Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony May Charge For PlayStation Network

Posted by Soulskill on from the i'm-sure-that-will-be-popular dept.

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.

39 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. When Hell freezes over... by sumthinboutjesus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:When Hell freezes over... by sznupi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd go further - such move would be so unbelievably stupid that I can't help but suspect there's something else at play here.

      Spreading such rumors and causing a bit of an "outrage"...which has a "side effect" of spreading the message that Sony network service is free, while MS one is not?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:When Hell freezes over... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, whilst yes, the PS3 is making headway, it's coming at too big a cost to them.

      It's not clear that the PS3 is even making a profit on the hardware itself yet, certainly it wasn't even as recently as 6 months back. The PSN costs a lot to run, so they're effectively subsidising that too. This of course becomes more of a big deal when they have to fund additional features to try and keep up with XBox live but do not receive income for it like Microsoft does with Live.

      So yeah they certainly have momentum now, but it's costing them too much to be sustainable, so they have a choice of breaking even and pissing people off, or continuing to haemorrhage money in the hope that some day they will indeed be able to make it all back.

      Microsoft made the same mistake with the original XBox in that it costs them a fortune, but they learnt from it, sure they still lost money on the hardware for a while, but not so much that they couldn't get it profitable within a few years. They also realised that XBox live is a good way to help fill that gap, in that by charging for it, they're both avoiding losing money there, and making up for some of the money lost on the hardware as well as being able to use the money to fund continued development.

      Of course, I agree it's nice to have things for free, but sometimes that just isn't practical, at least in the long run. I'd wager this is why Nintendo didn't really bother with a decent online experience at all- because it would be just an additional cost for them that detracts from their profit.

    3. Re:When Hell freezes over... by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What, spreading the word that your service is free by telling people you plan to charge for it? Colour me dubious. Some people care about the cost of being online, some don't, and as far as I can tell the only affect this would have is to put off the people who were attracted to the free service because they know it can be yanked at any time.

      Sure they might do another announcement that they considered all the options and decided to stay free, but what's the likelihood that it'll get anywhere near the coverage this will - we all know that bad news sells clicks or whatever it is big media's in the market for these days.

    4. Re:When Hell freezes over... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>I believe this would be a big negative for Sony at a time when they are actually making headway in the console wars

      Yeah. I don't think they'd be as suicidal for charging for access to all multiplayer gaming, like the surcharge pirates at Microsoft impose on everyone (want to play Castle Crashers, two at my place, two at your's? Okay, pony up the money for four Gold accounts, chumps).

      If it was something like the mentioned "cloud storage space for games"... then it might be worth it. If I could upload saved games to their network, and download it at my friends house, avoiding the annoying of finding my USB drive, plugging it in, copying it, etc., that would be worth some money to me. Especially since it'd provide backup insurance for my saves in case my PS3 dies or gets stolen.

      I don't give a rat's ass about early access to demos or the other nonsensical features they test marketed to people in Europe, and I think that cross-game voice chat should be a *core fucking feature*. The state of voice chat on the PS3 is abysmal compared with how easy it is on the Xbox360.

    5. Re:When Hell freezes over... by ViViDboarder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this would be a really BAD way to let people know it's free.

      If I was just about to buy a new system and heard this I'd be like, "PS3 is free for a while now but they are going to start charging soon! Screw that."

  2. They'd be stupid not to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They'd be stupid not to by auLucifer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've heard that with the slim ps3 sony are no longer loss leading. Can I see a reference for the statement that they still are?

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    2. Re:They'd be stupid not to by hldn · · Score: 3, Informative

      LOSING. LOSING. LOSING.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    3. Re:They'd be stupid not to by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2, Informative

      My eyes are bleeding from your fractured spelling... You can spell "loss" correctly but not "losing"? "Braking even"? Really?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  3. Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Exactly. by dimeglio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally my decision was based on "is it made by Microsoft or not" and I already had a Wii. Jokes aside, the fact it had a BluRay player, wireless, and combined a very decent media player the ps/3 was for me a better choice. Free on-line network was interesting but I haven't used it much.

      I would certainly be pissed if they started charging. Bait and switch comes to mind. That would make Sony a target for criticisms and they might lose all credibility for anything they, or possible other vendors, try "for free" in the future.

      I am certain they can find better ways of monetizing their network than charging everyone for it, maybe a premium service giving you access to new games before actual release or additional services yet to be available.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    2. Re:Exactly. by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is a potential customer supposed to read any and all news articles regarding a product before purchasing?
      If Sony sells the product with "free playstation network", a customer would expect the playstation network (in it's entirety) to be and remain free.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Exactly. by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you own the previous consoles, why does every new iteration have to have backward compatability with everything that was ever released for the whole line? You're just adding cost on top of cost to support 15 year (or by the time the PS4 arrives more likely 20+ year) old technology. I agree it's nice if the current generation are supported on the next generation, it at least eases the transition when you can still play your current favourite games, but anything beyond that which is likely to add to cost or hobble the new technology in any way I can live without. I'd even sacrifice compatability with current gen games, if I'm getting a much improved product as a result. As a corporation, it doesn't make much sense to increase your costs and hobble your technology just to appease a very small number of potential customers who don't want to switch out a cable to play their old games.

      Backwards compatability is a nice to have, if you're really serious about this stuff you probably already have the consoles or you can pick them up used for next to nothing, it's definitely not a good enough reason to increase the cost to the customer or to put constraints on what developers can do with the technology, look at the mess MS got themselves into with the WIndows mantra that everything ever written for it had to be supported on the newer OS, while Apple took the approach of dropping a lot of support for old software so that they could make significant gains in the OS within a smaller time frame.

    4. Re:Exactly. by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because previous versions of the PS3 had it as a way of artificially increasing the catalog size. And they didn't really advertise the crippling of the hardware on the box either. Sure you could find the information if you looked for it, but you should be able to assume that a console can do anything that the other versions can. There shouldn't be any need to research a particular revision because the manufacturer was dickish enough to change the specs.

      From a gaming perspective the various gameboys wer completely compatible as were the GBA and GBA SP.

    5. Re:Exactly. by metamatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it upscales. It also provides you with 1:1 pixel mapping via HDMI rather than an analog video signal. In some cases you get better texture rendering.

      That said, for some games I prefer the PS2's output, so I kept mine.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    6. Re:Exactly. by duguk · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's part of what I like about the Play station as opposed to Nintendo. One console plays all my games. I have three different Nintendo systems for each set of games I have.

      You do know the Wii plays GameCube games, right? You can't really include the DS or Gameboy since they're portables, so I'm guessing you've got a SNES and a N64? =)

    7. Re:Exactly. by RobDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can debate whether or not the $50 dollars is a good deal or not, or whether or not it's a trivial cost. If you intend to own a console for six years before upgrading; the Xbox live fees have added $300 dollars to the TCO of the Xbox360.

      That may or may not be a problem for you. You might argue that the Xbox Live gives you better online features that justify the additional cost.

      That's why people consider different consoles, compare them, and ultimately decide on whichever console is a good fit.

      Regardless of how you feel about the $50 dollars; I think we can all agree that whenever console producers change the rules, we (the customers) stand to get hurt.

      It might not have been the deciding factor for you; but it could have been for someone else. Changing the rules of the purchase after the fact is always going to introduce potential problems.

      Similarly, if Microsoft were to discontinue Xbox Live - a lot of people who purchased the Xbox *because* of that service are going to be shafted.

      One of the biggest reasons I went with a PS3 was not wanting to pay another fee to play a game I already paid for, on the internet (access to which I already pay for).

  4. IT makes sense to align costs and revenues by obarthelemy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:IT makes sense to align costs and revenues by Brianech · · Score: 4, Informative

      the PSN already charges for content. It charges the PUBLISHER. Companies have to pay 16cents a gigabyte of content downloaded (demos included).

  5. As Long as... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. And people ask me why I don't play consoles by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  7. Wouldn't be worth it. by bhunachchicken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  8. Who's hosting the Game? Sony or Publisher/Dev? by Amigori · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here's how I see it:
    • Playstation Home? Charge for it. I used it a few times when I first signed up, but it doesn't really do anything. I'm sure the costs outweigh the virtual trinkets and mini games they sell.
    • Playstation Store? Access needs to be free. Any store costs should be included in the price of the game/movie/tv show/theme pack/etc. Plus, on the movies side, it costs enough already to rent or buy movies.
    • Multiplayer Games? Who is hosting the server? EA, R*, etc? The hosting cost should be figured into the price of the game. Or they (Pub/Dev) charge a separate subscription fee. Sony hosting the server? Charge for it, XBox Live style.

    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
    1. Re:Who's hosting the Game? Sony or Publisher/Dev? by emanem · · Score: 2, Informative

      The SONY PSN I think is mostly used to act as a STUN starter, but then games are mostly hosted locally, so they save bandwidth.
      At least I think this is true for games like SF4, where apparently they don't/can't do anything for cheaters because they can't (read don't give a sh*t) spot them...
      But this is my guess.
      Cheers,

    2. Re:Who's hosting the Game? Sony or Publisher/Dev? by DrXym · · Score: 3, Informative
      Playstation Home? Charge for it.

      Home is festooned with adverts, sponsored zones and as you say trinkets for $$$. It's already commercialized enough and charging for it would be stupid.

      Personally I think Sony have plenty of means of keeping online free and making money. They're already doing lots of them - pushing PSN, selling / renting videos, premium avatars & themes, advertising, qore etc. They could add to that model with IPTV, game rentals (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly etc.), streaming music & video, network storage & game load/saves etc. There is no reason that they should have to charge for any functionality that the PS3 already offers.

  9. Reasonable price & improved functionality by EspressoFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  10. Not working in my country anyways by jamlc1m · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  11. The effect of Paying for PSN? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I can imagine my neighbors would hear me shouting "Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" as my PS3 sailed past their windows.

    1. Re:The effect of Paying for PSN? by Imrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't be silly, obviously he means his PS3 can operate a boat.

    2. Re:The effect of Paying for PSN? by godfra · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you would literary throw your PS3 out the window

      Verily, this Playstation has become a financial burden of prodigious proportions, therefore I promulgate now, that I shall have no more to do with it, and plan to dispense with the economically burdensome device forthwith!

      With that being said, I bid you good day Sir!

  12. Oh, good... by ButtercupSaiyan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That means more customers for Nintendo and Blizzard Entertainment / Activision then...

    1. Re:Oh, good... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That means more customers for Nintendo and Blizzard Entertainment / Activision then...

      You are really using Blizzard as an example of a non-pay for multiplayer company?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  13. If I have to pay... by emanem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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,

    1. Re:If I have to pay... by socsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't blame PSN for problems with BT. Problems with your service provider don't reflect on the content provider. Do you blame your auto company when the roads are closed?

  14. I forsee a meeting of products, here by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Specifically footwear and small-arms ammunition, the latter delivered at velocity.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  15. You're telling me... by gaelfx · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...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!

  16. I wont buy a PS3 until PSN is subscription based. by Mr+Stubby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  17. For "Premium" features, not the base stuff!!!! by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Informative
    The charges would be for new and extra features. Not what it already does.

    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!