Sony Computer Entertainment says it's "actively thinking about" charging for access to the PlayStation Network.
SCEA's senior VP of marketing, Peter Dille, speaking in an interview with IGN, said the platform holder is currently pondering the best way to approach a paid PS3 online service.
"It's been our philosophy not to charge for it from launch up until now, but Kaz recently went on the record as saying that's something we're looking at. I can confirm that as well," he said.
"That's something that we're actively thinking about. What's the best way to approach that if we were to do that? You know, no announcements at this point in time, but it's something we're thinking about."
One solution of course could be the leaked premium PSN subscription, which would offer paying PS3 owners cloud game save space, unlimited PSOne game downloads and more.
Frankly we'd pay for the services on that premium list. Would you?
Im pretty sure that they are going to charge for certain aspects of PSN, if MS have 23 million Live users and they all spend $50 a year ... well ... thats just too much money for Sony not to have a piece of.
It'll be interesting to see how they approach this.
the only way they could ever justify this is by finally bringing psn at par with xbox live. That said atm i only use psn even though i own both consoles cause live is too rich for my blood im afraid considering im mostly an rpg player and i know about 2/3 who own an xbox that isnt actually modded (i live in Malta.. yeah i know.. look it up) as opposed to nearly everyone else who has a ps3.
@ricflair: "Though, isn't there some kind of premium subscription thing available in the USA?"
There's Qore, which is an 'interactive magazine' that you can subscribe to. It's entirely optional though. Sony US don't charge for anything you use while you're playing games.
Part of the problem seems to be that online play is about the only service that seems worth paying for. If you can play online for free, why would you care about some of these extra services.
Plus, a lot of the stuff on that list looks to me like stuff you can buy anyway. So it's not like it's offering anything different. It's just pay for it like this, or like that. If you aren't interested in it, you ain't gonna pay either way.
Cross game chat, that's another kettle of fish. The biggest weapon in the Liver's bottomnal against PSN. Yet what's the point of paying for it when you can only chat to other people who pay for it? Kind of a sneaky way to get bunches of friends to pay for it, but are people gonna fall for that.
I dunno. Sony have dug themselves a hole. As their service grows so does their costs (even more so considering traded games cos I doubt they get a slice of that pie). It ain't gonna be easy for them to get out of it.
Also, does this mean we can call Home a FAIL? Surely they were hoping that money made off that would mean they didn't have to charge for anything else.
Microsoft might be money grabbing, but at least I know where I stand.
As long as it is a choice, I don't care. If they make us start paying for the whole service, I will stop using it. I pay enough for my ISP as it is. If it's a matter of not making enough on DLC, etcetera I would make purchases if my debit card was supported.
@ricflair: "Though, isn't there some kind of premium subscription thing available in the USA?"
There's Qore, which is an 'interactive magazine' that you can subscribe to. It's entirely optional though. Sony US don't charge for anything you use while you're playing games.
That's it. I knew it wasn't charging for games etc, I just knew there was some kind exclusive content you get for subscribing. I think they'd have to offer more than just cross game chat, but then that's not a feature I really use anyway so perhaps I underestimate it's value.
I can't see them offering better servers etc for paid subscribers, because wouldn't that then lead to a two tier system and not being able to play with other people who aren't subscribers.
Ahhh, the speculation. Where would sites like this be with out it?!?
It's only a matter of time before access to PSN is charged for and I think that's always been the case.
Servers have to be maintained at the end of the day, and if Sony are to improve the infrastructure, reliablity and stability then advertising alone won't provide enough income to roll out and support more hardware.
The success of LIVE will only assist in charges coming sooner rather than later.
They need to add some bad-ass bonus's and improve serves if they're going to justify a charge, still if that proposed one comes true it could be awesome
I hope you are reading this, as I probably have a better idea for your time than anyone, or anything, else.
Stop your constant spewing of nonsense. You should instead spend your time logically, by making sure you sell more consoles than Microsoft and Nintendo. To do this, ensure that the next Sony games console (the PS4 from here on) is released for public purchasing before any competitors. You have few improvements to make, so this shouldn't be too hard. Also, try to ensure that the product is faultless. No glitches, no breakdowns, nothing that can be bad-mouthed. You could quite easily improve the online network, then charge for it. Very few people would choose not to buy it for this reason. Get your marketing plan perfected before release.
That's what you absolutely need to do to become the lead dog. These are just a few of my own suggestions;
Don't make the PS4 a 'media centre', but a games console. You will have sold a majority of units to gamers. Of course, improve the hardware (speed it up) and software (make is easier to develop for). Possibly bring out an upgraded PSP (2 analogue sticks are essential) at the same time, and have them sold in a bundle. The controllers just need to be made to a higher quality, which means stronger with less joints to get grease in. Stay with the matte finish of the PS3 slim, as the older PS3s look terrible after fingerprints, dust etc. Finally, the price. Make it cheaper if you want more sales, more expensive to deter those who we (me and the other non-casual gamers) don't want. Either way suits me.
Please, take this in it's entirity (that may be spelt wrong) into account. To everyone else, don't bother replying, as I probably won't re-reply. Unless it's an arguement, I like those.
So long as it's for added service, rather than starting to charge for what is currently free, then go ahead. And so long as it's optional.
Going down the Xbox Live route would be dumb.
Same thoughts here. If they start charging for for what's available now for free, then my PS3 will possibly just be used for BLU-RAYs/media machine, and possibly GT 5. I'd rather just play only on my PC than pay for online play on PSN, as I have no use for anything fancy.
they have said a few times that core multiplayer will still be free. anything else would be shooting themselves in the foot. watch PSN users plummet.
cant charge for something you introduced for free.
If they lost 75% of their userbase on PSN due to the introduction of charging to play online, that's still a hell of a lot more income than they were getting from it already.
I dont think id pay for more online stuff...I know homes more of a mentally disabled home, which is why i thought it would do ok selling virtual clothing to either A)kids who have no value of money and B)idiots who have no value of money. Sony should market more to these so they can float PSN.
Don't make the PS4 a 'media centre', but a games console. You will have sold a majority of units to gamers.
Well i chose PS3 over 360 BECAUSE its a media centre. My PS3 is never off when the tvs on. When not gaming im streaming films,checking the net, watching/recording/replaying play tv. Couldnt ask anymore of a console, 1 tv 1 box dose everything i want. And i think you will find most people (not hardcore gamers) buy PS3 for the same reason they brought PS2. On PS2 they could play dvds at a time when they were a new fangled medium,which led to the massive uptake of dvds and made vhs pretty much obsolete.Sony are hoping for the same reaction to blu ray. Most dule console owners say they mainly use the PS3 as a bluray player only,which im sure for the time being at least is ok seeing as Sony have a big steak in Blu ray,but now the installed user base is creeping up on 360 the games need to step up. Which judging by this years line up they are.
Stay with the matte finish of the PS3 slim, as the older PS3s look terrible after fingerprints, dust etc.
Me personally cant stand the matt finish. The slims being aimed at the Chav market If i ever need to get a new PS3 id go for a nice shiney softtouch button old fat PS3 everytime. Looks way cooler,but i can undersand the fingerprint frustration if youve got kids.
Make it cheaper if you want more sales, more expensive to deter those who we (me and the other non-casual gamers) don't want. Either way suits me.
I do agree but seeing as i got my PS3 id rather the price stay high so theres less chavs in my games. NOONE should have to put up with chavs but would rather them be on 360 than ruining games on PS3. Sorry 360 owners but thank you for carrying them for so long. You deserve an achievement for that
Very true. Due to the tacky piece of crap (or Burberry cap in ryhming slang) that is the slim and the price drop,chavs can now afford a PS3 rather than steal one that would usually be locked down after said theft. And the headset thing is a double edged sword,thankfully theres a mute button if they manage to bag a headset
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
