Playstation punctured: Sony's games business deflates again

[Nitey]

Customers that say that they won't pay to play online on the PS4 are in the minority. I think XBL has shown that. I personally don't think they'll charge next gen but we'll see - I think it's fair to believe the service itself will be much improved if the Vita is anything to go by, so they may charge but I doubt it. They'll just lure people to pay into the network by continuing to make PS+ a great service

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Time will tell. Will be interesting to revisit some of these threads in a year or two and see who was on the mark and who fell flat with the predictions/speculation.

[F34R]

I'd love to be wrong.

[Super_Lilith]

There are plenty of people that will pay to play online with their PS.

That was what I was suggesting...

[*goo]

Sony have to weigh in, is there enough people that DON'T think like you for pay to play online to be more profitable? 360 live suggests there is.

I'd say you're probably right. It won't stop me picking up their next console if it is a paid entry fee to play online. It will just stop me playing online games, translating to less title purchases.

I'd expect Sony to do the right thing by their business, which would most likely be an expectation placed on the consumer to pay for a key service. There's lots of debate to be had around why a free service benefits the brand but when you've got to worry about the finances, driving any profit from it would be the clear choice.

[AaronSOLDIER]

Even if the PS brand went under, they've given me 15 years of amazing gaming entertainment, more than any other company for sure.

[Old Man Gamer]

Even if the PS brand went under, they've given me 15 years of amazing gaming entertainment, more than any other company for sure.

We're all glad that you enjoy the Playstation so much that them "going under" won't seem to bother you much.

Personally, I want to see them stick around with MS and Nintendo. I enjoy multiple consoles and won't limit myself to only one console and be deprived of enjoying great games because they are on a different console.

[AaronSOLDIER]

We're all glad that you enjoy the Playstation so much that them "going under" won't seem to bother you much.

Thanks.

[F34R]

Yeah, it wouldn't bother me either...

[Nitey]

I'd cry, and get X,O,/\,[] tatted on my forearm

[*goo]

We're all glad that you enjoy the Playstation so much that them "going under" won't seem to bother you much.

Personally, I want to see them stick around with MS and Nintendo. I enjoy multiple consoles and won't limit myself to only one console and be deprived of enjoying great games because they are on a different console.

I'm not included in this statement of 'we'. Or, by 'we' did you mean 'me' (as in, 'you' Lol).

[Old Man Gamer]

Thanks.

My pleasure.

[Sub-stance1]

If sony did go under there will be another that will take its place. That would probably make Sega smile....and maybe even nintendo too.

[AaronSOLDIER]

Why Sega? They're working closer with Sony than any other (Yakuza series, Valkyria Chronicles series, the new Sega studio making PS Vita only titles etc.)

[Nitey]

If Sony were to ever go under it'd be years from now. As much as I hate to say it I don't think Sega will even be relevant then

Anyway, I'll have my tattoo designs at the ready, and my tears

[Ghost-Rhayne]

If Sony were to ever go under it'd be years from now. As much as I hate to say it I don't think Sega will even be relevant then

Anyway, I'll have my tattoo designs at the ready, and my tears

I think we can all hold off on the tears and tattoos lol. SCE isn't going anywhere, as has been said. The turn around of a conglomerate like Sony isn't going to happen within 3 or 4 months of a new CEO taking over and restructuring the company. That's why I don't really care about these sales figures. Now if Sony stay in the red for the next couple of years and start down sizing, THEN I will start worrying. Till then, business/restructuring as usual.

P.S I'm also getting the same tattoo as you, X,O,/\,[] on my left knuckles, R1, R2, L1, L2 on my right knuckles. Two analog sticks on my nipples and the home button on my belly button. I'll get a Move on my penis and on my back I'll have A Mt Rushmore type design with Hirai, Tretton, House and Butler.

[mynd]

Sony arent going under, neither is the Playstation brand...

Jesus, panic much.

Change..sure...going under...no.

[Sub-stance1]

Sony arent going under, neither is the Playstation brand...

Jesus, panic much.

Change..sure...going under...no.

I don't see it happening either. Change can be a good thing too.

[radgamer420]

Sony have to weigh in, is there enough people that DON'T think like you for pay to play online to be more profitable? 360 live suggests there is.

I agree completely and I'm sure Sony has noticed this as well.

[hood]

I agree completely and I'm sure Sony has noticed this as well.

Ive asked this plenty of times but never get an answer what is the major difference between live and psn that justifies paying to play online. Even more interesting with ps+ being available now wheres the justification?

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Ive asked this plenty of times but never get an answer what is the major difference between live and psn that justifies paying to play online. Even more interesting with ps+ being available now wheres the justification?

Live offers you a better online experience. Meeting up with your friends and jumping into games is very streamlined. There is also XGC and many community aspects that PSN lacks.

It will always come down to the type of gamer you are that justifies whether it's worth it or not. If you are heavily into multiplayer games and chatting with your online friends then Live is the clear option and has value. If you are more of a single player gamer then it's not really justified and PS+ will offer you more value with the bonus of dabbling in MP games for free when you want. They are not really comparable as online services though because one is service focussed and the other is content focussed.

I guess the bottom line is:

Online gamer: XBL
Single player gamer: PS+

Just my €0.02

[hood]

Live offers you a better online experience. Meeting up with your friends and jumping into games is very streamlined. There is also XGC and many community aspects that PSN lacks.

It will always come down to the type of gamer you are that justifies whether it's worth it or not. If you are heavily into multiplayer games and chatting with your online friends then Live is the clear option and has value. If you are more of a single player gamer then it's not really justified and PS+ will offer you more value with the bonus of dabbling in MP games for free when you want. They are not really comparable as online services though because one is service focussed and the other is content focussed.

I guess the bottom line is:

Online gamer: XBL
Single player gamer: PS+

Just my €0.02

basically just XGC i have well over 150 friends on multiple psn accounts due to having two ps3s and 4 brothers never had a problem meeting people making friends clans sharing downloads ect. Also on psn if someone on your friends list is playing the same game you are you can just pop the same game in and select join from your friends list and the game turns on and brings you into the same room as your friend.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

basically just XGC i have well over 150 friends on multiple psn accounts due to having two ps3s and 4 brothers never had a problem meeting people making friends clans sharing downloads ect. Also on psn if someone on your friends list is playing the same game you are you can just pop the same game in and select join from your friends list and the game turns on and brings you into the same room as your friend.

Well it's not just XGC, it has other features too, like the ability to set up downloads via PC for example. But yeah, I think XGC is one of the most recognised differences. I agree though, PS3 does more than enough to cover the basics of multiplayer gaming. I personally don't agree with paying to play online, as I have stated before, but others find value in it. The inclusion of XGC and the community aspect of Vita shows that Sony have cottoned on abit so these will likely be in the next PlayStation. The debate goes on as to whether online gaming will be free again next gen or not though.

[hood]

Well it's not just XGC, it has other features too, like the ability to set up downloads via PC for example. But yeah, I think XGC is one of the most recognised differences. I agree though, PS3 does more than enough to cover the basics of multiplayer gaming. I personally don't agree with paying to play online, as I have stated before, but others find value in it. The inclusion of XGC and the community aspect of Vita shows that Sony have cottoned on abit so these will likely be in the next PlayStation. The debate goes on as to whether online gaming will be free again next gen or not though.

i think it will stay free these are two very competitive companies it makes no sense for them to change their business model just because MS profits from charging people to play a game online while you already pay for the internet. People arent solely paying to play online but for the services that come along with that price most are already availble on ps3. I think that because people pay for a service they see it as money well spent, like a plecebo effect from taking a diet pill.

You say it has other features but your not really mentioning them thats pretty vague downloads via pc justifies paying to play online? This is the focal point paying to play online if you could play your xbox games without having to pay and then there was a ad on the marketplace explaing how to enrich your experience but for a price would you but it. In my opinion if people truely want to have a better experience they would purchase it. But to say well because MS does it Sony should too doesnt seem like the best move.

Every gen one company is gonna have that must have feature and this is what drives the industry but for Sony to stay competitive it would be to offer the same or better services that the competition has but for free or a reasonable price but should never ever charge to play online. F2P and microtransactions are the way to go. When I see a multiplat game on the 360 i see P2P a F2P game with DlC to boot. People are already upset over the online pass bs people are definitely turned off by that. The PC guys are probably scratching their heads. I could only imagine the day i pay to play a game online on the internet i already pay for then i buy a used game and have to pay an extra 5 dollars to play online.

[Super_Lilith]

i think it will stay free these are two very competitive companies it makes no sense for them to change their business model just because MS profits from charging people to play a game online while you already pay for the internet. People arent solely paying to play online but for the services that come along with that price most are already availble on ps3. I think that because people pay for a service they see it as money well spent, like a plecebo effect from taking a diet pill.

You say it has other features but your not really mentioning them thats pretty vague downloads via pc justifies paying to play online? This is the focal point paying to play online if you could play your xbox games without having to pay and then there was a ad on the marketplace explaing how to enrich your experience but for a price would you but it. In my opinion if people truely want to have a better experience they would purchase it. But to say well because MS does it Sony should too doesnt seem like the best move.

Every gen one company is gonna have that must have feature and this is what drives the industry but for Sony to stay competitive it would be to offer the same or better services that the competition has but for free or a reasonable price but should never ever charge to play online. F2P and microtransactions are the way to go. When I see a multiplat game on the 360 i see P2P a F2P game with DlC to boot. People are already upset over the online pass bs people are definitely turned off by that. The PC guys are probably scratching their heads. I could only imagine the day i pay to play a game online on the internet i already pay for then i buy a used game and have to pay an extra 5 dollars to play online.

Sony are a business, but they are giving a product away for free that a competitor is selling to make huge profits.

To keep something free when there is good evidence you can make money off it is what really makes no sense.

I really hope i'm wrong and Sony don't see this because I want to play online for free too.