+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 Although all three consoles of this generation offer online play, originally Microsoft stood alone in it’s decision to charge Xbox gamers for the ability to join their friends in online multi-player matches. Recently this trend has continued with the announcement of Wii Pay & Play that will similarly charge gamers an as-of-yet-undisclosed fee to take particular Wii titles online. The PlayStation 3 stands alone as the only console that gamers are not asked to pony up any dough whatsoever for online multi-player support.At present, Microsoft feels confident that the market can sustain the $50 they ask of their Gold members annually. After all, Xbox LIVE offers 360 owners a few things console gamers can’t get elsewhere, like player screening, TrueSkill matchmaking, and a reputation system that encourages everybody to play nice. Regardless of whether or not you feel the subscription fee is justified, Microsoft’s success with their LIVE service established an important precedent: It’s OK to charge people to play games with one another. Sony has been promoting the fact that they don’t charge people to use the PlayStation Network, but currently the PS3’s online gaming experience is lacking many of LIVE’s popular features, prompting many Xbox fans to declare, “You get what you pay for.” However, Sony might just have an ace up their sleeve that could change this pay-to-play paradigm. Home, their free social network which has been in the public eye since its unveiling last March, is poised to launch with a whole slew of features that should give LIVE and Wii Pay & Play a run for their money. Features like the ability to access your friends list from within a game, free social spaces, a trophy system, and live blogging tools that let you upload your Home content to a Sony-hosted website (and vice versa) should offer PS3 owners an experience that matches (or even surpasses) the experience available to LIVE’s Gold subscribers, without any added cost to consumers. Although Home users can spend real-world dollars to pimp out their virtual space with digital furniture and clothes for their avatar, such expenditures are entirely optional. Xbox 360 loyalists on video game community forums often dismiss PlayStation Home as little more than a Second Life knock-off with little chance of supplanting LIVE’s status as the most full-featured online service available to console gamers. This dismissal from Xbox enthusiasts is curious considering that all three hardware manufacturers are adaptive entities that constantly change their features and services to remain competitive in today’s dynamic console market. When I recently talked to Major Nelson about the possibility of LIVE becoming free should Home prove to be a success, he simply stated, “Microsoft will respond to the market.” Make no mistake, if Home is a huge hit for Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft may be forced to adopt a similar free model in order to keep up with increased expectations, benefiting all budget-conscious gamers regardless of their platform of choice. Ultimately, it’s all about the accepted market standards. Whereas Microsoft raised the bar regarding online features, Sony is attempting to match (and improve upon) that standard by providing much of what LIVE offers but at a lower price. Meanwhile, Nintendo seems to be trying the “one foot in, one foot out” approach by only charging people on a game-by-game basis. This strategy affords Nintendo the luxury of abandoning Wii Pay & Play all together in the event that their new online solution doesn’t prove lucrative. If you’re an Xbox 360 or Wii owner who doesn’t want to pay for online play, (and what person in their right mind does?) you’d better pray that Home is a smash success. If Home does as well as Sony hopes, we may even see Microsoft and Nintendo create virtual (and hopefully free) social spaces of their own some day. Source: http://theexplodingbarrel.com/?p=99 I agree, id be very annoyed in a console world where all three (Sony/MS/Nintendo) charged for online gaming. It could've soo easily went that way had Sony implemented everything they said from launch (in other words offering similar features to live). I don't think I should pay to play, and I want Home to revolutionize the console, so others are forced into change. I can't believe Nintendo are adopting pay-to-play, even if right now we don't know 100% what titles will be affected. It's an uncessary money making mechanism, revenue can be made in other ways. That's how it seems Home will survive, offering premium items and advertising. I mean, you don't even get dedicated servers for shelling out to play online... Whether or not you like the PS3, you gotta appreciate Sonys ambitions to change things around a little, even if we are getting slightly peeved at waiting this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 I 100% agree! Live is an amazing service, and it's pricing is more than fair. But let's look towards a future where the service is part of the infrastructure that the console vendor supplies when you buy their hardware. Maybe push it further - not the next gen but maybe after - interoperable services... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhav Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Why would someone not want it to be a success? :s ...Unless you were an Xbox/Wii fanboy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted February 27, 2008 MVC Share Posted February 27, 2008 As of right now I don't care too much about Home. I think it will be cool but why the hell would people pay money to add furniture and things to their imaginary house? haha I think something like Home has the potential to make Microsoft realize that the $50 charge is really stupid for the service they give. I was an idiot and renewed my Live subscription another year in January and haven't even used it at all since then. I could see the $50 charge if they gave more things out for free if you are members but right now anything good you have to pay a fee on top of that. On the 360 you even have to pay for little things like themes or gamer pics, but on the ps3 you can make anything you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Author Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 As of right now I don't care too much about Home. I think it will be cool but why the hell would people pay money to add furniture and things to their imaginary house? hahaI think something like Home has the potential to make Microsoft realize that the $50 charge is really stupid for the service they give. I was an idiot and renewed my Live subscription another year in January and haven't even used it at all since then. I could see the $50 charge if they gave more things out for free if you are members but right now anything good you have to pay a fee on top of that. On the 360 you even have to pay for little things like themes or gamer pics, but on the ps3 you can make anything you want. I think you'd be suprised at how many people will buy premium items :pinch: ... I may buy the odd thing or two, but certainly nowhere near as much money as some will probably blow - And that is what Sony will be wanting :laugh: As you can't come back and complain 3 months later saying I spent $30 in Home in 3 months... as you chose to do so :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted February 27, 2008 MVC Share Posted February 27, 2008 I think you'd be suprised at how many people will buy premium items :pinch: ... Believe me, I know people will buy a ton of stuff. It's just such a waste of money though it's not even funny. I'm sure I'll pick up a few things as long as they cost very little money. I mean, if i could fill the space up spending like $10 max then maybe. But to spend like $5 to add a "special" couch or something would just be totally ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Spork) Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 (edited) as for home if it's a winner GREAT if it's a looser GREAT Edited February 27, 2008 by bmaher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 (edited) ..Unless you were an Xbox/Wii fanboy... I am!!! And I want Home to succeed! I benefits the industry, not just Sony. But let me understand - will some items (furniture, clothes) be free? I mean, people spend millions on add-on packs for Sims games... Edited February 27, 2008 by bmaher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I hope It's a success for Sony. But i really hope this is not a new fad that takes off on other consoles, this virtual world crap - Then i I'm gonna scream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Author Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 Believe me, I know people will buy a ton of stuff. It's just such a waste of money though it's not even funny. I'm sure I'll pick up a few things as long as they cost very little money. I mean, if i could fill the space up spending like $10 max then maybe. But to spend like $5 to add a "special" couch or something would just be totally ridiculous. I agree, if a couch costs $5 I'll laugh at it. Thing is, it probably will - That would equal around ?2.50 here, which is less than PSN games (?3.99-?8 roughly, ?20 for Warhawk). People spend money on wallpapers/avatars, which in essence are just "graphical" items - A couch is Home is just a "graphical" item, and therefore I can see Sony charging "more" rather than "less". I do hope things are $0.50-$2/3 though - In regards to clothes/furniture. If you can somehow add something "amazing" to your Home experience, of course a higher may be appropriate (I can see an apparment upgrade being higher, like $5+). But anyway, wallet concious people can just stick to the free wardrobe, and the poor mans furnit:laugh:ugh: But let me understand - will some items (furniture, clothes) be free? Yeaaaah. Watch the youtube video I linked, for the first time it shows someone walking into a clothes shop. Shows the free clothes available to "download". No premium content exists, but thats probably due to them not being settled on pricing, plus in a beta, it doesn't make sense to offer chargeable items. as for home if it's a winner GREAT if it's a looser GREAT LOL strange mentality to have. You want it to win AND l:laugh:ugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomnut Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 The PlayStation 3 stands alone as the only console that gamers are not asked to pony up any dough whatsoever for online multi-player support. Have any of you stopped to think about *why* live is a paid for service, and why PSN is free? Live was invested in as a paid for service. The back end infrastructure is better, the connection more reliable, the download speeds a *lot* better, and obviously has had more r&d time and money invested into the user-centric parts that give it that certain something such as integrated friends list, etc etc etc. I could name at least 20 features Live has over PSN. Next, Live gets content, and lots of it. PSN is hardly ever updated whatsoever, you really get your moneys worth in both services. That said, i'm not knocking PSN. For free it's a very good service, but the two just aren't comparible. While this will be a nice app to have, I certainly don't see it being a Live killer. They can't do that without investing in it as if it were a paid for service, and also actually sticking some demos up. PS3 fanboys can whine all they want that PSN is better because it's free, but personally having used both I would much rather pay the tiny fee to use Live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Author Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 Have any of you stopped to think about *why* live is a paid for service, and why PSN is free?Live was invested in as a paid for service. The back end infrastructure is better, the connection more reliable, the download speeds a *lot* better, and obviously has had more r&d time and money invested into the user-centric parts that give it that certain something such as integrated friends list, etc etc etc. I could name at least 20 features Live has over PSN. Next, Live gets content, and lots of it. PSN is hardly ever updated whatsoever, you really get your moneys worth in both services. That said, i'm not knocking PSN. For free it's a very good service, but the two just aren't comparible. We all know what the current situation is, you're beating the dead horse senseless. This article is about the future, and saying, IF Home is a success, IF the PS3 gets in-game XMB, messaging and all the whistles and bells, how will the gaming world react? And then turning the question on us, and saying, do you want Home to be a success to aid change in the console world in the future? - Or more bluntly, do you want it to be a success to promote free online gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomnut Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 No, *you* are beating the dead horse senseless with your constant spam about how PSN is soooo much better. No, I don't think Home will be a success, it will be a gimmick. Everyone will jump on, think it's great at first, but then the problems will come and the cheap ass infrastructure will rear it's ugly head. Not to mention that sony will follow it's tradition, stick it up and just not update it. The service will become stale and will be yet another sony failure. Home will change the world as much as Second Life did: not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Author Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 No, *you* are beating the dead horse senseless with your constant spam about how PSN is soooo much better.No, I don't think Home will be a success, it will be a gimmick. Everyone will jump on, think it's great at first, but then the problems will come and the cheap ass infrastructure will rear it's ugly head. Not to mention that sony will follow it's tradition, stick it up and just not update it. The service will become stale and will be yet another sony failure. WTF is your problem with me? Stop giving me grief for no reason. I do not think PSN is currently better, there I said it. That's why I said there's no reason to beat to death that argument, I doubt you'll find anyone reasonable headed, who will say PSN offers more than Live just now. Jeeez oh, you're about as pessimistic a person I've ever seen. ps. This topic isn't even about PSN vs Live, it's about free online gaming, and why people should offer some support to what Sony are trying to do. They could easily go down the route of get the service up to scratch and then charge for it, but they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomnut Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 That's exactly the point. You can't have free online gaming *and* quality, it just doesn't work. You either pay and get quality, or have free and pay for it in other areas. Home is a good idea, but PSN just doesn't have the power to change the world, it's going to end up just another app. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Author Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 That's exactly the point. You can't have free online gaming *and* quality, it just doesn't work. You either pay and get quality, or have free and pay for it in other areas. Home is a good idea, but PSN just doesn't have the power to change the world, it's going to end up just another app. Says you? Thanks for the analysis, but quality and free can go together. Last time I checked, PC gaming has always been free (minus MMOs), and offered dedicated servers - While PC online gaming and console online gaming, is an unfair comparison in some respects, im merely pointing out your flaw in saying free online gaming can't be quality online gaming. I think you're missing the fact Home will be heavily revenue based with advertising, and there is premium microtransaction content. While it is free, it isn't really free. It even has the potential to generate more monthly income than Live subscriptions do, based on the fact of what you spend in Home isn't capped - Live is capped at a fee for everyone. I do admit that would still need a decent number of people on Home, spending more than $3/4 a month (what Live is), but I think that's possible if the console installment base increases, and Sony do offer a range of content. I mean pets are confirmed for Home, and you can bet your boots they will be premium content... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 randomnut: I don't feel that Audioboxer is "spamming" about PSN being "better" - just that is will be great. And I think it will. No it won't change the world, but I am sure it will change the perceptions of the next next-gen experience, just as Live will and all other services. Take the best from whatever people like! Free and Quality don't go hand in hand NOW. But maybe these things will become the selling point (or competitive advantage) in future consoles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted February 27, 2008 MVC Share Posted February 27, 2008 That's exactly the point. You can't have free online gaming *and* quality, it just doesn't work. You either pay and get quality, or have free and pay for it in other areas. Home is a good idea, but PSN just doesn't have the power to change the world, it's going to end up just another app. right...thanks for that, but you have no idea at all what you are talking about. In case you didn't notice free online gaming has been going on forever on the pc. does that suck? No, not at all. You don't need to pay a premium to get quality online gaming. But paying so that you can track your achievement points so everyone can see them is totally useless in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruciz Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I'd pay money to play online if I didn't have to pay money for the game I want to play online. One thing that really peaves me off is theres NO local mulitplayer support - Making people pay to play with each other to the marketing extreme. This is especially annoying for 360's as you not only need a friend with a 360 and the same game, but also a damn paid live membership... Rockband kicks ass - cause this isn't a problem with the game, Neither with Call Of Duty 4.. Games like Burnout paradise and Unreal Tournament though really thwart me away from their purchases, along with my friends too.. Maybe some people have enough spare cash to buy into this bullocks, but I refuse to buy any more single-player unless online games - espeically for the microsoft console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Caboose Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 As long as it is completely optional to use, ie it doesn't replace my Dashboard, I really couldn't care less about Home being a success or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted February 27, 2008 Author Subscriber² Share Posted February 27, 2008 As long as it is completely optional to use, ie it doesn't replace my Dashboard, I really couldn't care less about Home being a success or not. Last time I checked Home wasn't coming to the 360 :rofl: I jest, no, the XMB is not being completely replaced. It's been said a few times, if you want, you don't need to use Home at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huleboeren Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 right...thanks for that, but you have no idea at all what you are talking about.In case you didn't notice free online gaming has been going on forever on the pc. does that suck? No, not at all. You don't need to pay a premium to get quality online gaming. But paying so that you can track your achievement points so everyone can see them is totally useless in reality. QFT! Unless we're talking MMOs here - where it actually requires a lot of cash to maintain the huge servers THAT YOU PLAY ON and the continued development of the game.. Paying a fee to someone in order to be able to play at someone-else is such a ****** ripoff :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtRaS Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I does not bother me one way or another. It is not something that I look for. I may pick up a PS3 later on this year but home is not a selling point for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted February 27, 2008 MVC Share Posted February 27, 2008 QFT!Unless we're talking MMOs here - where it actually requires a lot of cash to maintain the huge servers THAT YOU PLAY ON and the continued development of the game.. Paying a fee to someone in order to be able to play at someone-else is such a ****** ripoff :) are there any free MMO's on the 360? I don't even know, that's why i'm asking. I'm assuming you would still pay for them too. As for dedicated servers, Warhawk ( a $40 game) for example, has various dedicated server farms of ps3's all over the world to play on. We don't pay anything to use those. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with Live but it's really not the spectacular service that people are trying to make it out to be. PSN for online gaming is great. Who cares about the content on the store. I have never bought tv shows or anything through Live anyways. I just want to be able to fire up a game and play online. And for that there should be no reason to have to pay a fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troist Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I'd rather Sony spend time getting PSN up to the level that Live is instead of making Home... I can't see myself ever really using Home other than once to have a look at what the hype is all about. I doubt MS are too scared about Home really. Its more like a free game than a Live killer. I don't expect they'll remove the XBL pricing, but I can see them trying to come up with more incentives to use XBL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts