"The fun's always free" says new PS3 online ad

[Shrygue]

via Computer and Video Games


A new advert for the PS3's PlayStation Network has appeared online and it seems to be taking a slight dig at Microsoft's subscription-based Xbox Live model.

"The fun's always free" is the tagline for the ad, pointing out that it costs PlayStation 3 owners precisely bugger all to download content and play online, where as paying Xbox Live Gold subscribers cough up £40 for the same privileges.

Of course you could also argue (and we will) that Xbox Live Marketplace is a superior service to the PlayStation Store (what's with the month-late PS3 demos?) and integrated friend lists also give XBL the edge. But is it really worth the full cost of a game?

If anything, it's great to see that Sony's finally pushing one of the PS3's greatest selling points. If the public starts taking notice of the PS3's online service it can only mean good things for us, and hopefully less wallet pain on the Xbox 360 end too.

Let's just hope Sony doesn't turn round some time this year and start charging for PSN. That would make them look a little silly...


Ad image here

[F9zDark]

I am glad the PSN is free, because as of now, it isn't worth paying for. And thats the great benefit and detriment to having a free service.

Its a benefit because, people like me, will simply chalk it up to being free for any of its shortcomings. However, it being free also means that Sony is less likely to advance the features of the service (since that would require money).

[DPyro]

Not necessarily. Sony plans to recoup costs using Home to advertise games/movies and I believe they'll release a new firmware update at that time which fixes some of the problems with the PS3 (in game messaging etc).

[JKKDARK]

I am glad the PSN is free, because as of now, it isn't worth paying for. And thats the great benefit and detriment to having a free service.

I agree totally, this Sony service is terrible. They have to work a lot if they want a good service compared to Xbox Live.
Glad to see it still being free.

[F9zDark]

I agree totally, this Sony service is terrible. They have to work a lot if they want a good service compared to Xbox Live.
Glad to see it still being free.

I never said it was terrible. Its really stable and works without a problem nearly 100% of the time. The Store however needs a lot of work, visually. Content organization isn't the greatest.

[ketchup]

SOME downloadable content is free on Xbox live and even to non-paying Silver members who can't play games online. Not much though to be honest.
BTW. just for reference, how much does it cost just to play World of Warcraft on a PC for a year? Around $130 for just one game? Live is cheap in comparison.

I have a sneaky feeling that it won't just be games and film advertising we will see on PSN. Someone will need to pay for those servers and maintenance and I can't see it all coming from the profits taken from the games in the long term. Expect to see McDonald's adverts etc. too. I'll cope of course if this happens but I really really hope and pray that it doesn't

[Triv1um]

Indeed PSN isnt worth paying for yet.

[F9zDark]

SOME downloadable content is free on Xbox live and even to non-paying Silver members who can't play games online. Not much though to be honest.
BTW. just for reference, how much does it cost just to play World of Warcraft on a PC for a year? Around $130 for just one game? Live is cheap in comparison.

I have a sneaky feeling that it won't just be games and film advertising we will see on PSN. Someone will need to pay for those servers and maintenance and I can't see it all coming from the profits taken from the games in the long term. Expect to see McDonald's adverts etc. too. I'll cope of course if this happens but I really really hope and pray that it doesn't

The current model I have read from Sony is that the game developers pay for the servers and space they use on the Store. So Sony has no out of pocket expenses.

The problem with comparing this to a game like World of Warcraft is that you, the player, is paying for the server time. Muds when they first came out, required a by the minute or by the hour fee on top of paying for your ISP, which at that time, was extremely hefty (since the internet was still in its infancy).

Paying that 10-15 dollars a month gets you quite a bit if you really think about it. Lagless gaming, with 1000s of players, if not more, and a never ending game, with a plethora of things to do. Now if I had pay that kind of money to play Resistance online, I would not even think about it doing that; it would automatically be no.

But a huge game like an MMO, is worth that kind of money, so long as the player gets their money's worth (playing X amount of hours each week). However, I am not that kind of gamer. I suffer from gaming ADD, in which I need to play a new game every month or so, and won't touch the old games for months to years on end, if I ever get back to them.

[ketchup]

Thanks for the info on the current model for the paying for the servers.
I see one possible problem with this. What happens if a game doesn't sell so well? I guess it won't get much time before it's pulled from the system as the developer has already probably made a loss.

It's fair enough but not much fun if you are one of the fans of said game.

[DPyro]

They sell add-ons as well.