Sony's got bad credit?

AnimeJ wrote:

Given that I've not heard anything good about PSN multiplayer from anyone who's used it, that's hardly hyperbole. The common descriptors are laggy, unreliable, non-intuitive, and variants thereof. Given that with XBL Gold, multiplayer is intuitive, reliable and generally lag free(provided the host connection is decent), horrific is about the best adjective I can think of.

Allow me to be the supposed outlier. I've had nothing but fantasic performance from PSN online: Killzone 3, Resistance 3, Twisted Metal, and Awesomenauts. In fact, I think I've had less disconnects for Awesomenauts on PSN than on Steam, who do regularly, not scheduled updates that'll just kick you from your online session.

Live is the opposite story. I've little to no success playing a stable MP game. I hope Halo 4 works out, and I wasn't sure if it was the connection, or the servers were down tonight, but I couldn't get into a game.

To be fair, he was only talking about what he's read as opposed to those of us that have actually experienced both platforms.

Perhaps PSN multiplayer used to be laggy and unintuitive, but I haven't ever had that experience since I started playing on it 3 years ago. I played a lot of Killzone 3 multiplayer and never had any kind of connection or lag issues. Dead Nation online co-op worked perfectly every time. The only noticeable difference for me when playing on PSN vs. Live is the lack of party chat. It's a pretty big difference, but not enough to throw in a "horrific" qualifier.

I haven't had Gold for over a year because most of my online gaming is done on the PC, and PSN+ is just such a killer deal in comparison. I've been going back and forth on purchasing Halo 4 this week. I really want to play it, but I'd essentially be paying $100+ for the game and ability to play it online. I can't justify that.

Jayhawker wrote:

PSN+ is a good deal if you find $50 a year for for "free" games that you have no choice in choosing, and disappear if you stop paying $50 a year.

You keep trying to spin this like it's a terrible deal, but it sounds absurd every time.

I think you're far overestimating the percentage of people that care about actually owning those games. Out of the 30+ downloadable games I've bought on PSN and XBLA, I can count on one hand the number I will ever possibly revisit. I know I'm not in some crazy minority on this point.

If you are someone that buys a lot of downloadable titles, PSN+ pays for itself in discounts alone. In my first year of PSN+, I got 3 to 4 times the value that I invested in discounts and free games that I was actually interested in playing. It is a tremendously good deal if you take advantage of its perks.

Dyni wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

PSN+ is a good deal if you find $50 a year for for "free" games that you have no choice in choosing, and disappear if you stop paying $50 a year.

You keep trying to spin this like it's a terrible deal, but it sounds absurd every time.

I think you're far overestimating the percentage of people that care about actually owning those games. Out of the 30+ downloadable games I've bought on PSN and XBLA, I can count on one hand the number I will ever possibly revisit. I know I'm not in some crazy minority on this point.

If you are someone that buys a lot of downloadable titles, PSN+ pays for itself in discounts alone. In my first year of PSN+, I got 3 to 4 times the value that I invested in discounts and free games that I was actually interested in playing. It is a tremendously good deal if you take advantage of its perks.

Indeed. There are so many games (Outland is the most prominent that comes to mind) that I purchased and would have preferred to "rent". To me PSN+ is the future of this stuff. Hopefully Sony survives to keep it up.

Malor wrote:
They have outgrown themselves and I don't think they ever were "good guys" to be able to sort of mend their ways and regain customer trust.

Sony has two sides. They have their hardware division, which has always been capable of making amazing consumer electronic devices. And they have their media division, which demands that anything the hardware people do be suited to their interests, not the interests of customers.

Media is a tiny business compared to hardware, and Sony chose to follow the demands of the wrong part of the company. They have absolutely crippled their own ability to compete. If they had simply shed their media portion, and had stuck to hardware, at this point they'd probably make Apple look like an afterthought.

Basically, their media division prospers from making digital bits hard to copy. Since bits are not hard to copy, this business model, in the long run, is doomed. Making a copy of something has very little inherent value, since everyone who's a customer also has a specialized machine that can copy bits for free.

Making personal devices that make copying and sharing bits easier? That has very tangible, real value. The real value provided by Sony's hardware has been emasculated, chasing after the phony value of their media side. Thus, they are dying, because their devices are deliberately crippled, much less attractive to customers than they should be.

Malor is wise. Although he is wrong about the size/importance of the divisions. You can stay in business making hardware, but only media is going to make a killing.
Anyway, my two sides of Sony is their games and their corporate policy asshats, their hardware is generally good (things I've owned: Walkman, ps1, ps2, ps3, vita; but not always-psp-personal opinion only). They do a great job of getting games I like either 1st or 3rd party, but like Malor writes, they just cripple their hardware with asinine usage scenarios.

Add me to the pile of people who have never had an issue with PSN multiplayer. It's certainly not something I've done a lot of, a little MAG and a little Killzone 3 is about it, but I've never encountered a single issue.

Admittedly, I don't have any 360 multiplayer experience to compare that with, but part of the reason for that is because of the Gold membership costs, which have always steered me away from getting myself a 360.

Mr GT Chris wrote:

To be fair, he was only talking about what he's read as opposed to those of us that have actually experienced both platforms.

Given that all the experiences I'm describing are from people on this very site, I treat them as a reliable source.

My PSN multiplayer has been great.

AnimeJ wrote:
Mr GT Chris wrote:

To be fair, he was only talking about what he's read as opposed to those of us that have actually experienced both platforms.

Given that all the experiences I'm describing are from people on this very site, I treat them as a reliable source.

You mean like all the GWJers who play KZ2? The ones posting in this thread? Whatever dude, keep peddling your second hand info.

I'm another one with a lovely PSN multiplayer experience. I don't have any XBox experience to compare it to--I'm with Redwing on the costs.

I have no basis for comparison as I normally play online games via Live. I just choose the 360 for that. But on the Vita alone I've played games of FIFA, Madden and Playstation All Stars: Battle Royale without issues.

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

When did GWJ join the system wars? That to me is the larger question.

MoonDragon wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

The games industry (particularly on the platform side) needs more competition, not less.

So why not have this competition from a company that values customers? Why have it from a company that insists on anti-competitive practices; customer hostile practices; repeated attempts over many decades to lock the whole world into their proprietary non-standard formats, that they then do not stick with? What good has Sony delivered that we could not get elsewhere? And just maybe, when this giant competition killer dies, a new healthier eco-system can be developed.

SO you mean like Microsoft? or Apple? or even Nintendo?

It would be a terrible thing if Sony was forced to drop the Console race because I still feel they have made the best consoles for over 3 generations even though the PS3 has some big issues.

DSGamer wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

When did GWJ join the system wars? That to me is the larger question.

Right around the time the Official PS3 Haterade Thread was created.

RolandofGilead wrote:

They do a great job of getting games I like either 1st or 3rd party, but like Malor writes, they just cripple their hardware with asinine usage scenarios.

Agreed! They've made a point of doing so for some reason.

DSGamer wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

When did GWJ join the system wars? That to me is the larger question.

I, as a multi-system owner, refuse to pick one side or the other unless I monetarily lack the ability to have both, and, in which case, I will choose my PC over any other. However, to explain the PSN online play, to the best of my knowledge, was not very good until about three years ago, whereas the 360 has been strong online over-all. Microsoft knew that their playerbase expected to have online play early on having experimented with it on the original XBOX, Sony had not tested these waters with a console, and had a lot of work in store to develop their online support. Both systems have tweaked their services over time, and now both are really stable, but Sony's PSN+ just has a better value for the type of gamer I am, even though I don't pay for it right now either.

Touching back on the topic, I don't think that as gamers we will be impacted any more negatively if Sony collapses in on itself than we did when Sega shut down the console division, but I think no console maker is going to risk what Sony did with the major technology jump and cost behind the PS3. There just isn't much point/profit in getting that far ahead of the market. The next generation of consoles will be cheaper, and easier to develop for, but significantly less overpowered than this generation has been. I, like the foolish PC gamer I am, predict that the PC will yet again be the haven of the enthusiast gamer![size=5]in a generation or two... maybe...[/size]

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

I'm not saying you aren't. What I'm saying is that by and large, I have heard and read nothing but gripe about PSN multiplayer. If Sony fixed it, cool. Good for them, I'm glad it works. But up until this very thread, I've heard what I posted previously: that it doesn't work well, that joining games is a pain, that drop-in is nonexistent, and that overall, the experience is nowhere near as polished as what you get on XBL. If that's no longer the case, so be it. As others point out, and I agree whole heartedly with, MS is in sore need of some competition when it comes to console multiplayer, so it's frankly nice to see that Sony isn't throwing in the towel.

As for system wars, yes, ever since the Haterade thread.

Many people in this thread seem to be very myopic. PS3 and Sony's troubles aren't one or two years old. If you'll bring yourselves to remember, when PS3 came out it cost Sony half a billion dollars to sell the first million units (cost to produce them was around $900, while street price was $400). How does $30 million operating income make them a profitable department?

If you bother to pull out 2006/2007 threads, you'll also see that PSN was a laughing stock of the industry and this community. Sony may have arrested insane PS3 money hemorrhage, but they are by no means profitable. Not in any way that would recover the money they took from other departments on order to shove BluRay down our throats. For that alone they deserve to die in a fire.

Their current problems have been brewing for a while. They have just run out of rope and are now hanging on it.

DSGamer wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

When did GWJ join the system wars? That to me is the larger question.

Seen the Vita thread recently?

Here's an article from kotaku that attempts to pin the blame. Not the best journalism or writing, but it is somewhat educational.

MoonDragon wrote:

Here's an article from kotaku that attempts to pin the blame. Not the best journalism or writing, but it is somewhat educational.

I love a nice glass of Sony Haterade, but to call that "Not the best journalism," is misleading. It was not just poorly written, but terribly researched and lots of leaps of logic.

Mini-Disc rocked...

TheGameguru wrote:

Mini-Disc rocked...

I know, right!!! I had one of those for a couple years before the iPod hit it big. I thought they were great except for all the DRM issues. I actually still have it and used it a few weeks ago. The mechanical sound those things make when you hit the button to open them is wonderful.

AnimeJ wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd like to join the chorus of people on this very site who are fine with PSN MP (but I guess we aren't credible, somehow?).

I'm not saying you aren't. What I'm saying is that by and large, I have heard and read nothing but gripe about PSN multiplayer.

I don't want to pick on you (too much) because what you've heard is what you've heard and that's the end of it.
But how come you didn't see the series of threads I created on every gaming website in the world titled: "PSN MP is not terrible; please read this thread to hear about more things which function according to reasonable expectations". I and everyone else in the world go through so much effort to tell other people about things that work like they are supposed to. It's just unfathomable.

shoptroll wrote:
Hobbes2099 wrote:

Beating the "Valve is an awesome company" horse to a pulp here, but they have become the poster boy for putting customer experience first, and the profits will follow.

True, but Valve also isn't a public company (and supposedly has no interest in becoming one) which allows them to prioritize their customers.

I read an article somewhere that more and more companies are considering going private again because investors' priorities are killing their ability to innovate. Let me look for it; but it makes sense: becoming more profitable every quarter as the top (and in some cases, only) priority has made public companies make insane decisions.

Hobbes2099 wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
Hobbes2099 wrote:

Beating the "Valve is an awesome company" horse to a pulp here, but they have become the poster boy for putting customer experience first, and the profits will follow.

True, but Valve also isn't a public company (and supposedly has no interest in becoming one) which allows them to prioritize their customers.

I read an article somewhere that more and more companies are considering going private again because investors' priorities are killing their ability to innovate. Let me look for it; but it makes sense: becoming more profitable every quarter as the top (and in some cases, only) priority has made public companies make insane decisions.

I accidentally hit the "Big Screen" button yesterday when I went to check my Steam wish list.

Very nice, and a great way to get Steam into your loungeroom. I think Steam is going to be a big player in this next gen. Very clever move. Spec independent 'platform' (BYO -tech), great price point for games, massive back catalogue. And sales, dear god the sales...

For all the talk of a Steam console, I think this is a much smarter move. Check it out if you haven't already. THIS is going to keep everyone on their toes (IMHO).

I've never understood the belief that PSN was such a horrible competitor to Live. I got my original PS3 in 07, and at the time the only two games I had that featured online were Formula 1 CE and Armored Core 4. I think at that time the big online game for the 360 was a Rainbow Six game.

I played a little bit of AC4 online and it was horrible because of poor balance and peer to peer connections. From that point on I have played a lot of online games with little to no lag or connection issues, except Dark Souls. I've spent hundreds of hours playing Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2. Both games had their share of issues which did involve some connection issues, but, the amount of times I experienced connection issues is not that much higher than the times I've experienced connection issues on Battlefield 3 on PC.

I purchased a 360 to play Modern Warfare 2 with friends. The entire time I played that game I noticed really odd connection rates to many players. Aside from MW2 I played Castle Crashers which worked well, but I did get it long after all of my friends were all but finished playing the game. I have seen little evidence that the 360 outperforms the PS3 in any meaningful way online. My PS3 regularly downloaded at roughly 0.80-1.3mb/s. My 360 was roughly 0.85-1.2mb/s. Most of what I trust when it comes to which service is best comes from my friends.

I have one friend that swore by Live and basically refused to play over PSN. At this point he believes me that PSN and Live are pretty much the same except party chat. I have another friend that thinks Live is better but not by much, and the only real advantage is party chat. I have another that can't tell any difference between the two and has sold his 360 because he sees no reason to pay for an online experience that feels identical.

For myself at this point. I still want to defend PSN because I think there is a lot of misinformation about Sony's service. In the end though neither PSN or Live can compete with the value that I get from my PC. I've played a lot of BF3, Dark Souls, and Borderlands 2 in the last few months and more often then not my friends and I are buying PC for our online experiences. At this point in time as well I am unsure if I am going to get any of the new systems that come out over the next few years. I think that games from studios like Naughty Dog are the only reasons I look forward to the next console generation.

Gimpy_Butzke wrote:

I've never understood the belief that PSN was such a horrible competitor to Live. I got my original PS3 in 07, and at the time the only two games I had that featured online were Formula 1 CE and Armored Core 4. I think at that time the big online game for the 360 was a Rainbow Six game.

I played a little bit of AC4 online and it was horrible because of poor balance and peer to peer connections. From that point on I have played a lot of online games with little to no lag or connection issues, except Dark Souls. I've spent hundreds of hours playing Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2. Both games had their share of issues which did involve some connection issues, but, the amount of times I experienced connection issues is not that much higher than the times I've experienced connection issues on Battlefield 3 on PC.

I purchased a 360 to play Modern Warfare 2 with friends. The entire time I played that game I noticed really odd connection rates to many players. Aside from MW2 I played Castle Crashers which worked well, but I did get it long after all of my friends were all but finished playing the game. I have seen little evidence that the 360 outperforms the PS3 in any meaningful way online. My PS3 regularly downloaded at roughly 0.80-1.3mb/s. My 360 was roughly 0.85-1.2mb/s. Most of what I trust when it comes to which service is best comes from my friends.

I have one friend that swore by Live and basically refused to play over PSN. At this point he believes me that PSN and Live are pretty much the same except party chat. I have another friend that thinks Live is better but not by much, and the only real advantage is party chat. I have another that can't tell any difference between the two and has sold his 360 because he sees no reason to pay for an online experience that feels identical.

For myself at this point. I still want to defend PSN because I think there is a lot of misinformation about Sony's service. In the end though neither PSN or Live can compete with the value that I get from my PC. I've played a lot of BF3, Dark Souls, and Borderlands 2 in the last few months and more often then not my friends and I are buying PC for our online experiences. At this point in time as well I am unsure if I am going to get any of the new systems that come out over the next few years. I think that games from studios like Naughty Dog are the only reasons I look forward to the next console generation.

I have both a PS3 and 360 and Live is just a smoother experience. I'm not talking about lag or multiplayer gaming, I'm talking about the ease of use. In addition to voice chat, downloading patches, downloading demos, joining other peoples games, and sending join requests to friends is just seamless from no matter where you are on Live. Everything feels so segmented on the PS3. It's just allot more convoluted and more steps are required. PS3 is perfectly fine for multiplayer gaming but the services as a whole are far from identical.

I thought they were great except for all the DRM issues.

Right... in other words, useful hardware, crippled to meet the demands of the media side. Now they're dying, their hardware unwanted by most people in most categories.

Imagine how nice MiniDisc would have been without the bullsh*t.

Oh, and:

You can stay in business making hardware, but only media is going to make a killing.

Are you kidding? Hardware is enormously larger than media. Media companies can make nice profits, but hardware is a gigantic market in comparison. Plus, it has lots of nice additional effects on the economy, because other people get more of the pie, as manufacturers source their lasers and diodes and capacitors from other, specialized companies. Media companies have a much higher margin (almost pure profit, once the good is created), but much less of that profit goes to supporting a chain of other, valuable goods.

And, mostly, media companies only have that kind of margin because governments are enforcing their business models at gunpoint, not because there's much inherent value, anymore, in making copies of things.

m0nk3yboy wrote:

Spec independent 'platform' (BYO -tech)

I still think, in light of the 360's RROD debacle, that MS would be better served by creating a spec for OEMs to follow to sell XBox branded hardware and just bail out of the hardware side of things. The 360's strengths are the software, controller, and Live, not the hardware.

If Valve ends up going that way (which is likely since Big Picture is definitely designed with something like Alienware's set-top boxes in mind) I wouldn't be surprised if MS follows suit.