Slashdot Mirror
Sony May Charge For PlayStation Network
In an interview with IGN, Sony's VP of marketing, Peter Dille, responded to a question about the PlayStation Network by saying that the company is considering charging for the service. He said, "It's been our philosophy not to charge for it from launch up until now, but Kaz recently went on the record as saying that's something we're looking at. I can confirm that as well. That's something that we're actively thinking about. What's the best way to approach that if we were to do that? You know, no announcements at this point in time, but it's something we're thinking about." This follows news of a customer survey from last month that listed possibilities for subscription-based PSN features.
As a gamer who has made purchasing decisions based on the fact that PSN is free and Xbox Live costs money, I believe this would be a big negative for Sony at a time when they are actually making headway in the console wars. The only way I see this working out is if all the current services offered by PSN are free and these new features are optional, not essential for having a good gaming experience, and priced modestly. Otherwise, I think this will amount to Sony shooting themselves in the foot when they have momentum, just like they did with the PS2 to PS3 transition.
From a purely business perspective, MS must be making a killing on live. Sony gaming needs to make some money somehow: they're still making loss on every PS3 sold, their investment in exclusive games has produced some good games but they've all been fairly mediocre sellers, the PSPgo is a massive flop and PSN must be eating some money.
Last I read, Sony had lost more on the PS3 than the profit from PS1 and PS2 combined. That's seriously bad business.
I bought the PS3 recently, my first console since the original nintendo. The lowered price, Uncharted 2, and the free ps3 online were the top deciding factors on which console to buy, in that order.
If they started charging now. Wow. That would factor in *hugely* in my decision on what to purchase in the future.
Good luck with that Sony, Here's a bigger gun aim it at your foot.
Running the PSN network must cost big money. It kinda makes sense to have subscriptions to cover those recurring costs, instead of counting on games revenues, which are one-off, to offset them.
I'm not saying it's nice or a good think for customers, just that it is logical. Maybe game prices can go down now that games don't have to pay for the network costs, and people can choose cheaper standalone play or pay for network play if the wish.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Multiplayer is free, I couldn't care less. I don't want "Early access to content" or the like, I just want to fire up Street Fighter and get my ass handed to me. I don't want "Exclusive themes" or access to psone games I played a decade ago; I just want to be able to virtually shoot a guy in the face once in a while...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
or do they not know that you can pick up an updated xbox (refurb) for under 175 and it won't die like the eariler ones
Please repeat this to your self.
At least not multiplayer.
And it's not even so much that I have troubles using the console controllers for FPS games. It's simply that something like this isn't easy to enforce in the PC world. If anything, the maker of a certain game can enforce a "pay to play multiplayer" rule, which would basically mean for me that I can't play this game (since I won't pay to play just another FPS game online when there's a lot that are offered free), it would not mean that the platform becomes worthless altogether.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
One of the major advantages that PSN has over Xbox is the fact that the online play is free.
I actually don't play games online a lot, but it's nice that it's there, so that I can dip in and out of it. It came in VERY handy during Demon's Souls.
What would be better is if the online play remained free and Sony offered a subscription model that allowed players access to game and movie rentals.
What if, for £5 per month, you could rent one PSN game and a couple of movies? Once you'd finished playing the game, you could relinquish your "lease" on it and download another. Something like this would likely have saved the Calling All Cars servers, which were shut down because no one was playing the game!
There are lots of games on PSN that I would play, but given that they cost about £10, are non-refundable and may actually turn out to be crap, I can't justify the risk.
The movie rental feature would be a great incentive, too. PSN offers a hell of a lot of movies to rent, but given that you can actually BUY a physical copy for less (Aliens: £3 on DVD; £6.99!!!! on PSN), it's not worth it.
Also, PSN needs to make renting movies the priority over selling-to-own. There are many films on there that I would much prefer to rent than buy.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
I have no issue with paying for PSN as long as the price is reasonable. I paid for XBox Live for years, before I got rid of my XBox. $60/yr is perfect, $5/mo. That's $5m per month with 1m users (random user number). I couldn't see servers, bandwidth, datacenter, licensing, and power costs being beyond $60m per year, but then again, IANA MMO SysAd. Any more than $60, and it will fail. Maybe they could get away with a $100/yr price if they included a full Skype client, with video...maybe.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Well, if the price is reasonable and they use the extra income to improve the platform features (connection speed, connectivity, etc.) and perhaps offer more free perks (game newsletter, reviews, etc.), then it will probably be worth it.
The PSN doesn't work in my country even though I've exchanged quite a few emails over the three years I have my PS3. On multiple occasions I've been promised that "we're just about to launch the service" and nothing happened ever since. This is quite a drawback in the whole PS3 experience since I know that demo's and free content on the PSN is half the fun. I actually wanted to purchase some upgrades to one of the games I own, but since Sony wasn't really interested in my money then I sure as hell won't spend any money on the PSN should it come as a paid service.
Well, I can imagine my neighbors would hear me shouting "Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" as my PS3 sailed past their windows.
That means more customers for Nintendo and Blizzard Entertainment / Activision then...
...I might as well call it a day.
The service is cr*p (with SF4 for example is full of lag cheaters and they don't get banned), movies you can buy cost a lot as well (plus on a side note if I downaload 10 of them I exceed my 100 GB monthly max limit on my ultra-in-theory-unlimited BT account - I discovered that because of this...sigh) and are badly compressed.
And they even think to start charging people?
This is the good time I might stop buying any SONY product in future.
Cheers,
Someone will come up with an incredible concept of plug&play. Not the standard plug&login&pay&update&playEventuallyIfyouHaveTheCorrectDLC
Specifically footwear and small-arms ammunition, the latter delivered at velocity.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
but I'll wait now until they've thought this through. Maybe I'll just upgrade my PC instead.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Isn't all the info related to PSN going paid service been that the current service would remain free but all the new toys would be part of a pay service? I know everyone here like to hate on the PS3 but it's kind of pathetic.
This should be for PREMIUM only, NOT access to the service in general.
If they make it for accessing PSN and networked games, they will kill PSN.
Just because a bunch of idiots actually buy stuff on PS Home, doesn't mean to say that everyone else on PSN will subscribe to a monthly fee.
God damn, if they actually go through with this, they need to fire every single person who agreed with the decision.
Free PSN is one of the biggest attractions to PS3 for most people.
If they made it paid-for, next to Live it would pretty much be a polished turd.
This is yet another stupid decision of theirs coming back to bite them in the ass.
"Fully free" services are always a bad idea. Free access to updates and online play, and premium services for everything else, absolutely no other way.
Anything else is going to screw you over at some point, whether it is less sales due to a fully paid-for service, or losing money to a fully free service.
Microsoft actually got it right for once.
...there's a Playstation Network now? Finally, no need to invite my friends over to play games! All those harsh, awkward social interactions I've been going through these years were totally unnecessary!
I ain't payin' for nothin'
In my experience on friends consoles and the like i've noticed theres a significantly larger bunch of grifers, whiners and other anoying tards in abundance on the PSN purely because its free, having to put a few dollars a month to play on Live doesnt eliminate the problem but it really keeps a large percentage of the riff raff out of my games, and I'm all for it.
Are you absolutely sure about that? From playing on both I've found that paying for Live makes them more dedicated to griefing.
Getting their money's worth, as it were.
I think this is probably as bad if not worse.
Why would Sony make a public hint. The best way for the public to get used to the idea of charging, is to hint. This get's them a lot of free publicity and lets those that are against it vent. After things calm down some months later, then start the pay to play. There certainly will be a lot less yelling and screaming later simply because the idea has already been planted and people have vented. The public are already prepared for the inevitable thanks to the PR from the months previously.
The fact is that the game companies have always wanted to capitalize on every aspect when they rented you that purchase of your favorite game. All game companies are laying the groundwork by removing completely or now with BFC2 limiting dedicated servers. They're now making ports of games to the PC rather than creating games for the PC and porting them to consoles. Now the only games that exist are one made for the consoles. The market is now console driven with no alternative for customers to jump over to PC's for free online play.
Face the reality. Console players as a majority are sheep and always have been. Consoles have always attracted the lowest common denominator of those least computer literate. Console players accept that the game is always the same. They like the fact it never changes in how it is played and there is no added community content. They are used to having no control over their gaming fate. The console mob never had a sense of community, so never had any kind of common voice or creative element. This is exactly the type that will bend over and pay yet again.
Now that there is a captive audience that is used to the boring and mundane and are not aware of the history or an alternative, The companies have exactly what they have dreamed of. Online play is simply another avenue for generating huge revenue. As the CEO of Activision has stated clearly. His intention is to ring every last dollar out of the COD franchise and other IP. Why would Sony NOT do the same.
I'd prefer that PSN remain free, since this is a huge plus in the PS3's favor. However, the realist in me recognizes there is significant cost in Sony operating the servers and network infrastructure to support PSN on an ongoing basis. If they had to charge for it, I'm with you on these points:
However, I'm not sure I'm with you on this:
It needs to be one or the other - either charge a monthly fee for this, or leave it free. If Sony tried to come up with a mixed model for what online games require an online subscription, and which don't, it would really confuse and frustrate gamers. They don't want to do that.
Personally, I'd pay a (small) subscription fee to play online on two conditions: (1) I shouldn't have to play with 12 year olds who like to call everyone a Mexican Jew lizard; (2) I don't play online games all the time, so it would be nice to be able to buy into a month-to-month plan, or an annual plan, and I should be able to pay for both through PlayStation Store.
Do you really believe that charging a subscription fee is going to reduce the number of annoying tards? Just think about that for a second. Which is the most likely demographic to pay for online gaming subscriptions? That's right. Annoying tards.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Sony owes is loyal customers who have put up with their poor PSN network, and inferior PS3 hardware, bad 3rd party ports... etc
PS3 owners such as myself, love Sony's first party games which are incredible considering the hardware's inferiority, but really everything else has been less than stellar.
Sony needs to stop worrying about how charge fans for their pathetic PSN. Its a terrible experience with little real functionality. It is beyond underdeveloped just like the PS3 OS and online features.
Its just not worth paying for. Sony would be making a huge mistake.
I love SONY First party games... I'm a huge Fumito Ueda fan. ICO is a legendary game. God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Hot Shots Golf, MLB The Show, etc. Theres a lot of great first party Sony games... but seriously... SONY has been strugglign to play catch up ever since the PS3 launched and they're not there yet.
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213014/premium-psn-service-planned-wont-affect-online-gaming/
"Sony is considering adding a subscription-based version of the PlayStation Network, but the company denies that it will charge customers to play games online."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/sony-may-introduce-psn-subscription-model
"Especially in the online area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services." (Emphasis added.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
It's not about believing it, i didnt make it up or read it in a book :P It's just what I've noticed and friends have agreed from their experiences as well, in games like SF4 inparticular. I dont own a PS3, just play it at friends so I'm not sure how the whole account banning works etc, but I think more do live in fear of the Xbox banhammer which can get a bit out of control sometimes (particularly over usernames) but it doesnt seem to be the case on PSN or isnt enforced as much? I cant be sure on that.
Which is the most likely demographic to pay for online gaming subscriptions? That's right. Annoying tards.
Anything remotely resembling statistics to back that up? My gut feeling disagrees entirely.
If it's charge for multiplayer? meh, I'm single player only 90+% of the time
If it's charge for demos,Netflix or patches? DIAF Sony.
Gamefly like subscription to all the games on PSN? Count me in, if it's a reasonable price.
Seriously, what an absolute waste. Sony jumped in to develop this when Second Life was generating tons of (unwarranted) press.
No, there's no statistics on this, as "annoying tards" is entirely subjective, and gaming companies don't tend to keep records on this kind of thing. However, my gut instinct is that it isn't Rhodes Scholars who typically pay for online gaming.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Well, you are obviously familiar with the Xbox Live system. There's no shortage of annoying tards, is there? In fact, the online experience is mostly composed of annoying tards. So why would you assume that paying a subscription fee would reduce the number of annoying tards, when a pay-only system is mostly populated by them?
... and then they built the supercollider.
I hope they do charge for it. I'm sick and tired of being spammed with movies/games/etc every time I fire up my P3. I use it to play bluray. That's it. I have no interest in online movie rental or ps3 games. The giant thumbnail previews littered throughout XMB interface really piss me off. Don't even get me started on the ticker thing.
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
If they charge I will never buy another sony product in my entire life. That would be the absolute dirtiest trick in the book leading people on about a free service then changing it over. And advertising campaign designed to manipulate the consumer to buy the product, based on the fact that it's "does everything" is horrible. This bait and switch is the worst thing sony could do for the life of it's current console and any future consoles. Hope fully their retarded marketing team will walk up and smell the caramel macchiato or whatever the hell they drink.
In my country there is problem,
And that problem is transport.
It take very very long,
Because Kazakhstan is big.
because he assumes that little johnny who just told him to have intimate relations with a pool cue will not play online because it will cost money.
the 12 year olds just get mommy and daddy to foot the bill.
what this would hurt would be college age players who five dollars a month is the difference between having meat in their diet for a week and living on ramen.
Its probably why I see the adults\kids ratio is different playing MW2 on psn then on xbox live
I imported the Dreamcast broadband adapter, you insensitive clod!
Well yes thats kinda what i did say, there is a shortage of tards on xbox live. I dont think its a stretch to assume one tends to conduct themself with a little more decorum if they have to pay for another account when their tard ways get them banned, rather than just make a new account for free and carry on like nothing happened. Yes tards exist on both, but theres some actually penalty for tards who have been shown the door, and they tend not to return on the Xbox, which like i said, suits me just fine.
was because I wanted a blu-ray player and as an added bonus it played games and the online was free. If they started to charge for online multiple player there is no way I would pay for both the PS3 and Xbox. One would have to go... Since we are big Halo fans here I think I know which console would win.
Should the profits from blu-ray sales offset their losses? I've heard tho that blu-ray movie sales are poor as well.. I can understand why now that I have a blu-ray player. Upscaled DVD's are good enough and personally when I see a title in both DVD and Bluray at the store and the Bluray is 5-15+$ more, then I buy the DVD.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
this would destroy playstation
I bought the PS3 recently, my first console since the original nintendo. [...]
If they started charging now. Wow. That would factor in *hugely* in my decision on what to purchase in the future.
I'm sure that will matter immensely to Sony in the 2030s-2040s.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Maybe they'll surprise us and do something awesome like content streaming over PSN. So you pay your monthly fee but you get streaming content like netflix has.
But probably not.
or else!
I'd pay for PSN if it delivered pr0n.
PSN being free weighed heavily on my buying decision. If Sony wants to start charging for it fine, I'll take my refund now Sony. You sold it to me based on a free PSN- If it's not, give me my money back. Ohh and give me back my money for all the games I have purchased. I'll play my Wii more now. Thanks
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
lol @ "inferior hardware", "undeveloped ps3 OS" and pathetic attempts at grammar.
And yes the PS3 is inferior hardware. Look it up.
http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/game-types/fighting-games/street-fighter-iv-ps3-sub-hd-in-close-up-$1270459.htm
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-resident-evil-5-article
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm
EVERY game that has come out on both platforms, is able to run, and look better on the 360 due to better GPU and the additional 10MB back buffer. The 360's OS has a smaller memory footprint, and provides better functionality with online gaming. It took sony forever to get features into their OS, it was already eating up a shitload of memory and providing less functionality than the 360. Its been a slow process for Sony. They're still not there yet. Their first party games beat the shit out of anything Microsoft has ever made on the 360 though. I own both consoles, and enjoy them both for different reasons.
blah blah, your moms a cunt, and she raised an asshole.
You lost me with hardware inferiority...
really? Way to invalidate yourself.
bought one, took it apart, different heat sink mount ;-o. it's not flexing the board like the last one.
bored? try this http://jadmadi.net/blog/2005/01/27/linux-wine-how-to-running-windows-viruses-with-wine/
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
It’s length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It remove 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in world.
We invented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstan’s prostitutes cleanest in the region.
Except of course for Turkmenistan’s.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Norther fence of Jewtown.
Come grasp the mighty penis of our leader.
From junction with the testes to tip of its face!
I'm a heavy gamer and for the last couple years have played nothing but xbox dishing out my fair amount of coin for a live membership. I recently got a PS3 and one of it's best features is that I DON"T PAY for online. This was such a nice change from Microsoft's policy and if they end up changing this they are going to loose a lot of gamers to other consoles.