By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony planning paid PSN subscriptions for 2010

heruamon on 24 November 2009
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:

This is a worst news for PS fans to hear...oh noes...

It's so bad nobody is actually reading it in context (well, bar a few calmer souls).  Seems like a lot of people only read 'fees' and started running around in a panic.

 


I normally have zero problems with fees...I pay them all over the place.  But as far as I'm concern, ANY subscription based models on PSN is doubletalk.  M$ has a tiered system, and you don't need gold to become a member, but there are something exclusive to gold membership.  Splitting hair about WHAT exacty those features are is pure nonsense...you either have a subscription based model, or you don't.  It's nothing more than Sony trying to attack the strengh of M$, and in failing to succeed at it, has now tried to save some face on their great need to make some profits.  Let's look at Home...probably the longest beta test ever....and counting.

I think that's a little harsh.  Live started with a tiered system, PSN started free - I see no reason why either service shouldn't change their model, fees or whatever.

Sony are clearly going to introduce more content that has a price tag, while defining the core PSN as a free service, online, demos, etc.  Home itself serves as a good anaolgy ironically enough - you can get it for free, use a fair bit of it for free, but some stuff has a price tag and there are those that are willing to pay.

By the same token MS has introduced Avatars, Facebook integration, etc. Netflix in US and Sky in UK.

Both services will change and I think you're applying a double standard acusing Sony of somehow being unfair and MS not.  From what I read both already generate revenue streams, just in somewhat different ways, and I'm sure both will continue to evolve in what they offer, and that some of that will be free and some will cost.

Right now, the major difference for me is that Live Silver is a very light offering, with Gold providing a huge amount more.  So far PSN would seem to be angled the other way, with most stuff available free, with a smaller amount being charged for - and just from a business perspective Sony must be thinking of changing that balance to generate more income, particularly with Live showing what people are willing to pay for.

As for length of Home Beta - that's nothing compared to Google Betas!

Quite the opposite...I'll say it again: I have NO PROBLEM with fees.  If Sony wants to implement some level of fees for PSN...okay...my point is when I see people splitting hairs about the fact that...well... Online play is free on the PS3...or Netflix....or whatever.  This is the crux of my problem, and in general, I fully agree with your comments and observations about evolving the online platforms.  My issue is when people start comparing what specific items they value over others as some "absolute" marker...namely online play for example. 



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

Around the Network
thismeintiel on 25 November 2009

^But there really is a point to splitting hairs over service. Especially if your comparing the two different companies. MS has always charged for online gaming (in my opinion the most important and main point of having a system online), as well as Netflix. Where Sony has no plans to start charging for those services.

Not what they will charge for, we have no clue. My guess would be demos for all games or exclusive betas. Maybe even Qore thrown in, with some free giveaways for good measure. But as Sony has already stated, what is on PSN as of now will remain free. Not everyone will get this new premium service, as it's not required for online gaming. But Sony will still get extra income they otherwise would not have from the few who do wish to have the extra features.



 

steverhcp02 on 25 November 2009
heruamon said:
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:

This is a worst news for PS fans to hear...oh noes...

It's so bad nobody is actually reading it in context (well, bar a few calmer souls).  Seems like a lot of people only read 'fees' and started running around in a panic.

 


I normally have zero problems with fees...I pay them all over the place.  But as far as I'm concern, ANY subscription based models on PSN is doubletalk.  M$ has a tiered system, and you don't need gold to become a member, but there are something exclusive to gold membership.  Splitting hair about WHAT exacty those features are is pure nonsense...you either have a subscription based model, or you don't.  It's nothing more than Sony trying to attack the strengh of M$, and in failing to succeed at it, has now tried to save some face on their great need to make some profits.  Let's look at Home...probably the longest beta test ever....and counting.

Wrong. Let me break it down for you. If MS offered online play for silver youd see gold memberships cease to exist. Its not splitting hairs. People pay for gold to game online. End of story.

To act like people pay for Gold for reasons other than to play online is absurd. I dont think im being sensational when i say 98% of Gold users pay to game online, nothing more, nothing less. Its the cornerstone of the service. Listing all of the other things that come along with it does nothing to change WHY people people pay for it.

 




Get Your Portable ID!

heruamon on 25 November 2009
steverhcp02 said:
heruamon said:
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:

This is a worst news for PS fans to hear...oh noes...

It's so bad nobody is actually reading it in context (well, bar a few calmer souls).  Seems like a lot of people only read 'fees' and started running around in a panic.

 


I normally have zero problems with fees...I pay them all over the place.  But as far as I'm concern, ANY subscription based models on PSN is doubletalk.  M$ has a tiered system, and you don't need gold to become a member, but there are something exclusive to gold membership.  Splitting hair about WHAT exacty those features are is pure nonsense...you either have a subscription based model, or you don't.  It's nothing more than Sony trying to attack the strengh of M$, and in failing to succeed at it, has now tried to save some face on their great need to make some profits.  Let's look at Home...probably the longest beta test ever....and counting.

Wrong. Let me break it down for you. If MS offered online play for silver youd see gold memberships cease to exist. Its not splitting hairs. People pay for gold to game online. End of story.

To act like people pay for Gold for reasons other than to play online is absurd. I dont think im being sensational when i say 98% of Gold users pay to game online, nothing more, nothing less. Its the cornerstone of the service. Listing all of the other things that come along with it does nothing to change WHY people people pay for it.

 

First off...you don't know that for certian, so it's a bit stupid to make such an unsupported claim.  As Gold is currently structured, Online is the key compenent to the service...true, but it's certianly not the only thing.  I remembered a 10 years ago as to how Linux was going to take away all of M$'s business...tell me how Windows 7 works out...or how AMD was going to make Intel extinct...how's that working out?



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

papflesje on 25 November 2009

@ heruamon: wrong kind of distinction between Windows / AMD and Gold-Silver.

If you want to do that analogy, it would be "Windows 7 came for free with the computer, but you'd have to go and buy (for example) the Windows Games / Internet Explorer / Windows Media Player (take your pick)". If that were the case: would you?

That's what stever is trying to say. If the essence of the service is gifted to you, how many people would actually pay to get that inkling more?



Around the Network
Reasonable on 25 November 2009
heruamon said:
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:

This is a worst news for PS fans to hear...oh noes...

It's so bad nobody is actually reading it in context (well, bar a few calmer souls).  Seems like a lot of people only read 'fees' and started running around in a panic.

 


I normally have zero problems with fees...I pay them all over the place.  But as far as I'm concern, ANY subscription based models on PSN is doubletalk.  M$ has a tiered system, and you don't need gold to become a member, but there are something exclusive to gold membership.  Splitting hair about WHAT exacty those features are is pure nonsense...you either have a subscription based model, or you don't.  It's nothing more than Sony trying to attack the strengh of M$, and in failing to succeed at it, has now tried to save some face on their great need to make some profits.  Let's look at Home...probably the longest beta test ever....and counting.

I think that's a little harsh.  Live started with a tiered system, PSN started free - I see no reason why either service shouldn't change their model, fees or whatever.

Sony are clearly going to introduce more content that has a price tag, while defining the core PSN as a free service, online, demos, etc.  Home itself serves as a good anaolgy ironically enough - you can get it for free, use a fair bit of it for free, but some stuff has a price tag and there are those that are willing to pay.

By the same token MS has introduced Avatars, Facebook integration, etc. Netflix in US and Sky in UK.

Both services will change and I think you're applying a double standard acusing Sony of somehow being unfair and MS not.  From what I read both already generate revenue streams, just in somewhat different ways, and I'm sure both will continue to evolve in what they offer, and that some of that will be free and some will cost.

Right now, the major difference for me is that Live Silver is a very light offering, with Gold providing a huge amount more.  So far PSN would seem to be angled the other way, with most stuff available free, with a smaller amount being charged for - and just from a business perspective Sony must be thinking of changing that balance to generate more income, particularly with Live showing what people are willing to pay for.

As for length of Home Beta - that's nothing compared to Google Betas!

Quite the opposite...I'll say it again: I have NO PROBLEM with fees.  If Sony wants to implement some level of fees for PSN...okay...my point is when I see people splitting hairs about the fact that...well... Online play is free on the PS3...or Netflix....or whatever.  This is the crux of my problem, and in general, I fully agree with your comments and observations about evolving the online platforms.  My issue is when people start comparing what specific items they value over others as some "absolute" marker...namely online play for example. 

Ah, okay, missed that.  I see you were commenting on the commentors, as it where - I took it the other way.  I guess in some cases they do 'split hairs' while in some cases I can see why if it's something major - for example if PSN did charge for online gameplay that would be a massive change, likewise if MS stopped charging for online gameplay.  Still I get your point now.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

heruamon on 25 November 2009
papflesje said:
@ heruamon: wrong kind of distinction between Windows / AMD and Gold-Silver.

If you want to do that analogy, it would be "Windows 7 came for free with the computer, but you'd have to go and buy (for example) the Windows Games / Internet Explorer / Windows Media Player (take your pick)". If that were the case: would you?

That's what stever is trying to say. If the essence of the service is gifted to you, how many people would actually pay to get that inkling more?

Hmmmmm....perhaps the analogies weren't on the mark, but the point remains that I DON'T have XBL becuase of online gaming...I rarely EVER multi-player, and while I do believe I am not the norm, I certianly don't think I'm 2% of the audience.  Another thing is that when PSN launched...their were only 5.5 million 360s on the market...but somehow, the free play model for PSN didn't negate XBL...



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

papflesje on 25 November 2009

Well, about your last part, that'll be mainly because online was already a factor for the first Xbox and was being carried over to Xbox 360. Aside from that, being able to play online IS probably the overwhelmingly biggest reason to own Gold, so even despite a free PSN, there's no negating XBL, since there was always going to be a huge Xbox-fanbase, and those people would flock to XBL, no matter what PSN did though.



heruamon on 25 November 2009
papflesje said:
Well, about your last part, that'll be mainly because online was already a factor for the first Xbox and was being carried over to Xbox 360. Aside from that, being able to play online IS probably the overwhelmingly biggest reason to own Gold, so even despite a free PSN, there's no negating XBL, since there was always going to be a huge Xbox-fanbase, and those people would flock to XBL, no matter what PSN did though.

Does PSN have usage report, like what XBL has?  From a business standpoint, it makes zero sense for M$ to offer free play...why?  Who here works for free...or for room and board?  AS XBL was desgin, in M$ cost structure, they are a play-for-online play service, and the system was developed from the ground up, with that concept in mind.  That's why you constantly see XBL being first in almost ever area of rolling out new stuff...PSN is three years on, and acutally Sony had the Station for YEARS before XBL, but they are constantly following XBL's lead.  Home was suppose to be Sony's flagship idea, but that seems to have stalled a bit...at least from the perspective of not seeing much news about it, like 1-2 years ago. 



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

papflesje on 25 November 2009

No problem what you're saying at all. Sony missed the boat and is trying to swim back to it.
I'm also not saying MS should make online free, as that would make no sense business-wise indeed, but it is the skeleton on which the entire Gold-body is built, so in that regard, steverhcp's comment should be viewed.

Sony is giving the skeleton for free, while probably going to charge for the rings and jewels. MS goes for the "can you see those rings and those jewels? Here, buy for the skeleton and you'll get those for free". It works for them, so good move. Sony will be hoping to scrape more money off the blingbling, even though that could also fail, seeing how people usually mostly want online play, and they got that already. But it's serving their fanbase to keep it free, so I doubt they'll cut into that anytime soon (PS4 - pay2play may be a fact though)