Pachter: Paid PSN Subscriptions Are Likely Inevitable
See Full ImageThe entirely free PlayStation Network remains a big bonus for many gamers but analyst Michael Pachter believes that Sony "can't afford to be magnanimous forever."
There have been more than a few rumors concerning a potential paid subscription for the PSN and although all have proven to be false thus far, and Sony hasn't offered anything official, the whispers persist. And in speaking to Critical Gamer, the Wedbush Morgan analyst admitted that he "really can't say" what Sony's plans are, but an online charge in the near future is still inevitable. Said Pachter:
"It seems to me that online game play can bear a monthly subscription (something as affordable as $50/year)… Free online play is a good marketing tool, but I don’t often hear consumers say 'I bought a PS3 because PSN is free'… more often, I hear people say 'I bought a 360 because of Xbox Live'… Sony gives a ton of value for free, but the company isn’t so profitable that it can afford to be magnanimous forever."
His statements could raise the ire of many a PS3 fan, simply because they imply that Live is the better service and worth paying for. The Network has made great strides in the past couple of years and perhaps Pachter's comment here can be considered outdated. But at the same time, the idea of a Premium subscription service for the PSN isn't out of left field and in all probability, we'll see one before the end of the year. But that does not mean it'll be required; the widespread belief now is that it will be optional for users.
But maybe not. Maybe Sony believes they've gained equal footing with Live and can now legitimately charge for a great service and if so...well, $4 or $5/month isn't exactly crippling. Ah, but is it not the principle of the matter? Free online forever? Or are we just being spoiled?
5/7/2010 10:20:13 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (109 posts)
Miggy
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:39:37 AM
Reply
9 up, 1 down
Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:45:56 PM
Nice
3 up, 1 down
Fane1024
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 6:08:57 PM
Free online is MUCH more of an incentive for people who DON'T play very often.
0 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:46:20 AM
Reply
Isn't that all that we need?
-Signing on and chatting/seeing your friends list?
Most online games are p2p, so that's not something we should pay for
The PSN store pays itself since we buy stuff from it
So what should we be paying for? Having a friends list and text-messaging them? Isn't that free on Skype and other IM'ging programs?
Last edited by Scarecrow on 5/7/2010 10:46:42 AM
21 up, 0 down
Mamills
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:18:00 PM
ive said it b4 if i have to be forced to pay to play games online, then its back to pc gaming and pirated games.
2 up, 0 down
OtisFeelgood
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:53:18 PM
1 up, 0 down
ohmikkie
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:47:13 AM
Reply
I would not care if I had too pay for online gaming on the PSN (I can afford it). But if so I would have to cancel my gold membership on 'Live though. 75% of my online gaming is on PS exclusives (Killzone2 & MAG).
Last edited by ohmikkie on 5/7/2010 10:48:26 AM
6 up, 2 down
Bugzbunny109
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:49:06 AM
Reply
12 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:01:07 AM
In fact they should have a big PSN logo on every ps3 box that says "FREE online play" or something along those lines
A lot of times parents or casuals don't do their research. They just go by what they see at the store.
If the ps3 box INVITES them and catches their attention they'll realize it's the better deal.
On the box I would put:
-Up to 7 controllers
-Free online play
-Plays ps1 games
-psp support
-True HD (blu-ray)
-Wireless controller (rechargeable)
Customers will catch that. They'll definitely UNDERSTAND why it costs $50 more than the other one.
9 up, 0 down
Monkeysnarf
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:50:15 AM
Reply
0 up, 4 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:02:05 AM
Have you tried just disconnecting the system from the Network and then playing? Because if games don't work then...it ain't the Network.
2 up, 0 down
oldmike
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:05:29 AM
sad but true
4 up, 2 down
ace_boon_coon
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:36:21 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:52:19 AM
This is one thing that Sony needs to get with publishers to stop. A stand alone game cannot, and must not require online access to play. It's by no means safe to assume that everyone has 'net access, and even if they do have 'net access, it's not always the most reliable service, so you can't assume that it's always there.
6 up, 0 down
ohmikkie
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:00:30 PM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:11:12 PM
3 up, 0 down
coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:18:41 PM
1 up, 0 down
Monkeysnarf
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:29:59 PM
I experienced this before on the PC. When Hurrican Ike came through Houston and knocked power out for 2 weeks I bought a generator. Obviously I didn't have internet, but single player Spore wouldn't play either without an internet connection.
0 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:47:38 PM
But if the PS3 isn't connected in any way to the Internet, that should never stop games from playing. If it does, it's not common, from what I know.
2 up, 0 down
Monkeysnarf
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:17:49 PM
1 up, 0 down
fluffer nutter
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:33:50 PM
3 up, 0 down
shadowscorpio
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:27:05 PM
If I can't play a game with out internet access, then I'm sorry Sony. I luv ya but that is a major flaw.
1 up, 0 down
DazeOfWar
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 6:58:55 PM
Also the rumors before about Sony charging for a service still had free online play. This is a link to a survey they did a while back that shows some of the stuff they were talking about.
http://kotaku.com/5429592/survey-sony-considering-premium-playstation-network-subscriptions
0 up, 0 down
ace_boon_coon
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:04:57 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
BTNwarrior
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:10:40 AM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
Simcoe
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:11:31 AM
Reply
5 up, 0 down
Snaaaake
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:21:29 AM
Reply
You don't often hear people saying "I bought a PS3 because PSN is free" doesn't mean no one said it.
Beside, who would buy a PS3 for the sole reason of free online?
Have you forgotten about Blu Ray and the godly exclusives?
3 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:23:42 PM
1 up, 0 down
hehateme
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:47:13 AM
Reply
1 up, 17 down
jaybiv
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:13:39 PM
9 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:26:31 PM
I think you know the answer to that. :)
and if your getting logged out that often, its not PSN. Its your IPS and/or you set up.
Last edited by Jawknee on 5/7/2010 3:27:41 PM
6 up, 0 down
kraygen
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:41:39 PM
2 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:26:59 PM
3 up, 1 down
Imagi
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 5:10:10 AM
0 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 6:15:05 PM
You may need to change your port settings if you're getting booted regularly.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:48:17 AM
Reply
Free online play and free access to Home and the Store are the hooks that bring people to the store. The content is what sells, not access. If you slap an entry fee on the network, you immediately restrict the potential customer base of your online store. What were the recent numbrs about the number of PS3 suers online vs the numbr of 360 users? The PS3 is the most connected console which brings far more potential paying consumers to Sony's PSN store. More consumers = more sales = more revenue. This is about bums on seats, not paying at the door.
When I go to my favorite Mexican restaurant, the don't charge me to enter the place, or sit at a table, and the chips and salsa are free too - as long as I order something from the menu. In other words access is free, but I pay for my content. The chips and salsa are a sort of teaser, a demo, of the content to come. Imagine how different it would be if my favorite Mexican restaurant decided to charge me a fee just to get in and sit down. How likely would I be to go there?
Pachter and others have missed the boat on the online model. PSN is all about selling content, not access, as it should be. I don't pay Amazon or Ebay to view products for sale on their sites. If they were to charge a small fee just for the pleasure of looking, I would immediately look elsewhere, as would most people.
I don't see anything inevitable at all about charging for access. I do see subscription models for certain kinds of content coming along. I also see subscriptions for some premium services. But basic services such as access to the PSN and playing Home and regular online games will be free.
I'd bet that FFXIV will be sold via PSN for a monthly fee, generating a small revenue stream for Sony with every subscription to the game. I would expect this to be the same for other MMO games made available on PSN.
Before anyone points to Home and calls it an MMO, it's nothing of the sort. It's an ecommerce platform disguised as a social gaming space. You pay for almost all the content in Home. Home is free, but you pay for the drinks.
PSN - Access is free, content costs money.
30 up, 0 down
coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:04:11 PM
5 up, 0 down
ohmikkie
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:07:14 PM
But one can also argue that MS may have more content.
I would like more games to offer a LAN option (like the good old PC days). For people who just want to play with their friends (I mean real friends) that is always going to be a better option.
1 up, 0 down
jaybiv
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:16:18 PM
6 up, 0 down
Mamills
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:21:08 PM
hopefully some of these so called experts can understand that. but meh as i said b4 and i'll say it again
if i have to pay to play online...
i just wont play online
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:29:44 PM
The thing is that the digital economy cannot work on a managed service model. That locks consumers in to specific services and if they leave that service they lose their content. If you sell content to a consumer, it's theirs. For digital delivery of purchased content to work, the content needs to be independent of the service.
If a gamer purchases a game - for example Wipeout HD, they paid for the game. With a managed service and subscription model, the consumer has to pay an additional fee to play online, and to gain access to download the game again if their console has a problem. Suddenly the managed service is holding the consumer's 'property' hostage until a fee is paid. That doesn't work.
Regarding this model working for content that Sony doesn't own. It still works, Sony simply becomes a retailer for that content, and takes a small slice of the revenue. But with no physical store front or product delivery, the content owner stands to make more than before, and Sony gets a slice of every penny spent. Everyone wins.
Last edited by Highlander on 5/7/2010 12:32:06 PM
11 up, 0 down
nogoat23
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:46:39 PM
4 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:54:11 PM
Yes, but a cheese burger and fries is $10-$15, and soft drinks cost the earth. They can afford to keep the price of entry relatively low as well by up-charging for food & drink and souvenirs. While this model might work for Disney, it's not exactly applicable to PSN or XBL.
5 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:22:22 PM
5 up, 0 down
bearbobby
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:22:31 PM
Always a pleasure to read guy. Give this man a seat next to Kevin Butler in commercials and not only would people get a laugh, they'll also be informed as to what the heck they're buying.
8 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:35:15 PM
*looks at comment about Mexican restaurant*
Yup!
8 up, 0 down
MyWorstNightmar
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:20:22 PM
However, with you explaining the PSN model, let us not pretend that that model can't or won't change. You give the example of a Mexican restaurant, but what about a bar or a club, they routinely have cover charge to get inside to access the content of said bar or club.
I realize that Sony has said online gaming will always be free. They can parse words all they want. They can say, well of course online gaming will be free, you simply have to pay our monthly PSN access fee, and once you have, you have access to all the free online gaming that you want.
PSN will be free until Sony decides they want to change it, simple as that. Business and bottom line first, public relations second. They justify it anyway they want, but they will do what is in their best interest, not ours. (Linux anyone?)
Don't forget, Sony says online will remain free, and they also said those pics of the slim are not real (or they say we don't comment on rumors or speculation), and they also say we don't have any plans on lowering the price of the PS3. Mere weeks later, price is now $299.99. Bottom line, we don't know exactly what they are going to do, despite their statements.
I do hope that your vision of the future is accurate. I do not mind paying for content, as it then becomes my choice as to what content I pay for, however, I do see a "cover" charge coming in the future whether we see it for the PS3, or if Sony waits for the PS4 to come out. We shall see.
0 up, 0 down
shadowscorpio
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:33:56 PM
0 up, 0 down
Nynja
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:13:22 AM
Careful Highlander, we don't want you popping a blood vessel. ;)
0 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:49:16 AM
Reply
If Sony wants to charge for some other features, I am all for it. I believe it would be a shame to see Sony go the way of the greedy MS, and nickle and dime us for everything.
I hope, as usual, Pachter is wrong with this one.
8 up, 0 down
MyWorstNightmar
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:35:02 PM
0 up, 0 down
Clamedeus
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:55:40 AM
Reply
Sony FTW!
4 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:23:44 PM
5 up, 0 down
coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:02:36 PM
Reply
The part of me that disagrees is that they will "likely inevitably" (love the oxymoron) start charging for online play. They have made it a corner stone to their online foundation that they have free to play online. I do however think that they will institute a Premium Subscription like has been rumoured in the past.
And on a side note, Unlike a poster above me and Pachter believe, there are some of us who bought the PS3 console over a 360 console because of free online play amongst other reasons.
Also, to the above super angry about not paying for online poster, if you are being logged out 3 to 4 times during a gaming session it isn't because you aren't paying $50 a year to play online it is because a) your connection is not up to snuff, or b) the host's connection is not up to snuff and migration of the game to a new host timed out. You will have those issues no matter what you are paying for online. It happens on Live even if people say it doesn't, it happens on PC games, it happens on any type of online gaming structure simply because not all hosts can manage the traffic and when migrating through servers things just tend to mess up. Welcome to life.
5 up, 2 down
Feregrin
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:18:37 PM
2 up, 0 down
coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:22:08 PM
2 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:40:56 PM
0 up, 0 down
coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:29:16 PM
It isn't your problem in the slightest just like Wal-Mart having product on their shelves isn't your problem, but when you buy from Wal-Mart just like when you buy from the PSN a percentage of that purchase goes to facility costs which as the name implies pays for their facilities i.e. their stores where the products are...stored. Same with PSN the percentage goes to keeping the content up on the servers.
1 up, 0 down
sha4dowknight05
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:17:58 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
jaybiv
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:19:24 PM
Reply
For all we know Sony could have already built the PSN costs into the pricing and licensing of games.
2 up, 0 down
whooka
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:34:05 PM
Reply
Once again, business model talk or not, the bottom line is this: Sony and partners make alot of money by people accessing the PSN store through DLC, on-demand movies and tv, etc. But like other big corporations these days (i.e. banks, insurance companies) they want us to think accessing their network is some privilege where in fact they are privileged to have customers spending their hard earned money on additional content. If they didn't have an access point like this it would be one less P.O.S. (and for psn that acronym can double for 'piece o' sh-t') for them and their partners which means less revenue. If anyone really believes Sony is 'losing' money by the current PSN model, which is basically free access and you can then pay for additional content, you've not come to terms with the 'corporate age' we live in. Not much on the PSN is free other then what should be: online play and game updates for games you already bought that fix problems that should have been fixed before they released the game. ADDITIONAL GAMES AND MEDIA ALREADY COST MONEY. Use the mad profits you make off of DLC since there's no production costs involved for the media (why the hell is dragon age awakening the same price retail/media as DLC???) and invest in infrastructure rather then your CEO's yearly bonuses and things will be fine. And for games that require an Internet connection, if you're gonna start charging for PSN access for these then offer another way to do multiplayer besides the additional costs of PSN (if they start charging for that).
When Sony and other corporations lose money 9 out of 10 times it's due to some stupid financial risk they took or a bad decision on their part (i.e. don't start removing features from your console and then whine about slower sales). They just like to play victim and the American news outlets, since they are owned by alot of the same corporations, are all too happy to help spread this meme. It's crap. They make alot of money off us already and I'm aware of that.
'Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the economy' That's a FACT. Not Wall Street or corporations, they just set the mood.
3 up, 14 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:48:39 PM
19 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:49:13 PM
You post is very confused and seems to come from a profoundly anti-Sony point of view. I also have to say it sounds like you are one of those that believe that if something costs more that YOU think it should, those selling it at that price are evil corporate suits. Perhaps you should stop and consider the costs involved before you bitch about the price?
Last edited by Highlander on 5/7/2010 1:05:52 PM
16 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:29:34 PM
you obviously haven't been paying attention.
::rolls eyes::
Highlander, i think he doesn't like it when people make money. Sony should give us all their stuff for free, consoles, games, network etc. After all we are all entitled to it right?
/sarc
Last edited by Jawknee on 5/7/2010 2:37:04 PM
4 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 2:58:54 PM
I got almost half way through your post and stopped reading. That was an awful lot of misguided button mashing in that post. If you've been to this site often, you should be well aware that most serious and regular posters here are well educated. In fact, most of us don't post unless we have something productive to add to the conversation.
Highlander is such an individual, and you can bet he won't post a long message on something he's unfamiliar with.
Your information is extremely misguided, and I'm fairly certain there are a number of terms you use that carry definitions you were unaware of.
It was a tiring half-read.
0 up, 0 down
whooka
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:10:14 PM
Reply
It doesn't take any ledger sheets from Sony or EA or whomever to know they make alot of profit in various ways. The DLC is a good example. If Dragon Age Awakenings expansion is $40 for the DLC but also $40 for a retail, pressed medium in a dvd case, what does that tell you about the actual cost of retail production manufacturers are always whining about?
Also, sales numbers of any given product are usually public when they do well so I do know how many copies they sell of specific titles and know there's been a few that have 'set records' in terms of sales over the last year or two, or at least press articles claim they have.
This is like Hollywood complaining they are losing so much money to movie piracy but at the same time cold, hard data indicates they made more money at the box office in 2009 then any year previously. The corporate meme is always one thing, the reality is usually another. You folks who 'believe' in these rigid, cognitive structures have no way of putting two seemingly unrelated items together to actually discern true information rather then listening to what comes down the corporate media pipeline from the corporations themselves.
And why hasn't the lawsuit against Sony for removing the 'Other O/S' feature been mentioned as news here even once??? This is probably my favorite PS3 site but that alone makes me think it's Sony/Corporate friendly.
1 up, 13 down
Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:19:13 PM
BTW you said "Just about every corporations 'stated' earnings are false". That is a falsehood, you are generalizing and assuming a lot to make that statement. Based on all the requirements of financial reporting by companies in the US and other western countries, your statement is also patently false. It's true that some major financial organizations use dense accounting practice to shroud the truth in their accounts, but the majority of financial results announced by companies are accurate - and clear. They have to be or CFOs, COOs and CEOs can be fined or go to jail.
As for the OtherOS thing. I've mentioned that lawsuit several times. I'm not part of the writing staff of this site - obviously - but the lawsuit has been discussed.
Of course I think that it will ultimately fail for several reasons. But hey, anything could happen in a US court.
BTW, just so you know, my friends are rolling in laughter that you accuse me of sounding corporate. Most of the time they accuse me of being some kind of communist or socialist because I have a point that's much more towards the center (right of center) than theirs.
Last edited by Highlander on 5/7/2010 1:26:22 PM
16 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:33:18 PM
::grins::
and i don't think your a pinko commie High, you just trust government more then i do. :)
Last edited by Jawknee on 5/7/2010 2:35:34 PM
3 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:53:08 PM
7 up, 0 down
Nynja
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:09:04 AM
Only one word for that; awesome. Would have never guessed it. British are so smart. :)
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 3:06:13 PM
Uh, do you realize it's the law for net profits, extremely high salaries, and similar numbers to be published to the public? (At least where I'm from) Major corporations are required to publish their numbers accurately due to the immense amount of money involved from investors and shareholders.
When people hide numbers and fudge them for their own profit, it's a felony known as fraud or embezzlement.
Seriously, I bet if you google any major corporation, you can find their net income and all kinds of other information. Part of my job includes employment counseling, and I am often looking into this type of information (although usually for much smaller or local businesses).
If there's an investor or shareholder, there's an accurate breakdown of finances. Just because it's not in your local paper in full detail, doesn't mean it isn't there.
GAWD you're hard to listen to...
(I'm not Brittish... but I AM apart of the commonwealth!)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/10/2010 3:07:09 PM
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 4:29:41 PM
0 up, 0 down
Deleted User
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:23:30 PM
Reply
13 up, 0 down
GuardianMode
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:14:14 PM
4 up, 0 down
Hezzron
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:40:54 PM
Reply
With Sony being sued over the removal of "Other Operating Systems", I can only imagine the fallout if they started charging for what was once advertised as free.
0 up, 0 down
kraygen
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:58:09 PM
0 up, 0 down
bridgera
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:17:09 PM
Maybe they'd even go so far as to figure "well we'll start charging for PSN, at worst we'll loose a Class Action Lawsuit, settle by giving everyone a free year of PSN, and then charge the year after. So that makes the long term benefits a plus".
0 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:33:43 PM
Reply
Just sayin..
1 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:11:23 PM
Reply
That means Packy owes us all some change back!!!
And Packy also owes his company quite a bit of money, just for "accessing" their name.
2 up, 0 down
bridgera
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:56:31 PM
Reply
Oh also Patcher, I only know 10 360 owners, not a lot, but none of them have XBL gold accounts. All of the PS3 owners I know do occasionally play on PSN.
That's just my experience, certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but I don't see any validity in what Patcher is saying.
Edit: Makes you wonder how PC's ever had free online play huh Patcher? What with it being so expensive and all.
Last edited by bridgera on 5/7/2010 3:57:22 PM
2 up, 0 down
kraygen
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:02:22 PM
Reply
So once again where can I get me one of these jobs?
1 up, 0 down
FullmetalX10
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 5:59:04 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 6:13:30 PM
Reply
0 up, 1 down
MyWorstNightmar
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:26:27 PM
2 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 8:37:07 PM
Reply
(I was gonna get that new black Wii bundle for my collection, but now I'm broke again after that $663 repair bill on my truck yesterday, damn it!!!!)
0 up, 0 down
Qubex
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 9:58:21 PM
Reply
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
0 up, 0 down
Phoelix
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:44:34 PM
Reply
I disagree. Just because some dude (even if he's an analyst) says there will be a fee? He's not a part of the company, and rumors are just rumors.
At least, I hope.
0 up, 0 down
RebelJD
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:54:30 PM
Reply
Sony stand the "f" up.
0 up, 0 down
___________
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 3:29:24 AM
Reply
charge for online play i dont mind because i dont play games online, but if they start charging for access to the PSN as in the store and being able to sync my trophies than my ps3 is going on ebay.
M$ dont charge for access to their store, so i cant see sony doing it.
if they make it worth my while though i may pay for it, if they give me free access to things.
like say i pay 30 bucks a month and i can download anything i want it would be worth it.
or even if they somehow manage to get the PSN store into bigponds unmetered site list than id happily pay them 50 bucks per month for that!
0 up, 2 down
S8N_666
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 11:13:21 AM
Reply
Last edited by S8N_666 on 5/8/2010 11:17:51 AM
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 4:46:54 PM
Being married, graduated from university, and having found good full time employment, (Which can be said for many of my friends), I have relocated to a city far removed from my hometown and the city I studied in. My friends, have also relocated. This is something that happens in life.
For me, I have at least 7 or 8 very close friends (2 of which stood for me at my wedding) that live thousands (in some cases) of kilometers (sorry, Canadian) away from me with whom I keep in touch through the PSN.
So for me, I'm a little bothered by comments that I somehow have no social life because I communicate with friends via online gaming. As a successful professional who is heavily devoted to community development and family, I resent those sorts of wild, baseless comments.
Many of my "real friends" are now over the internet. They didn't start that way, mind you, but life's circumstances have led them to become people I see primarily over the internet. PSN is way more fun than a Facebook chat, and it's far cheaper (0$) than a phone call.
That type of 'holier-than-thou' attitude you carry is annoying. What's more annoying is that I've had to write this based on the last sentence you half-wittingly added to the end of you post. Technology connects us now; it doesn't make us anti-social. I think it's commendable that entertainment can be used to keep us together.
Like I said... way more fun than text-chat and cheaper than a phone call. Don't get me wrong... I would rather see my friends and family in person. But who has the time to drive 20 hours every week to hang out?
You, good sir, suck.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 4:49:06 PM
I'm not one to judge on that, but she's a DSW (Developmental Service Worker)... That means she works with people with developmental disabilities. Consider this a virtual slap upside the head from her.
EDIT: Don't worry, I already learned the hard way after using that word once... I won't use it negatively ever again.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/10/2010 4:49:48 PM
0 up, 0 down
sazzrah
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 12:21:54 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Mr Diamond
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 12:25:26 PM
Reply
thats why i always gonna dislike xbox360: pay for internet acces then pay for online gaming? you suck monkey ass xbox!
lets hope sony dont start sucking monkey ass as well.
0 up, 0 down
FoxRacing916
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 1:54:46 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Caanimal
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:21:00 PM
Reply
micro&soft has shown that people are stupid enough to pay for something that has long been free so now more companies are going to look into it.
0 up, 0 down
xnonsuchx
Sunday, May 09, 2010 @ 6:18:20 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 5:02:44 PM
Take MW2, for example. The quality of online play is dictated by whomever is randomly selected to be the host. IW and Sony don't have a server that hosts these games.
0 up, 0 down
Gabriel013
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:44:15 AM
Reply
One major concern I have is that some of the pay on demand content (psn games/DLC etc) may only become available for subscription payers.
As an example, imagine if one of the two DLC's for Assassins Creed 2 was only available for if you were a monthly subscriber?
THAT is the model I would want to avoid. I want the option of paying for any of the element individually as is the case now.
Not saying that approach is being considered by Sony but I'm just speaking my thoughts.
As for online multiplayer; The free play is a major draw for those like me who only play once in a blue moon as we don't see the point in paying monthly for a service we will almost never use.
0 up, 0 down
sha4dowknight05
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:21:46 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
manofchao5
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:46:38 PM
you can play so many hours a week online for free, and when you past that limit you have to pay extra either by a subscription or a pay as you go
or rather just charge for additional features like recording live games or cross game chat
just as long as the free option is still available for just online gaming, i dont want some "live" bullshit