Not quite sure of that. By being free, Sony attract more online users which means more people to advertise to and sell content to, which I always felt was the real purpose in offering online for these machines.
Sony To Hold Hour And A Half Investor/Analyst Meeting On November 19th
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
Yes, I agree with you, and I don't see how what you say contradicts my point. Sony needed to attract more online users, which it could do by either a) offering a superior service or b) offering a free service. Offering a superior service at day 0 wasn't technically feasible, therefore they went for plan b). Not because they were some good souls or because that was how online gaming had always been...
In the long term, PSN is not about online gaming any more than Google is about search.
In the long term, PSN is not about online gaming any more than Google is about search.
Assuming people were choosing their console based on online, this'd be true. However, for people buying PS3 irrespective of the online offering of Live!, Sony still wants to attract them to the online space. A complete like-for-like Live! subscription service on day one would had discouraged a proportion of their current online gamers who won't pay. So the choice is either "free service for 100% of owners" or "paid for service for 50% of that", depending on what the online uptake is. As you say it's true that Sony couldn't offer the Live! experience so charging for it would have had a much stronger impact against numbers going online than with MS, and where MS get 50% of owners paying for Gold, Sony would have been lucky to get 10% paying for their initial online experience. So it'd make much more sense to launch free and get as many as possible online.
Which, rereading what you've written, may be exactly what you meant, only I intially take 'superior' to mean 'superior to XB360' rather than 'premium, full feature service'.
Sony want people to turn to PSN, to go online, so they can sell them services and content and show them ads subsequently.
I have a good friend, a diehard Sony fanboy, with them since PS1 and PS2; he's even working on a PSN game and is pretty far in its development - so, in general, he's an advanced gamer and user.
He thinks online gaming is "that online bullshit MS brought over from the PC", and thinks it's something strange and uncharacteristic for consoles; he thinks consoles are for putting a disc in and playing one game at a time. (He's working on a PSN title because it's borderline financially viable, unlike a full BD game; it's still a very traditional, single player only game.)
I have a good friend, a diehard Sony fanboy, with them since PS1 and PS2; he's even working on a PSN game and is pretty far in its development - so, in general, he's an advanced gamer and user.
He thinks online gaming is "that online bullshit MS brought over from the PC", and thinks it's something strange and uncharacteristic for consoles; he thinks consoles are for putting a disc in and playing one game at a time. (He's working on a PSN title because it's borderline financially viable, unlike a full BD game; it's still a very traditional, single player only game.)
Yes, the interface is piecemeal. There have been reports on usable cross game chat for about a year. I suspect business issues (e.g., budget, business model, pricing model) are holding Sony back. They want to see how well their games sell to compensate for online.
It looks like their games are not selling well enough to sustain the whole platform _and_ fund R&D for the next thing. Charging for online also helps to lower the entry price for the next console since they can recoop the h/w loss back via subscription subsequently (like cellphone operators).
Rotmm said:
If Sony is serious about online, instead of trying to get by, then they will need to mimic the phone operators (e.g., friends and family plans, prepaid cards for occasional use).
However I think Sony's PSN subscription move will likely fall flat because:
(A) The people who are most willing to pay for quality online service may have already signed up with XBL. The PSN user base simply are not interested enough to pay for online gaming. This means that Sony should gear up for a unique and compelling online service. Unfortunately, Sony just did the opposite thing with this survey.
(B) The subscription service is not a bullet point presentation. I feel that the survey is all kinds of wrong because it gives the impression that Sony is backpedalling, and at the same time, no one knows what the heck PSN online is anymore. The bullet point list do not explain nor inspire us why we should want it in the first place. So the survey result will be a confusing mess and unusable/inaccurate.
What they should have done is to put together a working and compelling online service, and then do focus tests to see how much people are willing pay for part or the whole thing after they see it working and understand the benefits.
e.g., What exactly does the Cloud service do ? Does it allow me to media share over Playstation Home and over the Internet ? Can I use it for my PC and Macs ? Can all accounts on the same PS3 use it ?
e.g., One of the nice things about PSN is its openness (although it has its shortfalls). The benefits of "openness" has not fully played out yet.
And that "Sony Online Service" ? Why not do it together with PSN ? Pick one thing to focus. The eReader business plan will likely have the same problem as PSN here (step-by-step, piecemeal evolution). It looks like marketing is understaffed or unfocus. Just do a concerted effort first and forget about trying to own multiple spaces today. Apple did not enter the cellphone space for 5 or more years, but when it came, it took over the entire space. This is the preferred effect. All these little test-and-watch experiments don't necessarily work because what they're testing is not the final packaged experience (and hence, not appealing).
Unless this is a marketing move to prime/alert the user base, I feel that the first thing Sony needs to do is to self-review its exec and marketing team performance. They may be doing too much tactical effort but not enough strategic ones. Then come to talk to us (the consumers) again when they have something to show. Keep the PSN free in the mean time.
If I get the survey, I'd know what to pick, including the selectable price. BUT it doesn't mean I will pay for it when the time comes. The user doesn't really understand what he's getting yet. He will do another few rounds of critical evaluation before he fish out the credit card. Plus there will be competing offerings to consider as well. I have done surveys like this before, made the same mistake. Don't repeat it after me.
EDIT: In short, it's not whether a feature is in/out of PSN. It's how those features are integrated and benefit the end users that count. Then how much are the users willing to pay for those benefits (instead of technical features).
It would have been interesting if online on consoles had turned out like it was on PCs, Capitalism pushed for much more closed off systems unfortunately and here we are.
My hope is that they find the right balance in this thing because there are so many revenue points besides affecting what users might be base features of their playstation systems. I imagine in the future PSN will expand to even more devices resulting in gaming being only a part. I hope as a consumer that the gaming aspect of the playstation line gets separated somewhat from game purchases and other media.
Sony media distribution service on one side with its subscriptions to download games freely and watch movies etc and actual gaming features on the other (voice chat, free online, beta testing, no premium content in regular games that free users can't access etc). If they want they can even charge a monthly fee to get all DLC cheaply or freely. Just don't mess with the actual ability to enjoy/experience fully the game
My hope is that they find the right balance in this thing because there are so many revenue points besides affecting what users might be base features of their playstation systems. I imagine in the future PSN will expand to even more devices resulting in gaming being only a part. I hope as a consumer that the gaming aspect of the playstation line gets separated somewhat from game purchases and other media.
Sony media distribution service on one side with its subscriptions to download games freely and watch movies etc and actual gaming features on the other (voice chat, free online, beta testing, no premium content in regular games that free users can't access etc). If they want they can even charge a monthly fee to get all DLC cheaply or freely. Just don't mess with the actual ability to enjoy/experience fully the game
That's a fine position to take, but what is the value added service ?
Will so-called online gaming still be free ? What is the core online gaming experience ? Is cross game chatting important if the party system is integrated with in-game voice chat and how often will it be used ? When someone chose cloud service and a subscription price of $0.50, and another person chose cloud service and a subscription price of $9.99, what are the differences ?
If the take up rate is small, can Sony do something else and benefit more ?
Will so-called online gaming still be free ? What is the core online gaming experience ? Is cross game chatting important if the party system is integrated with in-game voice chat and how often will it be used ? When someone chose cloud service and a subscription price of $0.50, and another person chose cloud service and a subscription price of $9.99, what are the differences ?
If the take up rate is small, can Sony do something else and benefit more ?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Being a longtime Sony aficianado, I'm sorta used to their promises that don't exactly last a long time.
Well, obviously so they can maintain their "promised" free PSN, and continue advertising that PSN is free while MS is charging for Live. And then basically implement features that almost require a person to pay for PSN "Gold."
Technically, they'd still be correct, although the intent is entirely different...
Of course, this is all based on pure speculation with noone, other than Sony, knowing what they plan on charging for. And some might speculate that even Sony isn't exactly sure of what they will be charging for.
Regards,
SB
Being a longtime Sony aficianado, I'm sorta used to their promises that don't exactly last a long time.
Well, obviously so they can maintain their "promised" free PSN, and continue advertising that PSN is free while MS is charging for Live. And then basically implement features that almost require a person to pay for PSN "Gold."
Technically, they'd still be correct, although the intent is entirely different...
Of course, this is all based on pure speculation with noone, other than Sony, knowing what they plan on charging for. And some might speculate that even Sony isn't exactly sure of what they will be charging for.
Regards,
SB
Doesn't live already do that?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I think it's more likey they are looking at this as a way to defray costs, ala MS, than as a revenue stream from the membership fee itself.
If you can pay for most of your PSN engineer's and support staff's salaries through membership fees, as well as bandwidth, servers, building maintanene, electricity, cooling, etc. for the datacenter dedicated to PSN, then you've greatly reduced your cost of operations.
Additionally if they stop charging devs fees for demos/patches/etc. that'll make things a bit more attractive to them also.
Still, I don't think the PSN fee will be able to cover all of those, just as I don't think Gold membership for Xbox covers all Live related costs.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Live Silver doesn't have free multiplayer, which is the one big difference that is parroted out anytime Live is compared to PSN. Suppose I should have been more specific in my post.
Regards,
SB
Charge the devs not the users I say, unless doing so would stop current dev practices like paid for dlc (which in some cases can be basic game features). That is highly doubtful. My take on it is a subscription fee that only Sony sees revenue from (will this be the case?) will damage devs more than help them.
Being a longtime Sony aficianado, I'm sorta used to their promises that don't exactly last a long time.
What were the previous promises ?
Actually, I'm of the opinion that as long as there is a free party system, free online gaming is complete. I certainly enjoyed RFOM tremendously without cross game chat.
Cross game chat is more useful if the party system is lacking, or when the game has no in-game voice chat (intentionally or otherwise), and for chatting with friends regardless of where you're.
At this point, Sony does not have a cross game voice chat _and_ a common party system. They apparently didn't think the party system in Home is worth optimizing/improving.
The survey can be an exciting activity if the service is clear and compelling. But right now, it's just a PR mess.
EDIT: OTOH, if they give away cross-game voice chat for free to players who bought enough (new) games every year, then they may encourage people to buy more games to defray the cost. I wouldn't mind trying that route since I easily qualify
I am personally curious about the Cloud service; but it annoys me to no end when they don't elaborate on the end user experience, and what we are getting specifically. I mean it could be "anything".
I think you could get into a situation where if Sony starts charging fees to users for additional features, the devs will definitely want to see Sony drop their dev fees. That might be one reason Sony is considering this in the first place: rebellion from devs no longer wanting to front the costs.
IMO, I'm opposite of those here. I'd rather pay a subscription for the luxury of multiplayer gaming. If MS, had a per use fee, I'd preferred that since I don't play online all the time. As for cross game chat, messaging, parties etc they should all be free. I also believe the PC-like extra services(Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Last.fm, etc) should all be free too. Just charge me for game content(full games, DLC, etc) & multiplayer gaming.
I don't envy Sony's position here. It must be really hard to make the decision to bring more fees to their platform, when their userbase has been accustomed to getting everything free. Hopefully whatever they do will help convince Microsoft to make some changes as well. Competition is great!
Tommy McClain
IMO, I'm opposite of those here. I'd rather pay a subscription for the luxury of multiplayer gaming. If MS, had a per use fee, I'd preferred that since I don't play online all the time. As for cross game chat, messaging, parties etc they should all be free. I also believe the PC-like extra services(Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Last.fm, etc) should all be free too. Just charge me for game content(full games, DLC, etc) & multiplayer gaming.
I don't envy Sony's position here. It must be really hard to make the decision to bring more fees to their platform, when their userbase has been accustomed to getting everything free. Hopefully whatever they do will help convince Microsoft to make some changes as well. Competition is great!
Tommy McClain
At this moment, without further info, I'm more inclined to have a scheme where Sony reward frequent buyers with free "common" services. Then stack more value-added services on-top.
And back to their messaging... [strike]Peter Dille[/strike] John Koller (Sorry Mr. Dille.) recently talked about their 3 pillars of growth for next year. That's fine and dandy, but really can Sony Someone please get down from your high pillars and explain to laymen like me what the hell it means for me specifically ? Then may be people will be more likely to pay for something. If it's too tedious to use, I won't need it, and I won't pay for it.
Communication with your customers is extremely important. I was told Steve Jobs vet through every mailing that goes out to Apple customers. He has unusually sharp senses about customer needs, so I guess it's a good thing for Apple.
If Sony does not have *something* like him, then it means Sony has to spend more time thinking about the content and the delivery. There is no short cut to customer communication and brand management.
And back to their messaging... [strike]Peter Dille[/strike] John Koller (Sorry Mr. Dille.
) recently talked about their 3 pillars of growth for next year. That's fine and dandy, but really can Sony Someone please get down from your high pillars and explain to laymen like me what the hell it means for me specifically ? Then may be people will be more likely to pay for something. If it's too tedious to use, I won't need it, and I won't pay for it.Communication with your customers is extremely important. I was told Steve Jobs vet through every mailing that goes out to Apple customers. He has unusually sharp senses about customer needs, so I guess it's a good thing for Apple.
If Sony does not have *something* like him, then it means Sony has to spend more time thinking about the content and the delivery. There is no short cut to customer communication and brand management.
- Early Access to All Store Content.
To me that read like, late access for non-subcribers.
- Cross-game Voice Chat Access.
Should be free for everyone.
- Member Only In-game Content.
I can't really see this happening. At least not often, or on actually good content.
The rest of it doesn't sound so bad. I might even pay for it if I think it's fairly priced.
To me that read like, late access for non-subcribers.
- Cross-game Voice Chat Access.
Should be free for everyone.
- Member Only In-game Content.
I can't really see this happening. At least not often, or on actually good content.
The rest of it doesn't sound so bad. I might even pay for it if I think it's fairly priced.
Will devs want to support it? Plus won't it have a negative effect on online gaming? If subscribers get better equipment, it'll create a two-tier gaming population. Otherwise the bonuses have to be gimped to not give subscribers a competitive edge, in which case why bother?
How is this different from the various things we're already seeing, like retailer specific content, pre-order bonusses, and special edition content? GT PSP and Forza 3 are prime examples here, particularly Forza 3 with its VIP programme.
The same problems hold here as everywhere else: it's fine as long as the content is cosmetic or is otherwise obtainable.