Sony planning paid PSN subscriptions for 2010

[THX-182]

No one is making you pay for xbox live. its a choice.

Exactly. I never understood why these people blast others over video game console preferences. Who cares?! Play what you want and leave the others alone. You made your choice so let others make theirs in peace. It's not your money and you don't have to be the one to play it so leave it be.

 

[DinoLast]

No one is making you pay for xbox live. its a choice.

It's a bit of a Hobson's Choice. Don't get Live and you can't play with your friends

Peer pressure on kids today is pretty hard on those that don't have Live.
My second cousin who is 13 years old, wants Live because all his friends play on Live, but his mum can't
afford an Internet connection at the moment.
He feels left out, so I have tried my best to let him know that he can do other stuff
like go outside and kick a ball around with his school friends.
I think he understands, but it still must feel that like he's missing out
I guess that applies to PSN as well.

 

[Chimera 1]

What we should be discussing is what you think Sony has in mind for this subscription service? Will it be like Live where if you get it for free you have access to the store and demo's (silver) and if you pay you get to take advantage of different features such as online play(gold).

Sony is going to do the below.

What Sony is going to do is microtransactions. You can play online free but you will pay for individual pieces. Like map packs on LIVE except you have to pay for each map individually for example. They premium service will offer discounts on bundles (map packs, armor packs, weapon packs). They will also make it so that people can only play certain game types/areas for free and premium members get access to more. This is how they are going to push people into paying a fee for the PSN. If you don't beleive me then just take a virtual trip into Home. They are already using this model there. This is a tried and true method which Sony has used before on MMO's.
Think of it like playing an RPG and you try to go to a town and you get "You need to be a subscriber to access this area". or
Your playing an FPS online (for free) and the other team are subscribers and they are out gunning you because they have exclusive weapons and armor. This is what you will run into in 2010. Maybe not every aspect of what I wrote but the general concept of it. Quote me on it.

 

[THX-182]

Exactly. Sony is gonna make it to where in order for you to be happy with the online play, you'll have to pay for it. They know they will entice most people with something to get them to pay. It is inevitable.

 

[Jamal]

They didnt say they are charging for online play..

They are charging for premium content whatever it may be.

PSN being free is what differentiates the PS3 from 360, there are about 33 Million PSN users to date so its going for well for them it seems.

I like how many of you jump the gun by the way... with no real proof besides an artice which mentions content not the online play service.

 

[THX-182]

I like how many of you are naive enough to believe that things wont change and you can continue to get exactly what you are getting and not have to pay to get the same experience you currently are getting.

I wish I lived in that fantasy world.

 

[Club Obi Wan]

I like how many of you are naive enough to believe that things wont change and you can continue to get exactly what you are getting and not have to pay to get the same experience you currently are getting.

I wish I lived in that fantasy world.

Why is it so naive? According to the article that started this whole thread, it's explicitly stated -- what we have now remains free.

 

[THX-182]

No it says that they will build upon the current free service. It never says they won't change it. It is naive to believe that they will leave everything that is currently free, free. Like it was mentioned I bet they intend to limit what is free so people feel they need to pay in order to get the things they enjoy out of their online play.

If you all really think they are going to leave a potential money maker alone then you are dreaming. They know they can get money off of this. The mere fact that they are implementing some sort of paid subscription indicates to me that they are planning to make features seem like must haves and get people to pay.

 

[Club Obi Wan]

We'll see what they do. Somehow though, I think it'd be more naive to take the predictions of Xbox360 fans at face value in this matter.

 

[THX-182]

We'll see what they do. Somehow though, I think it'd be more naive to take the predictions of Xbox360 fans at face value in this matter.

Lucky for you I have a PS3 and have an unbiased opinion.

 

[Club Obi Wan]

Assuming I take your word for it, you mean. Not that people ever lie on the internet or anything.

 

[THX-182]

Assuming I take your word for it, you mean. Not that people ever lie on the internet or anything.

Questioning whether I have a PS3? I assure you. My PSN name is THX-182. Check it if you doubt me.

You can see my PS3 in the bottom right of this picture of my very old setup:

 

[Club Obi Wan]

Come now. You certainly must realize this photo hardly counts as definitive proof, since you could have gotten that photo from anywhere.

But my larger point stands -- you shouldn't have to pay just to have access to online gaming. Essentially, you're being charged for the right to assemble.

In a world where the internet is opening up choices and freedom in countless ways, why is it console gamers feel it's acceptable to be herded and fleeced like sheep? The appeal of online gaming is interacting with fellow human beings. That experience is created by us, not Microsoft.

 

[canuck_spartan]

Come now. You certainly must realize this photo hardly counts as definitive proof, since you could have gotten that photo from anywhere.

But my larger point stands -- you shouldn't have to pay just to have access to online gaming. Essentially, you're being charged for the right to assemble.

In a world where the internet is opening up choices and freedom in countless ways, why is it console gamers feel it's acceptable to be herded and fleeced like sheep? The appeal of online gaming is interacting with fellow human beings. That experience is created by us, not Microsoft.

Doesn't the cost of online subscriptions, such as live, pay for the server maintenance? (the servers being the things which create the networks allowing online gameplay). Granted, microsoft makes a ton of dough off it, so the subscription price could be substantially cheaper... anyways, I appreciate the Sony approach, play online for free, but only when it works. The LIVE experience is so much better, it's just too bad it costs so darned much. If PSN offers an online service that works as well as, or better than LIVE for half the cost I would consider it. I subscribe to and cancel my live subscription as I need it, which works well enough on a budget. Sony has to maintain an online network at zero cost to the consumer currently, right?

 

[Club Obi Wan]

Now, if you buy the idea that all that money you're paying for Live is going to "server maintenance" that's a rip.

The ability to congregate and interact online should be free, because it's people who are creating that online experience spontaneously.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Doesn't the cost of online subscriptions, such as live, pay for the server maintenance? (the servers being the things which create the networks allowing online gameplay). Granted, microsoft makes a ton of dough off it, so the subscription price could be substantially cheaper... anyways, I appreciate the Sony approach, play online for free, but only when it works. The LIVE experience is so much better, it's just too bad it costs so darned much. If PSN offers an online service that works as well as, or better than LIVE for half the cost I would consider it. I subscribe to and cancel my live subscription as I need it, which works well enough on a budget. Sony has to maintain an online network at zero cost to the consumer currently, right?

The only problem I have with your statement is that its exaggerated. PSN works perfectly fine. Sure it could be better, but its nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be. I've never been kicked from a game and haven't had noticeable lag in any matches played...even so, I just quit and find another one. Is that so terrible?? No. Considering I've experienced these problems in the past with LIVE....that's a major problem when I have to pay a subscription to them.

The article in question states that the current Multiplayer capability will NOT be charged for...and that's all I care about. Paying for the premium stuff, as in bonus maps or extra levels...well you still pay that in LIVE don't you.

 

[Club Obi Wan]

I've never been kicked from a game and haven't had noticeable lag in any matches played...even so, I just quit and find another one. Is that so terrible?? No. Considering I've experienced these problems in the past with LIVE....that's a major problem when I have to pay a subscription to them.

I've never had any real problems with PSN either. It's reliable and works well.

I'm not so thrilled about the idea of needing premium service just to be able to access map packs and such, but I hope at least the basics will remain free, as they should.

 

[canuck_spartan]

I guess my definition of a "working" online system means there is no significant lag, there are few server errors (ie being booted), and the interface is easy to use and practical. On the PSN for example you can't form out of game parties in which you can subsequently join games. There's no excuse for an oversight like that, free or not.
@hairless wookie, I respectfully disagree based on my experiences. you're lucky to not have experienced significant lag or booting.
@club obi wan, I'll agree the PSN is reliable, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it works "well". And as you can see in my earlier statement, I believe the fees microsoft charges are abhorent. I never said they were either reasonable or fair.

Just my observations guys. I've owned a PS3 and 360 for about 2 years each now, and my opinion stems from my experiences. It's all marketing, and it's all designed to make money, free or not.

Maybe I don't understand clearly how online gaming works, but don't you need a virtual platform with which to assemble these interactions? If so, is it wrong that companies charge fees for providing the online platform? I'm not trying to be obnoxious , I just honestly think I'm missing something here. How can you assemble for gameplay without the companies providing the virtual space to do it in?

PS, just wanted to get the message out there. I'm playing devil's advocate here . I too feel online gaming should be a service provided by companies free of charge.

 

[Club Obi Wan]

There's an old marketing gimmick where you can actually get people to value a familiar commodity more -- all you have to do is charge more for it!

It may sound counterintuitive, but it's been shown to work time and time again. Put out a display and charge double the regular price for Coke, and people will buy that soda in preference to the regularly priced Coke, even if they are right next to each other! Why? Because subconsciously, people figure the higher priced Coke is better quality, rarer, more special, whatever.

I think that's what's happening with people who believe Live is so amazing and PSN is somehow "unreliable". I've never experienced any of the problems canuck_spartan mentions. But the fact you have to pay for Live while PSN is free automatically colors opinions. Nobody wants to feel like they paid for something they could have gotten for free, anyway.

And sure, companies provide an "online platform". But are most people really signing up for Live or PSN by itself? No, it's the platforms provided by the game makers we're really interested in.

The incentive for Microsoft and Sony to make Live and PSN work as best as they can is so that game developers will wish to create multiplayer games for their console, which in turn will make consumers wish to buy those consoles.

 

[canuck_spartan]

To be honest one of the reasons I stumbled into this thread was because I was canceling my xbox live account, and wanted to see what the hubbub was with this new premium fee for PSN.

Obi you're definitely right about the double priced incentive to buy. Regardless of quality, people will pay a premium simply to say they've payed a premium. I don't know if that's the case with LIVE or not, I just know that in my personal experience live is an easier way to enjoy gaming with a group of friends, which for me is what online gaming is all about. If I could get a group of three specific friends together for a session of GTA IV deathmatch as easily as I could for Halo 3, PSN would have my vote. I supposed the ability to group and enjoy content as a unit makes LIVE the better system to me, not the "premium" fees associated with it. It's not a question of cheap VS expensive coke, it's decent vs good online gaming.

Here's an article that helps the arguement that PS3 inherently has weaker online infrastructure. Although it has nothing to do with service fees, it still helps support my point I think as to which is "better".
https://features.csmonitor.com/inno...n-warfare-2-servers-down-debunked-on-twitter/