×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony To Detail "Premium PSN" Plans At E3

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-only-we-could-still-access-psn dept.

E3 171

ranulf writes "VG247 is reporting that Sony will reveal their plans for 'premium PSN' services next month at E3, even though they've long stated that one of the PS3's advantages over the 360 is that they offer PSN for free. In addition to the premium services, they intend to offer a free PSN game to subscribers each month (from a choice of 'two to four games'), which should make the premium PSN effectively free if you already bought a game every month. VG247's source claims 'nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects,' and that 'there’s nothing in the premium package which will gimp regular PSN users.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

171 comments

Sounds Ok (1, Interesting)

H0D_G (894033) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261846)

Sounds good, especially if you get to pick the PSN title

Re:Sounds Ok (1, Offtopic)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261898)

Sounds good, especially if you get to pick the PSN title

Sounds like a "book of the month" club to me. Just with games and no option to send games you don't want back.

Re:Sounds Ok (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262106)

Yeah, but it'll only be a matter of time before SONY, those lieing cheat bastard fucks, arbitrarily start disabling aspects of it. Honestly, how naive would you have to be to spend anything on a SONY product, at this point?

Re:Sounds Ok (1)

Inconexo (1401585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262752)

Imparing free PSN users would be like removing a feature. SONY would never do such a thing.

Re:Sounds Ok (1)

AkumaKuruma (879423) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263182)

wel good thing I dont have to worry about that with the linux install on my PS3....oh wait.......

Whoosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263444)

The sound of the previous comment going right over your head.

Re:Sounds Ok (1)

Edisman (726822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263478)

When reading anything written by Sony, like specs, features, news etc. I have started adding 'for now' after each sentence.

"PSN free won't change. For now."

"Yes, you can install Linux on it. For now."

"We will remove the DRM on audio CDs. For now."

and so on and so forth.

Re:Sounds Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263554)

Yes because MS is the pillar of trust in the commun.ahahah sorry can't even type it all out.

Nintendo? I guess if we were all 12, or wanted shitty exercise equipment.

Re:Sounds Ok (1)

schm0 (1088653) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264836)

Hey AC, you wouldn't happen to be one of the small minority of users who are still miffed about the removal of the other OS/backwards PS2 compatibility, would you? :) Don't get me wrong, what Sony did with that is certainly devious and a bad business decision. But let's not extrapolate this to mean that it's the status quo for all services Sony offers, including an as of yet unannounced official service that has rumored features.

Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned out (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261882)

Once upon a time, long ago there existed a service called Xbox Live. It was free and children played hapily, until the EVIL LORD GATES decided that he would monetise the service and the free version went away if you wanted to play on line.

The same thing will happen to the PSN, first they'll start by adding new features only for "Premium" subscribers just as MS only added new features for "Gold" subscribers. After a while Sony will start taking away features from the free service whilst maintaining them on the "Premium" service. Little features at first, hardly noticeable, a form of slow attrition. Then before you know it, there is no functionality left. Game publishers like EA and Activision will jump right on board making their games playable only over "Premium" subscriptions. Now Sony has the numbers on the Playstation 3 they will start to monetise it, to bleed money from their existing customer base as sales are bound to drop off.

It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

Why doesn't Slashdot have a Star Wars opening credits formatting option?

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (2, Informative)

neoprint (949158) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261918)

When has Xbox Live ever been free? I'm sure I've been paying for it since 2003

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261934)

When has Xbox Live ever been free? I'm sure I've been paying for it since 2003

Launched in November 2002 there were two levels of subscription, Xbox Live Silver and Xbox Live Gold, the Silver subscription was free but fairly useless (I think it's still around but no-one acknowledges its existence any more). Microsoft was pretty quick to Monetise XBL.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (2, Informative)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262026)

As far as I know, you could never play online with a Silver subscription. So what's changed? Nothing. They did not "slowly take away" features on Xbox Live. If anything, they *added* features. But yeah, paying for online play is a pain (but it still offers a little more than just your typical dedicated server in the PC world).

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264988)

As far as I know, you could never play online with a Silver subscription.

FFXI on the Xbox 360 has always been available to Silver subscribers (asking people to pay two subscription fees just to be able to play at all is too much for even Microsoft to ask).

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (3, Informative)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262066)

You're full of shit. When Live first launched, there was no Silver and Gold, only subscribers. The Silver and Gold levels weren't introduced until the 360 launched in 2006, and you have NEVER been able to play online with a Silver subscription, outside of a promo weekend deal.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (4, Informative)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262102)

I should probably add to that, the original Live was NEVER, at any point, FREE. If you wanted to play online with an original XBox, you had to either pay, or use tunneling software software like XBConnect or X-Link.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263936)

While I think you're right, you got your panties bunched up for a fairly trivial mistake - the important point was that XBL was never free.

I think there was a beta test of it that was free for some people, but I think that's it.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

bonkeydcow (1186443) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264624)

There is silver and gold. I am a silver member. Silver = Not Gold. As a silver member you can go online. You can purchase game / items from the online store. I can't play games with online connectivity. I refuse to pay a monthly fee to play. Sometimes my games come with a free month of gold, but I don't even use that. The only thing I have ever bought, were expansion packs and songs for rock band.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263882)

Console History Fail. I just threw away my initial Xbox Live Starter Kit disc with MechWarrior on it. It came with a headset. I believe it cost me about $40 (I worked at a game store at the time). I bought it when I started playing halo 2 online. There was no silver subscription service at the time, that was created with the 360 so that MS could sell digital downloads to people who didn't subscribe to XBL. Before the Xbox Marketplace on the 360, there was no functional reason to have a silver account.

Believe it or not, the xbox having a built in LAN connection (and not allowing dial up connections) was a big deal at the time for consoles. PS2's network adapter was expensive, and other consoles only had phone-jacks. Microsoft screws up a lot, but that first xbox was pretty revolutionary with some of the features it had.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32265114)

PS2's network adapter was expensive, and other consoles only had phone-jacks.

Dreamcast had a broadband adapter that installed by replacing the modem that shipped with it. However: a) DHCP didn't work with it and b) it had a production run of about three. GameCube also had a broadband adapter that plugged into one of the serial ports, which is actually not that hard to come by.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264500)

As others have mentioned, you are mistaken, since the silver membership was released with the 360. [cnn.com]

Xbox 360 will offer a multi-tiered system for its Live component. One of those tiers will be free.

Members of the free tier, dubbed Xbox Live Silver, will have access to the system's online community function, allowing them to chat with other players and freely download game demos. They will not be able to play games with others except during occasional 'free preview' opportunities (much like those that cable movie channels sometimes offer).

Xbox Live Gold members will pay an as-yet undetermined annual or monthly fee to play with or against others. Current Xbox Live members, who currently pay $50 per year, will be able to keep their online nicknames.

Unless you can find a reference to XBL Silver from 2002, your comparison doesn't hold water. XBox Live added free features to its subscription-only service, while Sony is adding for-pay features to its free service.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (2, Insightful)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261944)

Once upon a time, long ago there existed a service called Xbox Live. It was free and children played hapily, until the EVIL LORD GATES decided that he would monetise the service and the free version went away if you wanted to play on line

Xbox Live was not free on the original Xbox. On the 360 they changed it so you only had to pay if you wanted to play online.

Bang goes your boring conspiracy story.

It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me

As a generic gamer who quite happily plays on the PC and game consoles without any problem it seems ridiculous to me that people purposefully restrict themselves over small details like this.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261962)

Why doesn't Slashdot have a Star Wars opening credits formatting option?

That option is only available to premium Slashdot subscribers.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (4, Insightful)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262044)

I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.
And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.

I think this idea, on paper, is great. Add new features and services, but only available to paying customers as opposed to the current PSN where everyone is roaming free for "basic" services (buy games, download trials, play online etc).

If people want some of the more exotic features, you pay a subscription. You don't have to, it won't cripple your current experience.
If Sony manages to keep this strategy, I really can't see a problem with it.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262150)

I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

It's Sony.

If this comment was about IBM, Shell, BP, or even Microsoft I could somehow, in some weird alternate universe put aside my all too useful cynicism and give them the benefit of the doubt.

But it's Sony, one of the most anti-consumer companies ever to exist.

If people want some of the more exotic features, you pay a subscription. You don't have to, it won't cripple your current experience.
If Sony manages to keep this strategy

I just can't see that happening. I reckon the PS3 hardware sales are going to level off, it's a natural thing for this to happen after a while and it will/has happended to the Wii and Xbox360 (and all products really) so it's a logical assumption that Sony wants to start monetising it's existing user base.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

franoculator (714656) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264488)

But it's Sony, one of the most anti-consumer companies ever to exist.

I won't argue there, but Sony hasn't been so bad with the PS3. Yeah, the install other OS option was attractive to me, but I never used it. I play games on the PS3, I run linux on my PCs.

Also, the PS3 supports quite a bit of standard hardware. Standard power cable, no expensive proprietary external brick. Bluetooth for headset connection. USB storage/charging. 2.5" SATA Hard Disk. Included 802.11g, as well as wired ethernet.

It's not like consumers have been totally shafted by Sony on this device.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264888)

I won't argue there, but Sony hasn't been so bad with the PS3. ... It's not like consumers have been totally shafted by Sony on this device.

Wait, what? That better be sarcasm.

Sony has been ESPECIALLY bad with the PS3. Back-compatibility with your PS2 games? Hope you bought a launch system. Want a controller with force-feedback? Hope you didn't buy a launch system, if you did you'll need to pony up another $40 each for new controllers. SD/MS/CF card readers? Gone. Spare USB ports? Gone. SACD playback? Gone (not likely anyone noticed, though) OtherOS? Gone.

Time to replace the old "It only does everything" slogan with something more in line with the current feature set, like "It only plays blu-ray movies and PS3 games"...

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262326)

And why should they [ed: remove free online play]? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still.

So was "Install Other OS".
The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over, expecting different results. I do *not* buy Sony anymore. Betamax, Minidisc, the CD Rootkit Fiasco, PS3 "Install Other OS", and probably a bunch more that I am forgetting now. Giving Sony the benefit of the doubt is *insane*.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (2, Insightful)

Narishma (822073) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262874)

You're clearly deluded if you think "OtherOS" was a huge selling point for the PS3. I doubt the majority of PS3 users even knew they could install an OS on their PS3 when it was possible.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263508)

Nice, great answer. Because only a few people use it it's ok to take it away after it's been paid for. That's how every thing should be. Only a few people compared to the overall population use skateboards, lets go out and pound those kids and take their boards back. /end sarcasm

I bought my PS3 instead of a Wii because I wanted to put Linux on it. I use Linux on my PS3 for development and testing and as a 3D rendering node.

I don't see where other people get the right to say because only a few people paid to use it it's ok for it to be taken back. Weather or not someone knew it could be installed, they still paid for it. Don't bother going into the, "It wasn't a major part of the cost of the PS3, so you really didn't pay for it" argument.

1) Sony had to pay the team developing the Other OS feature, therefore they had to spend money on it. If you think for a second those wages weren't factored in to the price, you're not all that bright.

2) If you pick up two stakes as a Buy one get one free deal, the second stake isn't really free. You still had to pay for the first one so really you're just spreading the cost out over two instead of one. You're still paying for both. Kind of like buying a gaming console and getting a computer for free. But hay that second stake is just going to sit in your freezer for a week anyway. I guess it's ok for the grocery store to come and take it back.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263984)

It was the selling point for me. It's why I own one. Games were a bonus. Yeah, that's backwards, I know. Dropping support for it was understandable. Kicking it off the systems is a breach of contract. I'm looking to join one of the lawsuits if it gets awarded class-action status. I won't make more than a few bucks, but if I can poke Sony in the eye, I'll feel better.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264142)

The US Air Force alone purchased over 2000 PS3s for this feature, not to mention all the universities that purchased them.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32264700)

In other news, the US Air Force and US universities are morons. You don't purchase consumer hardware if you want reliability. But no-o, it's too great an offer! (This is what you get when you rely on inexperienced geeks for corporate hardware advice.) No doubt this will make them think twice in the future.

P.S.: The buildings that have hundreds of these PS3s hooked up, do not have them connected to the Internet! So the PS3's later updates are of trivial concern. How to replace that aging hardware, is a concern.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32265232)

That would be like me taking my truck into the dealership and them removing my spare tire as a warranty service. I paid for the spare tire with the truck whether I use it or not.

Benefit of the doubt? Sony? (1)

achurch (201270) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262402)

I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

We tried that when they released the slim PS3 without Other OS support ("don't worry, they won't take it away from current PS3s"). Look how that turned out.

Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262610)

You mean, some retard with a recent history of breaking the iPhone, targeted the PS3 OtherOS feature and explicitly threatened to bankrupt Sony's source of console revenue?

Yeah, how outrageous!

If Sony had abandoned the PS3 instead because it was a failed device, and focused development on the PS4, your response would be: "Oh, look, Evil Sony doesn't freely support me anymore!"

Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264020)

Gee, it's not like they could release an update with a security patch. You know, like every other computer manufacturer or software vendor in existence. And how serious was this threat? It was so serious that anyone with an electronics background, a soldering gun, and a special version of the patched software could work the hack. In other words, very, very few people. Sony decided to piss off their customers instead, so they do not get the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Benefit of the doubt? Sony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32264198)

A security patch for what? How you patch a hardware design flaw? When someone exploits the HV, and by consequence discovers the root key -- enabling piracy -- how does patching the hole that allowed HV access fix anything? It doesn't, because HV access is unnecessary. The only appropriate response in this case is to remove the custom OS support entirely; it's too dangerous and was extremely short-sighted on Sony's part.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

Dudibob (1556875) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262458)

No Sony would never degrade the free online multiplayer as it's a huge selling point just like the other OS option is a huge selling point, oh wait...

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0, Offtopic)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262590)

the problem is the online multiplayer on psn is shit, i play online games a lot on pc but i've only ever played a few games of tekken here and there on ps3 cause it's just a pain in the butt. if it was pay to play i would guess that quite a few people would just stop playing online.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262950)

I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.

How quickly they forget [slashdot.org].

Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, I must be an idiot. If you trust Sony, you're the idiot.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263214)

If half the people complaining about OtherOS removal had actually used it, Sony would be the richest corporation in the world. As it is, you probably don't even know just how limited the hardware actually was for other operating systems - you certainly couldn't play games on it. OtherOS never was aimed at end-users.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263300)

If half the people complaining about OtherOS removal had actually used it, Sony would be the richest corporation in the world

Irrelevant. There are plenty of other examples of Sony boning customers. Rootkits, anyone?

As it is, you probably don't even know just how limited the hardware actually was for other operating systems - you certainly couldn't play games on it. OtherOS never was aimed at end-users.

I'm highly familiar with how limited the hardware was, notably that the hypervisor prevented most GPU access because the GPU had access to main memory. Of course, all the hypervisor actually HAD to do was enforce memory protection, so it's clear that Sony took this action to prevent using it for games. However, this is a complete red herring, it's easy to see why you're too cowardly to log in. The PS3 plays Games without the 'Other OS' option; running Linux was for everything else. Sony canned it because it enabled Blu-Ray copying, to which you have a right (for backups.)

If Other OS functionality wasn't aimed at end users, it would only need text console support. Everything you said is wrong. Go away.

show me the troll, modtroll (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264374)

There is no troll in the above comment. Not only is it my actual opinion, but it's also wholly factual. When will modpoints be taken away from the masses of asses and given to the responsible? Oh wait, rationality would reduce page views.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264096)

Seeing how they lose money money to the PS3 I fail to see how they would make money if people bought it for OtherOS instead of for games.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263954)

Because I got screwed so badly with the Linux option. Not that this matters to me, I decided to keep Linux and forgo all PSN access, but Sony has lost the "benefit of the doubt" once and for all.

Two Words: Other OS (2, Interesting)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264822)

I gave Sony the benefit of the doubt with my PS3 until they pried away my Other OS feature.

I'm very interested to see how these class action lawsuits turn out.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

denobug (753200) | more than 3 years ago | (#32265080)

I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services. And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.

The market changes as time goes on, so does the company's direction to either maintain market share or to get more money. I doubt Sony will care about maintaining user base if they dominates at 90% of the market share and they can get a a sizable revenue from tens of millions of users. XBox Live was up front about the fee since the beginning. A sticker shock for sure but they are not deceptive of their intentions. They have maintained their position since day one, and somehow there are people willing to pay for the service.

I have to say for a lot of things Microsoft managed to messed up lately they did all right with the Xobx Live service.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262078)

Yeah. live has always had the paid for model, it might've been free on beta but i'm pretty sure you still had to buy the pack.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262144)

Online gameplay over the Xbox Live service has never been free. When the 360 came out, they introduced a free level of service (the 'silver' membership), but it's never included gameplay.

Lets not be cheap here (1)

dafing (753481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262532)

As a consumer I resent this, but cmon. There *IS* a cost to having servers running 24/7. I loved playing Battlefield Bad Company (1) with my friend, we must have racked up a COUPLE HUNDRED hours playing it online, and we were almost always on full teams of 12 a side, 24 in total. What does that cost? Certainly more than what he paid for his secondhand copy of the game! I paid full price, but even $120 NZD (~$85 USD) for the game is not really that much with development costs on top of A COUPLE HUNDRED HOURS playing it online.

It reminds me of my student friends who have always grown up using P2P and Bit Torrent to download music, now movies, games. They complain that hit songs on iTunes cost a whopping COUPLE BUCKS NZ. The kind of money you can find between couch cushions, even at a student flat. They always say "it should cost less, if it were 20cents a song I'd buy it". Yeah right, so all those top notch (or not, depending on your view of current music!) producers and "musicians" should work for free? They should make the final sale price go from $2 for hours of their work, to 20 cents? But then you'd just complain that it should be FIVE cents!

I'm 22, I feel that as an adult, there comes a time when you have to stop whining over a buck or two here, or ten dollars a month, whatever something like this *MIGHT* end up costing. "Value for Value", my friends have all gotten many, MANY hours of entertainment out of this single game, why shouldnt the companies get a steady drip of a few bucks to help out with costs? We never had a problem with one of us paying $6 NZD (~$4USD) a month for unlimited calls (and txts) to a cellphone number so we could always talk while playing.

I'm a consumer, I dont have a well paying job, I'd rather *everything* was free online! But the fact is, there are COSTS, and if I enjoy the end result, whats a couple bucks? And dont give me the old "boiling a frog slowly so it doesnt notice" routine, not only because I like animals, but because its not like "we give in to paying a whole two bucks a month, and then its 20 bucks a month, and then its 100 a month, and then its your firstborn..."

There are costs to providing us all with entertainment, 24/7, worldwide. We are all (mostly) adults, whats a couple bucks to you for all those hours of enjoyment?

Re:Lets not be cheap here (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262616)

sure there are costs but you have no idea what they are, what the profit margin is and if they even lose that much money running servers, so you point is pretty much moot.

Re:Lets not be cheap here (1)

dafing (753481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262646)

Well, what do you think it costs to have a single server running for a couple hundred hours? In terms of power, and bandwidth. I know that in NZ, we have bandwidth caps (for home and business plans generally), I get 10GB of internet use a month. After that, and 10GB goes by quickly, I am reduced to about 10KB per second, its inhumane!

My point is, its different when you buy a game like Metal Gear Solid (ignoring MGO like most people) for 120 NZD, and play it just for the singleplayer, and buying another game for the same 120 NZD, and *also* costing the company in terms of servers for a couple hundred hours of multiplayer!

Servers dont provide themselves, if I had to pay a couple bucks a month, why bother getting upset?

Re:Lets not be cheap here (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262768)

Well it's the developer's problem. They decided that control over the future availability of online play through their servers(= cripple service in time for next sequel) is more valuable than saving costs by providing players with software for dedicated servers.

Re:Lets not be cheap here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263844)

See, now here's part of the problem in mindset, let's see if we can spot this, okay?

"As a consumer I resent this, but cmon. There *IS* a cost to having servers running 24/7."

Did we catch it? No? Okay, how about we focus a bit more, eh?

"As a consumer...."

Right there. Look, you are not a consumer, you are an XBL -customer- darn it. I fully agree there is cost involved, and they have a legitimate right to compensation, but as a CUSTOMER, you have a right to get the service you contractually agreed to and are paying for. When a company such as Microsoft or Sony starts to arbitrarily change the contract terms (yes, it's a EULA, but the key here in this case I think is the -Agreement- aspect) without notification, or compensation for your time, hassle, financial investment, then the Agreement is no longer a business deal, but then becomes little more than a shakedown.

No self respecting CUSTOMER would/ should tolerate ABUSE by any merchant. Vote with your wallet, take your patronage somewhere else.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262888)

Why is this marked insightful?
Slashdot is seriously the worst place to discuss games. Even 4chan /v/ is better than this.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

i_hate_robots (922668) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263290)

Ah yes, you're right. Spending $50 annually for XBox Live is outrageous. I'd rather spend $600 on a new video card every year.

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263940)

It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

There are plenty of PC games that require a subscription to play online. So what are you talking about?

Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263964)

It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer.

Like PC gamers never get screwed over...

I like it (-1, Flamebait)

BillPalm (1621343) | more than 3 years ago | (#32261910)

First of all, do not Chanel Bags [purelife-bags.com] hurry when buying, Footwear is the matter of fashion and style. It is Prada bags [purelife-bags.com] advisable the online shop. You can even refer to magazines and fashion blogs to know what type of are in fashion. Gucci bags [purelife-bags.com] For instance, women choose strappy for summer Coach Bags [purelife-bags.com] and ankle for the winter. The price also play an Louis Vuitton Bags [purelife-bags.com] important role in shopping.

Sony can't be trusted (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32261974)

Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction, but Sony still hasn't won my trust back over the retroactive removal of the Install Other OS feature from already-bought PS3s. [slashdot.org] I really should have learned better than to trust them after the rootkit fiasco, [wikipedia.org] too. Now that they have twice demonstrated their willingness to sabotage their customers' private property in order to protect their own business model, it's absurd to think that I or any self-respecting geek would want to do business with them any more.

Re:Sony can't be trusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262572)

True, I am getting enough of Sony's lies and existing service reduces. I have bought Playstations from 1 to 3, one PSP and quite some games but with current Sony attitude against gamers, I will not get any more of them. Luckily there are still two alternatives. Good luck, Sony, I bet one day other people get enough of you too.

Re:Sony can't be trusted (1)

dmiller (581) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263046)

Sony has managed to lose my trust too. I was a very happy customer of PS1-3, but the retroactive otheros thing has put me right off. I rarely used Linux once I installed it, but that they were willing to retrospectively nuke an advertised feature of their product clearly demonstrated to me that they do not put the customer first. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do start crippling the PSN for non-paying customers.

The dumbest thing about the OtherOS removal is that it is probably not even going to help. Now that the hypervisor has been cracked enough to obtain memory dumps, it is far more likely that further hacking is going to rely on bugs that are found in the hypervisor software itself. These will probably be reachable by any application running on the system that takes user or network input. Think that every savegame loader is foolproof? How about that dinky web browser? Nuking OtherOS just pissed off loyal customers and bought them very little.

Re:Sony can't be trusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263474)

That aside... it's either Sony or Microsoft right now for "high end" gaming. (PC = Microsoft) So, in a way, I HAVE to accept Sony's quirks so that Microsoft doesn't totally monopolize gaming any more than it already does. It's unfortunate and I feel like I'm voting for the least worst candidate... just like every time I go to the polls.

"Effectively" is rather subjective (4, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262004)

they intend to offer a free PSN game to subscribers each month (from a choice of 'two to four games'), which should make the premium PSN effectively free if you already bought a game every month

That depends entirely on what games they give away as the free options. I've not got a PS3 and not seen the PSN (why waste money on a cut-down computer that isn't even as good as the real thing?) but if you buy the best game from the PSN each month then I doubt that it would be the one that they put in the list of freebies. Chances are it'll be some fairly naff one or a middle of the range one that they just want to increase the numbers on without giving away anything they could make good money on.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (1, Insightful)

iwannasexwithyourmom (1804754) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262060)

(why waste money on a cut-down computer that isn't even as good as the real thing?)

awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.
I don't have the latest-greatest $600 graphics card Nvidia is selling, but I would imagine I'd have to pay that much(or more) to get an experience similar to the PS3. I currently own a card that is about $100 on the current market (was $300 when I bought it), and I simply can't play games like Mass Effect and Far Cry if I crank the graphics up. PS3 provides a consistant (and awesome) experience for me, every time I turn it on.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262140)

awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.

You don't have to upgrade your PC to keep playing games at the same quality; 'Full quality' on a console is the same quality, so it's no different from a PC.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263972)

'Full quality' on a console is the same quality, so it's no different from a PC.

Actually, because of standardised hardware, the game can be optimised graphically, so it's not really the same thing.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (3, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262226)

awesome graphics, and not having to constantly upgrade to play the newest games at full quality.

Well, there's your problem. Your full quality on the PS3 is the same as mainstream quality on the PC. But since you know that it is possible to get better quality on the PC you feel that you are missing out on something.

I currently own a card that is about $100 on the current market (was $300 when I bought it), and I simply can't play games like Mass Effect and Far Cry if I crank the graphics up.

Well don't crank the graphics up. Leave it at mainstream settings and you will get your PS3 experience. The advantage of the PC is that if you decide to play a game again in a few years time then you will get improved visuals due to the advances in graphics and CPU. But in my opinion the improvements are not compelling enough to warrant spending hundreds more on a top of the range video card right now.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262750)

The PC drones refuse to acknowledge that most games aren't even released on the PC anymore. I can't get Red Dead Redemption, God of War 3, Alan Wake, Little Big Planet, Uncharted 2, Demon's Souls, Zelda, Mario or most of the other great new games on the PC. The number of interesting new games available for the PC is dwindling and it's practically non-existent outside of the FPS and RTS genres.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262912)

Do you expect Sony or Nintendo exclusives to be released on the PC? Really? I can see about Alan Wake (as we were promised it was a PC game) and GoW 3, but it's not our fault that there are no "interesting" new games for the PC. That is the fault of the developers.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263064)

who gives a fuck who's "fault" it is?

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (2, Insightful)

Amarantine (1100187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263058)

Yeah, but if you got an Xbox 360, you can't play God of War or Mario. If you got a Playstation, you can't play Alan wake or Zelda. If you have a Wii, you can't play Little Big Planet or Halo. It's true that most interesting titles are for consoles these days, but to play *all* of the interesting titles, you need 3 consoles. If you only have 1 console (and many people do), even then there is no guarantee you can play all console-exclusive titels, since one console != another console.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (1)

grrowl (953625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262134)

It's more likely the PS3 is more powerful than your PC

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262718)

It might be, but because it can't be used for much without the other OS feature, the CPU and hardware stats are completely worthless to me.

Because of this, the PS3 could have a 6502 CPU, or a 120 core array of POWER8s. Neither I can take advantage of, so hardware stats on this console are absolutely meaningless.

Re:"Effectively" is rather subjective (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262320)

Not only that, but if you often only have two choices then it's likely that at least some of the time the free options aren't even in genres you're interested in. For me, a mediocre puzzle game is better than nothing but a slightly better than average football game has absolutely no value to me. If I had the option of choosing between two football games I probably wouldn't even bother downloading any at all. I have pretty eclectic tastes but I could easily come up with at least 4-5 types of games that I really have no interest in, even if it was free.

Playstaitions main touted advantages (0, Offtopic)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262054)

1) Other OS - gone
2) Free online - about to go
3) blu ray - more than likely going to die as a format before its time as DD takes over.

So yeah what are the chances of a healthy price drop to go with it. Slim is my guess.

Re:Playstaitions main touted advantages (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32265054)

If we let Blu-Ray die, then we're all fools.

Digital Distribution of video sucks. As of now, now service, be it cable, satellite, netflix, etc can deliver anywhere near the same quality of video as on a bluray disc. They all decompress their movies into very low bitrates that do not hold up well under fast motion, and are barely passable with low motion.

I will ALWAYS opt for the Blu-Ray disc. If I want to own a movie... I want the highest bitrate possible, so that the video quality is what it should be.

Classic sony ps3 move. (0, Troll)

dadelbunts (1727498) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262138)

I still remember when they said vibration/rumble was stupid and no one would need it. Then they came out with new dualshock. They touted the wii controller as a stupid gimmick they didnt need even tho they had sixaxis, and now they are coming out with that ice cream cone wiimote. I wonder what stupid worthless idea they will start using next.

Re:Classic sony ps3 move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263510)

Well this actually reminds me of some one else....

Apple's Steve Jobs also said "Copy and paste is bad" yet they implemented a crappy awkward copy and paste feature recently...

Note: my comment is towards iPhone/iPod...

As far as PS3 premium.... i'll wait and see. If I find it worth it, ill take it, if not... well I don't really play online anyway because I lack time(school).

Sign me up! (1)

khchung (462899) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262200)

... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

As it is, even when playing mature rated games, there are still far too many immature kids in the game, either griefing outright, or in other ways to spoil the fun for everyone, and in general unable to behave with minimal civility that most adult typically show, even when online.

Although the design of PSN and the games already shielded it somewhat (eg lack of global chat, only voice chat within squad with mute function, so we don't have to see/hear the incessant crap talk), in game griefing/annoying behaviour is still somewhat unavoidable (eg camping in own team's base and destroying vehicles as they spawn, or destroying vehicles because another teammate will reach it first).

If the premium for pay network has fewer kids there, and the price is modest, I will sign up in a snap. Better service for more money (ie not for better hardware spec or higher machine power, but just better usage experience), I know this is difficult concept for some people here, but lots of normal people think it could be worth it.

Re:Sign me up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262360)

I don't know if you've ever used the Xbox Live system.. but that is a for-pay system that doesn't keep any fucking irritating douchebag from paying money to grief you. Or talking shit with a voice that sounds like he's in a helium-rich environment.

Any for-pay PSN that keeps Dougie Douchebag off it is probably going to come at a price that will keep you off of it, too. Dougie, after all, has a mommy and daddy that already dropped serious cash on the PS3 and the game. And very probably the tv it is being played on.

Re:Sign me up! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32262984)

... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

As it is, even when playing mature rated games, there are still far too many immature kids in the game, either griefing outright, or in other ways to spoil the fun for everyone,

13-15 year olds have the buying power. No joke. You lose. Better resign yourself to those 12 year old kids kicking your ass at Tekken.

Re:Sign me up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32263062)

All gaming networks should allow you to pick an age range and they should verify age when signing up.

Both services; the PSN and XBOX Live are spoilt by the odd idiot. You should be able to blacklist people and then never have to play with them again.

Don't think a small fee will stop the idiots - we need to be able to blacklist (not just messages, but gaming partners on any online game).

As for charging for online gaminig, it's just wrong in my opinion, unless there is a lot more content that is continually updated (to add value). Every business would love a subscription as it's a regualr income, but you'd have to be a little bit crazy to pay given that PC gaming and PS3 are free.

People complaining about kids should just move to PC gaming. Nowdays the hardware is not much more than a PS3 (compared to what it was when the PS3 came out). Of course this stops many kids, as it not as easy to setup and use as a console so they can't just turn it on an expect it all to work.

12 year olds (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263278)

12 year olds have more disposable income than you, so don't expect fewer of them on a paid network. They don't have mortgage/rent or car payments. They don't have to buy their own food. They just ask for Mommy's credit card (or don't ask, Mommy won't notice anyway).

Re:Sign me up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32264190)

There seems to be just as many jerks in HS and college.

Xbox Live? (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264850)

... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

Um, have you ever tried playing a game on Xbox Live? It's the only "premium" multiplayer service I've ever used and it's filled to the brim with foul mouthed 12 year olds.

Not fussed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32262450)

Not fussed, stopped updating when they dropped the OtherOs support, so I've already been booted off PSN, long live Sony!

Chose Linux support over PSN (3, Insightful)

amaiman (103647) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263236)

Too bad I no longer have access to PSN since I refused to install the update that would have removed Linux support from my console, so I won't be able to use this premium subscription. Maybe I'm cynical, but I read "nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects" as "of course, any NEW multiplayer games you buy will be subject to the new 'premium' requirement to play online"... Sony does have a documented history of promising one thing and then doing exactly the opposite.

Re:Chose Linux support over PSN (2, Interesting)

bucklesl (73547) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263992)

I went ahead and bought a new PS3 slim and kept my old PS3 with the 3.15 firmware on it. I also sent the FTC and state attorney general a complaint about this problem and a week ago the attorney general formally sent Sony a complaint letter. I seriously doubt anything will happen, but at least it made me feel better. For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards. Maybe I can sell the USAF my old PS3.

Re:Chose Linux support over PSN (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264918)

I went ahead and bought a new PS3 slim and kept my old PS3 with the 3.15 firmware on it.

IMHO, that's exactly what Sony was pushing for. Now you've not only given them money for the first PS3 you bought and got screwed over on, you went and gave them more money. The phrase "Please sir, may I have another" comes to mind.

For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards.

There are now three law suits on the go in the states over just this issue.

Maybe I can sell the USAF my old PS3.

I hear a PS3 with 3.15 or less is going for quite a bit on E-bay. I wasn't able to find any, I guess they're all sold out ;)

I'm ok with it for now. (1)

bcoker (1815008) | more than 3 years ago | (#32263532)

The current service lacks much of the functionality of xbox live. I don't mind paying a small amount for the service if they provide me a better experience. I don't game that much anyway. However, if prices start outweighing the services they provide me with I'll drop the service and console in the trash and be done with it.

PSN is important to me (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264114)

I'm only an occassional gamer.

I'll play for a month, then I'll have a busy month or two and my PS3 will just collect dust.
Free online play was a key deciding factor for me, I'm not willing to pay for a service that I don't use on a regular basis.

Re:PSN is important to me (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264776)

This seems to be exactly what people were saying was going to happen back in April (at least) when the Other OS was removed.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org]

Why is this news? (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264472)

We have already seen Sony show that they don't care by breaking into and rooting customers computers, DRM'ing everything from games to the hair on my Dogs ass, then on to the PS3- they disabled the install other os feature, taking away a part of the originally promised features. Why should this even be news now. They are simply continuing on in their quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox. Now that they have you locked in, you will see that the exra $$ you laid out for the PS3 with its Linux, and "Free online gaming" is now just an xbox that cost you a $200.00 premium to begin with. Oh and there is still fewer games.---move along, nothing to see here, business as usual at Sony.

its a matter of time (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#32264566)

Sony has proven their disloyalty to customers time and again. Its only a matter of time before PSN heads down the same road as xbox live. They must believe they can support themselves on hardcore gamers alone, because I know I'm not going to pay 20$ a month to get fragged 10 times a minute by some fat loser who plays 18 hours a day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...