I'm suspecting they will add services like Steam's Cloud. Where you can save and sync your save files & configurations online and sync them between different devices. For instance, being able to quickly switch between PC & PS3 versions of MW2 or MMO's like FF14.
It would be interesting if Sony expands it to a more Apple iDrive-esque route where you can save GBs of storage space for thing beyond gaming. Maybe allowing you to stream movies, pictures, music via browser you have stored on your online storage space, etc. Or maybe they allow digitally-distributed game rental service.
But whatever these 'premium' services are they better not be at the cost of core services. It would be a mistake to charge for basic online gameplay and delay demos like XBL Gold service does.
They need to add value, not remove value from their core customers...
"But it's unlikely that Sony will charge for the services they give away now, such as the ability to play for free online."
I'm not sure but is it legal for them to charge for the services they currently provide free? They advertise FREE PSN as a feature when you purchase the product (PS3). If they change the terms while you own the product you should have some sort of recourse to get your money back or be subsequently compensated.
@N@tedog: Yes they can, read the Terms of Service, they can do whatever they like really with the PSN and PS3. You technically don't own your PS3 system software or games even. You bought the right to play them with the condition you follow the TOS. This is the reason the 360 was able to lock hard drives and lock Live Accounts.
The short answer should be that Sony can change the service to a paid for deal without any problems as they are giving you notice of the change.
Your suggestion creates a few questions which do not seem to have been thought through. For example, what would be fair compensation? How could you determine the fair term of time that should be compensated for? What is the injury if no costs have been charged without the owners permission? What would be a fair compensation for those people who have enjoyed the free service as promised? Also, if you purchased the console and received the promised service for free and it was later changed, could you actually represent that you did not receive the free service?
In my opinion, a service provider should have more leeway to alter the terms of an agreement because the duration of the interaction period is longer (as opposed to buying a product which is a single instant sorta thing). Because more leeway appears due, I would presume that a basic position is that the fair thing would be to allow service providers to alter terms of service as necessary to continue to provide their service... unless the consumer is bound to continue using that service, at which point it would swing the other way.
To truly answer your question it is much more complicated than is appropriate for this forum. It sounds like you are combining a suggestion for a breach of contract with a false advertising claim. To evaluate these claims, it would be necessary to determine all sorts of facts and other matters. Ultimately though it is probably moot because, the agreement might, AND PROBABLY DOES, expressly provide for a change of terms at any time, with notice, making it totally appropriate for them to make such changes. This sort of language would be expected with a service like PSN because operating costs may change and financial situations might affect the parties (the consumer and Sony) in a way that would require an alternate business model.
This is only my opinion and not legal advice, as I am not an attorney, but only a humble law student and not capable of any representations as such.
@Ferrum.mihi: Okay. I understand what you're saying. Would it fall within the lines of a TOS revision from a telecom company though? Don't I have a certain number of days to cancel any contract with my service provider after they change the TOS? I feel there would be a similar circumstance in this case or am I way off?
I'm just thinking of an extreme case where I may purchase a device with free services that a short time later I am then charged for after a TOS revision. I imagine there would have to be some sort of consumer protection from that.
There is absolutly no moderation in some games. I was playing CoD4 at a friend's place (on PSN). First of all half of teh people didn't have mics when they did it was shitty bluetooth with ridiculous amount of noise and static. Clan names that has words such as f** and nigr.
@Gundem: My roommates clan tag on live is COK. You can't blame Sony for users not having mics or using inappropriate clan tags. Do you seriously expect Sony to manage the quality of everyone's mic? Because if you do, that's bull.
Microsoft does it, why can't Sony? I mean sony had the meanest censorship when PS2 online was abrely launched. I remember playing tiwsted metal black and there was no chat feature. however after entering some codes you'd get this basic on screen qwerty sort of chat. You couldn't even say "Hard one".
I, like others, don't think they're going to start charging for anything we've been getting free for now.
As far as early demo access and paid goodies for free, they do that already with Qore (Which runs on a subscription BTW so that system has been in place a while for FXIV).
Hopefully this will just be some subscriptions for things like comics, movies and paid themes(I wonder how well those are selling).
All my friends are on XBL so that's where I hang out. I don't see this changing anything for the most part. Game rentals would be pretty cool but if you have to download a 30GB game to rent it that could take a while even on my 20Mbs Fios.
Perhaps this means for folks to have the Netflix software downloaded on their PS3 that they will have to pay for the Premium PSN, much like Microsoft does for Xbox owners. Suddenly that Netflix disc is sounding like a pretty good deal.
Jokes aside, it will be interesting to see how Sony differentiates this.
@Chronocidal Guy: You're paying to play the games from their console on the internet, not for another internet connection, dufus. If $5 a month is too much for you, then maybe you should use your video game buying money for food instead.
@Xagest: I get what you're saying, but I find it incredibly hard to justify you finding it very hard to justify less than 17 cents per day for XBL. It's really not that big a deal. I'm not trying to patronize either. I do get what you're saying, but if you break it down it's not costing anybody a lot of money. One time, I was pissed because my Xbox died on me and I was talking to a CSR who didn't know S. I was in evil consumer mode and was about to tell the dude that I needed to get my money back for the days I wasn't going to be able to play with my XBL subscription, but then I realized it would have been a miniscule amount; really not worth making a big deal about.
It is making Microsoft a shit-ton of money though.
@Kirkaiya: The cell was not an X86 compeditor.. the commercial cell was a RISC core, like PowerPC chips before it, along with the Cell stream processors it controled(. Basically, it was a CPU/GPU SOC.. With the RISC core controling the streams..
It was, at best, a Co-Processor, like the GPUS on ATI and Nvidia cards.
@Segador: A better bet might be WalMart. As pointed out in the post, the Gamestop ad is misleading because GOW collection is actually only 1 game and it only sells for $40 new. Dark Knight is a great Blu Ray to start off your collection and both games in the Walmart deal are excellent. LBP is a great game but with so much free content available, it may be more economical to the original edition as opposed to the GoTY which looks to be a part of the Gamestop deal.
You can find LBP for much cheaper than both Batman and inFamous, because those two came out this year whereas LBP is more than a year old. GoW is a $40 package, again you're saving more by going with Walmart.
Why is it that PS3 games hold their value so much longer than Xbox 360 games. You've got games like Uncharted and Heavenly Sword which stay expensive for years. Infamous looks like it will follow that suit. Is it because there are so few good exclusive games on PS3?
@yantelope: This article is a year old, but the numbers remain largely the same, this was the best I could offer you in a quick search [www.gamesindustry.biz]
07:51 AM
11/23/09
11/23/09
It would be interesting if Sony expands it to a more Apple iDrive-esque route where you can save GBs of storage space for thing beyond gaming. Maybe allowing you to stream movies, pictures, music via browser you have stored on your online storage space, etc. Or maybe they allow digitally-distributed game rental service.
But whatever these 'premium' services are they better not be at the cost of core services. It would be a mistake to charge for basic online gameplay and delay demos like XBL Gold service does.
They need to add value, not remove value from their core customers...
11/23/09
They're not being very subtle about this, are they?
11/23/09
I'm not sure but is it legal for them to charge for the services they currently provide free? They advertise FREE PSN as a feature when you purchase the product (PS3). If they change the terms while you own the product you should have some sort of recourse to get your money back or be subsequently compensated.
Any lawyers out there?
11/23/09
The article mentions that everything that is free now will stay free.
Xbox also says free live. Fine print however mentions free silver live.
11/23/09
11/23/09
The short answer should be that Sony can change the service to a paid for deal without any problems as they are giving you notice of the change.
Your suggestion creates a few questions which do not seem to have been thought through. For example, what would be fair compensation? How could you determine the fair term of time that should be compensated for? What is the injury if no costs have been charged without the owners permission? What would be a fair compensation for those people who have enjoyed the free service as promised? Also, if you purchased the console and received the promised service for free and it was later changed, could you actually represent that you did not receive the free service?
In my opinion, a service provider should have more leeway to alter the terms of an agreement because the duration of the interaction period is longer (as opposed to buying a product which is a single instant sorta thing). Because more leeway appears due, I would presume that a basic position is that the fair thing would be to allow service providers to alter terms of service as necessary to continue to provide their service... unless the consumer is bound to continue using that service, at which point it would swing the other way.
To truly answer your question it is much more complicated than is appropriate for this forum. It sounds like you are combining a suggestion for a breach of contract with a false advertising claim. To evaluate these claims, it would be necessary to determine all sorts of facts and other matters. Ultimately though it is probably moot because, the agreement might, AND PROBABLY DOES, expressly provide for a change of terms at any time, with notice, making it totally appropriate for them to make such changes. This sort of language would be expected with a service like PSN because operating costs may change and financial situations might affect the parties (the consumer and Sony) in a way that would require an alternate business model.
This is only my opinion and not legal advice, as I am not an attorney, but only a humble law student and not capable of any representations as such.
11/23/09
I'm just thinking of an extreme case where I may purchase a device with free services that a short time later I am then charged for after a TOS revision. I imagine there would have to be some sort of consumer protection from that.
11/23/09
Do they always have to go fuck up a good thing?
11/23/09
11/23/09
There is absolutly no moderation in some games. I was playing CoD4 at a friend's place (on PSN). First of all half of teh people didn't have mics when they did it was shitty bluetooth with ridiculous amount of noise and static. Clan names that has words such as f** and nigr.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Microsoft does it, why can't Sony? I mean sony had the meanest censorship when PS2 online was abrely launched. I remember playing tiwsted metal black and there was no chat feature. however after entering some codes you'd get this basic on screen qwerty sort of chat. You couldn't even say "Hard one".
11/23/09
As far as early demo access and paid goodies for free, they do that already with Qore (Which runs on a subscription BTW so that system has been in place a while for FXIV).
Hopefully this will just be some subscriptions for things like comics, movies and paid themes(I wonder how well those are selling).
11/23/09
11/23/09
Jokes aside, it will be interesting to see how Sony differentiates this.
11/23/09
11/23/09
*goes back to PC*
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
It's still incredibly hard to justify when you can play the same game on a PC without the extra charge...
11/23/09
It is making Microsoft a shit-ton of money though.
#tips
11/23/09
The PowerPC, the UltraSparc, the DEC/Compaq/Whoever "Alpha", are all either going, or near, extinct.
"And one architecture to rule them all, one instruction set to bind them, one design to bring them all, and in the PC bind them..."
11/23/09
It was, at best, a Co-Processor, like the GPUS on ATI and Nvidia cards.
11/23/09
11/23/09
That's a goooood question. With the PS3 supposed 10 year product. They will need the "Cell Processor" for about 6 more years.
11/23/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Walmart: 2 games, $60 each, plus a BD movie.
You can find LBP for much cheaper than both Batman and inFamous, because those two came out this year whereas LBP is more than a year old. GoW is a $40 package, again you're saving more by going with Walmart.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
[www.gamesindustry.biz]
11/20/09
11/19/09
Can the PS3 connect to a bluetooth keyboard/mouse?