Slashdot Mirror


Sony To Detail "Premium PSN" Plans At E3

ranulf writes "VG247 is reporting that Sony will reveal their plans for 'premium PSN' services next month at E3, even though they've long stated that one of the PS3's advantages over the 360 is that they offer PSN for free. In addition to the premium services, they intend to offer a free PSN game to subscribers each month (from a choice of 'two to four games'), which should make the premium PSN effectively free if you already bought a game every month. VG247's source claims 'nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects,' and that 'there’s nothing in the premium package which will gimp regular PSN users.'"

171 comments

  1. Sounds Ok by H0D_G · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sounds good, especially if you get to pick the PSN title

    --
    Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
    1. Re:Sounds Ok by anss123 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sounds good, especially if you get to pick the PSN title

      Sounds like a "book of the month" club to me. Just with games and no option to send games you don't want back.

    2. Re:Sounds Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but it'll only be a matter of time before SONY, those lieing cheat bastard fucks, arbitrarily start disabling aspects of it. Honestly, how naive would you have to be to spend anything on a SONY product, at this point?

    3. Re:Sounds Ok by Inconexo · · Score: 1

      Imparing free PSN users would be like removing a feature. SONY would never do such a thing.

    4. Re:Sounds Ok by AkumaKuruma · · Score: 1

      wel good thing I dont have to worry about that with the linux install on my PS3....oh wait.......

    5. Re:Sounds Ok by Jae686 · · Score: 1

      okay...

    6. Re:Sounds Ok by Edisman · · Score: 0

      When reading anything written by Sony, like specs, features, news etc. I have started adding 'for now' after each sentence.

      "PSN free won't change. For now."

      "Yes, you can install Linux on it. For now."

      "We will remove the DRM on audio CDs. For now."

      and so on and so forth.

    7. Re:Sounds Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because MS is the pillar of trust in the commun.ahahah sorry can't even type it all out.

      Nintendo? I guess if we were all 12, or wanted shitty exercise equipment.

    8. Re:Sounds Ok by schm0 · · Score: 1

      Hey AC, you wouldn't happen to be one of the small minority of users who are still miffed about the removal of the other OS/backwards PS2 compatibility, would you? :) Don't get me wrong, what Sony did with that is certainly devious and a bad business decision. But let's not extrapolate this to mean that it's the status quo for all services Sony offers, including an as of yet unannounced official service that has rumored features.

    9. Re:Sounds Ok by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      Sony has a rather long history of screwing people over, the linux/ps3 thing was just the latest example, and thus tends to be on top of the pile when people go for examples of sony being lying cheating thieving bastards (remember the audio-cd rootkits?)

      anyway, anyone who trusts sony further then they can throw em (and i dont mean a ps3, i mean the corporate HQ), gets what they deserve

      Also:

      *Points at ps3 fanboys screaming over free internet functions* HA-HA!

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    10. Re:Sounds Ok by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      the removal of the other OS/backwards PS2 compatibility

      The former was dropped as a feature from new machines, and then effectively removed from everyone's machine. The latter has only been dropped as a feature (to date anyway), not removed from anyone's existing machine.

    11. Re:Sounds Ok by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Nintendo? I guess if we were all 12, or wanted shitty exercise equipment.

      Spoken like a true 14-year-old.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    12. Re:Sounds Ok by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      You know, you're right. Neither Microsoft nor Nintendo are perfect, so I should just shut up and accept whatever assfucking Sony decides I deserve. After all, they're awesome! Right?

    13. Re:Sounds Ok by shnull · · Score: 1

      so, IF you bought a game every month you pay as much for the free service as you would have before, that is IF one of the free games happens to be the one that you would have bought ... seems very unlikely that they will be offering flagship games for free ... more like what game do you want this month ? farmville or pacman ?

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  2. Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned out by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once upon a time, long ago there existed a service called Xbox Live. It was free and children played hapily, until the EVIL LORD GATES decided that he would monetise the service and the free version went away if you wanted to play on line.

    The same thing will happen to the PSN, first they'll start by adding new features only for "Premium" subscribers just as MS only added new features for "Gold" subscribers. After a while Sony will start taking away features from the free service whilst maintaining them on the "Premium" service. Little features at first, hardly noticeable, a form of slow attrition. Then before you know it, there is no functionality left. Game publishers like EA and Activision will jump right on board making their games playable only over "Premium" subscriptions. Now Sony has the numbers on the Playstation 3 they will start to monetise it, to bleed money from their existing customer base as sales are bound to drop off.

    It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

    Why doesn't Slashdot have a Star Wars opening credits formatting option?

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by neoprint · · Score: 2, Informative

    When has Xbox Live ever been free? I'm sure I've been paying for it since 2003

  4. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by mjwx · · Score: 1

    When has Xbox Live ever been free? I'm sure I've been paying for it since 2003

    Launched in November 2002 there were two levels of subscription, Xbox Live Silver and Xbox Live Gold, the Silver subscription was free but fairly useless (I think it's still around but no-one acknowledges its existence any more). Microsoft was pretty quick to Monetise XBL.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Mike+Mentalist · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Once upon a time, long ago there existed a service called Xbox Live. It was free and children played hapily, until the EVIL LORD GATES decided that he would monetise the service and the free version went away if you wanted to play on line

    Xbox Live was not free on the original Xbox. On the 360 they changed it so you only had to pay if you wanted to play online.

    Bang goes your boring conspiracy story.

    It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me

    As a generic gamer who quite happily plays on the PC and game consoles without any problem it seems ridiculous to me that people purposefully restrict themselves over small details like this.

    --
    I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
  6. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why doesn't Slashdot have a Star Wars opening credits formatting option?

    That option is only available to premium Slashdot subscribers.

  7. Sony can't be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction, but Sony still hasn't won my trust back over the retroactive removal of the Install Other OS feature from already-bought PS3s. I really should have learned better than to trust them after the rootkit fiasco, too. Now that they have twice demonstrated their willingness to sabotage their customers' private property in order to protect their own business model, it's absurd to think that I or any self-respecting geek would want to do business with them any more.

    1. Re:Sony can't be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I am getting enough of Sony's lies and existing service reduces. I have bought Playstations from 1 to 3, one PSP and quite some games but with current Sony attitude against gamers, I will not get any more of them. Luckily there are still two alternatives. Good luck, Sony, I bet one day other people get enough of you too.

    2. Re:Sony can't be trusted by dmiller · · Score: 1

      Sony has managed to lose my trust too. I was a very happy customer of PS1-3, but the retroactive otheros thing has put me right off. I rarely used Linux once I installed it, but that they were willing to retrospectively nuke an advertised feature of their product clearly demonstrated to me that they do not put the customer first. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do start crippling the PSN for non-paying customers.

      The dumbest thing about the OtherOS removal is that it is probably not even going to help. Now that the hypervisor has been cracked enough to obtain memory dumps, it is far more likely that further hacking is going to rely on bugs that are found in the hypervisor software itself. These will probably be reachable by any application running on the system that takes user or network input. Think that every savegame loader is foolproof? How about that dinky web browser? Nuking OtherOS just pissed off loyal customers and bought them very little.

    3. Re:Sony can't be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That aside... it's either Sony or Microsoft right now for "high end" gaming. (PC = Microsoft) So, in a way, I HAVE to accept Sony's quirks so that Microsoft doesn't totally monopolize gaming any more than it already does. It's unfortunate and I feel like I'm voting for the least worst candidate... just like every time I go to the polls.

    4. Re:Sony can't be trusted by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Sony has managed to lose my trust too. I was a very happy customer of PS1-3, but the retroactive otheros thing has put me right off. I rarely used Linux once I installed it, but that they were willing to retrospectively nuke an advertised feature of their product clearly demonstrated to me that they do not put the customer first. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do start crippling the PSN for non-paying customers.

      The dumbest thing about the OtherOS removal is that it is probably not even going to help. Now that the hypervisor has been cracked enough to obtain memory dumps, it is far more likely that further hacking is going to rely on bugs that are found in the hypervisor software itself. These will probably be reachable by any application running on the system that takes user or network input. Think that every savegame loader is foolproof? How about that dinky web browser? Nuking OtherOS just pissed off loyal customers and bought them very little.

      How true. My PS3 doesn't go on PSN anymore (and for an unrelated reason, I had to backup my Linux data anyways to reformat the hard disk - this was the weekend before the OtherOS removal was announced). But I guess the only thing I can play on it now are single player games (working through Heavy Rain again, then God Of War 1/2/3, then FF XIII), which is fine since I never really saw the appeal of PSN. It had a couple of freebies I grabbed, but that's it. Given I refuse to give Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo my credit card (which has changed enough times the past few years, meant another hassle), I use points cards, and those $20 PSN cards never go on sale (duh. $20), while the Xbox ones do as do the Wii ones (Xbox you can usually find a 10% discount somewhere, and a 25% does show up now and again every few months).

      Hey, if Sony really doesn't want me as a customer, fine by them. Multiplayer I don't care about PSN (my friends all have Xboxes anyhow), and I guess I won't be buying special editions of games for PS3 anymore if I can't get the extra content. (Sony - I bought the Limited Edition God of War 3. I also bought the Alan Wake Collector's yesterday. If you don't want me to spend more money on games for PS3, you can just say so rather than doing it the passive-aggressive way).

      That, and I guess I won't buy anymore PS3 games since they won't run on my PS3. And no 3D blu-ray. Guess it'll just be a Blu-Ray player from now on.

      Then again, I guess between geohot and Dark_Alex, a CFW for PS3 might get me back into the game and buying PS3 stuff. Linux, an ISO loader, enhanced media playback...

    5. Re:Sony can't be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can vote for neither, go find non-computer entertainment. to replace that "better of two evils" environment altogether.

    6. Re:Sony can't be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh give me a fucking break, douchebag. You never used that feature anyway. The asshole you have to thank for Sony's removing that feature is the prick who reverse engineered a tiny piece of the PS3's hypervisor. THAT'S why Sony removed the Other OS feature-- not the be dicks, but to protect their platform from eventual piracy.

  8. "Effectively" is rather subjective by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they intend to offer a free PSN game to subscribers each month (from a choice of 'two to four games'), which should make the premium PSN effectively free if you already bought a game every month

    That depends entirely on what games they give away as the free options. I've not got a PS3 and not seen the PSN (why waste money on a cut-down computer that isn't even as good as the real thing?) but if you buy the best game from the PSN each month then I doubt that it would be the one that they put in the list of freebies. Chances are it'll be some fairly naff one or a middle of the range one that they just want to increase the numbers on without giving away anything they could make good money on.

    1. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by iwannasexwithyourmom · · Score: 0, Insightful

      (why waste money on a cut-down computer that isn't even as good as the real thing?)

      awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.
      I don't have the latest-greatest $600 graphics card Nvidia is selling, but I would imagine I'd have to pay that much(or more) to get an experience similar to the PS3. I currently own a card that is about $100 on the current market (was $300 when I bought it), and I simply can't play games like Mass Effect and Far Cry if I crank the graphics up. PS3 provides a consistant (and awesome) experience for me, every time I turn it on.

    2. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by grrowl · · Score: 1

      It's more likely the PS3 is more powerful than your PC

    3. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.

      You don't have to upgrade your PC to keep playing games at the same quality; 'Full quality' on a console is the same quality, so it's no different from a PC.

    4. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.

      Well, there's your problem. Your full quality on the PS3 is the same as mainstream quality on the PC. But since you know that it is possible to get better quality on the PC you feel that you are missing out on something.

      I currently own a card that is about $100 on the current market (was $300 when I bought it), and I simply can't play games like Mass Effect and Far Cry if I crank the graphics up.

      Well don't crank the graphics up. Leave it at mainstream settings and you will get your PS3 experience. The advantage of the PC is that if you decide to play a game again in a few years time then you will get improved visuals due to the advances in graphics and CPU. But in my opinion the improvements are not compelling enough to warrant spending hundreds more on a top of the range video card right now.

    5. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if you often only have two choices then it's likely that at least some of the time the free options aren't even in genres you're interested in. For me, a mediocre puzzle game is better than nothing but a slightly better than average football game has absolutely no value to me. If I had the option of choosing between two football games I probably wouldn't even bother downloading any at all. I have pretty eclectic tastes but I could easily come up with at least 4-5 types of games that I really have no interest in, even if it was free.

    6. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be, but because it can't be used for much without the other OS feature, the CPU and hardware stats are completely worthless to me.

      Because of this, the PS3 could have a 6502 CPU, or a 120 core array of POWER8s. Neither I can take advantage of, so hardware stats on this console are absolutely meaningless.

    7. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PC drones refuse to acknowledge that most games aren't even released on the PC anymore. I can't get Red Dead Redemption, God of War 3, Alan Wake, Little Big Planet, Uncharted 2, Demon's Souls, Zelda, Mario or most of the other great new games on the PC. The number of interesting new games available for the PC is dwindling and it's practically non-existent outside of the FPS and RTS genres.

    8. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you expect Sony or Nintendo exclusives to be released on the PC? Really? I can see about Alan Wake (as we were promised it was a PC game) and GoW 3, but it's not our fault that there are no "interesting" new games for the PC. That is the fault of the developers.

    9. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Amarantine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but if you got an Xbox 360, you can't play God of War or Mario. If you got a Playstation, you can't play Alan wake or Zelda. If you have a Wii, you can't play Little Big Planet or Halo. It's true that most interesting titles are for consoles these days, but to play *all* of the interesting titles, you need 3 consoles. If you only have 1 console (and many people do), even then there is no guarantee you can play all console-exclusive titels, since one console != another console.

    10. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who gives a fuck who's "fault" it is?

    11. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      'Full quality' on a console is the same quality, so it's no different from a PC.

      Actually, because of standardised hardware, the game can be optimised graphically, so it's not really the same thing.

    12. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by spyder913 · · Score: 1

      Yeah not like back in the day, when I used to play Zelda and Mario on my 486 since Nintendo was so willing to release PC versions of their exclusives back then!

    13. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by adolf · · Score: 1

      I've played Fallout 3 on both the PS3, and my reasonably-spec'd desktop system.

      It's far prettier on the PC. Until it crashes, anyway. Why does it crash? Dunno - it only ever crashes with that game, otherwise the machine goes for weeks between (planned) reboots. It's not overclocked. It's appropriately cooled. So, I can research the problem on forums and/or play Driver Upgrade/Sidegrade/Downgrade Whack-a-Mole, and eventually it might get fixed (or it might get worse, or break something else that previously was working OK). Or, I guess I can learn to get used to saving my game frequently to avoid losing game progress when it crashes.

      Better, though: I can step out to the living room, pop the Fallout 3 disc into the PS3, and just...you know, use it.

      Easy as pie.

    14. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by iwannasexwithyourmom · · Score: 0

      You don't have to upgrade your PC to keep playing games at the same quality; 'Full quality' on a console is the same quality, so it's no different from a PC.

      That being said, the quality on my console is orders of magnitude greater than on my PC.
      Further, whenever they make new games for my console, they will always look this good, because they were written for this hardware. New games coming out for PC will be built to use the latest and greatest hardware, and if you don't have it, you're not experiencing the game the way the developers intended. Depending on how far they went (or didn't go) to optimize the game for lesser-quality hardware, you may be stuck with a version that looks bad/is buggy/etc...

    15. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by iwannasexwithyourmom · · Score: 0

      thanks for the -1 disagree.

    16. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.

      You don't have to upgrade your PC to keep playing games at the same quality; 'Full quality' on a console is the same quality, so it's no different from a PC.

      That depends vastly on the developers. Crysis comes to mind.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    17. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who this "your" you're referring to is, but it sure as hell isn't more powerful than MY PC.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    18. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      It's far prettier on the PC. Until it crashes, anyway. Why does it crash? Dunno - it only ever crashes with that game, otherwise the machine goes for weeks between (planned) reboots.

      So what you're saying is that your pc is perfectly adequate for gaming except when you try to get the steaming turd that is Fallout 3 to run?

      (For the record: with the latest patches I haven't seen any issues with F3 on my machine anymore)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    19. Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective by adolf · · Score: 1

      I guess so, yes.

      At least, that's the problem worth naming this week. It's certainly not the first issue I've ever experienced in more than twenty years of PC gaming.

  9. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Negatyfus · · Score: 2, Informative

    As far as I know, you could never play online with a Silver subscription. So what's changed? Nothing. They did not "slowly take away" features on Xbox Live. If anything, they *added* features. But yeah, paying for online play is a pain (but it still offers a little more than just your typical dedicated server in the PC world).

  10. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Tukz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

    I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.
    And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.

    I think this idea, on paper, is great. Add new features and services, but only available to paying customers as opposed to the current PSN where everyone is roaming free for "basic" services (buy games, download trials, play online etc).

    If people want some of the more exotic features, you pay a subscription. You don't have to, it won't cripple your current experience.
    If Sony manages to keep this strategy, I really can't see a problem with it.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  11. Playstaitions main touted advantages by stealth_finger · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    1) Other OS - gone
    2) Free online - about to go
    3) blu ray - more than likely going to die as a format before its time as DD takes over.

    So yeah what are the chances of a healthy price drop to go with it. Slim is my guess.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Playstaitions main touted advantages by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      If we let Blu-Ray die, then we're all fools.

      Digital Distribution of video sucks. As of now, now service, be it cable, satellite, netflix, etc can deliver anywhere near the same quality of video as on a bluray disc. They all decompress their movies into very low bitrates that do not hold up well under fast motion, and are barely passable with low motion.

      I will ALWAYS opt for the Blu-Ray disc. If I want to own a movie... I want the highest bitrate possible, so that the video quality is what it should be.

    2. Re:Playstaitions main touted advantages by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Satelite can deliver HD quality images. Cable proably can to (dont have it here) netflix is streaming so obviously that wont deliver blu ray quality. I just think the cost of blu ray is overall prohibitive. You may demand the highest quality regardless but whos to say you cant download that quality? You can download qualitys higher that blu ray if you have a display capable of it. I just think a media server is the best way to go and is the way johnny as-little-effort-as-possible is going to go for it. A big HD and suitable connection is much cheaper than a blu-ray player. Price+convinence really puts DD at a winner. And thats direct download. Not streaming. Of course the companies can easily fuck it up with drm issues etc but thats besides the point. My point anyway.

      If you really want the highest quality to watch movies as they should be, you should be on film and projector. More resolution than you could possibly need there.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Playstaitions main touted advantages by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      You simply cant download bluray bitrate files in realtime for viewing. Most blu-rays video streams are 40GB in size, which a very high bitrate.

      The HD movies that get streamed on TV, Netflix, Video On Demand, Xbox Live, etc.. are all very low bitrate, and much smaller file sizes because they compress their videos heavily.

      they compress them so heavily that fast motion scenes break down the image quality severely, often obscuring the actually action on screen. Often you can see "floating" peices in the motion in even low motion scenes, as the compression is so low.

      See the thing about digital delivery of videos, you're at the mercy of the providers bandwidth usage cost. They dont want to spend the money for the bandwidtht o provide you a video on par with a bluray. And its not just the provider... Its your own broadband services etc. Theres a lot of "business" that gets in the way of image quality. On sattalites, its lack of bandwidth on the sattelites themselves... All Sat TV providers and cable providers compress some channels more than others to squeeze in all of their channels into their bandwidth. Now what also happens is the channels that provide them that video... ALSO compress their video to meet their own bandwidth limitations...

      You're getting a compressed image that will never be on par with a blu-ray.

  12. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by SCPRedMage · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're full of shit. When Live first launched, there was no Silver and Gold, only subscribers. The Silver and Gold levels weren't introduced until the 360 launched in 2006, and you have NEVER been able to play online with a Silver subscription, outside of a promo weekend deal.

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  13. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Yeah. live has always had the paid for model, it might've been free on beta but i'm pretty sure you still had to buy the pack.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  14. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by SCPRedMage · · Score: 4, Informative

    I should probably add to that, the original Live was NEVER, at any point, FREE. If you wanted to play online with an original XBox, you had to either pay, or use tunneling software software like XBConnect or X-Link.

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  15. Classic sony ps3 move. by dadelbunts · · Score: 0, Troll

    I still remember when they said vibration/rumble was stupid and no one would need it. Then they came out with new dualshock. They touted the wii controller as a stupid gimmick they didnt need even tho they had sixaxis, and now they are coming out with that ice cream cone wiimote. I wonder what stupid worthless idea they will start using next.

    1. Re:Classic sony ps3 move. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Yeah they said the same about achievements. Then came out with their trophies.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:Classic sony ps3 move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this actually reminds me of some one else....

      Apple's Steve Jobs also said "Copy and paste is bad" yet they implemented a crappy awkward copy and paste feature recently...

      Note: my comment is towards iPhone/iPod...

      As far as PS3 premium.... i'll wait and see. If I find it worth it, ill take it, if not... well I don't really play online anyway because I lack time(school).

    3. Re:Classic sony ps3 move. by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      How was this a troll comment?

    4. Re:Classic sony ps3 move. by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      It didn't fit into the moderator's world view, so it clearly MUST be a troll.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
  16. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Online gameplay over the Xbox Live service has never been free. When the 360 came out, they introduced a free level of service (the 'silver' membership), but it's never included gameplay.

  17. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

    It's Sony.

    If this comment was about IBM, Shell, BP, or even Microsoft I could somehow, in some weird alternate universe put aside my all too useful cynicism and give them the benefit of the doubt.

    But it's Sony, one of the most anti-consumer companies ever to exist.

    If people want some of the more exotic features, you pay a subscription. You don't have to, it won't cripple your current experience.
    If Sony manages to keep this strategy

    I just can't see that happening. I reckon the PS3 hardware sales are going to level off, it's a natural thing for this to happen after a while and it will/has happended to the Wii and Xbox360 (and all products really) so it's a logical assumption that Sony wants to start monetising it's existing user base.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  18. Sign me up! by khchung · · Score: 1

    ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

    As it is, even when playing mature rated games, there are still far too many immature kids in the game, either griefing outright, or in other ways to spoil the fun for everyone, and in general unable to behave with minimal civility that most adult typically show, even when online.

    Although the design of PSN and the games already shielded it somewhat (eg lack of global chat, only voice chat within squad with mute function, so we don't have to see/hear the incessant crap talk), in game griefing/annoying behaviour is still somewhat unavoidable (eg camping in own team's base and destroying vehicles as they spawn, or destroying vehicles because another teammate will reach it first).

    If the premium for pay network has fewer kids there, and the price is modest, I will sign up in a snap. Better service for more money (ie not for better hardware spec or higher machine power, but just better usage experience), I know this is difficult concept for some people here, but lots of normal people think it could be worth it.

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:Sign me up! by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games

      Don't worry, you won't.

    2. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you've ever used the Xbox Live system.. but that is a for-pay system that doesn't keep any fucking irritating douchebag from paying money to grief you. Or talking shit with a voice that sounds like he's in a helium-rich environment.

      Any for-pay PSN that keeps Dougie Douchebag off it is probably going to come at a price that will keep you off of it, too. Dougie, after all, has a mommy and daddy that already dropped serious cash on the PS3 and the game. And very probably the tv it is being played on.

    3. Re:Sign me up! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

      As it is, even when playing mature rated games, there are still far too many immature kids in the game, either griefing outright, or in other ways to spoil the fun for everyone,

      13-15 year olds have the buying power. No joke. You lose. Better resign yourself to those 12 year old kids kicking your ass at Tekken.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All gaming networks should allow you to pick an age range and they should verify age when signing up.

      Both services; the PSN and XBOX Live are spoilt by the odd idiot. You should be able to blacklist people and then never have to play with them again.

      Don't think a small fee will stop the idiots - we need to be able to blacklist (not just messages, but gaming partners on any online game).

      As for charging for online gaminig, it's just wrong in my opinion, unless there is a lot more content that is continually updated (to add value). Every business would love a subscription as it's a regualr income, but you'd have to be a little bit crazy to pay given that PC gaming and PS3 are free.

      People complaining about kids should just move to PC gaming. Nowdays the hardware is not much more than a PS3 (compared to what it was when the PS3 came out). Of course this stops many kids, as it not as easy to setup and use as a console so they can't just turn it on an expect it all to work.

    5. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seems to be just as many jerks in HS and college.

    6. Re:Sign me up! by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

      What you're essentially asking for is to play with other people who pay money for the regular experience. The stiff white geezers at country clubs all know too well about this.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    7. Re:Sign me up! by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      You should be able to blacklist people and then never have to play with them again.

      On XBox Live you can "avoid" specific players, and it won't pick a game with them in it when you jump in a random game. I'm not sure if it will prevent them from being placed in a game you're already in, but hey, at least it's halfway there.

      Also, you can always mute the little racist bastard...

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
  19. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why should they [ed: remove free online play]? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still.

    So was "Install Other OS".
    The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over, expecting different results. I do *not* buy Sony anymore. Betamax, Minidisc, the CD Rootkit Fiasco, PS3 "Install Other OS", and probably a bunch more that I am forgetting now. Giving Sony the benefit of the doubt is *insane*.

  20. Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by achurch · · Score: 1

    I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

    We tried that when they released the slim PS3 without Other OS support ("don't worry, they won't take it away from current PS3s"). Look how that turned out.

    1. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, some retard with a recent history of breaking the iPhone, targeted the PS3 OtherOS feature and explicitly threatened to bankrupt Sony's source of console revenue?

      Yeah, how outrageous!

      If Sony had abandoned the PS3 instead because it was a failed device, and focused development on the PS4, your response would be: "Oh, look, Evil Sony doesn't freely support me anymore!"

    2. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

      Gee, it's not like they could release an update with a security patch. You know, like every other computer manufacturer or software vendor in existence. And how serious was this threat? It was so serious that anyone with an electronics background, a soldering gun, and a special version of the patched software could work the hack. In other words, very, very few people. Sony decided to piss off their customers instead, so they do not get the benefit of the doubt.

    3. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A security patch for what? How you patch a hardware design flaw? When someone exploits the HV, and by consequence discovers the root key -- enabling piracy -- how does patching the hole that allowed HV access fix anything? It doesn't, because HV access is unnecessary. The only appropriate response in this case is to remove the custom OS support entirely; it's too dangerous and was extremely short-sighted on Sony's part.

    4. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes is a few, then we will have another PSP situation. They ain't going to let that happen again.

      They really should release a patch to fix the security problem - assuming it's fixable at all.
      Then again will it be worth the trouble? How many people actually care?
      How will the performance be with the new software layers to protect the Cell?

    5. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every other console in existence can be modded to play copies of games, but if the same thing happened to the PS3 it would utterly and irrevocably destroy its profitability? Try to stay in the real world with the rest of us, rather than Sony's ridiculous horseshit PR world.

    6. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the hardware capabilities of the PS3 are still being realized to this day, piracy ability will certainly reduce its lifespan. 360 has largely reached its peak. Development for PS3 cannot be described as anything but surging. Introduce an exploit that kills publisher revenue, and you have little motive to develop for an additional alien and lesser-available platform. Why do you think later PS3 games are forcing firmware version?

    7. Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break, the Wii is the easiest console to hack, and yet it's still the best selling and the games from Nintendo at least still sell quite well on it.

      Also, the state of that hack against the PS3 had no implications for being able to run pirated games, so put down the crack pipe.

  21. Not fussed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not fussed, stopped updating when they dropped the OtherOs support, so I've already been booted off PSN, long live Sony!

  22. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Dudibob · · Score: 1

    No Sony would never degrade the free online multiplayer as it's a huge selling point just like the other OS option is a huge selling point, oh wait...

  23. Lets not be cheap here by dafing · · Score: 1

    As a consumer I resent this, but cmon. There *IS* a cost to having servers running 24/7. I loved playing Battlefield Bad Company (1) with my friend, we must have racked up a COUPLE HUNDRED hours playing it online, and we were almost always on full teams of 12 a side, 24 in total. What does that cost? Certainly more than what he paid for his secondhand copy of the game! I paid full price, but even $120 NZD (~$85 USD) for the game is not really that much with development costs on top of A COUPLE HUNDRED HOURS playing it online.

    It reminds me of my student friends who have always grown up using P2P and Bit Torrent to download music, now movies, games. They complain that hit songs on iTunes cost a whopping COUPLE BUCKS NZ. The kind of money you can find between couch cushions, even at a student flat. They always say "it should cost less, if it were 20cents a song I'd buy it". Yeah right, so all those top notch (or not, depending on your view of current music!) producers and "musicians" should work for free? They should make the final sale price go from $2 for hours of their work, to 20 cents? But then you'd just complain that it should be FIVE cents!

    I'm 22, I feel that as an adult, there comes a time when you have to stop whining over a buck or two here, or ten dollars a month, whatever something like this *MIGHT* end up costing. "Value for Value", my friends have all gotten many, MANY hours of entertainment out of this single game, why shouldnt the companies get a steady drip of a few bucks to help out with costs? We never had a problem with one of us paying $6 NZD (~$4USD) a month for unlimited calls (and txts) to a cellphone number so we could always talk while playing.

    I'm a consumer, I dont have a well paying job, I'd rather *everything* was free online! But the fact is, there are COSTS, and if I enjoy the end result, whats a couple bucks? And dont give me the old "boiling a frog slowly so it doesnt notice" routine, not only because I like animals, but because its not like "we give in to paying a whole two bucks a month, and then its 20 bucks a month, and then its 100 a month, and then its your firstborn..."

    There are costs to providing us all with entertainment, 24/7, worldwide. We are all (mostly) adults, whats a couple bucks to you for all those hours of enjoyment?

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    1. Re:Lets not be cheap here by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      sure there are costs but you have no idea what they are, what the profit margin is and if they even lose that much money running servers, so you point is pretty much moot.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    2. Re:Lets not be cheap here by dafing · · Score: 1

      Well, what do you think it costs to have a single server running for a couple hundred hours? In terms of power, and bandwidth. I know that in NZ, we have bandwidth caps (for home and business plans generally), I get 10GB of internet use a month. After that, and 10GB goes by quickly, I am reduced to about 10KB per second, its inhumane!

      My point is, its different when you buy a game like Metal Gear Solid (ignoring MGO like most people) for 120 NZD, and play it just for the singleplayer, and buying another game for the same 120 NZD, and *also* costing the company in terms of servers for a couple hundred hours of multiplayer!

      Servers dont provide themselves, if I had to pay a couple bucks a month, why bother getting upset?

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    3. Re:Lets not be cheap here by Apotekaren · · Score: 1

      Well it's the developer's problem. They decided that control over the future availability of online play through their servers(= cripple service in time for next sequel) is more valuable than saving costs by providing players with software for dedicated servers.

      --
      She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
    4. Re:Lets not be cheap here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, now here's part of the problem in mindset, let's see if we can spot this, okay?

      "As a consumer I resent this, but cmon. There *IS* a cost to having servers running 24/7."

      Did we catch it? No? Okay, how about we focus a bit more, eh?

      "As a consumer...."

      Right there. Look, you are not a consumer, you are an XBL -customer- darn it. I fully agree there is cost involved, and they have a legitimate right to compensation, but as a CUSTOMER, you have a right to get the service you contractually agreed to and are paying for. When a company such as Microsoft or Sony starts to arbitrarily change the contract terms (yes, it's a EULA, but the key here in this case I think is the -Agreement- aspect) without notification, or compensation for your time, hassle, financial investment, then the Agreement is no longer a business deal, but then becomes little more than a shakedown.

      No self respecting CUSTOMER would/ should tolerate ABUSE by any merchant. Vote with your wallet, take your patronage somewhere else.

    5. Re:Lets not be cheap here by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      couple of reasons: 1. it means there will be less people online, meaning the overall online experience will be worse 2. sure you can say that the $2 a month is for online, but it's all just money. the $2 a month could just go straight to new porshes for the managing directors.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    6. Re:Lets not be cheap here by dafing · · Score: 1

      I'm a Playstation fan from Day One, but I think its fair to say that Xbox Live has *ALWAYS* been "better" than Sony's offerings. I may not like the interface, design, hardware....of the Xbox 360, but its just a given that it has the better online services. And get this, *gasp* it has a paid service widely used! :)

      You could argue the same about game prices, "waaa, games should cost ~10% less because at this current price its all profit going towards buying Porsches". Do you expect Sony and Co. to turn over their bank statements to every customer? So we can see exactly what they buy?

      C'mon, lets not be cheap here, if better online capabilities cost a COUPLE BUCKS A MONTH, who are we to whine?

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    7. Re:Lets not be cheap here by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      you're absolutely right, i think games are too expensive, but i think it's easier to tell them to get stuffed rather than paying an extra $2 per game per month than it is to get them to drop their prices by %10. as it is i pretty much only buy my games when they drop in price after a few months.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  24. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by kiddygrinder · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the problem is the online multiplayer on psn is shit, i play online games a lot on pc but i've only ever played a few games of tekken here and there on ps3 cause it's just a pain in the butt. if it was pay to play i would guess that quite a few people would just stop playing online.

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  25. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Narishma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're clearly deluded if you think "OtherOS" was a huge selling point for the PS3. I doubt the majority of PS3 users even knew they could install an OS on their PS3 when it was possible.

    --
    Mada mada dane.
  26. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this marked insightful?
    Slashdot is seriously the worst place to discuss games. Even 4chan /v/ is better than this.

  27. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Troll

    I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.

    How quickly they forget.

    Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, I must be an idiot. If you trust Sony, you're the idiot.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If half the people complaining about OtherOS removal had actually used it, Sony would be the richest corporation in the world. As it is, you probably don't even know just how limited the hardware actually was for other operating systems - you certainly couldn't play games on it. OtherOS never was aimed at end-users.

  29. Chose Linux support over PSN by amaiman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Too bad I no longer have access to PSN since I refused to install the update that would have removed Linux support from my console, so I won't be able to use this premium subscription. Maybe I'm cynical, but I read "nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects" as "of course, any NEW multiplayer games you buy will be subject to the new 'premium' requirement to play online"... Sony does have a documented history of promising one thing and then doing exactly the opposite.

    1. Re:Chose Linux support over PSN by bucklesl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I went ahead and bought a new PS3 slim and kept my old PS3 with the 3.15 firmware on it. I also sent the FTC and state attorney general a complaint about this problem and a week ago the attorney general formally sent Sony a complaint letter. I seriously doubt anything will happen, but at least it made me feel better. For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards. Maybe I can sell the USAF my old PS3.

      --
      help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
    2. Re:Chose Linux support over PSN by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I went ahead and bought a new PS3 slim and kept my old PS3 with the 3.15 firmware on it.

      IMHO, that's exactly what Sony was pushing for. Now you've not only given them money for the first PS3 you bought and got screwed over on, you went and gave them more money. The phrase "Please sir, may I have another" comes to mind.

      For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards.

      There are now three law suits on the go in the states over just this issue.

      Maybe I can sell the USAF my old PS3.

      I hear a PS3 with 3.15 or less is going for quite a bit on E-bay. I wasn't able to find any, I guess they're all sold out ;)

    3. Re:Chose Linux support over PSN by xtracto · · Score: 1

      IMHO, that's exactly what Sony was pushing for. Now you've not only given them money for the first PS3 you bought and got screwed over on, you went and gave them more money.

      Bb...bu... but, I learned in Slashdot that each Playstation console Sony sold was doing so at a loss; this will mean that he stuck it to the man and made Sony lose money!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:Chose Linux support over PSN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, that's exactly what Sony was pushing for. Now you've not only given them money for the first PS3 you bought and got screwed over on, you went and gave them more money. The phrase "Please sir, may I have another" comes to mind.

      Sony has always taken a loss on fat PS3s. As of December Sony was also taking a loss on slim PS3s. If they are still taking a loss on them today, 6 months later, then this specific point of yours is irrelevant.

      The rest of your post is good.

    5. Re:Chose Linux support over PSN by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Particularly when Sony can point the finger and say, "Hey its not us with the requirement, that's EA (or whoever), its not our fault" while at the same time offering incentives or kickbacks to publishers that only develop for their premium service. Publishers will justify their greed by saying that it needed to use the premium service to "ensure the best quality play experience for their users", because you know, "they are all about quality".

      Meanwhile at the legion of doom: Users see features being limited and costs increasing.

      Same BS, over and over again, just different bat time, and different bat place.

    6. Re:Chose Linux support over PSN by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Well thanks for enjoying the rest of my post.

      However, I can in no way accept the fact that they have or are taking a loss on consoles, it just doesn't make any business sense.

      What does make sense is to claim you're taking a loss so your customers will think you care about them so much that you're willing to practically give your product away. Very charitable.

      If you can provide some reference other then what's coming out of Sony, MS or Nintendo's backside I'd be inclined to accept your claim.

  30. 12 year olds by Comboman · · Score: 1

    12 year olds have more disposable income than you, so don't expect fewer of them on a paid network. They don't have mortgage/rent or car payments. They don't have to buy their own food. They just ask for Mommy's credit card (or don't ask, Mommy won't notice anyway).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  31. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by i_hate_robots · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, you're right. Spending $50 annually for XBox Live is outrageous. I'd rather spend $600 on a new video card every year.

  32. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Troll

    If half the people complaining about OtherOS removal had actually used it, Sony would be the richest corporation in the world

    Irrelevant. There are plenty of other examples of Sony boning customers. Rootkits, anyone?

    As it is, you probably don't even know just how limited the hardware actually was for other operating systems - you certainly couldn't play games on it. OtherOS never was aimed at end-users.

    I'm highly familiar with how limited the hardware was, notably that the hypervisor prevented most GPU access because the GPU had access to main memory. Of course, all the hypervisor actually HAD to do was enforce memory protection, so it's clear that Sony took this action to prevent using it for games. However, this is a complete red herring, it's easy to see why you're too cowardly to log in. The PS3 plays Games without the 'Other OS' option; running Linux was for everything else. Sony canned it because it enabled Blu-Ray copying, to which you have a right (for backups.)

    If Other OS functionality wasn't aimed at end users, it would only need text console support. Everything you said is wrong. Go away.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sound of the previous comment going right over your head.

  34. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    Nice, great answer. Because only a few people use it it's ok to take it away after it's been paid for. That's how every thing should be. Only a few people compared to the overall population use skateboards, lets go out and pound those kids and take their boards back. /end sarcasm

    I bought my PS3 instead of a Wii because I wanted to put Linux on it. I use Linux on my PS3 for development and testing and as a 3D rendering node.

    I don't see where other people get the right to say because only a few people paid to use it it's ok for it to be taken back. Weather or not someone knew it could be installed, they still paid for it. Don't bother going into the, "It wasn't a major part of the cost of the PS3, so you really didn't pay for it" argument.

    1) Sony had to pay the team developing the Other OS feature, therefore they had to spend money on it. If you think for a second those wages weren't factored in to the price, you're not all that bright.

    2) If you pick up two stakes as a Buy one get one free deal, the second stake isn't really free. You still had to pay for the first one so really you're just spreading the cost out over two instead of one. You're still paying for both. Kind of like buying a gaming console and getting a computer for free. But hay that second stake is just going to sit in your freezer for a week anyway. I guess it's ok for the grocery store to come and take it back.

  35. I'm ok with it for now. by bcoker · · Score: 1

    The current service lacks much of the functionality of xbox live. I don't mind paying a small amount for the service if they provide me a better experience. I don't game that much anyway. However, if prices start outweighing the services they provide me with I'll drop the service and console in the trash and be done with it.

  36. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by flitty · · Score: 1

    Console History Fail. I just threw away my initial Xbox Live Starter Kit disc with MechWarrior on it. It came with a headset. I believe it cost me about $40 (I worked at a game store at the time). I bought it when I started playing halo 2 online. There was no silver subscription service at the time, that was created with the 360 so that MS could sell digital downloads to people who didn't subscribe to XBL. Before the Xbox Marketplace on the 360, there was no functional reason to have a silver account.

    Believe it or not, the xbox having a built in LAN connection (and not allowing dial up connections) was a big deal at the time for consoles. PS2's network adapter was expensive, and other consoles only had phone-jacks. Microsoft screws up a lot, but that first xbox was pretty revolutionary with some of the features it had.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  37. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I think you're right, you got your panties bunched up for a fairly trivial mistake - the important point was that XBL was never free.

    I think there was a beta test of it that was free for some people, but I think that's it.

  38. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

    It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

    There are plenty of PC games that require a subscription to play online. So what are you talking about?

  39. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    Because I got screwed so badly with the Linux option. Not that this matters to me, I decided to keep Linux and forgo all PSN access, but Sony has lost the "benefit of the doubt" once and for all.

  40. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer.

    Like PC gamers never get screwed over...

  41. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    It was the selling point for me. It's why I own one. Games were a bonus. Yeah, that's backwards, I know. Dropping support for it was understandable. Kicking it off the systems is a breach of contract. I'm looking to join one of the lawsuits if it gets awarded class-action status. I won't make more than a few bucks, but if I can poke Sony in the eye, I'll feel better.

  42. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    Seeing how they lose money money to the PS3 I fail to see how they would make money if people bought it for OtherOS instead of for games.

  43. PSN is important to me by nuggz · · Score: 1

    I'm only an occassional gamer.

    I'll play for a month, then I'll have a busy month or two and my PS3 will just collect dust.
    Free online play was a key deciding factor for me, I'm not willing to pay for a service that I don't use on a regular basis.

    1. Re:PSN is important to me by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      This seems to be exactly what people were saying was going to happen back in April (at least) when the Other OS was removed.

      "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

      THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

      THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

      THEN THEY CAME for me
      and by that time no one was left to speak up."

      Pastor Martin Niemöller

  44. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

    The US Air Force alone purchased over 2000 PS3s for this feature, not to mention all the universities that purchased them.

    --
    Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  45. show me the troll, modtroll by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    There is no troll in the above comment. Not only is it my actual opinion, but it's also wholly factual. When will modpoints be taken away from the masses of asses and given to the responsible? Oh wait, rationality would reduce page views.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. Why is this news? by gearloos · · Score: 1

    We have already seen Sony show that they don't care by breaking into and rooting customers computers, DRM'ing everything from games to the hair on my Dogs ass, then on to the PS3- they disabled the install other os feature, taking away a part of the originally promised features. Why should this even be news now. They are simply continuing on in their quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox. Now that they have you locked in, you will see that the exra $$ you laid out for the PS3 with its Linux, and "Free online gaming" is now just an xbox that cost you a $200.00 premium to begin with. Oh and there is still fewer games.---move along, nothing to see here, business as usual at Sony.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  47. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by franoculator · · Score: 1

    But it's Sony, one of the most anti-consumer companies ever to exist.

    I won't argue there, but Sony hasn't been so bad with the PS3. Yeah, the install other OS option was attractive to me, but I never used it. I play games on the PS3, I run linux on my PCs.

    Also, the PS3 supports quite a bit of standard hardware. Standard power cable, no expensive proprietary external brick. Bluetooth for headset connection. USB storage/charging. 2.5" SATA Hard Disk. Included 802.11g, as well as wired ethernet.

    It's not like consumers have been totally shafted by Sony on this device.

  48. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Bakkster · · Score: 1

    As others have mentioned, you are mistaken, since the silver membership was released with the 360.

    Xbox 360 will offer a multi-tiered system for its Live component. One of those tiers will be free.

    Members of the free tier, dubbed Xbox Live Silver, will have access to the system's online community function, allowing them to chat with other players and freely download game demos. They will not be able to play games with others except during occasional 'free preview' opportunities (much like those that cable movie channels sometimes offer).

    Xbox Live Gold members will pay an as-yet undetermined annual or monthly fee to play with or against others. Current Xbox Live members, who currently pay $50 per year, will be able to keep their online nicknames.

    Unless you can find a reference to XBL Silver from 2002, your comparison doesn't hold water. XBox Live added free features to its subscription-only service, while Sony is adding for-pay features to its free service.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  49. its a matter of time by snkiz · · Score: 1

    Sony has proven their disloyalty to customers time and again. Its only a matter of time before PSN heads down the same road as xbox live. They must believe they can support themselves on hardcore gamers alone, because I know I'm not going to pay 20$ a month to get fragged 10 times a minute by some fat loser who plays 18 hours a day.

  50. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by bonkeydcow · · Score: 1

    There is silver and gold. I am a silver member. Silver = Not Gold. As a silver member you can go online. You can purchase game / items from the online store. I can't play games with online connectivity. I refuse to pay a monthly fee to play. Sometimes my games come with a free month of gold, but I don't even use that. The only thing I have ever bought, were expansion packs and songs for rock band.

  51. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, the US Air Force and US universities are morons. You don't purchase consumer hardware if you want reliability. But no-o, it's too great an offer! (This is what you get when you rely on inexperienced geeks for corporate hardware advice.) No doubt this will make them think twice in the future.

    P.S.: The buildings that have hundreds of these PS3s hooked up, do not have them connected to the Internet! So the PS3's later updates are of trivial concern. How to replace that aging hardware, is a concern.

  52. Two Words: Other OS by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I gave Sony the benefit of the doubt with my PS3 until they pried away my Other OS feature.

    I'm very interested to see how these class action lawsuits turn out.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:Two Words: Other OS by CaseM · · Score: 1

      I'm from the future and here's how things turn out: A settlement is reached and the lawyers prosecuting the case reap a large sum. The plaintiffs are given a coupon for 50% off their next PSN purchase.

  53. Xbox Live? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

    Um, have you ever tried playing a game on Xbox Live? It's the only "premium" multiplayer service I've ever used and it's filled to the brim with foul mouthed 12 year olds.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  54. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 0

    I won't argue there, but Sony hasn't been so bad with the PS3. ... It's not like consumers have been totally shafted by Sony on this device.

    Wait, what? That better be sarcasm.

    Sony has been ESPECIALLY bad with the PS3. Back-compatibility with your PS2 games? Hope you bought a launch system. Want a controller with force-feedback? Hope you didn't buy a launch system, if you did you'll need to pony up another $40 each for new controllers. SD/MS/CF card readers? Gone. Spare USB ports? Gone. SACD playback? Gone (not likely anyone noticed, though) OtherOS? Gone.

    Time to replace the old "It only does everything" slogan with something more in line with the current feature set, like "It only plays blu-ray movies and PS3 games"...

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  55. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, you could never play online with a Silver subscription.

    FFXI on the Xbox 360 has always been available to Silver subscribers (asking people to pay two subscription fees just to be able to play at all is too much for even Microsoft to ask).

  56. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by denobug · · Score: 1

    I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services. And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.

    The market changes as time goes on, so does the company's direction to either maintain market share or to get more money. I doubt Sony will care about maintaining user base if they dominates at 90% of the market share and they can get a a sizable revenue from tens of millions of users. XBox Live was up front about the fee since the beginning. A sticker shock for sure but they are not deceptive of their intentions. They have maintained their position since day one, and somehow there are people willing to pay for the service.

    I have to say for a lot of things Microsoft managed to messed up lately they did all right with the Xobx Live service.

  57. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    PS2's network adapter was expensive, and other consoles only had phone-jacks.

    Dreamcast had a broadband adapter that installed by replacing the modem that shipped with it. However: a) DHCP didn't work with it and b) it had a production run of about three. GameCube also had a broadband adapter that plugged into one of the serial ports, which is actually not that hard to come by.

  58. why God why by Ademisknight · · Score: 1

    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....Thats impossible!

  59. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be like me taking my truck into the dealership and them removing my spare tire as a warranty service. I paid for the spare tire with the truck whether I use it or not.

  60. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by schm0 · · Score: 1

    It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

    Apparently you've never played any MMO, the Sims, or downloaded any additional DLC on your PC? While you may lament the age of DLC and premium online subscription fees, but until an open-source alternative arises the pricing models will change until they milk the consumers for all they're worth. Welcome to capitalism. The free service, allegedly, is not going away. Personally, I'd wait and see what they are going to offer at E3.

  61. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Gravatron · · Score: 1

    Still offered more free functionality, and more open accessories, then the competition.

  62. It's not evil, it's profit drive out of control by cycleflight · · Score: 1

    I don't really think it's that Sony is evil and they're on a "quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox." Being a corporation that's interested in making money, it's more likely that someone said "increase profit margin, or lose your job" to someone down the ladder, and thus we got (1) reduction in hardware capability and hardware manufacturing price, and now (2) reduction in features in the software. What got them in a pickle in the first place was they made a box that was too expensive for most people to want to buy, and then had to suck features away to make it sustainable in the long run. Sony _has_ been horrible to their customers in the past, and they're being horrid now, taking away features that people used to have. But it's not about poodle-shooting evil, it's about the "need" for increased profits pushing people to do unscrupulous things.

    --
    "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    1. Re:It's not evil, it's profit drive out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like arguing that shooting poodles is OK in the name of increased profits, but should not be done arbitrarily. Perhaps feature removal on the newest hardware versions made them a more cost-effective console to build, but disabling it on consoles that were already built, saved them precisely zero. They didn't offer the OtherOS for installation, so there's no development cost. There are no updates or maintenance costs; in fact, it actually COST them money to get rid of the feature (they had to invest coder time) when they chose to steal it away.
      I've bought my last product from SONY (those lying cheating thieving bastards) , they do not deserve to be in an open market.

    2. Re:It's not evil, it's profit drive out of control by cycleflight · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's right, just that these folks are probably a step above genocidal maniacs. As far as maintenance costs, it would increase. They've removed the Other OS feature for the PS3 slim, so supporting game compatibility with that and a parallel, Other OS capable, PS3 Fat software build would take increased resources. They sell the console at a loss (or did until recently), so removing ways for people to use it that don't involve buying the games that make Sony money makes sense, as a corporation. If you think about it like a bean counter. I do agree with you that it's a terrible thing to do to your current customers though.

      --
      "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
  63. XBox Live PSN by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    Don't mistake this for fanboyism or anything like that (I have both a PS3 and Xbox), but XBox has the only online service thats worth paying for. PSN and Wii are pathetic. The funny part was that the idea of paying for online gaming was one of the big sticking points that PS3 fanboys had against the Xbox. I guess now that Sony has a sizable market share, it's about time to change that tune. Oh well, at least it plays blu-ray.

  64. If it took you this long to realize... by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

    If it took you this long to realize that Sony can't be trusted, you haven't been paying attention. In my opinion, Sony is one of the most diabolical customer-screwing companies in existence.

    I remember years ago people saying they bought a PS2 instead of an XBox because Microsoft was evil, and I thought that these people were morons who were just parroting the usual "M$ is the evil!" sentiments frequently heard on the internet.

    Don't get me wrong. MIcrosoft is no angel, but they haven't done nearly as much to screw their customers over as much as Sony has. Now, if we talk about their competition, that might be a different story, but not when it comes to their customers.

    When it comes to "biting the hand that feeds you", you almost have to go into the realm of politics to find individuals or organizations that can out-evil Sony. ;-)

  65. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "You're full of shit. When Live first launched, there was no Silver and Gold, only subscribers."

    Hi! You're full of shit. There were MANY games which were playable online under a silver subscription for free.

    I was a support tech, want me to start breaking down the list of games Silver subscription users could play BEFORE 2008?

    Starting in 2008 Silver and Gold accounts lost distinction and Silver accounts were allowed to play all games online free.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  66. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Umm, games that already required a monthly fee were playable online for free under a Silver account. Microsoft didn't have the balls to try double-charging.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  67. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by schm0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Back-compatibility with your PS2 games? Hope you bought a launch system.

    Sony isn't stupid. They've already released GoW Collector's pack as an official re-release, and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw re-tooled PS2 classics on the PSN in the next couple years. Valid point, though.

    Want a controller with force-feedback? Hope you didn't buy a launch system, if you did you'll need to pony up another $40 each for new controllers.

    I hope you didn't either. The thing cost $600! Now you can get one for under $300.

    SD/MS/CF card readers? Gone.

    USB is much more prevalent than any of these formats, unless you're talking the realm of cell phones and cameras. Sure, the feature would have been nice to keep, but is this really a deal-breaker?

    Spare USB ports? Gone.

    So buy a USB splitter if for some reason you need 6 peripherals plugged into your PS3 Slim at once.

    SACD playback? Gone (not likely anyone noticed, though)

    Who the &#*@ uses SACD?

    OtherOS? Gone.

    Valid point #2. Still a niche audience, and a decision that doesn't affect most PS3 owners. (Not that it makes the decision right.)

    Time to replace the old "It only does everything" slogan with something more in line with the current feature set, like "It only plays blu-ray movies and PS3 games"...

    And Netflix, Media Server streaming, basic chat and messaging, photos, digital audio support (MP3, etc.), DLC, PS1 games, internet browsing, and free online play. (Not to feed the fanboy within or anything. =D)

  68. They promise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No future updates will remove the current features of free PSN. They are committed to supporting free PSN. Free PSN is an important part of the PS3 experience. With free PSN, you don't need a Live.

    I wouldn't buy a Sony product if it was free at this point.

  69. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?"

    I did. Twice times. I bought a fat 60gb PS3 when it said it could run Linux and play PS3 games and go online, after the rootkit fiasco. I bought another fat PS3 80gb with software emulation when I located one and a "source" in Sony declared there were no plans to eliminate 'Other OS'. This was less than 3 months ago, when I could have picked up a slim for less. I wanted to play PS3 games and run Linux, and I thought that the difference in the full list prices I paid was worth the time and effort instead of setting up another HTPC.

    The Sunday before April 1st, I found I got suckered by Sony. And from all that, and the thousands spent on accessories, consoles, and games, I feel I must be the only person who used their PS3s for other things like SACDs, BluRays, Linux, and video watching and renting, in addition to the console game play.

    To put it more pointedly, it is people like you who think these stupid, silly, insignificant upgrades are so "great" that have made the PS3 a piece of shit. I'm ashamed I was a moron in buying Sony in the first place, but I'm becoming more ashamed at being part of a community of gamers that are such morons and cowards that whenever Sony "upgrades" their service, they don't recognized it's an immediate downgrade to the community and the future of the console.

  70. Oh joy, I'm hardly anybody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards.

    As someone who has filed suit against Sony over the issue, I guess I'm hardly anybody. Won't my mother be disappointed!

  71. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    In other news, the US Air Force and US universities are morons. You don't purchase consumer hardware if you want reliability.

    It's called Consumer Off The Shelf (COTS). Government does it all the time to save money hence why it has its own acronym. The USAF Could have bought a bunch of IBM Cell based servers and $10K a pop, but Instead decided to try and save tax payers some money by buying a much cheaper products that were advertised as doing what they needed them to do. I also highly doubt this was the decision of one or two people. The process I have to go through to buy a piece of hardware or software needs to be approved by several higher ups as well as people in the IT department. I write the software for and build data collection and tracking equipment so I know. But hay, maybe the Canadian Government has a better structure for buying hardware and software then the Americans do.

  72. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Bakkster · · Score: 1

    There were MANY games which were playable online under a silver subscription for free.

    I was a support tech, want me to start breaking down the list of games Silver subscription users could play BEFORE 2008?

    Yes please, I was unaware of any (aside from those that didn't use XBL for online).

    Starting in 2008 Silver and Gold accounts lost distinction and Silver accounts were allowed to play all games online free.

    Ummmmm, the only references that I can see to this are temporary offers, usually weekends, and one that ran for several arcade games for a couple of months. As far as I can tell, Silver users can only play online during these special offers. Have a link that proves me wrong? I'd love to get my fiance playing online without needing to buy her another account.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  73. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Bakkster · · Score: 1

    That doesn't change that the XBox was the first to be networked out of the box, without the need for an add-on.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  74. Some Games Require Upgrading the Firmware by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    As time goes on, more store bought PS3 games will also require you to update your firmware, they will even provide the minimum supported version on disk "for your convenience." Don't think just because you don't go on the PSN that you are safe to keep buying games.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  75. Why I chose the PS3 over the XBox360 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Free online play
    2) Hardware more stable/nothing like the RROD epidemic (had a YLOD 385 days after purchase)
    3) Runs Linux (I still run Gentoo built from a stage3 tarball)

    I used to joke and count these down on my middle three fingers. Last week, 3 & 2 would leave me the middle finger, but this week I'm getting the fist. Thanks Sony!

  76. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you pick up two stakes as a Buy one get one free deal, the second stake isn't really free. You still had to pay for the first one so really you're just spreading the cost out over two instead of one. You're still paying for both. Kind of like buying a gaming console and getting a computer for free. But hay that second stake is just going to sit in your freezer for a week anyway. I guess it's ok for the grocery store to come and take it back.

    Wait, why would I put a stake in my freezer? Am I going to need to kill some kind of particular subspecies of vampire that's unharmed by stakes that are warmer than room-temperature? And why am I buying vampire-killing gear at the grocery store anyway? Well, I guess they do already have garlic...

  77. Sony's promisses are like salt by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    They mocked the Xbox 360 because it could only play select games from the previous generation. New PS3s only play some games from the PS1 days and none from the PS2 unless you have older hardware.

    They touted the PS3 as a computer, you can even install a full OS. When they removed the Other OS option for the PS3 slim they promised that it would remain in the older systems. No Other OS on any system anymore, even the ones they promised not to remove it from.

    They mocked Xbox 360 for having to pay for gold membership, saying see our online service is free. Now we are getting PSN "Gold".

    They lie about why the Sixaxis controller doesn't have rumble, saying it isn't needed. Then tote what a great feature it is when the Dualshock 3 controller comes out.

    They lie, and lie, and lie and lie. How are we supposed to trust anything they say anymore?


    For the record, I do not own an Xbox 360, nor do I plan to ever buy a console from Microsoft again. With the way things are going, I might just never buy a console ever again.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    1. Re:Sony's promisses are like salt by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      They mocked the Xbox 360 because it could only play select games from the previous generation. New PS3s only play some games from the PS1 days and none from the PS2 unless you have older hardware.

      They also cut the PS3's price in half. How were they able to do that? By removing features that most people didn't use. And they're finally selling PS3s. Getting rid of the extra costs of backwards compatibility was the right move from a profitability standpoint.

      They touted the PS3 as a computer, you can even install a full OS. When they removed the Other OS option for the PS3 slim they promised that it would remain in the older systems. No Other OS on any system anymore, even the ones they promised not to remove it from.

      I'm sad to see the Linux install feature go, but did anyone really think it was going anywhere? If you remember Net Yarouze (PS1) or PS2 Linux's shoddy support, then probably didn't expect much from PS3 Linux. If you are the fraction of a percent of people who knew nothing of Sony's past Linux support and dropped $600 just to run Linux on an exotic box, I don't feel sorry for you, because obviously you're rich.

      They lie about why the Sixaxis controller doesn't have rumble, saying it isn't needed. Then tote what a great feature it is when the Dualshock 3 controller comes out.

      Also, Sixaxis didn't have rumble because of a patent dispute. Again, not a surprise to anyone who kept up with Sony. The only people who were surprised by Sony's behavior were starry-eyed Linux fanatics. They understandably hate Sony now, but they were more than a little naive and uninformed when they dropped the $600 on a launch PS3. Buyer beware and all that.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  78. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by soppsa · · Score: 1

    I was a support tech

    I'm so so sorry...

  79. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by soppsa · · Score: 1

    BP, or even Microsoft

    *really*? I have to disagree on both of those...

  80. Nothing to see here move along... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Buy Sony and you get what you pay for... Well maybe not, they might just take it away, or limit your use. Its only fair, I mean its not like you own it or anything, or were sold something that was advertised with certain features or anything... right?

    I am going to go out on a limb here and call it right now. Sony is going to screw everyone it can.

  81. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Because Sony is Evil. They can't help it. Its like trying not to punch a kitten.

  82. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Launched in November 2002 there were two levels of subscription, Xbox Live Silver and Xbox Live Gold, the Silver subscription was free but fairly useless (I think it's still around but no-one acknowledges its existence any more). Microsoft was pretty quick to Monetise XBL.

    So it has never been free.

    And can you blame Sony?
    They gave you free online gaming, all people did was bitch that it wasn't good enough.
    MS can charge, no one complained, so they will charge too.

  83. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha, this is such an obvious fanboi lie. Let me guess-you're the same moron who claims to hate Sony, but also claims to have spent over $2000 on PS3 accessories and games? Your troll is a little more polished, but is still way fucking unbelievable. Eliminate the part about having a source within Sony if you want to ensnare anyone. As it is, I give this troll a C-.

  84. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Mursk · · Score: 1

    Aw, come on, give him a brake.

    --
    "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
  85. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PS2's network adaptor wasn't that expensive. It was the lack of a hard drive that made it pointless to play online. Sure you could attach the hard drive in the old model but not with the slim models.

  86. This is Qore all over again, again. by Chess+Piece+Face · · Score: 1

    Yet another attempt to monetize as an afterthought. Expect several more links to "Premium PSN" to clog up the XMB alongside the multiple redundant store icons, non-hideable ticker, and forced-at-startup "What's New" button. Remember the first issue of Qore, with all the promoted extras which turned out to be one bad (and hidden!) Pong clone and access to exclusive game content that was not realized for several months? That is an idea of to expect here. My guess is that the giveaway games will be of the type that require followup, not-free DLC to be fully realized.

  87. Home insurance - effectively free! by Chess+Piece+Face · · Score: 1

    All you have to do to cash in is burn down your house!

  88. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

    Hi! You're full of shit, AND lack reading comprehension.

    When I said "when Live first launched", meant the original XBox version. On the original XBox, you either subscribed and got all the features, or you didn't, and got none of them. No Silver, no Gold, just subscribers.

    As to why I say you're full of shit, it's because Silver accounts STILL don't have access to online multiplayer. Couch multiplayer, yes, ability to buy stuff off of XBLA, yes, online multiplayer, NO. The only exceptions have ever been the occasional free weekend, and FFXI, on account of it requiring a separate subscription fee. There was NO change to this, in 2008 or any other year.

    You can find a table with an accurate comparison between Silver and Gold accounts here. If you doubt Wikipedia's accuracy, try Microsoft's list. You'll notice neither list includes online multiplayer on the Silver tier.

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  89. Re:XBox Live PSN by Bakkster · · Score: 1

    The big reason is that PSN doesn't moderate their community like XBL, partly because they don't have income to pay for moderators and partly because the publishers are expected to do the moderation. Thus, the cheater on the PS3 needs to be banned from every single game, whereas on XBL a single ban applies to their entire account. As well, the PS3 cheater can just get a new account (for free), whereas there is a monetary incentive to not get banned on XBL (you don't get refunded for time you were banned).

    Of course, this change in PSN isn't going to change anything about this problem.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  90. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfft, I gave Sony the benefit of doubt when I bought the PS3 - the first console I've owned since the megadrive, and first ever Sony product - because it had OtherOS capability and would actually be useful. Look how well that turned out.

    In fact, even regular psn is premium psn for me as it would involve me giving up a feature that I consider quite valuable.

  91. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Trust me, it was easier working on the units themselves at Solectron than dealing with full-on customer support.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  92. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

    The parent stated that there was some level of openness when the system first launched, and THEN Microsoft "monetized" it. The reality is that it STARTED "monetized", and free features were added years later when the 360 launched.

    The complete opposite of the truth is NOT a "trivial mistake".

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  93. Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o by Arctic+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Only on Slashdot can an anti-Microsoft post containing false info end up as +4 Insightful.