| Squilliam said: Would people pay $50 for PSN? Probably, yeah they would. They would probably complain about it, create 50 page long threads about it but in the end most will probably cough up. I personally don't see any significant reason for complaint to be raised. Live being $60 is what it is, PSN being free is also what it is. In most reasonable discussion (read not here) people give Live the thumbs up for being an excellent service and for being a beacon for many things PSN ought to develop as well. The only major complaint with Live charging money that I feel is valid is that the person complaining doesn't see value in online or value in more than basic multiplayer connectivity features. |
This thing I don't get. Granted this thread was started by a 360 fan, so bad example, but I have seen many threads over the time that PSN is better than XBL because its free. Xbox360 fans as a whole are more than happy to pay for the service, why cant most people leave it like that.
If anything the thread should prob have been "would you pay the difference to get xbl instead of psn" I can see some of the same responses, but most people are saying simply because psn is live they prefer it.
Yeah I agree some people for the features, I see why PSN would be preferred. In fact someone on this thread gave a sufficient reason why they prefer PSN, not simply because it is free. That is the answer that annoys me. Gaming is a hobby some times you have to pay for your hobbies I dont know why its such a big deal (the amount for xbox).
