 |
|
|
| |
Sony's Dille: Charging For PSN Still Possible
by Leigh Alexander [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
February 3, 2010
|
| |
Sony Computer Entertainment America's SVP of marketing Peter Dille has reiterated comments by SCE chief Kaz Hirai regarding the possibility of charging for services on the currently-free PlayStation Network.
One of PlayStation Network's main selling points, as highlighted by Sony Computer Entertainment, is that users can access multiplayer gaming and other community features and services with no subscription fee, whereas the competing Xbox Live charges $50 per year.
But PSN's ongoing free-to-play status was again brought into question recently by consumer website IGN. Sony Computer Entertainment America SVP of marketing and PSN Peter Dille stated, "Will we charge for [PSN], or why don't we charge for it? It's been our philosophy not to charge for it from launch up until now, but Kaz [Hirai, SCE CEO] recently went on the record as saying that's something we're looking at."
He added, "I can confirm that as well. 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."
Following an investor presentation released in November 2009, Hirai said, "...In the online area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services."
Sony is currently looking for more ways to increase sales through more content and services associated with PSN. SCEA also said that October saw the highest revenues on record for PSN, with PlayStation Store downloads up 60 percent year-on-year for the month. The company claimed PSN had over 650 million downloads at the time, with users creating 31 million accounts.
Dille also said that Sony is working on the heavily-rumored full PS2 full-game downloads for PSN. "From our side, we're going through our own studio organization and trying to make sure all these old games are out there so that we can lead by example, but we're also communicating with all the third-parties about the success of the Final Fantasy games, and other PS1 and PS2 classics," he said.
|
| |
|
|
Free PSN is one of the primary things that has made me stick with PS3 over 360.
Personally, I would probably drop PSN rather than pay for it, and if I did feel the need to pick up an online distributed game I'd probably subscribe to XBLA instead so I could finally pick up geometry wars and the portal xpac, watch netflix from integrated UI, and maybe start playing MW II with my friends back in california since they all play on xbox.
Wow, even the suggestion of charging for PSN has made me feel less loyal to the brand.. gg. :)
as a PS3 owner, i think that the free PSN is one of the better things of the console.
What Sony is thinking?
But then again...servers, maintenance, upgrades of service, and bandwidth don't pay for themselves...so maybe its more of a matter of not bleeding money...
Doubt it? That's why the recent EA move towards better planned (and fewer) games made so noise. Nobody was expecting to hear that from a company like them - never. They're the Sony of the game companies, but looks "cured" from this plague somehow.
This may sound a completely different subject, but it isn't; instead of leveling the PS3 games' quality level to make more profit (which is hard to do), they simply prefer to charge more things; it's soo Sony.... but coincidence or not [hint: not], Sony is still the great, remarkable "name" in the console field - the great icon of this lazy era.
Our industry suffers from this terrible disease of being lazy. In 80's, for example, make any game was something too difficult; so you must make some good (at least different) game, or it would sell nothing - with few games in the market, the "original" ones would sell more naturally. Today it's so easy to make games (even AAA, if you got the money), that the responsibility of what is done simply disappeared. This explains the "indie wave" nowadays, as indies has a similar environment that our 80's and 90's ancestors had while making games; in a more hostile environment, you must to better things, which lead to better games.
I dunno why people are up in arms, since when was a corporation a model of charity, you are a costumer, they want your money, sounds like ECON 101.
See what people says elsewhere: while MS is charging for some basic stuff like multiplaying, you have the option of access too much different things (movies, online games, etc). If you offer interesting uses for online access, seems reasonable that you may pay for this - for a reasonable price.
Recently people were discussing truth in games, and in the industry as a whole; and that's exactly the point. People complain about Sony charging because *actually* there's absolutely nothing that justifies it. People does think: "if Sony hasn't charged us until now, why should they do it now? They aren't offering us nothing special for!" 'Premium content' is a vague term, that doesn't say what useful things this may offer.
If they offer things like Netflix or Sky TV, for example, they will not sell it massively, and they know it. The best way to make this profitable - by being attractive - is offering game-tied features, as users need games to play games (duh!); and here, we may basically think of clans and massive stuff. But common sense says this would be free, as a "basic" part of the online experience - especially considering that Sony already has a free player network.
Again, the best way is to find anything new, interesting, that justify it. But that's the hardest, longest way - and no big one in the industry wants to folow this path, even if this means becoming "sick" by *plastering* themselves with predefined ways of do business. This is not a trustful behavior, and people will keep complaining because they know it.
The industry doesn't accepted yet the fact that internet made all the "industry mystery" accessible for everybody - through gamedev sites, and/or downloading gamedev tools, making games with friends, etc. All of this, together, lead us to the simple situation that's being spreaded here: gamers today are aware about how things works, and they will not simply lay their heads down to everything we offer - because now they can discover how and why things goes this or that way. To not accept this is to not be trustful with gamers - which means trouble.
And for those who read my other comments before, that's what I call a "lazy" behavior: there's a harder path to follow, that will bring a better environment for everybody - but nobody wants to follow, they simply prefer to wait until some "explorer" open a new path, and everybody follows. In a creative industry like ours, this herd behavior is just a suicide.
You don't need to have a subscription to buy these things, FYI, but you would for the other things you've mentioned.
I would pay for PSN to be as good as Xbox Live truth be told, if I had more hardcore gaming friends on the PS3. Xbox Live is (outside of Steam) the best way to play online games at the moment.
If Sony wants to charge for online services while maintaining goodwill among their users, Hirai's comment, "...In the online area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services." is the perfect solution. Keep the status quo free, and make the Live-esque features a paid feature.
One thing that makes Live so great is the Party mode that exists outside of any game. Meaning my friends and I can all be playing NHL 10, and then hop into MW2, all the while speaking to each other and not losing each other. We can go from Forza 3 to Bomberman in seconds, as a party. This mode can be something that Sony charges for. It's something they can sell because it's so damned convenient. I know a lot of Sony fans rag on Live but that's mainly because they haven't had a "Live experience" yet. Once they get a taste, if Sony offers a free time limited trial, I'm sure many will be inclined to join in. There are hardcore Warhawk clan members and that is now the case with MAG, people like this will appreciate the Party mode.
These would be features that aren't meant for casual players, but the hardcore that really get into games like EA's Sports titles, or team FPS games like MW2 and MAG. These people can justify $4 a month because these games offer so much value when they play 2-4 hours a night.
Where I could play them for free / do the same things I want to don XBL why? Because, I know how to I'm not going to follow a herd. I do things my way but I mean to XBL who cares I'm just 1 less person out of a million.
But right now Free PSN is good PSN for friends that want to play Online games and such on there. Another thing and this might be off topic but I don't consider: hardcore gamers : People that play 2-4hours a night with either : Clans / ect ect . on a One system scale hell or all next gen IE : WII / PS3 / Xbox. To me Hardcore gamers are those type of gamers that play any game you know what? Plant Vs Zombies hell yeah lets do this or Mushroom Wars most gamers now aday would go " Wow , play a real game : MW / MW2 / CoD ect ect." I think hardcore gamers are more well rounded of course thats just me.
I'm an old school gamer I've played more games then most of these so called self tittled : Hard core gamers have never even heard of : or as I call them Newage gamers. anyways thats my 2 cents lol.