kind of decisions they could make to milk a profit, but that hasn't been the case and so as a consumer I'm not giving much of a fuck naturally. Obviously some will disagree, but just my 2 pence

I couldn't have said it better. +rep

[Soldier 95B]

[Dennis Dyack]

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[mynd]

Profits matter to Sony, not to me. The beautiful thing about Sony right now is yeah they're taking losses, yeah lots of people are armchair-ing their financials as if they know what their talking about, yeah there's doom and gloom - but for the past few years they've given us unique and exclusive experiences on the PS3, as well as taking a massive risk with the Vita, in terms of how much the market has changed since the PSP launch.. but they're still bringing it, and will continue to bring it.

Of course profits matter... To Sony, but somehow they're managing to still give and give, therefore profits to me don't matter, they'll figure it out while at the same time giving me what I want as a consumer. I don't understand why I'd sit here and pretend like they matter to me, or try and over-acknowledge that they matter in general, especially since Sony are providing.

It's good as a gamer knowing that a portion of the money that Sony makes gets reinvested right back into bringing us more games/experiences, I couldn't really ask for anything else. Would I like it if Sony was making more money? Hell yeah, maybe it would mean they would give us more games/experiences, or maybe it would mean they'd sit there on a pile of cash doing God knows what? Who knows. But as of right now, whatever they are doing, is perfect - from a consumers point of view . My view would be completely different if Sony started heavily winding down their support of the PS3, I'd pretend to strategise the kind of decisions they could make to milk a profit, but that hasn't been the case and so as a consumer I'm not giving much of a fuck naturally. Obviously some will disagree, but just my 2 pence

Sony making a profit should concern you, because it concerns your gaming future.

You have an incredibly short sighted point of view.

How well fiscally Sony are doing, both sales wise and profit wise, has a direct impact on what they think about and how they shape the next console.

From a consumer point of view, you may not care right now, but you should be the last one at the back of the queue to ask why Sony bring out what they bring out next gen.

And if even half the rumours are true about the Orbis, you arent going to be particularly happy.