Advertisement
Hirai: PSN subscription a "possibility" News
PlayStation 3 News by Robert Purchese
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.
Advertisement
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
Shakey_Jake33
19/11/09 @ 16:52
+12
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
19/11/09 @ 16:54
+29
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! |
|
+17
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.
|
|
+11
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
19/11/09 @ 16:59
-7
"I'd rather they didn't. And if they did, it better be cheap as chips "
Like xbox live? |
|
+7
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. |
|
+20
@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). |
|
+10
"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. |
|
designerheadache
19/11/09 @ 17:05
+6
my only fear is that they start charging so i cant play my friends online, its my biggest bugbear with Live and if Sony follow suit i wont be pleaseed.
|
|
dangerpuss
19/11/09 @ 17:09
+2
I don't see how they can possibly get anyone to pay a subscription fee unless it's for online play. Is anyone going to pay for exclusive demos? And MMOs will want their own dedicated revenue stream, not a slice from a general subscription pie.
|
|
+4
"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. |
|
Flying_Pig
19/11/09 @ 17:15
+5
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
19/11/09 @ 17:18
0
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". |
|
M_of_the_sys
19/11/09 @ 17:27
+2
"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? |
|
DevilsNeverCry
19/11/09 @ 17:30
+4
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
19/11/09 @ 17:31
+4
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
19/11/09 @ 17:32
+2
"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. |
|
-8
Do any of your fucktards read? YOU WON"T BE CHARGED TO PLAY ONLINE. Jeysus it just means you get more bells added to the service if you pay.
If you'd don't want them and are happy paying sweet FA and just playing online, then you can do this. Thats the difference between this and LIVE if you could play online with a Silver memebership no one would care about Gold really. |
|
alimokrane
19/11/09 @ 17:39
+6
@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 1 times,
most recently on 19/11/09 @ 17:41
|
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 19/11/09 @ 17:44
|
|
+3
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. |
|
+1
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
19/11/09 @ 17:44
+1
@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
19/11/09 @ 17:45
+3
"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
19/11/09 @ 17:47
+1
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...
|
|
ParanoidZombie
19/11/09 @ 17:49
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 19/11/09 @ 17:50
|
|
+6
"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 1 times,
most recently on 19/11/09 @ 17:52
|
|
WinterSnowblind
19/11/09 @ 18:00
+3
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
|
|
GamesConnoisseur
19/11/09 @ 18:02
0
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
19/11/09 @ 18:04
+4
@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
19/11/09 @ 18:15
-2
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
19/11/09 @ 18:19
+4
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? |
|
EarlBassett
19/11/09 @ 18:21
+9
@ Mr_Writer
I deduce two thing from your "fucktards" post: 1) You read Aint It Cool News 2) You are a cock |
|
George Roper
19/11/09 @ 18:24
0
LOL @ whiners
PSN is gash compared to Live, so this is a welcome change if it improves quality. If. |
|
+1
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. |
|
+3
£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. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
