PlayStation Plus.

[patsu]

Hmmm... It doesn't quite convince me .

I don't think we are trying to convince ourselves to sign up here !

Plus (duh, no pun intended), I don't like the fact that you can only play the """"free"""" games while the subscription is active.

That's like a NetFlix rental model with an open return date (until your subscription ends). They can't call it a rental because retailers will get mad at them. They also can't apply it to all games. Again, it would probably be more interesting after a year or two when Sony has built up some track record.

 

[Toaddio]

It seems to me that most people would be happy if Sony took away free online gaming and put it in PSN+ instead, just so there would be something more tangible worth $50 a year. That's a little bit loopy.

My only thought on it is if Sony start to dig into their catalog of PS1 games and make them all available then there's a lot of good "free" gaming with the subscription.

 

[BRiT]

I think most people would be happier if Sony made PS+ have cross-game chat.

 

[eloic]

I don't think we are trying to convince ourselves to sign up here !

- I know. -

 

[Arwin]

I decided to sign up. At the very least I'll be getting al my game and firmware updates automatically at night, which will help prepare a bunch of my games for Move, among others. I also like the idea of making it into betas automatically.

Personally, I'm guessing that the service will be worth it. Otherwise, Sony can pack up the service next year. My only real worry is that the service will offer too much stuff I already bought (most stuff currently up there I already own) and/or some services won't make it to Europe, or the Netherlands in particular. But right now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[eloic]

I think most people would be happier if Sony made PS+ have cross-game chat.

May I rewrite your sentence?

I think most standard PSN users would be angry if Sony made PS+ have cross-game chat.​

I don't think cross-game chat should be something to pay for. Seriously, why?

Just in case, I'm not asking you, that only was a rhetorical question.

 

[BRiT]

Well I'm assuming Sony wont implement it and give it away for free, but they could always surprise me.

 

[specwarGP2]

I think this is where Sony owning a lot of 1st party studios can really pay off because they can be leveraged to provide PS+ content. I wouldnt be surprised to see some premium content for gran turismo exclusive to PS+.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And I'd have assumed that Sony wouldn't implement it but not roll it out in any form. The world is full of surprises.

 

[RobertR1]

May I rewrite your sentence?

I think most standard PSN users would be angry if Sony made PS+ have cross-game chat.​

I don't think cross-game chat should be something to pay for. Seriously, why?

Just in case, I'm not asking you, that only was a rhetorical question.

Sony wants a subsciption model. They know it'd be PR suicide to go back and start charing to play online. Thus what's available for free, needs to stay free. However, that doesn't mean they can't add very desireable features to the paid model to entice adoption.

 

[eloic]

Sony wants a subsciption model. They know it'd be PR suicide to go back and start charing to play online. Thus what's available for free, needs to stay free. However, that doesn't mean they can't add very desireable features to the paid model to entice adoption.

I know. That's business.

I only say that I would pay for extra content and services, for instance, not for what should be a standard feature (in my opinion). I hope I made the difference clear.

 

[BRiT]

You don't think access to demos should be free too?

 

[eloic]

You don't think access to demos should be free too?

I said "extra content and services"(like videos, music, movies, special discounts, etc.), not what we already have (access to demos, that is, besides other content).

 

[wco81]

I think most people would be happier if Sony made PS+ have cross-game chat.

That would be bullshit, to make you pay to get that feature.

 

[wco81]

Heard that Hulu Plus may require a PSN Plus account too. Whatever, who's going to pay to watch TV shows laden with commercials and inferior picture?

Best thing for consumers is that this flops and they pull this scheme, kind of like how quickly Microsoft Kin flopped in only a few weeks and they're cutting their losses.

 

[RobertR1]

haha yeah I saw the Kin flop. When it released, I recall thinking "why would anyone buy this?" Clearly, I was not in the minority with that.

 

[patsu]

Whatever, who's going to pay to watch TV shows laden with commercials and inferior picture?

Hulu Plus is HD.

Best thing for consumers is that this flops and they pull this scheme, kind of like how quickly Microsoft Kin flopped in only a few weeks and they're cutting their losses.

Digital download business probably needs more success stories. iTunes has hardware sales to prop it up. NetFlix has rental business to support it. YouTube has Google search to feed the burn rate. Pure DD is difficult. Hulu will need the extra $$$ for the initial build up, but it is indeed a dangerous proposition.

After more than a decade of DD failure, and the success of Blu-ray, it's high time to tame this DD beast. NetFlix needs a competitor. And I don't really want videos that are tied to specific devices forever.

 

[wco81]

I heard a lot of SD content is in Hulu Plus. Arstechnica has a hands-on preview. They are missing a lot of shows because they don't want to piss off companies like Comcast.

Of course it's obvious these streaming services can't have comprehensive libraries at $10 a month when the cable company expects to get $60, $70 or more for the same content.

So DD is not a great deal for end-user, who pays the same or higher price than media despite DD being a lot cheaper for the purveyor. Not to mention, you can't re-sell DD and recover some of your costs like you can with media.

 

[eastmen]

haha yeah I saw the Kin flop. When it released, I recall thinking "why would anyone buy this?" Clearly, I was not in the minority with that.

The kin is a good phone actually. THe problem is the $30 data fee verizon was charging. If it had a $10 or even $15 fee it be good for that group of kids from like 12-16 that can't yet convince thier parents to pay for the huge expense of a blackberry or a full data plan.

Using the phone don't see anything wrong with it (i would never buy it tho as my whole plan costs $30 bucks a month)

 

[corduroygt]

The kin is a good phone actually. THe problem is the $30 data fee verizon was charging. If it had a $10 or even $15 fee it be good for that group of kids from like 12-16 that can't yet convince thier parents to pay for the huge expense of a blackberry or a full data plan.

Using the phone don't see anything wrong with it (i would never buy it tho as my whole plan costs $30 bucks a month)

All other smartphones have a $30 data fee as well and they're not flopping. It made no sense to buy a Kin over a fully featured Android, especially with the prices being so close.