One step closer to being able to tell Directv to suck it.
One step closer to being able to tell Directv to suck it.
makingmusic476 said:
As likely as it's looking, cross game voice chat has yet to be confirmed for PS Plus. Given that it was removed last minute from the initial PS Plus package, I get the feeling Sony is gauging early PS Plus demand before deciding whether they need to make a basic OS feature like that PS Plus exclusive to increase demand, or whether they can make it free for all (as it should be) while still getting a decent subscriber base for the new service. Also, new features are still being provided for non-Plus members, like the recent video editing/uploading software and the new photo gallery. As it stands now, all new OS features announced since PS Plus was announced (sans auto downloads) have been added free for all (as they cost nothing to support once implemented on a firmware level), while all content and services (Hulu, PS Store discounts, the inevitable cloud storage, etc.) have been added under PS Plus (as they *do* cost money to maintain and support). The idea that anything "new and exciting" is going to be charged for is incorrect based on what we've seen so far. |
Cross game chat falls under the network feature rather than OS feature category. That makes it more a likely PSN feature than regular PSN feature. It requires servers to run the service, just as it does on Xbox Live and the precedent has already been set with Hulu . Furthermore since the PS3 already does the basic OS features more than adequately its likely most new and exciting features will be network related so therefore its quite likely they will also be PSN only.
Tease.
Squilliam said:
|
Why would cross game voice chat require servers? A person's profile information most certainly would, but you'd think connecting to another player to chat would be purely P2P.
BMaker11 said:
Dude....commercials. #end |
Dude, you get cable free due to commercials? A few of the biggest networks are available over the air, for the most part, people pay for TV AND are exposed to commercials totaling 1/4 of total viewing time. Hulu is currently free, but it's not enough. A fraction of the cost of cable and 1/2 the commercials sounds like a deal to me. Is free better? clearly. But a few commercials per show isn't enough.
Ryudo said:
Ever heard of Advertisments? Keeps things free. You can check bigger Podcast networks like twit.tv or Revision3 as proof. Also before cable network tv ran for decades on ads. |
Keeps things free, but most ad based things online are relatively low budget. They aren't providing an economical backbone to tens billions of dollars in programming. You have to look at the big picture. Hulu is growing by leaps and bounds, and is canibalizing viewers from the TV viewership. So it's taking viewers from an episode which plays 4-6 commercials per break and giving them just 1-2. And it's taking viewers from a service (cable/direct tv, etc) that costs viewers a big chunk of change, and giving it to them for free. (Or $10/month) The fact is, less adds and no cable fees mean that as Hulu gains traction, this is just massive amounts of revenue lost. It needs to be regained somewhere.
Now, there's a problem with ads nowadays. People hate and avoid ads. It takes so many ads nowadays to pay for shows that people either have time to get up and do things around the house and not watch them, or, many people (like me) would RATHER pay a piddling sum like $10/month to not waste time on commercials. (even with my cable, I watch nothing live... I pay for DVR so I can fast forward commercials)
Do I want to take 60 minutes to watch every 43 minute episode on Hulu? Or do I want to take 47? I guess it depends on how valuable your time is, and how much TV you watch, but if I can save 13 minutes (over 20%) of my time per episode, it's worth the money to me.
| scat398 said: One step closer to being able to tell Directv to suck it. |
That is the original reason they dropped TV support on media boxes and kept it PC only. Now they are going back to Media boxes. Watch as they will eventually flip back to PC only.
makingmusic476 said:
Why would cross game voice chat require servers? A person's profile information most certainly would, but you'd think connecting to another player to chat would be purely P2P. |
Because its the most practical, best and easiest way to implement the technology. Rather than establish connections to between one to seven individual people they establish a single connection to a server which handles all of the routing. It lowers the overhead on the client side and ensures a more consistant experience.
Tease.