By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Xbox Live revenue > PSN revenue.

Rainbird on 01 March 2009

A similar article was posted a couple of days ago I believe



Around the Network
AnarchyWest on 01 March 2009

Edit

 

Pyramid Head on 01 March 2009

i never used psn once on my psp before i sold it



Last year's game of the year turned out to be Silent Hill : Shattered Memories (online GOTY was COD 6).  This year's GOTY leader to me is Heavy Rain.

Wii Friend Code: 4094-4604-1880-6889

AnarchyWest on 01 March 2009

edit



Dgc1808 on 01 March 2009

Does this revenue also count the the Fee for XBL gold?? Also on PSN there are people that just use the service to play online. If people are willing to pay to play online,then I'm guessing alot of these same people don't mind paying for some DLC to. All in all, I expect XBL revenue to be atleast 4x that of PSN.

EDITED



4 ≈ One

Around the Network
TowlieFTW on 01 March 2009
Impulsivity said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
DirtyP2002 said:

And right now with 17million users and 60% of them paying to play, MS generates more than 500 million USD every year just with the fees.

 

 

Yes, MS has a smart strategy of having a cheaper console initially, though one of its extra costs being a $40-$50/year charge to play games online. 

That's a game per year!  (buy used occasionally)

As fans, it would be perverse for us to like the company that takes more money from us relative to what we receive from them.   I realize it's debatable which company that is.  As fans and consumers, loss leaders are our friends.  Free online certainly is.

If you are not into online-gaming at all, why should you chose the console that offers free (but worse) online gaming, but costs a whole lot of more money?

 

   Name one way in which playing on the PS3 is inferior.  I can even play games like UT3 with mouse and keyboard (which I most certainly can't do with the 360).  The service is reliable, match making is fast, there are friends lists, leader boards and all of that.  The PS3 even has a built in browser to allow for great stats integration for titles like Killzone 2 that MS can't match.  There are also developing areas in home which are pretty cool (like the EA section complete with playable games and rewards) and tons of free user content in games like Little Big Planet.  The games are better too (the PSN downloads) and not available on the PC in most cases.  There is not a single way live is better but many ways PSN is not least of which is the cost.

    I cannot think of one way in which the PSN is inferior to Xbox Live Gold except in that it generates 50 less dollars a year in revenue for MS.  Have you ever PLAYED a game on the PSN?  It's friggin golden.  Also again EVERY PS3 OWNER CAN USE IT, so if you have a friend with a PS3 and game X you can say "hey lets play game X online tonight" and he will never ever say "oh I haven't paid 50 dollars to Sony this year, I can't play online games with you" which half of 360 owners have to say about paying MS.

 

If you think PSN isnt inferior to XBL then you sir need a reality check.

 



Dgc1808 on 01 March 2009
axumblade said:
Why did you post this if you think the article is not accurate?

Also, you're saying that a company that requires a payment to play online makes more revenue then a free service? Astonishing!

 

ROFL!!!



4 ≈ One

Killzowned on 01 March 2009
TowlieFTW said:
Impulsivity said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
DirtyP2002 said:

And right now with 17million users and 60% of them paying to play, MS generates more than 500 million USD every year just with the fees.

 

 

Yes, MS has a smart strategy of having a cheaper console initially, though one of its extra costs being a $40-$50/year charge to play games online. 

That's a game per year!  (buy used occasionally)

As fans, it would be perverse for us to like the company that takes more money from us relative to what we receive from them.   I realize it's debatable which company that is.  As fans and consumers, loss leaders are our friends.  Free online certainly is.

If you are not into online-gaming at all, why should you chose the console that offers free (but worse) online gaming, but costs a whole lot of more money?

 

   Name one way in which playing on the PS3 is inferior.  I can even play games like UT3 with mouse and keyboard (which I most certainly can't do with the 360).  The service is reliable, match making is fast, there are friends lists, leader boards and all of that.  The PS3 even has a built in browser to allow for great stats integration for titles like Killzone 2 that MS can't match.  There are also developing areas in home which are pretty cool (like the EA section complete with playable games and rewards) and tons of free user content in games like Little Big Planet.  The games are better too (the PSN downloads) and not available on the PC in most cases.  There is not a single way live is better but many ways PSN is not least of which is the cost.

    I cannot think of one way in which the PSN is inferior to Xbox Live Gold except in that it generates 50 less dollars a year in revenue for MS.  Have you ever PLAYED a game on the PSN?  It's friggin golden.  Also again EVERY PS3 OWNER CAN USE IT, so if you have a friend with a PS3 and game X you can say "hey lets play game X online tonight" and he will never ever say "oh I haven't paid 50 dollars to Sony this year, I can't play online games with you" which half of 360 owners have to say about paying MS.

 

If you think PSN isnt inferior to XBL then you sir need a reality check.

 

No, I believe you do for thinking that XBL is better.



DirtyP2002 on 01 March 2009
Impulsivity said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
DirtyP2002 said:

And right now with 17million users and 60% of them paying to play, MS generates more than 500 million USD every year just with the fees.

 

 

Yes, MS has a smart strategy of having a cheaper console initially, though one of its extra costs being a $40-$50/year charge to play games online. 

That's a game per year!  (buy used occasionally)

As fans, it would be perverse for us to like the company that takes more money from us relative to what we receive from them.   I realize it's debatable which company that is.  As fans and consumers, loss leaders are our friends.  Free online certainly is.

If you are not into online-gaming at all, why should you chose the console that offers free (but worse) online gaming, but costs a whole lot of more money?

 

   Name one way in which playing on the PS3 is inferior.  I can even play games like UT3 with mouse and keyboard (which I most certainly can't do with the 360).  The service is reliable, match making is fast, there are friends lists, leader boards and all of that.  The PS3 even has a built in browser to allow for great stats integration for titles like Killzone 2 that MS can't match.  There are also developing areas in home which are pretty cool (like the EA section complete with playable games and rewards) and tons of free user content in games like Little Big Planet.  The games are better too (the PSN downloads) and not available on the PC in most cases.  There is not a single way live is better but many ways PSN is not least of which is the cost.

    I cannot think of one way in which the PSN is inferior to Xbox Live Gold except in that it generates 50 less dollars a year in revenue for MS.  Have you ever PLAYED a game on the PSN?  It's friggin golden.  Also again EVERY PS3 OWNER CAN USE IT, so if you have a friend with a PS3 and game X you can say "hey lets play game X online tonight" and he will never ever say "oh I haven't paid 50 dollars to Sony this year, I can't play online games with you" which half of 360 owners have to say about paying MS.

 

everybody has a headset.

Actually playing with mouse and keyboard is a disadvantage for me, because that ruins the competition.

Playing Halo3 with Screenshots / videos to share is great.

Can you chat with somebody on PSN right now, who is in another game? (of course if he actually has a headset) I really don't know, I just know that this was possible on the xbox360 November 2005. Can you play with someone while you use your camera? So like playing UNO and watching the other 3 members in your game. Again, I really don't know.

Joining different partys whenever you feel like to is awesome.

And there are things like netflix or the upcoming primetime with real prizes, the ability to share fotos on live with your friendslist. Sharing videos might be the next step.

The menu (NXE) is simply great.

 



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

madkiller on 01 March 2009

I own a 360 and a PS3 and can say without a doubt that XBL is superior to PSN in every way that it possibly can be...



"If you don't like me, bite me!"