Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony to start charging for PSN? Pachter says...

PSN to cost?

Hell no!
F you, Pachter!
Maybe
Yes
See results
You mean there's more to free PSN than online multiplayer and the ability to buy stuff off PSN store? Oh yeah, static themes, which I can do without and Playstation Home, which I never use. Anything else I should be worried about?

“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
Capulous said:

VGKing said:

Online Gaming should always be free. Ever played a PC game?
There is nothing "premiium" about online gaming on XBox Live. Those games like COD use the same kind of servers as on PSN, which is Peer to Peer.

Free Online gaming is a RIGHT. Do you know how many people would protest if PC games started charging for online? You know I thinkg Microsoft tried doing that with Games For Windows.. but it got trounced by Steam which was FREE.


Sure I have, plenty. Have you? There are games that are free to play online, and there are those that cost money. Games for Windows never had any cost associate with it when I started using it. It may have at one point. It is all in the preceived value of what each person is willing to pay for. If they think it is worth it, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

Free online gaming is not a right. That is ridiculous.


You're speaking of the top MMO's. Online gaming is a right. If you want a premium MMO you have the right to buy or ignore it. This EA has had their eye on Blizzard and WOW because they want some of that monthly profit. In other games third parties pay for the servers themselves. Xbox Live cannot be ignored because it renders the 360 useless without it.



binary solo said:
You mean there's more to free PSN than online multiplayer and the ability to buy stuff off PSN store? Oh yeah, static themes, which I can do without and Playstation Home, which I never use. Anything else I should be worried about?


LOL...you say static themes when you know theres Dynamic themes.



Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Chark said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
VGKing said:
kivi95 said:
To be honest I would not be suprised if PSN would cost money on PS4. Looking at how much money MS are getting from Xbox Live i'm sure Sony wants that too.


Look at Vita.
Did Sony take away features? No. In fact they added cross game voice chat FOR FREE.

Yes, Sony will keep adding features exclusive to PSN+ but what PSN currently offers for free, will stay free on the PS4.


They added Crossgamechat on the Psvita because it had more "ram" than the ps3. 

Ps3 doesnt have enough to inherit it. Lol.

What? The specs allowing it to happen on the Vita compared to the PS3 has nothing to do with the fact it was included without charging.

Sony would've done it for free anyway. Psn for free is a selling point.


Xbox Live having a price and some sort of value is Microsoft selling point. Its backwards...no one charged for online until them.



Capulous said:

VGKing said:

Online Gaming should always be free. Ever played a PC game?
There is nothing "premiium" about online gaming on XBox Live. Those games like COD use the same kind of servers as on PSN, which is Peer to Peer.

Free Online gaming is a RIGHT. Do you know how many people would protest if PC games started charging for online? You know I thinkg Microsoft tried doing that with Games For Windows.. but it got trounced by Steam which was FREE.


Sure I have, plenty. Have you? There are games that are free to play online, and there are those that cost money. Games for Windows never had any cost associate with it when I started using it. It may have at one point. It is all in the preceived value of what each person is willing to pay for. If they think it is worth it, who are you to tell them they are wrong?

Free online gaming is not a right. That is ridiculous.

It is a right unless we're talking MMOs which cost so much to maintain the servers.
I"m talking $60 FPS here like Halo or COD. These games should have everything unlocked when you buy it. On 360, if you don't pay for Live, you can't play the online portion which I belive is worse than an online pass. NO, $60 A YEAR IS NOT A LOT BUT GAMERS ARE STILL GETTING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.



Around the Network
ZaneWane said:
sony need money fast and charging for online will guarantee them safely from bankruptcy


Nope the opposite. No one will pay for something that was previously free.

It will kick Sony out of the console wars if they did that.



VGKing said:
ZaneWane said:
sony need money fast and charging for online will guarantee them safely from bankruptcy


Nope the opposite. No one will pay for something that was previously free.

It will kick Sony out of the console wars if they did that.


Microsoft convinced them otherwise. When they see that with cross chat PSN is no different from Xbox Live they will question what they are paying for. Its all mental really. People like the aesthetics and layout of Xbox Live.



mothman said:
I pay for PSN+ and have since the first day it was offered. I'm quite happy with it right now. They've included a ton of games for my 50 bucks a year some of which don't even expire if I cancel my subscription. On the other hand I've cancelled my Xbox Gold subscription because I was paying $60 for, well nothing actually. Once my son got tired of running around the same maps shooting his friends I had no reason to keep it. I only play single player games and download the odd demo.

Bottom line: if Sony charges and actually gives me value for my money like including a couple of games a month for free and others at a discount then I'm in. If like Xbox live I have to pay for nothing I'm out.

Still haven't figured out why more people aren't in the same position or at least point it out if they are. If I had to guess, it's because people that are fully invested in the Xbox ecosystem have always been paying for XBL and assuming they still use the service with any sort of regularity, have simply accepted it as an added expense of gaming on the Xbox. MS doesn't need to give free access to games or discounts because they were never a part of XBL Gold. 

As someone who started with PSN in the initial days where it offered little more than online play and gradually evolved into a service that was on par with XBL, and someone who was never more than an off and on user of XBL, my $50-60 a year would essentially be paying for maybe 2-3 weeks of online play per game for the rare Xbox exclusive, which has slowed to 1 or 2 games a year in terms of games that I have any desire to buy. Poor value. But, a lot of players tend to play the same online game(s) for months if not years between franchise updates and clearly still get their value from a subscription even if they only buy a few games per year. If one buys most of their games for the Xbox, it goes without saying you have to subscribe to Gold if you want the most out of your games. 

XBL Gold does offer a considerable amount of services and features; by contrast XBL Silver is little more than a portal to enable access to a paid Gold account (other than demos and videos, which are the main feature of Silver). Without Gold, the Xbox essentially becomes a single player/local multiplayer platform. So the XBL model effectlvely takes away as a means to promote paid subscriptions. But in reducing the utility of the platform, it also makes it considerably less attractive to play on which can result in inactive consoles. 

PSN Plus, by contrast provides additional services and features (some of which could have been free features other than cloud storage which does take server space/money to maintain), in particular, discounts on PSN purchases, making it a clear value to anyone invested in the PSN ecosystem and presumably buys a substantial amount of DD content. Even if not, Plus does offer a considerable amount of free games for current subscribers. The Plus model effectively gives more as a means of promoting paid subscriptions without making them necessary to gain access to the majority of the PS3 platform's features. But that's still irrelevant if the PS3 isn't used with regularity. 

Regardless of which offers better value in terms of content for subscription fees, it still boils down to which service the consumer prefers to use, and to a larger extent, which ecosystem they prefer to game in is largely dependent upon where that person's friends/family play. 



Capulous said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Um....yeah...Sony didnt charge people for online because the consensus before Microsoft came with a pay to play online policy was that online is a right that people already pay for when they pay their daily bills. The online servers are not dedicated unless the third party makes it so. People voted with their wallets that online gaming is no longer a right. They dont want rights...simple.

Xbox Live cannot cost zero to $60. Base price for the year is $60 if you want the year, if you want a lower price for the year look some place else. Do what my friend did, threaten Microsoft to cut off Xbox Live and they'll give you three years like they did him for the price of one year. Xbox Live doesn't need to paid for, which is why Microsoft does 2 months for two dollar deals. They just want nickels and dimes as I said before.

Its good that you like Xbox Live rewards...if you want to run their errands for very little thats you.

Xbox Live has just as many weekly deals as Free PSN as I said before.They are mostly trying to sell DLC and games that are no longer trending. I checked this morning.

Um, yeah Sony didn't charge because it was the consensus. LIVE was here and had a pay policy before Sony even had an inkling of PSN. If everything was based on consensus, then I don't see many people paying for anything. You pay for Xbox LIVE because you pay for the service they provide. If you don't like it, don't use it. That is very simple. If it was really that bad then MS will be forced to drop the yearly fee and just find another source of revenue. Since that hasn't happen, plenty of people are willing to pay for the service they provide.

Xbox LIVE cannot be a lower price, then you say it can be a lower price? That makes no sense. I paid $60 for $13 months last year and recieved a $60 game. To me I either got a free game or a free 13 month subscription to LIVE. 12-13month gold cards regularly cost ~$30 - $60 depending on various sales throughout the year. There are usually better deals by going through offers on LIVE.

I am fine with LIVE rewards as I said. Why don't you just discuss an issue and stop with the pointless negative connotations. It's free, don't like it don't use it.

So, they have weekly deals and so does PSN. Are these games no longer trending in your opinion? Where is this list of $1200 in savings every month that PSN+ members get. I would like this see what $1200 worth of items are available for PSN members every month. I sure didn't find that much free stuff when I had it.

Yeah, it was pretty much the consensus by everyone but Microsoft. Xbox Live Silver is downright worthless. As for Sony,they wanted to start online after the time Sega did (hiring Microsoft to help them) because they had been trying to do online gaming since the Genesis era. The only thing Microsoft has ever done for gaming is create a pay to use your own online service. Has it helped or hurt gaming? It's only left things in question and split a marketshare between the same group of gamers. I guess it helped get Sony off of Nintendos back, but yeah thats about it. Yeah if I don't like Xbox Live don't use it...yes...and get locked out of My Xfinity, Netflix and the like? Microsoft should leave those things optional on Xbox Live Silver like Sony does for standard PSN. Netflix has nothing to do with Xbox Live and the system of choice to use it is PS3 for a reason.

Xbox Live can be a lower price or even free. Explain to me what is worth paying for? I've gone through it quite a few times and everytime I do the list of things worth paying for drops drastically. You already pay for your online, Microsoft is just becoming a middle man and forcing you to pay a toll.

You were the one who brought rewards into this when it isn't exactly free to add to things Microsoft does when they really aren't doing anything.

As for this months PSN Plus update: Does Microsoft do....this?

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/03/26/playstation-plus-april-preview-free-shank-2-and-shift-2-unleashed-ghost-recon-future-soldier-beta/

Free games, Free trials, discounted games, free and discounted themes and avatars and much more. Don't equate PSN PLUS with Xbox Live Gold...they are not the same. As I said PSN Plus would be like a tier above Live like a Platinum.  Standard PSN and Xbox Live Gold share more similar functions.



Around the Network
@S.T.A.G.E My family has Xbox Live Gold on the 360. When, it's not paid for the Xbox is partically useless. How come you have to have a Gold account to watch Hulu and Netflix?! This makes no sense! Can't even watch Youtube!


Read my original story on Fictionpress (Shinigami Twin): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2996503/1/Shinigami-Twin 

As well as my other one (Hell's Punishment): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/3085054/1/Hell-s-Punishment

Nintendo Network ID: kingofe3