tough xboxlive is great, compared to playstation+ it is a rip off, i hate playstation, games are meh exclusives are 1/10 as good as the few xbox exclusives, controller is terrible, the UI and stuff is confusing sometimes

but damn, the value of PSN+ is great... free games and basically everything in the store is half off gold members get 1 usually crappy deal on something that released 3 years ago.

if MS starts giving the better deals toug sony doesnt stand a good chance, but it all depends on more factors then the online service.
E3 and what both consoles show to gamer will be the big decision, my hope is MS cuts the kinect crap and goes back to what made xbox great

I think they will just have the basic free service while trying to make premium service as close to Xbox Live as they can.

If Sony charges for everything they give Nintendo an advantage since theirs' will most likely be free and what are the chances they can make it as good as live? Although I guess they could charge less than MS.

sethnintendo said: Jay520 said: No company 'cares' about their consumers, they care about their consumer's money. That's why they're called companies, and not philanthropies. True but I believe Nintendo has gamer's best interest at heart.  They don't release hardware that has terrible fail rates.  They don't expect their consumers to fork over 600 dollars for a new system.  They haven't gotten into the DLC crap.  I am sure you can find many instances where Nintendo screwed over their consumers but it is a little harder.  One example could be the 3DS. They dropped the price to 170 but they are going to offer 10 free games for those who signed up for the ambassador program.  They could have just stuck the middle finger to those early adopters and did nothing.  They usually try to make amends when they do fuck up.  How long did it take Microsoft to even admit to RROD or allow their early adopters to get free repairs which they deserved?  How about Sony and their PS1 and PS2 hardware?  Not the most quality products (especially the first models).

Of course Nintendo has to play nice with consumers because if anything happens their screwed. If MS and Sony both bust in the gaming market they can fall back on everything else they have; where as Nintendo's only market is gaming. 

amaral_slb said: No, they will not charge for basic online play Having said that, they will continue offering more value to the plus members.

This.

They need to sort out PS Plus. Get rid of the whole idea of giving away shit that nobody wants for free and only give away a few small things each month. They should add PS Plus exclusive features such as cross game chat, dedicated servers for exclusive games, priority over normal PSN users, features and extra connectivity with the Vita etc. Most importantly the price needs to be lowered to around £20 / $30 a year, so not only can you play online for free but if you want the definitive online experience it will still be fairly cheap.

Hell, they could make those changes to PS Plus right now, rather than wait till next gen. As for paying to play online next gen, I don't see it happening.

sethnintendo said: Jay520 said: No company 'cares' about their consumers, they care about their consumer's money. That's why they're called companies, and not philanthropies. True but I believe Nintendo has gamer's best interest at heart.

I honestly think Nintendo are the worst of the lot.

to be honest with you, the only reason im keeping my psplus is because of the cloudspace saving, that is by far the best feature on PSplus.

As to whether Sony will charge for online gaming on the PS4 i ticked YES but now when i thought about it i dont actually think they will now.

thranx said: Jay520 said: sethnintendo said: I hope they do just to spite Sony fans. I know companies need to make a profit but paying to play online is pretty much where I draw the line. Sure, I paid a monthly fee for PSO on GC and for WoW on PC. However, I will not pay to play online ever again. I'm done with MMO because of this reason (or at least pay to play MMO). I have never been jealous of anything Microsoft Live has so I see no need to pay for basic online gaming. This is why I think companies such as Microsoft really don't give a damn about gamers. No company 'cares' about their consumers, they care about their consumer's money. That's why they're called companies, and not philanthropies. There are plenty of companies that care for their customers. You dont bite the hand that feeds you. While I will not argue thet they dont care about the customers money, I will say that they also care for their customer.

Maybe I should have been more specific. Companies place very little, if any, significance on consumers' welfare compared to consumers' money. They may show some care for consumer's welfare, but it's not geniune. They simply act like they care because if they do, they'll likely receive more money. Which leads back to a company's only genuine care: money.

I see no reason to charge for gameplay. PS+ and online passes should cover PSN operating costs. They just need to make PS+ a little more interesting feature wise. Giving all PS purchasers 90 days free should do a god part in getting them to subscribe.

sethnintendo said: Jay520 said: No company 'cares' about their consumers, they care about their consumer's money. That's why they're called companies, and not philanthropies. True but I believe Nintendo has gamer's best interest at heart.  They don't release hardware that has terrible fail rates.  They don't expect their consumers to fork over 600 dollars for a new system.  They haven't gotten into the DLC crap.  I am sure you can find many instances where Nintendo screwed over their consumers but it is a little harder.  One example could be the 3DS. They dropped the price to 170 but they are going to offer 10 free games for those who signed up for the ambassador program.  They could have just stuck the middle finger to those early adopters and did nothing.  They usually try to make amends when they do fuck up.  How long did it take Microsoft to even admit to RROD or allow their early adopters to get free repairs which they deserved?  How about Sony and their PS1 and PS2 hardware?  Not the most quality products (especially the first models).

I'd argue that Nintendo takes a more traditional approach rather than a more caring. They're approach may infact be better for consumers, but that's simply a side-effect of Nintendo's drive for profit. Everything that Nintendo does is with sole intent to make money. That just happens to be closely associated with making people happy. Policies like hardware quality are set in place because they believe it will give them a good reputation and promote more sales.

They'll be mad if they don't.