Sony: Keeping PSN Free on PS4 Would Have Been Too "Hard"

[neonsword13-ops]

Why people are bitching about Playstation+ boggles my mind.

You're paying to get free games every month. You get at least 2+ decent or even great crictally acclaimed games every month, and it easily pays for itself within the first two months of having it.

Heck, you don't even HAVE to pay on PS4! You could just play the F2P games, Like Blacklight and Warframe. Planetside 2 is going to be F2P, too. Netflix and the other streaming services don't require PS+, so what's the big deal?

Jees gais, don't knock it 'till you try it. It's well worth the price of admission.

 

[Ipsen]

Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

Ah, but they're not transferable between 3>4 (as far as I know).

Don't get me wrong; I have fallen in love with PS+, but it's love specifically on terms of my PS3 and Vita, where my Plus library resides. The shitty fact that online is now cost-barriered (while it wouldn't have been a huge issue for me isolated), coupled with the fact that even digital games from previous generations are incompatible (the rub) have me counting the PS4 out. Sony chooses to completely swipe legacy value under the rug, and that's a huge problem for me (especially with 2 fucking original launch titles).

Or, Sony dumped a tremendous amount of investment in the network infrastructure

Or....source for that?

and believes those using that service should pay for it.

It is a service they're providing and the costs just don't make it easy to give away when the network was shitty.

Please forgive me if I'm not convinced by both a lack of official statement on the matter AND the trend of precedence.

I know it's not entirely solid to rely on anecdotal evidence, but I have NOT experienced much of a difference in server quality between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Both were shitty for quite a few games, but guess which console cost me more to find this out with?

Rather, it's the games themselves, that is, the quality of their netcode, that play the main role in how multiplayer will handle.

 

[Lightknight]

Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought it requires something regarding the disk reader and something more regarding power consumption for emulation.

Either way, the slim came out at a time where the ps3 had been around for three years. Sony outright claimed that they wanted to encourage the transition. So I'm not sure where the lie was either now that I'm looking into it.

 

[Lightknight]

Or, Sony dumped a tremendous amount of investment in the network infrastructure

Or....source for that?

The article that we are currently posting under. The part where the VP of SOE is quoted as saying: "We've built up the network over the years and made a significant investment... and it's quite honestly hard to keep everything [free]"

It's a legitimate desire for a company to be compensated for their investment. Our remaining question should be around the actual amount. What constitutes a "significant" investment and what happens after they've been compensated for it? Do they return to a free plan (unlikely)?

I do not doubt that they've invested millions of dollars into the network and the testing of it to compete with Microsoft's robust network. The only question is how much.

Please forgive me if I'm not convinced by both a lack of official statement on the matter AND the trend of precedence.

I cannot help it if you didn't read the article we're discussing. The direct quotes should have been a given in the preceding discussion.

 

[Deshin]

Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

This guy knows exactly what I'm talking about. The issue I have is Sony said they had to drop backwards compatibility when they stopped making the first wave of PS3s.

 

[Foolery]

Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks?

No, because it's a digital conversion. Not every game works, and it's not perfect. Somewhat similar to emulation on PC. It runs on software, not hardware.

 

[Deshin]

Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks?

No, because it's a digital conversion. Not every game works, and it's not perfect. Somewhat similar to emulation on PC. It runs on software, not hardware.

FFXII works with an incredibly minor audio lag on menu screens, right? That itself is a pretty big testament to the emulation capabilities. Spaghetti code notwithstanding it has the sheer metaphysical balls to handle anything the PS2 could churn out. In that regard it's no worse off than the Xbox 360 was for emulating Xbox games, some worked some didn't but at least the option is still there.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

I was actually asking moreso than debating. I was under the impression that it required additional hardware to read the non-DVD proprietary disks of the ps2.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications#Configurations

That link tells us that the original 60GB and 20GB have hardware backwards compatibility.

The second generation has partial software compatibility.

What does that hardware vs software mean if full compatibility doesn't require hardware?

EDIT: Found it: http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html#Blu-ray_DVD_PS3_PS2_PS1_Compatibility

"For PS2 mode compatibility, PS3 models having the Graphics Synthesizer (GS) chip is required, and models having an extra Emotion Engine (EE) chip have even better compatibility with PS2 games. PS3 models having the extra EE chip uses PS2 hardware emulation, while those without uses PS2 software emulation. Later PS3 models that don't even have the Graphics Synthesizer chip meant no PS2 compatibility at all (hardware or software)."

It required expensive hardware.

 

[Roxas1359]

This guy knows exactly what I'm talking about. The issue I have is Sony said they had to drop backwards compatibility when they stopped making the first wave of PS3s.

They dropped it because the hardware that was being used to emulate drive the console's price through the roof. The PSX2 emulator has only just more recently become more reliable and actually functional. Hell, at the launch of the PS3 the PSX emulator was still running into problems.
Now I wish that the PS3 still had the PS2 backwards compatibility, but I can understand why it was dropped. Plus the 360's past Pro models started to drop nackwards compatibility as well. Hell Nintendo dropped the GameCube's backwards compatibility for the Wii with the Wii Mini and 2011 redesign.

 

[Deshin]

Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

I was actually asking moreso than debating. I was under the impression that it required additional hardware to read the non-DVD proprietary disks of the ps2.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications#Configurations

That link tells us that the original 60GB and 20GB have hardware backwards compatibility.

The second generation has partial software compatibility.

What does that hardware vs software mean if full compatibility doesn't require hardware?

What it means is the 60GB and 20GB models had an extra chip ripped right out of a PS2 and slapped into a PS3 so that, functionality wise, it WAS a PS2. Emulation means a device can interpret data not intended for it. To give an example a PS1 emulator on a PC. A PS1 game cannot natively run on a PC, a PC CPU uses a different architecture entirely than the cell processors of the PS1. However multiple emulators exist that transform the data from a PS1 disc into something the PC's CPU can understand and process.

As for the PS3, ALL PS3s CAN play PS2 games (not all of them but a lot of them) by using software emulation. The "PS2 Classics" on the PSN store aren't remastered or recoded, they're just CD images with a Sony-made emulator. Hackers have reverse engineered the emulator off the games and found out LOADS of games work with the emulation from completely-ripped-off-the-disc PS2 cd images.

Sony didn't remove backwards compatibility from the PS3, they just started charging for it. Anyone who has bought a PS2 Classics off the PSN for a game they already owned for the PS2 pretty much paid for the same game twice.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

I was actually asking moreso than debating. I was under the impression that it required additional hardware to read the non-DVD proprietary disks of the ps2.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications#Configurations

That link tells us that the original 60GB and 20GB have hardware backwards compatibility.

The second generation has partial software compatibility.

What does that hardware vs software mean if full compatibility doesn't require hardware?

What it means is the 60GB and 20GB models had an extra chip ripped right out of a PS2 and slapped into a PS3 so that, functionality wise, it WAS a PS2. Emulation means a device can interpret data not intended for it. To give an example a PS1 emulator on a PC. A PS1 game cannot natively run on a PC, a PC CPU uses a different architecture entirely than the cell processors of the PS1. However multiple emulators exist that transform the data from a PS1 disc into something the PC's CPU can understand and process.

As for the PS3, ALL PS3s CAN play PS2 games (not all of them but a lot of them) by using software emulation. The "PS2 Classics" on the PSN store aren't remastered or recoded, they're just CD images with a Sony-made emulator. Hackers have reverse engineered the emulator off the games and found out LOADS of games work with the emulation from completely-ripped-off-the-disc PS2 cd images.

Sony didn't remove backwards compatibility from the PS3, they just started charging for it. Anyone who has bought a PS2 Classics off the PSN for a game they already owned for the PS2 pretty much paid for the same game twice.

"For PS2 mode compatibility, PS3 models having the Graphics Synthesizer (GS) chip is required, and models having an extra Emotion Engine (EE) chip have even better compatibility with PS2 games. PS3 models having the extra EE chip uses PS2 hardware emulation, while those without uses PS2 software emulation. Later PS3 models that don't even have the Graphics Synthesizer chip meant no PS2 compatibility at all (hardware or software)."

How much did this chip cost?

 

[Foolery]

Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks?

No, because it's a digital conversion. Not every game works, and it's not perfect. Somewhat similar to emulation on PC. It runs on software, not hardware.

FFXII works with an incredibly minor audio lag on menu screens, right? That itself is a pretty big testament to the emulation capabilities. Spaghetti code notwithstanding it has the sheer metaphysical balls to handle anything the PS2 could churn out. In that regard it's no worse off than the Xbox 360 was for emulating Xbox games, some worked some didn't but at least the option is still there.

It's been awhile since I've played XII. It has some audio lag. I prefer to run the Zodiac version on a PC. Beyond that, yeah, you got it, 360 emulating original Xbox games is very comparable.

 

[Deshin]

This guy knows exactly what I'm talking about. The issue I have is Sony said they had to drop backwards compatibility when they stopped making the first wave of PS3s.

They dropped it because the hardware that was being used to emulate drive the console's price through the roof. The PSX2 emulator has only just more recently become more reliable and actually functional. Hell, at the launch of the PS3 the PSX emulator was still running into problems.
Now I wish that the PS3 still had the PS2 backwards compatibility, but I can understand why it was dropped. Plus the 360's past Pro models started to drop nackwards compatibility as well. Hell Nintendo dropped the GameCube's backwards compatibility for the Wii with the Wii Mini and 2011 redesign.

No hardware was being used to emulate. There was no emulation, it was literally a PS2 chip stapled onto the PS3 motherboard.
EDIT: "Hardware emulation" is a fancy term, when people refer to emulators they typically mean software emulation to, for example, get cell processor data to run on 32/64 but processing units. "Hardware emulation" is a chip that can run it, it's like saying a 64 bit PC CPU is emulating a 32 bit OS. Kind of but not really.

That was then and this is now. Instead of Sony coming forward and releasing their own emulator in a software update and saying "everyone rejoice, we managed to bring emulation to the PS3, now your PS2 games will work on it" they instead put it on single games and charge you for it, even though you may have already bought it before.

Bottom line: The PS3 DOES still have PS2 backwards compatibilty. People are hacking their slim PS3s and playing PS2 games on them, something Sony said was impossible. Anyone can go out to the shop RIGHT NOW, buy a PS3 "without backwards compatibility", and be playing PS2 games on it after a couple of hours. Not even using some magical program some hacker put together but by using software Sony THEMSELVES have made and charge people for every time someone buys a PS2 Classics on the PSN.

 

[Ipsen]

I cannot help it if you didn't read the article we're discussing. The direct quotes should have been a given in the preceding discussion.

Guess that makes both of us terrible helpers, for I can't help you to read my response. Thank you for pointing out the post; I'll admit I care less for the statement, but my problem still stands.

As a matter of fact, your apologetics brings up ANOTHER problem, if it's to be believed. Of course compensation is desired for investment, but that compensation should be coming through the main avenue of interest to the consumer, which is the games. This situation looks like an itemization of all the 'services' the PS4 will provide; paying for games, paying for servers, paying for entertainment, etc. And that's fine, if that's the way you want to express the value you think you need. I would say just include it all in a lump sum (say, in the price of the games themselves) instead of this 'death by 1000 cuts' (gashes, really) scenario. At least I'd know how much I'd need to save for this high-brow system that Sony wishes I'd think of it as.

Then again, this is all in terms of someone who WANTS to support Sony. People can have whatever vendettas they wish against this company, but what does it say about them when one of their proponents has to back down?

 

[JarinArenos]

My breaking point: requiring PSPlus for services that already charge a monthly fee. MMOs, Netflix, Hulu, etc, should not require a charge (PSPlus) on top of charge (game) on top of charge (ISP). They want to charge for other services? Fine.

"F2P" MMO's will be as it is Free-2-play, You don't need PS+ for netflix/hulu and other already free services from the Ps3 era. The only thing that they changed was you need to pay to play online games.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I know that they're (mostly) not charging for the things I listed YET. Just a commentary of where I think the "do not cross" line should be on the topic.

Honestly though, it should really be limited to the free games service and games where they themselves provide the servers for multiplayer. Charging for any online service that doesn't rely directly on their servers is just price-gouging.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Or, Sony dumped a tremendous amount of investment in the network infrastructure and believes those using that service should pay for it.

It is a service they're providing and the costs just don't make it easy to give away when the network was shitty.

Sorry, but quite frankly that's B.S.

Sony is not providing a service, they are fulfilling an obligation to their customers that every reputable business should fulfill. That obligation is to ensure that the products purchased from them work properly and with the full functionality that those customers purchased the product for, this includes multiplayer, and any costs that may be incurred on their end as a result of doing so on their end should be covered by the initial purchase price. Charging to allow multiplayer, as well as any other necessary function of their games is like someone selling you a bike and then charging you every month for one of the wheels or you'll take it away and the bike will stop working. However, with this case and Sony, it's more like that someone selling you a bike, letting you ride it for free for years and then suddenly showing up at your doorstep and demanding money to allow you to continue riding it from that point on. What would you do if either happened? More than call them out on it in a forum I'd bet.

Besides, for an entire console generation Sony has managed to provide multiplayer for nothing, and there's plenty of MMOs, free to play online games, and so forth that have been free for everything from day 1, that at most live off of advertising dollars. If they can do it then, they can do it now, they just think that their customers are too gullible to know when they're being ripped off. They're also undercutting Microsoft's prices which serves the double purpose of making Sony's move not look so bad while simultaneously making Microsoft look bad because if Sony can charge less, why can't Microsoft? The former is a rather pathetic attempt while the latter is actually pretty insidious.

 

[Neyon]

To put this article simply, Sony wants to charge for a once free feature solely out of greed but they don't want to admit it to everybody because it would show what Sony really thinks of their customers: as nothing more than gullible walking wallets.

Be fair here. Companies charging for services is not greed. Most firms exist to make a profit for their stockholders, which aren't just greedy evil millionaires but any John Smith with investments or a pension. Sony isn't also making a huge amount of profit right now after years of losses. If there is a service they can reasonably charge for they should - despite being a huge firm they don't have billions to throw away on nice gestures.

 

[Roxas1359]

Bottom line: The PS3 DOES still have PS2 backwards compatibilty. People are hacking their slim PS3s and playing PS2 games on them, something Sony said was impossible.

Ah, I see. Guess I was wrong. Although Nintendo is also doing the same thing because it's been proven that the Wii U actually can play Nintendo GameCube discs since it's just a modified Wii Optical Drive. However, the only reason why we can't is because Nintendo didn't put a GameCube Controller slot on the Wii U and locked the ability for the drive to detect the GameCube discs. So I'm guess that Nintendo is gonna do something similar to how Sony has this gen then.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Be fair here. Companies charging for services is not greed. Most firms exist to make a profit for their stockholders, which aren't just greedy evil millionaires but any John Smith with investments or a pension. Sony isn't also making a huge amount of profit right now after years of losses. If there is a service they can reasonably charge for they should - despite being a huge firm they don't have billions to throw away on nice gestures.

No, companies charging for services is not greed, companies charging for what's necessary for their product just to function the way it was designed and marketed to their customers after they've already bought it is, which is what Sony is doing. Sony as the provider of the content has a responsibility to their customers to ensure that everything in that content including multiplayer is available to them, and they are shirking this responsibility to make a quick buck.

This is entirely about fairness, or rather the lack thereof on Sony's part, the fact that even Sony itself not to mention others have provided this "service" for free for years or even decades only hammers the nail deeper.

 

[irishda]

Be fair here. Companies charging for services is not greed. Most firms exist to make a profit for their stockholders, which aren't just greedy evil millionaires but any John Smith with investments or a pension. Sony isn't also making a huge amount of profit right now after years of losses. If there is a service they can reasonably charge for they should - despite being a huge firm they don't have billions to throw away on nice gestures.

No, companies charging for services is not greed, companies charging for what's necessary for their product just to function the way it was designed and marketed to their customers after they've already bought it is, which is what Sony is doing. Sony as the provider of the content has a responsibility to their customers to ensure that everything in that content including multiplayer is available to them, and they are shirking this responsibility to make a quick buck.

This is entirely about fairness, or rather the lack thereof on Sony's part.

OK, then get ready for more expensive games