Sony planning paid PSN subscriptions for 2010

[heruamon]

Reasonable said:

heruamon said:

Reasonable said:

heruamon said:

This is a worst news for PS fans to hear...oh noes...

It's so bad nobody is actually reading it in context (well, bar a few calmer souls).  Seems like a lot of people only read 'fees' and started running around in a panic.

 

I normally have zero problems with fees...I pay them all over the place.  But as far as I'm concern, ANY subscription based models on PSN is doubletalk.  M$ has a tiered system, and you don't need gold to become a member, but there are something exclusive to gold membership.  Splitting hair about WHAT exacty those features are is pure nonsense...you either have a subscription based model, or you don't.  It's nothing more than Sony trying to attack the strengh of M$, and in failing to succeed at it, has now tried to save some face on their great need to make some profits.  Let's look at Home...probably the longest beta test ever....and counting.

I think that's a little harsh.  Live started with a tiered system, PSN started free - I see no reason why either service shouldn't change their model, fees or whatever.

Sony are clearly going to introduce more content that has a price tag, while defining the core PSN as a free service, online, demos, etc.  Home itself serves as a good anaolgy ironically enough - you can get it for free, use a fair bit of it for free, but some stuff has a price tag and there are those that are willing to pay.

By the same token MS has introduced Avatars, Facebook integration, etc. Netflix in US and Sky in UK.

Both services will change and I think you're applying a double standard acusing Sony of somehow being unfair and MS not.  From what I read both already generate revenue streams, just in somewhat different ways, and I'm sure both will continue to evolve in what they offer, and that some of that will be free and some will cost.

Right now, the major difference for me is that Live Silver is a very light offering, with Gold providing a huge amount more.  So far PSN would seem to be angled the other way, with most stuff available free, with a smaller amount being charged for - and just from a business perspective Sony must be thinking of changing that balance to generate more income, particularly with Live showing what people are willing to pay for.

As for length of Home Beta - that's nothing compared to Google Betas!

Quite the opposite...I'll say it again: I have NO PROBLEM with fees.  If Sony wants to implement some level of fees for PSN...okay...my point is when I see people splitting hairs about the fact that...well... Online play is free on the PS3...or Netflix....or whatever.  This is the crux of my problem, and in general, I fully agree with your comments and observations about evolving the online platforms.  My issue is when people start comparing what specific items they value over others as some "absolute" marker...namely online play for example.