With the recent news of the LittleBigPlanet servers being shut down and the complete debacle that was the SOCOM beta we have to ask the question…
Is it time to start charging for use of the PlayStation Network.
Anytime the question is asked people point to the Xbox 360 Live network failing as proof that the charge model is not flawless and granted it isn’t but it also needs to be mentioned that Microsoft partially refunded people for the inconvenience by offering them a full Arcade title for free.
What can be pointed to is the regular pattern of online play issues through the PS3. The list is growing rapidly of big name games that have brought the PSN to it’s knees, a list that now contains Metal Gear Online, LittleBigPlanet, SOCOM, GTA IV and many more.
The problem here is that Sony expects the publishers or developers to stump up for their own servers and you can ask any IT Manager in the world and they will tell you that the accountants are never convinced that you need that much power, that is until the servers crash and you start losing money.
The way that Microsoft handles this is by having a huge server farm entirely dedicated to Xbox Live that can handle surges in load by automatically turning on new servers and shifting load from one machine to the next, so while a game may only be using half a server for most of it’s traffic if it suddenly needs the power of 30 servers these can be brought online in a matter of minutes, or maybe hours, and the load can be handled.Â
But all of this costs money, a lot of money and you cannot honestly expect Sony or the developers to fork out this much money for a “just in case” scenario. However if they were charging R10 ($1) per month they would almost certainly have enough money to create a decent server farm and compete with Microsoft on an even platform.
Until this happens the PSN will always be playing second fiddle to Microsoft’s network and will always be susceptible for being taken down.
Thankfully LittleBigPlanet is now up and running again and hopefully with enough protection this time for when the game actually gets released… though to be honest I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the servers come down again when it gets released in Europe and the rest of the PAL world.
Last Updated: October 29, 2008
Fred
October 29, 2008 at 08:23
The cost of the games itself should provide Sony and Microsoft with enough money for decent server farms.
easy
October 29, 2008 at 08:40
ditto. you’ve already paid for the use of any game’s multiplayer function once you’ve bought it.
Yeti
October 29, 2008 at 08:45
I’m quite happy paying for xbox live.
Yes you have paid for the use of the games multiplayer when you buy it so feel free to play multiplayer lans to your hearts content.
Xbox live is a service, one which costs money to run, lots of money. Just because you’ve bought a car doesn’t mean you should be able to use it for free.
Banana hammock
October 29, 2008 at 09:10
If WarHawk can do it then so can everyone else. And WarHawk make their money back by realeasing add-on packs which we purchase.
What they do that is excellent though is they make sure the add-on packs are very good and they are also quite cheap.
A lot of online games can learn from what they have done.
abe
October 29, 2008 at 09:20
I dont think there is any problem! These “problem”s only happen on launch of the huge titles. I think its completely understandable for there to be a little down time!
ewie
October 29, 2008 at 09:20
So if you buy a mmo game, why do you pay a monthly subscription ?
ewie
October 29, 2008 at 09:26
So you buy a game like SOCOM on release , and 2 weeks later you still have the same issues, that the game is “unplayable”
because of server issues think not.
Hopefully Sony will learn from these mistakes and add the additional capacity they need for the resistance launch.
baba
October 29, 2008 at 10:45
Lazy, you are wrong.
Game traffic does not go through Live or PSN. The service you pay for has nothing to do with game traffic, it is more about the experience,ie. PSN store, Live Arcade, Movie downloads, keeping track of who’s online etc.
If PSN was to blame for LBP crashing, all of us would have had problems, but I don’t have any problems logging in to PSN. The problem lies on the LBP servers, not on PSN.
No matter how many blades Sony or MS install, if the game server is k@k, all will suffer. MS sidestepped the problem mainly by enforcing a peer-to-peer network structure on the developers, instead of asking them to host the games on servers.
kabraal
October 29, 2008 at 10:46
Because they release additional content patches. New dungeons, bosses, weapons. New stuff.
I don’t see why I have to pay in order to shoot someone online in COD4. I don’t pay for it when I play it on a PC and I don’t see why I should pay for it on a console.
koldFU5iON
October 29, 2008 at 10:49
or get petrol free 😉
LazySAGamer
October 29, 2008 at 11:03
I am aware of how Live works and yes they have dodged the bullet with the Peer 2 Peer issue, however you need to remember where all these stats, matchmaking and the rest are stored. They are not held on your local Xbox and it’s this bottleneck that the Live network has replaced.
lonix
October 29, 2008 at 11:09
what would charging people do to help?
i know, it would stop more people from using the servers so they wouldnt be as congested, just like toll booths on roads
Insanie
October 29, 2008 at 11:25
It would force Sony (or the company being paid) to take responsibility for the servers to be up 24/7 or as close to 24/7 as they can. If they are accepting money they have an obligation to provide the service being paid for.
LazySAGamer
October 29, 2008 at 11:37
Thank you
PaasHaas
October 29, 2008 at 11:43
Just like Installs on consoles seems like a “bad idea” to you lazy, paying for playing games online is just as bad in my opinion.
Worse Idea that came with the “next gen” and one of the reasons I own a PS3 instead of a 360
Gary
October 29, 2008 at 12:28
They’re never going to charge for the service, it’s one of their strongest marketing points. I also don’t really agree that “all these stats, matchmaking and the rest” are creating a bottleneck. The simple fact is that the LBP Beta didn’t prepare the developers or server technicians for the influx of traffic when people actually got hold of the full game. They probably had around 200,000 LBP Beta users spread across the world, so probably never had 200,000 people using the servers at once. Now the game is out in North America where I’m guessing about a million copies would have been sold, maybe a little less, you’re increasing the load by 4 or 5 times. It’s undoubtedly going to cause some slow down.
I don’t think charging for the service is going to help alleviate this, the PSN is barely ever down, it’s incredibly stable in my opinion. Rather what they should do is widen the Beta to as many people who are interested. Stop this ridiculous farce that is Beta Keys and just get as many people using it as possible. The content is going to expire anyway, and people who enjoyed the game are going to buy it regardless of whether they’ve played it before in the beta. Surely these kind of public Betas are for nothing else other than testing the servers anyway, it’s nothing to do with gameplay or interface tweaks as they come too late in the life cycle of development.
ewie
October 29, 2008 at 12:29
It already started before the “nex_gen” the original xbox started it and have shown its worth, without it the original xbox would not have been as big a hit as it was.
baba
October 29, 2008 at 12:39
AMEN!
Bonueslevel
October 29, 2008 at 12:55
“… PSN will always be playing second fiddle to Microsoft’s network and will always be susceptible for being taken down.”
No! Technology’s getting cheaper and more powerful year by year, that’s why Microsoft has to stop charging users for their service, if they want to compete with PSN.
baba
October 29, 2008 at 12:56
Stupid argument. Fact is, stuff break, and Sony is not going to sit around for next year’s budget before they fix a broken server. Even MS was down over the busiest time of the year last year, my money did not prevent Live from crashing horribly. It also did not help them to get the system up in 10 mins. It took them a few days if I can remember correctly.
What really pisses me off is that Sony is giving service for free – we’re not paying, and it is NOT A BAD service. They even recognise SA and our currency. But you guys can even take something that is free, and good, and throw it in Sony’s face. FTF?
So hereby I congratulate Sony on a job well done. Please excuse the dumb a$$es who look a given horse in the mouth and continue with your excellent service.
PaasHaas
October 29, 2008 at 12:58
Thats where the different viewpoints come in. Its “worth” is very debatable.
They can charge you for whatever they want, but the basic ability to play game online should be free.
kabraal
October 29, 2008 at 13:07
Yah well said. This notion that PSN is down 23 hours a day, unstable and unusable is BS. Thing is, 1 milion people go online at once when a game is launced. Servers starts sweating, crashes and reboots. After a couple of days it reaches a steady state. This happens with WoW as well. Don’t really see the issue here. Ah well
Fred
October 29, 2008 at 13:34
PSN is great , and it is free , what more could you want.
Lets look at statistics of which service was down more than the other , i’ll bet you’ll be surprised.
RCW
October 29, 2008 at 13:52
Worked real well for Microsoft last Christmas when Live went down for a month. That’s a pay service isn’t it?
shadowboricua
October 29, 2008 at 13:56
One of the reasons I purchased a PS3 was because of its free PSN service. If they start charging, I’ll head back to the PC! PC does not Charge, why should Sony do so… Microsoft should stop charging!!!
Wesley
October 29, 2008 at 14:43
why does everybody worry about MS charging, they arent doing this for cookies and love bites. these people have families too feed and to keep us customers happy aswel. I dont see why paying $50 +/-R600 a year. Wow as if R50 a month (if xbox live ever comes to SA)is gonna make you bankrupt if you cant afford the hobbie take on painting or dvd collecting.
I and for Sony good for them if they dont charge for online gaming, if thats their stragedy for lurying buyers in then if it works why not.
You guys dont hear the WOW guys moaning about paying like 9 Pounds a month just to keep on playing. And plus where do you think M$ gets all those Kudos to make previous “PS2 exclusives” a reality on they’re console
PaasHaas
October 29, 2008 at 15:03
I play WoW! and mmo’s have a valid excuse for charging and that makes it worth while and im pretty sure you know that.
Stupid comparison.
Go tell the PC COD4 online players they going to be charged to play online and see if they complain… lol
Every bit counts and this is not a case of can or cannot you afford the service, its a question of should you billed for it or not. If you are willing to be ripped off by people simply because you can “afford” it then good on you.
doobiwan
October 29, 2008 at 15:16
It’s a debatable issue but like saying which is better vanilla or chocolate.
Xbox Live games share infrastructure, so Microsoft can have a “New uber game launch cluster” to soak up massive demand when any new game comes out. By comparison Each developer on PSN has to have the same amount of servers for each game, not very cost efficient, and prone to shortages, as we’ve seen.
The reverse of that though was Xbox Xmas – if the network goes down, then everyone suffers, so there’s pro’s and cons to both arguments.
Mike
October 29, 2008 at 16:03
Wow the only excuse i can make for these stupid comments is that they are under 12 years old. Servers and data center usage is EXPENSIVE and when i say EXPENSIVE i mean EXPHUGGINPENSIVE. And its also a reason why i laugh at ps3 fanboys who say XBOX charges 50 a month blah blah. I own a PS3 and i wish i could pay them for better service. A game like halo 3 on PSN would cost millions to set up and millions to keep in tact JUST FOR ONE GAME!. Since xbox takes care of the service for all games keeps the network consistent. With PS3 you have seperate servers for everything so if a developer skimps on their network you are screwed with PS3, but with xbox you will get the same service everytime.
killasouljah
October 29, 2008 at 16:37
ok i already pay for internet {broad band} pay for the ps3
bought the 60 dolloar games,pay for extra content online and now you want me to pay for psn!! WOW i think thats a little much, i think thats what makes ps3 much better than 360 because the free service if you take that away, hell i really got an 360 lol.. we pay so muc for all these things anyways
and by making us pay more thats pushin it alot!!!
JDAwgZ
October 29, 2008 at 17:11
My first online experience was on psn and it was Resistance Fall of man, I’ve never experienced Live so i dont know what i’m missing out but simply dont care because the PSN does a good enough job for me, I’ve had my launched 60gb going on 2 years this December. So i can literaly say i have 100.00 in my pockets i have saved for not paying online. I dont think psn should charge for theyre servers and the servers are not crap theyre only problems whenever the game launches, take for example warhawk i’ve logged in like 600 hrs of lag free gameplay well minus the launch problems which were taken care of but other than its been smooth sailing for long time
baba
October 29, 2008 at 17:30
So Mike, what is so wrong with the PSN that you would like to pay for? I play 360 and PS3 online, and I’ve never had a hickup with either. I think the PSN store is MUCH BETTER organized than the Live arcade. The fact that Sony shows us that they can do it for free, and in our own currency must be an embarressment to MS.
BTW, why would delevopers ‘skimp’ on their network? Do you think they go:
OK guys, we’ve created a multi million dollar game. I’ve got an idea! Let’s skimp the servers and fcuk all our players!
megulito
October 29, 2008 at 17:51
i bthink psn free service is great there is no need to pay ps was doin online b4 xbox they find ways to keep it goin and reclaim the cost and alot of servers work better on ps3 because xbox is more peer to peer and ps3 is dedicated server based as each ps3 can be used as a dedicated server
Insanie
October 29, 2008 at 17:56
I’m sorry but you are completely missing the point.
No one (Lazy or myself) said it was a bad service. I don’t
have a PS3 so I can’t comment. The point is, by being payed a
fee MS is forced into providing and improving a service.
If they don’t, people don’t use Live and they lose out directly on money.
While Sony may provide a good service that they
update regularly, they don’t have as much of
an incentive to as MS do to keep it updated. There is
no direct financial impact. (Sure indirectly people may stop
buying games etc etc, but I meant directly)
SlippyMadFrog
October 29, 2008 at 18:50
What about WOW?
SlippyMadFrog
October 29, 2008 at 18:51
a month? Are you sure mate 😉
kabraal
October 29, 2008 at 19:22
Sigh, Wow is a game that gets 1GB content patches every couple of months. New content. You can’t compare a game like WoW with a game like COD4. Look at Guild Wars… it’s free… Wow has teams of 100’s of developers constantly working on new content. Do you think COD4 developers does the same or do you think they’re currently in the Bahamas sipping martinis?
I buy four or five games a year. Of those, probably only one or two will really test my interest to go online and play for a couple of months. So either I have to permanently subscribe to Live, or unsubscribe or re-subscribe as I see fit. Either way, it’s BS really.
Now I understand Live has all sorts of gamer cards, Mii’s and I don’t know what other BS gimmicks, but the in general, logging onto a shooter with a advertised multi player component which you just paid R600 for, shooting some people online, should be free.
Mr.Hellrazor
October 30, 2008 at 00:34
Wow man, you are a complete dumbass. just shut the fuck up JDawGZ. you have no idea what your’re talking about. stop trying to sound smart.
gamer
October 30, 2008 at 08:21
Arn’t the PSN and Xboxlive just glorified match making services? The game hosting (server intensive part) is hosted by one of the players. I could see it being reasonable to charge for a mmo where the servers are hosted by the developers.