Sony Considering Charging for PSN

[mofogo]

Geez its crazy how much people inflate the price of Xbox Live to make them feel better about owning a PS3 instead. 15$/month? Give me a break. You COULD pay up to 7.99 a month, but who buys for just one month unless its a trial. The lowest you can get while re-subscribing on LIVE is 50/year or 4.16/month. You can buy a 12 month card on Amazon for 40$ or 3.33/month. Its chump change for a superior experience.

 

[cj_online]

[citation][nom]mofogo[/nom]Geez its crazy how much people inflate the price of Xbox Live to make them feel better about owning a PS3 instead. 15$/month? Give me a break. You COULD pay up to 7.99 a month, but who buys for just one month unless its a trial. The lowest you can get while re-subscribing on LIVE is 50/year or 4.16/month. You can buy a 12 month card on Amazon for 40$ or 3.33/month. Its chump change for a superior experience.[/citation]

Debatable it put up against a free PSN, however when both are paid, live wins hands down

 

[gregor]

This would be the final straw for me I think. PS3 (XBOX too) already have overpriced games, and you have to pay for crap which should be free (eg map packs for COD).
If they started charging then my PS3 would be relegated to Bluray/DVD player only to be honest.

 

[siman]

If they do I'll just go back to 100% computer gaming. PSN isn’t worth it if they could make it easily interchangeable with computer gaming and I could access content on my computer. I may consider it, but in terms of features, at this time I will not pay for their service.

 

[Ehsan w]

they we're thinking to get some money with this?!?!
lol.

 

[TunaSoda]

If they were smart they would leave it as-is AND revamp it, it is free to access, but they are selling things from within, what are they looking to double there money by treating us like that???

 

[cj_online]

lol this decision would be worse than Apple's "invention" of the "magical" ipad.

 

[sliem]

If it's more than $30 a year, I'm out had I had a PS3.

 

[eyemaster]

If they keep a free version and it's what we have now, then I don't mind if they come up with something that is much more and then charge a few bucks for it.

 

[Guest]

I already begrudgingly pay my $60 annual for Xbox live, and I can't believe there are so many people acting like this is even an option!

Doesn't anyone realize that neither of these companies are even providing dedicated game servers to host our games? Our own consoles are the hosts and clients! Both PSN and Xbox live (I own/use both; primarily Xbox live) are plagued with lag issues because they are using the clients to host the game, and they are charging us as if they were doing us a favor! What service are we paying for, again? Someone please remind me. Is it the right to access the patches and additional content (that should have come with our $60 games) that we must pay for in addition to their monthly/annual fees? They are charging more for the consoles, claiming $10 more per game, and charging for new maps and additional content. Shouldn't these funds maintain the online-system ? This "price-gouging"/"nickle-and-diming" was rarely the case with PC and console pricing prior to the new generation of consoles.

The truth is that Sony had the right idea - they didn't charge us for their network because it cost nothing to maintain it!

Once again, look at PC gaming... Do PC gamers have to pay to access the online portions of their games? In most cases, NO!

I know I'm making a big stink in a very limited forum, but I want to urge gamers and consumers alike to stop these companies from dictating such unfair business and pricing strategies!

 

[Sekondary]

PC games, until the newest generation of consoles and the Original XBOX, were always more expensive than console games at $50 a piece. We paid for it, through the nose, since there are no licencing fees for PC games and there were only a handful of passable multi-player games. I wonder though, how many people here complaining trade your games in at GameStop for at most 1/2 of what you paid for it. That would make their arguments mute since the money they lost in trading their game in would have easily paid for a service like Live or now possibly PSN. Stop buying shitty games like GTA by the millions and maybe developers will have to produce really good games that you would want to pay to play.

I work in the video game industry. More and more people are turning from XBOX to the PS3 because of the added value of the system, the much lower defective rates and the long awaited exclusives. I don't blame them, but somehow a disturbingly large portion of these people bought 2-4 360s because they kept breaking. It's clear that most consumers no longer can tell the difference between a good value or not, they just want it.

 

[vicsrealms]

I wouldn't pay anything, as I rarely if ever use my PS3. Although, I am hoping that will change once Heavy Rain comes out.

 

[Hydrotricithline]

Long of the short, the entire PSN network was setup to something sub-par, to facilitate a 'free' service. I look at it something more like steam, players have their own servers and it just simply connects them together. Having a service like this as it is with PSN caters (catered) to my gemographic, where I'm an avid pc owner and enthusiast, I had the console for the kids, and to play the occasional release game (orginally the Rockband series) and Blueray movies. Most of the interaction with PSN has simply been to get downloadable content that I purchased as addon's to my PS3 games/software. Having a pay/subscription based model I believe would undermine the entire principle that the PSN seemed to originally have been created for. Although I do recognize a good 50% of the comments here as xbox360 'trolls', I will have to agree that PSN is no where near the status of XboxLive. Even going to the point of playing with PC users on the XBL network. PSN to my knowledge doesn't even begin to touch on that, aswell as hosted servers, and added content for the XBL that PSN lacks. Understanding that xbl is subscription, and PSN is free the differences in the two services are understandable, almost expected. Implimenting the subscription services on the PSN I don't think the majority of the ps3 owner user base is being kept in mind, the majority if not all of the titles on ps3 wouldn't utilize or support a server 'upgrade' on the PSN, even with the assumption that the user base would be willing to pay for such a service. Whereas the demographic I represent, I would imagine encompasses the mainstream user base. I turn it on from time to time, play a game or two, and put it down. I don't see the need or use for having a manditory subscription based service for a PSN. If they were inclined to change their service offerings for some enthusiast crowd, (hosted servers and extra bells and whistles and what not) I'm sure they could do quite well in the high school dropout, or the "stay at home and console for 15+hrs a day" demographics. I'm not sure however it would be taken aswell by the causal user base. As with myself, I enjoy console games as something I can pick up from time to time, as a break from the 'pc world', and play for ten minutes, or an hour as suits my time and needs, press the power button, turn it off and forget about it. I would be hesitant to even consider paying for something that I simply have no need for or use; as before mentioned I bought the ps3 console under the understanding that the PSN network was free. Without the network being accessable to everyone, my gaming console just turned into a Blueray player with console controllers.

My thoughts;
Not yours.

 

[cj_online]

[citation][nom]Hydrotricithline[/nom]Long of the short, the entire PSN network was setup to something sub-par, to facilitate a 'free' service. I look at it something more like steam, players have their own servers and it just simply connects them together. Having a service like this as it is with PSN caters (catered) to my gemographic, where I'm an avid pc owner and enthusiast, I had the console for the kids, and to play the occasional release game (orginally the Rockband series) and Blueray movies. Most of the interaction with PSN has simply been to get downloadable content that I purchased as addon's to my PS3 games/software. Having a pay/subscription based model I believe would undermine the entire principle that the PSN seemed to originally have been created for. Although I do recognize a good 50% of the comments here as xbox360 'trolls', I will have to agree that PSN is no where near the status of XboxLive. Even going to the point of playing with PC users on the XBL network. PSN to my knowledge doesn't even begin to touch on that, aswell as hosted servers, and added content for the XBL that PSN lacks. Understanding that xbl is subscription, and PSN is free the differences in the two services are understandable, almost expected. Implimenting the subscription services on the PSN I don't think the majority of the ps3 owner user base is being kept in mind, the majority if not all of the titles on ps3 wouldn't utilize or support a server 'upgrade' on the PSN, even with the assumption that the user base would be willing to pay for such a service. Whereas the demographic I represent, I would imagine encompasses the mainstream user base. I turn it on from time to time, play a game or two, and put it down. I don't see the need or use for having a manditory subscription based service for a PSN. If they were inclined to change their service offerings for some enthusiast crowd, (hosted servers and extra bells and whistles and what not) I'm sure they could do quite well in the high school dropout, or the "stay at home and console for 15+hrs a day" demographics. I'm not sure however it would be taken aswell by the causal user base. As with myself, I enjoy console games as something I can pick up from time to time, as a break from the 'pc world', and play for ten minutes, or an hour as suits my time and needs, press the power button, turn it off and forget about it. I would be hesitant to even consider paying for something that I simply have no need for or use; as before mentioned I bought the ps3 console under the understanding that the PSN network was free. Without the network being accessable to everyone, my gaming console just turned into a Blueray player with console controllers.My thoughts;Not yours.[/citation]

I have entirely different thoughts on PS3's productivity and use when compared to Xbox 360.. but let's not go there.

However, i must speak out on PSN... PSN is obviously free, and henceforth, not that great a service. However, it does come pretty close to that of what Sony's counterpart, Microsoft has, the XBL. XBL might be better in a couple of aspects, including greater number of players, some slight more extra features, but overall... there isn't that much improvement over the PSN... so i think it's kinda weird that ppl are criticizing PSN for their money making plans, whereas XBL has had this joke of a service(yup both are hopeless if not free... ie none is worth the $$) paid for so long and nobody says a word..

PSN, although free, would also become a joke if paid...like XBL.. however, if they keep their current service free, and only make select new features (ie betas, new selective voice chat- if they ever have it, discounts etc..) paid... then IMHO they would definitely be able to overcome XBL and would be considered a much better service... ofcourse it'll take some time to compete with XBL.. but it will happen, provided the above does happen.

 

[isda1984]

there goes my children's education

 

[Guest]

As a parent I have paid $600.00 for my kids to have this. The selling feature that attracted them was being able to go online to play with others. I bought this investment with the understanding it included the free online feature. Now that my kids are used to it Sony has plans to violate the terms offered when I bought this, forcing me to tell my kids they cannot play online. I will not pay for this as I consider Sony dishonest and evil to misrepresent their product and take advantage of our kids feelings to reach even more deeply into our pockets. If they do wish to charge they should grandfather free online playing for all systems already sold. They should make it clear to future users what the subsciption price should be when purchasing. I think all Playstation users should join a class action suit against Sony for false advertising and breach of purchase agreements if they do this. I have already decided I will not purchase another Sony product because of this. I have bought Sony all my life but I am disgusted by this greed.

 

[Guest]

If ps3 starts charging for online I will sell my shit and not buy anything with the associated sony name period. I believe these damn units are ridiculously high priced anyway!!!!!!! I also, think that I'm not the only one that feels this way.