Sony Introducing Pay For "Exclusive Content" Gaming Program

[magik]

How much before Sony start charging to play online? :unsure:

I say it is only a matter of time. Like I have always said, there is no way Sony can continue to offer online multiplayer play for free, especially when the vast majority willingly pay for the service on their competitors platform. True, the Live service is above and beyond the current status of the PSN, but it is only a matter of time before Sony gets it around to being on par to Live, I would imagine. Then, the switch to a paid service is all but inevitable.

I also wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if HOME turned out to be a paid service as well. ;)

There is always that worry but they never charged you to be able to play the PS2 online, with the exception of FF11 of course.

That is because there were a very limited number of games that were 'online-aware' and online gaming just wasn't that big. The original Xbox ushered in the online revolution and has since set the standard to what a 'next-gen' console should have. It will happen eventually.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

As will be playing online, but the real question is, is this Sony's way of fattening up the cow, getting it used to paying, and then slowly transitioning you over to paying to play online? You know they are salivating over the revenue earned by Xbox Live, and since they were slow to the party, had to offer something over the top (free) to compete. Now, they've got an established player base and have you "hooked" so to speak. It will be interesting what happens in the next year or so.

They aren't going to charge to play your games online.

There is no real need for any console to do that, when most of the online playing is HOSTED by US - As in P2P networking. If Live supported dedicated servers for every game, then yes I might say, well dedicated servers eat bandwith, fair enough, but they don't have many, if any dedicated servers.

MS only do it as they are able to say, no service is as good as us, hence you pay for quality.

However what im hoping is Sony get their act together and offer a service that will make MS rethink charging to play online.

So far so good. Yes this is now a premium service which costs that offers more, but that's what I would rather see Gold as. An optional premium service that doesn't prevent you from playing online.

They made their console on free online gaming, and it will stay like that. Wishful thinking if you think otherwise, and there is nothing to backup it will ever change - We have a lot of gloating about it being freeing coming from Sony, to support the fact they won't charge to play online.

I say it is only a matter of time. Like I have always said, there is no way Sony can continue to offer online multiplayer play for free, especially when the vast majority willingly pay for the service on their competitors platform. True, the Live service is above and beyond the current status of the PSN, but it is only a matter of time before Sony gets it around to being on par to Live, I would imagine. Then, the switch to a paid service is all but inevitable.

I also wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if HOME turned out to be a paid service as well. ;)

I really don't know why people are that confident Sony will start charging to play online :/

Because MS do it, not everyone else with a similar service needs to.

there is no way Sony can continue to offer online multiplayer play for free

Why not?

What reasons would support them not being able to do it that would give you the confidence to say it's "inevitable"?

[EnzoFX]

I find it pretty ridiculous how some people think they can predict the future.

What's even more disgusting is how they seem to think Sony takes it upon itself to lie to its customers, NOT because it's not true, but because it doesn't matter what their intents were (They did not mislead IMO) I.e. Do you guys honestly think that a year ago, Sony said, "hey lets make it all free for now, then in a year we'll charge them! just to **** them off." Seriously guys? They didn't mention anything in regards to this exclusive stuff.

Also, did they ever say online play will ALWAYS be free? Besides the point really, as playing online is STILL free. Companies switch models all the time (for good reason), but now that Sony's seems to have done it, it means they we're plotting it from the beginning!.. and are an evil curse on society!! Oh god.

All of you seem to forget that both Sony/MS is probably more focused on growing their user base. The online play is what really sells it. It IS the most important feature. Its free with Sony, not free with MS. This is what will lure new customers, the extra stuff is just that, extra stuff. Stuff that only enthusiasts would really care for. You are all probably enthusiasts and why you're all in here debating this =P.

Lastly, Sony deserves more credit, I'm pretty sure they know they can't afford to start charging for online play, they DO know that they were using it as leverage. Same goes with HOME. Please don't try to predict what exactly they will use this exclusive content service for, and spew stupid comments like "Oh, they're charging for demos now..."

We don't know yet, we can only get an idea, we will see. Nevertheless, its an interesting move.

[Poolie07]

Off-Topic: I read the first and last page of this topic and could tell that the only thing I have missed is arguing.

On-Topic: Is this coming to the UK aswell? Also I hope this doesn't mean very little in terms of demos coming the way of regular users. My plan is to wait and see what other people say of the service a few weeks in and look at the early content and decide whether its worth the purchase.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

On-Topic: Is this coming to the UK aswell? Also I hope this doesn't mean very little in terms of demos coming the way of regular users. My plan is to wait and see what other people say of the service a few weeks in and look at the early content and decide whether its worth the purchase.

So far only SCEA have announced it.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/06/03/...th-playstation/

I'm sure if it's popular it will be announced everywhere.

[Poolie07]

Well from what ive heard, very few demos have been hitting the american store so maybe this was why. But I don't know whether those claims on the content on the american store are true or not. I personally can't see Sony charging for PSN in the future, the PS3 has recieved alot of critiscism over the service now so once In-Game XMB is out people who have critiscised might see the good in PSN, however charging will just stop people from buying a PS3 because PSN is better and able to compete with its competitors at a higher level simply because they already have the service many say is better. (Personally I haven't tried that service.)

[Ironman273]

Since (almost) everyone is saying that it's inevitable that they charge for online gaming, maybe this is a way to offset that cost so they can continue to leave it free. This and ad revenue from Home might be enough. Of course, I don't know and am just talking out of my ass like everyone else in the thread...

[magik]

Why not?

What reasons would support them not being able to do it that would give you the confidence to say it's "inevitable"?

Two simple reasons:

1 - It's not cheap to run a service on the level of Live.

2 - Because there is money to be had.

[Lauguu]

Today we are announcing that Qore: Presented by the PLAYSTATION Network, a highly interactive, monthly lifestyle gaming program covering the world inside PLAYSTATION is on its way to PS3. Qore has been developed to give PS3 users early access to game related content at a level of quality, interactivity and depth. Everything is filmed in HD. Qore will feature exclusive news, developer interviews, in-depth game previews and behind-the-scenes looks at PlayStation games and special access to game demos, special beta invitations, game add-ons and other downloadable game-related content.

Our premier episode will be available on Thursday, June 5. The premier episode includes in-depth exclusive and never-before released content on upcoming PlayStation titles such as SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Confrontation, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Secret Agent Clank, Soul Calibur 4 and Afro Samurai, as well as the latest Blu-ray Disc trailers, an exclusive SOCOM: Confrontation theme with an invitation to the SOCOM: Confrontation beta, art galleries and other surprises. We also know that many of you are big fans of Veronica Belmont, the widely-known host of numerous online video programs and podcasts and an avid gamer, so we?ve chosen her to be your host.

To get Qore, simply log onto PSN and go to the PLAYSTATION Store, as you would purchase any other form of downloadable content. Once the single Episode or annual subscription is purchased, that month?s episode will be downloaded under the ?Game? heading on the Cross Media Bar (XMB). Users who purchase the ?Qore Annual Subscription? will notice only that month?s episode is available to download. The following month, the new episode will automatically appear in your download list. The introductory price for Qore is $2.99 for a single episode and $24.99 for an annual subscription of 13 episodes, using your PLAYSTATION Network wallet.

As Peter Dille mentioned in a previous PLAYSTATION Network post, the broader service and community initiatives launching on the PLAYSTATION Network this year such as Qore, PlayStation Home and the Video Download Service are all evidence of our dedication to delivering an all-encompassing entertainment experience for PS fans. Qore is the first in a series of planned original programming specifically created for the PLAYSTATION Network community and we hope you enjoy it.

Source: Playstation.blog

Today's announcement of Qore met a mixed response from internet commenters. While we're excited to see the potential applications of Qore, it's upsetting to see a subscription model applied to the PSN. Qore, which is $3 a month (or $25 a year), will offer gamers more than just video previews of games. Qore will also provide downloadable games and exclusive demos.

However, what about PSN users that refuse to pay for Qore? They'll have to wait for the biggest demos. SCEA's Susan Panico told Wired that in terms of demos, "Qore is like the network broadcast" of a TV show. The PS Store is like "syndication."

This sounds like a practice currently used on Xbox Live. Free Silver account members have to wait one week to access any free content on Xbox Live Marketplace. For example, if a demo of Madden 09 is available on August 10th, Silver members would have to wait until August 17th to download the demo. The introduction of Qore may cause a similar division within the PSN.

We'll have to wait and see how the community responds to Qore once it releases later this week. In spite of this new development, we're still relieved by PSN's free access to online gaming. Unlike Xbox Live, all members of PSN (paid and unpaid) will still be able to play online.

Source: PS3fanboy.com

Edited June 4, 2008 by Lauguu

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Two simple reasons:

1 - It's not cheap to run a service on the level of Live.

2 - Because there is money to be had.

Um explain to me how exactly, when the largest part of the service, the game playing, is hosted by us?

Bandwith for the downloads? Pleaaaase, that won't cost an arm and leg for companies as large as Sony/MS. I would say advertising could easily cover bandwith costs, which you already get on Live!

The main reason you pay for Live is because nothing else rivals the service on consoles, therefore MS can justify you paying for it with that reasoning.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Coldgunner]

Um explain to me how exactly, when the largest part of the service, the game playing, is hosted by us?

Bandwith for the downloads? Pleaaaase, they won't cost an arm and leg for companies as large as Sony/MS.

bandwidth costs more than some may think, although to provide such a service is nothing for sony. you are correct in that the publishers foot the costs of dedicated servers etc, but downloading demo's/trailers etc can soon build up, something like PSN is probably knocking out GB's of data every second.

[popisdead uk]

bandwidth costs more than some may think, although to provide such a service is nothing for sony. you are correct in that the publishers foot the costs of dedicated servers etc, but downloading demo's/trailers etc can soon build up, something like PSN is probably knocking out GB's of data every second.

You really would be surprised at how little bandwidth costs a big company though. I work for a huge blue chip company and the costs for bandwidth are next to nothing (it's not what we charge our customer though ;) )

[Coldgunner]

You really would be surprised at how little bandwidth costs a big company though. I work for a huge blue chip company and the costs for bandwidth are next to nothing (it's not what we charge our customer though ;) )

I guess if you own the server racks etc and are only paying for the pipe I would agree

[Ricardo Gil]

Um explain to me how exactly, when the largest part of the service, the game playing, is hosted by us?

The main reason you pay for Live is because nothing else rivals the service on consoles, therefore MS can justify you paying for it with that reasoning.

I'll disagree with you on that. PSN is currently "just" a bunch of file servers with messaging capabilities. That's what you get from it. Online play is currently supported by third parties.

Live handles everything: messaging, live integration, video, files, matchmaking, leaderboards, etc. It's much more complex than what PSN is at the moment.

Online play will probably remain free while 3rd parties support it. If that changes I won't bet on Sony keeping it free.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I'll disagree with you on that. PSN is currently "just" a bunch of file servers with messaging capabilities. That's what you get from it. Online play is currently supported by third parties.

Live handles everything: messaging, live integration, video, files, matchmaking, leaderboards, etc. It's much more complex than what PSN is at the moment.

Online play will probably remain free while 3rd parties support it. If that changes I won't bet on Sony keeping it free.

That's done primarily by the console operating system.

2.4 for the PS3 is going to bring In-Game XMB, and pretty much offer all of that at no extra costs.

Leaderboards are also in a lot of PSN games, and I guess some PS3 games as well.

From what you've said I still don't see any real reason that things can't remain free.

As for your comments on 3rd parties, I doubt MS give any 3rd party a cut of their profits from Live subscriptions, so I don't really know where you're going with that comment.

When the gamers are hosting the games, I don't really see how 3rd parties would have any costs to pay out. That's how P2P online play works, you do know that yeah?

Some internal devs, like those of Warhawk, offer dedicated servers and they do it by using a server built from multiple PS3s. I'm sure Sony happily supply those PS3s for them :laugh:

Warhawk dedicated server farm

Edited June 4, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Richard Hammond]

I'll disagree with you on that. PSN is currently "just" a bunch of file servers with messaging capabilities. That's what you get from it. Online play is currently supported by third parties.

Live handles everything: messaging, live integration, video, files, matchmaking, leaderboards, etc. It's much more complex than what PSN is at the moment.

Online play will probably remain free while 3rd parties support it. If that changes I won't bet on Sony keeping it free.

Not everyone wants that though, i dont want to have to pay the Gold fee to cover all that just so i can play online.

[Ricardo Gil]

That's done primarily by the console operating system.

Looks like you have no idea of what's happening behind the scenes.

2.4 for the PS3 is going to bring In-Game XMB, and pretty much offer all of that at no extra costs.

Leaderboards are also in a lot of PSN games, and I guess some PS3 games as well.

Of course PS3 games have leaderboards, they're supported by the 3d party game servers.

From what you've said I still don't see any real reason that things can't remain free.

As for your comments on 3rd parties, I doubt MS give any 3rd party a cut of their profits from Live subscriptions, so I don't really know where you're going with that comment.

That's because you got it all wrong. If I was talking about keeping online play free, why would I be referring to Live? I was obviously talking about PSN. I'll say it again: As long as game hosting costs are given to the publishers, PSN online gaming should remain free.

When the gamers are hosting the games, I don't really see how 3rd parties would have any costs to pay out. That's how P2P online play works, you do know that yeah?

I'll just skip this since you obviously misunderstood what I said.

Some internal devs, like those of Warhawk, offer dedicated servers and they do it by using a server built from multiple PS3s. I'm sure Sony happily supply those PS3s for them :laugh:

Still, not a PSN core task, but yeah, I know you wish that was your room :laugh:

[Richard Hammond]

That's because you got it all wrong. If I was talking about keeping online play free, why would I be referring to Live? I was obviously talking about PSN. I'll say it again: As long as game hosting costs are given to the publishers, PSN online gaming should remain free.

With Xbox Live they dont actually host the games, the users host the games and some game developers host their own dedicated servers, why should i pay anyone to play online if im using my electric and my bandwidth to host a game?

[Ricardo Gil]

Not everyone wants that though, i dont want to have to pay the Gold fee to cover all that just so i can play online.

To be honest I guess no one wants to pay :)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Looks like you have no idea of what's happening behind the scenes.

Of course PS3 games have leaderboards, they're supported by the 3d party game servers.

That's because you got it all wrong. If I was talking about keeping online play free, why would I be referring to Live? I was obviously talking about PSN. I'll say it again: As long as game hosting costs are given to the publishers, PSN online gaming should remain free.

I'll just skip this since you obviously misunderstood what I said.

Still, not a PSN core task, but yeah, I know you wish that was your room :laugh:

Looks like you have no idea of what's happening behind the scenes.

Which is what, enlighten me?

Some bandwith usage with the transfer of statistics to a server?

My point being PSN already does most of that (messaging/ect), and when In-Game XMB is added, it's purely an OS system update to allow the XMB to be accessed in-game.

That's because you got it all wrong. If I was talking about keeping online play free, why would I be referring to Live? I was obviously talking about PSN. I'll say it again: As long as game hosting costs are given to the publishers, PSN online gaming should remain free.

Fair enough, but my points were that of as long as it's P2P online play, 3rd party developers aren't seeing any real costs fly their way.

P2P online play = Us hosting our own games, not the developers.

Still, not a PSN core task, but yeah, I know you wish that was your room

What do you mean by not a core task?

If that were my room I'd be rich, so yes I wish it was.

I may of misunderstood some of what you're saying, but your jist is 3rd party developers have control over whether or not Sony can offer free online play? :/

I doubt that, aside from MMO's where the 3rd party developers take in a direct profit solely to themselves, I've never heard any other developer ask for a PC game or 360/PS3 game to be released on a platform that charges you to play online.

[Ricardo Gil]

With Xbox Live they dont actually host the games, the users host the games and some game developers host their own dedicated servers, why should i pay anyone to play online if im using my electric and my bandwidth to host a game?

That's not entirely true. You don't just start playing with other people by yourself. You need Live to set up the game and get you going, statistics, leaderboards and every single bit of the online functionality a game offers is managed through Live. So while you may be sending packets directly to other consoles while playing, it's hardly just you paying the bills.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

That's not entirely true. You don't just start playing with other people by yourself. You need Live to set up the game and get you going, statistics, leaderboards and every single bit of the online functionality a game offers is managed through Live. So while you may be sending packets directly to other consoles while playing, it's hardly just you paying the bills.

The biggest cost though, I believe, would be the actual hosting of the game though. That you need many servers for, and bandwith costs for that I would guess would be higher than an online leaderboard.

When you remove that from the equation, you're left with minimal costs which is what most of us are trying to say.

Companies as large as MS/Sony can easily swallow up these "small" bandwith costs.

Which is why I personally don't see any immediate reason why Sony would have to charge other than that of "Oh hey look our service now competes better with Live, let's charge!".

That won't happen though, offering a service on par, or at least one that competes for free while the competition charges, is a fairly large tool for leverage and an attraction for buyers.

What they will do though, is offer services like this Qore, which come at a premium cost. Much like how Home will be free, but there will be premium content to purchase if you want.

[Richard Hammond]

That's not entirely true. You don't just start playing with other people by yourself. You need Live to set up the game and get you going, statistics, leaderboards and every single bit of the online functionality a game offers is managed through Live. So while you may be sending packets directly to other consoles while playing, it's hardly just you paying the bills.

But those dont require huge amounts of bandwidth or need to be transferring data back and forth the whole time you are playing the game, all the data resides on the servers all it needs is a few bytes transferred to update that score or to tell the servers you have just got achievment X.

[Ricardo Gil]

Which is what, enlighten me?

Some bandwith usage with the transfer of statistics to a server?

My point being PSN already does most of that (messaging/ect), and when In-Game XMB is added, it's purely an OS system update to allow the XMB to be accessed in-game.

You seem to believe that "messaging, live integration, video, files, matchmaking, leaderboards, etc." are done primarily by the console. That's on the border of nonsense.

Something as simple as downloading a movie needs server authentication. Matchmaking always need server work for client discovery. Leaderboards, games, demos and all media are stored there, downloaded from there. There's a lot going on behind your console.

Fair enough, but my points were that of as long as it's P2P online play, 3rd party developers aren't seeing any real costs fly their way.

P2P online play = Us hosting our own games, not the developers.

P2P doesn't make things free, it just frees up the bandwidth a bit. So while you think "3rd party developers aren't seeing any real costs" you forget the electricity needed to power the servers, the cooling, personnel, maintenance and keeping high availability to the service. That doesn't come cheap at all.

I may of misunderstood some of what you're saying, but your jist is 3rd party developers have control over whether or not Sony can offer free online play? :/

I doubt that, aside from MMO's where the 3rd party developers take in a direct profit solely to themselves, I've never heard any other developer ask for a PC game or 360/PS3 game to be released on a platform that charges you to play online.

Of course they have, think about the associated costs with running game servers. It's just too much.

[EnzoFX]

I agree, there must be very little costs to simply handling messaging, match-making, stats. The real costs are off-set by them not having to host the servers. MS isn't stupid and wouldn't have started Live if it meant them hosting every game.

Personally, I'm more of a PC gamer, and It's easy for me to see consoles as a more casual form of gameplay. It's a simplified architecture/platform, makes things easier on the end user, etc. Consoles continue to gain features that are common in PC gaming, and because Live is so ahead in this department, they are able to justify charging people. This is economically true and is a simple/common business move/model. It makes perfect sense that MS doesn't feel they need to compete, for now. As soon as PSN takes off, do you guys honestly think MS won't reconsider charging people?? Economics people...

IMO, the DLC area should be self-sustaining, they are charging for the stuff right? The add-ons, mini-games and what not. Demos/trailers make sense that those would always be free. Online play I too think will shift to being free. In the case of MS, they aren't hosting the games, so I believe with some pressure from Sony, they'll start offering it for free, at least just the online play aspect of "gold". Get a clue guys! It's free in every other gaming platform, PC/PS3/NDS what have you... It's what the ENTIRE industry is shifting to. In regards to Sony, well it seems the publishers are fitting the bill, so it too has no reason for becoming an exclusive feature, costing money. It seems all that's left for MS/Sony to worry about is the bandwith on distributing the content, and server duties of msging, match-making etc. Well, it seems they can easily subsidize this with Ads, or all the stuff Sony has planned for Home, micro-transactions and what not.

It is much easier for me to predict that MS will shift to offering online play (If ONLY online play) for free (you can quote me on that, as I find THIS inevitable), than for me to predict that Sony will start charging for all of PSN. It's Ludicrous.

Edit:

Ah yes, almost forgot to mention Steam. Should Valve start charging for people using Steam? It has messaging/stats, etc... More importantly do you ever hear Valve complain about the costs of maintaining Steam? Having to deliver sooo much content, and all the messaging that goes on in their 15million registered users? Come on guys, MS has no reason to charge for online play (Notice I didn't mention other features of Gold). Valve is doing incredibly well, hell and they still offer a lot more value than most game companies. Also not that I did not say Valve was hosting the games, this is almost becoming a moot point, doesn't matter who's fitting the bill there, Online play should be free.

Edited June 4, 2008 by EnzoFX