Updated: April Fool's a little early from PS3Clan…and it's gutsy – or just plain stupid – to quote Kaz when it's a lie. Sony mightget upset. Anyway, y'all know by now but we still need to update, of course.
Original Story:
Sony has often said that although they are planning a Premium subscription service for the PlayStation Network, the basic membership will always remain free. But big business has a way of changing that outlook.
We know the Premium service is coming later this year, although we haven't seen any official plans or details just yet. However, Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Kaz Hirai may have dropped a bomb we weren't expecting: according to European site PS3Clan , his latest statements say that if you wish to remain a PSN subscriber, you'll have to pay…no matter what. Most of that article through the link is in Dutch but it's the English translation of Hirai's comments that will turn plenty of heads and ruffle a few feathers:
"We are confident the Premium service will differentiate the PSN further from other online services. With the new functionalities the PSN will offer the most complete online experience possible. SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of software and the PSN. New functionalities as ‘cross game chat’ and Facebook connectivity, are part of our ambition to grow towards a profitable position.
However, to increase revenues further, we are forced to charge a subscription fee to all PSN users, instead of offering Premium services as an optional subscription. I cannot comment in depth at this time but we are looking at $60 to $80 a year. In return, the full Premium services package will be available to anyone without additional subscription fees. The Premium service will be available in the third quarter of this year for everyone to enjoy."
Of course, it could be a screwy translation but that doesn't really seem likely. It appears they toyed with the idea of an optional Premium subscription but perhaps they were worried that wouldn't bring in enough revenue; hence, they decided upon simply charging everyone a certain fee like Microsoft does for their Xbox Live service. Perhaps they don't need the "free online" benefit to sell PS3s these days but current users likely won't be too happy about the new cost. Then again, one can definitely make an argument that the Network has not only caught but surpassed Live in many areas. Is that not worth $60 to $80 per year?
Well, we're not sure. We'll have to see how Sony responds to this and it'll also be interesting to see the widespread gamer response…
I hope so. I kind of think the removal of the install other OS announcement might be a joke too.
It sounds like they're turning it into Xboxlive, witch is why I don't have an XBOX BUT A PS3 INSTEAD
Can't be, it's way too early.
I'm thinking the translation is off. The quote says the premium service won't be optional, and then they say the premium service will be "available" 3rd quarter for everyone to enjoy. It doesn't flow very well…I'm thinking the 60-80 dollars is for premium service and the regular service will remain free.
It totally is. Why would Kaz Hirai talk to a Dutch site? He would probably talk about this with Engadget or Kotaku. I think this is a April fools joke. Also free access to the network is one of the main selling points. Why would they take one of the biggest advantages over the Xbox away? This article is BS.
"we are forced to charge a subscription fee to all PSN users, instead of offering Premium services as an optional subscription."
Seems pretty cut and dry, but I hope it is a mistranslation.
*point* APRIL….
wait no it's probably real…
April Fools! Ha ha ha.
And besides, April fools is neither a Japanese tradition, nor a Dutch one, if I'm not mistaken. Nor is it a benign prank that can be demystified easily after being played.
There's no way in Hell that I'm paying a subscription when that is one of the main reasons I have a PS3 vs. having an Xbox. If I'm forced to buy any subscription, I will be signing up for Xbox Live just because Sony did this. We will see what happens and we will see if I will be buying an Xbox 360 as well.
@ Shams
April fools is a Dutch tradition as well. I can know as I am Dutch myself. Also, I'd love to read the original article but when I click on it it only sais "April Fools' Day" (with a link to a wikipedia article) and, in Dutch, "return to PS3clan.nl".
Last edited by faraga on 3/30/2010 7:05:59 AM
Probably, you shouldn't trust Dutch people, I know, since I am myself, you can trust me though and maybe a couple of hundred others…, just not the rest, they're just not sophisticated enough (and vote for xbox)
Edit, yeah just clicked the link, dam my people… for causing such confusion on my favorite website, no really, 330 sumthin comments, I think that's the most I've seen, probably.
Last edited by FullmetalX10 on 3/30/2010 7:49:40 AM
Definitely April's fools, click on the link. Ah, already mentioned, thank god though. Got my heart racing for a while.
Last edited by Ergi on 3/30/2010 8:29:13 AM
Well that was scary.
I'm pretty sure that this is an April Fool's Day joke, along with the removal of the other OS option… Sony would effectively alienate more than 90% of it's customer base by charging for PSN access, and I doubt more than 25-40% of the existing customer base would subscribe to something that had been free for years. They wouldn't generate enough profit for this to make any business sense. But, I've been wrong before…
The removal of the OtherOS is true, and I know the reason why. Frankly all 10 Linux users will be upset, but everyone else needs to know that the removal of OtherOS was not done for the hell of it. There are good reasons that ultimately help keep the costs of games down.
No, no, no! Whoever wrote this should get stabbed in the face, its not funny!
"but everyone else needs to know that the removal of OtherOS was not done for the hell of it."
That is irrevelant, I bought the PS3 partly because of linux support. It is completely unethical for a company to remove key features like that after purchase.
@bridgera
Well in that case, your beef is with the nit-wit that tried hacking the hypervisor in OtherOS mode. Sony has always said that they will take whatever action needed to protect the PS3 and PSN against hacking. The EULA you agree to actually contains language that specifically allows Sony to modify the firmware in this manner to protect the security of the PS3 and PSN.
If Linux is of major importance to you, don't update your firmware, your PS3 continues to work the only difference is that you will not be able to access the PSN. The PSN is Sony's network, and only authorized devices are allowed to connect. Authorized devices have to meet strict criteria in order to maintain network security. The removal of OtherOS from PS3s is less about restricting you as it is about protecting the PSN and all the users of PSN. The firmware update is not mandatory, if you skip it the impact is that your PS3 is no longer able to log into the PSN.
Folks, this is what happens when someone tries to mess with the PS3. The PS3 remains secure, but someone tried to open up the security a bit. If OtherOS mode remains and someone does manage to find a way to boot a compromised PS3 into game mode, then the PSN would be compromised. Sony can't allow that, nor would I want them to. PSN hosts financial transactions, and Sony knows this and has a responsibility to maintain the security of the transactions. If someone was trying to break into a bank, we would expect the bank to stop them.
But again, if Linux is so important, you have to choose between PSN access and Linux. I'm sorry if you don't like the choice, but this is what happens when folks start trying to break in.
"Well in that case, your beef is with the nit-wit that tried hacking the hypervisor in OtherOS mode."
No, my beef is with Sony, for penalizing everyone for the actions of 1 guy, rather than actually make a solution that doesn't penalize the legit users.
"The EULA you agree to…."
Also irrelevant. A EULA can contain anything at all and is not binding. A major misconception of a EULA, is that people think it's binding, it's not. I still have rights as a consumer reguardless of any terms in a EULA.
"If Linux is of major importance to you, don't update your firmware…. [then you won't be able to use]PSN."
If I choose that, now I can't play games like Warhawk and MAG. Either way, I loose functionality of the $500 device I purchased, which is a scumbag move to do to anyone after the sale.
bridgera
Sony is not penalizing anyone, they are protecting us. It's not a punishment, it sounds like it's security messures that need to be taken. It's not like they're placing a dunce cap on our heads and placing us in a corner;)
Don't see how denying me access to the linux partition on my PS3 ISN'T a penalty.
"they are protecting us"
Explain how denying me access to Linux "protects" me.
I would say it does nothing of the sort, other than to deny me access.
Bridgera,
OtherOS mode presents a potential security hole that could compromise the PS3 security and via that compromise the PSN security is also threatened. That is the threat. Sony is preventing PS3s with Linux capability from accessing the PSN, that is the effect of this firmware. You update you keep PSN and lose Linux, you don't update and you keep Linux but yore PS3 isn't a threat.
Sorry, for the vast majority of people this move protects their private information and financial information on PSN, that is Sony's responsibility over and above maintaining Linux support.
You are under the impression that PSN is only hackable via a Linux PS3 with current firmware?
If I can hack PSN via a Linux PS3, this update does NOTHING to prevent that.
"Sony's responsibility over and above maintaining Linux support."
Sony doesn't, and I don't *think* ever has, supported Linux. They allowed for installing of "Other OS". I expect that feature to continue to be available.
You may think it's okay for any company to disable any feature after you purchase a product.
I do not think that's okay. If it says "play on PSN" "option to install other OS" on the box, or in advertisements, or promotionals, I had better be able to use all those options.
You don't have to agree with me on that, you are entitled to your opinion.
@Bridgera,
No of course it's not. But a compromised PS3 that can connect to the PSN is akin to having at least one of the keys to the front door of the house you want to burgle. A compromised PS3 on the network is a security compromise, I didn't say it's the only one (nor did I say it was necessarily running Linux). but you know what, Sony doesn't have control over the rest of the devices that can attempt to get into PSN, but it sure does have control over the PS3.
Sony has in fact supported Linux, merely offering the Other OS option and sponsoring Yellow Dog Linux is sufficient evidence of that.
As I said, you would be better directing your anger at the cause of this change, not the change itself, or Sony.
OH MY GOD…BEN…YOU GOT ME SO FUCKING GOOD. Oh jesus – I honestly was to the point where I thought that the awesome Sony just got as low as M$!
But honestly now I can't help but laugh! It was a good joke – I loved it.
Actually, I was curious myself. Just pulled this from my PS3 manual:
"Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCE) does not develop or directly support a version of Linux for the PS3⢠system"
By support, what is meant is to directly develop for and release software updates for. I would also be able to call them with infomation about how to use Linux. I don't *think* they ever did any of that. Offering OtherOS in and of itself, isn't considered Linux support.
You are correct about them promoting Linux and alternate opporating systems.
Any network, website, PSN, internet, whatever, is prone to hacking. That doesn't mean we disable operating systems on all computers. That means we find ways to make those networks more secure. There are a lot of ways to do that, Sony ignored all of it by going this route.
"you would be better directing your anger at the cause of this change, not the change itself, or Sony."
I disagree with you here. Sony is responsible for disabling features after sale, not Geohot. It is their responsiblity (or problem) to handle people like Geohot, without disabling advertised features after product sale for all users.
Altneratively, if they really had no other option, it is their responsiblity to settle with their customers, not go about it the way they are now.
First it was the trophies now this. How do you spell copy cat. Next we'll have TRROD.
Bridgera, there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
idk about this I haven't seen it official on ps blog.com
$60 to $80 a year? There is nothing the PSN could offer worth that much.
God I'm still cringing at the fact I spent $50 on 14 months for LIVE. But Those free trials got me hooked on Last.FM and discless Netflix.
Last edited by Deadman on 3/29/2010 9:42:45 PM
Yes, if that happens I am out of the Sony world.. sorry guys.
I will take my future money and invest in an "open" PC gaming rig and then get what I want for it. But I won't, will definitely not, pay a yearly subscription to Sony.
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Yes. Absolutely.
This isn't really even a funny joke if it is one.
Sony will lose my membership to PSN if they do this; part of the reason I have one is because online is free.
We should consider a mass protest on their blog.
Seriously, I will definitely pull the wireless off from my PS3 if it's mandatory. I just play offline single player games only then. If they start charging $60 a year, they better make it up somewhere else, like MASSIVE pricecut in hardware or online games.
Agree. Im out of Sony World aswell. Thats just not right. I dont need no premium pack. I just want to play online for free.
uhm looks like we all agree with that thumbs up………… and sony if you make up pay. i quit.
I don't think I wanna pay for PSN.
This better be a joke!!! Seriously!!!
This is sad news for EVERY gamer out there…
Better be an April fool's joke
I do not want to pay for the PSN. This will severely hurt its image if it has to be paid for, and very few people would pay, I can tell by just by looking at the (soon to be many) PSX members here, for starters.
It would also contradict the PS3's message of "it only does everything"…as free online is a staple in the PS3's many features.
First non-PS2 B/C (for most of us, I know it still exists), the removal of Linux, and now charging PSN?
What's next, mandatory installations for every game =*(?
Last edited by Victor321 on 3/29/2010 9:54:15 PM
This would just be a step backwards for Sony if they followed through with it. I know many people who bought the PS3 simply because of the free online play. If that feature was removed, and PSN started to cost even MORE than XBL, that would only detract people from their own product.
Not many people would have paid for the optional service anyways. & with those people not paying for the service, why would the rest of the people get it? Part of the 60-80 fee is for cross-game chat, which they wouldn't use to the fullest extent if not all of their friends have the optional service.
Easy solution, come up with something else worth paying for and give the geeks their cross game chat for free.
I would pay for cloud storage of my data.
There you go.
I will not pay that much a year. I made that mistake with Xbox Live, won't be doing it for the PS3. I barely use any online features besides downloading demos and occasionally playing online every now and again. I can easily just unhook my system from the internet without it effecting me, I am not tied to it.
However, if they promise free content with the subscription then I might consider. Like content that premium users would only get, and not just Home material. If they give the premium users free content for games, such as DLC, then I will consider paying.
I cannot believe Sony would do this to it's gaming community. Although from a business standpoint, I guess it does make sense. Although I am very unhappy about it, I am a Sony fanboy because they usually listen to the gamers. I hope they don't go the Microsoft way.
I don't think it's going to happen, People will choose if they want to pay or not.
I won't pay it. I'll stop playing online. Simple as that. If Sony wants to do this, they can go ahead, but they will lose a customer.
Well they won't lose a customer, but a lot of online traffic for sure.
I spend money on PSN. Guilty pleasure. Ha. I won't pay twice for the content they offer. Sub fee then the cost of the DLC or PS1 classics? No thanks. I buy PS1 Classics when they're good but no more if this is true.
FFIX better come before this unwanted change takes place, Square will lose a sale too.
Also those who don't want to pay would lose Netflix streaming too. I already pay for Netflix, LIVE people are paying twice for movie streaming. Guess I'd have to get me a streaming disc for my Wii. 🙂
Last edited by Jawknee on 3/29/2010 10:20:03 PM