By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Online play to be charged on ps4?

 

Will online play be charged on ps4?

Yes 108 47.79%
 
No 98 43.36%
 
I don't bother 20 8.85%
 
Total:226
x_DMX_x on 19 November 2011
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:
They won't charge for online gaming. Seems 360 fans haven't known this for a while, but PSN already has an answer for paid subscription of Gold and that is called as PS +.

Common sense tells you that they won't charge for online game play. And no, there is no "service offered" when you are playing online. You are using the devs servers and your own internet connection when playing online.

'Common sense'? Huh?

Common sense sauys they could and should, they're a business, and they're throwing money down the drain by not doing so. They don't offer PSN to you for free because they love you, they do it because this generation to be on par with XBL they needed too.

PSN+ doesn't generate near the same amount as XBL. Nowhere near.

I hope you know by the time PSVita and PS4 release.PSN is already going to offer the same or maybe even more of what LIVE offers lol.So they're will be no point of paying for LIVE.



Around the Network
Seece on 19 November 2011
mantlepiecek said:
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:


LOL.

Common sense says MS is the only one offering online as a subscription. Sony doesn't need to go charging for it, this is like asking if steam is going to charge for online from next-gen, answer is no.

Steam isn't making major losses. Sony need to majorly reform every aspect of their business including the gaming division, and if I were an investor I'd be asking why they're not charging for their online when Microsoft is.

They are a business, but that doesn't mean they will start charging for "offline play" from next gen. I mean, they could charge for offline play as well, because, you know, they are a business and all.

What a ridiculous example

Pay $60 or else you can't play your PS4! So much revenue generated, NOT.

PS+ doesn't make anywhere near the amount of revenue as XBL of course it doesn't. Its just completed its first year on the market. XBL gold didn't generate much in its first year either. Maybe even less than PS +.

In case you didn't know, Sony isn't doing something, weird or unique by offering free online play. They are doing what almost the entire game industry is doing, offering free online play.

The fact of the matter is Sony can charge for online and if they don't they're not acting like a business that isn't making money hand over fist.

The ridiculous example is just as ridiculous as charging for online gaming.

No it isn't, regardless of what you think, MS DO offer a service.

Sony already charges for something else on their PSN, called PS+.

You said that about two posts ago, I already responded to that.

Tell me this, how will Sony explain why they are charging for online gaming when they didn't for the last two gen?

Sony have had to explain far worse, if they can get up their and say $599 on stage, they can very easily charge for online when Microsoft has been doing it for years.

Online gaming is actually becoming cheaper as time goes.





 

Seece on 19 November 2011
x_DMX_x said:
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:
They won't charge for online gaming. Seems 360 fans haven't known this for a while, but PSN already has an answer for paid subscription of Gold and that is called as PS +.

Common sense tells you that they won't charge for online game play. And no, there is no "service offered" when you are playing online. You are using the devs servers and your own internet connection when playing online.

'Common sense'? Huh?

Common sense sauys they could and should, they're a business, and they're throwing money down the drain by not doing so. They don't offer PSN to you for free because they love you, they do it because this generation to be on par with XBL they needed too.

PSN+ doesn't generate near the same amount as XBL. Nowhere near.

I hope you know by the time PSVita and PS4 release.PSN is already going to offer the same or maybe even more of what LIVE offers lol.So they're will be no point of paying for LIVE.

You can tell the future then? PSN will improve, but so will XBL, online is in MS's DNA, it's incredibly unlikely PSN will ever surpass XBL in quality.




 

Fumanchu on 19 November 2011

Not sure about this. Sony must realise that a large chunk of their userbase this generation own multiple consoles, specifically 360s and are already paying for online play. I can see these users reluctant to consider purchasing the console in the first place if they have to pay for two subscriptions.



SecondWar on 19 November 2011
Wagram said:
SecondWar said:
Wagram said:
I don't know. Financially it would be a very smart move. They would probably lose some loyalty with fans though. Can't say I would pay for it either. I prefer the bonus deal with PS plus rather than kissing the companies ass for a service that should be free.


Why should it be free? Considering everything that is included in the service, I think £40 a year as a subscription is pretty fair. If they are providing you with a product or service, why do you think you should get access for nothing?


What exactly should I have to pay for? I paid for the $59.99 game which should give me access to the servers the developers/publishers set up for me to play the game on. I shouldn't be forced to use a console manufacturers online structure because they want to make a profit on something that should be free.

You didn't really answer my question, rather just repeated your belief that the PSN and Xbox Live should be free. If these services were simply online connection I would be more likely to agree with you, but in the same sense you could argue that your internet service provider should provide your connection free of charge.

These services go beyond just providing that connection though. I am unfamiliar with the PSN, but Xbox Live offers various streaming services, game content including DLC and full games, access to TV and radio amongst other things. Microsoft is coevering their costs of providing this service plus a mark-up to make a profit, which is seperate from the way Activision, EA etc service the online content of their own games (Microsoft have also not implemented the online pass in the same way EA has either).



Around the Network
x_DMX_x on 19 November 2011
Seece said:
x_DMX_x said:
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:
They won't charge for online gaming. Seems 360 fans haven't known this for a while, but PSN already has an answer for paid subscription of Gold and that is called as PS +.

Common sense tells you that they won't charge for online game play. And no, there is no "service offered" when you are playing online. You are using the devs servers and your own internet connection when playing online.

'Common sense'? Huh?

Common sense sauys they could and should, they're a business, and they're throwing money down the drain by not doing so. They don't offer PSN to you for free because they love you, they do it because this generation to be on par with XBL they needed too.

PSN+ doesn't generate near the same amount as XBL. Nowhere near.

I hope you know by the time PSVita and PS4 release.PSN is already going to offer the same or maybe even more of what LIVE offers lol.So they're will be no point of paying for LIVE.

You can tell the future then? PSN will improve, but so will XBL, online is in MS's DNA, it's incredibly unlikely PSN will ever surpass XBL in quality.

PSN already offers better games in the long run.I'd like to see Xbox get Chrono Trigger.

Oh wait...the PS Classics are pretty much 10x better than the original Xbox games.

Then again it's all your opinion so w/e.



mantlepiecek on 19 November 2011
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:

The ridiculous example is just as ridiculous as charging for online gaming.

No it isn't, regardless of what you think, MS DO offer a service.

Sony already charges for something else on their PSN, called PS+.

You said that about two posts ago, I already responded to that.

Tell me this, how will Sony explain why they are charging for online gaming when they didn't for the last two gen?

Sony have had to explain far worse, if they can get up their and say $599 on stage, they can very easily charge for online when Microsoft has been doing it for years.

Online gaming is actually becoming cheaper as time goes.



I don't consider $599 worse. And lets see, I don't think they want to keep making mistakes anyway.

PS Vita has free online as well. A next gen handheld. Sure you could say its a handheld, but....hey. They could have tried charging for it.

And you think MS offers a "service" for online gaming.......you realize the exact same service is available for free on Gfwl? Microsoft themselves are offering it to you for free on another platform.



Seece on 19 November 2011
mantlepiecek said:
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:

The ridiculous example is just as ridiculous as charging for online gaming.

No it isn't, regardless of what you think, MS DO offer a service.

Sony already charges for something else on their PSN, called PS+.

You said that about two posts ago, I already responded to that.

Tell me this, how will Sony explain why they are charging for online gaming when they didn't for the last two gen?

Sony have had to explain far worse, if they can get up their and say $599 on stage, they can very easily charge for online when Microsoft has been doing it for years.

Online gaming is actually becoming cheaper as time goes.



I don't consider $599 worse. And lets see, I don't think they want to keep making mistakes anyway.

$599, Online Hacking, No games, it's all bad press but Sony charging for online, they're lucky in that they would get very little flack thanks to MS. Explaining it would be very easy, especially if they charge a lower rate (which I'm almost sure they will.)

PS Vita has free online as well. A next gen handheld. Sure you could say its a handheld, but....hey. They could have tried charging for it.

It's a handheld.

And you think MS offers a "service" for online gaming.......

No, I know they do.

you realize the exact same service is available for free on Gfwl?
 

Microsoft themselves are offering it to you for free on another platform.

 

Yup, what's your point? Because it's free on one platform it's not a service?





 

Seece on 19 November 2011
x_DMX_x said:
Seece said:
x_DMX_x said:
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:
They won't charge for online gaming. Seems 360 fans haven't known this for a while, but PSN already has an answer for paid subscription of Gold and that is called as PS +.

Common sense tells you that they won't charge for online game play. And no, there is no "service offered" when you are playing online. You are using the devs servers and your own internet connection when playing online.

'Common sense'? Huh?

Common sense sauys they could and should, they're a business, and they're throwing money down the drain by not doing so. They don't offer PSN to you for free because they love you, they do it because this generation to be on par with XBL they needed too.

PSN+ doesn't generate near the same amount as XBL. Nowhere near.

I hope you know by the time PSVita and PS4 release.PSN is already going to offer the same or maybe even more of what LIVE offers lol.So they're will be no point of paying for LIVE.

You can tell the future then? PSN will improve, but so will XBL, online is in MS's DNA, it's incredibly unlikely PSN will ever surpass XBL in quality.

PSN already offers better games in the long run.I'd like to see Xbox get Chrono Trigger.

Oh wait...the PS Classics are pretty much 10x better than the original Xbox games.

Then again it's all your opinion so w/e.

I was talking about the service not the games, but then yeah, entirely your opinion on what games are better.



 

osamanobama on 19 November 2011
Seece said:
x_DMX_x said:
Seece said:
mantlepiecek said:
They won't charge for online gaming. Seems 360 fans haven't known this for a while, but PSN already has an answer for paid subscription of Gold and that is called as PS +.

Common sense tells you that they won't charge for online game play. And no, there is no "service offered" when you are playing online. You are using the devs servers and your own internet connection when playing online.

'Common sense'? Huh?

Common sense sauys they could and should, they're a business, and they're throwing money down the drain by not doing so. They don't offer PSN to you for free because they love you, they do it because this generation to be on par with XBL they needed too.

PSN+ doesn't generate near the same amount as XBL. Nowhere near.

I hope you know by the time PSVita and PS4 release.PSN is already going to offer the same or maybe even more of what LIVE offers lol.So they're will be no point of paying for LIVE.

You can tell the future then? PSN will improve, but so will XBL, online is in MS's DNA, it's incredibly unlikely PSN will ever surpass XBL in quality.


thats already happened... like 2 years ago.

anyway, im guessing he's talking about the one and only thing xbox live has that psn doesnt, which is crossgame chat. which the Vita will have, and for FREE.

edit: and i hardly consider allowing you to use your own internet connection (which you already pay for) a service.