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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why doesnt Sony charge for PSN membership?

 

Should Sony charge for PSN membership?

Yes, it makes sense. 108 24.16%
 
NO! 297 66.44%
 
I couldn't care less, man-bear-pig! 42 9.40%
 
Total:447
S.T.A.G.E. on 22 January 2012
Euphoria14 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
SpartenOmega117 said:
Well there is a small possibility that sales might increase if Sony started charging for PSN. Many people falsely assume that Xbox live is a huge leap over PSN just because Microsoft charges $60 for it. They think that just because they are paying for it, xbox live just has to better. In reality though PSN and Xbox live are very similar give or take a few feature like party chat which isnt added just because PS3 hardware can't handle it. If Sony starts charging for PSN and does revamp the service a little, then sales might actually increase.

/my 2 cents


I honestly don't understand how charging for online would help them.  As it is, Sony is way behind Microsoft in terms of online gaming presence and charging for the (slightly) inferior service isn't going to make things better.  The perception really isn't "Live is better because I pay for it" so much as "Live is better because that's where my firends are".  That won't change simply by charging for the service.   If they can develop a rich set of tools to make PSN+ a better deal, such as the things available on Live that they don't have yet, then they could earn a little more money from that.  As it stands, however, it's not likely that they can even afford to charge for online unless it is dramatically better than Live.  They are losing on the online front because MS developed their service first and have managed to maintain a lot of users who believe that they have to keep paying to make their previous investment worthwhile (a common fallacy).  Really, the best thing they could do is make PSN as close to equal to Live as possible before the generation ends so they have a chance of taking consumers back next gen with a free service as good as Live.


Microsoft charges us for third party servers. The extra ten dollar hike was because Kotick of Activision wanted a cut because of how big COD was on Live. Look it up.

I always thought they explained the hike for LIVE was due to MS securing 30-day exclusive CoD content for 3 years.


http://crosseyedgamer.com/content.php/1233-Blame-Activision-for-the-XBox-Live-Subscription-Increase

Activision gets paid from that $10 hike on Xbox Live regardless of whether or not people are playing their games. COD is enough of a reason I guess since 60% of Xbox Live users play COD. I dont play COD and never have cared to so I dont take kindly to being charged for it.



Around the Network
Jay520 on 22 January 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
SpartenOmega117 said:
Well there is a small possibility that sales might increase if Sony started charging for PSN. Many people falsely assume that Xbox live is a huge leap over PSN just because Microsoft charges $60 for it. They think that just because they are paying for it, xbox live just has to better. In reality though PSN and Xbox live are very similar give or take a few feature like party chat which isnt added just because PS3 hardware can't handle it. If Sony starts charging for PSN and does revamp the service a little, then sales might actually increase.

/my 2 cents


I honestly don't understand how charging for online would help them.  As it is, Sony is way behind Microsoft in terms of online gaming presence and charging for the (slightly) inferior service isn't going to make things better.  The perception really isn't "Live is better because I pay for it" so much as "Live is better because that's where my firends are".  That won't change simply by charging for the service.   If they can develop a rich set of tools to make PSN+ a better deal, such as the things available on Live that they don't have yet, then they could earn a little more money from that.  As it stands, however, it's not likely that they can even afford to charge for online unless it is dramatically better than Live.  They are losing on the online front because MS developed their service first and have managed to maintain a lot of users who believe that they have to keep paying to make their previous investment worthwhile (a common fallacy).  Really, the best thing they could do is make PSN as close to equal to Live as possible before the generation ends so they have a chance of taking consumers back next gen with a free service as good as Live.


Microsoft charges us for third party servers. The extra ten dollar hike was because Kotick of Activision wanted a cut because of how big COD was on Live. Look it up.



agghh, I hate when people do this. It really grinds my gears. If you make a claim, it's your job to present evidence to support that claim, unless it's common knowledge.

S.T.A.G.E. on 22 January 2012
Jay520 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
SpartenOmega117 said:
Well there is a small possibility that sales might increase if Sony started charging for PSN. Many people falsely assume that Xbox live is a huge leap over PSN just because Microsoft charges $60 for it. They think that just because they are paying for it, xbox live just has to better. In reality though PSN and Xbox live are very similar give or take a few feature like party chat which isnt added just because PS3 hardware can't handle it. If Sony starts charging for PSN and does revamp the service a little, then sales might actually increase.

/my 2 cents


I honestly don't understand how charging for online would help them.  As it is, Sony is way behind Microsoft in terms of online gaming presence and charging for the (slightly) inferior service isn't going to make things better.  The perception really isn't "Live is better because I pay for it" so much as "Live is better because that's where my firends are".  That won't change simply by charging for the service.   If they can develop a rich set of tools to make PSN+ a better deal, such as the things available on Live that they don't have yet, then they could earn a little more money from that.  As it stands, however, it's not likely that they can even afford to charge for online unless it is dramatically better than Live.  They are losing on the online front because MS developed their service first and have managed to maintain a lot of users who believe that they have to keep paying to make their previous investment worthwhile (a common fallacy).  Really, the best thing they could do is make PSN as close to equal to Live as possible before the generation ends so they have a chance of taking consumers back next gen with a free service as good as Live.


Microsoft charges us for third party servers. The extra ten dollar hike was because Kotick of Activision wanted a cut because of how big COD was on Live. Look it up.


agghh, I hate when people do this. It really grinds my gears. If you make a claim, it's your job to present evidence to support that claim, unless it's common knowledge.


Which one? I already provided a link for one.

Also, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqymlqNWiYI



Kantor on 22 January 2012

Well, at this point it's far too late. The PS3 launched over five years ago now (wow), and for all of that time, it has offered a free online service. Suddenly beginning to charge for this service would be a thousand times worse than the removal of OtherOS, because it's a feature that pretty much everyone uses.

As for why they didn't do it at launch, the Xbox 360 and its business model weren't enormously successful when the PS3 came out. Moreover, since the PS3 was so much more expensive than the 360, it would be nearly impossible to justify such a monthly charge. That whole "you save money in the long run because of online" argument wouldn't have worked. I know quite a few people who were on the fence, and went for a PS3 because of the free online, and many more who already owned a 360, and picked up a PS3 for the same reason. I do think Sony has benefitted from having a free online service.

EDIT: Also, for much of its existence, PSN didn't really hold a candle to Xbox Live, and if they both cost even nearly the same amount, XBL would have been better value.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Truther on 23 January 2012

You have an option to subscribe to PSN+ which has a ton of value but like osamanobama said it should be a given with your console.



Around the Network
Truther on 23 January 2012
PlaystaionGamer said:
Millenium said:
Because then they'd have to upgrade PSN to make it worth it.

And then they couldn't share Publishers fees anymore for releasing demo's and stuff.


its weird... PSN and Live are the same as it is.. 

Yeah, pretty much the only difference is the chat options.



ethomaz on 23 January 2012

Online gaming is supposed to be free... and they already have the PSN+.

I can't see sense in this thread.



PlaystaionGamer on 24 January 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:

This video is a great example of why Sony and Nintendo dont charge for online and what Xbox Live is doing to the gaming industry if corporations follow their lead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqymlqNWiYI&feature=related


even though that just made me 25minutes late for the gym it was worth watching



Panama on 24 January 2012

The day Nintendo and Sony charge me to play my games online is the day I stick solely to PC gaming.



dexterneo on 24 January 2012

This post is a big troll !!!!

why and how in the world do you think that increase the price of something that is currently free can increase your sales ????

The big difference between PS3 and Xbox it's that free versus money !!!

Why XBLA work great it's because it's only sale in the US where everything is not free and everybody know that you have to pay for everything and this is why I will always love the freedom and this is why I have a PS3 and not a Xbox !!!



Thε prεttiεst drεssεs arε worn to bε takεn off