9274100
story
Comments: 212 + - Games: Sony May Charge For PlayStation Network on Thursday February 04, @04:17AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicps2.gif); width:79px; height:55px;
playstation
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsony.gif); width:81px; height:16px;
sony
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgames.gif); width:68px; height:77px;
games
In an interview with IGN, Sony's VP of marketing, Peter Dille, responded to a question about the PlayStation Network by saying that the company is considering charging for the service. He said, "It's been our philosophy not to charge for it from launch up until now, but Kaz recently went on the record as saying that's something we're looking at. I can confirm that as well. That's something that we're actively thinking about. What's the best way to approach that if we were to do that? You know, no announcements at this point in time, but it's something we're thinking about." This follows news of a customer survey from last month that listed possibilities for subscription-based PSN features.
Once a woman has given you her heart you can never get rid of the rest of her.
-- Vanbrugh
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
When Hell freezes over... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought the PS3 recently, my first console since the original nintendo. The lowered price, Uncharted 2, and the free ps3 online were the top deciding factors on which console to buy, in that order.
If they started charging now. Wow. That would factor in *hugely* in my decision on what to purchase in the future.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally my decision was based on "is it made by Microsoft or not" and I already had a Wii. Jokes aside, the fact it had a BluRay player, wireless, and combined a very decent media player the ps/3 was for me a better choice. Free on-line network was interesting but I haven't used it much.
I would certainly be pissed if they started charging. Bait and switch comes to mind. That would make Sony a target for criticisms and they might lose all credibility for anything they, or possible other vendors, try "for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you own the previous consoles, why does every new iteration have to have backward compatability with everything that was ever released for the whole line? You're just adding cost on top of cost to support 15 year (or by the time the PS4 arrives more likely 20+ year) old technology. I agree it's nice if the current generation are supported on the next generation, it at least eases the transition when you can still play your current favourite games, but anything beyond that which is likely to add to cost o
Re:Exactly. (Score:4, Informative)
From a gaming perspective the various gameboys wer completely compatible as were the GBA and GBA SP.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"If you own the previous consoles, why does every new iteration have to have backward compatability with everything that was ever released for the whole line?"
It's nice to think you'll play your old console when you get a new one but it's my experience that it just doesn't happen. My NES and SNES were given away to relatives with younger kids long ago. The rest of my previous consoles are sitting in boxes in my basement. But I still have a stack of Gamecube games upstairs sitting with my Wii games and th
Re: (Score:2)
Backwards compatibility is a nice to have (and for some people, much more important because of limited space near the TV). That's not the problem with Sony.
Sony lambasted MS for having poor backwards compatibility when the PS2 had near perfect, and they promised 100% backward compatibility. They then reneged on this promise, twice, first by making it worse, then by removing it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's part of what I like about the Play station as opposed to Nintendo. One console plays all my games. I have three different Nintendo systems for each set of games I have.
You do know the Wii plays GameCube games, right? You can't really include the DS or Gameboy since they're portables, so I'm guessing you've got a SNES and a N64? =)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it upscales. It also provides you with 1:1 pixel mapping via HDMI rather than an analog video signal. In some cases you get better texture rendering.
That said, for some games I prefer the PS2's output, so I kept mine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is a potential customer supposed to read any and all news articles regarding a product before purchasing?
If Sony sells the product with "free playstation network", a customer would expect the playstation network (in it's entirety) to be and remain free.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can debate whether or not the $50 dollars is a good deal or not, or whether or not it's a trivial cost. If you intend to own a console for six years before upgrading; the Xbox live fees have added $300 dollars to the TCO of the Xbox360.
That may or may not be a problem for you. You might argue that the Xbox Live gives you better online features that justify the additional cost.
That's why people consider different consoles, compare them, and ultimately decide on whichever console is a good fit.
Regardles
Re:When Hell freezes over... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd go further - such move would be so unbelievably stupid that I can't help but suspect there's something else at play here.
Spreading such rumors and causing a bit of an "outrage"...which has a "side effect" of spreading the message that Sony network service is free, while MS one is not?
Parent
Re:When Hell freezes over... (Score:5, Insightful)
What, spreading the word that your service is free by telling people you plan to charge for it? Colour me dubious. Some people care about the cost of being online, some don't, and as far as I can tell the only affect this would have is to put off the people who were attracted to the free service because they know it can be yanked at any time.
Sure they might do another announcement that they considered all the options and decided to stay free, but what's the likelihood that it'll get anywhere near the coverage this will - we all know that bad news sells clicks or whatever it is big media's in the market for these days.
Parent
Re:When Hell freezes over... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, whilst yes, the PS3 is making headway, it's coming at too big a cost to them.
It's not clear that the PS3 is even making a profit on the hardware itself yet, certainly it wasn't even as recently as 6 months back. The PSN costs a lot to run, so they're effectively subsidising that too. This of course becomes more of a big deal when they have to fund additional features to try and keep up with XBox live but do not receive income for it like Microsoft does with Live.
So yeah they certainly have momentum now, but it's costing them too much to be sustainable, so they have a choice of breaking even and pissing people off, or continuing to haemorrhage money in the hope that some day they will indeed be able to make it all back.
Microsoft made the same mistake with the original XBox in that it costs them a fortune, but they learnt from it, sure they still lost money on the hardware for a while, but not so much that they couldn't get it profitable within a few years. They also realised that XBox live is a good way to help fill that gap, in that by charging for it, they're both avoiding losing money there, and making up for some of the money lost on the hardware as well as being able to use the money to fund continued development.
Of course, I agree it's nice to have things for free, but sometimes that just isn't practical, at least in the long run. I'd wager this is why Nintendo didn't really bother with a decent online experience at all- because it would be just an additional cost for them that detracts from their profit.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
As a gamer who has made purchasing decisions based on the fact that PSN is free and Xbox Live costs money, I believe this would be a big negative for Sony at a time when they are actually making headway in the console wars. The only way I see this working out is if all the current services offered by PSN are free and these new features are optional, not essential for having a good gaming experience, and priced modestly. Otherwise, I think this will amount to Sony shooting themselves in the foot when they have momentum, just like they did with the PS2 to PS3 transition.
Very much worse than the PS2 to PS3 transition. With the PS3, Sony has started to gain real traction as a "just works" media and entertainment hub for ordinary folk and families (rather than techies). For instance, the sales success of PlayTV (cheap, easy, and friendly digital tv recording functionality), LittleBigPlanet, etc -- it's starting to conquer the Wii's territory now more people have high-definition tvs. As soon as it's "$X/month subscription", families and casual users won't look at it. They'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>I believe this would be a big negative for Sony at a time when they are actually making headway in the console wars
Yeah. I don't think they'd be as suicidal for charging for access to all multiplayer gaming, like the surcharge pirates at Microsoft impose on everyone (want to play Castle Crashers, two at my place, two at your's? Okay, pony up the money for four Gold accounts, chumps).
If it was something like the mentioned "cloud storage space for games"... then it might be worth it. If I could upload
For "Premium" features, not the base stuff!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213014/premium-psn-service-planned-wont-affect-online-gaming/ [gamepro.com]
"Sony is considering adding a subscription-based version of the PlayStation Network, but the company denies that it will charge customers to play games online."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/sony-may-introduce-psn-subscription-model [next-gen.biz]
"Especially in the online area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services." (Emphasis added.)
Parent
They'd be stupid not to (Score:3, Insightful)
From a purely business perspective, MS must be making a killing on live. Sony gaming needs to make some money somehow: they're still making loss on every PS3 sold, their investment in exclusive games has produced some good games but they've all been fairly mediocre sellers, the PSPgo is a massive flop and PSN must be eating some money.
Last I read, Sony had lost more on the PS3 than the profit from PS1 and PS2 combined. That's seriously bad business.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LOSING. LOSING. LOSING.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
IT makes sense to align costs and revenues (Score:3, Interesting)
Running the PSN network must cost big money. It kinda makes sense to have subscriptions to cover those recurring costs, instead of counting on games revenues, which are one-off, to offset them.
I'm not saying it's nice or a good think for customers, just that it is logical. Maybe game prices can go down now that games don't have to pay for the network costs, and people can choose cheaper standalone play or pay for network play if the wish.
Re:IT makes sense to align costs and revenues (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
As Long as... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Playstation Store and Playstation Home is for that.
And people ask me why I don't play consoles (Score:3, Interesting)
At least not multiplayer.
And it's not even so much that I have troubles using the console controllers for FPS games. It's simply that something like this isn't easy to enforce in the PC world. If anything, the maker of a certain game can enforce a "pay to play multiplayer" rule, which would basically mean for me that I can't play this game (since I won't pay to play just another FPS game online when there's a lot that are offered free), it would not mean that the platform becomes worthless altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional MMO model is just that; so generally don't hold you breath, that just might be where everyone is going.
And anyway, if I want multiplayer on a console, that's "all people in one room, drunk after pub" kind of multiplayer.
Wouldn't be worth it. (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the major advantages that PSN has over Xbox is the fact that the online play is free.
I actually don't play games online a lot, but it's nice that it's there, so that I can dip in and out of it. It came in VERY handy during Demon's Souls.
What would be better is if the online play remained free and Sony offered a subscription model that allowed players access to game and movie rentals.
What if, for £5 per month, you could rent one PSN game and a couple of movies? Once you'd finished playing the game, you could relinquish your "lease" on it and download another. Something like this would likely have saved the Calling All Cars servers, which were shut down because no one was playing the game!
There are lots of games on PSN that I would play, but given that they cost about £10, are non-refundable and may actually turn out to be crap, I can't justify the risk.
The movie rental feature would be a great incentive, too. PSN offers a hell of a lot of movies to rent, but given that you can actually BUY a physical copy for less (Aliens: £3 on DVD; £6.99!!!! on PSN), it's not worth it.
Also, PSN needs to make renting movies the priority over selling-to-own. There are many films on there that I would much prefer to rent than buy.
Who's hosting the Game? Sony or Publisher/Dev? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no issue with paying for PSN as long as the price is reasonable. I paid for XBox Live for years, before I got rid of my XBox. $60/yr is perfect, $5/mo. That's $5m per month with 1m users (random user number). I couldn't see servers, bandwidth, datacenter, licensing, and power costs being beyond $60m per year, but then again, IANA MMO SysAd. Any more than $60, and it will fail. Maybe they could get away with a $100/yr price if they included a full Skype client, with video...maybe.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At least I think this is true for games like SF4, where apparently they don't/can't do anything for cheaters because they can't (read don't give a sh*t) spot them...
But this is my guess.
Cheers,
Re:Who's hosting the Game? Sony or Publisher/Dev? (Score:4, Informative)
Home is festooned with adverts, sponsored zones and as you say trinkets for $$$. It's already commercialized enough and charging for it would be stupid.
Personally I think Sony have plenty of means of keeping online free and making money. They're already doing lots of them - pushing PSN, selling / renting videos, premium avatars & themes, advertising, qore etc. They could add to that model with IPTV, game rentals (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly etc.), streaming music & video, network storage & game load/saves etc. There is no reason that they should have to charge for any functionality that the PS3 already offers.
Parent
Charge for Home, not for Store (Score:2)
I'd prefer that PSN remain free, since this is a huge plus in the PS3's favor. However, the realist in me recognizes there is significant cost in Sony operating the servers and network infrastructure to support PSN on an ongoing basis. If they had to charge for it, I'm with you on these points:
Reasonable price & improved functionality (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It would still annoy a very large number of people.
Not working in my country anyways (Score:2, Interesting)
The effect of Paying for PSN? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I can imagine my neighbors would hear me shouting "Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" as my PS3 sailed past their windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly, obviously he means his PS3 can operate a boat.
Oh, good... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, good... (Score:4, Insightful)
That means more customers for Nintendo and Blizzard Entertainment / Activision then...
You are really using Blizzard as an example of a non-pay for multiplayer company?
Parent
If I have to pay... (Score:2, Interesting)
The service is cr*p (with SF4 for example is full of lag cheaters and they don't get banned), movies you can buy cost a lot as well (plus on a side note if I downaload 10 of them I exceed my 100 GB monthly max limit on my ultra-in-theory-unlimited BT account - I discovered that because of this...sigh) and are badly compressed.
And they even think to start charging people?
This is the good time I might stop buying any SONY product in future.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I forsee a meeting of products, here (Score:3, Funny)
I was seriously thinking of buying one (Score:2)
but I'll wait now until they've thought this through. Maybe I'll just upgrade my PC instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me... (Score:3, Funny)
I wont buy a PS3 until PSN is subscription based. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wont buy a PS3 until PSN is subscription base (Score:2)
PSN isnt worth paying for. Sony respect your users (Score:2)
Sony owes is loyal customers who have put up with their poor PSN network, and inferior PS3 hardware, bad 3rd party ports... etc
PS3 owners such as myself, love Sony's first party games which are incredible considering the hardware's inferiority, but really everything else has been less than stellar.
Sony needs to stop worrying about how charge fans for their pathetic PSN. Its a terrible experience with little real functionality. It is beyond underdeveloped just like the PS3 OS and online features.
Its just not