|
|
|
Sony mulling PSN monthly fees?
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 15 December, 2009
According to Sony Computer Entertainment executive VP and CTO Masayuki Chatani, the company is mulling monthly subscription fees for the PlayStation Network.
"We would face difficulties if our business depended solely on the sell-and-forget model. After we sell the hardware, though, we continue to sell products such as content and services," said Chatani, via GI.biz."We can also accept ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
9 product reviews
|
18. December 2009 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
OK, the PS3 is currently outselling the 360 by more than 100,000 each week ever since the price cut.
If there is only the option to pay to play online, then soon enough people will go to the 360, which clearly has the better online service.
I think that it's more important to keep console sales high than to make a little prophet from a subscription service.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
ToadWiz
Junior Member
|
18. December 2009 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying that is how businesses survive. If microsoft didn't charge for xbox live then they would find other ways to create income (e.g increased game cost). That would impact on everybody that plays xbox's, not just the 60% of people with an xbox that play xbox live (or whatever percentage it is.
M$ was doing just fine before they started charging for Live. After all, they didn't get a 95% of the OS market through charging for Live. Also, while I agree that companies will do whatever they can to increase their profits, that doesn't mean any specific attempt to pry more change from my pocket shouldn't be resisted.
If you want to feel sorry for poor, needy, struggling M$ and give them your money, that's your choice. But what you wrote says that you want me to pay a share of what you think is fair without checking to see if I agree with that or not. Sorry, I don't and I will no more allow YOU to pick my pocket without comment than I will allow M$.
There's no justice; there's just us.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2009 @ 19:56
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
19. December 2009 @ 13:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. December 2009 @ 13:47 |
Link to this message
|
Se7ven
No my point was a generalization that paying for live is silly regaurdless of who you are but you "have" to pay it if you do multiplayer on the 360 and MS really should have made it so you could MP without the subscription but instead of trying to make it better they are avoiding it and delaying the enviable...
chris4160
Mmmmmmmmmmmm I see so much slant in your posts.... but anywway lets boil it down to the this PSN is free for all and offers as much or more choice than live at the cost of some bandwidth issues, live is more stable on er.....lets say lesser abused games shall we...but MS has done little to open it up and really offer a solid and great free pioneers they are goign to wait till sony dose it then beat them over the head saying they did it frist or some low brow PR crap MS and phony pull. In the end sony is doing more for less and at least gets that much in some facet of their over all business model...MS is just being cheap and stubborn deineing the sky is blue....
wait....I haz to say more
Oh and next you'll say ISPs and the net are copying live for letting people use face book and such....... copying is not copying if it falls outside of the norm IE copying rumble features would be copying if sony was the only to do it in a controller for that matter copying motion control would be copying the WII if the copy did the whole minimalistic retro tech thing the WII dose....... I mean you may can say they are copying the eyetoy with the natal and all but frankly the tech and interest has hit hard enough to make them try and develop it........ ya know....copying is flattery and respect for the idea/ideal it may not always come out in a worthwhile way but its far from highway robbery complete with hot anal action the way the suits make it out to be and all....
|
|
chris4160
Suspended permanently
|
21. December 2009 @ 02:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Oner:
Source proof confirmation please (especially the last part about 5 Million). If you cannot then it would be safe to assume the same goes for or applies to LIVE! so your "point" would be moot and invalid. But that is to be seen while we wait on your proof.
Quote:
Sony announced a landmark this week for its PlayStation Network: 20 million users worldwide, as of February 20. According to the presser, that breaks down to 5 million in the first 14 months of service, 5 million more 8 months later, and an additional 10 million the 7 months after that. There's quite a few caveats to consider here, as that includes PSP and PS3 users as well as anyone who wishes to use the official PS forums, whether or not they own one of the aforementioned consoles.
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/26/plays...ll-way-more-pr/
I would like to know where you got the 16m in two years claim from. According to Sony (assuming engadget got their info from Sony), PSN had 10m users in 22 months. That would mean they would have had to get 6 million users in 60 days to get to 16m in 2 years (if the 16 million in 2 years claim is correct). That's 100,000 members a day (on average). Prior to that date they had only got approx an average of 15,000 users subscribing a day.
Originally posted by Oner:
(especially the last part about 5 Million)
I stated that "I bet" referring to an educated guess, not an official number. Considering the official ps3 home website gets "1,812,065 U.S. visitors per month" (total of 4.6m worldwide)(according to whois.com, see here for more details) 5m doesn't seem that hard to believe (I realise that not all of the 4.6m would go onto the ps3 forums, or let alone register).
Originally posted by Oner:
Um in-game voice chat is not something MS invented so that doesn't mean Sony "stole/copied" it from them. There is no "increasing trend". To say that is quite misleading. Xgame chat in an online gaming setting is synonymous with each other and has been around WAY before the Xbox.
I know that in-game voice chat is not something that Microsoft invented. But AFAIK they were the first to bring it to gaming consoles, were they not?
Also, I agree there is no increasing trend, Sony has been copying Xbox 360's features at a steady pace since it was released. To say that Sony is not copying xbox is being ignorant. You all say, PSN is pretty much the same as xbox live. HOW WOULD IT BECOME LIKE XBOX LIVE WITHOUT COPYING???
Originally posted by Oner:
Plus the "PSX" (Playstation DVR circa 2003) supported online game compatibility using an internal broadband adapter (source) and the PS2 did so at around the same time the original Xbox came out so again your point is kind of misleading & imprecise.
Xbox live was unveiled at E3 in 2002 (source), well over a year before the PSX was announced in December 13th. So your point point is kind of misleading & imprecise.
Originally posted by ToadWiz:
M$ was doing just fine before they started charging for Live. After all, they didn't get a 95% of the OS market through charging for Live.
Xbox was not doing fine before they started to charge for Live, infact Microsoft had lost money off the xbox. Therefore they had to find ways to bring themselves out of a loss/reduce amount lost from the xbox, not OS.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
lets boil it down to the this PSN is free for all and offers as much or more choice than live at the cost of some bandwidth issues
Not with the inclusion of premium services, pretty much everything is taken away/not going to be included for non paying members apart from online gameplay.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
live is more stable on er.....lets say lesser abused games shall we
Oh yes, because Call of Duty 4, one of the most popular First Person Shooters ever is a "lesser abused game".
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
copying is not copying if it falls outside of the norm IE copying rumble features would be copying if sony was the only to do it in a controller
Yes, copying would be if microsoft copied something that only other gaming consoles have... NOT OTHER PRODUCTS. Saying that a gaming console company using another products features (that is not a gaming console) is copying is like saying that Sony didn't copy xbox's guide button because a mobile phone has a button in the middle of the screen (not saying that Sony did, it is just an example, don't take it out of context). For the record, I would not say "Oh and next you'll say ISPs and the net are copying live for letting people use face book and such" for the reason stated above.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
mean you may can say they are copying the eyetoy with the natal and all but frankly the tech and interest has hit hard enough to make them try and develop it
To be honest I think all that motion sensoring sh!t is a load of rubbish. It's good for casual gamers but honestly who wants to move when they are playing games? I know I don't (I realise how lazy that sounds). It's kind of sad to think that the next gen, or the gen after that will be primarily based upon motion sensoring just because some parents (40m of them albeit) bought their spoilt kid a Wii.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Mmmmmmmmmmmm I see so much slant in your posts
Slant, or truth? I think it's the latter :P
Originally posted by kikzm33z:
OK, the PS3 is currently outselling the 360 by more than 100,000 each week ever since the price cut.
If there is only the option to pay to play online, then soon enough people will go to the 360, which clearly has the better online service.
I think that it's more important to keep console sales high than to make a little prophet from a subscription service.
It really depends on the quality of the service. Sometimes it may be needed to keep the service alive (definately not $50 a year though, in Live's case). If the PSN subscription service does go ahead then xbox live's price should decrease (I doubt it will happen though considering how greedy MS is).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2009 @ 03:01
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
21. December 2009 @ 13:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by chris4160:
I would like to know where you got the 16m in two years claim from. According to Sony (assuming engadget got their info from Sony), PSN had 10m users in 22 months. That would mean they would have had to get 6 million users in 60 days to get to 16m in 2 years (if the 16 million in 2 years claim is correct). That's 100,000 members a day (on average). Prior to that date they had only got approx an average of 15,000 users subscribing a day.
The 16 million PSN users was off of memory and after checking my links and verifying it was actually 20 Million in 27 months (2 years 3 months) so I was actually LOW. Funnily enough it looks that both of our information is from the same source indirectly/directly ~ (Sony's press release that said 20 Million as you linked to).
So while I was wrong about the amount (although it worked out in my favor being short 4 million) by going off of memory your correction actually supports my point even more so. Thank You! And while we are on the topic of PSN users here is the most current total ~
Quote:
...there are more than 31 million registered PlayStation Network accounts worldwide, making it one of the largest online networks in the world. To date, more than 650 million pieces of content have been downloaded worldwide from PlayStation Store
Source quote from here
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
(especially the last part about 5 Million)
I stated that "I bet" referring to an educated guess, not an official number. Considering the official ps3 home website gets "1,812,065 U.S. visitors per month" (total of 4.6m worldwide)(according to whois.com, see here for more details) 5m doesn't seem that hard to believe (I realise that not all of the 4.6m would go onto the ps3 forums, or let alone register).
So you don't have an official number then? So why would you link to whois.com in an attempt to bolster your statement of "I bet" in some way that does not equate to fact? Links to how many hits/visitors of a site does not mean or prove anything. Sorry.
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by Oner:
Plus the "PSX" (Playstation DVR circa 2003) supported online game compatibility using an internal broadband adapter (source) and the PS2 did so at around the same time the original Xbox came out so again your point is kind of misleading & imprecise.
Xbox live was unveiled at E3 in 2002 (source), well over a year before the PSX was announced in December 13th. So your point point is kind of misleading & imprecise.
The operative word *unveiled* does not mean implemented. They are 2 totally separate things, but honestly that doesn't really matter as my concern is why did you focus on the PSX to make your point when you totally forgot/failed to mention/discuss the latter part of my sentence/comment about "...the PS2 did so at around the same time the original Xbox came out..."? I guess I thought I wouldn't have to explain about how the PS2's Network adapter launched in 2001 (which also doesn't account for the dev time leading UP TO it's launch) but it looks like I will have to now ~
Quote:
The network adaptor was released on July 19, 2001 in Japan (together with the Hard disk drive) , in August 2002 in North America and in June 2003 in Europe. Two models were available - one with a dial-up modem and an Ethernet (RJ-45) jack for broadband Internet connection (sold in North America), and one with only an Ethernet interface (sold in Europe and other regions). A start-up disc ("Network Access Disc") is included with the Network Adaptor and installs a file on the memory card for connection settings which are accessible by all but one Network Adaptor compatible game.
Source ~ Wiki
So I say again your point is kind of misleading & imprecise. If you were just mistaken then fine (just as I was earlier 16 vs 20 & MS bans) but I believe you were just splitting hairs or omitting information to make your point seem valid; but that's just me.
Oh and just in case ~
Your Quote & Source
Originally posted by chris4160:
Xbox live was unveiled at E3 in 2002 (source), well over a year before the PSX was announced in December 13th.
Added to this quote & Source ~ Wiki
Quote:
On November 15, 2002, Microsoft launched its Xbox Live online gaming service,
Plus my earlier Source & Quote ~ Wiki
Quote:
The <PS2> network adaptor was released on July 19, 2001
Shows who really "copied" who. I would say that little "confusion" has been made PRETTY clear for all to see now ;). Though I will make it easier and say that I actually don't believe even MS "copied/stole" the idea (before you assume I do) because internet & gaming (just like cross game chat) goes synonymous with each other.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2009 @ 14:15
|
|
