House cross-game chat a "side issue"

By Tom Bramwell Published 17 June, 2010

Not related to PlayStation Plus, says exec.

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe boss Andrew House has told Eurogamer that cross-game chat is not part of PlayStation Plus at the moment.

According to one Sony website, cross-game chat - the ability to talk to friends via headset whatever you're up to, similar to Xbox Live's Party system - was set to be part of the subscription-based PlayStation Plus service, but yesterday a Sony spokesperson told Eurogamer it had not been announced.

House said much the same in our interview with him at E3. "I think that's a separate, side-issue from PlayStation Plus right now," he told us. "I don't think we've talked about that for that reason."

We pushed him about it, but he added: "That's not really something we're talking about at this show."

When we told him that it was the main thing people on the PlayStation Blog and Twitter wanted to know about, he countered: "And we'll be able to tell them." But not right now? "No."

PlayStation Plus launches worldwide on 29th June and Sony believes an annual subscription offers £200 of value for £39.99, while a 90-day sub costs £11.99.

According to House, we can expect "Free game downloads, one PSN title, two Minis and one PSone classic every month; free premium avatars; dynamic themes; full-game trials, which was one of the things consumers told us they wanted most..." And meanwhile all the other stuff you can do already remains free.

Check out the full Andrew House E3 interview elsewhere on Eurogamer.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (34) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • TeaFiend #1 2 years ago

    Free premium avatars? Do people want them for Home?

  • Murton #2 2 years ago

    If Sony were properly clued in on this they'd give everyone the premium features (but not the associated freebies) for one month to see if it's something they want to have, they should also create a section on the PSN similar to the special offers which show this month's freebies (purchasable for non-premium users) so we can see just what premium is worth for ourselves.

    At the moment I'm kind of on the fence, the features sound nice but not sure if they're worth the price and the freebies, though more than likely worth the price may not be things that I want which would devalue the overall package for me.

    As #1 says, it's a real chinscratcher.


    @TeaFiend I think they mean the account Avatar that appears next to the user name. If premium however entitled you X value of Home freebies per month though, that would definitely be worth it.
    Edited by Murton at 17/06/10 @ 09:35

  • Cheddar99 #3 2 years ago

    Yeah, as home was a fantastic success. Wait...

  • chessboxer #4 2 years ago

    I think Sony should stop calling this Cross Game Chat if the service being proposed is actually the same as XBL Gold's Party Chat (albeit with fewer people). People will just get confused and asume that cross game chat on both platforms are the same thing.

  • erp #5 2 years ago

    I'd also very much like to know how the free games are selected, because as others have already said, if the games are either games I have no interest in or games I already own then the touted "value" becomes somewhat exaggerated.

    Give a free choice - or perhaps the choice of anything that wasn't released that month - then I become a fair bit more interested.

    I'd also like to know more about the "full-game trials". What does it mean? What is a "full-game"? Is it retail, or PSN? If it's retail, how does it work? If it's PSN, will it be for all games?

    Oh, so many questions. But get these two points right and I may very well be persuaded.

  • erp #6 2 years ago

    Also, I've never ever understood the appeal of cross-game chat.

    Why would I want to talk whilst playing a game? I don't even like doing that if the person's playing the same game as me, let alone something different...

    It genuinely baffles me.

  • HisDudness #7 2 years ago

    Watch them make participation for KZ3 multiplayer beta contingent on being a PS+ member, and the subscriptions will sky rocket. Then repeat every few months with a new beta for a new hyped game on the horizon, and people will become accustomed to paying for the service.

    I also don't understand the appeal of cross game chat, but it seems to be such an important thing for some gamers. I wonder how many actually use it.

  • byakuya83 #8 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • laharl80 #9 2 years ago

    Microsoft probably patented cross game chat and anything that remotely resembles cross game chat.
    We had the same issue with custom soundtracks.

  • tiny_Eggy #10 2 years ago

    How can you patent something like that though? Really makes no sense.

  • Skurmedel #11 2 years ago

    Well in US it seems you can patent a gene, which makes very little sense as well.

  • sneetch #12 2 years ago

    I don't see how they could patent cross-game chat as (I believe) Steam offered it before Live did. Strictly speaking so did Skype, Ventrillo and Teamspeak. The ability to chat to someone while playing a different game isn't really that new or unique.

  • Murton #13 2 years ago

    @Laharl: MS can patent their system of delivery, but they can't patent the concept of a cross game chat, if that were possible then TeamSpeak et al beat them to it long ago.

    The issue with cross game chat is one of hosting, at the moment we only have in-game comms which is hosted on the game server itself, not possible with a cross game chat, so it would either have to be peer to peer or hosted by the PSN, and each of those options brings its own issues in terms of implementation, bandwidth, cost etc.

    For me, cross game chat is a nice to have but not a necessity.

  • laharl80 #14 2 years ago

    @sneetch
    Microsofts patent is probably specific to consoles.

  • Lee_Morris #15 2 years ago

    I haven't seen this being picked up by anyone but it seems Sony are going to offer FULL PS3 games to download. First being inFamous and being able to play the whole game for an hour before trying it. Is this not a surprise to anyone?

  • shadowmind #16 2 years ago

    Maybe Sony should work in Goverment

    giving people want they don't need and ignoring what they want.

  • Trinod #17 2 years ago

    For people who regularly buy from the store i.e gamers, this game leasing service makes no sense. Really the deal maker and breaker is the cross game chat, without it I'm laughing at you Sony.

  • Shikasama #18 2 years ago

    The conference announcement was funny though

    'And we don't charge £50 to go online!'

    'Here's our subscription service, £40 for the year. You pay more than the Americans and get less =D!'

  • HL706 #19 2 years ago

    I don't see this 'PSN+' thing taking off. Sony's customers are used to getting everything for free. If you want to have a subscription based model then introduce it at the start of the service, not halfway through its lifecycle.

  • laharl80 #20 2 years ago

    Free games, themes and avatars alone is a hell of a lot more than you get for your xbox live sub.
    Sony give you pretty much everything your gold sub gets you for free.

  • erp #21 2 years ago

    @Lee_Morris, that is indeed big news if true. Do you have links?

  • Murton #22 2 years ago

    erp: look at the store, Burnout Paradise is already on there, has been for a while, also a complete edition with all DLC built in. A downloadable LBP is coming same day as PSN+ and will be a bonus for anyone who subs for a year on day one.


    As for other games, I can't find confirmed reports but personally if I were Sony, I'd be wary of offering such a service. Residential broadband isn't what it could or indeed should be (especially in the UK) and the whole point digital distribution is supposed to be convenience, it is in no way convenient for consumers to wait for days to download what they could have in mere hours or less by going to a retailer.

  • Petulant_Radish #23 2 years ago

    Why would it be a surprise Lee_Morris, don't MS do exactly the same thing? They've been putting full 360 games on there at a vast premium for some time. Not sure if they all have demos though, I know Fable III and Mass Effect 2 do but they might be special onions

  • erp #24 2 years ago

    @Murton, excellent points both.

    It does sound massively impractical, both in terms of bandwidth usage and hard-drive space required (I struggle with 60Gb already).

  • RustyBullet #25 2 years ago

    people saying they dont see the point off cross game chat, not all games are misserable little hermits. Me with a bunch of mates fill up a party on the 360 and can be playing 8 diffrent games if we wanted, but we can still have a laugh and a chat at the same time. During the world cup its been great to take the piss out of whos playing and who looks like a muppet. and bringing the 360 subscription in to the fold is just wrong. I have been a member of live since the original beta and would be happy to pay more for the subscription if i had to. PSN and Live are 2 diffrent beasts and i know which i prefer. Can you imaging a group of people in a party on the PSN all with BT headsets, it will sound horrible man. BUT i would still welcome it. The best part of playstations offerings is the VidZone, at least that is free.
    Edited by RustyBullet at 17/06/10 @ 13:59

  • Kaminari #26 2 years ago

    Right now, PS+ promises to be totally unexciting in terms of meaningful content, especially for the price tag.

  • Murton #27 2 years ago

    Mickey: I fail to see what is "innovative" or "great" about forcing developers to tie their multiplayer games into a closed login system for the sole purpose of extorting consumers for a subscription fee to access content that they have bought and paid for. If you got loads of extra stuff with the sub (like the PSN+ sub offers) then fair enough, but you still play on the same shitty Acti/EA servers as us, you're just charged extra for the privilege of being able to do so.

    Comparing like with like there are only two differences between LIVE and PSN as far as the services are concerned, and those are cross game chat and the leaderboard system. MS takes care of both of those within LIVE while Sony doesn't offer a cross game chat and leaves leaderboards up to the game publishers.
    Edited by Murton at 17/06/10 @ 15:01

  • laharl80 #28 2 years ago

    Hey Mickey! Hey Mickey!
    I suspect the real reason you only play on xbox live is that you are an xbot who doesn't own a PS3!

  • Machiavellian #29 2 years ago

    Free games, themes and avatars alone is a hell of a lot more than you get for your xbox live sub.
    Sony give you pretty much everything your gold sub gets you for free.

    The problem is that you must keep the sub in order to keep the content which is a deal breaker if you ask me. This works fine for something like the Zune pass because you have unlimited access to tons of music that would cost you a small fortune if you purchase the songs individually. For PSN+ you get a set amount of stuff each month, if you do not use it, those go away the next month and anything you get that is permanent is lost if you stop paying the sub.

  • Murton #30 2 years ago

    "The problem is that you must keep the sub in order to keep the content which is a deal breaker if you ask me."

    But if you keep the sub you keep getting free stuff, so it almost works out in the end. It's not an ideal situation by any means, but it's not quite as bad as some people are making it out to be.

    Personally I'd prefer a little more in the way of functionality/features than a load of freebies that expire with the sub, but with any luck they'll develop PSN+ further and deliver new features at a later date much the way they have with the regular PSN over the last couple of years.

  • Lee_Morris #31 2 years ago

    This is from the official playstion blog

    Full Game Trial:
    This premium feature gives you the chance to try PSN and Blu-ray disc titles before you buy them in a whole new way. We are not talking normal demos of selected parts of a game here. With Full Game Trial, you can download the full game and play it as if you owned it for approximately one hour, depending on the game, before you decide if you want to buy it or not. So you can check out the online modes, play against friends or anything else you’d normally do with a game.
    The other great thing is that your progress and trophies from the trial will all be unlocked if you buy the game so no need to go back and start again.

    [link url=http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/06/15/playstation-plus-check-out-what-its-all-about/
    ]http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/06/1...[/link]

    I have defiantly read that inFamous would be the first title.

    I know you can download 360 games but Sony have always made a big point of blu ray and how much data you can store on them. I'm sure they said that because of this full game downloads weren't something they were looking at.

  • Arwin #32 2 years ago

    I think full game trial is a pretty good idea. It'll probably come to all platforms regardless of PSN+, in the form of being able to 'buy' a full game trial. At least, that's what I've heard left and right.

  • KayJay #33 2 years ago

    Fuck me some of you comment dwellers are idiots.
    Pull ya finger out of your arses and go read some of the forum threads or pop over to the PS blog for more information.
    get some knowledge before you start talking shite...

  • riceNpea #34 2 years ago

    paying for PSN+ is optional which is more then you can say for the LIVE. if you don't think it's worth it don't get it and carry on as you are without recrimination. if you do get it realise that it's very much a fledgling compared to the well established and well furnished LIVE and as such is likely to come off second best in direct comparison. personally i think i will wait for the inevitable upgrades it will receive that will make it better value for money and then reconsider my options.
    as it stands (and as an owner of all current consoles) if i were to pay for a service, LIVE is currently a more attractive proposition but seeing as i'm perfectly happy with the FREE PSN i'm supplied i will continue as i am. In reality i am thankful that i've never been railroaded by Sony into having to pay for it the 'privilege' of playing online.

    i will now sit back and await the negs from those of you can't have a bad word said about their favourite system which ever it may be.