Sony making more money from software than MS.

[Mr Puggsly]

makingmusic476 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

Solid_Snake4RD said:

Mr Puggsly said:

Well I know it doesn't cost a billion dollars annually to deliver online play. I mean Sony doesn't lose a billion dollars offering it for free.

the servers cost alot and the exclusivity that they try to purchase costs alot

Also, they make enough to have Activision and EA complaining.

the Activision and EA complaining isn't about what MS makes

its that more people have to pay for XBOX LIVE to play online and also when people play the games online,they forget about other games

It also motivated Sony to offer PSN Plus.

how the hell is PSN plus motivated by it as it is a totally different service

According to the link below, Blizzard only spent $200 million on operational costs for WoW, between the years of 2004 and 2008. Not bad considering they generate hundreds of millions annually.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330507,00.asp

With that said, it must only take a small fraction of Gold subscriptions to cover the cost of the servers. MS purchases exclusives with the shit ton of profit they earn from Gold subscribers.

 

Bullshit, the Activision CEO has complained that MW2 is the most played game on Live yet MS is the one earning from Gold subscriptions. EA has been struggling with MS since the original Xbox basically the same reason.

 

Simply offering a pay service was clearly motivated by Xbox Live. They even offer some of the same benefits as Gold accounts. I think by the time the PS4 rolls around, PSN Plus will be required for online play.

They'd get one hell of a backlash if they start charging for online play, regardless if it was on a new platform.

It's something Ireally  doubt they'd do, given the way PSN is set up.  It currentlly spans both PS3 and PSP quite well, and with the way things are hading, it should have similar functionality on both PS4 and PSP2 as it has on PS3.  It's become a platform in and of itself, one that spans multiple pieces of hardware, much like Steam.  Charging for online play on one piece of hardware but not another simply would not work.

Really all they need is for PS Plus, Home, etc. to cover the costs of PSN.  Online pay doesn't come with any costs outside of the inherent costs of hosting and storing someone's profile, which comes with every pSN user, whether they play online or not.  So long as these servies vocer PSN's expenses, they shouldn't have a need to start charging for online play.

Also, PS Plus and XBL are too fundementally different products.  With XBL you're paying for features such as online play and party chat, with a few services like Netflix mixed in.  With PS Plus, you're currently paying primarily for discounts and whanot, as well as access to some services and products like Hulu Plus and Qore.  It's more like a mix of a rewards card and a magazine subscription rather than a user fee. 

It is really only beneficial for people who use PSN quite actively (and indeed, the only people on my friends list that have paid for the service are the most active users I know), and there is no detriment to NOT having the service, aside from missing the ocassional discount on a game you may be interested in.  On the other hand, if you don't have XBL Gold you lose access to half the features in most games (more than half in any modern FPS).

There wouldn't be a backlash if they do it for the PS4. MS makes a ton of money from it and Sony fans would pay as well.

Where else could Sony fans go? Going to Xbox is pointless because they charge as well and they can't play 1st party Sony games. Nintendo hasn't shown much interest in online gaming in general. Sony fans would pay and argue why PSN Plus is a better service than XBL.

I understand the services differ. I'm simply saying MS motivated Sony to create a subscription based service. And some of the benefits are similar to what you get from XBL. It also can help smooth the transition from free to paid online services.