| halil23 said: Sony said profit will come from advertisement from other company putting into home. But if home get too crowded I don't know if they can cover the service from advertising alone? |
Well I presume the more crowded Home becomes the more Sony can charge for it's in game advertisements.
Advertisements become more expensive the larger the viewing audience.
At least this year, I think Sony will keep it free. I think it has been working for them, and they have made a lot of money off of the PSN. I don't mind being bombarded (at least in a reasonable way) with advertisements and having to pay for some premium content if the service is free.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
PSN is free, you might end up paying for some aspects.
HOME will be paid for by microtransactions to buy furniture and skins etc.
So no, HOME will not be a subscription based model like live.
Sony just isn't a credible source for information. Too often they spout prolific downright obvious lies. Other times they make promises they can't keep or actually have any intention of keeping. Their vision isn't cut into stone its fluid. That said Sony saying something doesn't make it true or false. Do you actually take the town liar seriously, and don't dispute it I can drag out perhaps a dozens instances of Sony executives lying outright. Hell they were lying to the press about their price cut two days before it happened in spite of the preponderance of evidence that it was happening. They didn't seem to feel to bad about that lie did they.
That said the service is probably going to become a pay service, because that is the way Sony thinks. They know they will not get crucified for changing their mind. They will keep a modest free service comparable to Microsoft's Silver plan. Then charge for what they will call their premium service. Call it pessimistic, but I have every right to be given who we are discussing.
Sony hasn't spent the last couple years in regards to the PS3 being very honest. They make commitments they can either not keep or had any intention of keeping. So any guarantee you thought you had probably isn't worth the paper it was written on. Sony doesn't actually have a reason anymore to keep their best services free of charge. What do you guys really think it would cost them if they charged. I guarantee every single PS3 owner on this forum would knuckle under pay four or five dollars a month, and praise the decision of Sony. So why shouldn't they make the money grab to make up more losses on the machine?
I'm just waiting to see how many ads there are going to be. If through things like that the PSN/Home can match similar features to Xbox Live and be free, I'm probably not even going to care that much.
| Dodece said: Sony just isn't a credible source for information. Too often they spout prolific downright obvious lies. Other times they make promises they can't keep or actually have any intention of keeping. Their vision isn't cut into stone its fluid. That said Sony saying something doesn't make it true or false. Do you actually take the town liar seriously, and don't dispute it I can drag out perhaps a dozens instances of Sony executives lying outright. Hell they were lying to the press about their price cut two days before it happened in spite of the preponderance of evidence that it was happening. They didn't seem to feel to bad about that lie did they. That said the service is probably going to become a pay service, because that is the way Sony thinks. They know they will not get crucified for changing their mind. They will keep a modest free service comparable to Microsoft's Silver plan. Then charge for what they will call their premium service. Call it pessimistic, but I have every right to be given who we are discussing. Sony hasn't spent the last couple years in regards to the PS3 being very honest. They make commitments they can either not keep or had any intention of keeping. So any guarantee you thought you had probably isn't worth the paper it was written on. Sony doesn't actually have a reason anymore to keep their best services free of charge. What do you guys really think it would cost them if they charged. I guarantee every single PS3 owner on this forum would knuckle under pay four or five dollars a month, and praise the decision of Sony. So why shouldn't they make the money grab to make up more losses on the machine? |
Because they don't need to. Online should be freem you've allready bought the game so why pay for it again.
ONLY Microsoft has this model.
None of the 3 console manufacturers are squeeky clean, all have been caught having to retract statements. Why do you focus on Sony?
Running these networks is not expensive, its a simple friends list and minor authentication. The same as MSN or Googletalk. The games themselves are P2P. they generate loads of revenue through the sale of games and addons so its in the companies interest for it to be free.
Its whats called in the industry, a loss leader.
I don't think the amount of users increasing in Home will make Sony charge for the service. This is because although the service will cost more to maintain, there will be more users to buy virtual items for home, more users to buy games off PSN and more valuable advertisement slots.
Because of this, the more users in Home=more revenue generated by Home and therefore will cover the maintainance increase.
Charging for Home would just reduce the amount of users in Home and so reduce value of advertisements and reduce the amount of virtual items sold. It could even reduce the amount of people buying a PS3. Because of these factors, I feel Sony would be better off not charging for the service.
if Sony charges for online, I will just stop going. Honestly, the only reason I even go on PSN is for Demos.
Soriku (Feb 10/08): In 5 years the PS3/360 will be dead.
KH3 bet: "If KH3 comes to Wii exclusive, I will take a 1 month of sig/avatar by otheres open a thread apologize and praise you guys' brilliance." http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?start=50&id=18379
Original cast: Badonkadonkhr, sc94597 allaboutthegames885, kingofwale, Soriku, ctk495, skeezer, RDBRaptor, Mirson,
Home is going to be free, if successful they can recover costs through advertising on in-Home screens and posters, online sales of addional content, 3rd party company specific areas, etc.
| Dodece said: Sony just isn't a credible source for information. Too often they spout prolific downright obvious lies. Other times they make promises they can't keep or actually have any intention of keeping. Their vision isn't cut into stone its fluid. That said Sony saying something doesn't make it true or false. Do you actually take the town liar seriously, and don't dispute it I can drag out perhaps a dozens instances of Sony executives lying outright. Hell they were lying to the press about their price cut two days before it happened in spite of the preponderance of evidence that it was happening. They didn't seem to feel to bad about that lie did they. That said the service is probably going to become a pay service, because that is the way Sony thinks. They know they will not get crucified for changing their mind. They will keep a modest free service comparable to Microsoft's Silver plan. Then charge for what they will call their premium service. Call it pessimistic, but I have every right to be given who we are discussing. Sony hasn't spent the last couple years in regards to the PS3 being very honest. They make commitments they can either not keep or had any intention of keeping. So any guarantee you thought you had probably isn't worth the paper it was written on. Sony doesn't actually have a reason anymore to keep their best services free of charge. What do you guys really think it would cost them if they charged. I guarantee every single PS3 owner on this forum would knuckle under pay four or five dollars a month, and praise the decision of Sony. So why shouldn't they make the money grab to make up more losses on the machine? |
Man MS is just the paragon of honesty in comparison. Every console manufacturer denies price cuts before they happen, that is just standard practice.
Please offer a link to your claim that Sony said their online of their Home service will "probably" become a pay service. The fact remains is that Sony is the only one of the three who has yet to outline a plan for paying for online services. Plain and simple. Actions speak louder than words.
I think Sony has done a good job of listening to its fans. They dropped the price, they stepped up their online service with regular updates and expanded content, and they add updates to the firmware that gives fans what they asked for.
Seriously dude, why all the Sony hate? Did they kill your parents or something?
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
