Did charging for online play make PSN better?

You are a butthurt lemming who didn't even know MS rise the price of xbox live already...hahahhahaa

Calling sony greed when they just started charging but not MS who charge from 2002...lol

Oh i have to play games now to know MS has been charging since 2002 and that on 2010 they rise the price? Hahahahahaa what a pathetic fanboy..hahaha

Yes i know you lemmings are clueless...ahaahahahaa But but but a cloud is not severs...lol

NO almost all xbox games in all 3 platforms uses mostly P2P ,the servers MS had in place were mostly for matchmaking not to HOST the game it self.

A cloud server is powerful physical or virtual infrastructure that performs application and information processing storage. Cloud servers are created using virtualization software to divide a physical (bare metal) server into multiple virtual servers.

Organizations use an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) model to process workloads and store information. They can access virtual server functions remotely through an online interface.

• Computing infrastructure that can be physical (bare metal), virtual or a mix of the two depending on use case.
• Has all the capabilities of an on-premises server.
• Enables users to process intensive workloads and store large volumes of information.
• Automated services are accessed on demand through an API.
• Gives users the choice of monthly or as-you-go payment.
• Users can opt for a shared hosting plan that scales depending on needs.

https://www.ibm.com/cloud-computing/learn-more/what-is-a-cloud-server/

I hope this has help to clean up your shitty little mind butthurt lemming.

I think those working for IBM are also idiots right.?

hahahahaaaa

Dang, this turned into a huge $ony bashing thread.

Well both companies are shady but one is far worse.

Lets see who has been charging for the last 15 years?

Who brought a pay to play yearly service to the console market?

Funny thing is since sony started charging you lemmings haven't stop flaming sony,you people the same hypocrites who defended XBL since 2002 vs a totally free service.

Both companies are ripping off their user base but one of those has been doing it for 15 year and started it all,now even Nintendo will charge and who can blame them.

NO.

XBL dedicated servers in almost all games are for matchmaking not for HOSTING the damn game,do you even know what a game in a dedicated server look likes.?

Oh please drop the charade apart from faster downloads both are about the same,and PS4 even have features xbox live doesn't have like share play where 2 people can play with 1 copy of the game,and you can even control your friends games without even owning it,lets talk about PC vs consoles where the PS4 was doing so pretty much since launch and MS again we had to wait for a long time to arrive.

TF uses the cloud you moron..

Microsoft makes the case for Xbox One's 300,000 server cloud, but what do developers think?

At E3 last week, in a behind closed doors presentation called Xbox 101, Microsoft engineering manager Jeff Henshaw - not a member of the PR team, he points out - tells a small gathering of journalists that Xbox One's 300,000 server cloud gives the next-generation console a unique advantage.

Bigger is always better, of course, and that's where the cloud comes in. With the program connected to the 300,000 servers powering Microsoft's platform

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-19-microsoft-makes-the-case-for-xbox-ones-300-000-server-cloud-but-what-do-developers-think

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

Now STFU you are the true idiot here and no one else,you lemmings are so stupid you don't even know the damn cloud is just name use now to describe what other wise is a bunch of servers.

Class dismiss...

Again, a bunch of stupid idiotic ramblings.

Also TF is a 3 year old game, that no one plays(your link is also 3 years old LOL).. if that's your argument that cloud = dedicated server, my point still stands.

you are an idiot.

Class dismissED

It could be 10 years old moron the definition will not change,just like in a100 years the definition of moron will not either.

You don't have a point and you have been officially schooled...hahahahahaha

But but but the cloud are not servers...hahahahahahahaha

How is it shit-posters like Dakur and tormentos haven't been banned yet?

Someone needs to constantly post TLHBO

It sure didn't.

Yanno after all these years you would think people would understand how fraudulent these gaming console manufacturers' really are. You buy $300 console + $60 game (which advertises multiplayer) upon release, they then appreciate the video game developer and consumer with a $10 a month paywall for p2p. Which is basically free. Which begs the question, why do people go to college learn networking and think this is ok? Ethically I mean.

At the time, yes.

When the xbox launched (and XBL launched a year later) it had a fully functioning and feature rich online service. plus it had built in broadband which many felt was a risk due to the low availability of broadband at the time. Sony had launched an attachment for the PS2 with a hard drive and a Dial up modem in it for online play but didn't have an actual online network set up until the PS3 launch and was also all dial up until the PS3 launch which was 3-4 years after the original xbox launched. So yes they were the only ones that had an online network and broadband connections for about 3-4 years until the PS3 launched and sony launched PSN.

Xbox did have dedicated servers for some games. albeit not many. XBL launched with 500 servers. the 350 had IIRC 15k servers and the XB1 300k servers. Clearly the money went to good use as 12 years later every MS game has dedicated servers they increased from 500 servers to 300k servers, we get free (gold not required) cloud back up of every safe file and all our video clips are hosted on the cloud compared to the hard drive (like the PS4) taking up precious game space. I had 25% of my PS4 taken up with game clips at one point.

as far as the practice being shady and standard has nothing to do with MS. nobody forced sony or nintendo to charge for it. Just cause MS did doesn't mean they needed to, blaming MS for sony charging for online play is asinine. Not to mention the argument that sony had servers (mind you only for games that needed it due to dial up/large player counts) back then and it was free is more of a knock on sony. why did they provide servers for games for free and now they charge for a P2P connection since none of their games have them (UC4, TLOUR, KZ etc) Seems sony is going backwards by charging more and providing less then they used to

Is not asinine, if you introduce a practice to an industry you're responsible for introducing the practice duh. MS introduced the paying for online practice before anyone else so they're mainly responsible for it. I never said they forced it but they made it popular.

again sony and nintendo didn't have to follow suit. On PC Steam for dam sure doesn't neither does EA (they tried with origin for a bit and it failed) ubisoft (again they tried and failed) or activision. It's like saying if you see someone rob a store and get away with it, you decide to do it too and blame the other robbers for "doing it first" it doesn't excuse your actions. Even if MS wasn't charging i guarantee sony would be charging right now regardless. Lets not forget Sony started trying to charge you 20 bucks a month to stream old games you already own and have lag input issues and is still trying to push it

Sony is crap for following suit but M$ is the crappiest for introducing such a rip off into the industry. That's why I think gaming would be better without a company like Microsoft.

That"s a lie because I know for a fact Halo 5 has dedicated servers for HOSTING, the developer already stated this pre-release, and it's one of my most played games. You throwing share play around like it's the "second coming of Christ", but I use shareplay on my xbox almost everyday, it's called home xbox. My nephew is in high school and cant afford to buy games like me so I share all of my 160 or so games with him and he gets access to all of my Ea Access games. So tell me, what again am I missing with shareplay? And why would I want someone to play my game for me? WTF if i get stuck in a game I want the enjoyment of finally getting past it, I'm not gonna punk out and pass it to the next person. Let's not even go into MS and the whole family purchase rumor that's been floating around, basically it's just like a Google or Apple family account. You have the primary account holder who can add 6 other people to their family and they share all apps, games, and subscription services over all devices.

Quick question: How much space you got left in your PS4 cloud storage because on my xbox it seems to never run out?

Ms was already in the PC business, they are the PC business. IMO Sony should never have done that because it was a dangerous move. They can never compete in the PC space like MS could without helping MS make money, xbox runs on Windows and bringing PS games to Windows basically put every xbox owner one update away from playing PS games on their xbox via PC streaming, and PC players would no longer need a PS4.(Far fetched I know but users have been asking MS for PC to xb1 streaming for a while so it's in the pipeline.) Now Ms is all in on PC gaming and where is Sony?

Point blank PSN is PSN and XBL is Azure. So basically two services with near identical features only one is running on one of the best cloud platforms of today and one is not.

What this means is that you'll never have to rely on problematic peer-to-peer connections when playing multiplayer, even when it's simply a custom game you've set up with your friends online. This has not been the case in the past, resulting in what's known as Host Advantage, which refers to the edge that the player serving as the connection host has in peer-to-peer games.

Multiplayer will support 60fps and will allow gamers to play on dedicated servers. There will be three multiplayer factions, with one side playing as Gears of War 4's new Swarm enemies and the other side playing as human GOG soldiers or Outsiders. Splash Damage, the UK-based developer who has worked on a ton of games in the past, including Gears of War: Ultimate Edition, is helping The Coalition develop Gears of War 4's multiplayer modes.

Someone needs to support $ony. The CloseStation can't make it alone.

again if you are the only one offering a product at the time and you just created it, why would you not charge for it? Online wasn't as big. it was maybe 10% of gamers. now it's grown into 50% of console games and who knows what % of PC gamers but based on the LOL, WoT, WoW etc numbers I'd say it's at least the 50% of consoles if not higher. WoW charges a monthly access fee on top of 60 dollar expansions and the fee is higher then that of XBL. PC games were the 1st to start charging subscription fees and it was for a single game only. MS came in with a cheaper service that gave online access to any game you own. Or are you not aware of that? as well as a single platform for friends, messages, chat, gamerscore (they started achievements) reputation, and monitor the service to ban players breaking the rules. Plus the great security and high uptime (over 99% uptime) never had a major hack or CC info stolen makes it a premiere service.

MS Pushed online play on consoles

MS pushed cross play on consoles (they were 1st to do it)

MS gave us gamerscore/achievements

MS gave us party chat

MS is pushing for all games to have dedicated servers (giving us the best possible experience for online gaming)

MS is giving us Free online storage for game save files and DVR recordings plus Free onedrive access to hold 7GB of whatever files you want. I use my free one drive space to backup important docs on my PC personally. If i wanted a similar service like carbonite or dropbox I'd be paying monthly fees

MS makes it's online worthwhile. most of their games have MP in it, while most of sony's are SP only

MS controller design with the Xbox Controller S led the modern design for controllers. Not to mention designs like rumble triggers

MS brought indie games to consoles. Sony never cared for them until MS made XBLA and such

MS gave us Realtime live game shows (1 vs 100) and really brought a sense of an online community

So it's fair to say both Sony and MS have their place in gaming. Sony still produces the high quality single player experiences, But MS is the industry leader and innovator when it comes to online play/service for consoles. If they never entered the space it's likely online gaming on consoles wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today if at all. Sony might not even have a PSN for that matter, plus we all seen cocky sony with the PS3 launch and cocky MS with the XB1 launch. Us as gamers need the 2 of them competing for our benefit. a gaming monoply on consoles would flat out suck and nintendo isn't providing any competition. W/O MS the PS4 would have been Wii U like power and 600 bucks at launch. People that think like you have no idea how business works.

I guess some people in general don't know the difference between Live and PSN.

So far here's how I put it.

• PS3's Online = Wii U
• Xbox 360's Live = PS4's PS+

What does this mean?

I'm not huge on the technical jargon of their networking, but this what I'm getting at. From my experience of PS3's online and PS4's online, the PS4 does feel better overall then the PS3's Online service. I don't know what that might be, but Sony must have took a note from Microsoft's Xbox Live book and turned PSN to that.

I never thought PS3's online service to be much different then Xbox 360's until I started playing Fighting Games on my 360. It was there I found out with my WIRED Internet connection I could barely get a full 3 bars of connectivity with people playing 3rd Strike on my PS3, meanwhile on the 360 I would have near perfect connection every time.

I don't know what it is, but using the same network cable and service provider I couldn't get the same results on 360 when playing PS3 games online. It didn't make it terrible, but it certainly wasn't "better".

Wii U's online is reminiscent to that Online (the PS3's). It doesn't seem like it has the same care or functionality that PS+ and Xbox Live have today so I'm assuming whatever I'm paying for for Xbox Live and PS+ means I'm paying for Service Maintenance and Capability and as long as that's the case I'm cool with paying the premium.

This is just my personal experience.

With Xbox Live Gold, you get unlimited cloud storage.

El tormented and dakur getting rekt....no surprise there.

@kingtito: they get destroyed day in and day out. Pure bliss.

The thing is, the OP is asking a lot of questions that nobody can really answer because we haven't seen the alternative. We don't know what PSN "would have" been like as a free service.

As far as I'm concerned, the price is pretty reasonable and the service is pretty great. It is absolutely a stable service in my experience, and the free monthly PS Plus games is a nice addition. As Sony said, charging for online also helped them to keep the price of the hardware down, which I think is a big factor here.

It seems to me that you have to charge for online if you're really going to have a robust service. This is why I'm not upset about Nintendo charging for the Switch online services - if it means they can developer a more integrated approach across the platform with better services, then I'm all for that. These things cost huge money, and therefore don't come for free.

@kvally: lol i know, I was just being a smartass.

@slimdogmilionar: roger that!

I am not sure if you are trolling at this point or just not informed. The reason that Microsoft Cloud (Azure) is the cloud is because yes it runs on dedicated servers in a data center and there is a layer of software that controls everything from migration of data, back ups, 100% up time etc. Your access to these servers is not the same as if you actually had a dedicated server. Previous generation dedicated servers were similar to an on premise server just located in a different place. Servers now can dynamically scale due to load, start up shutdown or whatever. Paas, Saas, and Iaas are features of Cloud platforms. That stuff did not exist in the past with Dedicated servers you used to rent for games like Arma and etc. The TF dev is talking about the services provided to devs for Xbox Live, which abstracts away some of the things you would have to deal with when it comes to developing an online service(like Match making). Xbox Live development can include the use of Xbox Live hosted Servers, it also has the same provisions to use cloud compute.

Yeah but is what now is understood as dedicated servers. They can be different from last gen but the access to Azure and its platform is used interchangeably by MS and the devs now, that was my point. Anyways, this discussion started because there was a claim that MS provides dedicated servers for everyone now but few devs actually use the benefits Azure provides so it doesn't justify a fee for online.