Did charging for online play make PSN better?

Back when the PlayStation 4 was announced, Sony gave a reasoning on why they had to charge for online multiplayer. PS+ was required for online play because it would give Sony the revenue to reinvest and improve the PlayStation Network experience.

"We are making huge investments to improve the quality of PSN, and also wanted to be sure that consumers can buy the console for 399, so we felt that recovering the cost of these investments by including online multiplayer within PS Plus with its fantastic value Instant Game Collection (which will include PS4 as well as PS3 and PS Vita games) was the fairest way to achieve this." - Jim Ryan

"The main pillar for the PS4 will be online play. We're developing many new ways to play and connect which requires a large investment of resources. Considering the cost, to try to keep such a service free and consequently lower the quality would be absurd. We decided that if that's the case, then it would be better to receive proper payment and continue to offer a good service." - Shuhei Yoshida

Well three years later, was that or is that true?

Here are somethings to think about before you decide. There is a difference between features that were directly affected by charging for online and things that would had happened anyways.

• The amount of revenue Sony receives from PlayStation Store purchases has increased by huge margin compared to PS3. Larger amount of digital sales = More money for Sony.
  
  
• Features like party chat would have naturally came about. The reason PS3 didn't have it was because of memory limitations.
  
  
• The quality of triple A budget titles given out as "free" games on PS+ has drastically dropped since the PS3 era. Vast majority of games Sony gives out now a days are indie or smaller budget titles, which costs Sony less money to give out.
  
  
• Third party publishers use their own online infrastructure to support their games. i.e EA games use EA servers. Ubisoft use Ubi servers, etc.
  
  
• Sony use to use dedicated servers quite often in their games on PS3. Now a days, they seem content with using Peer 2 Peer more often than not.
  
  
• Increased security is debatable but even then, Sony would have to invested heavily on improving that themselves after their 2011 hack.
  
  
• Has PSN really been more stable?
  
  
• SharePlay can only be used between two consoles. The host and the receiver, making it seem like that too is Peer 2 Peer.
  
  
• Streaming features are handled by their respective hosts. These features would have came naturally came about since content sharing/streaming was already big before the consoles launched.

Big ole Nope.

Wait, they actually charge money for PSN? No way, the cows would be outraged and screaming rip-off all day every day claiming $ony is teh greedy. :P

Anyway, don't know.

I thought it was free?

I would say that the general infrastructure is more stable but the quality of games provided as the free monthly downloads are usually pretty lame.

No, it just makes money for Sony now.

People actually cheered as they announced this at E3!

I can agree with this. PSN has been very stable this gen but the quality of free games offered has taken a nosedive.

free or not Xbox live is still on a much higher level of quality then PSN

That shit was hilarious.

Sony just snuck it in there with perfect timing. They were the masterminds of that E3.

@Commiesdie: I would say PSN is on par with Live these days.

A true champion of the gamers. With using money to build infrastructure and have the ground breaking free games, SONY nailed it.

Yeh quality is better, games are not, not that I really care for them, the amount of free games over xbox live/psn+ I've played is pretty abysmal

No. But hey, M$ does it so why shouldn't Sony (and now Nintendo). Meanwhile, PC players continue to enjoy free online services. Now if Steam started charging for the privileged of using their client, all hell would break loose.

@boycie: "People actually cheered as they announced this at E3!"

Was it fake?

@Telekill:

the only bonus psn has over live is psnow which lets u stream games but half the time it doesn't perform very well

Comparing my online play between ps3 and ps4....

Since they started charging my gameplay experience has been better. All the other stuff is meh.

@Commiesdie: "on par" means "equal too". I never was going into how PSN was better.

@Telekill: yeah I know I was just being an asshole still cool ?

@Commiesdie: Sure

Nope, it only improves the amount of money CEOs receive. This is just another thing M$ ruined for everyone for making it a thing when before the standard was free online + dedicated servers. Thanks M$ for being crap and Sony for following crap like M$.

@dakur: no one made Sony use a subscription based service regardless of how u feel it was justmuch of Sony's fault as it was MS

Nope Sony didn't introduce the crappy practice. Sony is at fault of following it but M$ shares the biggest fault for introducing it. Lately it is apparent that anything M$ touches turns to shit.

Nope Sony didn't introduce the crappy practice. Sony is at fault of following it but M$ has the biggest for introducing it. Lately it is apparent that anything M$ touches turns to shit.

PSN is much more stable, responsive. Download speeds are much, much better. Shareplay is really neat!

Hard to know. I never had an issue with PSN when it was free. Of course PS+ was acceptable because of the games they threw in. I realize it was a trojan horse, but still pretty good deals. They even got Xbox Live giving away games.

Is Nintendo going to include games? Doubtful.

Yeah they focus way too much on indie games now. Granted, some of them were actually good (I mean Rocket League for 100% free on launch is basically the highlight of this gen). There are some other gems in there. But it would be nice to get some more retail type games. PS3 and Vita gave away so many retail games it was ridiculous. Too many for me to ever play.

I wonder what Nintendo's plans are. Clearly they can't charge $50 unless they also plan on including some monthly game downloads.

I don't have PS+, mainly because I only play exclusives on my PS4. Not worth it for those alone, but I'd have no problem doing so if I did all my multiplatform gaming on it. Has it made it better? Doubt it, biggest improvements to Sony's online infrastructure came with their acquisition of Gaikai's streaming gaming network but that's mainly a PS Now subscription thing, and frankly it's needed for PS3 BC but I've a feeling Sony could have done fine without that and just focused on local PS1 and PS2 emulation BC.

@dakur: do you ever stop spinning bullshit? MS had nothing to do with Sony's decision to charge for PSN. If you wiped Kaz' bukkaki out of your eyes you might see that.

Sony is greedy plain and simple, that's why they increased the price when MS didn't.

At least Live has dedicated servers which makes it worth paying for, PS+ is just Sony milking the weeabros.

Hell no. I genuinely don't know why i'm paying.

You really have to be a delusional lemming if you believe Sony's decision had nothing to do with M$. Before M$ charging for online was unheard and Sony had no plans for it. Stop wearing lemming-colored glasses. As for dedicated servers, LOL you're as clueless and gullible with this as as with your past statement. Stop living in your fantasy world lem and maybe you'll notice how much M$ is screwing you someday. Only lems still believe M$ and their lies, no wonder they get owned up and down.

From M$ itself:

Is your game hosted in the Xbox Cloud?

Before we begin troubleshooting your NAT, we should first check where the game you are playing is being hosted. NAT will not affect your ability to play multiplayer if the game you are playing is taking advantage of the Xbox Cloud. NAT will only affect peer-to-peer gaming.

The following Xbox One games are currently taking advantage of the Xbox Cloud for multiplayer hosting:

• Forza Motorsport 5
• Titanfall

Is your game listed here?

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/nat-error-solution

So yeah lem, only two games until now have dedicated server support from M$, the rest, if they have dedicated servers are from the comapnies making the game or they are p2p. Wake up from your delusion lem, you're living a lie.

XBL still downloads faster for me, but i'm using the 5ghz on it, while my OG PS4 is stuck at 2.4.

at least the pro got it right

Cloud =/= dedicated servers.

thanks for spewing random idiotic crap, typical cow.

Are you dumb?? Where do you think the cloud is hosted? in Aether? goddamn lems, do you know anything about computers? A cloud needs servers to be hosted on and the link is making a distinction between games multiplayer being hosted on the cloud and p2p which is the opposite of dedicated servers. Does M$ purposely aims their products at ignorant people to sell them or is this a coincidence?

@FLOPPAGE_50: Here from the Titanfall dev himself so you don't get more confused.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-25-titanfall-dev-demystifies-xbox-one-cloud-following-a-lot-of-confusion-online

"Let me explain this simply: when companies talk about their cloud, all they are saying is that they have a huge amount of servers ready to run whatever you need them to run. That's all."

I can also draw it for you if you find it to difficult a concept to understand.

That is all this guy knows how to do. 90% of the shit he spews is opinion based BS or made up shit to make Xbox look bad. It is kind of strange to be honest the hatred this guy has towards the Xbox brand. He has to be one of the top 3 pathetic fanboys on this forum! Some day he needs to learn it is better to love all systems and be happy when all of them do well it is a positive thing for gamers!

Apparently you guys like to remain clueless. Typical lems, it's the only way they can survive the slaughter this gen.

dude.. you thought dedicated servers meant the cloud.. I mean.. that's pretty stupid.

I am not clueless... I understand that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all need to do well. They all need massive sales because if something ever happened to Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony I understand that console gaming would just die off. Right now if Nintendo and Microsoft stepped away from the industry Sony would die a slow death with them. Without competition stagnation happens, when that happens progress is not made to push the industry forward, and then that category just dies.

Shit I hope all three of these systems sale 100 million plus, because it would make our industry that much better!

Well the developer of Titanfall that used the cloud of M$ to actually MAKE their game also calls them dedicated servers so you just basically called a developer of the xbone stupid and you think you know more than him about the subject. So it seems you're projecting your own stupidity unto others.

@FLOPPAGE_50: That is pretty bad!

Not all changes within an industry are good. Sometimes changes are introduced that are bad for consumers and just serve to fill the pockets of a fatguy sitting on a yacht. That's what M$ competition is usually good for.

PSN is great. You pay monthly for your information to be stolen or for the network to be down. You simply cannot get that level of diversity with stupid Xbox Live. PSN for the win. Eat that Xbox fannies.

You can't even play PS3 PS+ games on the PS4. At least games are getting added to the BC list for Xbox One and are being offered through GwG. And yes you could access these 360 GwG games even when your sub expires. I feel like the fee for Gold is a reason why they get backward compatibility and get free BC games monthly. The lack of offerings and lack of future proof features from PSN, PS+ and just PS should be discouraging to those that build their PS gaming library, they don't go with you forward. So the answer to the question if charging made PSN better, is no or not yet.

You think those are the only 2 games? Lol, well that's dumb. As if they would do FM5, but not 6...

http://news.xbox.com/2015/06/16/xbox-forza-motorsport-6-races-onto-xbox-one/

Just one game I found in 2sec. There are A LOT more

You can thank consumers for giving into the madness. The sheep opened their wallets and actually paid for it. They tried to do this with windows Live and PC gamers told them to F off, and look, now they are coming out with exclusives from xbone and all of them have free online on PC.

You know who else uses those dedicated servers? Thousands of businesses that pay 10 dollars a month per server, and many of them rent out 5 or more at a time. They could easily sustain all of their cloud servers without having to dip into the everyman's wallet of the xbox userbase. Yet, here you are, justifying paying for online services that only a few games use.

lol that list is so old. it's leaving off

halo 5

gears of war 4

sunset overdrive

titanfall 2 (yes it's Multiplat but they use azure servers too apparently according to respawn)

Forza 6, Horizon 2, and Horizon 3

Plus upcoming games like Sea of Theives, Crackdown 3, Halo wars 2, and who knows what else.

basically every MS published game that would benefit from servers has them. The only reason there aren't more cause greedy publishers like activision refuse to use servers for a better experience cause of the cost. EA, ubisoft, and Blizzard have their own servers as well. basically MS got it kick started this gen and only Sony and Activision refuse to pay for servers for a better experiance

coming from the PS3 days to PS4, yeah its better plus all the new features.

@darkangel115: Halo MCC didn't have them but still people are paying for a handful of games and this practice was introduced by M$ and it sucks