Sony To Hold Hour And A Half Investor/Analyst Meeting On November 19th
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
Then it is probably the banner, and I'm not getting the issues because that type of banner is probably not broadcast in my region (advertising is typically heavily localised) - because my javascript is on.
Kaz had an interview with Dow Jones Newswire on Friday, but we only get a few loose quotes on the net:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/techno...ervice_for_tvs/index.html?source=r_technology
Apparently, the restructuring is still on-going:
"Sony Ericsson Moves North American HQ To Atlanta And Sheds 2,000 Jobs Worldwide"
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/11/...-hq-to-atlanta-and-sheds-2000-jobs-worldwide/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/techno...ervice_for_tvs/index.html?source=r_technology
Apparently, the restructuring is still on-going:
"Sony Ericsson Moves North American HQ To Atlanta And Sheds 2,000 Jobs Worldwide"
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/11/...-hq-to-atlanta-and-sheds-2000-jobs-worldwide/
About that subscription service...
I think this may be one of Sony's network efforts:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/sony-e-readers-get-exclusive-dow-jones-new-york-post-content/
I believe the e-Reader belongs to Kaz Hirai's organization. I guess this may eventually become a part of "Sony Online Service"
I think this may be one of Sony's network efforts:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/sony-e-readers-get-exclusive-dow-jones-new-york-post-content/
I believe the e-Reader belongs to Kaz Hirai's organization. I guess this may eventually become a part of "Sony Online Service"
...and some PSN subscription possibilities/options:
http://kotaku.com/5429592/survey-sony-considering-premium-playstation-network-subscriptions
... plus other interesting suggestions.
http://kotaku.com/5429592/survey-sony-considering-premium-playstation-network-subscriptions
... plus other interesting suggestions.
Cross-game voice chat as a premium service would, IMO, make the point of 'free' online irrelevant. The current system NEEDS cross-application chat to help people come together online, giving us a way to talk as we wrestle with the nonsense of just trying to get into online matches. eg. The other day we tried to play FIFA online, 3 vs. 1. Games would drop out of creation for no reason, or not allow people to join. In the end we resorted to telephones to stay in touch as we took turns in hosting games until we could get it to work. Alternatively you are playing something and your friends come online and want to know if you'll play something else. You're in the midst of something-or-other and replying to a message is awkward enough, but if your game doesn't pause in the chat (like Sacred 2) then it can kill you, so you don't reply. It's also needed for games that offer a proper party chat system so you can choose to either work with your own selection of teammates or talk smack (eg. Fat Princess, if you are playing a friend on the opposition, you can't communicate, meaning they're all but a bot on the screen).
Cross-game voice chat is a necessity to a proper online service IMO, at least if that service is about bringing friends together rather than just playing against random, silent people. If Sony charge for this, they may as well lose free online play altogether.
Cross-game voice chat is a necessity to a proper online service IMO, at least if that service is about bringing friends together rather than just playing against random, silent people. If Sony charge for this, they may as well lose free online play altogether.
Yes and no.
It depends on the party system. e.g., in RFOM and R2, I was able to join the GAF party without even turning on my mic the whole time. In KZ2, the (lack of) party system makes playing together difficult with or without voice chat. IMHO, the key to online gaming is the party system, not the voice chat.
Secondly, there are people who play online games alone (like me in late nights). I can still continue to do it without any cross game voice chat.
I am most interested to find out what they intend to do with the party system. wco81 is probably looking forward to a good one too.
It depends on the party system. e.g., in RFOM and R2, I was able to join the GAF party without even turning on my mic the whole time. In KZ2, the (lack of) party system makes playing together difficult with or without voice chat. IMHO, the key to online gaming is the party system, not the voice chat.
Secondly, there are people who play online games alone (like me in late nights). I can still continue to do it without any cross game voice chat.
I am most interested to find out what they intend to do with the party system. wco81 is probably looking forward to a good one too.
What about smack-talking friends you are playing against? From what I've seen, voice chat is usually confined to teammates to organise tactics. some games like Warhawk allow for open chat but that tuins cooperative team chat for the rest of your team.
Sony I hope realizes they don't have to leave the online play as it is whilst making ppl pay for any enhancements to it. Once the subscriptions start I hope the base play continues to improve as well as remain free (cross game chat included). There are many things they can gain revenue from without holding off things they should have implemented in the first place.
Basically differentiate between added features and features that should come with the console experience out of the box
Basically differentiate between added features and features that should come with the console experience out of the box
Sony could certainly charge for it and why not? What option does there fanbase have? Are they going to goto Live and pay there instead? They'll have to live with an internet shitfest for a bit but it'll come to pass. Let the online play be free and charge for Voice Party + other features. Trust me, people would pay for it.
Your exp is cringe worthy but it's free. Now here's my example from just last night. I'm in a party with someone and we're chatting while playing diff games. Another person joins and then another. Now we have 4 people chatting it up (very clear btw) while we're all playing diff games. 2 of us start playing one demo while the other two decide on a different game. At no point did the party get interrurpted. Had one of them required a disconnect due to a title update, they would have auto matically joined the party after being logged into Live again. After playing my demo I jumped into their game while the 4th member went to a diff party to play another game. The normal convention of Live is now party invites. Why send a game invite or a text when it's just easier to fire up a party, talk about what you want to play, maybe gather some friends on each others list and get going.
Now compare my experience with yours. Would you be willing to pay for that? You might not but I have a feeling many would. That's what Sony is looking at.
In-game voice chat would be custom to the game (e.g., open, teammates only and/or proximity based). I like it to stay that way to keep the original game design. e.g., Talking in Demon's Souls may break the immersion.
For over-the-game or cross-game voice chat (on a mutually-agreed set up, different "channel"), I'd say Sony can do anything it wants. It's a utility to keep group of friends together. e.g, Even if talking in Demon's Souls will weaken the experience, the 2 friends may override it and use the cross-game chat facility anyway.
I hope they integrate everything to the existing XMB chat room. I like text chat with not-so-close friends, regardless of whether they subscribe to the premium tier. You don't even need to bother with invitations. Just go to a persistent room we set up eons ago, and we are already in the same party regardless of games.
EDIT:
For me, the ideal experience would be:
(i) Promote the XMB Chat room to a persistent party system (i.e., the chatroom is a parameterized "party factory" in object-oriented terms). PS Home should use the same thing.
(ii) For premium tier, enable the personal voice channel as described above. Allow me to pick up calls using my headset/PS Eye, with noise cancellation -- so that I don't have to look for my phone. If they allow me to call out to the phone network (for a per-call fee), that's fine too I guess.
If Sony wants to, I think they can consider a usage tax or service fee. If people buy enough games, they may be entitled to discounts (or free premium online play). If people only buy and play one online game for the entire generation, they may need to pay a dues for the upkeep of the network.
Shouldnt the ppl who use it more pay more?
You can have voice chat for free outside of games, but if this goes through, you'd have pay for voice chat cross game. That sure is a nice way to fracture the user base. Could you use it to talk to someone who isn't paying for it? Paying for community functions just doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that we should have had some basic functions like cross game chat and a party system ages ago.
In general yes. I was more thinking about the case where someone buys one game and keeps playing it online without getting a second title.
For pay-per-use model, there's usually a cap (There are 24 hours a day). Linking subscription (discount) to buying new games may be helpful from loyalty management perspective, and also reducing pre-own game sales.
EDIT:
Ok, option 1 has loyalty program:
It would be interesting if they tie the cloud storage with media sharing (akin to Playstation Home concepts).
I appreciate that, and it makes good business sense. My point is, don't promise PSN will be free forever and then charge for an essential feature that buyers thought was 'just around the corner' regards PSN updates! If they're going to go that route, then the whole 'free' aspect is dead. You may as well go Live!'s route and charge for online gaming. I mean, why would I be happy to pay £20 a year for a voice chat service and a 100 other features I don't care about, while the core multiplayer experience I do want is completely free except you can't actually communicate to anyone? To me that's kinda like buying a car that only turns left and having to subscribe to allow it to turn right! If the online play is free, the voice-chat should be. If you're going to charge for voice-chat, you may as well charge for online gaming and roll it all into one service. Maybe if they charged for specific features, and you could pay a much smaller amount for voice chat, it wouldn't be so bad. Sadly I can't see them doing anything beyond adding 'extra value' to a subscription service of useless junk for a single service I want which is fundamental to a good online gaming experience with friends.
I think Sony should be very careful about asking for extra payments for anything that has to do with the gaming aspect, ie voice-chat and what not. Everything that Live does with gaming it should do for free, based on their "Its a free service" message.
Now, extra services like Video store, Music Store and anything not directly linked to or part of the gaming experience can have a pay model. If I want to do something else than play my games, then I pay for the service.
If they move away from that idea, I think it could backfire for them.
Now, extra services like Video store, Music Store and anything not directly linked to or part of the gaming experience can have a pay model. If I want to do something else than play my games, then I pay for the service.
If they move away from that idea, I think it could backfire for them.
Why? These are "features" that PS3 gamers have managed without for the last 3 years, and essentially online gaming will still be free. However, things such as cross-game voice chat could be said to be a PSN feature, and not a Multiplayer feature. Sure, it's likely that the most common usage would be in organising MP games, but I've used Live chat before for.... just chatting.
Back in 2006 Sony had to offer PSN for free because (a) they were late to the party, (b) "Next-Gen" clearly did not start with the PS3, (c) PSN was immature and definately more than a little rough and ready and (d) they were launching at $600 and needed to show "value".
Well, they are now at $299, PSN has come on leaps and bounds and we are well into the cycle where you could place MS and Sony on equal footing. It only makes sense for them to look at an ongoing revenue stream from PSN, but the only way people are going to buy into it in any great numbers is if they include 2 or 3 "must have" features in it. For those that invest a lot of time into MP gaming, cross-game chat is likely to be one of those.
I really don't see a massive problem with it. Of course, I already subscribe to Live and am unlikely to subscribe to a Sony service too, but I'm not the target audience as I'm not a single console gamer.
Is this true?
I thought psn was free because that was how online gaming had always been... I doubt MS needs to charge users 50$ to maintain the service. They can find other avenues of profit and might even make more based on the ppl who avoid live simply for the subscription fee.
Honestly the lack of voice communication in some cases just shows incompetence on sonys part. The interface can be clunky and annoying trying to get games setup and not knowing what ur teammates are doing in some games. Thats something that the console should have for everybody.
There are serious problems with trying to charge me for Trophy alerts, Cross game voice chat, Member only in-game content, beta access (debatable, let devs give access to who they want) when there are obvios things there that make more sense to charge for. ppl would already want to subscribe with just free access to games and themes, online music and such. Those are the things I'd expect a subscription service for, not features of the console itself. That just screams greedy to me, and i guess thats this gens story. Sony and M$ have no sense period.
This will likely just strip the PS3s and future playstations the right to be called complete systems (complete only with a subscription) and with ps4 they can give you a lot less out of the box once this subscription thing starts. Its between buying games, and paying for this so I hope the devs fight it. Thats 70$ or 30$ less for the gamer to spend on your games
Paid PSN = sold PS3 for me plain and simple. Back to PC where no platform holder is trying to a. probe me
Not very well, and we've been grumbling and groaning about it too! Plus if you follow that logic top conclusion, there's no need to ever add new features because the service users have always managed without those features before.
PSN was free because Sony needed a competitive advantage, nothing more, nothing less.