Sony's decision to put its PS4 online multiplayer services behind a pay-wall will drive additional revenues of $1.2 billion per year, a games business analyst has calculated.
It was a smart move by Sony to make multiplayer gaming part of the PS Plus offering.
Yep good business move, not the most ethical decision but they had no option after the 360 mega profits from XBLG. I just hope we see more value like driveclub, and I really hiope the money goe into make more and more first party titles bigger and better.
they kind of needed to do this after the huge loss they made on PS3, PS+ is great value though and hopefully will continue to be so
Agreed. Definitely think there is STILL a way to make internet play free as an option, but for me, with what Plus has been offering, I would have bought it anyway... When I found out Plus rolled over to PS4 launch and beyond I signed up again and got like three great games back to back which already essentially paid for it (not counting the little games, ones I don't care for or any of the other advantages), Hitman, Max Payne, Uncharted 3... INSANE! Another note, the way the Uncharted 3 download was setup I had some difficulty (as have others apparently) getting it to run due to the peculiarities of the install process of the free to play multiplayer and the the single player components so I gave up... signed up for Plus, when it finished re-downloading while I was asleep the game was installed and ready to play when I woke up, so kudos Sony.
they will need 2.4 million PS+ subscribers to hit that number, I think it is very possible by 2017
@newmonday: You missed a decimal point. You need 24 million yearly PS+ subscribers to get 1.2 billion revenue. That also assumes two things: 1 all revenue from the money for the subscription to PS+ goes to Sony (stores that sell the membership actually get a small cut of that money, so in reality they would need to sell more than 24 million to make up for that). 2: The article says that the decision to put the multiplayer behind the paywall will INCREASE the revenue by 1.2 billion, so that means there would have to be 24 million who wouldn't have subscribed otherwise. This means you would need a whole bunch of new subscribers. On the otherside, perhaps having the subscription will lead to more annual purchases due to the sale, so that might make up some of the revenue as well. I would say you would need to have about 25 million subscribers who would not have subscribed to PS+ otherwise, that now sign up for PS+ because of the paywall. That will take a long while, so I don't think the analyst is correct.
Im sorry, but is no way is their move even the slightest bit unethical. Poor choice of word there.
"PS4 may struggle with profitability" Yeah right.
Well that and improving there online gaming infrastructure. Games like COD that lags on the PS3 and not on the Xbox 360 so that should get a ton better.
They made Plus popular by everything they offered for free each month. Threw in the online fee and no one really cared too much because they were already getting a great deal, might as well make a profit off of something to give us smoother and faster online play with what money is made off of Plus. I'm totally down for that. I'll gladly pay for anything that's well worth the money, one thing LIVE was not.
I disagree. Free multi-player was a highlight of owning a PS3. This meant that customers who bought the system had the opportunity to pay extra for plus amenities. Now that it's attached to PSN plus it makes the PS4 a subscription box closer to what Microsoft did with LIVE. Do you think pluss services will get better now that its a requirement for multi-player online? The thing that made plus worth it was the extras given out every month to entice PLUS membership. Now that multi-player is a part of the deal there is less reason for Sony to give away the same quality games etc. The reason is because the multi-player aspect is leveraged as the new primary selling point for PLUS instead of the content. Since customers are now required to subscribe to plus for multi-player it'll become standard. Basically this gen PS4 is becoming more of a subscription box like X360 then the previous PS3 where multi-player was free or had online licenses that came with the games. In the past I assume most players subscribed to PLUS because they wanted it for the extras. Now it's more a service you must pay for just to have access to multi-player. I remember people kicking and screaming about LIVE subscription fees but now that Sony is starting to do the same no one seems to care. IMHO Now that multi-player is part of the PLUS plan I assume there will be less incentive for Sony to give the same quality level of goodies to plus subscribers. In any case we'll see if adding multiplayer to plus was to increase profit margins or improve the quality of PSN services for customers. I bought plus in the past because I wanted it. Seeing it become a requirement took a few Bucky points off it in my book.
Don't bother, if Sony changes on something it's fine, but as long as Microsoft does it and Sony doesn't it's the work of the devil. Free multiplayer was a feather on their cap, seems they're doing this is because they refuse to speak out about how many people use it. They want more, now they'll get it. And the best part is the fanboys will defend the double standards to the death. Free multiplayer should have stayed, it was a great idea to stay free.
I disagree with you. It was good to have free multiplayer but that wasn't a reason to buy one. You forget that there will still be free to play multiplayer games that don't require a subscription but the reason they added multiplayer to the subscription service is because they needed to enhance the servers to operate better as well as prepare for the gaikai servers to go up which will add a form of backwards compatibility to the console. If you look into all of what they are working on then you will see that it is well worth the subscription fee and well worth purchasing a PS4. If you want free multiplayer then I guess your sticking to the PS3.
I understand your point and I somewhat agree. Free multiplayer was a big deal on the PS3. However, I think most reasonable people also realized that Sony needed to do something next gen to bring in more profits. They lost a lot of money last gen ($5 billion in compared to $3 billion from MS). This is an area that they can try to get some revenue back. Do I like it? Of course I would rather get it for free. Do I understand it? Completely! No business is a charity, regardless of what many fanboys from both sides might have you believe. I am a subscriber of PS+ currently and had no intention on giving it up. Those that didn't subscribe will find that the benefits are huge. Between the discounts and freebies, the subscription pays for itself monthly...unless you are a very selective gamer. If that is the case, well, you can choose to just not play multiplayer and still enjoy all of the features of the single player experience and the console, get an Xbox and pay for their service, or there's the WiiU. As I said, don't love the idea...but I understand.
So true, I finally convinced one of my friends to buys a ps3. Once he finally got a taste of free multiplayer, he sold his 360. I told him that he better enjoy it now because next gen consoles will charge to game online....and he flipped his wig....lol He said until they stop making games for it....he will hold on to the ps3.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft. What I'm saying about PS4 becoming more like the XBOX live subscription box rings true If you pay close attention and compare policy changes. All companies are in business to make money. Last gen Sony leveraged the free online PSN multi-player and people loved it. Even though multi-player wasn't a high priority It was free in comparison to live like PC multi-player. This single concept made it and Sony totally awesome in my book. So ask yourself this serious question. Who benefits the most from the changes to the plus plan. Is it the customer or Sony? From a personal standpoint I realize why the changes where made made. Microsoft made changes to their policy to force GOLD for all online gaming. Sony didn't do this last gen. I was very content owning several PS3s. You see, even though I'm swayed to the Sony side It's the little things that bite at people. Some of us have become a custom to the effective standards of PSN last gen. The people who already paid for live or decided PLUS was cost effective had more choice opportunities. I have three ps3s, one Wii and four PS2's. I have no 360s. The Cost of live, their policies, marketing, console engineering and forced online fees have swayed me from their products. This also includes the recent Windows 8 they released with metro being pushed. I know just how much investment I place in gaming. I think for myself I'm no shill of a gamer. I'm my own customer with my own values. In this case I totally see why multi-player was added to the PLUS package. I seriously don't see it being done in the customers best interest. I see it more of a way to leverage extra profit from the customers. Something Microsoft has been doing since the start of LIVE. This doesn't make Sony EVIL it just shows they realize profit potential. When Microsoft announced strict DRM people got extremely upset. I was thinking to myself, OMG I already decided to stay away from their greedy approach to marketing now this! To see Sony slowly copy them in a lesser level makes me shed a tear of sadness. Things like back peddling on the Other OS, Adding the advertisements in the XMB, Ad. based PSN store update (thats slow as poo), allowing copy protected *DRM* game saves and now making multi-player PSN subscription based hits me. I'm either eccentric or the population of customers don't see things on the same level. I'm clearly planning on getting a PS4 but right now I'm going to see how things pan out until the game selection pans out. Things like the PLUS change have swayed me to wait instead of pre-order. I hope a few of the first party games are still free multi-player. One thing I've been thinking about is. How many more pre-orders would Sony get if they announced. "Customers who pre-order PS4 get multiplayer for this gen" If you think this would increase the pre-orders then free multi-player might actually be worth it. Anyway, thanks for reading my reply. I hope you all take the time to think about what what I'm saying in an unbiased manner. Good day.
@sarick: The reason people were kicking and screaming about having to pay to play was because there was pretty much no other incentive to obtain Gold membership. I truly got nothing out of paying for Gold, just online, as well as other amenities such as Netflix that were completely free on PS3 and still will be on PS4. I don't like paying to play any better than everyone else, but at least I'll be rewarded with an ton of free and discounted games. If they started to go the MS route I would start letting Sony know pretty quick. I can understand your point but you also have to think about the people who already have Plus, is it really such a big deal? For those who don't...there is no reason not to. That's just my opinion and I respect yours as well. Not trying to get behind the whole idea of pay to play, I do hate it, but not when it's included in a package I'm already gladly paying for.
@Jaces Plus isn't free so the free games you speak of come with PLUS. They aren't free because you only get them without charge because you pay the fees for plus. Azuske mentioned some games will allow free online without plus. I'm not sure if this is fact or rumor in any case this doesn't mean all of them will be free without plus. THe main thing I've been trying to point out is people one had the choice to pay for that extra content now they don't. When MS announced that kenect was included and added $100 on the cost of the system people where upset. When Sony PS3 had PS2 BC a lot of customers where complaining that they'd rather have a cheaper console and BC wasn't needed. This is how I see it. The previous system worked well and the extras where an awesome incentive to pay for plus for people who wanted the extra games and discounts. Now that multi-player isn't free on all games customers no longer have the choice to not buy that. There is no option to EXCLUDE the plus discounts and rented games. So if I want to do multi-player online i'm being forced into a packaged deal with extra content I don't want. Just like how Microsoft packaged the connect with the XBone and the first PS3 Phats had BC in them. These extras aren't free it comes out of your pocket somewhere. Even when PSN multi-player didn't require plus someone still had to pay for the internet charges. You see it from this perspective? The multi-player is being packaged with the plus material. In the past plus wasn't needed at all and you got online passes when you bought the games. Now if you want to get multi-player you're paying for the extra stuff Sony randomly chooses to throw in. It doesn't matter if you want that extra content or not your still paying full price for plus. I seriously think that once PS4 is launched these extras won't be on the same level. You don't have to agree or disagree with me because this is just my opinion. I assure you that from a business perspective having better market leverage (you need plus for some multiplayer) there is less need to invest the same amount of revenue to attract subscribers. The addition of subscription multi-player has enough leverage to atract customers without as much overhead. Think of it like this if your a cable subscriber and the company charges you $19 a month for your subscriptions. If the cable co gets a better deal on their packages that saves then $2 more per month. Do you honestly think they'll reduce your subscription to $17? NO, That money is pocketed. I highly doubt that because more people are buying plus that they'll give away even more content. The server cost will be better covered and they'll make more money but for the most part I doubt the majority of it will be reinvested into the service to make it better. This is move is a meant to generate more revenue for Sony it's not only to expand the services. Sony is a business not a charity that desperately needs money. They want to make money from us.
GEEZZZ i wonder how much xbox live has been raking in yearly !
Billion$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, it was just a couple months ago that it was revealed Bill Gates sits at the top as the richest man in the world according to Forbes... http://www.forbes.com/sites...
bill gates made the vast majority of his money before xbox and on windows. windows and office makes way more money for ms than xbox or xblg compared to the other two individually. 25 million plus subs is doable over the next few years if the ps4 trends continue.
Microsoft has to improve their XBLA Gold to compete with PSN+. Offering ONLY multiplayer is not enough for a paid service.
I um... I.. I dont know anymore. First people complained it was a feature in Xbox Live (sure it was the only reason to get Xbox Live) and now that it's included in PS Plus... people are happy. Yes, I can understand it has lots and lots of free stuff, but... at the same time... PS players are somehow HAPPY with this. Sure, it's a great business move for Sony and no doubt a fair one... but why is no one complaining? Not being funny but it's like next gen got more expensive all of a sudden. Did they do that last gen? Cause here in the UK, game prices seem to have gone from £40 to over £50 now... :/
... because it's offering a great amount of value. And it's not that people are HAPPY. It's that we can tolerate it because of all the value we're getting with Plus, otherwise. Who the hell is happy? I haven't seen anybody literally glad to pay for online. I sure as hell am not. But the blow is softened with all that comes with it in the form of PS+. As an aside, why do people keep calling it PSN+?
they will make ALOT of money but 1 billion per year idk
it is very feasable theat they could make that much..through the offers that they give through plus..
Live hardly makes half of that and that's with the current instal base, the PS4 isn't hitting that until the generation is almost at an end. There simply isn't enough customers.
Yeah, I'd have to agree. It does seem quite an ambitious figure to achieve so early in the PS4s lifecycle. Perhaps the fact that you'll need it to play online may make the difference I suppose, but 1.2 billion? I'd like to think it would of course. Edit: Yes I know some games are FTP! Might as well get that out of the way here rather than wasting it on an inevitable reply.
Yeah hard to believe but then again i am not a financial analyst as these guys. Would be excellent if Sony gets that much. They really deserve a lot of good things for being great to their PS customers.
"PS4′s PlayStation Plus memberships will net Sony $1.2 billion by 2017, says analyst"
So that's not 1.2b a year? That's over the next 4 years? Makes more sense..
That is a lot of money to buy more devs fresh and upcomming devs to bring under their wing. My hope anyways.
its pretty cool that the PS4 is taking all the indie and PC devs. here is a list of PC/PS4 exclusives Octodad: Dadliest Catch Outlast Primal Carnage: Genesis Liege Ray's The Dead H-Hour: World's Elite Super Motherload Mercenary Kings Transistor The Witness Forgotten Memories War Thunder DC Universe Online Warframe Blacklight: Retribution PlanetSide 2 Daylight DayZ GlowTag Don't Starve EverQuest Next Project phoenix and here are the xbox one PC exclusives Minecraft: Xbox One Edition Project Spark yeah. no comment needed
You are really misinformed. And you can see clearly who you favour the most.
DayZ was the one that immediately popped out at me... if i'm not mistaken the creator said PC comes first and foremost and maybe a console release if "no fee for updates and indie friendly"... think both consoles hit that mark except i'm not sure about Sony and fees for updates i know they used to charge devs but they haven't said anything about those fees being dropped. Someone please provide a link with proof of Sony officially dropping the fees for all and not on a case by case basis as I understand they allow some devs to skip the fees
lol. xbots want to spam the dissagree button but they cant refute this list or bring up any downloadable X1/pc games that im missing
I'm happy for them! SONY rulez!!
I don't see how people can make such comments. "Sony rulez", huh? It's a company out to get your money, they don't give a damn who you are. Sure they can give all the PR talk they want telling everybody they value their customers, however that only goes as far as those customers are willing to open their wallets. A huge corporation doesn't value anything except profits and people talk about Sony as they would a personal friend.
I know, what you mean, but I like SONY... for politics what they started with PS+... And I will be happy when they will be profitable...
Well they need 24 million subs for that. And not even the PS2 shipped that much even in its highest year... They might reach this number, but it will take a while. Xbox Live has 47 million members, with 55% - 60% of them are gold members. So they make about 1.55 - 1.70 billion USD right now. Check how long it took MS to get there. Sure the online gameplay on consoles now is way more established than it used to be in 2002. So PS+ will get there much faster, but it will take some time anyway.
You seem to be forgetting that Sony already have millions of PS+ subs with current gen consoles.
okay 22 million then...
If they are already subscribing, they are not a factor in the 1.2 billion ADDITIONAL revenue sony will get from switching multiplayer to behind the paywall.
It's not just the subscription itself, but also the sales and such of digital. And keep in mind that some people who don't have PS+ for their PS3s/PSPs/Vitas will get it for their current devices AND the new system. Oh, well. I've already got Plus through 2015, so I imagine I don't count too much into that... at least until they start with the sales.
Does sony lose money on offering those ps plus rentals? I am buying ps plus to play online but I never bought ps plus for the "free games".
I think its a considerable risk for Sony. They will make some extra money for sure but they risk to lose tens of millions of potential buyers, since the additional cost of psn may catapult the final price of ps4 to 800 usd/e (400 + 400 for 8 years of subscription).
True, but there are no other choices. As much as it is a risk, it is also less risky because their direct competition (being MS) is offering the same thing. I highly doubt that there will be too many Sony fans that rebel and just buy the WiiU instead. No disrespect to WiiU, but it just won't do if you have been a Sony fan. As for the mass market, it's competitively priced and still highly functional outside of PS+. Adding the benefits off the discounts and free games should make it a less bitter pill to swallow.
playstation plus gives you hundreds of dollars worth of free games and hundreds of dollars worth of discounts. so, really sony is paying you to play online. I dont see why anyone would have a problem with this.
PS+ only gives you hundreds of dollars of free games if you have a PS3 (and possibly a vita), and then get a PS4. If you are getting a PS4 without having a PS3, you won't be getting hundreds of dollars of free games, you'll be getting a limited version of Drive Club, and indie games (at least that is all that has been announced so far). Don't get me wrong, as someone coming in to PS4 this year that didn't have a PS3, I am still looking forward to the free games I'll be getting, but I know I won't be getting hundreds of dollars of free games when I get my PS4.
Well we all know how plus started on the PS3 and how it is today. So chances are in a year or 2 the value of Playstation plus on the PS4 will increase by a tremendous amount. Dont worry soon you will get hundreds of dollars of free content with Playstation plus on the PS4.
They need the money to maintain and upgrade PSN servers, not to troll or anything but this is why XBL is better in terms of online service, since they are constantly getting upgrades and maintenance. Not saying PSN doesn't have maintenance and upgrades but not on the level that XBL has. More money Sony earns from the subscriptions = better psn servers, more servers etc.
Yeah Ms did a good job with XBL for the 1/3 of their demographic but in this way they alienated the remaining 2/3 and now they are leaving them searching for a better gaming platform...
even tho its gonna hurt my pockets they made the right move
And to think I got disagrees and abuse when i said last year that Sony would eventually copy MS and charge for online access. ' Sony will never charge gamers to play multiplayer' was the cries I got. It was so obvious it would happen yet so many didn't want to believe it. MS have been raking it in for years and PS+ was the first step toward Sony getting some of that cream. Sony must have been impressed yet jealous of how MS was able to make such revenue yet still be taking market share off them hand over fist in markets such as NA and UK. Even funnier to then read some of the comments above and in other articles where Sony owners are now suddenly ok with it. People should stick to their principles. All those who said they would never pay for online should buy a Wii U or go over to PC and not be hypocrites. I paid for XBL willingly and next gen I will pay for either more XBL or PSN but not both. Multiplayer will be on one system for me.
I see your point, but i believe the reason why "sony owners are suddenly ok with it" is because ps+ is more than worth it. With all the free games, bonuses and discounts everyone will save more than $60 a year. Sure we can't say "PSN is free and that's better than a payed service" but what we can say is "PSN is a payed service but it's still better than XBLG because it's cheaper and you get better things for having it"
Fair enough, and thanks for the discussion, but I think the real value proposition of each remains to be seen as there are still some unknown quantities for the next gen. By your rational it sounds like Sony have almost had to bribe subscribers with the 'free' games in order justify what they were doing and/or convince you that it's better 'value' than XBL which up until recently has had a vastly better infrastructure in my opinion. My example would be that whilst you get free access to games on PS+ ( they are never yours), what if the XBL next gen has superior dedicated servers thanks to Azure or the cloud stuff really turns out not to be just hot air. The perception of value could change significantly. That doesn't change how I feel about those who were very anti online pay wall, especially towards those such as myself who happliy pay for xbl now being ok with it just because of a few extra carrots being chucked in the pot. Principles should apply but hypocrisy seems to reign supreme amongst the mob.
"With all the free games, bonuses and discounts everyone will save more than $60 a year. " IF it wasnt for that i would be complaining like crazy. But since Sony gives us a ton of content with Playstation plus im more than happy to pay for the service. "the cloud stuff really turns out not to be just hot air" ROFL thanks for the joke.
Many knew that free online was a major trump card of the PS3 to fight back against the Xbox360, not least because of the PS3 being more difficult to program for. To expect it to continue on the PS4 which is at a decent price point (including a quasi-Move like feature plus touch pad in the Dualshock 4), much easier to program for, with a history of online play on Playstation and with Sony riding on goodwill for supporting both the PS2 and the PS3 with interesting games throughout their full life (games like The Last of Us won't come cheap to make), would be expecting too much generosity.
Ah i remember the days when games where just fun to play with split screen for friendly multiplayer. how the times have changed.
Sony made an excellent move in demonstrating the worth of PS Plus with the PS3 before making it mandatory with the PS4 if you want to play online. By comparison, Xbox Live has always looked like a forced tax to me. It's like the realisation of the popularity of PS+ has forced the creation of 'Games with Gold'. Games you can get for peanuts in second hand shops. Internet Explorer on your TV is an Xbox Live GOLD 'FEATURE' ?? Ambassdaor you are spoiling us. Many people have the internet for free on PS3 and their TV as standard.
That's good because they really need it.
Sony is King!
Sucks that pay to play is now the norm but I didn't feel ripped off in the least from ps+ Hell Sleeping dog's that I've been playing the past few days is a game I'd pay $60 for. Keep up the once a week cheapo game and once a month big title for free and ps+ is a hell of a deal. Really hope they don't start slacking on the offers but have a feeling they will after a few months.
I'll buy a PS4 in about 2 years but buy the X1 at launch. Just one reason is that my Xbox Live gold subscription still has 10 months left. So I'll switch it right over to the X1. Many people will already have XBL gold when they buy a X1. And XBL has about 50 million subscribers. Over half of those are gold subscribers. Plus the one year XBL Gold ONLINE CODE ($60) is the second most sold thing on Amazon. The PSN card is the number one thing sold on Amazon but that's only the $20 card. Plus the one year Xbox Live Gold actual CARD ($60) is ranked 5th. Microsoft 1600 points ranked 4th and XBL gold 3 month cards ranked 10th. So many people are still going to have XBL gold subscriptions left over when the X1 releases. That's a good thing for the X1.
This debate is PROOF of the blind Sony bias on this website. Most of you bitched for years about how it was wrong for MS to "charge us for using our internet" just to play games online. Now you are applauding Sony for doing the same thing. Y'all are a sad bunch, fo' real :-/
Most are assuming this will be simply off the $50 yearly subscription alone, when in fact sony has 3 Tiers of pricing for PS+ 2 of which are in effect now and one that goes into effect at the launch of PS4. $17.99 for 3 months $49.99 per year. Both of these are already available, but Sony plans to introduce the $10 a month subscription for those who choose to pay as the go. Most will prolly forget and get suckerex into the re-occuring subscription fee of $10 month, which adds up to $120 a year. And keep in mind retailers sell PS+ memberships and then you can buy directly from sony online or at Sony style. I see Mostbuying the 3 month sub or the month to month pay as you go while the hardcore goes with the year,which the latter being the bestand most cost efficient and economical. Theyll Make that revenue and fairly quickly
interesting I will wait and see on this info