Could it be misunderstood a little bit? I see it as content will still come at a price, but the core network is free. Access to the PSN, online gameplay, and basic things in Home is free, but you'd still have to pay for the other stuff.

I can live with the PSN catching up to the stuff that Xbox Live offers, but as long as I can get the core experience for free, I'm kind of sliding to the PSN a bit, even if it is sort of sloppy right now.

i mean, why not charge? there's money to be made! xbox live has shown that people are willing to pay a monthly fee for premium service.

i'd much rather sony do the following: a subscription fee and slash $100 of the price tag of the PS3. the subscription fee is then hidden and most consumers would see a $499 ps3 vs a $399 360.

While charging for online wouldn't be a lot of money (say 4 million users times $50 only equals a fraction of Sony's current losses and that's a very rosy outlook for the servide) Sony is going to need money coming in from somewhere. It sure isn't coming from traditional hardware and software sales while the expected bluray bonanza is still years in the future. Sony will have to weigh that against the reality that most gamers see Sony's free internet as one of its biggest assets.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony eventually charges but it would have to be after deep price cuts and a massive increase in online content starts driving sales. Otherwise Sony would probably kill more sales and market share than the increase in profit, well drop in losses, is worth.

Yea, but that hidden fee is where I'm against Xbox Live. Sure, $400 for the 360, but then the hidden cost of online comes in after in the form of an extra $50 a year. I'd have to factor that in as I like to play games online and if I had it for just two years, that's already an extra $100 I've spent just for for permission to play games online despite the permission to buy things from a larger list. 

You pay a premium for a greater list of premium things to buy? Well, I guess its worked so far so your right, lol.

Of the two Sony representants in that interview one pointed of the free service as the distintive of the PSN ,and then the other representant intervened and told that their were happy with the model of the free service but that didnt mean it could change some day in the future .All in all I think is more a case of being a bit stupid by the Sony representant than another thing .

 That is where I like the PSN. Even though it's lacking, I don't have to pay just to play the games I already own online. The money needs to come from somewhere, I totally agree. I also think that if they started charging, it could take away from some sales (I know I'd be pretty pissed if I had to pay to play my games). 

that's exactly the point--let the people willing to pay for the subscription to subsidize the price cut.  why should i pay the extra cost if i don't need PSN?  

the bottom line is, i think, sony doesn't think it can compete with Live yet, so for now PSN is free.  but as the service improve,they're leaving money on the table, and when that happens, i'd much rather see sony slash $100 of the PS3 and subscription PSN instead of same price and free PSN. 

If somebody doesn't want to pay for it then that's fine, but I don't think online games should be considered a premium perk when a majority of games coming out will be including online play.

I think the problem would just be that it's hard to say that you really don't need any online at all unless you have no internet access.

It's not free, it's built into the price of the console (and the games) like every other PS3 feature. ;>

 yeah, as DKII says, it's not really free.  they're just charging you in different ways.  basically i'm saying just that.  it's just a different pricing scheme.