News Article

Sony Would Like to Publicly Thank You for the PS4's Success

Posted by Sammy Barker

Aw, shucks

Sony’s been riding high on a chorus of consumer goodwill for well over a year now, and it seems to have mastered the art of acting humble within that time. This brand new video is a perfect example of the company’s newfound fan friendly approach, in which it brazenly thanks the 6 million owners of its next-gen console for stumping up the cash for the machine.

Even we’ll admit that this seems a little too saccharine sweet, but at least the platform holder’s putting out positive messages, rather than ones involving second jobs. It’s also touching that it takes a moment to acknowledge developers in the trailer, too – after all, its box would be nothing but unfulfilled potential without the great support that it’s received.


User Comments (41)



adf86 said:

I got my PS4 last saturday. Completed Infamous, Contrast & Resogun, now on to the 11 other games I was able to play without spending another penny



GHO5T-08-12-80 said:

Love my ps4's but sony still have some bugs to iron out an let us put our own music on to our ps4 damn it dont let xbox edge th lead now keep up the good work otherwise



Munkyknuts said:

I got my PS4 for Christmas...loved the machine but I couldn't engage with Killzone and a nostalgic replay of flow and flower only took so long. I enjoyed OutLast but I still didn't feel like I was bonding with the PS4 like I did the PS3. That changed when I got Infamous: 2nd son...oh yes now I'm engaged and some very cinematic and bad ass use of superpowers got me hitting the share button for the 1st time. I don't begrudge being one of the 6 million anymore



Tasuki said:

Been a PS4 owner since the NA launch day and I have to say I am really enjoying the system. Heck I am enjoying the PS4 alot more then last gen's systems. I find myself playing video games alot more now. Best purchase I have ever made.



ShogunRok said:

I threw up a bit while watching, but the trailer gets the job done when it comes to dishing out the impressive numbers.



Gamer83 said:

Sony just better hope the sales keep up, because that's really been the only good news the last few months aside from inFamous: Second Son releasing and turning out well.



charlesnarles said:

@Tasuki you stand in line at 12? My GameStop's launch was lame, but it was fun to be there and all. Bought an official stand and 1t hdd today, and it's much sleeker looking now upright next to my fatty ps3.



JaxonH said:

They don't have to thank ME- I'm just a consumer. You offer me a good product, I will buy it. Tell you what though, if they REALLY wanna show gratitude, how bout abolishing online passes on the Vita for us? Bought close to a dozen Vita games from Amazon recently (Toukiden, Soul Sacrifice, Ninja Gaiden Sigma+ 1 and 2, Muramasa, Rayman Legends, MGS HD Collection, Y's, Dead or Alive, PS All Stars). All of them were new except a couple, and of course, one of the used ones had an online pass, so I had to spend $10 extra buying a new one. I'd completely forgotten they were doing that with Vita games... just goes to show they're not as pro consumer as people think when it comes to sharing and buying used games. Whatever though, at least the Vita has free online- and tbh, I'd rather have free online with passes than paid online and no passes.



Bad-MuthaAdebisi said:

Yeah picked mine up on launch day, I had to travel to 4 shops during the night and managed to eventually bag one about lunch time. Far more sensible to pre order.



Carl-G said:

NO, Thank YOU SONY 16 years this week i got my 1st PlayStation & loved every minute of the PS Games that have come out(mainly PS Exclusives i have loved the most)



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH To be fair its not Sony that is doing online passes, its the game developers (of which Sony happens to be one). Online passes exist for a large number of games on the PS3, PS4, PSVita, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. Many companies like EA have chosen to eliminate the online pass system but its not eradicated completely.

I fully support the concept behind online passes. Gamestop and the like don't give the publishers any money for used game sales, yet the (used) users expect the developers to continue to spend money to support their game online for quite awhile. Its a attempt at a solution to this problem, which is a problem that needs solved if used games are going to exist into the next generation. Most companies determined that the pros of this system did not outweigh the cons and have abandoned the practice.

Since I don't buy used games, or play games online, this hasn't ever been an issue with me personally though.



JaxonH said:


The thing is, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It's not like the costs of maintaining a server for a game are that much, and certainly nothing that can't be paid for out of the main profits from the game. It's not like developers and publishers were facing a crisis and couldn't afford online maintenance. That's pocket change in the big scheme of things. It's just a ploy to make more money. Just like DLC and microtransactions.

I'm aware it's the developers who are behind this, not the platform holder, but the game I bought the pass for was Soul Sacrifice, which is Sony's game if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen one game on PS4 with an online pass. Maybe there is, but I certainly haven't seen it, which is a good thing. Not that it matters anyways to me, since I'm not gonna pay for online. I don't buy into the belief that this is "needed". It's just a way to dig into the consumer's pockets by capitalizing on used merchandise.

When Joe Blow sells a game, and I buy it used, the dev doesn't get money from me. BUT, Joe Blow who bought the game is no longer playing it either. I'm playing it in his stead. So the online was paid for with HIS purchase, and that covers the cost until the servers come down. Joe Blow sold the game to me (directly or indirectly through a used game shop), so basically I paid him for his rights to the game. And as for the online access that he received with the game to use for the next 8-10 years, well, he sold the remainder of his access to me. So if he owned the game 4 years and then sells it to me, I basically paid him to access the remainer of the online that he paid for when he bought the game new. Whether he's playing it or I'm playing it is irrelevant. One new game purchase was made that the dev profited from, and only one copy of the game will be played until the servers come down, regardless of how many hands the game passes through. Whether he plays the game with online for 8 years, or he plays the game with online for 4 years and I play the game with online for 4 years... either way, only one copy of the game will be played with online for a total of 8 years (or however long).

I also rarely buy used games. As a collector, I like to buy new so I have a case, manual (when applicable), but most importantly everything is in mint condition. However, I will buy used from time to time. And this was a huge wake up call for me. I'd forgotten just how greedy everyone has become nowadays. Unfortunately, their methods have worked. I won't be buying a used Vita game again, because it's pointless. After the cost of the used game and online pass, you're paying full MSRP (if not OVER). Which is really unfair to the consumer. But, like I said- I count my blessings. At least the Vita has free online (unlike the PS4), and I'm thankful for that at least.



Gemuarto said:

PS4 has bad controls. I am dissapointed.

But Infamous is really good. OMG!!!



JaxonH said:


How so? Bad controls in general or bad controller? If you mean bad controller, I would really have to disagree with you there. I'm not a fan of analogues being on bottom, and even I will admit they did a fantastic job with the spacing and placement of everything on the DS4. If you mean bad controls, well, that depends on the game you're playing.



Gemuarto said:

@JaxonH No, I told that in hope that Shuhei Yoshida will ask me, why PS4 has bad controls =(. Yeah, I know, it's mad. But who knows, right.

Agree with you, DS4 is best controller ever. Except that I heard it has some problems with sticks material. But overall DS4 delivers a lot.



Jaz007 said:

Nice, it's only a shame it didn't say "you're welcome" to Xbox fans for being able to play used games and not have to connecting to the Internet every 24 hours.

@thedevilsjester Actually, I remember reading something about how when Twisted Metal was getting an online pass, it was something that David Jaffe (the main developer for the game) couldn't controll, which implied it was Sony as the developer.



kensredemption said:

Much as I love my PS4, the lack of first-party titles has disappointed me. I found myself playing Warframe the most ever since I got it. That, plus the lack of software-based emulation of PS3 games and being able to use the music on my Walkman instead of Music Unlimited is kind of lame. Either way, I will be MIRED in my PS4 once Planetside 2 is released. Oh, and Final Fantasy XIV as well!



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH The point is that a game with an online mode has a constant maintainance fee where as the same game without that mode does not. Its a fee that is not trivial by any means. It is absolutely a problem, but this was not a good solution.

I believe AC4 has an online pass for the PS4 though Ubi has said they are removing them.



-CraZed- said:

@adf86 This generation really has been a pleasant surprise. The amount of games I have been able to play without spending a fortune has been awesome.

Best value in gaming right now is the PS platforms. I just hope it is sustainable for Sony.



JaxonH said:


Of the $30+ million dollars it takes to make a game nowadays, 99% of that cost is taken up by marketing and paying for the talent that actually develops the games. Renting a server to host the online play is an ongoing cost, yes, but a small ongoing cost. But yes, you're right. It's a cost that non-online games don't have. But it's a cost they must consider when developing the game. Online games have been around for a long time- it was never a problem before.

But, let's say you're right, for the sake of argument here. Regardless of how much it costs them, that doesn't give them the right to continue to profit off one copy of a game. The original buyer paid $60 for the game. That money covers indefinite use until the day the servers come down. The online costs of the game are built into their projected costs when they make the game. If I buy a game and keep it forever, $60 made it's way to the publisher. But if I sell the game to someone else, they want more money all of a sudden? No, I paid for the game for indefinite use until the servers come down. The online was paid for with my $60. So if I sell it, it's nothing to them. It's just a different person using my access.

Like if I rent an apartment for a year, then sublet it to a friend 4 months into the contract. They pay me, because I'm already paying the rent for the year at the apartment. The landlord wouldn't have a right to ask for additional money from them ON TOP of the money they get from me for the year, using the excuse of "ongoing maintenance". Sure, there's ongoing maintenance cost, but I paid the tab for that with MY rent money for the year.

I would equate it to double-taxation. And that's exactly what online passes are. They're charging two, three, FOUR times for one copy of a game, every time it changes hands. A copy that was fully paid for the first time when I bought it new. When I bought it new, I paid the consumer's fair share to cover their online costs until the servers come down. Doesn't matter if I keep it forever, or if I sell it and that person sells it again. 8yrs with me = 3yrs with me + 3yrs with person B + 2yrs with person C. Bottom line is, those 8 years were paid for when I bought it new. They have no right to charge again just because it's someone else accessing it. If I had kept the game and not sold it, I would be accessing it. Either way, someone would be accessing the online that was paid for when the game was bought new. So, why do they think they can keep charging when they were already paid in full?



JaxonH said:

I do have a question though that perhaps you can help me better understand.

I'm just throwing this question out there... So we've got Sony charging for online now, right? Ok, well what exactly are they charging for? Most of the games on their system are 3rd party games. And the online costs for those games are not Sony's costs. Those online costs are supposed to be paid for through game profits. Game A has online> 3rd party uses profit from selling 4 million copies of Game A to pay for said online. Each online game has its own servers. So, why do they need to charge us for it on a system-wide level? Just sayin. Each game's publisher pays the online costs of that game with the profits from that game. So, what's the money going toward from PS Plus? I'm just wondering.

Is it the small handful of their 1st party offerings? If so, why are people paying for that when they might not even own any of those games? Like, why should I pay for YOUR online when I don't even own the game? So no, it can't be that. Like I said before- each game's online features are paid for with the profits that game makes. So, is it party chat and video upload? No, those are just applications, nothing more. So, what exactly is it that is so expensive that we have to pay for online on a system wide level now?

Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to unfairly knock Sony or anything. I love Sony. But I call em how I see em, and I see the new paywall as nothing more than "MS does it, so we can get away with it too".



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH you are wrong. The money does NOT cover indefinite use. They calculate the average use case for a single owner and factor that into the cost. If they factored indefinite use the game would cost a good deal more. This is the problem. They factor for one owner but a used game can have any number of owners.



JaxonH said:


That would make perfect sense, but the game changing hands does not cost them a dime. And how long the game is played online (3 months vs 8 years) does not affect their cost either. Because they have to pay for the servers to be up regardless.



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH You don't think that it costs less to run servers for 3 months vs 8 years? Imagine that the majority of people that bought the game new (so the ones that "paid" for their online access) stopped playing online after two years. That means that the company could shut the servers down in two years and save six more years worth of server maintenance, online exploit patches, etc...

This is what they do. The average out the amount of time that customers will play online. Some will play for a bit over the average, some will not play at all, and very few will play it well beyond average. If their average calculations give approx two years, then they calculate that into the cost of the game. When that game is sold to another person (the developer doesnt get a penny from it) that extends the life that they averaged at two years to possibly, three or four, and then if they sell it, and another person gets it, maybe it extends it another year or two.

Its not just a small computer they have in a basement that they turn on and forget about it. There are a lot of computers, often rented from larger companies, that have to be maintained, in a game that will likely need patched for exploits well beyond its estimated lifespan. It is a real problem that the entitled masses ignores. The solution is that Gamestop (and similar) need to give a percentage of the used game sale to the developer (some small game stores do this already). Making the customer, that is not aware of the intricate details of this process, pay additional money for online access is the wrong solution.



adf86 said:

@-CraZed- I think it will do mate, Sony know they hit on something special with Plus now, that's why it's formed a cornerstone of their marketing. Yeah I couldn't believe how many games I was able to play without spending another penny, I knew about the Plus games but F2P titles as well the games I bought on previous systems were a huge bonus. To put into perspective, when I got my PS3, I only had two games to play.



JaxonH said:


I get what you're saying, but buying used games does not single-handedly account for servers staying on. Neither you nor anyone else can tell me that if it wasn't for used games, servers could be shut down after 2 years. The fact people buy games used proves that there is still interest in the game many, many years after release. People continue to buy the game new many years after the game releases too, not just used. And whenever people buy a game, they always go back and play it again. The servers would need to stay on anyways.

The whole world doesn't buy new games and play them in the first 2 years, then after that it's all people playing games they bought used. No, there are people who buy new throughout the entire generation- many games I buy new, are games that are 6, 7, 8 years old. And many will pick the game back up and play again years down the line. The servers stay on until not enough people are playing the game or the generation passes (and even then, some stay on). And there is no evidence that even remotely supports the fact that after 2 years everyone who plays the game must have bought it used. Used games are not the reason servers must stay on. I'm sorry, that's just not correct.



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH I disagree, first they make something like 90% of the lifetime profit of a game in the first three months. Even if people played the game after a few years they can scale the severs back to a small fraction because they have less paying customer (you played GameStop not them). Renting and maintaining servers is not cheap.

Its like if I fixed your car (as a business), you paid me, and I said if you ever need it fixed again (the same thing), I'll do it no charge since I roll that in the cost of the original fix. Then you sell the car to someone else and they expect to get the free fixes and they sell the car and expect to get fixes. I would be fixing you car decades from now, long after the original estimated fixing timeframe. This is actually what lifetime warranties do (they don't transfer when you sell the item)



JaxonH said:


Ok, but here's the thing. Even if 90% of the profits are made right after release, the fact still remains that however many people are playing the game in 6-8 years time, there is no evidence that suggests those people didn't buy the game new. How do you know those people all bought the game used? How can anyone know that? However many people are playing the game 6-8 years after release, that has nothing to do with buying used. Two, completely unrelated things. I've bought used games a week after release, and I've bought new games 10 years after release. When a person plays game is not indicative of how they purchased it.

It's actually more like I paid for a year's worth of rent all at once, then sublet my apartment to a friend 4 months into the lease. The rent has been paid for a full year, regardless of who's living there. So the landlord must continue to provide maintenance until that year is up. Or it's like if the government taxed you on a game you bought, then when you sell the game to someone they have to pay tax on it too. No, the tax was already paid. It gets paid once. Anything after that is double taxation. Or if I buy a car with a 100,000 mile warranty (limited, just like online access is limited time frame), then sell the car with only 20,000 miles on it. Whoever buys the car used shouldn't have to pay to gain access to the warranty. No, that was included with the original price. Whoever owns the car still has access to that warranty until 100,000 miles are reached.

Likewise, whoever buys a used game should have online access until the servers are taken down. And most to all servers are kept up until the generation is over anyways, regardless. And they make so many millions of dollars profit off a game, the meager thousands they spend on server maintenance is a drop in the bucket for them. But with charging $10 a copy for online passes, they're not just recouping costs, they're profiting 100x over. Game sells 4 million copies. And lets say, conservatively, that for every 20 new copies sold, 1 gets resold used. That's STILL $2 million profit off the online pass. And used games can sell multiple times, AND we know that a much higher ratio of games are sold used. So they're actually probably banking many millions of dollars from online passes. How is that, in any way, justified? Especially when the online server maintenance was already covered with the costs of making the game? When a game is made, they project costs for 8-10 years server maintenance. Because that's how long they'll realistically have them running. So that cost was built into development costs, and already paid off many times over by those who bought new. Online passes are just lining their pockets, stuffed to the brim.



JaxonH said:


It's cool. We've both more than clarified our positions, and I think it's evident neither of us are going to see it from the other's point of view. Rather than keep repeating ourselves, I say let's just agree to disagree, and leave it that...



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH Yeah your comparison would make sense, except you are under the impression that you paid for online play for an indefinite period which is not the case. You paid for what they consider to be the average use case. The fact that they are not explicit on the box about this (which they should be) does not change that fact. We can both agree that online passes are a horrible solution, at least, but they still need a solution.



Mickael486 said:

The Playstation brand is more positive than ever. And only more so as their most fierce competitor has once again proven how anti-consumer, arrogant, and power hungry they really are as a company. Congratulations, Sony! You have already won the next-gen console war and you did it with class.



JaxonH said:


Now that's something different, and something I can and will refute. Because if I buy a game, I can and DO play it until the servers come down. There is no "average use" for any game I've ever played. I can and DO play dozens of games for many, many, many years. Not once in my life has my online play been "cut off" due to average use. And with publishers going so far as to issue online passes, I'd find it hard to believe they have a right to revoke people's online after certain amount of time elapses, yet choose not to do so. That I've never heard of.

But in all fairness, if you're right then I'll admit that I'm wrong. I have no problem humbling myself if I'm wrong. And this is something that is either true or not true. So, if you can give me evidence, even one instance, where a publisher had the right to cut off someone's online they were using before the servers came down, meaning they did not have the right to play it longer than "average use", I will concede the point right here and now and admit I'm wrong. But, if you can't...



Tasuki said:

@charlesnarles: No I couldn't be at the midnight launch since I had to be at work at 8AM that day but I did pick it up after work that day.



thedevilsjester said:

@JaxonH just because you used it longer than average does not mean anything. That's the point in an average. People like me that never, ever, touch the online modes of a game balance out the outliers that play a game for a decade. The average user plays it for a couple years, gets bored, and moves on to the sequel or to the next similar styled game and never touches the old game again.

You miss the point. They have not cut off based on estimated average use (they cut off usually based on current player count) because they can't without a backlash BECAUSE of used game sales. People that buy the game in the first three months and are still playing it online a decade later are outliers, their use case doesn't factor in to it. That being said, they still have the right, you actually don't get online play guarantees of any sort and their EULA reflects this. I know plenty of people that bought a game and the servers were shut down within a few days of them getting the game (MAG for example).



InsertNameHere said:

@Gamer83 There's been both good and bad news, the same could be said about Microsoft and Nintendo. And sales won't slow down any time soon, even if they did, I doubt it'll matter at that point.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...