The PlayStation Network, currently free to all PlayStation 3 and PSP owners, is to see "paid subscriptions" in the near future, Sony has revealed.
The news comes via a recent Sony investor conference, where one powerpoint slide listed "new revenue stream from subscription" as a feature headed to PSN.
Update: As the internet went bonkers at the prospect, Sony head honcho Kaz Harai has stepped in to clarify what this means and DON'T PANIC gamers, it doesn't refer to pay-to-play.
Hirai told CVG: "SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network. Especially in the on-line area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services."
Panic over, PSN will remain free for your usual everyday frag fests, it's just premium services and content that you might have to shell out for, much as you do across the wider internet and well, just about everywhere.
My guess is that Sony will either charge a fee to those who want to use the forthcoming cross-game chat feature. Or, it could simply be that subscription service that was talked about months ago, where you pay a monthly fee and recieve so many PSN titles.
Well if they do go sub based for PSN then thats gonna be a big kick in the teeth to the people who opted for PS3 for the free online and the people who cancelled their Live subs cause they could use the PSN for free. They've been touting the free aspect from day 1 as a advantage over the Xbox so i can't really see them going back on their word, as said this may well be for some kind of MMO or some other service.
If they were to go sub based for PSN i'd just stick with Live seeing as any multiformat MP game i get is bought for the 360 with the PS3 picking up the majority of my single player games, though i would miss playing Uncharted 2 online.
Get your knifes at the ready peopl, this one could be brutal!
Sony do have a couple of MMO's for the PS3 in production but you generally pay for those anyway so I don't see them appling an additional charge for that. Maybe its for certain features of PSN. If however they are charging for games online it could have a small backfire effect in that anyone already paying for xbox live who owns a PS3 is unlikey to want to pay for PSN as well, in which case they may start buying their games for Xbox and shun the PS3. That just a thought not a damning of the PS3 or anything to that effect for the fanboys out there.
Tough call for Sony. They must know their online system is well behind XBL, but Live has been around longer to establish itself. Without that funding, would Live be the top-notch service it is?
Free PSN access is currently about the only definite point they have over MS. Now that hardware reliability seems to be sorted and the games lists are pretty balanced, anyway.
Can they do right for themselves (by funding bigger and better servers) at the same time as doing right by the players (by keeping it free)? Tough call, I don't envy them.
They are bound to start charging for PSN online play, surely? Live has proved that it is a valuble revenue stream, so surely they would be foolish (froma shareholder/corporate point of view) not to?
Also, anyone who says they 'wouldn't go back on their word' are living in dream land. If they can monetise it, they will.
I don't mind if it improves things slightly but live didn't really do anything to justify their charges. Hence why I cancelled it. Personally I think it would be a bad move. But the recent figures showing 31 million PSN users made a $$ appear in their eyes.
Microsoft realised at the start that the only way an online service could survive & prosper is by way of an annual charge, a charge that I feel is a bargain for the services given. The losses Sony announced earlier this year make it a certainty that a charged PSN service will soon be here. I don't think I'll be coughing up yet another charge for Sony's "catch-up" service on my PS3 though, sorry.
If you put it into context (take a look at the screenshot) it seems to me that it will indeed be the subscription for PSN games, that was rumoured many months ago.
I very much doubt that Sony will charge for online play.
If however they are charging for games online it could have a small backfire effect in that anyone already paying for xbox live who owns a PS3 is unlikey to want to pay for PSN as well, in which case they may start buying their games for Xbox and shun the PS3. That just a thought not a damning of the PS3 or anything to that effect for the fanboys out there.
Youve hit the nail on the head thats exactly what id do.
well seems as this as been updated, i get where sony are coming from now, for example, they mite incorperate a subscription service where like with this new video rental/buy service, you can pay a monthly fee and rent so many or as many films as you want, which could bring the price point cheaper were as if you rented a movie and only pay the single fee everytime u did so, if thats what their getting at then it sounds cool and better for us! intresting stuff, it would be awesome if they could do online game rental aswell, imagine that, the new AC2 game comes out and you could play it for a day or 2 and then given the choice to buy the full game afterwards, way ahead of its time in the sense of downloading a full new game, but i defo think its sumthing they should look into, they could even sell the games themselves, cheaper priced even and send them to you in the post if you preferred the disc version!
if i have to pay a sub to play online on the PS3 i'll be getting rid of it.
I thought you didn't go online with you PS3 as it is.
rarely do because the wifi is crap on it( not an issue with my router as 2 laptops and 2 PCs never have an issue with it ), and theres no exclusive on it that id like to play online, GT5 might change that, its not the point though as i will never pay subs for that and the potential of not being able ot play online at all makes it pretty useless. Anyway its been clarified so no worries.
rarely do because the wifi is crap on it( not an issue with my router as 2 laptops and 2 PCs never have an issue with it ), and theres no exclusive on it that id like to play online, GT5 might change that, its not the point though as i will never pay subs for that and the potential of not being able ot play online at all makes it pretty useless. Anyway its been clarified so no worries.
There you go, you wont have to pay for a service you never use anyway. Happy days.
Anyone else look at the slides and see the one about 3D games coming next year?
rarely do because the wifi is crap on it( not an issue with my router as 2 laptops and 2 PCs never have an issue with it ), and theres no exclusive on it that id like to play online, GT5 might change that, its not the point though as i will never pay subs for that and the potential of not being able ot play online at all makes it pretty useless. Anyway its been clarified so no worries.
There you go, you wont have to pay for a service you never use anyway. Happy days.
Anyone else look at the slides and see the one about 3D games coming next year?
Yep. Apparently GT5 will be one of the first to go 3D.
The sound of coughing and feet (with the word BAM! underneath) shuffling off into the distance, tails tucked firmly between legs......
So what are these additional revenue streams then Mark?
My bet is a subscription model for early access to demos, betas, exclusive videos and the like. Would you pay for that or would you be laughing at those with their tails between their legs?
Hirai told CVG: "SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network. Especially in the on-line area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services."
Panic over, PSN will remain free for your usual everyday frag fests, it's just premium services and content that you might have to shell out for, much as you do across the wider internet and well, just about everywhere.
Well to me that almost sounds like silver/gold (apart from the pay to play part of live) but we will see when it is introduced
Hirai told CVG: "SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network. Especially in the on-line area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services."
Panic over, PSN will remain free for your usual everyday frag fests, it's just premium services and content that you might have to shell out for, much as you do across the wider internet and well, just about everywhere.
Well to me that almost sounds like silver/gold (apart from the pay to play part of live) but we will see when it is introduced
... the most important part - which forces you to stump up.
I agree it sounds like the silver/gold setup of live, plenty of free services but then you need to pay for gold in order to play online and get early access to content.
I would not be surprised in the slightest if this is what happens, I think the update does not go anyway to confirming that this is not the case - its a very vague update with a lot of possible meanings.
Now to upset the fan boys and say that seeing as Sony have been playing catch up: Trophies, online chat, Facebook etc then the next step for them is to use their online business model and charge to play.
Let's say there are 10 million XBox Gold Live subscribers paying circa Ł30 a year for Gold.
That's a revenue stream of Ł300,000,000.
Compared to some figures it's not that large but as an annual revenue stream it's huge. Ok all of it doesn't go to MS but it's the cash-flow that it generates that MS will be enjoying.
Sony have been looking on at MS and all the time they charged significantly higher prices for the PS3 could afford not to worry to much about other income. However, with a lower retail model they need additional income. Thus the charge for additional content a-la Gold.
The sound of coughing and feet (with the word BAM! underneath) shuffling off into the distance, tails tucked firmly between legs......
So what are these additional revenue streams then Mark?
My bet is a subscription model for early access to demos, betas, exclusive videos and the like. Would you pay for that or would you be laughing at those with their tails between their legs?
Well, if it was a subscription model based on that assumption, then I couldn't care less as I wouldn't be interested. As long as online play stays free, which is the main reason why you pay for LIVE, then all is good.
Now if you want to pay for that sort of stuff, then great, but it is a choice at the end of the day.
Personally, I think it is a monthly sub for PSN games and movie downloads. That would make sense as Sony have previously hinted at this.
Whatever the outcome, my tail will be as perky as ever.
Well it sounds like it's not a disaster after all. If the ability to play games online remains free, they're safe. And since that's the only reason I have my consoles connected to the net anyway, that's what I'm most interested in.
Don't give a crap about early access to demos or betas or limited edition DLC or anything.
a lot of the games on 360 (and ps3) use their own servers, dont they?
forced subscriptions are a rip off.
fleecing for non-essential content is fair. at least you can play your games online, and they will make loads of revenue from people looking for extras.
The article clearly states online gaming is free. Any argument against this is simply false, there's no evidence. Sony will not go down the Microsoft route when it comes to multiplayer, it will always remain free (excluding MMO's). I am paying for my broadband subscription after all, and the game.. oh and the console. This future subscription service is clearly about extra additional features being added to PSN.
I own both consoles. I see no difference in network capabilities or performance, this whole notion of Live being superior to PSN is incorrect.
I will always remain a Silver member on Live. How sad it is I've bought games with multiplayer elements, yet I cannot play them. It's pretty disgusting really.
I just don't buy games for Xbox anymore, except Gears of War's.
well not many people have had complaints out the subscription for xbox live because they had it when the xbox came out orginally. But you see, sony is making a huge mistake by having what PS3 owners had in the first place for free and now making them pay for it, if they just had subscriptions in the first place, there wouldn't be as much uproar.
Well in the US they've already got the 'Qore' ezine ting, and I think people who pay for that get exclusive videos, early access codes for demos and probably other special psn promo codes. I don't know this for sure but I'll bet they're getting something the general populous isn't.
Could be as someone has suggested, a more LIVE GOLD driven focus where demos and things are only released to the premium subscribers first.
Even IF that was the case, it would still suck major balls because I'd want demos day and date, I wouldn't want to wait up to a week to get hold of a Demo, half the time the game is out before the Demo hits the UK PSN.
I understand Sony want extra revenues from these things but it isn't like they aren't already making a frigin mint on the PSOne classices - MGS and FFVII for eight quid a pop? Still, kudos to Sony for giving us a pretty great and so far free service.
The article clearly states online gaming is free. Any argument against this is simply false, there's no evidence. Sony will not go down the Microsoft route when it comes to multiplayer, it will always remain free (excluding MMO's). I am paying for my broadband subscription after all, and the game.. oh and the console. This future subscription service is clearly about extra additional features being added to PSN.
I own both consoles. I see no difference in network capabilities or performance, this whole notion of Live being superior to PSN is incorrect.
I will always remain a Silver member on Live. How sad it is I've bought games with multiplayer elements, yet I cannot play them. It's pretty disgusting really.
When you put it like that, it is pretty disgusting, but you knew that when you bought the 360.
well not many people have had complaints out the subscription for xbox live because they had it when the xbox came out orginally. But you see, sony is making a huge mistake by having what PS3 owners had in the first place for free and now making them pay for it, if they just had subscriptions in the first place, there wouldn't be as much uproar.
The article clearly states online gaming is free. Any argument against this is simply false, there's no evidence. Sony will not go down the Microsoft route when it comes to multiplayer, it will always remain free (excluding MMO's). I am paying for my broadband subscription after all, and the game.. oh and the console. This future subscription service is clearly about extra additional features being added to PSN.
I own both consoles. I see no difference in network capabilities or performance, this whole notion of Live being superior to PSN is incorrect.
I will always remain a Silver member on Live. How sad it is I've bought games with multiplayer elements, yet I cannot play them. It's pretty disgusting really.
When you put it like that, it is pretty disgusting, but you knew that when you bought the 360.
You're right, and it's clearly displayed on the game display box too, I have no complaints as a consumer really. I just refuse to pay for a service that should clearly be free. There's no justification for locking the multiplayer elements of games on Live.
well seems as this as been updated, i get where sony are coming from now, for example, they mite incorperate a subscription service where like with this new video rental/buy service, you can pay a monthly fee and rent so many or as many films as you want, which could bring the price point cheaper were as if you rented a movie and only pay the single fee everytime u did so, if thats what their getting at then it sounds cool and better for us! intresting stuff, it would be awesome if they could do online game rental aswell, imagine that, the new AC2 game comes out and you could play it for a day or 2 and then given the choice to buy the full game afterwards, way ahead of its time in the sense of downloading a full new game, but i defo think its sumthing they should look into, they could even sell the games themselves, cheaper priced even and send them to you in the post if you preferred the disc version!
Have you not heard of Paragraphs?
This would make sense with the films as its like other services around like NetFlix. Its like having Sky movies, but being able to choose the films.
If the monthly fee was reasonable, I would be willing to pay it, providing I could get the Films in VOS and set the films to download during the day, for example.
Free online gaming is the edge/alternative that the PSN has over live and I wouldn’t subscribe for that, as I play 95% offline anyway.
Hirai told CVG: "SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network. Especially in the on-line area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services."
Panic over, PSN will remain free for your usual everyday frag fests, it's just premium services and content that you might have to shell out for, much as you do across the wider internet and well, just about everywhere.
Well to me that almost sounds like silver/gold (apart from the pay to play part of live) but we will see when it is introduced
... the most important part - which forces you to stump up.
Important part for whom? I dont have gold live but you may (emphasis on may) find that like gold you will need to have a subscription to get demos etc before non paying PSN users but as I said (and this bit is important from my first post) we will see what exactly is what when it get released.
Either way it sounds the same as MSofts 2 tier system to me.
The article clearly states online gaming is free. Any argument against this is simply false, there's no evidence. Sony will not go down the Microsoft route when it comes to multiplayer, it will always remain free (excluding MMO's). I am paying for my broadband subscription after all, and the game.. oh and the console. This future subscription service is clearly about extra additional features being added to PSN.
I own both consoles. I see no difference in network capabilities or performance, this whole notion of Live being superior to PSN is incorrect.
I will always remain a Silver member on Live. How sad it is I've bought games with multiplayer elements, yet I cannot play them. It's pretty disgusting really.
When you put it like that, it is pretty disgusting, but you knew that when you bought the 360.
You're right, and it's clearly displayed on the game display box too, I have no complaints as a consumer really. I just refuse to pay for a service that should clearly be free. There's no justification for locking the multiplayer elements of games on Live.
subscription based services are pretty common in this world we live in - ever heard of Sky tv? they even have adverts and still charge. it obviously costs ms money to run live and someone has to pay for it, sony are in the same boat but perhaps they are trying a different route. also, if ms have sold quite a few 360's and quite a few subscriptions to live do you not think sony have missed a chance to make more cash? as a consumer we all like freebies but you shouldnt expect them.
The article clearly states online gaming is free. Any argument against this is simply false, there's no evidence. Sony will not go down the Microsoft route when it comes to multiplayer, it will always remain free (excluding MMO's). I am paying for my broadband subscription after all, and the game.. oh and the console. This future subscription service is clearly about extra additional features being added to PSN.
I own both consoles. I see no difference in network capabilities or performance, this whole notion of Live being superior to PSN is incorrect.
I will always remain a Silver member on Live. How sad it is I've bought games with multiplayer elements, yet I cannot play them. It's pretty disgusting really.
When you put it like that, it is pretty disgusting, but you knew that when you bought the 360.
You're right, and it's clearly displayed on the game display box too, I have no complaints as a consumer really. I just refuse to pay for a service that should clearly be free. There's no justification for locking the multiplayer elements of games on Live.
subscription based services are pretty common in this world we live in - ever heard of Sky tv? they even have adverts and still charge. it obviously costs ms money to run live and someone has to pay for it, sony are in the same boat but perhaps they are trying a different route. also, if ms have sold quite a few 360's and quite a few subscriptions to live do you not think sony have missed a chance to make more cash? as a consumer we all like freebies but you shouldnt expect them.
Of course I've heard of Sky TV... ? I'm talking specifically about multiplayer, not all that other nonsense Live offers. Of course that costs money. When most games are peer-to-peer, hosted by other users, I expect access to the network I've paid for. I've bought the hardware and software to do so.
they wont get a penny from my pocket for sure. i'll stick to xbox live only.
Please elaborate...
You're happy to pay Microsoft for a service which is totally free on PS3? I would really like someone to explain how Live is better than PSN. OK I know the chat is clearer on Live, but that is to be expected, when it is using 15 year old MSN. On the other hand, Chat is worse on Live, cuz everyone has a mic, meaning you have to listen to every annoying kid swearing and playing music. Most people who chat on PSN have bought a mic to chat.
Now I honestly think that PSN is level with Xbox live, and If they now want to charge a subscription for unlimited games/videos/add-on's and themes, then that is fine... I wont be paying, but it will be good for some.
Someone please tell me one thing you can do on Live that you cant do on PSN
they wont get a penny from my pocket for sure. i'll stick to xbox live only.
Please elaborate...
You're happy to pay Microsoft for a service which is totally free on PS3? I would really like someone to explain how Live is better than PSN. OK I know the chat is clearer on Live, but that is to be expected, when it is using 15 year old MSN. On the other hand, Chat is worse on Live, cuz everyone has a mic, meaning you have to listen to every annoying kid swearing and playing music. Most people who chat on PSN have bought a mic to chat.
Now I honestly think that PSN is level with Xbox live, and If they now want to charge a subscription for unlimited games/videos/add-on's and themes, then that is fine... I wont be paying, but it will be good for some.
Someone please tell me one thing you can do on Live that you cant do on PSN
You may buy a subscription for a period of online game play, access to content or other activity. Subscriptions last for a fixed period of time specified on purchase, for example, a week or a month ("the Subscription Period" . The Subscription Period will vary for different services and will be explained to you before you purchase your first subscription.
Only the account that buys a subscription can use that subscription. You must not share your subscription with another account holder (not even with your associated Master Account or Sub Accounts).
Subscriptions will renew automatically at the end of the Subscription Period, unless you cancel them via PSN Account Management or there is an increase in the subscription charge. If you cancel a subscription, cancellation will take effect from end of the current Subscription Period. You can continue to use the relevant service until cancellation takes effect and will not receive any refund of subscription charges already paid.
You must ensure that you have enough funds in your PSN wallet on the renewal date to cover the next subscription charge. You can choose to have your wallet automatically topped up to cover the subscription charge, using your chosen payment method. However, if the subscription charge is less than the minimum PSN transaction amount set by us, your payment method will be automatically charged the minimum amount. The subscription charge (or, if greater, the minimum amount) will be added to your PSN wallet. The subscription charge will then be removed from your wallet and any excess funds will remain in your wallet for future purchases.
Subscription charges may be increased at the end of each Subscription Period. If charges are increased, you will be informed and asked to confirm whether you want the subscription to continue.
Here is the link for the full terms of use you will have to click the link that comes up undefined http://uk.playstation.com/legal/detail/item238015/PlayStation%C2%AENetwork-TERMS-OF-SERVICE-AND-USER-AGREEMENT/ My bet is M.A.G will be the first game to use
Ok... You are aware I presume that lag is most commonly caused by connection issues and line speeds, right?
PSN is free, indeed. And when you put the two side by side, you would expect it to be. If Sony charged for that, it would be nothing short of an insult.
I have both, and XBL is so far and away the better network, it's almost embarrassing. Still, it can only get better for Sony, let's hope they catch up a bit next year, as they have some truly awesome looking games in the works.
Ok... You are aware I presume that lag is most commonly caused by connection issues and line speeds, right?
PSN is free, indeed. And when you put the two side by side, you would expect it to be. If Sony charged for that, it would be nothing short of an insult.
I have both, and XBL is so far and away the better network, it's almost embarrassing. Still, it can only get better for Sony, let's hope they catch up a bit next year, as they have some truly awesome looking games in the works.
So your personal experience determines the truth? Well according to this idea, my experience has shown PSN to be superior to Live. ... but this doesn't mean anything, its pure opinion.
Where is your evidence that Live is better than PSN? I own both consoles, have experienced both networks, using the same connection. Give me statistics on the comparison, because what you're saying is nothing more than empty opinion.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
but you may (emphasis on may) find that like gold you will need to have a subscription to get demos etc before non paying PSN users but as I said (and this bit is important from my first post) we will see what exactly is what when it get released. 
