i spent $60 on Urban Champion for the NES.
Don't mock me.
I kind of feel like almost 5 years of service for games that aren't massively, massively successful live games is fine.
This is a legitimate opinion of course and the truth - otherwise they wouldn't have shut down the multiplayer servers in the first place... BUT there's no excuse when I can still play practically all PS3/360 era Ubisoft and EA games online. Some after even 12 years. It can't be that expensive to keep up those servers, regardless of popularity.I know there will always be cases where the shutdown sucks for a handful of people, but in the grand scheme of things... nobody cares.
Sony is AWS/Azure. Microsoft owns the platform they are on so it's really just energy
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.
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.
This is a legitimate opinion of course and the truth - otherwise they wouldn't have shut down the multiplayer servers in the first place... BUT there's no excuse when I can still play practically all PS3/360 era Ubisoft and EA games online. Some after even 12 years. It can't be that expensive to keep up those servers, regardless of popularity.
I think you forgot the /s there friend.$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.
Playstation is using (and has extended) the server farms which were built and used from Gaikai. So they basically have their own network where they provide the required resources on-demand for the sole purpose of powering the Playstation services. On the other hand we have Microsoft that relies on its Azure cloud where you have constant global overcapacities (not because they have problems selling their resources but because the cloud is simply that big). It's easier to keep niche services running if you have "free" or "un-used" capacities within your network.Without looking into it, I'm willing to bet Gaikai has nothing to do with PSN (Playstation Network and the game servers this thread is about), since they're the streaming company Sony bought out to do their Playstation Now streaming service (a different PSN).
Thanks for the insight and your educated opinion on that matter. In those instances where I have played old EA and Ubi games (non-sport/popular) a few weeks ago, I've only found 0-1 players online by the way. So I still can't imagine why or how they keep the multiplayer up for a nonexistent playerbase but I'm impressed nevertheless.Regarding Ubi, Acti and EA, they do multi platform games. So the potential playerbase on any given day is probably a lot bigger to begin with. On top of that they release massive games annually (CoD, Madden, FIFA), where the online components just receive slight updates.
Should be a lot easier to run and maintain FIFA 14's online, when you have 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 up and running anyways. As opposed to Driveclub and Gravity Rush 2.
I work in Enterprise IT but only have legit insight on storage/backup. I do however pick some things up here and there from coworkers in different fields.
Therefore I know that the biggest goal in IT is to prevent maintaining a so called "Zoo" (lots of different technologies with very few instances each). What you want is a "herd" (few technologies, massive amount of instances each).
"Keeping a server running" is easier said then done. VMWare, Oracle, Linux distributors and similar companies charge license fees regardless of how much you use a system. Constant updates, bug fixes and other work are mandatory, which costs human ressources.
Your physical servers (where you likely pay a maintenance contract on) can reach End of Life, which forces you migrate to a new technology.
Not even saying I agree with Sony's modus operandi given all the money they charge for online, just saying that I understand. If they can shut down a system with minimal public outrage (few remaining players) they jump on the opportunity.
Well no as has been stated in the thread already i believe, you can no longer unlock certain items that required online currency.That game that works perfectly fine without the online? It's a real shame
That game that works perfectly fine without the online? It's a real shame
Thanks for the insight and your educated opinion on that matter. In those instances where I have played old EA and Ubi games (non-sport/popular) a few weeks ago, I've only found 0-1 players online by the way. So I still can't imagine why or how they keep the multiplayer up for a nonexistent playerbase but I'm impressed nevertheless.
Playstation is using (and has extended) the server farms which were built and used from Gaikai. So they basically have their own network where they provide the required resources on-demand for the sole purpose of powering the Playstation services. On the other hand we have Microsoft that relies on its Azure cloud where you have constant global overcapacities (not because they have problems selling their resources but because the cloud is simply that big). It's easier to keep niche services running if you have "free" or "un-used" capacities within your network.
Other companies have different variations of network architectures like Valve that relies on renting capacities from 3rd party datacenters or Acti-Blizz that has a mix of own server farms and something called "colocation".
It's almost like Microsoft has their own servers, it's crazy right
$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.
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.
So if PS5 get full backward compabillity, most of the games want be playable online?
Poor poor Sony. They ain't the money even for the servers...It's almost like Microsoft has their own servers, it's crazy right
Playstation is using (and has extended) the server farms which were built and used from Gaikai
Yes, they shut down ths ervers in 2010. I was among the last "resistance" to play Halo 2 :D They could shut down the servers only when everyone log off, so for a few days people were playing like madmen.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...
Sony did an agreement with MS for the servers. It should tell something about the actual state of 'their' servers.
How many consoles did they sell and how much do they make from Plus and PSNOW? Dumb money
The electric bill for nothingIf there's not many people left playing a game then why would it cost much to leave a server up? That's what I don't get.
Everything got moved to lbp3 which is still up afaikI was disappointed that Little Big Planet got closed. On the PS3 it remained active throughout the console life span once it launched and on the PS4 it was just killed off.
I guess the franchise just was no longer popular.
Sony, as an company, doesn't have the financial clout of Microsoft.
Going forward into the 2020's and beyond, this could be an issue as games get ever more spectacular and expensive to host and run.
Microsoft know this of course and it's why they're pushing services like Game Pass so much.
How many consoles did they sell and how much do they make from Plus and PSNOW? Dumb money
it's not an excuse