Sony Announces "Qore" - PSN Original Programming

[bapenguin]

Playstation owners...are you ready to enter the Qore? It may sound like a next-gen FPS shooter, but in reality it's an original online video program (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/06/03/introducing-qore-taking-you-behind-the-curtain-with-playstation/) complete with access to betas, content and more.
. The premier episode includes in-depth exclusive and never-before released content on upcoming PlayStation titles such as SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Confrontation, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Secret Agent Clank, Soul Calibur 4 and Afro Samurai, as well as the latest Blu-ray Disc trailers, an exclusive SOCOM: Confrontation theme with an invitation to the SOCOM: Confrontation beta, art galleries and other surprises.

This is a "premium" service which means it'll set you back $2.99 an episode or $24.99 a year.

Is this Sony's way of offsetting some of the online costs of their service? Is anyone actually interested in this? I'm guessing people are only going to want to buy when there is actual demos or betas or content available.

Thanks Norse for pointing this out.

[bapenguin]

This sounds a lot like Inside Xbox along with a Gold Subscription. But a $1 cheaper.

[Narradisal]

Still worried about the annual subscription of 13 monthly episodes.

[Telefrog]

Isn't this what used to be on the contents of the magazine disk?

[asimonk]

So, PS3 owners can pay to preview content? I'm confused...

[Flatpicker]

I'm waiting for the "everything should be free" troop to come in and start up.

Popcorn at the ready.

[Commissar Rob]

So, PS3 owners can pay to preview content? I'm confused...

Sounds like it...sort of a pay-per-view type deal. Hope this doesn't mean that PSN is morphing into a nickle and dime experience. Just copy Xbox Live and be done with it...

[destoo]

Left hand trying to tip the right hand again.. Magazine sales in decline, trying to survive in 2008. It's ok, good effort. But probably doomed from the start.

(Norse posted it 10 minutes earlier (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52992))

[skwish]

so let me get this straight.

You pay 24 bucks a year for first crack at demos and game videos provided by sony..... and then at a later date if at all the content becomes free for everybody (i also realize you can purchase each episode on its own for 3 bucks)

does that not sound a whole heck of a lot like the gold/silver rules on xbox live?

[TeeCakes]

Damn, I gotta change my sig...

[Torgo]

Damn, I gotta change my sig...

Why? Online Multiplayer gameplay is still completely free.

We'll see how good the content is, and if it'll be worth the cash. Access to some beta's sounds cool though.

[Gott]

I told everyone Sony's online service wouldn't be free forever. HAHA...this is a pitiful attempt to monotize their online community.

Qore!? Stupid name by the way...what sucker is going to pay 25 for a year when you can just see the videos online for free? They say betas, special demos, and extra dlc...but come on? Are you going to believe anything Sony says?

[Dukefrukem]

I like betas!

[51|RandoM]

It is an online magazine.

People sounding the death knell of free multiplayer on PSN need to pull their head out of their ass. as if it were possible for Gott to find his ass without 2 hands and a map, much less pull his head out of it.

[Ph00p]

So we'll get the benefit of PAYING to play BETAs? W00T!!! COUNT ME IN!!! I'll GIVE THEM MORE THAN $5 to TEST BETAS!!!!!

I've got a PS3 and a 360 the Gold service with its ease of use and quick matchmaking, makes it a worthwhile service. Qore or Qeer or w/e sounds like a bigger rip off than live even though its cheaper, I'm not going to be a Qorerer and a Live Gold member at the same time.

[Gorvi]

No thanks.

[TeeCakes]

Why? Online Multiplayer gameplay is still completely free.

We'll see how good the content is, and if it'll be worth the cash. Access to some beta's sounds cool though.

I honestly don't think people pay for Live just for these 'extras' that'll eventually become free in a month or two. They pay for the online multiplayer-- once Sony realizes that when this Qore thing flops, it might spell the end of the free PSN.

But I guess I'll keep my sig as long as I can still run amok online in GTAIV/MGO for free!

[Dukefrukem]

So we'll get the benefit of PAYING to play BETAs? W00T!!! COUNT ME IN!!! I'll GIVE THEM MORE THAN $5 to TEST BETAS!!!!!

I've got a PS3 and a 360 the Gold service with its ease of use and quick matchmaking, makes it a worthwhile service. Qore or Qeer or w/e sounds like a bigger rip off than live even though its cheaper, I'm not going to be a Qorerer and a Live Gold member at the same time.

Such a dumb post. People pay extra for demos on file planet, let alone betas.... or just faster downloads... You can put a price on anything... The server's aren't going to pay for themselves. Look at sites like, IMDBPro.

[Ph00p]

Ok, so ever Qore is going to be in HD right? how big will these damn things be then? 40 gig owners will feel the pain, but not as quick as those poor bastard 20 gig owners.

[Gott]

I honestly don't think people pay for Live just for these 'extras' that'll eventually become free in a month or two. They pay for the online multiplayer-- once Sony realizes that when this Qore thing flops, it might spell the end of the free PSN.

But I guess I'll keep my sig as long as I can still run amok online in GTAIV/MGO for free!

You hit the nail on the head Tee.

This is their first forray into charging. This shows they need to do it or just want to. If this flops then they will try and find another way to charge people, probably for services that they actually need this time.

[Dukefrukem]

what is so wrong with charging people for betas? if i knew the beta of HOME was on here i'd sign up in a second.

[Heretic Machine]

I'm waiting for the "everything should be free" troop to come in and start up.

Popcorn at the ready.

I'm not sure when it became okay to be asked to pay for commercials. But whatev, not my problem. Also: As a rule, paying for betas (or letting people pay for betas) is a bad idea.

[Telefrog]

I'm not sure when it became okay to be asked to pay for commercials. But whatev, not my problem. Also: As a rule, paying for betas (or letting people pay for betas) is a bad idea.

I'm with the folks that say if you can find an audience dumb enough to pay for your beta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT5_Prologue), then go for it. Why not?

[Dukefrukem]

I'm with the folks that say if you can find an audience dumb enough to pay for your beta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT5_Prologue), then go for it. Why not?

Because you don't want to fork up the cash to play a beta (or in your example a prologue) means the people who do are stupid? :rolleyes:

[Heretic Machine]

I'm with the folks that say if you can find an audience dumb enough to pay for your beta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT5_Prologue), then go for it. Why not?

Basically, if you give people a peak at an incomplete game, and present it as a close-to-retail product (which is what these people will expect if they're paying for it), they're going to be going onto the internet and spreading plenty of FUD about your product when they find bugs and placeholders. That kind of thing can really screw shit up, especially with multiplayer-oriented games.

[Ph00p]

what is so wrong with charging people for betas? if i knew the beta of HOME was on here i'd sign up in a second.

Dumb post, BETAS are supposed to be used to trouble shoot projects and make sure everything is working correctly, PLAYING a BETA is a service to the one your playing a BETA for, you then are a BETA TESTER. You do get to play the game but your playing a buggy version and in your little scenario you've just paid for it.

[violentp]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. What exactly will they be charging for? Yeah it says interviews and demos and all that shit but they'd have to be a cut above the standard if they plan on charging me for them. Question is, how do you make them better?

[Dukefrukem]

Dumb post, BETAS are supposed to be used to trouble shoot projects and make sure everything is working correctly, PLAYING a BETA is a service to the one your playing a BETA for, you then are a BETA TESTER. You do get to play the game but your playing a buggy version and in your little scenario you've just paid for it.

A lot of the time playing a beta is FUN in case you haven't played a beta. I enjoy playing them, finding bugs and helping out developers. I've done it on dozens of games. I don't care about paying for it. What now?

[Norse]

Question is, how do you make them better?

Naked girls. Lots of them.

[Sammael]

I'm still a little miffed about how nearly everyone charges for gamerpics on Live. It's a free ad for the publisher, but they choose to charge you. If you buy the game, I want the artwork to go with it. If I use a Dead Rising gamer pic, someone on my friends list may say "hey, is that game any good?" Or it may remind them of the product in general...

Alot of the stuff out there (themes and gamerpics) are the same crap everyone used to throw away at E3. At least the PS3 seems to have quite a few themes for free at this point. Not to say Live doesn't, they just mostly seem to be movie and TV related.

Now they want to start charging for game previews? I don't know how to feel about this... I guess the truly hardcore will jump on board.

[roboninja]

A lot of the time playing a beta is FUN in case you haven't played a beta. I enjoy playing them, finding bugs and helping out developers. I've done it on dozens of games. I don't care about paying for it. What now?

You may enjoy it, and if you are okay with paying for it, more power to you. However, arguing that people should expect to pay for helping out a company is ludicrous.

EDIT:BTW, not bashing Qore here, as we have yet to see exactly what it will contain, and if it will be worth the money.

[violentp]

Naked girls. Lots of them.

So simple yet so perfect. I'm in.

[Dukefrukem]

You may enjoy it, and if you are okay with paying for it, more power to you. However, arguing that people should expect to pay for helping out a company is ludicrous.

Good point. I guess i'm just in the boat of I don't care. This doesn't matter to me. So that's the end of that.

[Telefrog]

If Sony can get people to pony up some money for this, then good for them. Seriously, why the heck are people getting in a tizzy over a product that doesn't impact them? If you don't want it, don't get it. Simple.

If/when Sony drops the other shoe and actually starts charging outright for PSN, then PS3 fans can start getting outraged.

[WaltJay]

So it's an online magazine with the occasional shot at a beta for SCEA games? They better give away issue #1 for free, else I don't see many people buying into this concept.

Instead of having multiple online strategies, they should just focus on one complete service. It's getting a bit messy with PSN (which gets you the PS store and MP), Qore (for gaming news and maybe a beta), and Home (whatever that ends up being). It's starting to sound like Sony is replicating XBL Gold, but across several service apps.

In the end, I bet most PS3 owners would rather have one complete service that has everything mentioned above, rather than it being fragmented across multiple services. And they might actually pay for it!

[Heretic Machine]

I'm still a little miffed about how nearly everyone charges for gamerpics on Live. It's a free ad for the publisher, but they choose to charge you. If you buy the game, I want the artwork to go with it. If I use a Dead Rising gamer pic, someone on my friends list may say "hey, is that game any good?" Or it may remind them of the product in general...

See, that's how I thought it was going to work, once upon a time. Seemed like a great idea, an extension of the advertising element of seeing what your friends are playing (example: "Oh shit, everyone on my friend's list is playing Halo 3, I better go buy it too!")

If Sony can get people to pony up some money for this, then good for them. Seriously, why the heck are people getting in a tizzy over a product that doesn't impact them? If you don't want it, don't get it. Simple.

If/when Sony drops the other shoe and actually starts charging outright for PSN, then PS3 fans can start getting outraged.

I'm not getting into a tizzy, I'm stating my opinion. If they make a profit off of it, good for them, but I'm glad I don't have a PS3 if this is the direction it's headed.

[bapenguin]

It's an interesting concept, I know I'll pony up the $3 just to check it out.

[Sammael]

Seriously, why the heck are people getting in a tizzy over a product that doesn't impact them? If you don't want it, don't get it. Simple.




The problem this poses is if
1) this starts taking off and it begins to affect the content made available for free.
2) this was the plan all along, and now that they have you interested, they'll start picking your pocket.

One of my favorite things from this generation is it's the first time you can leave a store with just the console, arrive home, log in to the respective network and you can download free content to check out rather than immediately be forced into making a $60 gaming decision.

That might not be around forever it seems. To me that should be the norm now.

It will affect us. Demos are supposed to be Demonstrations of a product. It's sole purpose is to entice the user into purchasing the full product. It is a sales tool. Paying for them is like paying for junk mail. I feel bad for anyone that bought the xbox mag for the Turok demo...

[UnderHero5]

This idea is... interesting.
My first reaction is "well... don't they already release all this content now in their weekly updates, but free?". We already get trailers/"previews" for games and movies in every weekly update.
That's about ALL we get, in fact.

Are they going to stop with the normal trailer releases and save them for Qore? Will this be an hour long video podcast (hosted by Veronica Belmont, for those who didn't click the story)?
I don't like the idea of paying for demos/betas. Demos are advertisements. Betas are free work for the developers. Trailers are advertisements. So they are expecting people to pay a monthly subscription... for advertisements?

Makes no sense to me. Which is why I am taking a wait and see approach. I'll pay for their first episode just to see what this is about, exactly. If the content is indeed exclusive, and there are good interviews with people I actually care to see... then maybe an episode every now and then could be worth it.

Guess we'll find out this Thursday.

Oh, and for people yelling that this is the end of free online play? Give me a break. Really.

[Yeti2005]

I think I'll have to pass on this one. If someone does purchase this thing please give us some feedback.

[Phades]

I'd pay $3 to get into a beta I was interested in. Yes, you're playing an incomplete product and doing the company a service. The difference is, by charging they're weeding out many people who will download anything, and letting in all those who truly want to play. There's several betas that I'd pay $5 to get into. I think it'd be smart of developers to start doing that. It'd help offset development costs, and hopefully lead to a better product. It'd also prevent people from getting into betas from just sitting on their keys (I know I've been guilty of this).

[Telefrog]

The problem this poses is if
1) this starts taking off and it begins to affect the content made available for free.
2) this was the plan all along, and now that they have you interested, they'll start picking your pocket.

No, this only a problem for you - the uninterested person. To the people willing to pay, it's not a problem at all.

I'd love it if all gamerpics on Live were free (some are, but the majority aren't) but to the the people that press the A button and purchase them, it's not an issue. It's definitely not an issue for the companies raking in the 20-120 points per picture pack. What it means to me is that I make the financial choice not to buy them.

[Khash]

You just wait till they release the final fantasy XIII demo to Qore subscribers.

[Dukefrukem]

You just wait till they release the final fantasy XIII demo to Qore subscribers.

:D Then everyone will sign uP!

[asimonk]

:D Then everyone will sign uP!

Didn't people get all pissy when Live Gold got a week advance on demos before they were free?

[UnderHero5]

Didn't people get all pissy when Live Gold got a week advance on demos before they were free?

Heh, it's not like they release demos as it is, on PSN.
We get one per month, if we're lucky.

[violentp]

I have felt Live should have been like this all along. Pay for the extra content and get the multiplayer free. That doesn't mean I'm not annoyed that Sony is going this route.

Why would you be annoyed?

[Talanvor]

Is it me or is Qore an annoying name?

[Yeti2005]

Is it me or is Qore an annoying name?

Yes, it's a pretty crappy name. It's probably from the marketing department who came up with Pain (and the idea to charge for characters).

[TeeCakes]

You just wait till they release the final fantasy XIII demo to Qore subscribers.

I'd happily pay 2.99 for some of that action. Not 24.99 a month--

[TeeCakes]

*24.99 a year--

[oldjadedgamer]

Why? Online Multiplayer gameplay is still completely free.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a beta pretty much online multiplayer only? You are paying to play on PSN. It is no longer free. Blanket statements need to stop.

Wow, this reverses a lot of fanboy arguments... but then again Sony does something like this every six months anyway so we were due for an announcement like this.

[51|RandoM]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a beta pretty much online multiplayer only? You are paying to play on PSN. It is no longer free. Blanket statements need to stop.


PSN multiplayer is free.

If you can't see the difference between a subscription e-zine with potential beta/demo access and having the online multiplayer in EVERY 360 game stop working without a Gold subscription you have a problem. then again we knew that, didn't we?

[oldjadedgamer]

PSN multiplayer is free.

If you can't see the difference between a subscription e-zine with potential beta/demo access and having the online multiplayer in EVERY 360 game stop working without a Gold subscription you have a problem. then again we knew that, didn't we?

So.............. there is no online multiplayer in a PSN beta? Because they charge for that but you are saying it's totally free. And didn't I hear complaints about Microsoft charging for demos before when they did the 2 week demo thing for Gold users only? Also, there is a ton of advertising even though you are paying for the service.

Time to dig up some old threads.

[grognard66]

Doesn't charging for a demo no longer make it a demo?

Charging $25 per year just to watch trailers and download demos is hardly a decent value proposition when you compare it to what you can get with Live for $50. Inside X-box, free demo's for all Arcade titles, more demos of full retail games, free Betas, movie/game videos, in game friends list access, voice chat on every game (and cross-game too), integration with website and other unified online community features/community make this offering by Sony laughable in comparison. As of the end of April there were 14K pieces of content on Live compared to 600 on PSN (even when you factor in the year head start Live had a lot more content at it's comparable stage).

I'm pretty confident this will bomb and Sony will pull the plug on it by the end of the year. The question is what they will do afterwards as they are now at the point where the gaming division is required to start making money and they're realizing offering Live type features costs a lot of money.

[jeffbax]

Sounds like it...sort of a pay-per-view type deal. Hope this doesn't mean that PSN is morphing into a nickle and dime experience. Just copy Xbox Live and be done with it...

Sorry, but XBL is the nickel and dime service, not PSN. PSN will be free to play for the forseeable future... XBL requires a fee just for that. I can skip the extras, free gameplay > Live.

[oldjadedgamer]

Sorry, but XBL is the nickel and dime service, not PSN. PSN will be free to play for the forseeable future... XBL requires a fee just for that. I can skip the extras, free gameplay > Live.

So playing online in multiplayer beta's is free on PSN?

[violentp]

So playing online in multiplayer beta's is free on PSN?

I played online in the Warhawk and MGO betas without any extra charge. Not sure if that's what you're asking though.

Sidenote: I figure this to be a problem for some in conjunction with the lack of PSN cards here in NA.

[oldjadedgamer]

I played online in the Warhawk and MGO betas without any extra charge. Not sure if that's what you're asking though.

I'm asking about the thread topic... you know, Qore. Last time I checked MGO and Warhawk weren't available after Qore was in place, now Socom... that's a different story.

[violentp]

I'm asking about the thread topic... you know, Qore. Last time I checked MGO and Warhawk weren't available after Qore was in place, now Socom... that's a different story.

I figured you meant more than you asked. Well considering that nothing has been done only promised, isn't using it as an argumentative point kind of moot? I mean, what if the subscribers get dibs on the beta and non subscribers get in later, is it still the same problem? A problem at all?

[Micasa]

Where are the people who were so vehemently against Xbox Live Gold members getting demos early?

It's not like the PSN is exactly overflowing with content, and at least with your Gold membership you're getting other things - not just the ability to get some content when it goes up.

Still, not at all surprised to see the new rallying cry is already "at least multiplayer is still free!"

[violentp]

Where are the people who were so vehemently against Xbox Live Gold members getting demos early?

It's not like the PSN is exactly overflowing with content, and at least with your Gold membership you're getting other things - not just the ability to get some content when it goes up.

Still, not at all surprised to see the new rallying cry is already "at least multiplayer is still free!"

I prefer these kinds of posts where the individual has the whole argument by himself.

[Vanthar]

Where are the people who were so vehemently against Xbox Live Gold members getting demos early?

It's not like the PSN is exactly overflowing with content, and at least with your Gold membership you're getting other things - not just the ability to get some content when it goes up.

Still, not at all surprised to see the new rallying cry is already "at least multiplayer is still free!"

Because this is no different than a magazine getting a demo exclusively or early? I don't bitch about that either. This seems to be an online magazine and nothing more.

And oldjaded, regardless of how many attempts you make to discredit Sony's free online multiplayer.. it is still free. I have never paid for it.

[Micasa]

But Sony's the one that's been hammering on 'free, free, free' for their online space. This is a bulletpoint removed - and it wasn't Microsoft or Nintendo that did anything to remove it.

[violentp]

But Sony's the one that's been hammering on 'free, free, free' for their online space. This is a bulletpoint removed - and it wasn't Microsoft or Nintendo that did anything to remove it.

So who are you upset at? Those that always held the free service over the 360 users or Sony who said there was always a possibility of having to charge for their service?

[Micasa]

So who are you upset at? Those that always held the free service over the 360 users or Sony who said there was always a possibility of having to charge for their service?

I'm not 'upset' about anything lol. More than anything I was laughing at the diehards who don't know what to say, but are trying to move the goalposts to "well we just need free online play" anyway.

I mean it got the PS3 Fanboy podcast guy to come post - and that usually takes things like the recent Haze defense to do. :D

[oldjadedgamer]

I figured you meant more than you asked. Well considering that nothing has been done only promised, isn't using it as an argumentative point kind of moot? I mean, what if the subscribers get dibs on the beta and non subscribers get in later, is it still the same problem? A problem at all?

Remember all those people bitching about paying for the Halo 3 maps even though they were going to be free later? Fact is, that the blanket statement that PSN is free can no longer be used. Since, you will have to pay to play online if you want to play in the beta's and as evidence from MGO and Warhawk... that is a lot of people who will want to play. Now all those people in order to play online with PSN will only be able to do so by opening their wallets and bringing out their credit cards.

And oldjaded, regardless of how many attempts you make to discredit Sony's free online multiplayer.. it is still free. I have never paid for it.

So if one person doesn't pay for Xbox live... then it's free? Gotcha.

[violentp]

Remember all those people bitching about paying for the Halo 3 maps even though they were going to be free later? Fact is, that the blanket statement that PSN is free can no longer be used. Since, you will have to pay to play online if you want to play in the beta's and as evidence from MGO and Warhawk... that is a lot of people who will want to play. Now all those people in order to play online with PSN will only be able to do so by opening their wallets and bringing out their credit cards.


If you can point me to where it says that paying is the only way to get into all beta's then I'll be hard up to disagree with your statement.

EDIT: In regards to the "calling PSN free" issue, it all depends on what you consider PSN. If it's playing games online then yes, it's still free. In terms to what's being announced with Qore, that's up in the air at the moment. Thing is that we can't go comparing it to other services because it quickly becomes a pissing contest. Independently of anything else the PSN cards lie as follows:

Playing games online is still free
Demos, videos and themes are still free
Sony will be charging for access to certain content. What exactly that is, no one knows just yet.

That's it. We all know the same information. How this will all play out we don't know yet. We should all hold on to our crotches till something tangible comes of it and then we can start pissing again.

[Micasa]

Remember all those people bitching about paying for the Halo 3 maps even though they were going to be free later? Fact is, that the blanket statement that PSN is free can no longer be used. Since, you will have to pay to play online if you want to play in the beta's and as evidence from MGO and Warhawk... that is a lot of people who will want to play. Now all those people in order to play online with PSN will only be able to do so by opening their wallets and bringing out their credit cards.

No, you see this isn't PSN - this is just a magazine that they're selling on PSN! Sure, it contains all the stuff they used to give out for free, but that doesn't mean it costs you anything to experience it...it's just that you have to pay if you want to.

[Vanthar]

If you can point me to where it says that paying is the only way to get into all beta's then I'll be hard up to disagree with your statement.

He's just delusional. I don't know what benefit he gets in trying to act like it's not free to play online on the PSN. Attack the PC and Wii multiplayer spaces, they're free too!

[Vanthar]

No, you see this isn't PSN - this is just a magazine that they're selling on PSN! Sure, it contains all the stuff they used to give out for free, but that doesn't mean it costs you anything to experience it...it's just that you have to pay if you want to.

So all content on the PSN just stops now except for this magazine? The ASSumptions in this thread are hilarious.

[violentp]

He's just delusional. I don't know what benefit he gets in trying to act like it's not free to play online on the PSN. Attack the PC and Wii multiplayer spaces, they're free too!

You're not really helping either dude. It's the comparisons that are blinding us from the independent directions the companies are going.

[oldjadedgamer]

If you can point me to where it says that paying is the only way to get into all beta's then I'll be hard up to disagree with your statement.

It was just announced so they haven't given exact details yet but as of right now, they did confirm that the only way to play online multiplayer in the Socom beta was through Qore.

Want to put some money down, some real money and make a friendly wager that there will be at some point a beta that you can only play online if you have Qore? $50 bucks?

[violentp]

Want to put some money down, some real money and make a friendly wager that there will be at some point a beta that you can only play online if you have Qore? $50 bucks?

I would but I agree that it'll be the case at least once. I'm not a chicken, I only bet when I think I'm sure. I do think they'll eventually have an exclusive deal for Qore users. Shit, I just spun that huh? Call it an exclusive deal rather than a shaft to the free model. It does go back to what I mentioned earlier though, the argument lies in what a person would consider PSN in regards to the "free".

My only real opinion on the matter is that if they plan on charging for what they're offering, they better damned well deliver. Simply because paying $25 for nothing sucks no matter how you slice it.

[Telefrog]

It was just announced so they haven't given exact details yet but as of right now, they did confirm that the only way to play online multiplayer in the Socom beta was through Qore.

Want to put some money down, some real money and make a friendly wager that there will be at some point a beta that you can only play online if you have Qore? $50 bucks?

Wouldn't you win that bet with the Socom beta? :D

[oldjadedgamer]

Wouldn't you win that bet with the Socom beta? :D

Maybe... they are saying how they are "trying" to get beta keys outside of Qore so who knows if they will do it or not. I only bet on a sure thing so I wouldn't hedge my bets on the first one considering they may just be trying to lessen the blow when the full on betas come out later and you are forced to play online.

That's why I wrote "as of right now"

[asimonk]

So is it pronounced "Core"?

[violentp]

So is it pronounced "Core"?

I'm assuming so.

Maybe... they are saying how they are "trying" to get beta keys outside of Qore so who knows if they will do it or not. I only bet on a sure thing so I wouldn't hedge my bets on the first one considering they may just be trying to lessen the blow when the full on betas come out later and you are forced to play online.

That's why I wrote "as of right now"

Question: Do you equate paying to get into an online demo to paying to play online?

[Chainblast]

I'm all for pay for premium content, including betas and the ability to download demos early, as long as two things are not grouped with it.

1. Any feature(s) of a game that is bought (in this case multi-player and Home) is not restricted or in anyway handicapped, as with LIVE. Any feature included in the box should be required additional fees, MMO's being the exception.

2. Demos for games are made available to non-Qore subscribers before or on the date of the title's retail release.

And of course as long as the content people are paying for is just.

[Variable Gear]

I really don't get what mandated this programming, and the associated cost, but I seriously doubt I will be contributing to Sony's coffers.

[mikeohara]

I don't mind the expansion by Sony to try to do something a bit different. Of course, there's already people on here as well as other places around the internet literally screaming about how the "free ride" that Sony's given PS3 owners like myself is over. As far as these people go, the sky might as well be falling. I'll give it a fair shot at least.

[Sl1pstream]

If/when Sony drops the other shoe and actually starts charging outright for PSN, then PS3 fans can start getting outraged.

Because, according to the SDF and Sony's PR, they're the ones that offer a free online service. Now they start charging for what is basically a fancy version of gametrailers.

[violentp]

Because, according to the SDF and Sony's PR, they're the ones that offer a free online service. Now they start charging for what is basically a fancy version of gametrailers.

By your comparison, charging for games should also negate the free online play.

[rein]

Still, not at all surprised to see the new rallying cry is already "at least multiplayer is still free!"

As it should be. For crying out loud. I can't believe people (myself included at times) still think Xbox Live is such a great deal. We are paying $50 a year to have a complete experience for a game we already paid for.

On the PS3, if I buy Call of Duty 4, I get the full experience of the game without having to pay extra. On the 360, I have to have Live to get the multiplayer portion of the game. In the case of COD4, I played it online much more than I played the single player. So, for the 360 version (the one I owned), I had to pay extra for over half my play time of a game I paid full price for.

I'm not saying what Sony is doing here is a good thing, but I will take paying for extra content over paying for an integral part of the games design every time.

I still think back and wonder how Microsoft was able to convince the publishers, and more importantly us consumers, that it was a good thing to pay extra just to be able to play our multiplayer games online. We're idiots.

[Chainblast]

Since, you will have to pay to play online if you want to play in the beta's and as evidence from MGO and Warhawk... that is a lot of people who will want to play. Now all those people in order to play online with PSN will only be able to do so by opening their wallets and bringing out their credit cards.

So if one person doesn't pay for Xbox live... then it's free? Gotcha.

Most betas are invites either randomly chosen from a preexisting list or from a pool of submitted applications. If paying $25/year ensures you get into any beta program you want, you'd spit on that idea instead? Betas general aren't designed to give players a free ride, rather they primarily exist in assisting the developer on a project with a large online component, one whose budget generally cannot afford to hire the testers needed to perform the necessary tasks. Aside potentially generating some extra revenue from this service, it might also help weed out the applications of those not interested in actually helping.

I'm a bit confused by your Warhawk comment though. You seemingly include it as evidence of having to pay to play a beta. The Warhawk beta was randomly chosen from a selection of active PSN accounts, much like Home was. Unless like MGO, there was a pre-order promotion, which in that case read my comment about MGO. With regards to the Metal Gear Online "beta", it wasn't really a beta, more of a server test and/or an early look for those who had pre-orderd Metal Gear Solid 4, which MGO is bundled with. There is nothing wrong with giving the people who have pre-ordered the product and early look and denying those who didn't.

And when I'm required to pay to play any game I've purchased on PSN I'll concede. Until then PSN is free for its main purpose, online gaming. If you don't see or cannot accept that, oh well.

[AgtFox]

I still think back and wonder how Microsoft was able to convince the publishers, and more importantly us consumers, that it was a good thing to pay extra just to be able to play our multiplayer games online. We're idiots.
Actually your wonderment is easily explained. You have to remember what the core of the two online systems are. We'll start with Sony.

PSN is like an ISP. You use it to connect to the service, but the publishers of the games pay to run the servers that run the online multiplayer on the game (or as another internet analogy, they are websites that you connect to while Sony is still the communications connection).

Xbox Live is like a centralized computer system. Microsoft runs the servers that ALL (except in extremely RARE occasions and many EA games, especially sports ones) the online multiplayer is run on.

You brought up CoD4. On the Sony side of things I believe Activision is running the servers for the online play (or they have a 3rd party running them). This explains why there were problems early on with CoD4 on the PS3 with online matches. On the Microsoft side everything is run off of the centralized Microsoft system, the companies just put the Live code into their games and Microsoft handles the hardware and network side of things.

I think this distinction between the two gets lost in the shuffle a lot. To be honest I am rather surprised that publishers haven't broached the subject of charging PS3 users to pay for their server costs. I still believe the possibility is out there, but no one wants to set the precedence as a 3rd party company. Once profits start to take a hit though...watch out!

The centralized system is part of what you really pay for with Live. PSN is just a connection hub, once you actually go into a game you're going outside of that hub. You are still connected to the hub for messaging purposes (such as the upcoming XMB in-game update), but the hardware for your online play is being run by the publisher or outsourced to a 3rd party.

[rein]

Actually your wonderment is easily explained. You have to remember what the core of the two online systems are. We'll start with Sony.

PSN is like an ISP. You use it to connect to the service, but the publishers of the games pay to run the servers that run the online multiplayer on the game (or as another internet analogy, they are websites that you connect to while Sony is still the communications connection).

Xbox Live is like a centralized computer system. Microsoft runs the servers that ALL (except in extremely RARE occasions and many EA games, especially sports ones) the online multiplayer is run on.

You brought up CoD4. On the Sony side of things I believe Activision is running the servers for the online play (or they have a 3rd party running them). This explains why there were problems early on with CoD4 on the PS3 with online matches. On the Microsoft side everything is run off of the centralized Microsoft system, the companies just put the Live code into their games and Microsoft handles the hardware and network side of things.

I think this distinction between the two gets lost in the shuffle a lot. To be honest I am rather surprised that publishers haven't broached the subject of charging PS3 users to pay for their server costs. I still believe the possibility is out there, but no one wants to set the precedence as a 3rd party company. Once profits start to take a hit though...watch out!

The centralized system is part of what you really pay for with Live. PSN is just a connection hub, once you actually go into a game you're going outside of that hub. You are still connected to the hub for messaging purposes (such as the upcoming XMB in-game update), but the hardware for your online play is being run by the publisher or outsourced to a 3rd party.

I get all of that and I do get why publishers may have been a little more willing to follow this model but at the end of the day I (the consumer) am still paying extra for the complete experience of a game I've already paid for.

If the "extras" Microsoft provides are such a pivotal part of the Live experience, why not charge for them instead? I know the answer to that, because most people will not pay for that part of Live. Most are paying for Live just for the privilege to play their multiplayer games.

I'm not saying I hate Live. It's a great service but that doesn't mean it is not what it is. It's a way to make consumers pay. I'm not sure the answer to this question, but is Live profitable?

Oh, and I wouldn't use Call of Duty 4 as an example of Microsoft's centralized servers working better than the PS3 servers. There were many times I was trying to get on with friends and the servers were borked, games disconnected, lag and all of the other fun stuff.

Any way, not trying to be argumentative. I guess what it comes down to is I would prefer online play to be free and the extra content to be what I pay for. It would make it feel much more like a choice.

[Gorvi]

http://www.trekp.com/posters/gw267-overreaction.jpg

[bapenguin]

I really don't get what mandated this programming, and the associated cost, but I seriously doubt I will be contributing to Sony's coffers.

Honestly? Because XBox Live has something similar and they are attempting to build up content. Regardless of the cost I think it's a good thing, it's a much needed feature IMO to a faceless PSN.

[Gorvi]

Honestly? Because XBox Live has something similar and they are attempting to build up content. Regardless of the cost I think it's a good thing, it's a much needed feature IMO to a faceless PSN.
Sony had the PSN message board thing a few months before MS put up their little news thing, which is just a slightly expanded version of the message board.

[Deadend]

Honestly? Because XBox Live has something similar and they are attempting to build up content. Regardless of the cost I think it's a good thing, it's a much needed feature IMO to a faceless PSN.

PSN needed a Qore component?

Thank you, thank you, I will be here all night folks
(because I have no life)

[bapenguin]

I get all of that and I do get why publishers may have been a little more willing to follow this model but at the end of the day I (the consumer) am still paying extra for the complete experience of a game I've already paid for.

If the "extras" Microsoft provides are such a pivotal part of the Live experience, why not charge for them instead? I know the answer to that, because most people will not pay for that part of Live. Most are paying for Live just for the privilege to play their multiplayer games.

I'm not saying I hate Live. It's a great service but that doesn't mean it is not what it is. It's a way to make consumers pay. I'm not sure the answer to this question, but is Live profitable?

Oh, and I wouldn't use Call of Duty 4 as an example of Microsoft's centralized servers working better than the PS3 servers. There were many times I was trying to get on with friends and the servers were borked, games disconnected, lag and all of the other fun stuff.

Any way, not trying to be argumentative. I guess what it comes down to is I would prefer online play to be free and the extra content to be what I pay for. It would make it feel much more like a choice.

There's a lot of other stuff Microsoft is doing behind the scenes that we never see. As bad as Live is with rampant vulgarities and racist comments - I couldn't even imagine how much worse it would be without the team of "under cover" moderators and the team of folks who parse through the endless amounts of customer filed dashboard complaints.

To my knowledge that is something you don't get on any of the other free services, and is something similar to MMOs.

[bapenguin]

Sony had the PSN message board thing a few months before MS put up their little news thing, which is just a slightly expanded version of the message board.

Actually they went up around the same time. The 360 thing went live in the Fall update of 07 (end of November) and the PSN Ticker thing went live in the 2.0 Firmware which was Mid November 07.

Inside Xbox's content is quite a bit different than that ticker though. They post videos up constantly covering events and stuff, videos on game tips, gamer profiles, Community Confidential (Featuring Co-Op night [PLUG]) and Major's Minute thinger.

[KNOTE]

Oh my what.

[Gorvi]

Actually they went up around the same time. The 360 thing went live in the Fall update of 07 (end of November) and the PSN Ticker thing went live in the 2.0 Firmware which was Mid November 07.

Inside Xbox's content is quite a bit different than that ticker though. They post videos up constantly covering events and stuff, videos on game tips, gamer profiles, Community Confidential (Featuring Co-Op night [PLUG]) and Major's Minute thinger.
They have videos on that now? Last time I looked it was just some rather uninteresting text with a picture or two thrown in.

Both seem kinda redundant, though, but at least it's free on the 360.

[rein]

There's a lot of other stuff Microsoft is doing behind the scenes that we never see. As bad as Live is with rampant vulgarities and racist comments - I couldn't even imagine how much worse it would be without the team of "under cover" moderators and the team of folks who parse through the endless amounts of customer filed dashboard complaints.

To my knowledge that is something you don't get on any of the other free services, and is something similar to MMOs.

You don't have to worry about things like that on PSN because not everyone has a microphone. It filters itself. So there! :p

[ALLoGISTIC]

sony barely gives us any new weekly content to begin with, this is awful news. now I have to pay a premium to have access to these items(or wait a month or two for them to drop into the free area)this sounds suspiciously like live xboxlive silver & gold accounts...only minus the quality online play. nice sony. fits right in with your other promises: "the ps3 will be 100% hardware backwards compatible with ps2 software(oops), rumble is last gen the future is sixaxis(oops), our online services are free to every ps3 user(oops), if someone can walk into a store and find a PS3 sitting on a shelf we will pay for it(still waiting for my check). have they learned nothing from their mistakes since launch?? its time to start delivering on the promises, yet astoundingly they continue to break them. never mind the c-teasing of Home, Im guessing I should be expecting to pay to use it when it finally arrives.

[beefyjr]

Nobody ever said that all demos that come out on the service are going to be locked behind Qore. People need to slow down and take a deep breath before flying off the handle about this. They said that they'll have some exclusive content like beta opportunities, demos and themes. Outside of SOCOM (apparently), they never said anything about having to pay to have access to this stuff. Maybe Qore subscribers will have a weeks' head start on a demo (which is admittedly bogus), but the real draw, and what you're paying for, is the video content. If they have exclusive interviews and behind the scenes stuff that I think is worthwhile, I have no problem subscribing to it. Being able to watch that shit in HD on my TV is something I'm interested in. It's no different than paying for cable. If I get access to some betas in the process, great, but that's just the icing on the cake.

People really need to get a fucking grip on this. PSN is still free. Demos will still be free (though occasionally it will be like they are on Live). People will still have a crack at participating in betas. Trailers will still be free. I just re-read their announcement, and nobody said otherwise.

[Variable Gear]

Honestly? Because XBox Live has something similar and they are attempting to build up content. Regardless of the cost I think it's a good thing, it's a much needed feature IMO to a faceless PSN.
Faceless PSN? PSN to me is perfectly exemplified by a series of download-only titles, and it's good to hear that Sony is expanding from that starting point, but, for me, Qore is pretty much the most unnecessary addition to the console since launch. This will interest certain segments of their audience, though. Hopefully they have fun with it. :D

[Spigot]

They have videos on that now? Last time I looked it was just some rather uninteresting text with a picture or two thrown in.

Both seem kinda redundant, though, but at least it's free on the 360.The Inside Xbox thing popped up on my dashboard up here sometime after Christmas (I think the Canuck version took longer to go live than the US version).

Suffice it to say, I really like it. The tips on achievements is nifty and they have spotlights on family friendly games, inside the studio videos, Major's Minute, etc.

I like it but there's no way in hell I'd pay extra for it, esp. when I could just go online and dig up 90% of the information that they'd be charging me for on the PSN version.

[grognard66]

They have videos on that now? Last time I looked it was just some rather uninteresting text with a picture or two thrown in.

Both seem kinda redundant, though, but at least it's free on the 360.

Actually, it's always had video. When you scroll through you see the text description and just hit the A button to launch the video or launch the demo/etc.

[bapenguin]

They have videos on that now? Last time I looked it was just some rather uninteresting text with a picture or two thrown in.

Both seem kinda redundant, though, but at least it's free on the 360.

I think basically the first 2 weeks there wasn't much. But since then there is a regular schedule of videos as well as events. Even random shit - like this week there was interviews from the World Cybergames.

[DarkDaY]

I thought Ps3 was supposed to be free, completely free. O well if its worth it I dont mind a mere 24 dollars a year of 50.

[DarkDaY]

It is an online magazine.

People sounding the death knell of free multiplayer on PSN need to pull their head out of their ass. as if it were possible for Gott to find his ass without 2 hands and a map, much less pull his head out of it.

Ah, didnt read into it deep enough, still the pull the head our of your ass bit is ironic coming from you:)

[oldjadedgamer]

Here is what Sony told Wired.com:

Demoing the service to Wired.com Monday afternoon, PlayStation Network senior director Susan Panico implied that while the PlayStation Store would still get game demos, the big ones would go on Qore: "Qore is like the network broadcast" of a TV show, she said, and PlayStation Store is like "syndication."

and this as well:

Panico says that 80 to 90 percent of the content in each issue of Qore will be exclusive.

[Spigot]

So we WILL have to pay for demos on the PSN, at least for the big games. Lame.

And I wonder if the exclusive content broadcast on Qore will be the kind that we'd be willing to pay money for. You could probably say the same thing about the stuff on Inside Xbox. It's exclusive and it's nice to have but I couldn't see anyone rushing out to pay for the things like Major's Minute or the Inside Tricks tip thingy.

[SpectralWolf]

Guys, This is an online digital magazine. People pay for their print magazine subscriptions, this is no big deal. If you wanna check it out, buy it, else be more open-minded and take the wait and see approach. But don't start givin' it demerits right off the bat.

[jeffbax]

But Sony's the one that's been hammering on 'free, free, free' for their online space. This is a bulletpoint removed - and it wasn't Microsoft or Nintendo that did anything to remove it.

No, its still free to play your games online and access the majority of servers. Likewise, it would be retarded for companies to charge for their demos via this rather than release them for free as they already do because most people will not pay.

I don't intend on paying for this, or having it impact me in any way shape or form. PSN is still free, and there are premium extras, but PLAYING games is still 100% free.

Seriously, the idea you guys have that this automatically affects everything is - as usual for anything PS3 related here - an overzealous doomsday assumption with little to no evidence to support it.

[SpectralWolf]

As it should be. For crying out loud. I can't believe people (myself included at times) still think Xbox Live is such a great deal. We are paying $50 a year to have a complete experience for a game we already paid for.

On the PS3, if I buy Call of Duty 4, I get the full experience of the game without having to pay extra. On the 360, I have to have Live to get the multiplayer portion of the game. In the case of COD4, I played it online much more than I played the single player. So, for the 360 version (the one I owned), I had to pay extra for over half my play time of a game I paid full price for.

I'm not saying what Sony is doing here is a good thing, but I will take paying for extra content over paying for an integral part of the games design every time.

I still think back and wonder how Microsoft was able to convince the publishers, and more importantly us consumers, that it was a good thing to pay extra just to be able to play our multiplayer games online. We're idiots.

Correct. I argue the same points. I pay 60 bucks for a game, I shouldn't have to pay more, however small the amount, just to experience anywhere from 50-80% of the rest of the game with my friends. Shit like matchmaking and voice should be an added free incentive to play the game on a particular console.

[SpectralWolf]

I think this distinction between the two gets lost in the shuffle a lot. To be honest I am rather surprised that publishers haven't broached the subject of charging PS3 users to pay for their server costs. I still believe the possibility is out there, but no one wants to set the precedence as a 3rd party company. Once profits start to take a hit though...watch out!


I understand that servers cost money, but I just wish the cost of the game along with any in-game ad revenues would curtail that cost somewhat.

As a consumer and avid gamer, I have to see the costs just keep rising higher and higher each cycle :(

[31 Flavas]

A lot of the time playing a beta is FUN in case you haven't played a beta. I enjoy playing them, finding bugs and helping out developers. I've done it on dozens of games. I don't care about paying for it. What now?But comon, you want to PAY a developer to find their bugs? That's as stupid as paying your employer for the "privilege" of your job.

Where's that Dilbert cartoon.... Because I'm gonna go code myself a BMW.

[MORGiON]

So let me see if I have this correct.

Qore (and noone mentioned whore yet?), is a subscription only ezine which may have some or all betas exclusive to its subscribers only? and maybee some of the bigger name demos may be exclusive to subscribers initially??

If my assumptions are even remotly correct, then may I ask WTF are the usual Sony bashers carrying on about this time?

[jeffbax]

The centralized system is part of what you really pay for with Live. PSN is just a connection hub, once you actually go into a game you're going outside of that hub. You are still connected to the hub for messaging purposes (such as the upcoming XMB in-game update), but the hardware for your online play is being run by the publisher or outsourced to a 3rd party.

That would be true... if everything on Live wasn't given away for free with Silver accounts. The ONLY thing you pay for is the ability to get the other 50% of your game.

XBL Silver has friends lists, gamerscore, all the perks EXCEPT online play (and now late demos). You are paying to get the other $30 out of your $60 purchase.

Thats not how PSN works. You always get the right to play your game online, and universal friends lists and invites should be here this June.

This is merely extras, which you do not need to enjoy your gaming - unlike XBL.