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

Forums - Gaming - Why is no one complaining about paying for PSN?

Panicnausia on 06 December 2013
Jega said:

Xbox Live was getting a little hate last gen for having to pay for it, while the PS3 was free to play online.

Many Xbox fans predicted that sony would change their tune after seeing how successful Microsoft was with the paid subscriptions.

PSN is no longer free.

Is PSN worth the price or was Playstation fans just upset that people were paying for live and not for PSN.

 

Mod edit: Took out the picture, feel free to replace it with an actual PSN picture.

 

Lol! You guys gotta love me!

Image courtesy of google images.


Because sony was smart, they made PS plus already a great value before making online behind a paywall. 



Around the Network
Ronster316 on 06 December 2013
BMaker11 said:
Ronster316 said:
Well, back in the day a lot on here said they would never pay for online.

But credit where credits due, PSN has improved over the years.

3 or 4 years ago it wasn't worth paying for (and to be honest, if i want a game, i buy it day one or not long after release, so ps+'s free "we'll decide when you play this game or not" games don't man squat to me)

Now a day's take away the "free rented games" that i don't care about, and as a service, i still think Live is top dog, but the justification to pay for PSN is now just about valid.

You can't do that. That is a merit of the servive which warrants subscribing to it. If you can say that, then I can say "take away the online MP for XBL and PSN is top dog". I'd say something else for comparison sake, but online MP is literally all the XBL offers.

And I really doubt you don't care about the games. On a list that includes games like LBP2, Super Street Fighter IV, Borderlands 2, inFamous 2, Batman: Arkham City, Sleeping Dogs, UC3, XCOM, BF3, Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, and many, many more games, that all come out within a year after the game initially released (no releasing a 7 year old game in a monthly update), I doubt you just "don't care" about them, considering these are all big games. And if you download and play just 1 or 2 of those games over the course of one year, PS+, then, has already paid for itself, and you still have ALL the other games to choose from. If you put it in that perspective, you don't really pay to play online. Technically, yes you have, but in practice, no you haven't


I bought Super Street Fighter IV day 1, Sleeping Dogs day 1, Arkhan City day 1 all on 360, the other games mentioned that are multiplat i could not care about.

For ps3, LBP does not interest me, by the time i got my ps3 i got UC3 for £8 & Infamous 2 for £4 (and best of all i get to keep them)

Basically, for the last year that i have had a ps3, i would have got UC3 & Infamous 2 for my £40 investement if i subscribed to PSN.

A net loss of £28 then.

I'm not saying its not value for some, but as someone who gets his games mostly day 1 if its something that interests me, PSN is not a worthwhile investment.



Captain_Tom on 06 December 2013
Wright said:
Captain_Tom said:

Let's see wipeout HD was 1.5 years old and Assasin's Creed II is 4 years old.  Thanks for the back up!  I love it when people support my point!


Iron Brigade, a game offered with Xbox Live Gold, is 2 years old, (or three, I don't remember now) and a game worth playing that is. So your point really has no substance, because lack of information can be sometimes someone's worst enemy ;)

Meanwhile Borderlands 2 is free on PS+ LOL.  Just stop trying.  MS is massively behind in that department.



BMaker11 on 06 December 2013
Ronster316 said:
BMaker11 said:
Ronster316 said:
Well, back in the day a lot on here said they would never pay for online.

But credit where credits due, PSN has improved over the years.

3 or 4 years ago it wasn't worth paying for (and to be honest, if i want a game, i buy it day one or not long after release, so ps+'s free "we'll decide when you play this game or not" games don't man squat to me)

Now a day's take away the "free rented games" that i don't care about, and as a service, i still think Live is top dog, but the justification to pay for PSN is now just about valid.

You can't do that. That is a merit of the servive which warrants subscribing to it. If you can say that, then I can say "take away the online MP for XBL and PSN is top dog". I'd say something else for comparison sake, but online MP is literally all the XBL offers.

And I really doubt you don't care about the games. On a list that includes games like LBP2, Super Street Fighter IV, Borderlands 2, inFamous 2, Batman: Arkham City, Sleeping Dogs, UC3, XCOM, BF3, Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, and many, many more games, that all come out within a year after the game initially released (no releasing a 7 year old game in a monthly update), I doubt you just "don't care" about them, considering these are all big games. And if you download and play just 1 or 2 of those games over the course of one year, PS+, then, has already paid for itself, and you still have ALL the other games to choose from. If you put it in that perspective, you don't really pay to play online. Technically, yes you have, but in practice, no you haven't


I bought Super Street Fighter IV day 1, Sleeping Dogs day 1, Arkhan City day 1 all on 360, the other games mentioned that are multiplat i could not care about.

For ps3, LBP does not interest me, by the time i got my ps3 i got UC3 for £8 & Infamous 2 for £4 (and best of all i get to keep them)

Basically, for the last year that i have had a ps3, i would have got UC3 & Infamous 2 for my £40 investement if i subscribed to PSN.

A net loss of £28 then.

I'm not saying its not value for some, but as someone who gets his games mostly day 1 if its something that interests me, PSN is not a worthwhile investment.

I'm not saying you have to get those games in particular, just that games of that caliber are available for free. I didn't want to list every single game that's available. Anyway, you don't have infinite money. And there are games you haven't bought. You may get a lot of games on Day 1, but there's a host of games that I'm sure you haven't, put have wanted to play. And those games are free to you with PS+. And if you play just a few of them, PS+ has already paid for itself.

Unless you're saying that if you don't buy a game Day 1, you never buy it. But that's just silly. There are so many games that come out in a year, and I know you don't buy every single game the day it comes out. Unless you're a millionaire with no job so you have the funds to buy every game, Day 1, and the time to play them.



paulrage2 on 06 December 2013

"PSN is no longer free."

No.

PSN ON PLAYSTATION 4 is not free. PSN on PS3 and VITA nothing change.



Around the Network
arcane_chaos on 06 December 2013

it is a shame that Sony is charging for online play but since I own a PS3 and Vita; where the MP is still free as well as new games every month at the moment it offsets the cost of paying for online play for the PS4(which has already given out 2 free games)

Sony learned from MS that people are willing to pay for online....thank goodness I bought 2 year of PS+ during black friday so I spent $60 for two years where it would usually cost $100, so I'm set till 2016



Zekkyou on 06 December 2013

Loads of people complained, it just wasn't a very hard sell. PS+ has already been around for a while, and a huge number of people were already paying for it despite it being optional on PS3. If that many people were prepared to do it purely because of how good it is, then making it mandatory wasn't going to rustle many feathers.

It's like saying to someone "your bus fair was free before, but now it's 20p. Don't worry though, you get £1 of free cake every trip."



Zekkyou on 06 December 2013
Purple said:
Can people stop referring to them as free games? It's like going to a buffet and talking about how amazing all this free food is*

*Food which you didn't want to buy when you had the chance to anyway.

It's £40 a year. So as far as i'm concerned everything past my first £40 worth of games is "free" as it's a 100% discount on what i would have paid for them anyway :P




Ronster316 on 06 December 2013
BMaker11 said:
Ronster316 said:
BMaker11 said:
Ronster316 said:
Well, back in the day a lot on here said they would never pay for online.

But credit where credits due, PSN has improved over the years.

3 or 4 years ago it wasn't worth paying for (and to be honest, if i want a game, i buy it day one or not long after release, so ps+'s free "we'll decide when you play this game or not" games don't man squat to me)

Now a day's take away the "free rented games" that i don't care about, and as a service, i still think Live is top dog, but the justification to pay for PSN is now just about valid.

You can't do that. That is a merit of the servive which warrants subscribing to it. If you can say that, then I can say "take away the online MP for XBL and PSN is top dog". I'd say something else for comparison sake, but online MP is literally all the XBL offers.

And I really doubt you don't care about the games. On a list that includes games like LBP2, Super Street Fighter IV, Borderlands 2, inFamous 2, Batman: Arkham City, Sleeping Dogs, UC3, XCOM, BF3, Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, and many, many more games, that all come out within a year after the game initially released (no releasing a 7 year old game in a monthly update), I doubt you just "don't care" about them, considering these are all big games. And if you download and play just 1 or 2 of those games over the course of one year, PS+, then, has already paid for itself, and you still have ALL the other games to choose from. If you put it in that perspective, you don't really pay to play online. Technically, yes you have, but in practice, no you haven't


I bought Super Street Fighter IV day 1, Sleeping Dogs day 1, Arkhan City day 1 all on 360, the other games mentioned that are multiplat i could not care about.

For ps3, LBP does not interest me, by the time i got my ps3 i got UC3 for £8 & Infamous 2 for £4 (and best of all i get to keep them)

Basically, for the last year that i have had a ps3, i would have got UC3 & Infamous 2 for my £40 investement if i subscribed to PSN.

A net loss of £28 then.

I'm not saying its not value for some, but as someone who gets his games mostly day 1 if its something that interests me, PSN is not a worthwhile investment.

I'm not saying you have to get those games in particular, just that games of that caliber are available for free. I didn't want to list every single game that's available. Anyway, you don't have infinite money. And there are games you haven't bought. You may get a lot of games on Day 1, but there's a host of games that I'm sure you haven't, put have wanted to play. And those games are free to you with PS+. And if you play just a few of them, PS+ has already paid for itself.

Unless you're saying that if you don't buy a game Day 1, you never buy it. But that's just silly. There are so many games that come out in a year, and I know you don't buy every single game the day it comes out. Unless you're a millionaire with no job so you have the funds to buy every game, Day 1, and the time to play them.


I see your point, but the thing is, you never know what your going to get from one month to the next.

Theres been many months of games on there where the games on offer did not interest me at all.

No, i don't buy every game day 1, but again, i'm not going to hold off from buying something when its a few months old just in case it "may" appear on PSN.



S.T.A.G.E. on 06 December 2013

You dont pay for PSN. You pay for PSN Plus. There is a difference. If you dont use multiplayer and can endure not getting rentals every month you can enjoy your online without issues. Unlike Microsoft there is a choice in the matter which is why PSN Plus has gained the success it has as of late.