• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

ThisIsBlitz21

Member
Oct 22, 2018
4,662
Wanted to make a thread about this for a while, so here it is.
It's no secret that Sony's first party has been guns blazing this generation, with works such as Horizon, God of War, and Spiderman.

However, something that I notice is Sony is closing game servers for their online offerings left and right, no matter what console.

Let's look at the Gran Turismo series first. GT5, the best selling PS3 exclusive (sold over 11 million or something), had it's online servers shut down 3.5 years after launch. GT6, which sold another 5 million, had it servers shut down in 4.5 years.

Forza Motorsport 2, a game from 2007, that certainly didnt sell nearly as well as GT5, is still up and running. 12 years and counting. Burnout Paradise original shut down just recently, after 11 years (and that game has a remaster, so the online isnt completely lost to time).

Extends to pretty much all first party PS3 games now. Not trying to turn this into console wars, lets just see how it compares to MS's games:
Uncharted 2, 3, Last of Us, Killzone 2, 3, Resistance trilogy, Warhawk, GT5, GT6, Motorstorm, Twisted Metal, Wipeout HD, among most others, all down now. Uncharted couldve been mitigated if the remaster had multiplayer, but it didnt.

Forza Motorsport 2, 3, 4, Horizon, Halo 3, Reach, 4, Gears trilogy, Perfect Dark Zero, Project Gotham 4, all still up and running.

Sony has been making money hand over fist this generation, and somehow they can't afford to keep all those servers up? While MS have been doing the significantly worse than the 360 gen, but still managing to keep up the online mode for their older games.

I love Gran Turismo Sport and its GaaS model. But, I have a lingering fear that in just a couple of years they shut it down, redeeming almost the entire game useless due to to how heavily tied the game is to online.

It's extends to PS4 games too. Of course Gravity Rush and Driveclub, both being shut down prematurely before the generation is even ended.

Thoughts? I dont want this to be seen as a thread where I'm needless bashing Sony. Some of their decisions lately have been good, like backwards compatibility on PS5, and finally opening up to Minecraft crossplay, among others. This is something I'd thought I'd bring up.
 

Kingasta

Avenger
Jan 4, 2018
814
They have no excuse to do that, we pay to play not to mention the servers being P2P.
 

LumberPanda

Member
Feb 3, 2019
6,357
Sony can absolutely afford to keep them up. We're paying out the ass literally for them to be up.

But planned obsolescence is a great way to make free money. Sony doesn't want you to enjoy the multiplayer games you already bought - they want you buying new multiplayer games to replace the old ones.
 

vestan

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP
Member
Dec 28, 2017
24,635
It's almost like Microsoft has their own servers, it's crazy right
Vj40K7F.jpg
 

Werd

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
471
I haven't happened to play many Sony online games, but the one I remember doing this early was MAG. That was an online only game, so shutting down the servers turned it into a coaster. I believe it lasted about 4 years, which isn't that bad but you'd think first party exclusives could afford better support.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,906
Sony has been making money hand over fist this generation, and somehow they can't afford to keep all those servers up? While MS have been doing the significantly worse than the 360 gen, but still managing to keep up the online mode for their older games.
Server cost (ie. barebones or "cloud") aren't the big obstacle in such cases and it's usually more about support demand and personal costs.

PSN is also basically the company called "Gakai" and they are usually only providing enogh "server ressources" to meet the demand of Playstation users. Microsoft on the other hand has the "Azure" network and is usually looking to fill its excess capacities with additional offerings. Those Azure capacities are available anyway so it's better to use them for stuff like older multiplayer games instead of not utilizing them at all because those ressources got paid for already.
 

Bomi-Chan

Member
Nov 8, 2017
665
OP iam with you.

but there is one point missing: it is the developers of the game, who make multiplayer impossible in the first place, once the servers are down.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,205
I would think the servers go down because the users numbers are too low to justify keeping them up. I guess you can they should keep them up no matter what, but it's a business.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,737
Did Gravity Rush 2 even have that many online features? Wasn't it mostly just leaderboards?
 

Kapryov

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,139
Australia
Did Gravity Rush 2 even have that many online features? Wasn't it mostly just leaderboards?
It had online MP against ghosts.
Treasure hunting (the best!)
Sharing/liking random photos
...and I believe all the unlocks were linked to the online currency :( I unlocked everything, but I don't know if new players can get the costumes and rare items anymore
 

ABIC

Banned
Nov 19, 2017
1,170
$60 used to buy you 20-50 hours of playtime.

Now players are demanding and frothing at the mouth if you provide playtime AND online play for "only" 2 years. And the more money you make, the more free stuff they demand!

This is a crazy tough business.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,737
It had online MP against ghosts.
Treasure hunting (the best!)
Sharing/liking random photos
...and I believe all the unlocks were linked to the online currency :( I unlocked everything, but I don't know if new players can get the costumes and rare items anymore

OK, that's more substantial than I thought. Thanks for the clarification!
 
Oct 27, 2017
39,148
It had online MP against ghosts.
Treasure hunting (the best!)
Sharing/liking random photos
...and I believe all the unlocks were linked to the online currency :( I unlocked everything, but I don't know if new players can get the costumes and rare items anymore
You can't.

The thing that pisses me off about it is that they could have patched in something that unlocks everything. But no, shut that shit down boy, nobody cares about that stuff!
 

fireflame

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,275
$60 used to buy you 20-50 hours of playtime.

Now players are demanding and frothing at the mouth if you provide playtime AND online play for "only" 2 years. And the more money you make, the more free stuff they demand!

This is a crazy tough business.
are you serious?Diablo 2 has been supported for 19 years.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,673
The Milky Way
I think there should be a minimum term quoted for every game, so you know when you buy a game that the servers will be up for (as an example) 10 years from its release date for example. Anything else is unacceptable - you may buy a game for its multiplayer, you should have a guarantee of the minimum time the servers will be up for regardless of its popularity. Especially when you've paid for the game and you've paid for PSN.
 

StrayDog

Avenger
Jul 14, 2018
2,617
Sony doesn't have the same flexibility than MS to "keep" the server online. MS can rent the server to other people, so the server is generating money. Sony in other hand is renting the server, they still pay even if they are not fully being used.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,737
I think there should be a minimum term for every game, so you know when you buy a game that the servers will be up for 10 years from its release date for example. Anything else is unacceptable - you buy a game for its multiplayer, you should have a guarantee of the minimum time the servers will be up for regardless of its popularity. Especially when you've paid for the game and you've paid for PSN.

10 years is too much to ask, honestly. Some developers that are releasing games right now won't even exist in five years.
 

Deleted member 10737

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
49,774
I'm just giving the most logical reasoning. Not arguing whether it is the right choice.
i know, i'm just saying there's really no excuse. no matter how small the online playerbase gets, there should be like a minimum of 5 years for the servers to be up. that should be a risk the publisher takes when releasing a game with online components. regardless of how successful the game is, they should maintain the servers for a decent amount of time.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,673
The Milky Way
10 years is too much to ask, honestly. Some developers that are releasing games right now won't even exist in five years.
It was an example, it's not about the same time for all games. It's about quoting a minimum time that the servers will be online, barring any incident out of the publisher's control. That doesn't have to be the same time for every game.

Just provide an earliest date the servers are guaranteed to run to.
 

vestan

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP
Member
Dec 28, 2017
24,635
Remember when Sony shut down The Tomorrow Children after only a year of being alive
Remember when they tried doing the same shit with Gravity Rush 2 but the pushback from fans only delayed the inevitable

Seems they're super eager to discontinue games, the fact that the servers for most first-party PS3 games have been shut down while you can still play a literal 12-year old game (Halo 3) online on the 360 really puts things into perspective as far as MS and Sony's strategies are concerned.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,737
It was an example, it's not about the same time for all games. It's about quoting a minimum time that the servers will be online, barring any incident out of the publisher's control. That doesn't have to be the same time for every game.

Yeah, I do agree that a game at launch should set some sort of reasonable expectation for how long its servers should stay up. But I think honestly, the upper barrier for that would have to be around 5 years.
 

SDR-UK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,394
Uncharted 2 and 3 is still a fresh wound. I wish Sony were better about this type of stuff.
 

Niosai

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,925
$60 used to buy you 20-50 hours of playtime.

Now players are demanding and frothing at the mouth if you provide playtime AND online play for "only" 2 years. And the more money you make, the more free stuff they demand!

This is a crazy tough business.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

It makes no sense that I can go out and buy a Sony game at full price, and then a year down the line Sony can cut me off of playing that game online. I look back to games like PS All Stars and remember that a lot of the draw was the ability to play online, but Sony shut it down. How is that fair to the consumer?

Also, yes, I know their sole purpose is to make money, but there's no excuses when I can still play OG Xbox games online today on Microsoft's servers.
 

rochellepaws

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,452
Ireland
It was somewhat understandable for PS3 and Vita games considering they never required paid online but the situation with Gravity Rush 2 and Driveclub was really disappointing and should never have happened so soon.

It feels difficult to commit to something like Dreams as a result when the option to share may only be around for a few years.
 

thepenguin55

Member
Oct 28, 2017
11,815
Sony can absolutely afford to keep them up. We're paying out the ass literally for them to be up.

But planned obsolescence is a great way to make free money. Sony doesn't want you to enjoy the multiplayer games you already bought - they want you buying new multiplayer games to replace the old ones.

What's weird to me about that though is that Sony hasn't put out a lot of significant multiplayer games this gen maybe even especially compared to last gen (at least it feels that way to me). You think about their multiplayer offerings last gen and stuff like shooters were a much bigger deal for them.

Warhawk, Starhawk, Resistance, even MAG all feel like games that could've found bigger audiences this gen and yet Sony has put little effort on the multiplayer shooter front this gen. Not saying they've necessarily needed to as they've carved out a prestige game niche for themselves but it just feels like they've been leaving money on the table by not making a bigger effort towards putting out a multiplayer shooter.
 

Aliand

Member
Oct 28, 2017
892
Server cost (ie. barebones or "cloud") aren't the big obstacle in such cases and it's usually more about support demand and personal costs.

PSN is also basically the company called "Gakai" and they are usually only providing enogh "server ressources" to meet the demand of Playstation users. Microsoft on the other hand has the "Azure" network and is usually looking to fill its excess capacities with additional offerings. Those Azure capacities are available anyway so it's better to use them for stuff like older multiplayer games instead of not utilizing them at all because those ressources got paid for already.
Thanks for an educated post and sharing the knowledge ! 👍
 

Gundam

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,801
If platform holders and manufacturers want to charge for their online services, they should uh, service their online.

To refute otherwise is to be a corporate bootlicker.
 

Alek

Games User Researcher
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
8,471
I think most of their decisions have been okay, but some of them, quite odd.

Gravity Rush 2 for instance, I feel like it didn't require a huge amount of server support to begin with, and that the player dropoff was very predictable. So, why shut them down so soon? Surely when they released the game they would have known that it would not have seen many long-term online players. Games that launch with tertiary network features really need to have those features supported for a long long time, and that support can't be conditional on having a large player base.

Most of the online PSN games that have leaderboards or some form of asynchronous online feature, don't abruptly have those features turned off at some point in the future. The leaderboards on old games still work because the developers keep them running. Often the whole game is supported with a single server, the cost isn't that steep and I really don't think the cost was steep for a game like Gravity Rush 2.

I loaded up Pixeljunk Shooter yesterday, and online matchmaking and leaderboards still function. No one is playing the game, but it still works. If indies can support their games like that, why can't support their big titles for longer?

When a game has online matchmaking however, I can understand why the servers are shut down. There's a strong cost associated to maintaining those servers, and in some instances I think shutting down the servers for older games can be better for the community. Forcing everyone onto the latest Gran (shutting down GT5's servers after a few years of GT6's launch) mostly served to move the community forward.
 

DatManOvaDer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,856
You can't.

The thing that pisses me off about it is that they could have patched in something that unlocks everything. But no, shut that shit down boy, nobody cares about that stuff!
Don't forget that people had to fucking beg with a twitter hashtag just to get them to extend it by a few months. And even after, they couldn't even be bothered to remove the server shutdown warning from the game's description on PSN.
 

egg

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
6,596
I have the worst luck when it comes to picking games. For example: PSH, shutdown. Paragon, SHUTDOWN. The Tomorrow Children, SHUTDOWN. GRAVITY RUSH 2, SHUTDOWN. DRIVECLUB, SHUTDOWN SOON. SINGSTAR SHUTDOWN SOON !!!

Like damn, can i enjoy something!? Lol.
 
Remember when Sony shut down The Tomorrow Children after only a year of being alive
Remember when they tried doing the same shit with Gravity Rush 2 but the pushback from fans only delayed the inevitable

Seems they're super eager to discontinue games, the fact that the servers for most first-party PS3 games have been shut down while you can still play a literal 12-year old game (Halo 3) online on the 360.
Sony's entire foray into f2p this gen has been one fuck-up after another, since The Tomorrow Children was neither their first nor their last.
 

jwk94

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,422
I'm still pissed that we can't play destiny of spirits anymore. That game rocked.
 

thepenguin55

Member
Oct 28, 2017
11,815
Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

It makes no sense that I can go out and buy a Sony game at full price, and then a year down the line Sony can cut me off of playing that game online. I look back to games like PS All Stars and remember that a lot of the draw was the ability to play online, but Sony shut it down. How is that fair to the consumer?

Also, yes, I know their sole purpose is to make money, but there's no excuses when I can still play OG Xbox games online today on Microsoft's servers.

But I don't believe you can play OG Xbox games on XBL? You can still play most 360 & X1 games on Live but not OG Xbox games. I agree with your point but just saying...
 
Last edited: