PS3 News: Pachter: Paid PSN Subscriptions Are Likely Inevitable - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Pachter: Paid PSN Subscriptions Are Likely Inevitable

The 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 The Network has made great strides in the past couple of years and perhaps Pachter's comment here can be considered outdated.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

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (109 posts)

manofchao5
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:46:38 PM

i think it should be like this to keep it great and free
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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Miggy
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:39:37 AM
Reply

I barely play online anyways so it would not really affect me either way. One of the main reasons I got a PS3 though was because of the free online.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:45:56 PM

Uh ok. The "main reason" you bought a PS3 was for the free online that you don't use?

Nice

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 6:08:57 PM

...probably because he can use it as much or as little as he wants without worrying about whether he has paid for the month.

Free online is MUCH more of an incentive for people who DON'T play very often.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:46:20 AM
Reply

Isn't stuff like Skype/AIM free?

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

Agree with this comment 21 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mamills
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:18:00 PM

i agree man,

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

OtisFeelgood
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:53:18 PM

I agree with everything you said Scarecrow but keep in mind alot of those IM programs like AIM and Yahoo have ads that helps keep them free.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ohmikkie
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:47:13 AM
Reply

I personally use more of PSN than I do of Xbox Live (gold). I'm not a fan of x-game chat; it's to intrusive to my personal gaming space.
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

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Bugzbunny109
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:49:06 AM
Reply

Sony needs to start marketing PSN's capabilities. If people are saying I bought an Xbox because of Live, then there is a problem because PSN offers the same things Live offers for free. Unfortunately, people still think that PSN is the same as it was 4 years ago. PSN should remain free because it is a great advantage for PS3 users.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:01:07 AM

I agree

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.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

oldmike
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:04:00 AM

ya no one sees how that yearly cost adds up

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Monkeysnarf
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:50:15 AM
Reply

So if they charged for PSN and I chose not to pay for it, does that mean I won't be able to play any single player games that have trophys? Right now if there's a glitch in the network (or my internet) and trophys can't be updated, I can't play single player games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:02:05 AM

You what now? No, you won't have to pay to play single-player games just because Trophies are involved.

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

oldmike
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:05:29 AM

ben some games need online to work
sad but true

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

ace_boon_coon
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:05:39 AM

did you update your console?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ace_boon_coon
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:36:21 AM

sometime you have to verify your account name also.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:52:19 AM

Some games actively check trophy data and hit the network to do so. I remember when the weird leap year bug hit older systems this was the pattern. Some newer games wouldn't work right because you couldn't get onto the PSN.

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.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ohmikkie
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:00:30 PM

Examples please? What games (single player elements) won't work without being logged on? I haven't come across this (I do not log on automatically; only when I play online or sync trophies).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:11:12 PM

The games stall when starting because they try to check trophy information online. I'd have to go look for examples, but I remember people having trouble with games that could not access trophy data when they started.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:18:41 PM

Heavy Rain was the biggest culprit during the leap year thing if anyone cares to remember that. Also when starting up Dead Space it logs in and syncs trophy information. Not sure if you have to be logged into to play but I also am not sure if your trophies would work if you didn't have connection and you had never played it before.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monkeysnarf
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:29:59 PM

I remember Dragon Age: Origins wouldn't work. (I can't remember now if it was because I didn't have internet or the PSN was messed up.) Also MW2 wouldn't let me play single player missions once because of the network. It said it needed to verify trophies or something. This was actually the same day that DAO didn't work.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:47:38 PM

That will only happen if the PSN is messed up; if it detects an Internet connection but it doesn't work for the Trophies. That has caused problems in the past.

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Monkeysnarf
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:17:49 PM

Ah. I should try that when I get home, unplug the PS3 from the internet and play one of those games.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:33:50 PM

There are a few PS3 games that have DRM that will not allow them to be played without an internet connection. Boo on them.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:27:05 PM

well this is all news to me. Of course I've been connected since day one. I just always thought that trophies were already on disc and the only ones you needed internet access for were DLC trophies.

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DazeOfWar
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 6:58:55 PM

You should still be able to play no matter what. If they did charge to play you would probably still have some sort of Silver, which is free, account like Live does. If you don't pay for Live you can still buy games from the marketplace. You just can't play online multiplayer games. I couldn't see Sony just screwing everybody over like that.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ace_boon_coon
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:04:57 AM
Reply

psn is too far ahead to start charging. i just don't see it. it's would make a lot of users bitter (me anyway). the premium service seems a lil more realistic.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:10:40 AM
Reply

Sony doesn't stoop to the levels of others just because of money. Thats why the ps3 doesn't burn out every year, like some other money hungry corporations consol.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:11:31 AM
Reply

I have no problems paying for a premium PSN service, but they shouldn't change their existing free PSN service.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:21:29 AM
Reply

Sorry Pact Man, but one of the reason why I bought PS3 was because of free PSN, no way Sony will screw us inside out.

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?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:23:42 PM

Maybe he needs to read more because I see "I bought a PS3 because PSN is free" floating around the net a lot.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hehateme
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:47:13 AM
Reply

there is a bunch of cheap @$$ES in here man 5 bucks or even 6 or 7 a month equals an EXTRA VALUE MEAL once a MONTH in total cost..... your telling me you spent 600 $ or 299 just to play free online???? LMAO yeah and im the HULK.... you bought the PS3 because its a gaming system... not for free online! thats such a joke,im tired of playing and gettign logged out of the network 3 or 4 times when i play somtimes... i want the upgrades that come with my money

Agree with this comment 1 up, 17 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:13:39 PM

Paying for PSN doesn't guarantee better service.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:26:31 PM

MS charges $99 but a 60gb hard drive. Is it better then the 500gb one i got off of Amazon for $60?

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

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:41:39 PM

Jawknee is right, the only time I've ever been kicked off was if they were updating the network and that's only happened like twice in the last 2 years.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:26:59 PM

@ hehateme - Quit vying for attention and go see what the hell is wrong with your ISP. I play HOURS of online multiplayer every night and not once do I ever get logged out of PSN. Anyone who says they get logged out as much as you claim is either a liar or doesn't use the service.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 5:10:10 AM

I have been logged out of PSN but it is very rare, you can count the number of times in a year on one hand and still have fingers to spare. Take the issue up with your ISP, check your router or even try another model and see if that is any better.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 6:15:05 PM

The only time I get booted from PSN is when I play Go Sudoku and that's the fault of the game's net code.

You may need to change your port settings if you're getting booted regularly.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:48:17 AM
Reply

Holy crap, when are people (including the golden boy of the analyst world) going to get this business model through their thick skulls? The PSN model is simple. Access is free, content costs money. You play a game online, that is access. You buy the game, that is content. You buy DLC, that is content. You play on home, that is access. You buy crap in Home, that's content. You buy movies, TV, music, games, etc....all content.

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.

Agree with this comment 30 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:58:40 AM

Well said Highlander. I agree.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:04:11 PM

Very well stated and that's why I really do see them moving to a Premium Subscription Model. More (read extra) content if you want it, continued free everyone is happy content if you don't want to shell out extra.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ohmikkie
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:07:14 PM

You've got a good point. I've never looked at it that way. I've always seen it as a managed service (I work for a company that provides managed services - not gaming).

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:16:18 PM

Great point Highlander. I would like to add that this model works for Sony because they own some of the content (music, movies, tv shows) as well. Unlike the other service.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:17:09 PM

1000% Agreement

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mamills
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:21:08 PM

well said and explained.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:29:44 PM

You can argue that MS has more content all you like, but the difference is very minor. Without getting down to comparing specific movie availability, it's safe to say that both services have more than enough movies and TV episodes to be keeping us busy.

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

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

nogoat23
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:46:39 PM

Disneyland used to let people in the door for free and charged for rides, but now they charge to let people in and the rides are all free. Discuss.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:54:11 PM

@NoGoat

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.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:22:22 PM

Yea i don't want to see PSN turn into Disney land or a ball game where it cots $9 for a beer.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bearbobby
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:22:31 PM

@Highlander

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.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:35:15 PM

Did TheHighlander just pwn Pachter?

*looks at comment about Mexican restaurant*

Yup!

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:20:22 PM

Highlander, wonderful explaination, and I loved the Mexican restaurant example.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:33:56 PM

And BOOM! Case closed! Perfectly put Highlander. Anything else Patcher?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:13:22 AM

Look! You can see veins protruding from Highlander's forehead! I can't recall the last time I've seen him this ... excited.

Careful Highlander, we don't want you popping a blood vessel. ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:49:16 AM
Reply

The online play needs to remain free. I paid $300USD for the PS3 (well two of them). And I purchase one to two games for most good titles.

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.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:35:02 PM

You must buy 2 copies to play with your boys? I am going to have to start concidering that soon. Must convince the wife that idea has merit.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:55:40 AM
Reply

I bought my PS3 Because it's free, has everything i want and need. And Wi-Fi/Blu-Ray And I've been a big fan of Sony since the PS1 days, could never go wrong with a Sony brand.

Sony FTW!

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:23:44 PM

I bought a PS3 because i always planned on it and have always bought Sony gaming consoles but the free PSN was a major plus. A friend of mine just canceled his LIVE subscription because he bought a PS3.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:02:36 PM
Reply

All right, so I half way agree and half way disagree with Pachter on this one. The part I agree with is that a totally free PSN can't last, it just isn't self sustaining. From a business model they have to be taking a heavy hit by keeping the Network up and running all the time and not having any kind of income from doing so.

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.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Feregrin
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:18:37 PM

PSN isn't used only for online gaming y'know. I'm not gonna write a half-assed post about it, so check out that long one by Highlander if you really don't understand.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:22:08 PM

Yeah I know and that's why we both stated that we could see extra content being paid for like premium subscriptions. Yes they have revenue from the content but they also have to pay to store the content and they have to pay the developers of the content. If they add extra premium services that will be pure profit and also optional as the store content is now. That's why like I said I see basic things like online play always being free but premium services coming down the line.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:40:56 PM

@ coverton341 - I don't follow the part where you say they have to pay for storage. How is that my problem? If I owe PSN money so they can store content then I owe Wal-Mart my life's savings.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:29:16 PM

@Alienage
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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:17:58 PM
Reply

Hope this doesn't happen because if it does, XBL will get new arguments with us.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:19:24 PM
Reply

Premium subscriptions are fine. Sony chose to pass on general subcriptions for strategic purposes and cannot go back on that.

For all we know Sony could have already built the PSN costs into the pricing and licensing of games.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

whooka
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:34:05 PM
Reply

Another corporate friendly response from Highlander, big surprise. I don't have a problem with paying for ADDITIONAL content on the PSN but I would have a problem if the pay service was required to get updates for existing games, especially updates required to fix a problem with a game both Sony and the developer knew existed before they rushed it to market (i.e. Skate 2) or to fix something Sony broke through one of their firmware updates (i.e. Dragon Age Origins - nice job sony/ea!). Firmware updates for PS3 should be free as well, even though I am not partaking of them anymore until the lawsuit is settled against Sony for their removal of the 'Other O/S' feature they touted for years as a selling point for their console. Turns out my holding a grudge has been a good thing as the only game I play right now is Dragon Age Origins and Sony broke that with their last firmware update (prob a few more furtive changes to the console they made with that one and didn't tell developers either) so having not updated my console I can still play with no problems. I also had a firmware update brick my console in the past, though it was under warranty at the time so it was replaced.

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.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 14 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:48:39 PM

For someone who hasn't the slightest idea how much it costs Sony to run the Network compared to what they take in from ads and DLC, you sure like to lecture.

Agree with this comment 19 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 12:49:13 PM

Corporate friendly? Are you kidding me? I'm pro consumer all the way.

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

Agree with this comment 16 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:29:34 PM

@whooka

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

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 2:58:54 PM

@Whooka

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

whooka
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:10:14 PM
Reply

Uh, does anyone here know how much it costs Sony to run the Network compared to what they take in from ads and DLC? I doubt that information is posted publicly anywhere, unlike their CEO's salaries. So any comments myself or anyone make are speculative at best unless you've got a copy of 'their books' in front of you, which I doubt you do. Just about every corporations 'stated' earnings are false, we've learned that over the past year, so any speculation or opinion I have is as justified as anyone else's.

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 13 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:19:13 PM

Pulling numbers from thin air, or making broad, baseless claims about what things cost doesn't make your argument any more sound.

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

Agree with this comment 16 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:33:18 PM

err, yea i'm the one usually defending the corporations. Not High.

::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

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:50:23 PM

@Jawknee,

That's 'cos I'm British...

;)

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:53:08 PM

i knew it!! haha We have our differences High but you are still one of my favorite PSXers!

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:09:04 AM

"That's 'cos I'm British..."

Only one word for that; awesome. Would have never guessed it. British are so smart. :)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 3:06:13 PM

@Whooka
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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 4:29:41 PM

Also, the Sony/other OS lawsuit has been mentioned a number of times....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:23:30 PM
Reply

Am I the only one who's sick of Pachter's bullshit predictions?

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuardianMode
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:14:14 PM

I agree with you on that. Im beginning to think this guy only writes this stuff to make himself feel good.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Hezzron
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 1:40:54 PM
Reply

Here I thought Patcher was only good at stating the obvious. With comments like "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'", it looks as though he's also good at stating the opposite of reality.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:58:09 PM

Technically it's not the opposite of reality, it's just incredibly dated. That statement was probably true about 4 years ago.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:17:09 PM

I imagine Sony would do what they did with removal of OtherOS and installing of Rootkits in PCs, do a cost/benefit analysis, figure out how much money it would cost them to piss a bunch of people off, and then figure out if the profits they made by charging outweighed those costs.

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".

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:33:43 PM
Reply

Isn't this guy usually wrong??

Just sayin..

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fluffer nutter
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 2:35:55 PM
Reply

They'reallgonnalaughatyou!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:11:23 PM
Reply

Remember the saying "Words are cheap"?
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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 3:56:31 PM
Reply

Hey Patcher, I bought the PS3 over the 360 for several reasons, guess what, one of them is because of free online play.

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

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:02:22 PM
Reply

I think one thing we can all agree on is that pachter either states the obvious or states facts from several years ago that are no longer true.

So once again where can I get me one of these jobs?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 4:19:01 PM

Agreed...I want that job.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FullmetalX10
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 5:59:04 PM
Reply

What's wrong with this man, The Playstation 3 having free online is one of it's bigger pluses, and I've heard and read the "PSN is free is why I bought a Playstation 3" argument lots.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 6:13:30 PM
Reply

I really like Pachter. He's not the kind of guy that takes his job lightly. He's hired to predict and that's just what he'll do. Love him or hate him, he keeps "the war" alive.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 6:46:09 PM
Reply

fuckin idiot

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MyWorstNightmar
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 7:26:27 PM

Pay me what he makes, and you can call me that too.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 8:37:07 PM
Reply

Just toss me $225 & you can call me that too.
(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!!!!)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 9:58:21 PM
Reply

Personally, I would be distressed to have to pay for PSN access. I hope online play remains free.

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Phoelix
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 10:44:34 PM
Reply

"...in all probability, we'll see [a subscription fee] before the end of the year."

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RebelJD
Friday, May 07, 2010 @ 11:54:30 PM
Reply

PSN is super cool. If I have to pay for it, I'm sure they'll make it worth my dough. More money for Sony so I don't care.

Sony stand the "f" up.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 3:29:24 AM
Reply

sony have a long, long, LONG! way to go till they can start charging for it.
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!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

S8N_666
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 11:13:21 AM
Reply

They better make trophies for 2 Player Offline instead of Multiplayer if they are gonna charge for this. I have a PC and I'll use that from now on, Fk paying money for Online service when I already pay for Cable Internet. When I buy a Game I dont EVER intend on paying for it again, so why buy these Stupid monthly charging games, retarded. I'll stick to PC Games and Download the schitt out of the non paying ones. They wanna charge for Online Service, then they better damn sure well think about lowering Prices on Accessories and games. Neither Xbox or PSN worth paying for, I play with Real friends anyway not people over the internet.

Last edited by S8N_666 on 5/8/2010 11:17:51 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 4:46:54 PM

Must be nice to have your best friends living so close to you.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 4:49:06 PM

Also, as an added note, although my wife doesn't like video games or care about this site, she says you're an unintelligent, demeaning, and disgusting individual for using the word 'retarded' so flippantly...

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sazzrah
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 12:21:54 PM
Reply

Last I heard Sony said they would never charge for playing online, but they might start charging for other premium services. Which is fine by me, as long as I can still play the occasional game online. I'm not a big online gamer, but it would be pretty irritating to not be able to play online if I wanted to. It's a bonus for the PS3 for me - if I had to pay for online I wouldn't and games like Fat Princess and the upcoming Red Dead Redemption would be gimped for me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mr Diamond
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 12:25:26 PM
Reply

if they charge i will stop playing online even if it means missing great online titles. i bought the ps3 system cause online gaming is free. why should i pay for something thats meant to be free??

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FoxRacing916
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 1:54:46 PM
Reply

I don't like xbox, but if ps3 made me pay for online I would get an xbox. You can pay 12$ a year for live if you have a credit card and pretty much all my friends have xbox.. So if Sony makes me pay I'm pretty sure me , and a lot of other people would get rid of ps3's and get xbox's .. So I think it'd be a mistake to make people pay for online.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Caanimal
Saturday, May 08, 2010 @ 9:21:00 PM
Reply

As long as they don't take anything away from my current "free" PSN account I couldn't care less. I have played on-line only a hand full of times and none w/in the last year or so. I say if they want to charge for extra, stuff that is above and beyond what is currently available, fine.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xnonsuchx
Sunday, May 09, 2010 @ 6:18:20 PM
Reply

The basic PSN (access to demos/trailers/PSN game purchases/etc.) should always be free as a marketing expense to Sony, but I wouldn't be surprised if they started charging for multi-player gaming (as long as any multi-player demos/betas still play for free) and other premium/bandwidth-heavy use as those are more costly to justify for free.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 5:02:44 PM

I'm not sure there's a big cost to most multi-player games. Most games don't go through any sort of sony server as games are played P2P.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Monday, May 10, 2010 @ 11:44:15 AM
Reply

I'm not a fan of subscription based payments and much prefer the individual content payment system that we have now. I would be very surprised if the content charges levied on customers wasn't sufficient to cover the costs of creation and a share of the network fees.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @ 7:21:46 PM
Reply

A the Highlander says he pretty much has this whole argument grasped. There is no need to argue anymore. We all stick to his statements, to end ANTI-SONY fanatics.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

The PS4 exclusive(s) reveal in December will be...
MEGATON! Biggest thing evah!
Pretty great, but not mind-blowing.
Something decent but that's it.
A waste of hype.

Previous Poll Results