Approvals 10/10 ▼
TrevorPhillips (3) - 4652d ago Cancel
Pozzle (3) - 4652d ago Cancel
PoisonedMonkey (2) - 4652d ago Cancel
iamnsuperman (1) - 4652d ago Cancel
sjgamer (1) - 4652d ago Cancel
300°

Is free PSN dead?

Do passes and premium-tier services threaten Sony's network?

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

Lame
Pixel_Pusher4652d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(0)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community4652d ago
Kran4652d ago

No. If it didnt years ago when all this started, it won't now.

Nitrowolf24652d ago (Edited 4652d ago )

Nope. Unless you buy new it's still free. Plus not all games use it yet. Also doesn't the xbox 360 have online passes to?
http://www.ea.com/1/ds2-onl...

Online passes are still a terrible idea.

jaosobno4652d ago (Edited 4652d ago )

Well I hope it remains free. I don't wanna pay 50-60$ for online play and then additional 50$ for some type of premium service like COD Elite (like X360 owners do).

It's just too much, so keep online play free Sony!

PRHB HYBRiiD4652d ago

cod elite is free i think but the premium elite cost like 50 bucks but u can play online with the free one.

CynicalVision4652d ago

'Online passes are still a terrible idea.'

I disagree, if you worked as a developer you'd be thinking differently. Why is it okay for consumers to pay less than half for a used game but still have access to everything that people who pay $60 have?

Surely you agree that it's unfair considering these people spend years developing a game, spending millions of dollars and having to pay for the upkeep of servers.

They have to make they money back somehow, it's only fair for them to implement an online pass. Otherwise what's the incentive to keep making games?

Eromu4652d ago

"Why is it okay for consumers to pay less than half for a used game but still have access to everything that people who pay $60 have? "

Why is it okay for consumers to pay less than half for a used car but still have access to everything that people who pay $20k+ have?

LightofDarkness4652d ago

Sorry, CynicalVision, one cannot be so flippant when considering the repercussions that services and restrictions like these have on the entire concept of ownership.

xer04652d ago

Well both iTunes and Valves Steam is free - so, do I think free access to online markets is dead... that's a big fat NO.

BrutallyBlunt4652d ago

@jaosobno
PSN will remain free. The basic services will not change. Sony may put the focus now on Plus with any new services but the core ability to play online will continue to be free on the Playstation 3. Sony will toy with the idea of keeping that core experience free on the Playstation 4 so it will be interesting if it remains free. Right now there is a shift happening testing the market with things like the Elite service for Call of Duty, online passes and other revenue based services like Plus.

@Eromu
Bad analogy. A car depreciates over time and costs money to keep up the maintenance. So in my view it is only right for those hosting the online services to be funded some way and buying used means no money is going to the publishers who run the matchmaking services and everything else needed to host the games online.

PirateThom4652d ago

Here's the problem with ownership of software. Quite simply, you don't. You own a licence to use the software, which the publisher can revoke at any time (in fact if your account is blocked on PSN, XBox Live or Steam you lose access to any downloaded content and the only reason this wouldn't hold true for a disc is because it's physical, doesn't mean they can't block access to portions of it though).

I, honestly, have no real issue with it, because I only buy games new HOWEVER and this is the big problem, this needs to extend to cover more than one system and user account because I have no doubt there's people with multiple PS3s and PS3 users in the same household it should be like PSN content, ability to activate on 5 systems, covers all users on that system.

DragonKnight4652d ago

@CynicalVision: Why should developers get paid twice for the same game they already got paid for?

They sell all their copies to a retailer, thus get paid for each and every copy. Why then should they get paid again because someone decides to return a copy that the RETAILER paid for (and sold to the consumer) and decides to resell? The developer relinquishes their right to additional profit once they sell the physical copy to the retailer. It would be different if their game was DL only but that isn't the case.

If I sell someone a tv, I don't have the right to demand that they give me the full value cost of the tv if they decide to then sell it to someone else.

badz1494652d ago

the basis of PSN is free online play which the 360 doesn't have! online pass and such has nothing to do with free PSN. it's just a way devs recouping profit from 2nd hand markets. what Sony is and will be doing for PS+ is totally up to them as they have to keep they paying gamers happy by adding more stuff to the service. but as long as the online play stays free, why complaint? want more services? pay for PS+, end of story!

Nitrowolf24652d ago (Edited 4652d ago )

@CynicalVision

Technically Retailers bought the games. We are not buying games directly from them (Devs) unless of course it's their own shop.

And are you guys forgetting something? This isn't just for online. RAGE will be having an online pass for single player content. So the matter for running matchmaking and such isn't even a reason why they do it.

I understand developers want more money, but if they are going to start charging for Online then at least do this. Offer a trail before you make anyone purchase the dam thing. Like what Homefront does where you can only reach a certain level and then you can't progress anymore. If they are going to offer and online pass then give me a reason to buy it instead of having me go in blind without knowing whether I want the online or not.

Also why should they be charging for the game online? As much as I like dislike COD for being the same at least they aren't making you pay online. Why? Because the support is there. You know whats even worse? the fact that most developers today has paid DLC on launch day of games. If I am going to pay for Online pass at least have the game packed with all this content cause DLC isn't a thing they make in a day and in most cases is thought up before the game is even released.

DirtyLary4652d ago

They are a great idea. Gamestop and used sales are to blame. Devs and Publishers now get a piece of used games sales.

Tanir4652d ago

if 360 still has online passes........thats just reaaaaaaally bad.

in regards to online passes i believe that the online pass should register to your serial number on the ps3, not just the username, but at the same time should register to your username aswell incase you have another ps3.

its the most logical and fair thing to do

Pixel_Pusher4652d ago

fear mongering at it's worst.

SonyStyled4652d ago

EA, THQ, Disney Interactive, Sony and Ubisoft are the publishers that i know of that implement the online pass. Ubisoft being the latest about a month or so ago

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 4652d ago
Hisiru4652d ago (Edited 4652d ago )

I don't think online pass is a bad idea because it's good against pre-owned games. What is really bad is DRM.

And how can online pass go against free psn? If you buy new games you won't have any problems.

mixelon4652d ago

I too think online passes are a good idea. Everyone saying it screws with the idea of ownership is missing the point I think.

Pre-owned games do nothing to pay for the upkeep of the multiplayer infrastructure, matchmaking servers etc. If you want to play on their systems using their bandwidth it's fair you pay a little. You don't *own* online functionality.

Philoctetes4652d ago

Agreed. Online passes don't have anything to do with "free PSN." These are just a way for developers to recoup some revenue from the used game market. Those of us who are buying our games new still aren't paying a penny for online play.

LightofDarkness4652d ago

Technically, online passes are DRM. It's "Digital Rights Management", and by definition it's simply a term to describe access control technologies. Online passes ARE access control technology.

FACTUAL evidence4652d ago

@CynicalVision

I see where you;re coming from, but let's be real. When you buy a used game, you're not paying less than half of what the game was shipped for....let's say gamestop for an example, if you buy a used game that's a month old, you'd have to pay 53$ still. That's not even including the tax.

iamnsuperman4652d ago

That is Gamestop's problem. n used games nothing goes back to the developer. Gamestop gets all $53. They are protecting their investment of a game they made and stopping gamestop from making a major profit. It has nothing to do with paying less than half. Its about them making money of games that cost millions to make. I think I am one of few who actually sees what the online pass is. It may not be good for us but what is £5 here or there. If you want to support gamestop and not the developer fine but then do not play online which has running costs

DragonKnight4652d ago

Again, the developer got all the support they technically deserve when they sold the game to retailers. Why should developers get that $53 when a second disk isn't being sold? It's the same disk that was originally bought. It's the same disk that the devs sold to the retailer and were paid for. So why should they get paid twice, thrice, or 4 times for the same copy? They didn't put any effort into putting the game on the damn disk too did they? There isn't any new content being added to a used game is there? So explain it to me?

iamnsuperman4652d ago (Edited 4652d ago )

@dragonknight. Its not just that. Why should gamestop get hude profit from a game they could have originaly sold. It is very profitable the re sale market for places like gamestop. With online, which cost money and man power to run expanding a game people are enjoying the on line experience without paying to the developers. This is more of a problem with online games being improved

DragonKnight4652d ago

You're not understanding something here. Used game sales DO NOT impact online because there is NOT an additional user, it is merely a transference. If I traded my game in to gamestop, they have my copy. They then sell that copy to another person. I can't use that copy anymore, but someone is in my place. This has no burden on the online infrastructure as no additional member has been added, and the developer has already been paid for the game with their original sale to gamestop.

This is purely based on greed. Developers want to be paid more than once for one copy of a game. Used game sales in no way hurt them in any arena. Not additional users, not loss of revenue, nothing.

Hicken4651d ago

Well said, Dragon Knight. Bubbles up.

I've been trying to explain that to people since I joined this site; they just can't seem to wrap their heads around it, though. They want to believe it hurts developers, but what it REALLY does it hurt ownership rights: no matter what you paid, you only own HALF the game until you pay the developers. Even though they've already been paid for the copy of the game you own- including the half they won't let you play- you have to pay them again to play the whole thing. And at any time, they can choose to no longer support that game, thus meaning your payment grants you nothing.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4651d ago
KingPin4652d ago

agreed.

or they will be sued again.

because when they advertised the console it was with free online play. now they taking away an advertised feature which is why most of ps3 gamers went with sonys console.

i think even sony know this.

iamnsuperman4652d ago (Edited 4652d ago )

I really do not get what this article is trying to say. Surely extra paid services is a plus for the PSN because unlike its competitor the user doesn't all ready have to pay for a subscription. The PSN has that option to play free online which is always attractive to a consumer I can see a tier system in the future. Basic online free option extra cost money

One-X4652d ago

Believe it or not, Sony has a premium-tier service too... Plus I don't know many that'd take a premium paying service over a free one that works just as well.

Free, well to me, is attractive. If I looked at PS3 and knew I had to pay so much every year just to talk to my friends or play games I want, then I wouldn't be so happy with the service.

Ocean4652d ago

Next Gen who knows...but not this consoles lifecycle

Show all comments (67)
200°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community3d ago
mandf3d ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic3d ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv723d ago (Edited 3d ago )

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop2d ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv722d ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander19722d ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty2d ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
shinoff21833d ago (Edited 3d ago )

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv723d ago (Edited 3d ago )

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje3d ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils2d ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick3d ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz2d ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand1252d ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff2d ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?

300°

Sony Says The PS5 Is Its “Most Profitable Generation To-Date"

During Sony’s recent business segment meeting and investor presentation regarding its game and network services, the PlayStation company revealed that PlayStation 5 is the company’s “most profitable generation to-date.”

It’s the top slide of the presentation, showing that in its first four years, the PS5 generation has already hit $106 billion in sales, having almost caught up to the PS4’s total $107 billion generated.

Operating income for the PS5 generation has also already surpassed that of the PS4, having now reached $10 billion.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (3)- Updates (3)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community4d ago
Changed: title
Changed: credit url
ApocalypseShadow4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

I wouldn't doubt it. They released a high quality system. A lot of high quality games from themselves and their support of 3rd party developers and indies. They released many high quality remakes and remasters. They released a high quality GaaS game going against the naysayers thinking Sony would abandon single player games. And they most likely are profiting a lot more than PS1, PS2 PS4 and the loss leading PS3 that drained all their profits.

Now, I'll wait to see what's cooking tomorrow. But can you use some of those profits to better support your high quality VR headset? Because, by supporting it, you can sell more games and more systems and make more profits?

jznrpg4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

I want RPGs for PSVR2! Good ones of course

shinoff21834d ago

If it had some rpgs I would buy right fking now. It looks dope and alot of fun, but it's biggest game resident evil 4(maybe) I've got no interest in. I'm not a fan of racing games, even with that metro game coming i was never much into that series. Rpgs would be fantastic.

MrNinosan4d ago

Lemme know if ya wanna play some Zenith 🙌
Bought it at release, but haven't played it more than 1-2 hours but for sure on my "todo list".

Cacabunga4d ago

Normal when they released mostly cross gen games so far. That’s a lot of money saved..
We haven’t seen what PS5 can do yet. 4years in and PS4 games still look great to me. The gen leap isn’t quite there yet.

--Onilink--4d ago

The interesting metric for me is the $106billion in operating income/profit (not sales as mentioned in the article) reaching the same as the PS4 did with only half the consoles sold.

In particular because they all are supposed to be making the most per hardware sold after a few years when manufacturing costs are down.

So even putting inflation aside(and the higher console price), it is interesting that they could reach PS4 $ with just half the consoles sold.

Maybe there is more to the metric thats whats seen at face value, but they have clearly been making a lot more money than before on the software side (with also less games released I suppose, given its only been half the generation so far)

VersusDMC4d ago

The bulk of the money has to be coming from the 30% cut on all games and microtransactions. Especially on all the free to play juggernauts like genshin, apex, fortnight, etc.

--Onilink--4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

@Versus

They are definitely making a lot on that for sure (which the $70 price increase factors into as well), but its not like many of those games werent around for the PS4 too.

They might be counting the gen as a whole and not just PS5 itself (so extra profit from PC sales, whatever that may be)

PS+ price increase and different tiers probably amount to part of that too.

But in general, its still quite a surprising metric. Half the time, half the consoles sold, less first party games released so far and still already making more of a profit than last gen is quite something, and as mentioned, there is probably more to it that we dont know, after all, since we are talking about operating income, all the expenses they have also factor into it, so it is also possible that they have found ways to significantly reduce that + all the means of increased revenue that appear to be factoring into the equation

All in all, just an interesting situation from a business perspective

porkChop4d ago

It's for the whole generation, so it would likely be including PC. They also make much more profit on digital sales vs retail, and digital is far more prominent these days. The generation also started at the height of COVID when everyone was home, spending far more money on gaming/hobbies. It makes a lot of sense for this gen to be more profitable.

Abnor_Mal4d ago

This will surely shut up all the new trolling accounts trying to spread lies and non facts in other articles comment sections before this article is posted.

Hofstaderman4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Obscurely, those trolls or troll will not show in these articles as the truth is contradictory to his or their orchard-sized daily dose of copium and hopium.

Tacoboto4d ago

Or... They're intentionally trolling you guys specifically. Because they know it upsets you so easily.

Name-dropping Orchard, after this many months? How long has it been and he's still in your thoughts?

Elda4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

I'm quite sure the individual is reading these positive comments downvoting & seething at the same time. Edit: It just downvoted my comment...lol!!

Hofstaderman4d ago

No I'm entertained by this individual. I love unhinged people, they are so interesting lol.

repsahj4d ago

Wow! I am super impressed that in just 4 years, ps5 already caught up to the PS4's. Congratulations.

JackBNimble3d ago

That happens when half of your games are cross platform. I'm still waiting to see what the ps5 is capable of, because they sure haven't pushed any limits.

And where are all these ps5 exclusive games?

sagapo4d ago

Not really surprised as Sony barely has any competition at the moment.

Show all comments (47)
150°

Sony CEO says although AI "has been used for creation," it's "not a substitute for human creativity"

"AI is not a substitute for human creativity. We position it as a technology that supports creativity. Creativity resides in people. We will continue to contribute to people's creativity through technology," the CEO said.

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community10d ago
1nsomniac11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

...not yet but 100% within the next 10 years!

..Then Sony will use it like the drop of a hat. They're no different to the others.

isarai11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

They used to be 😞 sure it was always a business, and money's always the priority, but they used to have a very strong stance on supporting artists and creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" was a phrase they touted a few times back in the ps1-ps3 era, a philosophy carried over from their music branch PlayStation was created from. It's not COMPLETELY gone, but it's barely there compared to what it was back then, i just want them to return to that.

Eonjay10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

I am highly encouraged by their statement about human creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" is exactly what they are saying. But at the same time, I don't think people understand that Sony is a corporation. If they don't realize growth, they don't get to exist. When you say 'Sony', you are talking about a bunch of investors. To speak about them any other way is a illogical and incorrect. They haven't changed. They have been a group of investors since they became a public business.

isarai10d ago

Ugh, i really wish people would stop gambling people's livelihoods by turning a project/game into their political soapbox. Im all for statements and having your own opinion, but there's more people working on this than just druckman, ham fisting your political beliefs onto just seems inconsiderate for everyone elses job security when it can result in a failure due to people avoiding it for that reason.

I play games for escape, im so tired of nearly every AAA game blatantly dragging real world issues to shove in my face when I'm trying to take a break from it all. They don't even bother to be subtle about it, quite the opposite, it's blasted and force fed to you and it's just getting exhausting

Einhander197210d ago

People are taking a whole interview and cutting it down to clips that make him look bad and take what he actually was saying out of context. For example he also said things like this AI has "ethical issues we need to address"

-Foxtrot10d ago

@Einhander

Why defend him at this point?

It’s not taking things out of context, he said what he said.

Old ND would never talk about soulless AI taking over so many creative things they are well known for. The whole “ethical issues” is just a good PR spin people who push this crap fall back on to make their statements not seem as bad. So many AI lovers do this.

AI has no place is so many creative based things.

Einhander197210d ago

Well yeah, because everyone else is using it so they need to stay competitive. It's the same as paid online, they didn't want to go that route but their competition was making so much money they needed to add paid online just to keep up.

RaiderNation10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

AI will never replace humans in game development in terms of conceptualizing new games. Humans still need to come up with the ideas and what they want to implement. However much of the day to day menial coding could be AI driven to reduce production time and team size. I could also see AI being used for bug testing/optimization that could lead to better quality games at launch. I'm actually very optimistic about how AI can positively impact game development.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 10d ago
XiNatsuDragnel11d ago

Good statement but hopefully this holds up

NotoriousWhiz10d ago

People that aren't software developers just don't understand the benefits of AI. People who's only exposure to A.I is the Terminator movie and other related sci fi films won't understand the benefits it provides.

It's not about replacing human labor. It's about making human labor easier.

Many years ago, I had laser eye surgery done. It was performed by a robot. The doctor took my measurements and calibrated the machine to make sure it would do what needed be done. And then the robot corrected my vision in 10 seconds.

15 years later and I still have 20/20 vision.

Eonjay10d ago

AI in and of itself is not a 'bad'. Money is bad. Money is evil, and corporations will do whatever they can to get more of it. They will find ways to implement AI to replace as may jobs as possible. This isn't even up for debate. It is the charge of the corporation to maximize returns for the investors. They have no choice. I'm a developer and I know that my job will absolutely be replaced. Therefore, I have decided to become an AI dev. AI has a lot of potential to help us solve problem on a scale most can't even imagine. The issue, as ever is that our monetary system only ever allows us to focus on greed and fiscal growth.

But I am a pragmatist. Perhaps an AI model can be built to help protect us from our most dangerous instincts and habits. And perhaps Congress can pass laws to protect us from people who would use AI to manipulate and control us (spoiler: they wont).

RaiderNation9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

Progress is inevitable. Nobody driving cars today is complaining that the horse and buggy is no longer around. Yes, some jobs will be lost but guess what? With innovation comes new job opportunities. It's how the cycle of the job market works.