Sony's Kaz Hirai confirms 'premium level' subscription for PSN

[soniqstylz]

Brandon's post was actually completely fair.

But essentially useless and nitpicking. Sony have also stated that any premium content would be something in addition to current servies, ie., MP, demos, facebook, iPlayer, Home, etc. So while we may not know exactly what they will offer, we do know what they won't charge for.

In the MP department, I could see Sony offering a "play all" premium service for the upcoming MMO's, pay $10 a month to play one, or have the option to play them all for $20/mo (FF14, DC Universe, Agency, etc.)

[macrosslover]

But essentially useless and nitpicking. Sony have also stated that any premium content would be something in addition to current servies, ie., MP, demos, facebook, iPlayer, Home, etc. So while we may not know exactly what they will offer, we do know what they won't charge for.

In the MP department, I could see Sony offering a "play all" premium service for the upcoming MMO's, pay $10 a month to play one, or have the option to play them all for $20/mo (FF14, DC Universe, Agency, etc.)

a person would have to be pretty naive to believe everything they already said at face value and not assume that mutliplayer is going to be a premium service in the future. It's just PR at this point, but they aren't going to tell people before the fact we are going to charge for multiplayer.

Sony has to have something that makes people want to purchase the subscription and I don't see MMOs or just video content being that hook. People aren't going to pay extra money just for the privledge of renting/buying movies either, they'll just get it from somewhere else. Like it or not, online multiplayer is the only thing that they can make everybody say damn I guess I better get it. The only other thing I can think of that would be tempting enough would be the ability to play ps2/ps1 games, which to me would be worse than making multiplayer a fee.

I know Sony people aren't using to paying a fee, but I have to tell you that I think the service would be alot better off with that constant money. People knock the XBL fee, but I tell you it's worth every dime and I never say OMG I could have used that $50 on something else. People will spend $50 on their cell phone, on one video game, or whatever every month at any given time, there's nothing wrong with spending $50 for an overarching service if it improves that service.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

a person would have to be pretty naive to believe everything they already said at face value and not assume that mutliplayer is going to be a premium service in the future. It's just PR at this point, but they aren't going to tell people before the fact we are going to charge for multiplayer.

Sony has to have something that makes people want to purchase the subscription and I don't see MMOs or just video content being that hook. People aren't going to pay extra money just for the privledge of renting/buying movies either, they'll just get it from somewhere else. Like it or not, online multiplayer is the only thing that they can make everybody say damn I guess I better get it. The only other thing I can think of that would be tempting enough would be the ability to play ps2/ps1 games, which to me would be worse than making multiplayer a fee.

When you have PSN available to you through your Bravia TV/Blu Ray player, you don't even need a PS3. Think of for example a subscription for $10 a month for rent all you want movies, you think NO ONE will want that? Or what about something like Zune Pass to a music store?

As PSN is becoming universal with all Sony devices a subscription is not something inherently related only to the PS3, it's something that provides content through PSN on any device that supports it.

My point? A subscription in that sense has the potential to make much more money than a subscription that's only related to the PS3, therefore making this argument of "it has to be MP as no one will pay for anything else" void. Heck TVs and Blu Ray players don't have multiplayer. There's going to be far more Sony TVs and Blu Ray players out there than there will ever be PS3s. If all the new hardware runs on the PSN network that's a crap load of devices that will be hooked up to digital services. You've already seen how popular iTunes/Netflix are, Sony's obviously wanting to have a go it seems...

As the lowest common denominator for a PS3/TV/Blu Ray player is films/music/ebooks, those are 3 things all of them can use. Only one of them does multiplayer gaming. You can even add Walkman phones into that mix, you can bet they'll be running on PSN as well for music/video.

Remember Sony are a massive hardware company, their services can span many in-house devices, MS on the other hand are known for software first and are only now starting to branch into more hardware. They however still do not make Blu Ray players, or TVs, or phones, a few things with massive subscription/online service potential for Sony.

Not to mention for the umpteenth time, Kaz says in addition to what is free just now. MP is free just now.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Audioboxer

[macrosslover]

When you have PSN available to you through your Bravia TV/Blu Ray player, you don't even need a PS3. Think of for example a subscription for $10 a month for rent all you want movies, you think NO ONE will want that? Or what about something like Zune Pass to a music store?

As PSN is becoming universal with all Sony devices a subscription is not something inherently related only to the PS3, it's something that provides content through PSN on any device that supports it.

My point? A subscription in that sense has the potential to make much more money than a subscription that's only related to the PS3, therefore making this argument of "it has to be MP as no one will pay for anything else" void. Heck TVs and Blu Ray players don't have multiplayer.

The lowest common denominator for a PS3/TV/Blu Ray player is films/music/ebooks, those are 3 things all of them can use. Only one of them does multiplayer gaming.

Remember Sony are a massive hardware company, their services can span many in-house devices, MS on the other hand are known for software first and are only now starting to branch into more hardware. They however still do not make Blu Ray players, or TVs, two things with massive subscription/online service potential for Sony.

Not to mention for the umpteenth time, Kaz says in addition to what is free just now. MP is free just now.

and again I say I don't believe him. Just an example, IW lied about the PC MW2, so it is within the realm of possibility that things change for a company when they see dollar signs.

I'll admit that the prospect of renting all the movies you want for X amount of dollars is tempting, the price has to be right and I just don't see them really pushing it that hard. If Sony as a company starts taking a MS approach and pushing online video/streaming then I'm sorry whether you want to see it or not it competes directly with Blu-ray. The advantage of the ps3, Sony's tv, sound systems etc is that it is best experienced with blu-ray.

If people have the choice to watch a 1080p movie online instantly or go to the store and buy the blu-ray, then one of them is going to lose. I can't tell you which one, but there's not a market for both of them to exist on the same family of electronics. So that's why I say that whatever Sony decides to do I don't see video content being enough to make people subscribe. They would have competition from netflix, cable on demand, satellite on demand, that they wouldn't necessarily have with online gaming.

I will say multiplayer again, because PS3 gamers are a reliable core source of revenue that Sony can rely on, they are hardcore if you will. I don't know how many PSN PS3 members there are now, but if Sony was making revenue estimates, it will be alot easier and stable for them to say we can pretty much guarantee that 10 million ps3 gamers will subscribe to PSN year over year regardless, whereas we can't guarantee that 2 million bravia users will sign up to a subscription model or 2 million psp users. That's part of the reason IMO that XBL is so successful. MS knows that no matter what they can guarantee a min amount of people will sign up for it, but if they somehow tried to branch XBL out to consumer devices or something, there's no way they could predict how many "average" customers would subscribe to it then and I personaly think it would fail or anything else.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

and again I say I don't believe him. Just an example, IW lied about the PC MW2, so it is within the realm of possibility that things change for a company when they see dollar signs.

I'll admit that the prospect of renting all the movies you want for X amount of dollars is tempting, the price has to be right and I just don't see them really pushing it that hard. If Sony as a company starts taking a MS approach and pushing online video/streaming then I'm sorry whether you want to see it or not it competes directly with Blu-ray. The advantage of the ps3, Sony's tv, sound systems etc is that it is best experienced with blu-ray.

If people have the choice to watch a 1080p movie online instantly or go to the store and buy the blu-ray, then one of them is going to lose. I can't tell you which one, but there's not a market for both of them to exist on the same family of electronics. So that's why I say that whatever Sony decides to do I don't see video content being enough to make people subscribe. I will say multiplayer again, because PS3 gamers are a reliable core source of revenue that Sony can rely on, they are hardcore if you will.

I don't know how many PSN PS3 members that are now, but if Sony was making revenue estimates, it will be alot easier and stable for them to say we can pretty much guarantee that 10 million ps3 gamers will subscribe to PSN year over year regardless, whereas we can't guarantee that 2 million bravia users will sign up to a subscription model or 2 million psp users. That's part of the reason IMO that XBL is so successful. MS knows that no matter what they can guarantee a min amount of people will sign up for it, but if they somehow tried to branch XBL out to consumer devices or something, there's no way they could predict how many "average" customers would subscribe to it then.

Um what? I have absolutely no idea what relevance IW have to a Sony business plan for 2010.

As for your comment on Blu Ray/Rental, you do realise people are already starting to steer away from renting physically, especially with things like Netflix? Renting can be done on a whim, you don't always prepare for wanting to rent something in advance, therefore saving you a trip out the house at 7pm at night is convenient. Sony don't dictate consumer interest, they can stimulate/try to influence it, but if consumers are renting in healthy numbers over digital distribution Sony will have to and want to adapt to that.

Also I don't know if you have a PS3, but you've been able to rent content off the PSN video store for over a year. It's not as if they'd be introducing something new, the video content is on PSN, but as of right now you need to rent everything individually. That subscription for something like $10-15 a month with the amount of video content that's on PSN, spread across PS3s/TVs/Blu Ray players would most certainly rival Netflix and catch peoples interests.

No one loses out with physical/digital, it's two different markets that can co-exist.

As for your PS3/Bravia figures, you're still being close minded to what I'm getting at. The type of subscriptions I'm talking about are universal, all the devices can play music/video, TVs/Blu Ray Players/PS3s/Phones - Of course music may be preferred on portable platforms, just as video preferred on home platforms. Your subscriptions have that sort of appeal and you'll get millions of people on board. PS3s owners included, the video store is already a good success on the PS3... add a music service with PSP connectivity and there's something else of interest.

The reason I'm coming from this approach is simply because if everyone in this topic actually done a bit of research into the presentations Sony done, they'd see the whole thing was about connecting all of their platforms universally, and providing new services in relation to music/video/books - New revenue subscriptions were a bullet point related to all these plans. It was not solely a PS3 presentation or business plan or anything of that nature.

Look at two of the bullet points on page 1

"Non-game (video, comic, etc)"

"Release non-game software development kit" (App store equivalent on PSN?)

That's not to say it couldn't be something gaming related as well. MMO's the obvious example, soniqstylz already touched on that. I think 2010 will see the first Sony Online subscription based games on the PS3 (freerealms/the agency - yes they have free play modes, but both, at least freerealms, will also have subscriptions).

Edited November 23, 2009 by Audioboxer

[macrosslover]

Um what? I have absolutely no idea what relevance IW have to a Sony business plan for 2010.

As for your comment on Blu Ray/Rental, you do realise people are already starting to steer away from renting physically, especially with things like Netflix? Renting can be done on a whim, you don't always prepare for wanting to rent something in advance, therefore saving you a trip out the house at 7pm at night is convenient. Sony don't dictate consumer interest, they can stimulate/try to influence it, but if consumers are renting in healthy numbers over digital distribution Sony will have to and want to adapt to that.

Also I don't know if you have a PS3, but you've been able to rent content off the PSN video store for over a year. It's not as if they'd be introducing something new, the video content is on PSN, but as of right now you need to rent everything individually. That subscription for something like $10-15 a month with the amount of video content that's on PSN, spread across PS3s/TVs/Blu Ray players would most certainly rival Netflix and catch peoples interests.

No one loses out with physical/digital, it's two different markets that can co-exist.

As for your PS3/Bravia figures, you're still being close minded to what I'm getting at. The type of subscriptions I'm talking about are universal, all the devices can play music/video, TVs/Blu Ray Players/PS3s/Phones - Of course music may be preferred on portable platforms, just as video preferred on home platforms. Your subscriptions have that sort of appeal and you'll get millions of people on board. PS3s owners included, the video store is already a good success on the PS3... add a music service with PSP connectivity and there's something else of interest.

The reason I'm coming from this approach is simply because if everyone in this topic actually done a bit of research into the presentations Sony done, they'd see the whole thing was about connecting all of their platforms universally, and providing new services in relation to music/video/books - New revenue subscriptions were a bullet point related to all these plans. It was not solely a PS3 presentation or business plan or anything of that nature.

I understand what you're saying about it being a service for all of their devices. What I'm saying is I personally only see it being successful on the PS3, not on any of their other devices, which is why they would have to tailor it to the PS3. I have a PS3 and yes I know you can rent movies online. When I mentioned blu-ray I was talking about actual purchase of the disk, not renting the physical disk. If Sony left their online system as is, where you have individual pay for movies to rent, then IMO that co-exists with still purchasing movies you actually want on blu-ray, which is what I do now. The problem I have with your hopes..thinking, is the extra subscription for unlimited video content.

If a consumer can watch the movie anytime they want over and over without any seperate fee other than the $10 subscription, then why would they buy a physical blu-ray disk for purchase. There would be no need for them to do that because they always have access to the film and they would always maintain the subscription, so that would kill the physical sales of blu-ray disk themselves IMO, which would lower sales of blu-ray players since there's no need for the phyiscal media anymore.

This is why again I say I don't see Sony doing this, because it would do more harm than good to their business model as is. There's no reason for Sony to all of a sudden start pushing unlimited online video content over their current push of blu-ray.

and the IW reference was very clear IMO. the point is that what a company says in the past can't be taken as law. They didn't blood brother sign it when they said it. A company, any company on this planent is not going to bind themselves to something they said in the past that may prevent them from making more money in the future. So one more time, companies lie, companies change their plans it happens. You have to face the possibility that online gaming may be a charge in the future, that's just the way I feel about it.

Edited November 23, 2009 by macrosslover

[Boz]

That subscription for something like $10-15 a month with the amount of video content that's on PSN, spread across PS3s/TVs/Blu Ray players would most certainly rival Netflix and catch peoples interests.

I just don't see how your logic works in general.

First, $10-$15 a month is $150 a year for subscription if at that price. XBL for example is almost 3 times less than that. So if they do charge that much for example, it will be a rip off and on XBL you get much much more for less.

If they charged $50 a year and offered at least similar services as XBL than that wouldn't be too bad.

Second, PSN will never compete with Netflix (neither will XBL for that matter) because despite the higher quality neither of these services offer all-you-can-eat rentals for $9 a month, not to mention the fact that almost every Blu-ray player now has Netflix on it, not to mention PCs and Xbox and PS3 (via disc). I don't really see how this new subscription could even match that because PSN is only available on PS3 and PSP. I don't know any Blu-ray player or TV that would/or is supporting it.

[soniqstylz]

I just don't see how your logic works in general.

First, $10-$15 a month is $150 a year for subscription if at that price. XBL for example is almost 3 times less than that. So if they do charge that much for example, it will be a rip off and on XBL you get much much more for less.

If they charged $50 a year and offered at least similar services as XBL than that wouldn't be too bad.

Second, PSN will never compete with Netflix (neither will XBL for that matter) because despite the higher quality neither of these services offer all-you-can-eat rentals for $9 a month, not to mention the fact that almost every Blu-ray player now has Netflix on it, not to mention PCs and Xbox and PS3 (via disc). I don't really see how this new subscription could even match that because PSN is only available on PS3 and PSP. I don't know any Blu-ray player or TV that would/or is supporting it.

It would be more than video, but that is the model we are pointing out as a possibility - access to all you can download movies, tv shows, comics, Qore, maybe Sony music store online, etc. What about maybe promotional free DLC for SCE games and SCE 3rd-party partners? With XBL, you still pay per-movie, or per-download, in addition to the $50 fee.

And there is a key word you're missing... PSN is only currently available on PSP and PS3, but they've already hinted at plans to spread PSN across all Sony products. For instance, Bravia's already support DLNA, so obviously there is some built-in network connectivity, why can't a firmware update introduce some PSN connectivity, coupled with a DVR or Blu-ray player. You can also access the PSN store on your PC, why not introduce a small program to connect to PSN, similar to Windows Live?

Edited November 23, 2009 by soniqstylz

[Vice]

As it stands today I would not pay a subscription for PSN. But I would for XBOX Live (I do not currently own an XBOX, but if I did I would gladly pay for a Live Sub). Sony would need to make PSN a lot better for me to cough up some cash for it. Premium better mean premium and not just 'some extra DLC hats for your characters'

[Subject Delta]

Personally I think subscriptions for this kind of thing, PS3 or Xbox are a crock anyway, if you are a PC gamer you can do practically all of it for nothing.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I just don't see how your logic works in general.

First, $10-$15 a month is $150 a year for subscription if at that price. XBL for example is almost 3 times less than that. So if they do charge that much for example, it will be a rip off and on XBL you get much much more for less.

If they charged $50 a year and offered at least similar services as XBL than that wouldn't be too bad.

Second, PSN will never compete with Netflix (neither will XBL for that matter) because despite the higher quality neither of these services offer all-you-can-eat rentals for $9 a month, not to mention the fact that almost every Blu-ray player now has Netflix on it, not to mention PCs and Xbox and PS3 (via disc). I don't really see how this new subscription could even match that because PSN is only available on PS3 and PSP. I don't know any Blu-ray player or TV that would/or is supporting it.

Uh what?

How is $10-15 a month for a VIDEO RENTAL service a rip off? I wasn't aware XBL did unlimited video rentals for that price.

You seem to have your wires crossed Boz, I wasn't talking about charging for PSN, I was talking about paying for video rental ON PSN. That was my speculation on what these new revenue streams could be, video rental is a logical move if PSN is moving to TVs and Blu Ray players.

I don't know any Blu-ray player or TV that would/or is supporting it.

So you didn't read half my posts then, or read any of the Sony business report outside of this topic and it's title? It was all about hardware devices in 2010 supporting PSN. Their aim is to have a global service with a unified login across multiple hardware platforms, that service providing all these platforms with music/video/books/comics, to name some of what they listed. That's why it's a 2010 business plan.

....

Seriously, you wonder why I go to lengths to point things out, I need to at times or else people make half cocked assumptions. Let's read the title, MAYBE the OP if we can be bothered, then batter in a reply :rofl:

I think some people in here need to go read this topic, posted by myself. I'm not making things up, I've just spent a bit of time reading about this presentation so I can actually make well informed opinions on the future.

Focus on the two key concepts

• Deploy service across home products leveraging the high install base
  
• Realize same user experience across all products
  

What does that mean? You have a subscription, say to video, you can use it on a multitude of devices and receive the same experience on each. One login for everything, lots of potential for various content subscriptions under that login. Subscriptions are therefore tied to the PSN account, they aren't tied to any one product. Two people can have a video rental subscription, but one use a Bravia TV, one use a PS3, both receive the same service and same content.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Plarkster]

^ That's really interesting, thanks for the info. Incorporating PSN across their hardware range would be amazing... but damn it would bump the price of their TVs etc up and they're already pricy!

[spenser.d]

It'd be a smart business decision. Microsoft is making a killing off of Xbox Live and its about time Sony wises up and jumps on that bandwagon.

-Spenser

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

^ That's really interesting, thanks for the info. Incorporating PSN across their hardware range would be amazing... but damn it would bump the price of their TVs etc up and they're already pricy!

The XMB is actually already on most new Bravias, example

Then you can also get Bravia Widgets, showing the TVs already have internet connectivity

Next step in 2010 is obviously allowing access to the PSN network content that will be suitable for TVs. I have no idea about storage though, do the newer bravia sets have USB connectors and what not? If it's going to take a whole new line of TVs for PSN compatibility that's a bit of a setback considering they have internet ready TVs right now. I guess that's where Blu Ray players with PSN support come into play, you can't expect everyone to get a new Bravia just to access movies/music/content.

Bravia TVs have always been expensive, best you can do is wait for retailer deals, or buy online. The real top end models are definitely price inflated, but they do look gorgeous. Mid-range Bravia's can usually be picked up for a good price if you shop around.

It'd be a smart business decision. Microsoft is making a killing off of Xbox Live and its about time Sony wises up and jumps on that bandwagon.

-Spenser

Looking for ways to generate more money out of subscriptions yeah, that is smart business, but starting to charge for basic online play, no. Would be a stupid move for Sony and Kaz already said it's not happening. They can use their multitude of hardware departments to expand PSN onto other platforms and generate extra revenue streams that way. They've so far managed to get Qore guaranteeing a set income from a subscription base, and used the Home platform to generate uncapped cash depending on user expenditure. PS3 specific their best solutions are to continue with Qore/Home and look for other ways to generate income that doesn't infringe on the basic multiplayer component - Video services/music services/books, they've got comics on the way now for PSP.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Audioboxer

[soniqstylz]

@AB yes, the newer Bravia's do have USB. Mine does, and it's not the top of the line XBR, it's a V5100

[Brandon Live Veteran]

But essentially useless and nitpicking.

It wasn't nitpicking. I was clearly expressing that I don't see anything "obvious" here at all. I could imagine several things they could be talking about, and wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the result of them cracking down on loss leader efforts in the current economy (where businesses are being rewarded for reducing expenses and overhead). Given that, I think pretty much anything is fair game at this point - what they've said is so vague, and there's no reason to even be sure that they know yet exactly which pieces they're going to charge for.

[The Gunslinger]

Ok, everyone is assuming Sony will not charge for multiplayer. But serious, what do they have to lose? They will **** of customers in the first few months and eventually people will pay. They have a large enough install base to do this.

[ahhell]

Ok, everyone is assuming Sony will not charge for multiplayer. But serious, what do they have to lose? They will **** of customers in the first few months and eventually people will pay. They have a large enough install base to do this.

Considering the hypocritical things that Sony has done in the past...you might be right.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Ok, everyone is assuming Sony will not charge for multiplayer. But serious, what do they have to lose? They will **** of customers in the first few months and eventually people will pay. They have a large enough install base to do this.

No one is assuming anything, they're reading what Kaz Hirai said - New subscriptions in addition to the current free services. Now I know the kneejerk reaction to this is "omgz companies lie" and apparently the ever popular "IW didn't do dedicated servers!", but it's the official word we have to go on, which at this point is indefinitely more useful than "hey MS charge and make money everyone else will have to do it as well at some point". That seems to be a popular mindset amongst Live users, the idea that it's somehow impossible for any other console provider to offer free multiplayer forever.

Different companies explore different routes to making revenue, they aren't all clones of each other, don't all have the same outlets/resources and don't all believe in the same concepts. The same business plan can't work for every company, none of them are replicas of others, they're all different.

You're also incredibly naive with the what do they have to lose comment. Millions of the people who currently own PS3s own 360s as well, a lot of them probably use their 360s more (90% of multiplatform owners on this board do), but from time to time they'll get online on their PS3 and play some games because they can, it's free to do so. Sony start charging for PSN and those people ain't touching it ever again, they've already settled on their favourite. Those customers are still important to Sony though, cutting them off completely is stupid.

Who in their right mind is going to pay two subscriptions a month to play online on two consoles that have differences, but ultimately let you do the exact same thing, play online. Even if PSN was a 1:1 replica of every single live feature, paying for two services that ultimately let you do the same thing is not going to be that popular.

PSN in any form costing money for basic online play would be a colossal failure, and take away the most argued and put forward plus to the PS3 over the 360, free online play.

Remember, online play aside from MMOs was never a premium until MS made it one, it's interesting to watch how much money MS make from it, and how much loyalty they can get from people that'll defend paying for online play is worth it, but ultimately not every company could pull it off, nor get that sort of loyalty. Sony are one of the companies who couldn't do it, definitely not with the PS3, next generation who knows.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

It's obvious what they will offer PSN premium people - the PS4. Der. :p

actually, there's probably some truth in that comment. i could definitely see this as a test for the PS4. will people pay for PSN on the PS4?

Imagine sony saying: "carry over your PS3 Premium subscription to your new PS4!"

[soniqstylz]

Considering the recent change to TOS, how many of you wanna take a bet that "Premium" PSN comes with gamesharing?

[rajputwarrior]

Well I think Sony are in a situation they have to leave the MP free.

While they are definitely not known for their stellar business decisions this generation, I think even they would realize it is to late to change a system so many people have become accustomed to. Now when they release their next system, I can almost guarantee it will be much closer to Live, but for the PS3, I really believe 3 years of offering free multiplayer trumps any decision they may want to make about turning around and charging for it.

Honestly what this sounds like to me is an extension of what they have already started to test out with Qore, so they will just take what they have been doing with it and perhaps just offer a few more things. I subscribe to Qore and what it really boils down to is a few free PSN titles that are older, some free themes now and then, and access to most of the Beta's unless it is a Beta like the recent Bad Company 2 one which obviously seems to be Fileplanet's gig.

So yeah if I had to guess, the above would be my theory on the situation. Just some more stuff, and then with the PS4 pay for play services.

that's exactly how i read it. If they keep everything the way it it now and do things like audio has posted so far (thanks for all the info dude) then i see no problem, heck i might even subcribe to these premium services if all these things link into my ps3 and psp. Imagine being able to "rent" a movie and being able to download it on my ps3 in HD and in divx for my PSP? that would be sweet, and with the rumour that sony is coming out with their own itunes add a pc to the mix and they have a making of a wicked subscription type service for music/movies/games.

[spenser.d]

Looking for ways to generate more money out of subscriptions yeah, that is smart business, but starting to charge for basic online play, no. Would be a stupid move for Sony and Kaz already said it's not happening. They can use their multitude of hardware departments to expand PSN onto other platforms and generate extra revenue streams that way. They've so far managed to get Qore guaranteeing a set income from a subscription base, and used the Home platform to generate uncapped cash depending on user expenditure. PS3 specific their best solutions are to continue with Qore/Home and look for other ways to generate income that doesn't infringe on the basic multiplayer component - Video services/music services/books, they've got comics on the way now for PSP.

While I wasn't necessarily referring to charging for MP, I don't see how that would be a bad business move. The vast majority of the Xbox market doesn't seem to mind shelling out the money, and I think they'd find that, after a short-lived backlash, the same would follow for the PS3 market. It would be smart and it would be a cash cow for them. We'll have to wait and see.

-Spenser

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

While I wasn't necessarily referring to charging for MP, I don't see how that would be a bad business move. The vast majority of the Xbox market doesn't seem to mind shelling out the money, and I think they'd find that, after a short-lived backlash, the same would follow for the PS3 market. It would be smart and it would be a cash cow for them. We'll have to wait and see.

-Spenser

MS have built Live around charges for the service for 5 years or so, and in return acquired some very ingrained loyalty from those that have now given them hundreds of dollars over the years. It's a natural loyalty for a premium service you enjoy. Live was the first real console based MP experience to ever exist.

Sony's online service started this generation, and it started free. The kind of loyalty MS have is lacking, not to mention the service itself isn't directly on par with Live. Unless it reaches that status there's pretty much no one who will reasonably say PSN is worth paying for. Sony aren't stupid, they know this. They started free, and their service isn't above the only other online gaming service out there that charges. They have to stick to what their pro is against Live and that's spamming people with "free online gaming".

For example, try telling someone who's been playing WoW since it came out he's wasted hundreds of his dollars - You'll get a mouthful back. This kind of loyalty is key to Sony/MS, MS have it with Live, Sony don't as the PSN service is associated with being free. Sony painted that image themselves, whether it was a case of having to do it due to the state of the service at launch, it's irrelevant, the image has been painted and they need to live with it.

For all the "lulz yeah right" I'll get for this statement, I'll still say it, I would not pay for PSN. I'd genuinely go back to all out PC MP gaming to avoid paying for console online, and just play SP on consoles. I don't spend enough of my time playing online to ever justify a consistent subscription to play my consoles online. Occasionally I dabble in Gold for a month or two to catch up with my 360 friends, but that's it.

When it comes to online I just need something that lets me play my games, I'm a simple guy :p

Edited November 25, 2009 by Audioboxer

[Sethos]

Only way they can do it without a major backlash. Adding a fee for something right from the get-go is easier to swallow then adding it to a few years old service which has been promised to be free, forever. Actually, the backlash would be extremely severe for Sony - So they can only do the next best thing, a new subscription level which really isn't a bad idea - Nothing changes for the original people and you get another choice, win / win.