Sony May Charge For PlayStation Network 212
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.
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.
Ooh, power spender! (Score:2)
I bought the PS3 recently, my first console since the original nintendo. [...]
If they started charging now. Wow. That would factor in *hugely* in my decision on what to purchase in the future.
I'm sure that will matter immensely to Sony in the 2030s-2040s.
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.
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)
That's funny, one of the games I'm currently playing is FFVIII on my PS3. Disks too, not the PSN download.
Re: (Score:2)
From a practical point of view, I don't care about the guts. As long as it plays my games, I don't care if it's software or hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
software emulation could do the job for backwards compatibility.
The PS2 is difficult to emulate in software because of its video memory. It has a small size (4MB), but an insane amount of bandwidth (48GB/s).
Re: (Score:2)
Given the sales of FFVII on PSN, I don't think I'm the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you said 8, not 7, and you're bragging about playing with backwards compatibility (not purchased through PSN) - a feature that most PS3 owners do not have.
Incorrect. All PS3s have the ability to play PS1 games through software emulation.
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 the Gamecube games actually get played. And I've even picked up a Gamecube game or two since I bought my Wii. I barely touched my Saturn once I bought my Dreamcast even though I consider the games I own on the Saturn superior to the games I own and still occasionally play on the Gamecube. Backwards compatibility didn't factor in to my decision to buy a Wii, but it's really nice to have.
It's also an unfortunate fact that not all consoles will last as long as one would like. Everytime a friend loses a Dreamcast to time it's like Tinkerbell dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's you. Some of us can appreciate classics. Can you imagine someone saying "It's nice to think you'll play your old music (or movies) when a new format comes out, but it's my experience that it just doesn't happen"?
Classics are timeless. Sure Sonic the Hedgehog or Ocarina of Time are showing their age, but so are Magical Mystery Tour and Gone With the Wind. It doesn't make them experiences not worth having.
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:2)
Backwards compatability is a nice to have, if you're really serious about this stuff you probably already have the consoles or you can pick them up used for next to nothing, it's definitely not a good enough reason to increase the cost to the customer or to put constraints on what developers can do with the technology, look at the mess MS got themselves into with the WIndows mantra that everything ever written for it had to be supported on the newer OS, while Apple took the approach of dropping a lot of support for old software so that they could make significant gains in the OS within a smaller time frame.
As dedicated gaming platforms, consoles aren't quite the same as computers. When Apple released OSX, they included a "Classic mode" to let Mac users run their old software. This emulator, however, had to replicate as much of the old operating system as running the full gambit of applications would allow. A game emulator, on a gaming system, won't have the same requirements. Even Windows dropped "real" DOS support, and this broke compatibility with a lot of games. Emulators like DosBox let you play these old
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?
Because hardware doesn't last forever.
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:2)
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:2)
He misspoke. It's $50 per year. I feel it's worth every penny to have a cohesive online environment where gaming and talking with friends is always easy.
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was just about to buy a new system and heard this I'd be like, "PS3 is free for a while now but they are going to start charging soon! Screw that."
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to show off that your service is free and your competitors isn't, you just state it. Or you release some new gimmicky app that is free on the network that catches some headlines. You do it in a positive way.
Doing it this way, you make all the people who were potentially going to buy your console take pause. They will want to see if you start charging or not and hold off on purchasing.
The only reason you say this is th
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to think of shit like this as "negotiation by proxy". Talk about doing "really, really horrible" to the media, then do something only just a "little" horrible the next iteration. Look for the PS4 to start charging for PSN access.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of foot / mouth moments Sony has had over the PS3, I doubt they're doing something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The thing is, not doing it will also amount to Sony shooting themselves in the foot.
The network is far from free to run, and is losing money. Unless they can figure out another way to monetize it (eg. advertising infrastructure, "subscription fee" from developers, whatever), I don't think anyone can realistically expect it to remain free forever. At some point it has to stop, unless someone can figure out another way for it to be free and profitable (on an ongoing basis -- just as a marketing tool to get
Re: (Score:2)
The subscription offering would provide new premium features you could choose to pay for and are in addition to the features currently available for free such as access to online multiplayer gaming (current features would remain free).
There's even a grid of their tier options and new features at that link.
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.
Yeah, I just bought a PS3 last weekend and that purchase was based on PSN membership being without cost. I'm a little outraged at the thought that they're even considering charging for the service now
Re: (Score:2)
Something like a Gold and Silver Subscriptions?
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:2)
Do a google search for "playstation 3 slim loss leader"...
You'll find quite a few articles, the most recent I saw on the first page was Dec 11th, 2009, which stated that they were loosing $40 on each one.
No, on the flip side, $40 isn't really that bad considering what it used to be, and if things continue this way, I'd say they'll start making money on them (or at least braking even) later this year, but still, that's a number of years of loss-leading, most of it at > $400.
(Thinking about it, I don't kno
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LOSING. LOSING. LOSING.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last stats they released said around 25 million Gold subscribers, at £40 a year, that's £1 billion (around $1.5 billion US) income per year from Live subscriptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing £ to $ is a 1:1 exchange
But yeah they are making a killing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Live provides nothing that justifies $40 a year, but $50 a year is just cheap enough where most will pay with out complaining and at worst people like me will bitch about it on the internet but still pay.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
As Long as... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Playstation Store and Playstation Home is for that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, wasn't one of the biggest recent FPS hits limited to "company servers" only? Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 without LAN-play? (with some speculation that it might be not completelly free to play, with premium accounts from what I remember?)
Rest might follow.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that it is probably too expensive to run PSN for free and they are going to be like the 360 very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Blockbuster/Hollywood Video/Gamefly is on the phone, they'd like a word with you.
At least if PSN/XBL allowed for "rentals", There wouldn't be the needs to allow a middleman like Blockbuster to skim some off of the top. It's actually a good idea, but it would probably be a $5-10 per game for a limited time rental, rather than a monthly pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Before I reply to your comment, let me state, I have 360 and PS3 and have used the Wii at friends' houses.
>One of the major advantages that PSN has over Xbox is the fact that the online play is free.
Actually, it's the ONLY advantage.
I would disagree. It's a major deal for me that the PS3 is so much quieter. The 360 is so loud that when we had both in the house people used the PS3 by preference, and if we wanted to play a game casually, it was always a PS3 game that got played. It also looked nicer :)
>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.
And you don't play games online a lot? So how can you really talk about PSN? Demon Souls is an excellent game.
To be fair, PSN is more than just playing games online. I've found it fine for online games and I haven't heard complaints
Game makers would NEVER allow this. Renting a game for 5 pounds? LOL Surely you jest
Particularly for indie games, don't underestimate the attractiveness of a constant stream of income.
You make it sound like PSN is designed just for movie rentals. It involves much more than that. Go on an XBL and you'll see how a better online experience works.
I'm not sure it's
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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:
Re: (Score:2)
If people start using the PS3 to download Blu-ray movies to watch them my head may explode.
Reasonable price & improved functionality (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It would still annoy a very large number of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Not working in my country anyways (Score:2, Interesting)
In my country there is problem... (Score:2)
In my country there is problem,
And that problem is transport.
It take very very long,
Because Kazakhstan is big.
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:2, Funny)
Verily, this Playstation has become a financial burden of prodigious proportions, therefore I promulgate now, that I shall have no more to do with it, and plan to dispense with the economically burdensome device forthwith!
With that being said, I bid you good day Sir!
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Well, they do have the most popular non-pay multiplayer service in town... Don't tell me you never played Diablo 2 or Starcraft on Battle.net -- and with the release of D3 and SC2, free Battle.net could well become more popular than WoW again...
Re: (Score:2)
... Don't tell me you never played Diablo 2 or Starcraft on Battle.net
Actually I never did, and I loved Starcraft. I played it on LANS and other similar things (dial up networking).
I don't disagree with you, but the big thing on Blizzard's plate at the moment is a 10 million person subscription service. And as PC gaming slowly becomes a port of console games, (and developers being purchased by traditional offenders) I can see it becoming an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
battle.NET
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:2)
Btw, do you know how easy is to burn your bandwidth with PS3 acting as server?
No, because I really do have unlimited rather than fake unlimited. You expect your console manufacturer to provide you with free hosted servers? Of course they are going to put it onto one of the consoles for the multiplayer game.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
It depends (Score:2)
If it's charge for multiplayer? meh, I'm single player only 90+% of the time
If it's charge for demos,Netflix or patches? DIAF Sony.
Gamefly like subscription to all the games on PSN? Count me in, if it's a reasonable price.
I have an Xbox and only reason I bought the PS3... (Score:2)
was because I wanted a blu-ray player and as an added bonus it played games and the online was free. If they started to charge for online multiple player there is no way I would pay for both the PS3 and Xbox. One would have to go... Since we are big Halo fans here I think I know which console would win.
Should the profits from blu-ray sales offset their losses? I've heard tho that blu-ray movie sales are poor as well.. I can understand why now that I have a blu-ray player. Upscaled DVD's are good enoug
My pipe dream... (Score:2)
Maybe they'll surprise us and do something awesome like content streaming over PSN. So you pay your monthly fee but you get streaming content like netflix has.
But probably not.