Last edited by a moderator:
Sony PS3 basic online service to surpass Xbox360 Silver
- Thread starter doob
- Start date
I don't think it's entirely clear that multiplayer will be free. I don't think that was explicitly said.
Moreover, also, there are generally many subtleties in what Kutaragi said. The online picture, while clearer than it was before, still isn't totally clear. I'm hoping again that Phil Harrison may elaborate on this next Wednesday.
Moreover, also, there are generally many subtleties in what Kutaragi said. The online picture, while clearer than it was before, still isn't totally clear. I'm hoping again that Phil Harrison may elaborate on this next Wednesday.
If the actual multiplayer gaming is free i wonder if MS will react. IMO, they'll have to make multiplayer part of silver and find something else to make gold worthwhile, or add said 'something extra' to Gold to add to its value. If Sony flat out offers mutliplayer with all the the other XBL for 'free' then they'll have set the standard, 'free' is always the standard. 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, but it states clearly that sony is pushing publishers to adopt free multiplayer gaming but with content purchasing (as it happens allot in mmorpgs now, with bonus items such as revival, double like exp.&money).
And some might be entirely free, supported with in-game advertising.
And some might be entirely free, supported with in-game advertising.
scooby_dooby
Legend
If it's true this is awesome, maybe it will force MS to have theirs for free too.
I think this is based on the same info we already had, which didn't actually confirm online play for free.
I think this is based on the same info we already had, which didn't actually confirm online play for free.
I think it'll probably be purely up to publishers individually as to whether you'll need to pay to play their games. The market will probably dictate that only a minority can support subscription, such that most games won't be charged for (and will make money off things like dlc etc.).
scooby_dooby said:
Another point Sony seems to be driving home is the 'openness' of the network and the flexibility of 3rd parties to use their own servers in more ways. My initial thoughts are that this is directly related to MMORPGs and the very vocal publishers of those games saying how inadequate XBL is for it. I've always assumed that their griping was just a more PC way of saying "MS wont let us rip off our own customers". Whatever the case, MS needs to be careful in this regard. If the PS network becomes the model network for MMORPGS its going to have long term repurcussions for MS. One or two of these huge MMORPGs on a console can almost guarentee profitability, and a strong userbase.
In all honesty--and as much as I'd love to see WoW or Guild Wars on a console, as a manufacturer this would be the absolute last thing I would want. People spend hundreds of hours and months upon months playing a single game. I hear too much anecdotal evidence of "I haven't even purchased another game since I bought WoW 9 months ago". And when your business model is about maximizing your attach rate, this seems wrong.expletive said:
Then again, it's probably just short sigtedness on my part that leads me to this way of thinking...
!eVo!-X Ant UK
Banned
Looks like Sony are upping the anty.
This great news IMO, being able to play free will be very good and many more should do it to, at least for the basic of the games or that arent that online dependent (MMO).
Content bought by the net should also be a great addition (as long as it isnt over priced +1$ per map) and once that the HDD is required it should have a lot of popularity.
I do hope that it will force MS to be drastic too, as IMO this can be one of the things that can change someone decision to which console buy.
Loading times should give more than enought time to ads and personally I dont mind, but more than that would be to much.
Content bought by the net should also be a great addition (as long as it isnt over priced +1$ per map) and once that the HDD is required it should have a lot of popularity.
I do hope that it will force MS to be drastic too, as IMO this can be one of the things that can change someone decision to which console buy.
Brimstone said:
Loading times should give more than enought time to ads and personally I dont mind, but more than that would be to much.
Sis said:
I think its a great point actually. Using WoW as a barometer of 'best case scenario', that would put 6 million of your total userbase hopelessly addicated to the game and unable to think of buying anything else.
Seems like it becomes less and less important the bigger the userbase is, that is it becomes a proportionally smaller %.
What doesnt change over time, however, is the 1 billion dollars (less costs) per year in revenue from the $15 (or is that 1200 points?) a month subscription fee.
I agree its definitely a different thought process when youre (MS and Sony) trying to maintain a 'fertile' platform for publishers though.
Last edited by a moderator:
This would change the revenue model for MS for sure. MS is banking on the 60 bucks a year from their subscribers. Is $60 enough to turn someone away from a 360 to a PS3? Maybe. If an HDD is included along with the system, it comes with free* MP gaming AND games are designed around the presence of the HDD then MS is screwed.
*The implications of Free are far ranging in that it may be free to play first party games but thrid parties may charge pay per play, or pay per month/annual requirements. At least with Xbox Live Gold you pay sixty bucks ONCE and thats for all games.
If Sony chooses the model where revenue goes directly to the publisher (a la EA) it would be great for the publisher (maybe thats why EA has more games in the pipe for PS3 because this model gives them more revenue than XBL) but users may balk at being nickled and dimed for games they already bought.
Much more than technology this my be the real Xbox vs. PS battlefield.
*The implications of Free are far ranging in that it may be free to play first party games but thrid parties may charge pay per play, or pay per month/annual requirements. At least with Xbox Live Gold you pay sixty bucks ONCE and thats for all games.
If Sony chooses the model where revenue goes directly to the publisher (a la EA) it would be great for the publisher (maybe thats why EA has more games in the pipe for PS3 because this model gives them more revenue than XBL) but users may balk at being nickled and dimed for games they already bought.
Much more than technology this my be the real Xbox vs. PS battlefield.
True, there's obviously value in it. But for the manufacturer, or the publisher? (He who holds the server wins...) If MS and the publisher are splitting costs, then it's a smaller pie for the publisher.expletive said:I think its a great point actually. Using WoW as a barometer of 'best case scenario', that would put 6 million of your total userbase hopelessly addicated to the game and unable to think of buying anything else.
Seems like it becomes less and less important the bigger the userbase is, that is it becomes a proportionally smaller %.
What doesnt change over time, however, is the 1 billion dollars (less costs) per year in revenue from the $15 (or is that 1200 points?) a month subscription fee.
I think its definitely a different thought process when youre (MS and Sony) trying to maintain a 'fertile' platform for publishers though.
This may be why Blizzard has come out against an Xbox 360 version of WoW.
