Sony Demands Cash For PlayStation 4 Online Play

[talideon]

Simply put: Providing stable, online gameplay is expensive.

Really? Who's providing it on PC, and why aren't they complaining about how expensive it is?...

Servers on PC are provided by a combination of different people. Some are provided by the publishers, and some are ran by individuals.

The bare minimum that somebody paying for a dedicated service to host multiplayer is going to be paying is in the EUR160/month range. That's enough for a dedicated 200Mbps connection and the cost of leasing a reasonably decent server. If the server is even reasonably busy, it's pretty easy, even if the MP protocol is pretty efficient, for the server to end up with a pretty high load and its bandwidth saturated.

It is not cheap to run a dedicated server. On PC, you're essentially depending on the good graces of others to provide the service.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

It makes sense to me. Clearly any time you have online servers, it is going to cost money and you should charge the consumer. Oh wait, it isn't like that at all on PC.

 

[Griffolion]

I'm really not surprised by this. In fact, I was very surprised it wasn't brought in in the PS3's lifetime. But the PS4 is a new console, and allows them to make some larger shifts that may not have been feasible mid-PS3.

Looks like the PS4 and XB1 are at a dead heat on this one, then. And if it brings what it says it will bring, consistent, good online play, then I don't mind paying.

 

[nevarran]

Servers on PC are provided by a combination of different people. Some are provided by the publishers, and some are ran by individuals.

The bare minimum that somebody paying for a dedicated service to host multiplayer is going to be paying is in the EUR160/month range. That's enough for a dedicated 200Mbps connection and the cost of leasing a reasonably decent server. If the server is even reasonably busy, it's pretty easy, even if the MP protocol is pretty efficient, for the server to end up with a pretty high load and its bandwidth saturated.

It is not cheap to run a dedicated server. On PC, you're essentially depending on the good graces of others to provide the service.

And my question still stands - Why's no one complaining?
That's like saying "swimming is extremely difficult", only because you cannot swim.

They don't allow publishers and third parties to host servers, then they complain how expensive it is and justify payments.

 

[loc978]

As a PC gamer who is used to going through server lists, hosting small games with simple server software, et cetera... I'd just like to chime in that this is completely reasonable. On a service with a matchmaking system (something I personally despise, but to each their own) and servers run by the people who provide said services for the kind of numbers who (for whatever reason) prefer to play their games that way, the cost is pretty enormous.

Honestly, the "convenience" of it (limiting of options is how I see it) is one of the reasons I'd never want to play online multiplayer on such a platform. I suppose I understand academically that some people just want to hit "join game" without knowing what game they're joining... but I'll never understand why. I have favorite server lists in all of my online lobby games for a reason.

So basically... you've brought it on yourselves.

 

[theultimateend]

Paying for internet twice is something im just not willing to do. Going to stay pc.

You're not paying for the system's online capability, just paying for their servers that handle all the Multiplayer crap. You'd still be able to go online or watch Neckflits or peruse the Hulules or whatever you young kids do these days.

Mildly strange that they pass the cost onto the consumer instead of the people making the games >.>.

I wonder if the back of the games will say "Costs additional fee to use multiplayer."

I don't really care since I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, play multiplayer online.

But it is a little strange. Just a smidge.

 

[loa]

Paying for the privilege of seeing games get shut down at the end of their "lifecycle".

 

[OZAuCkn7J28sHLCv]

Oh come on Escapist, that is such a pointlessly inflammatory headline.

 

[Frostbyte666]

I admit I don't like this and it's putting me off the PS4 even if I don't play online multiplayer on consoles anyway. I can understand sony's point of view here but I'm worried about possible ways released games could try and force you into this subscription which I have no intention of getting. Well best thing to do will be wait a couple of months after release and research the various games and what is cut off by online stuff.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Fine by me as long as they don't plaster the PSN with ads like XBL.

 

[Brussels]

Have the majority of people here never tried running a server before? One of you had to have played at least World of Warcraft or another mmorpg. They don't make you pay monthly fees just for kicks. You can't make your own servers on console games like you can on PC.

I haven't seen too many people that liked Sony's online experience for the PS3 and they're trying to improve it for the PS4, yet y'all won't give them a chance.

 

[Voulan]

Well, now I absolutely won't get a PS4. I can't justify paying monthly subscriptions for things like this, it adds up over time to be very costly. It's why I steered clear of the Xbox 360.

So it definitely is PC gaming for me now. God I hope my laptop can handle it.

 

[talideon]

Servers on PC are provided by a combination of different people. Some are provided by the publishers, and some are ran by individuals.

The bare minimum that somebody paying for a dedicated service to host multiplayer is going to be paying is in the EUR160/month range. That's enough for a dedicated 200Mbps connection and the cost of leasing a reasonably decent server. If the server is even reasonably busy, it's pretty easy, even if the MP protocol is pretty efficient, for the server to end up with a pretty high load and its bandwidth saturated.

It is not cheap to run a dedicated server. On PC, you're essentially depending on the good graces of others to provide the service.

And my question still stands - Why's no one complaining?

Nobody is complaining because people are either (a) willing to pay a small fortune to pay for the server hosting or (b) totally unaware that other people are heavily subsidising their multiplayer experience.

People don't complain because the people who independently run such servers are willing to foot the cost. This might be because they work in the same line of business as me--the hosting business--or are both wealthy (possibly by pooling the cost with a number of others) and enthusiastic enough to foot the cost.

Can you *really* imagine the kind of people who buy consoles to play MP games doing something like that? I'd hazard to guess that the pool of people who'd so something like that would be significantly smaller.

That's like saying "swimming is extremely difficult", only because you cannot swim.

I'm not sure I get your analogy. If I'm reading you right, what I'm actually doing is more like a sailor explaining to a passenger how much money and how much effort it take to sail a ship and maintain it too.

BTW, I actually work for a hosting company, so I'm very much aware of the costs involved in keeping a network and racks upon racks of servers up and running.

They don't allow publishers and third parties to host servers, then they complain how expensive it is and justify payments.

Because it's a closed ecosystem. That's the price you pay for getting much cheaper machines that just work out of the box. If you want an open ecosystem, you want a PC and all the occasional jankiness that goes with it.

 

[aba1]

One of the consoles few advantages over computers is the local gameplay aspect. I can't figure out why console developers are so determined to force everything online when it only further obsoletes the very thing they are trying to sell.

 

[Arcade Hero X]

I'm not going to lie I'm not happy to have to pay for it but I recently sold my 360 and bought a ps3 so it won't been to hard to get back into the swing of pay to play. My personal gripe with the 360 and MS with Live was they kept taking things away from the service while expecting me to pay the same.

I'm talking inside xbox with sentuamessage and the like I was so upset when they took that down just to be replaced with some IGN thing. So to have to pay the same but get free current games is a big step up. I know you might think its a bit silly to be annoyed over the inside xbox but it was something I looked forward to watching[especially when they had Jane douglas on]

Also on a side note I really cannot see what the fuss is about PSN being inferior to Live, There is really no massive difference I still get disconnected from games in cod the same amount, There is the same amount of 12yr old kids playing with their mics on so i really don't get what the fuss is about.

Again I would rather not have to pay seen as when I was a 360 gamer my friends would give me stick over having to pay and I would always tell them sony would do it eventually, Well I was right and honestly it really does make sense for them to do it really they are expanding there online capability's so too access all that and get a few free games and some extras I.E themes and such I'll live with it. Unless they start taking stuff away then I'll fuck off back to my PC.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd imagine this would be more damaging towards PS3 owners, who are used to playing for free, than anyone else. 360 players such as myself are already used to paying a subscription fee, that's a pill that we've already swallowed, and as such jumping ship to another console that's charging a subscription as well won't (or at least in my opinion, shouldn't) be that big of a deal.

 

[Hectix777]

Eh, ain't that much of a deal breaker for me. I never played online much, mainly because I never figured out how or my connection always effed up in some way. PS4 is still PS4 and it's good that they're making multiplayer a bigger part of the Sony system, just not the only thing. I mean lets face it, the 360's claim to fame and base is the multiplayer it has not the single player. I always saw Sony consoles as more of Single player system to be honest.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I have no idea how the online features of next-gen consoles will work, but I purchased 6 months of Xbox Live Gold a couple years ago and was deeply disappointed with the quality of online play compared to what the PC had to offer for free (to me anyways).

Besides being limited to 24 players, my online matches were regularly interrupted by rubber-banding and a series of infuriating 1 to 2 minute pauses whenever "the host player" left the match and a new one had to be selected. Unless Sony and MS vastly improve the quality of online multiplayer, you are mad to be paying an extra fee IMO.

Dedicated servers used by the PC gaming community are cheap and widely available, even low population games have a surplus of servers to game on. It is very rare to come across a tyrannical server admin, in fact most do an excellent job policing trolls and greifers. Console gamers should tell these fatcats to piss off and allow them to host their own dedicated servers as it is the better option by leaps and bounds.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Well seeing as how I play online with exactly... 0 of my games, I don't mind.

 

[Excludos]

Altough I already knew, that sucks I don't play enough on my playstation to warrant a subscription fee, but I'd really like to play online the few times I do pick up the controller