PlayStation Network to add video, advertising, and more
Shorrock discussed Home's "pavilions" -- think islands in Second Life -- citing possibilities for third-party developed pavilions which could be distributed for free or as paid content. He used an example of casinos with mini-games, although he was unsure how developers would choose to monetize the service.
We'd be remiss if we didn't point out that the scale of this new and improved PlayStation Network sounds increasingly like Microsoft's multi-pronged Xbox Live service, which not only enjoys a burgeoning video marketplace, but has potential for in-game advertsing (Microsoft purchased Massive, an in-game advertising company), while Live Anywhere promises wireless cellphone gaming. But it's not a race, right? Let's just be happy that good ideas are getting the attention they deserve.
[Thanks for the larger pic, Evan]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 1:49PM
I do, of course, want to point out that digital distribution, movie, music, tv downloads, extra content, and episodic content were all buzzwords promised to us by Ken Kuturugi during E3 2000 when the PS2s hard drive was shown off.
samfish @ May 14th 2007 1:50PM
*KKKKKKKRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHSSSHHHHHHHHHHHT*
Hear that? That's the sound of Sony ripping off it's competitors.
The True Gamer @ May 14th 2007 1:54PM
Alas, the days of the "free" Playstation Online network are about to be flushed.
minus_273 @ May 14th 2007 1:57PM
PS3 has "Free" online huh?
In the midddle of your online game all of a seuuden, "congratulations you have been selected to win a free ipod nano. please shake your controller twice to accept your offer. "
niiiice
megaStryke @ May 14th 2007 2:00PM
If I may channel George Carlin for a moment, this has become nothing more than a big dick-waving prick fight.
Jake @ May 14th 2007 2:00PM
Well, they are trying to make it as much like Live as possible, which is nice, because Live is very well set up. Let's assume they can successfully transform PSN to being identical to Live. Would MS then make Live free, or would PSN cost money? Or, would they both stay the same.
I hope Sony can get PSN up to or near the quality of Live so that MS has to start giving it free. I mean, $4 a month isn't enough to lose sleep over, but free is always nice. ;)
C. Grant @ May 14th 2007 2:06PM
That's a great reading, Jake. The better PSN is, the better it is for PS3 owners and X360 owners -- if MS has to compete with a comparable offering (which PSN isn't now) that is also free, they'll reconsider that $50 price point, which is a good thing for consumers.
ill trooper @ May 14th 2007 2:07PM
...just like LIVE. Well then, get to it. We are waiting for more than Powerpoint presentations at announcement parties.
bigd7387 @ May 14th 2007 2:07PM
This is why I left Sony's PS game systems, All they do is copy MS and Nintendo. I'll stick with Xbox Live and let you Sony lovers have the sloppy seconds. Have fun.
James @ May 14th 2007 2:08PM
No matter how big of a fanboy you are, there is no denying that with each update to the PSN that $50 Microsoft requires you to pay every year is becoming more and more suspect. Hell, it's already to the point where you are paying $50 a year so you send a message to somebody during a game and have "nerd points" listed next your name. While that may be "nice", it's not worth $50. I'll take Home and a web browser for free, thanks.
na2ru1 @ May 14th 2007 2:10PM
hello
na2ru1 @ May 14th 2007 2:11PM
testin 1 2
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 2:13PM
"I'll stick with Xbox Live and let you Sony lovers have the sloppy seconds. Have fun."
Man, if only you could play the PS exclusives on 360... that would be awesome. But you can't. So while I buy Eterna Sonata and Halo 3 on 360, I guess I'm just "stuck" buying Heavenly Sword and Lair on my PS3.
tituspullo @ May 14th 2007 2:16PM
lets not forget if it wasn't for MS and live you'd still be playing multiplayer with 2-4 friends in the same house. i think live has it right! i'll stick wit my 40 bucks a year to play live, yeah it's 40 bucks look for sales people the cards are on sale at least 1 time month at best buy or CC. gota love those nerd points!
RazorDog @ May 14th 2007 2:16PM
Sony implements features already in use on XBL and Xbots yell "ripoff!". but if Sony didn't add these features all we'd hear from them is "XBL can do all this stuff but PSN can't so Sony sux!" Of course Sony is doing this, they have to compete. I expect when the dust settles we'll have two very similar services and users just decide which system/service they like better.
x876543 @ May 14th 2007 2:19PM
In game advertising? WTF? PC games now console games too?! I'm going to stick to board games, at least those ads I can throw out and never see again, and not pay extra for that.
jason @ May 14th 2007 2:23PM
@13
He was talking about xbox live not games. Also I guess I am "stuck" playing gears of war,bioshock, mass effect, splinter cell, gta iv, too human, forza motorsport 2, halo 3, blue dragon, lost oddessy, and probably some other ones I am missing. If only you could play xbox exclusives on your ps3. Not too mention games already out and exclusive to 360 lost planet, dead rising, crackdown, saints row, and the huge library of xbox arcade games.
Matt B @ May 14th 2007 2:24PM
You are lucky Sheppy. I barely have time to finish 1 race in MOTORSTORM before being harassed to get off the TV by my kids or wife. Thank god I have a nice computer to satisfy my gaming hunger.
I'm excited for some DLC, especially movies.
Jake @ May 14th 2007 2:27PM
James,
My experiences lead me to believe I'd pay $4 a month for a PSN experience that was identical to Live, even if I had the choice to stick with their free service as it is. That's just me.
Live is what it is because of years of infrastructure. It was really basic when it started just like the PSN is now. They are playing catchup and MS is trying to improve what they have to keep the gap noticeable.
My opinion is that MS will never give Live for free. They will just keep upping the ante to make sure that their service is always a premium compared to PSN so that us xbox fans can justify paying for a service that perhaps we don't need, but at least is superior to the free one we get on our other system or would get if we had the different system.
I really think Home will end up being somewhat of a non-issue. It will get used until Sony's big hitting games drop more out of boredom and curiosity than anything else. It is just that the idea of a virtual world where you walk around in, talk to people, and compare virtual trophies doesn't sound nearly as fun as a world where you run around with a massive rocket launcher and blow people up, while talking to them.
But, Home does give Sony something to say "see, this is free and better than Live's non-existent virtual world." In Home, they will be trying to sell you stuff constantly, so the economics work out for it to be free. So even if 95% of people that try Home think it's boring as hell and don't play it for very long, Sony can still use it as a powerful marketting tool.
"Our competitor charges you for some menu's. We give you all that for free along with an entire world for you to enjoy. The decision is obvious. Why pay when you can get much more for free."
rfom @ May 14th 2007 2:33PM
It would be great if Sony just copied all the good things off Live, and added their own ideas to make PSn better.
That would also make 360 owners feels stupid with their USD50 fees every year. Maybe thats why you get all the whining and bitching from xbots about evil Sony ripping off ideas from poor old MS...who are busy copying features from Mac OS in Vista!
Hey, someone else invented gaming consoles, OS and spreadsheets, so MS ripped them off didnt they?
WizarDru @ May 14th 2007 2:34PM
And it's going to have Ponies and Rainbows, and will be powered by Pixie Dust! Or in-game advertising, apparently.
The irony of people advocating a $600 game system being a better value than a $400 game system that allows you to option a $50/year service is not lost on me. Competition is good, but if Sony delivers a substandard service for free, it will only validate Microsoft's approach of nickel-and-diming us for every little thing.
And you can mock the achievements and gamer score as much as you want, some people take it very seriously and it IS worth something to them. Just as position on a ranked leader board matters, or any of a number of other things.
Given that Sony has promised the stars before and failed to truly deliver...and the weasel language in the article (essentially saying "Well, we can envision many things...but we don't really know what developers will do with it, so don't blame us!") I think it'll be quite a while before the PSN becomes even close to XBL.
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 2:43PM
"You are lucky Sheppy. I barely have time to finish 1 race in MOTORSTORM before being harassed to get off the TV by my kids or wife."
I have a roommate, he can't kick me off my own TV. ;p
Sad thing, I get, at most, 8 hours a gaming in a week. Just because I'm so busy (I only visit this site once ye old mouse arm begins to cramp). So I have all these games and suddenly an arcady title like Motorstorm or Guitar Hero II holds much more interest to me than a "300 hour epic with 72 different endings." Actually, my love for Guitar Hero ended up making me even MORE busy...
Sesur @ May 14th 2007 2:53PM
I'll believe it when I see it. One of the major reasons I prefer the 360; Sony is mostly promises and "vision", while MS doesn't say shit until they're getting ready to do it.
PS3 owners, cross you fingers.
Gott @ May 14th 2007 3:01PM
Sony's service doesn't offer 1/4 of the options and functionality xbox live offers. Until it does I am fine paying 4 bucks a month for the seamless online service of Xbox Live.
4 bucks a month...quit yer btching.
Gott @ May 14th 2007 3:06PM
Ohhhh Full length video is "coming" huh?
Nice work...I'm sure flying cars are "coming" but you don't see Ford hyping it up.
Sony PR is a bunch of tools.
Thomas @ May 14th 2007 3:12PM
When the PSN gets the same amount of content (or at least half) and these features in place, I dont know why anyone would still pay for MS Live's service. I know that Live is good, but I don't want to pay for it, because then there's a pressure to 'use' it every month..and then you have to actually "try" to get your money's worth. With PSN, you can come and go as you please. I like where PSN is right now, and I like where its going... Live wasn't built in a day, and neither will the PSN service.
JJ @ May 14th 2007 3:17PM
apparently everyone forgot sony announced that they were going to do this in the first place with PSN when they first announced PSN.
Not to mention, unlike Microsoft, Sony has stake in movie companies/TV shows/Music what have you so it makes perfect sense.
Once again though... dont as as if Microsoft pioneered video on demand... it didnt. Sure they were the fist to bring it to a console.
But its not like they have the market cornered on video on demand services and its their baby or anything.
Besides how could either the 360 OR the pS3 be a set top box like the companies want themt o be without this kind of service?
Extinction @ May 14th 2007 3:19PM
"Sony's service doesn't offer 1/4 of the options and functionality xbox live offers"
I disagree completely. Sony's service offers 95% (And with the rumors of 2.0, 99%) of the options/functionality of Live, plus it has some of it's own. And that's why I refuse to pay for Live, or buy any game for 360 that I can get for PS3.
Besides, PSN uses dedicated servers, and Live uses Peer 2 Peer. Thus games run better on PSN.
Gott @ May 14th 2007 3:21PM
Ok...wait a second here...
I'm doing fine financially...not rolling in the dough yet but are all you guys crazy poor? Who can't handle 4 bucks a month for seamless integrated functional online play, demos, and messaging?
I mean seriously if you were a bargain hunter you could get 13 months of live for 40 bucks. That's about 3 bucks a month.
Who complains about this? I don't even think about it...don't have a beer or 2 coffees a month and you just paid for it.
There are much better topics to talk about...how about how PS3 has no good games after it's been out for over 6 months? Discuss amoungst yourselves.
Jake @ May 14th 2007 3:22PM
That's a good point. Sony PR is much more about the future. Nintendo's is all about how much money they make. And MS's is all Halo, Live, and the current game library.
I understand if Sony had the games now they'd talk more about them. But it is kind of funny that the PS3, from a PR standpoint, is all about Home, Lair, Heavenly, GT, FF, 10 years, future gfx, etc. I mean, it is like Sony PR subconciously believes that the PS3 is something you shouldn't really puchase for another 8 months or so when some of the reasons they are giving you are actually reality.
Nintendo is the best, though. Look how much we are selling, while overcharging for it (Wii hardware profitable at launch, unheard of). "If that many people are paying that for this, you KNOW it's good."
MS is all into branding. "Xbox Live lets you go Live for Halo and Live Halo's on Arcade with Live Arcade Halo Beta Xbox matches, online."
MS is cool now. Sony will be cool in the future. And Nintendo is kicking ass without being cool now or later.
Sweeth Tooth @ May 14th 2007 3:24PM
"Sony is mostly promises and "vision", while MS doesn't say shit until they're getting ready to do it.
"
Give me a break. What happened to all the "Velocity Girl" user-modifed conent B.S. Jay Allard laid on us back at E3 in 2005? Two years later - there is no user modified conent to be seen in XBox Live Marketplace.
XBox Live started out very simple in 2002 and what you see in 2007 on XBox Live has evolved out of 5 years process. PSN just started last November so give Sony a chance to build it up. It takes a lot of time to build up a network of this scale.
required @ May 14th 2007 3:29PM
Some of you sound like you're from the year 2000:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/10/27/playstation_rant/index.html
Shagittarius @ May 14th 2007 3:30PM
Can we retire the term 'set-top box' how many TVs actually have the space to set a box on top of them anymore?
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 3:31PM
$50 extra a year is a travesty apparently, but paying $200 extra for the ability to play inferior versions of games that are months to a year late is ok?
explain that one to us james and rfom.
Sony can copy whoever they want and charge whatever they want, but they can't deliver fully on their promises, much less on time, and you guys are all just OK with that.
please tell me how all of this isn't just about your irrational love for a brand, and not about what's objectively the best console platform strategy out there. regardless of who makes it.
.
Sesur @ May 14th 2007 3:33PM
@Jake
It's kinda funny how some people talk about Halo more than the the actual Halo fans... just an observation.
And as far as brandding goes, all companies push branding. If you'd look at this post alone you get PSN, Home, PS Store, and PSP. As usual, specific gaming info is absent.
But hey it's better than "Halo Live Beta Arcade", whatever the fuck that meant. Had to say it, as long as we're being nonsensical now.
required @ May 14th 2007 3:33PM
Digi Smalls, are you from the year 2000?
Sesur @ May 14th 2007 3:36PM
@Sweeth Tooth
I was pretty sure at least one person would find some old example to prove me wrong. Nice job finding ONE. All I say is this: should we go down the road of Sony Hype that has yet-to-be?
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 3:38PM
seriously fellas, i'm curious about your reasons.
why does Sony get 2 years (and an extra $200) to 'catch up'? how do you excuse that?
.
Phranctoast @ May 14th 2007 3:40PM
"@Digi Smalls.
34. $50 extra a year is a travesty apparently, but paying $200 extra for the ability to play inferior versions of games that are months to a year late is ok?"
The Qaulity of ps3 games will improve. Still first gen. Paying $200 for live for four years will not.
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 3:41PM
required, i would honestly shut up about time, because you are the one acting like 2005 (and all these promised PSN features) hasn't happened yet.
.
JJ @ May 14th 2007 3:44PM
I dont think its an excuse for anything digi smalls (and the extra 200 is hardware related by the way).
Allt heir saying is that Xbox live wasnt what it is today what it was 5 years ago. It took microsoft billions of dollars and 5 years of work to get Live where it is today, it didnt just come out the gates like it is.
Allt hey are saying is, you cant expect a new service like sony's or nintendo to be, out of the gate, as good as something that took microsfot 5 years and billions of dollars in infrastructure to create.
and i think thats understandable to anyone, Sony has a ways to go. But why is that a bad thing? Competition is good for us as consumers, the more competition sony/ms and nintendo have, the better products we get.
Jack of No Trades @ May 14th 2007 3:46PM
Digi Smalls
I love my PS3.
1. For the sexy design.
2. For the Cell processor.
3. For the small sxclusive titles (Rachet & Clank)
4. For Blu-ray.
I love my 360.
1. For the games.
2. Windows ports.
3. Exclusive games.
4. Power
5. Controller
I love them both unconditional.
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 3:47PM
Phranctoast, thanks for honestly trying to answer. are you really saying Live and 360 games haven't improved in the last 1.5 years or will continue to do so? time stops for MS but not Sony?
.
JJ @ May 14th 2007 3:49PM
Plus i also kind of think its whacky that we have to pay for live,w hen they have advertising on it and its essentially a glorified P2P service.
Now its a great service dont get me wrong, but why are we paying for a friends list is all i'm asking?
Now 50 bucks a year isnt much, but i believe its the principle of the matter. With all the advertising thats going on with XBL (as mentioned in the article MS bought an ingame ad company or whatever) Should we really need to pay?
Sweeth Tooth @ May 14th 2007 3:56PM
@37 "I was pretty sure at least one person would find some old example to prove me wrong. Nice job finding ONE. All I say is this: should we go down the road of Sony Hype that has yet-to-be?"
Oh and I suppose Sony is the only company ever accused of "hype"? Are you serious? It's called Marketing. It's called P.R.. Every company hypes up its product in advance to build up anticpation. Microsoft does this, Nintendo does this, every company does this. You are singling out Sony for some irrational reason.
Phranctoast @ May 14th 2007 3:57PM
Digi.
Im not saying anything negative about the 360 games at all.
Im saying ps3 games will improve which has no bearing on past or future 360 games.
You mentioned that live cost $50 a year. Once you have the 360 for 4 years the ps3 and the 360 cost would have offset each other.
As far as quality ps3 games.... Theres a few gems out there with a lot more on the way (which is the samw for both)
Remember. It took the 360 developers some time to produce the gems.
Blaster Master @ May 14th 2007 3:58PM
"Think Islands in Second Life".
So this confirms where they got the formula from.
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 3:58PM
@ JJ
well some people here think Live hasn't improved over time, and that it won't. yes, i understand how long it takes to build something like this. what i don't understand is why Sony is allowed to be late on something and its ok. it's like people saying the Zune will take time to 'catch up' to iPod, because they started later. thats just not how races, or businesses, work. only very forgiving fanboys.
and yes, i'm aware the extra $200 is hardware related, but none of that hardware has been for games as Sony promised. movie-watching isn't what makes a game console more next-gen than another.
@ jack
yes, i like the design of mine too, but is that what you bought it for? tell me, why do you love the Cell processor?
.
Vidikron @ May 14th 2007 4:02PM
@46
The cost may offset, but your not considering the fact that Live is currently far and away better than PSN. Live improves and adds content constantly. Having both a 360 /w Live Gold and a PS3 I can safely assure you that PSN is nothing compared to Live. I mean, damn, why can't they at least add more PS1 games to the store?? What's the hold up? Live has new content every week... new XBLA games, new movies, new TV shows, new themes, new gamer icons, new demos, new trailers for games and movies. We're lucky if we get a new trailer for a movie or BR disc on PSN. It will sometimes go several weeks with nothing new at all. Then add in all the actual messaging differences and the differences between how friend's lists are handled and difference is overwhelmingly ridiculous.
I like my PS3, I really do. I see the potential and this fall looks be when the good games really start coming in. I also hope Home fixes a lot of the issues I have with PSN... but right now it's no contest. Live is hands down better. People like Extinction above claiming PSN offers 95% of what Live has are just speaking out of their ass and are clearly totally clueless.
Maybe when Sony gets all of these plans implemented into PSN.. and if the service is still free... then maybe your argument will have merit, but right now it doesn't. Yes, you pay for Live Gold, but Live Gold is a much better service.
Jack of No Trades @ May 14th 2007 4:03PM
Digi
I love technology. I believe the cell has alot more potential than the processor the 360 provides. The only thing the PS3 is hindered by is its 256 RAM.