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

Forums - Sony Discussion - How much is PSN worth to you?

AdventWolf on 21 October 2009

I would be hesitant to pay anything for fear they might eventually jack the price up.
But $20 a year would be reasonable, I could live with that.



Around the Network
crazycrazy862002 on 21 October 2009

the most i would pay $35 i think that's a decent price



perpride on 21 October 2009

I wouldn't pay a penny for PlayStation Network. Charging users a fee to play online after bashing MS for doing it for this long would be a bitch move by Sony.

If Sony makes PSN a paid service, I would probably start paying for Xbox Live.



NKAJ on 21 October 2009

woudnt use it if i had to pay,howver id say its worth for me about 60 dollars



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

insomniac17 on 21 October 2009
outlawauron said:
insomniac17 said:
I agree with the people who refuse to pay for online play. If it's my connection, and my game, both of which I bought with my money, why should I pay to play a game that I already own? I just refuse to do it. Yeah, I may be missing out on some awesome action (I'd be sad if I couldn't play Warhawk), but I'm more of a co-op person and I have enough games with local co-op that I'd get along just fine. So really, free is the only price I'm willing to pay for any online service.

That depends, because most PS3 games use dedicated servers.

Either way, I still refuse to pay to play the game that I already own. Multiplayer just isn't a big enough deal for me.

EDIT: And Warhawk has player servers and dedicated servers, so I could argue that half the time in Warhawk, I'm using my own connection/someone elses. And yes, Warhawk is the major online game that I play, alongside R2's co-op. Basically, I just won't pay to play a game online.



Latest News/Discussion for Star Wars: Rebels and Star Wars: The Clone Wars!


Around the Network
JerCotter7 on 21 October 2009

Why are people comparing it to netflix? That's like saying you should be able to download whatever you feel like on live because you pay €50 a year.

At least compare it to something similar. Not something that has nothing to do with it.

Only thing I would pay monthly for with games is an MMORPG. But they are different because you pay for weekly/monthly updates and you don't have to "buy" the game most of the time. Well not the one I played anyway. I can still play it for free :) And pretty much everyone has a pc anyway and I didn't personally buy it just for gaming.



dsister44 on 21 October 2009

I wouldn't pay much. I don't really have any games that I really like to play online. Infact the only games that I play online are LBP and For Answers. And if Sony started to charge for PSN I would just re-buy For Answers on the Xbox and just play LBP locally



Vetteman94 on 21 October 2009

PSN is worth hundreds to me, because it is free.



ironman on 21 October 2009
justinian said:
ironman said:

Why would I change that? Because I am curious, Because I wanted to know if people would actually pay to use PSN. Thats why I edited my OP and said to pretend that XBL doesn't exist, and that PSN was never free.

And yes, the Netflix argument fits perfectly with what I was arguing. I mean, is it criminal that OSX and MS both make you pay for their operating systems while you can get  Lynux free? No it is not. What people are suggesting is that Paying for live is like paying to use the internet connection you are already paying for, and that is an increadably stupid argument, just like Saying paying for Netflix is like paying for my internet connection twice...the two interlace perfectly.

 

You are taking this way out of context.

What's netfilx to do with anything? Your argument is like saying I won't pay for anything from amazon online because I already pay for my broadband connection.

Netflix is like amazon. You pay for a productmovie.

All I care about on PSN is gaming online. I will not pay a penny for that even if I had Gates's pocket money. It's just the principle of the whole thing.

It's our money and what we do with it is our choice. I have nothing against those who are willing to pay.

I don't care if PSN charged for anything else, but as long as online gaming is free I am contented. I think that is what most people care about.

As for Windows and OSX, yes, if people are willing to pay for it. If you think it's wrong you have an option, Linux. The problem is many people don't have a choice and if you want to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash Pro or a zillion other programs linux is a no-no.

No no, I was talking about netflix video streaming. Not their DVD mailing service. Surely you can see the corelation. You pay netflix to stream video to your PC...something I can do for free from websites like Megavideo...so Netflix is ripping people off according to the argument that MS is ripping people off by "forcing" them to pay to use XBL to network with other players when you can get the same thing for free somewhere else.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Vetteman94 on 21 October 2009
ironman said:
justinian said:
ironman said:

Why would I change that? Because I am curious, Because I wanted to know if people would actually pay to use PSN. Thats why I edited my OP and said to pretend that XBL doesn't exist, and that PSN was never free.

And yes, the Netflix argument fits perfectly with what I was arguing. I mean, is it criminal that OSX and MS both make you pay for their operating systems while you can get  Lynux free? No it is not. What people are suggesting is that Paying for live is like paying to use the internet connection you are already paying for, and that is an increadably stupid argument, just like Saying paying for Netflix is like paying for my internet connection twice...the two interlace perfectly.

 

You are taking this way out of context.

What's netfilx to do with anything? Your argument is like saying I won't pay for anything from amazon online because I already pay for my broadband connection.

Netflix is like amazon. You pay for a productmovie.

All I care about on PSN is gaming online. I will not pay a penny for that even if I had Gates's pocket money. It's just the principle of the whole thing.

It's our money and what we do with it is our choice. I have nothing against those who are willing to pay.

I don't care if PSN charged for anything else, but as long as online gaming is free I am contented. I think that is what most people care about.

As for Windows and OSX, yes, if people are willing to pay for it. If you think it's wrong you have an option, Linux. The problem is many people don't have a choice and if you want to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash Pro or a zillion other programs linux is a no-no.

No no, I was talking about netflix video streaming. Not their DVD mailing service. Surely you can see the corelation. You pay netflix to stream video to your PC...something I can do for free from websites like Megavideo...so Netflix is ripping people off according to the argument that MS is ripping people off by "forcing" them to pay to use XBL to network with other players when you can get the same thing for free somewhere else.

No because I dont own the movie that I am streaming from netflix. Netflix isnt allowing me to see a movie I already own, I am paying them to see a movie I dont own and want to see.  But with MS, I already own the game but I cant play online unless I purchase Xbox Live.