Hirai: PSN subscription a "possibility"

By Robert Purchese Published 19 November, 2009

Would co-exist alongside free service.

Sony appears to be considering a subscription model for PlayStation Network that would sit alongside the existing free membership.

Such a manouevre would bring PS3 in line with Xbox Live, which offers a premium Gold subscription and free Silver membership.

"SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network," said PlayStation head Kaz Hirai in a statement.

"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."

Sony referred to the PlayStation Network as "gaining momentum" in a new presentation spotted in a dark corner of the internet (by VG247).

The same document mentioned a "new revenue stream from subscription" under the PlayStation Network tab, and also talked of reiterated Sony's plan to support 3D on all consoles via a firmware update.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (77) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Incarta #1 2 years ago

    I'd rather they didn't. And if they did, it better be cheap as chips

  • Hendo #2 2 years ago

    Sign of the times, really.
    I don't see how they can keep an online service going for free with server costs and all that.

  • el_pollo_diablo #3 2 years ago

    Let's hope not. They did promise "free forever" after all.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #4 2 years ago

    They'd loose one of their biggest advantages over Microsoft, especially now PSN is mostly feature-comparible to Live now. Hopefully he means something like media access, rather than online play.

  • cianchristopher #5 2 years ago

    No surprise, really!

    But the least they can do , if they start charging, is get their download speeds up to par with Xbox Live.

    I have my 360 and PS3 both wired into my router, and the 360 can download a 1gb demo in the same amount of time that it takes for the PS3 to download a 50mb patch. It's ridiculous, free or not!

  • Razzajazz #6 2 years ago

    And now it all makes sense why they still haven't implemented cross-game chat yet....

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #7 2 years ago

    I'd imagine they'll still harp on about the advantage, but Live is a serious money maker for Microsoft and look what the company has done with the money - Live is a stronger platform than PSN. It's going to be interesting what Sony opts to do, as going too close to an XBL Gold/Silver setup will be PR-pudding for Microsoft.

  • AliRay #8 2 years ago

    I don't know how this would work, if they still allowed competitive online play on the free service.

    Surely thats why most people pay for a Live Gold sub? If Sony cut their basic subscription I *think* some folks might be pissed off.

    And a few 'premium' videos and themes won't sell it very well, imo.

  • Collymilad #9 2 years ago

    "I'd rather they didn't. And if they did, it better be cheap as chips "

    Like xbox live?

  • Joco84 #10 2 years ago

    I converted from 360 to PS3 when my 360 tanked. I thought to myself "why not give a PS3 a try, it's got free online gaming"

    After 2 years of happy online gaming, I'm now finding out that Sony might start charging me for a service that was supposed to be "free forever".

    If this happens, Sony won't be seeing me online anymore, I will be seriously tempted to go back to the 360.

  • Hendo #11 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher
    I have my 360 and PS3 both wired into my router, and the 360 can download a 1gb demo in the same amount of time that it takes for the PS3 to download a 50mb patch. It's ridiculous, free or not!

    I don't know why you're getting marked down because this is absolutely the case with me, PSN downloads are mega slow compared to anything else I use (laptop, phone, Wii, 360).

  • Steroyd #12 2 years ago

    "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."

    This leads me to believe they're concocting something in the MMO arena or some such, or this quote is utter bollocks.

  • stepneg #13 2 years ago

    So much for always free, to be fair PSN is shite compared to live so hopefully it will be a comparable service although not one I will be paying for along with live.

  • M_of_the_sys #14 2 years ago

    Back to MSN and free internet games for me. Sniff.

  • stepneg #15 2 years ago

    "Back to MSN and free internet games for me. Sniff."

    Why, if I only had my PS3 I would much rather pay 30 quid a year so PSN could function like Live, like someone else said if anything to speed up the patch downloads, I remember spending two nights downloading updates for MGS Online only to spend 35 minutes trying to get in a game, it's free but its awful.

  • Cappy #16 2 years ago

    I hope they keep online play free.

    I don't use it enough to justify paying a monthly subscription, it would cripple a game like Demon's Souls which isn't your traditional sort of online game but benefits greatly from most people being connected and being able to participate online.

  • Flying_Pig #17 2 years ago

    I'd only be willing to pay for this, if it offered something significant over and above the existing PSN service - which is actually pretty good IMHO

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #18 2 years ago

    I think Sony will do this eventually - maybe for the PS4 - and also that, eventually, MS will offer a stripped-down multiplayer component for Silver users.

    Again, this might not happen till the next generation, but I think we'll start to see lots of premium content - demos, videos, additional features/aps, maybe clan support - for "Gold" members, and then just plain old store access and basic multiplayer functions for "Silver".

  • Les #19 2 years ago

    While I think it's a stupid idea that can alienate part of the current user base, I don't really care as I don't use online much except for updates and the store. But with them bleeding so much money, they have to try something to get additional revenue.

  • M_of_the_sys #20 2 years ago

    "Why, if I only had my PS3 I would much rather pay 30 quid a year so PSN could function like Live, like someone else said if anything to speed up the patch downloads, I remember spending two nights downloading updates for MGS Online only to spend 35 minutes trying to get in a game, it's free but its awful."

    You would be happy to pay; I would not. It's simple really.
    I'm happy with the service because I've never had a problem with it. I have no trouble online. My download speeds are fine (with the exception of MAG) and I experience no lag.
    I've never used Live before. What are the advantages?

  • NotSoSlim #21 2 years ago

    You guys ever thought they may do subscription for psn games n video rentals??

  • DevilsNeverCry #22 2 years ago

    PSN Subscription ushers the word 'fail' to mind.

    I seriously hope Sony aren't considering this for the online play. I don't think they will personally, because even if they charge for premium store access, if the online stays as is then they will at least have that over MS - optional subscription for 'full' store access, but you can still enjoy your 40quid game withough the extra 40quid for online for a year.

    On the flip side, paying a premium for ANYTHING when we already get it for free is a massive kick in the face for long time PS3 and PSN users. Sony would be wise to introduce something entirely new with the intention to be 'paid for' rather than slap a fee on existing services, otherwise I will get rid of everything PS3 apart from exclusives.

  • kangarootoo #23 2 years ago

    So long as they add extra stuff for the subscription, and keep everything that is currently free, free... then I don't really mind.

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    "offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services"

    People seem to be missing that bit. They aren't going to start charging for online play are they.

  • alimokrane #25 2 years ago

    @mr_writer

    I still dont see how they would encourage people to join the premium service. If they keep online play for free, NO ONE and I mean NO ONE will go to their premium service which would mean introducing it in the first place is POINTLESS.
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 17:41

  • VicViper #26 2 years ago

    We already have Core in the states (maybe here haven't looked into it) which is a subscription based extra that provides early access to demos/betas and video etc, thats a package deal.

    If there not doing online play and I'm fairly sure most would consider paying for demos something they would not do I can't really see what they can offer as a worth while extra.

    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 17:44

  • Widge #27 2 years ago

    Well as long as that is the case, then ok, I don't really want to pay to play games online. I always got that "gym subscription going to waste" sensation when I went a long period without using Live. Also it would be a sucky resource drain for multi-console users.

    I'm happy with what it gives at the moment, if people want to pay for early demos or other such shite, then let them... as long as when I fancy playing something online I can just do it.

  • Razzajazz #28 2 years ago

    Like I said earlier, they're not going to charge for anything that's currently free, that'd be beyond stupid. But I can see them charging for cross-game chat, as well as any other innovation that comes from this point forward. Hopefully they wouldn't be idiotic enough to alienate their current user-base, but I wouldn't be surprised if the premium PSN sub didn't exactly match Xbox Live Gold feature for feature.

  • kangarootoo #29 2 years ago

    @alimokrane

    How can you say that when you don't know what the premium service will include?

    The question is rhetorical.

  • M_of_the_sys #30 2 years ago

    "offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services"

    Might sound a bit paranoid but I will say "for now". At which point do they decide that certain services and content are premium? If I can play online for free then that's fair enough.

    @mr_writer

    What are these bells that you speak of?

  • BritishBlue1 #31 2 years ago

    Hm, this doesn't bode well, I was hoping they wouldn't go the same way as Microsoft. This may not be too bad as long as they keep online gaming free...

  • Pedrolot #32 2 years ago

    Erm....They said it would co-exist with the free service?

  • ParanoidZombie #33 2 years ago

    I wouldn't be too worried about PSn becoming a xboxlive gold-type service, it's just typical PR stuff by Sony,they're throwing some ideas at us and analyze the feedback. Since said feedback is gonna be overwhelmingly negative, they will abandon the idea altogether and find another way to make profit with PSN (by focusing on making Home relevant and then charging for the access IMO).
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 17:50

  • Incarta #34 2 years ago

    "If you'd don't want them and are happy paying sweet FA and just playing online, then you can do this."

    "Erm....They said it would co-exist with the free service?"

    For now.

    Who's to say they wouldn't come back a year after launching this and say "Yeah, we're still losing money, we're gonna start charging to play online."

    Slippery slope...
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 17:52

  • Paulie_P #35 2 years ago

    I hope they keep it free. I won't be able to subsidise two different subscriptions to play online for a year, I'm struggling to justify paying one subscription as it is.

  • kangarootoo #36 2 years ago

    Half the people in this thread need a foil hat.

  • WinterSnowblind #37 2 years ago

    I'd rather see Microsoft do something like this too. Make online play free, but keep the subscription for many of the frills such as early demo's and perhaps even the party system.. That at least would greatly expand the amount of people who play online

  • Widge #38 2 years ago

    and the other half a fail hat

  • GamesConnoisseur #39 2 years ago

    People moaning about the subscriptions possibility beggars my belief! MARK me down for all you want. NOTHING is free.. that is the utter truth.

    EVERYTHING costs, sure there are different ways of funding running expenses, servers, PSN store administration and developments and so on. I would rather pay a cheap subscription, make it more competitive to XBL Gold fine, but as long as that would funds a better run PSN. I m all for it.

    SONY if you are listening, I ll pay up. As long as the result will show a greater advantage over non pay and where contents and service is better.

    Sure PC is mostly free, but its wildly all over the place, and interestingly people do pay subs for certain downloading/server services and hence not exactly free?!

  • kangarootoo #40 2 years ago

    @WinterSnowblind

    I predict free XBLive play in the not too distant. Once they have a rack of other chargeable services, they can proably flip the switch and see a large increase in online play (which can bring its own indirect revenue streams, such as advertising).

  • AbracadaverAK #41 2 years ago

    Why would MS stop charging for something people are clearly happy to pay?

    Perspective, people. £35 a year is perfectly reasonable price for this sort of service

  • light&shadow #42 2 years ago

    Well, let's not forget the current service is NOT free. It currently costs developpers/publishers 30% of the sales price to cover sony's expenses. And I think it should stay that way.

    You wouldn't pay the rent of a retailler's shop would you?

  • George-Roper #43 2 years ago

    LOL @ whiners

    PSN is gash compared to Live, so this is a welcome change if it improves quality.

    If.

  • Gaol #44 2 years ago

    PSN is not gash, it's performed well for me for 3 years. I've never had any issues with slow downloads or lag (Everybody's Golf patching aside), and there haven't been any bad outtages.

    I'd really begrudge becoming a second class citizen unless I paid a sub though, especially for stuff like demos being a week later. Sony have a lot of goodwill at the moment with regards the PS3, this would be a sure fire way of losing it.

  • Incarta #45 2 years ago

    £35 - 40 is perfectly reasonable.

    £70 - 80 for two services that do the same job?

    What about if Ninty adopt this too? £120!?

    That might not be such a big deal for some with money to burn on our hobby, but for those of us with stuff to pay for in the real world, it's a genuine blow.

    But yeah, I personally don't have a problem with it as long as the online play stays free.

  • shogo10 #46 2 years ago

    I like the system currently as it is with psn, games are already expensive enough as they are and I wouldn't be willing to pay extra for a subscription fee to play online.

  • drumbaby #47 2 years ago

    "......in addition to the current free services."

    So gaming is currently free, and this is in addition to gaming etc -- so gaming remains free.

    Cool.

  • NotSoSlim #48 2 years ago

    The PlayStation Network, currently free to all PlayStation 3 and PSP owners, is to see "paid subscriptions" in the near future, Sony has revealed.

    The news comes via a recent Sony investor conference, where one powerpoint slide listed "new revenue stream from subscription" as a feature headed to PSN.

    Update: As the internet went bonkers at the prospect, Sony head honcho Kaz Harai has stepped in to clarify what this means and DON'T PANIC gamers, it doesn't refer to pay-to-play.



    Hirai told CVG: "SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network. Especially in the on-line area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services."

    Panic over, PSN will remain free for your usual everyday frag fests, it's just premium services and content that you might have to shell out for, much as you do across the wider internet and well, just about everywhere
    Edited by 3 at 19/11/09 @ 18:49

  • DevilsNeverCry #49 2 years ago

    '£35 - 40 is perfectly reasonable'

    And this is why Microsoft make bags of money for something that they frankly dont need paying for by anyone else.

  • Incarta #50 2 years ago

    For the record, I paid £26. Gotta love eBay

    £40 would be reasonable for both services put together.

  • freakzilla #51 2 years ago

    I wouldn't mind paying for dedi servers for ALL games, I once suggested that if Sony went with paid for PSN they should provide dedicated servers for all games. If you're a paying customer you get dedi servers and if not you get peer to peer.

    And improve download speeds aswell as providing demoes (bad spelling?) for all games like XBLA.

  • Les #52 2 years ago

    "So gaming is currently free, and this is in addition to gaming etc -- so gaming remains free.

    Cool."

    I hope so. But I seriously doubt that they will be able to generate any meaningful revenues with premium content on top of the existing services.

  • SeesThroughAll #53 2 years ago

    Hmmmm...

    Cross-game chatting delayed...
    MMOs about to be announced for release...
    Home still beta...

    And now, "offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services"...

    Am I the only one who sees a relation between all this?
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/09 @ 19:31

  • loveless #54 2 years ago

    They've already made the PSN store unusable by littering it with backgrounds, making the text unreadable.

    Is it wise for them to burden us with more pain?

    Oh, and VicViper - we already have access to the US store for early access to demos :)

  • Xerx3s #55 2 years ago

    "People seem to be missing that bit. They aren't going to start charging for online play are they. "

    Ah but who in their right mind would pay for a gaming service when the gaming itself is free? Demo's and vids might get a few subscribers but nothing close to what live has.

  • Xerx3s #56 2 years ago

    "Like I said earlier, they're not going to charge for anything that's currently free, that'd be beyond stupid. But I can see them charging for cross-game chat, as well as any other innovation that comes from this point forward."

    No, only charging for basic things such as cross game chat would be beyond stupid. Not even live does that. No, reality is that the only thing that they can charge for that is of interest to a large portion of the users is online play.

    Also, assurances given - as history proves - usually only last as long as it suits the company that gives them.

  • SeesThroughAll #57 2 years ago

    @ semitope:

    Nobody knows why for sure why is it that cross-game voice chat isn't available yet. Most likely because it simply doesn't work properly yet, but the eagerness of some people might make the suits think of it as a good bait for attracting subscribers.

    As for Home, yes I am aware that it already has paid services such as items, bigger houses, and clubs, but it has always been a beta product since launch. Sony could just as easily take away the beta label and call it a premium service altogether. Wouldn't put it past them to be honest.

  • giant_frying_pan #58 2 years ago

    Let's hope not. They did promise "free forever" after all.

    Play now, My Lord!

  • GreyBeard #59 2 years ago

    Don't forget that SOE is running/developing how many MMO's right now?

    I could quite easily see Sony offering a multi-title "passport" that would allow a single subscription to cover their whole range of online products. Don't forget that the service *not the hardware* is what they are trying to push.

    Free online gaming is a big part of the PS3's value proposition, so I can't see them undermining themselves until their market share is stronger.

    On the other hand, if they have a really strong online service that works on everything from PCs to Cellphones they can use the breadth of their portfolio to drag in as wide an audience as possible and cross promote their products from a single central storefront.

    Just bear in mind that as an entertainment provider, Sony have their fingers in a lot more pies than MS do. They are the ones who own movie studios and record labels, if they can converge and consolidate their properties they have a lot to offer.

  • Scimarad #60 2 years ago

    Just as long as I don't have to pay to play online every now and then I couldn't give a crap.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #61 2 years ago

    It will be 'Free Forever', would Sony lie to us?

  • ronuds #62 2 years ago

    I think everyone saying that Sony claimed PSN would be "free forever" are mistaken. I remember them saying in the past that there was a possibility you'd have to pay for PSN, or "some of" PSN one day.

    They never said "free forever."

  • legendarytomuk #63 2 years ago

    I think people are getting a little too worked up. They didn't say that they were gonna start charging for playing online, but for premium services, if it's good and cheap I'll pay for it.

  • onyxbox #64 2 years ago

    This won't happen anytime soon and when it does it'll be some bollocks like Quore (or whatever it's called).
    Or Probably a subscription based TV shows and film and maybe even episodic gaming or MMO type stuff. I think people hear subscription and PSN in the same breath and jump to too many negative conclusions and assume they'll go the same way as MS.

    I amost only use PSN these days and I enjoy the fact that I can take advantage of every aspect of a game without having to pay extra for a service to support the online component of a game I already paid for.

    Sony know this and it would be suicide to introduce any kind of cost ascocisted with the service we already get... then again this is Sony ;)

  • man.the.king #65 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher

    "I have my 360 and PS3 both wired into my router, and the 360 can download a 1gb demo in the same amount of time that it takes for the PS3 to download a 50mb patch. It's ridiculous, free or not! "

    I don't know what kind of connection you have, but in the past I have downloaded 1+ GB demos (Uncharted 2 Online, for example) in between 10-20 minutes. I would call that a pretty respectable speed.
    Edited by 1 at 20/11/09 @ 06:52

  • man.the.king #66 2 years ago

    I don't mind them having a premium service, as long as
    (1) the "premium" service doesn't take away any features from the existing free service, and,
    (2) just as importantly, they keep on adding relevant features to the free service as well.

    That said, it would be much more preferable if they would NOT go the "paid subscription" route as their service being free is one of the biggest advantages over XBL, in my opinion.
    Edited by 1 at 20/11/09 @ 06:54

  • Retroid #67 2 years ago

    PSN download speeds vary wildly depending on the time of day.

    If you pick the right time, it's great and fast. If you don't.... then you'd better have something else to do, especially if it's a system update - my worst for that has been pushing 40 minutes, my best being around 2 minutes.

  • chessboxer #68 2 years ago

    System updates usually download in under a minute for me. I got the Bad Company 2 beta (912MB) in 10 minutes and that was a bit slow for me.

  • Piranacon #69 2 years ago

    Not sure what extras you can add add charge for a few of my ideas:

    + Cross game chat
    + High performance servers
    + Fatter bandwidth pipes
    + Online gaming capped for free users (ie. paid subs 32 + player games, freebies limited at 8 - 16 games)

  • davisorle #70 2 years ago

    Funny trhing how Sony is not only copying XBL ground up but also is luring anything and anyone possible thats defending poor PSN with the intention of also making it like a gold/silver subscription figure. No more " Our services are free and why worst" ? What will their excuse be now..? That they still will be counting on ppl paying till a good exclusive every few years? And i was thinking of buying me a PS3 for Uncharted. Thats all there is to it after all for my interests so still not worth the buy. Well and it was obvious the service was heading that way. ->not free. i mean

  • kangarootoo #71 2 years ago

    "It works out to about £3.30 a month and if you cant afford that, i would find another cheaper hobby"

    Respectfully, what you pay is only half the deal. Value comes from knowing what you get. Its not a matter of spending £3.30 if you can afford it, its a matter of deciding whether the £3.30 is money well spent.

    If its great value, even someone with a low income might stretch themselves. And if its bad value, even the well off would pass.

    We currently haven't even the remotest idea what a premium service would include (and at this stage, Sony probably don't know either). And for that matter, any suggestions as to the expected cost are nothing but uninformed guesses. So any statements of whether the potential service is going to be good or bad are premature to say the least.

  • kangarootoo #72 2 years ago

    "Funny trhing how Sony is not only copying XBL ground up..."

    And that is where I fell asleep.

  • xentar #73 2 years ago

    oh gosh... i suppose they may pull it off if they keep online gaming free and create some added value for subscribers but managing this to work will be pretty tricky. If they start charging for online play, they will lose one of the two advantages they have over Xbox and that is free online play and blu-ray. And once one of the two is gone, its bad as Xbox has better performance on virtualy all of the multiplatform games on its side :-/

  • Hulle #74 2 years ago

    Should they charge for online play, PS3 would lose the edge over Xbox360.
    Personally i would never pay for that service, since I own a 360. With better versions of almost all multiplatform games, and a better joypad, that would surely be my future version of choice.
    For now, I stick with the PS3 version of online games, because of the free online play, and I'm not a Xbox Live subscriber.

    So lets hope NotSoSlim (#52) is right.

  • wobblyman #75 2 years ago

    The one determining factor of buying the PS3 for me was FREE online play. I'm not up for paying a subscription then having to pay to play all the other games ( as this seems to becoming a trend).

  • Quak #76 2 years ago

    Wasn't "free forever" in the same sentence as "backwards compatibility" though?

  • Loghorn #77 2 years ago

    @ cianchristopher:

    Yeah, I agree with you. Sorry guys, but PS3's online pales in comparison to 360's. If they start charging you for playing online, I won't be buying from there.

    Many of you are saying that it's still free, & it is, for now. But who's to say that their online would be free forever?