Sony gaming exec: Broadband prices need to drop
- Thread starter j^aws
- Start date
Jaws said:
(from here: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13169&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20 )DeanoC said:
that news is quite big , IMO ..Jaws said:
He's talked about this before. It would appear to be a rational decision if the online music industry is indicative of consumer mentality in general. For example, seemlessly buying a single song for $0.99 is reasonable, hell it's great. Paying $20.00 a month for a static number of downloads isn't.
micro transactions are the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The majority of people can understand a single transaction a month or year, but they don't want to see things broken down further. It's too hard to track how much you're actually spending, and you're actually getting less money for your dollar. It's just a clever way of saying your're going to pay for every game individually.
IMO, micro transaction are the wrong way to go, and they are trying to fix something that isn't broken at all.
IMO, micro transaction are the wrong way to go, and they are trying to fix something that isn't broken at all.
What is this? The dynamic PS2 duo?
No it doesn't. Paying a few dollars like 3 or 4 for a new level addon isn't a real micro transaction. Do you really know what a micro transaction is? It's getting down to a level where you pay by the minute, or for extra lives, hence the 99cents nonesense.
Xbox live is a service, and for a service monthly fees makes sense. going beyond that won't appeal to the average person that I already afraid to use thier credit card on the internet.
So what, are you going to do break it down by multiplayer level in a game? That model won't work for games. I really don't know how you can compare ringtones and downloading mp3's to video games. You're talking abotu things with can be interacted with. 10 buck on I tunes get's you 10 songs. Doesn't I tunes also offer you a monthly membership with more freedom to download as well? 10 bucks on xbox live gets you a month membership and you can play 99% of the online enabled games.
You guys are falling for them breaking it down so it doesn't look like you're paying for every game individually. You're still doing that ya know. You guys can go play and pay for every game if you want, but I'm still going to get more for my money. I've probably had 12 games with xbox live support and I've played them all online. There's no way in hell I'd have that many xbox live games if I had to pay individually for each one, each time. That's idiotic.
No it doesn't. Paying a few dollars like 3 or 4 for a new level addon isn't a real micro transaction. Do you really know what a micro transaction is? It's getting down to a level where you pay by the minute, or for extra lives, hence the 99cents nonesense.
Xbox live is a service, and for a service monthly fees makes sense. going beyond that won't appeal to the average person that I already afraid to use thier credit card on the internet.
So what, are you going to do break it down by multiplayer level in a game? That model won't work for games. I really don't know how you can compare ringtones and downloading mp3's to video games. You're talking abotu things with can be interacted with. 10 buck on I tunes get's you 10 songs. Doesn't I tunes also offer you a monthly membership with more freedom to download as well? 10 bucks on xbox live gets you a month membership and you can play 99% of the online enabled games.
You guys are falling for them breaking it down so it doesn't look like you're paying for every game individually. You're still doing that ya know. You guys can go play and pay for every game if you want, but I'm still going to get more for my money. I've probably had 12 games with xbox live support and I've played them all online. There's no way in hell I'd have that many xbox live games if I had to pay individually for each one, each time. That's idiotic.
Me and Vince disagree on many other levels trust me, we both share a common hatred for ignorance though.
Suuuuure it isn't. It is, end of story, and this is exactly what Sony means when they mean "micro transaction"
From the article:
"Sony's vision for an online business model is based on microtransaction -- gamers paying small fees for added content or levels in games"
I mean.. come on now. Your just trying to make up your own definition to fit said rhetoric...
And it ALREADY DOES GO BEYOND THAT using micro transactions.
You have a choice if you want to pay for an extra level, track, car or not.
But at any rate dude, I love ya, I own Xbox live and I don't wanna argue for days over this.
I'll state my visions and ideals and you'll state yours, we'll have to just come to a agreement.
Unless someone's changed the definition of microtransaction in the last little while... I was under the impression that a microtransaction is formally defined as a payment transaction too small to be economically viable when processed by a credit card.
With xbox live, that $5 goes over your credit card, therefore by definition it is not a microtransaction.
In any case, drawing an analogy between iTunes and videogames isn't a particularly good one IMHO.
iTunes is different because music is a singles driven business. You don't generally need the rest of the songs on an album to enjoy a single track off of it, and the marketing and promotion is almost entirely single based. So breaking apart the albums into single tracks makes sense for the consumer.
On the other hand, when you go rent a video, you don't rent the movie in 5 minute chunks and pay for it with a series of 24 micropayments. I certainly don't want to see just one particular scene of a movie... it would make no sense without the rest of it.
Likewise, I certainly don't want to play MGS 5 or Splinter Cell 5 by paying for 15 minute pieces of gameplay at a time.
Games, like movies, tend to be marketed and sold as an artistic unit.
That said, I can see this working for certain specific genres of games (DDR comes to mind, and something like xbox Live Arcade comes to mind, maybe driving games or games with no plot or story).
But for the vast majority of games, I just don't see this idea being applicable, except for bonus content and addons.
With xbox live, that $5 goes over your credit card, therefore by definition it is not a microtransaction.
In any case, drawing an analogy between iTunes and videogames isn't a particularly good one IMHO.
iTunes is different because music is a singles driven business. You don't generally need the rest of the songs on an album to enjoy a single track off of it, and the marketing and promotion is almost entirely single based. So breaking apart the albums into single tracks makes sense for the consumer.
On the other hand, when you go rent a video, you don't rent the movie in 5 minute chunks and pay for it with a series of 24 micropayments. I certainly don't want to see just one particular scene of a movie... it would make no sense without the rest of it.
Likewise, I certainly don't want to play MGS 5 or Splinter Cell 5 by paying for 15 minute pieces of gameplay at a time.
Games, like movies, tend to be marketed and sold as an artistic unit.
That said, I can see this working for certain specific genres of games (DDR comes to mind, and something like xbox Live Arcade comes to mind, maybe driving games or games with no plot or story).
But for the vast majority of games, I just don't see this idea being applicable, except for bonus content and addons.
Fair enough. So I guess by that logic you hate yourself for saying xbox live has micro transactions? hmm strange...
No it's not a Micro transaction. A micro transaction is when you get billed for playing only that game, per hour, per minute, per second, even per life used etc... Telephone companies track micro transactions. Ever see your phone bill? I did reaserch on seeing how you could bill for something like that if you were to create an online gaming service with billing system from scratch. There's only one payment system capable of micro trasnactions and it was called Portal. You may have heard of it, Microsft and IBM both use it, along with certain telecom companies.
"Sony's vision for an online business model is based on microtransaction -- gamers paying small fees for added content or levels in games"
Um, perhaps these sony reps need to get their terminology straight. regardless of what I took from what vince originally said, REAL micro transactions are a bad idea.
No... iXBox live doesn't use micro-transactions. Thier billing system in place for xbox live isn't setup to do that.
We don't really have to agree on anything... that's the way it works.
accidentalsuccess
Newcomer
aaaaa00 said:
VERY well-put.
I could go for the idea of paying $5 for maybe 3 more mechassualt missions (for example), but I sure as heck don't want to have to pay to DL the Ragnorock, etc.
I'm for love and broadband for all. 8)
Probably, though I doubt there's a huge concensus as to what exactly that means price-wise. Gamers paying a buck for an extra level or two is certainly "small" and "inconsequential" in the minds of many gamers, whether they technically consider it "micro" or not. Regardless, Hirai explained exactly what he meant by it in the same statement.Qroach said:
I agree that going to the point of real "microtransactions" would be crappy, because to my experience companies try to hide the devil in the details through a lot of confusion.
It does, however, already do exactly what Hirai is talking about.
I'm thinking on a possible model for "microstransactions" as a "Virtual" coin-up arcade, where the "insert coins" to play are replaced by "microtransactions". If cheap enough, could take off...10 cents per play anyone? 8) Real arcades are just too expensive these days... 
CyberWorld--->CyberArcade...
CyberWorld--->CyberArcade...
I could "see" that too, Jaws, and frankly the prospect is frightening.
I can't see it gaining much ground, though. The reason arcades started to die was because home machines could get close to their quality, while offering a ton more convenience and saving a lot of money. Especially potent since the consoles were already purchased for all the games that just don't fit an arcade's style--anything else could just get rolled in.
If companies start trying to pull bullshit like that, I mainly see people sliding on over to their direct competitors who don't. Even if the price is "not much" (and heck, could be even cheaper for some folk depending on their gaming habits), people just don't want to HAVE to be connected and KNOW they're shelling out money every time they start up a game.
Developers seeking some extra cash to cover board-building and other game additions is one thing, but for game PLAYING would be a crock. Most things that started out charging usage fees have invariably gone to universal charges... The tendency is toward simplicity for the consumers, not the other way around; it's much easier to lead consumers down a slope than get them to climb a ladder.
For new tech and services it's one thing, but videogaming went down that road long ago. There ARE things people are willing to pay for, but to cover a complete paradigm shift like that would require all the major players to decide on it at once and stick by it. I don't see them cooperating all that well--they're all quite happy to steal people from the others.
I can't see it gaining much ground, though. The reason arcades started to die was because home machines could get close to their quality, while offering a ton more convenience and saving a lot of money. Especially potent since the consoles were already purchased for all the games that just don't fit an arcade's style--anything else could just get rolled in.
If companies start trying to pull bullshit like that, I mainly see people sliding on over to their direct competitors who don't. Even if the price is "not much" (and heck, could be even cheaper for some folk depending on their gaming habits), people just don't want to HAVE to be connected and KNOW they're shelling out money every time they start up a game.
Developers seeking some extra cash to cover board-building and other game additions is one thing, but for game PLAYING would be a crock. Most things that started out charging usage fees have invariably gone to universal charges... The tendency is toward simplicity for the consumers, not the other way around; it's much easier to lead consumers down a slope than get them to climb a ladder.
For new tech and services it's one thing, but videogaming went down that road long ago. There ARE things people are willing to pay for, but to cover a complete paradigm shift like that would require all the major players to decide on it at once and stick by it. I don't see them cooperating all that well--they're all quite happy to steal people from the others.
Seriously though, paying for content either at a retailer or online, you're still paying for the content. Now all this microtransaction for content (be it level or similar), is like giving you the option for a single song or a few songs on an album.
Agreed. Paying for content could be viewed as purchasing Addons like a number of PC games.
Also this could be the basis for MMRPG where you pay for an real Dungeon Master like service where someone is driving your adventure. Now don't start flaming stating why pay when a friend can be the DM. Just view the DM idea as a service, like Xbox Live.
Also Q, Live is a service as you stated, but the topic here is more content centric (thus the iTune example with songs), thus some of your argument seems weak.
aaaaa00 said:
Agreed. Paying for content could be viewed as purchasing Addons like a number of PC games.
Also this could be the basis for MMRPG where you pay for an real Dungeon Master like service where someone is driving your adventure. Now don't start flaming stating why pay when a friend can be the DM. Just view the DM idea as a service, like Xbox Live.
Also Q, Live is a service as you stated, but the topic here is more content centric (thus the iTune example with songs), thus some of your argument seems weak.
this doesn't differ much from what was said in UK by moore about xbox live, except sony doesn't want the gamer to pay a monthly fee.
with xbox you pay monthly fees and you'll pay for the content.
with sony you only pay for the content.
anyway i'm totally rejecting this idea of paying for more content.
it will be nothing but easy for the publishers to add some minor content and/or put a restricted version on the shelves, gamers having to pay again to enjoy it 100%.
it is definitively not made for gamers interest, it's just a way to make them spend more. i (and my wallet) don't need this kind of innovation.
with xbox you pay monthly fees and you'll pay for the content.
with sony you only pay for the content.
anyway i'm totally rejecting this idea of paying for more content.
it will be nothing but easy for the publishers to add some minor content and/or put a restricted version on the shelves, gamers having to pay again to enjoy it 100%.
it is definitively not made for gamers interest, it's just a way to make them spend more. i (and my wallet) don't need this kind of innovation.
