PSN should start charging

Does anyone else agree with me here? I mean, if Sony were smart, they'd start charging for PSN. It would give Sony a new source of revenue and I'm sure people wouldn't mind doing it once it's implemented (They can either pay or complain and chances are, most people will pay). I guess I see it like this: If Xbox Live has so many paying customers, why hasn't it dawned on Sony to start charging?

Why would they want to do that when XBL is clearly better? That would just result in people not buying a PS3 because there's no longer free online.

who charges to play online games?!? oh right microsoft

you should never have to pay to play a game you already paid for.

who charges to play online games?!? oh right microsoft

you should never have to pay to play a game you already paid for.

kate_jones

When your biggest advantage as of now over your oponent is being free, getting rid of that is just asking for trouble.

Cause thats the card it has over live. I can honestly say all PSN needs at least to me is cross game chat/party chat and instant invite. Then I have no reason to care about live.

[QUOTE="kate_jones"]

who charges to play online games?!? oh right microsoft

you should never have to pay to play a game you already paid for.

Wardemon50

um how was sending messages a hassle?

Proof that Sony is a little bit less retarded than the general public.

Suddenly charging money on a free service is pretty much suicide.

Gxgear

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"][QUOTE="kate_jones"]

who charges to play online games?!? oh right microsoft

you should never have to pay to play a game you already paid for.

finalfantasy94

um how was sending messages a hassle?

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]

Proof that Sony is a little bit less retarded than the general public.

Suddenly charging money on a free service is pretty much suicide.

Wardemon50

If they charged from the beginning PS3 would have suffered even more, because it would require them to match up on all the bells and whistles that makes XBL looks cooler or simply perish from all the customers they would otherwise never have.

why? it already does more than i want it to. why should i have to pay for a service that was once free?

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"] Online play isn't a right. When I had a PS3, my major problem was how gimped the friends interface felt (no game invites, cross game chat, sending messages was a hassle) and some games just had lousy support because there was no incentive to support the game after it's launch. Paying would help make it better. Wardemon50

um how was sending messages a hassle?

You could be ur bringing up the xmb during a heatic moment in the game. Thats the only time it slows down even a bit for me. Also no its not slower at all thenNXE since it does the same crap at the same type of moments for me.

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

um how was sending messages a hassle?

finalfantasy94

Yea could be ur bringing up the xmb during a heatic moment in the game. Thats the only time it slows down even a bit for me. Also no its not slower at all thenNXE since it does the same crap at the same type of moments for me.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"] The XMB was slow in-game, and the interface as a whole just was slower than the NXE.Wardemon50

Yea could be ur bringing up the xmb during a heatic moment in the game. Thats the only time it slows down even a bit for me. Also no its not slower at all thenNXE since it does the same crap at the same type of moments for me.

It happens to both I have experianced it in bothNXE and PSN. THe thing is its very rare on both. Me and my friend had a name calling contest while I was playing I think it was uncharted and it was smooth. Iv also done it while playing online like KZ2.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"] The XMB was slow in-game, and the interface as a whole just was slower than the NXE.Wardemon50

Yea could be ur bringing up the xmb during a heatic moment in the game. Thats the only time it slows down even a bit for me. Also no its not slower at all thenNXE since it does the same crap at the same type of moments for me.

Thats handy but not worth paying for, doesnt steam do all that for free?

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

Yea could be ur bringing up the xmb during a heatic moment in the game. Thats the only time it slows down even a bit for me. Also no its not slower at all thenNXE since it does the same crap at the same type of moments for me.

kate_jones

Thats handy but not worth paying for, doesnt steam do all that for free?

No thanks, that's one of the major selling points for Sony

Why on earth would they charge for online multiplayer when the industry standard is free online? I already pay for my system, pay for my game, and pay for my internet connection. I don't get how paying again to use my system as a server to play my game over my internet connection makes a bit of sense. Then again, that's why my 360 got sold for the Wii.

If LIVE left their premium services on gold but placed online multplayer on silver I'd have zero beef with it. If Sony wanted to charge for premium services (like the occasional rumour of a subscription service that gives access to all PSN games) I'd have zero beef with it. Online multiplayer, especially when the majority of games use p2p play instead of dedicated servers, is simply me using what I've already paid for, and that should be free... like it is on every gaming device outside of the 360.

they cant go from free to charging. it just wouldnt work

Why on earth would they charge for online multiplayer when the industry standard is free online? I already pay for my system, pay for my game, and pay for my internet connection. I don't get how paying again to use my system as a server to play my game over my internet connection makes a bit of sense. Then again, that's why my 360 got sold for the Wii.

If LIVE left their premium services on gold but placed online multplayer on silver I'd have zero beef with it. If Sony wanted to charge for premium services (like the occasional rumour of a subscription service that gives access to all PSN games) I'd have zero beef with it. Online multiplayer, especially when the majority of games use p2p play instead of dedicated servers, is simply me using what I've already paid for, and that should be free... like it is on every gaming device outside of the 360.

santoron

Even though PSN has come a long way since launch ( I remember when I would have to quit a game to read/send message since there was no in game xmb), it still has a bit of catching up to do with the Xbox Live. Once PSN has Cross game voice chat, a more fluid and less laggy in game xmb, and more social connectivity (in Xbox Live I can see who's on, what they are playing, where they are in the game they are playing, who their friends are, who they are chatting with, etc.) then it will be on the same level as Xbox Live. As of now, PSN delivers on what you need to be able to play games online and communicate with friends and it's free, so it's a great online service... but it's no where near Xbox Live and I don't think it deserves a monthly fee.

[QUOTE="kate_jones"]

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"] I've been able to bring up the dashboard during a match of Call of Duty 4 to accept a game invite to Halo 3 from one of my friends in a matter of seconds. In Warhawk (great game btw) it would take awhile before the XMB would load. It doesn't sound like much, but it gets annoying when you are chatting with a friend while you play.

Wardemon50

Thats handy but not worth paying for, doesnt steam do all that for free?

Indeed. Even though the Playstation Network has tons of content to download at a price; there are a lot of PS3 owners who still don't believe in online transaction for DLC(music, game add-ons, video, etc). Considering the revenue Microsoft get's from DLC alone, they could definitely afford free online play. Then again, why do that when many Live members have been willing to pay for the service since the original Xbox. Steam's main focus is software(which is successful) and they don't have as many users flooding their servers as oppose to the traffic Microsoft gets over Live.

OH YEAH! That reminds me. You know the new Avatar Marketplace on Live? Sony already provides avatar customization on Home. Both Live and Home allow you to choose from free clothes and what not. They also have premium outfits as well. I can garuantee you that the Avatar Marketplace will drain more money out of gamer's pockets versus what's available on Home because of the simplicity and appeal.

I personally don't see PSN becoming a premium service just yet; it being free is one of the handful of benefits it has over Live. If you took that away, what good could you really say about the service other then the connectivity with the PSP?

If the PSN has the most active users then I could see them doing that but I don't think that's going to happen soon. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/11/nielsen-360-has-most-active-users-in-2009-wii-has-fewest/ They already have that Qore thing though but they should stick with free to play online.

That would be a big mistake for Sony. I mean most of them would have no choice but to pay because they would want to play their games online but it would turn too many people against Sony, even though MS also charges.

Sony would benefit from the income of yearly fees. Really, XBLG provided $437 000 000 gross to MS. With that money, they've been able to purchase exclusives, keep live running with few problems (and when there is a major problem, they give free stuff to the community), and just better service in general. I know a lot of people wouldn't want to pay at first, but Sony could really benefit from the extra $.Wardemon50

Everyone benefits from extra cash, but I'm not here to pledge money to the poor destitute multinational corporations that make my gaming hardware. If giving Sony more cash were the whole point why not just ask everyone to write out a 20 dollar check for poor Sony?:P Asking me to pay for something that should always be free for a multibillion dollar multinational corporation's benefit is silly. Trust me, these companies wouldn't lift a finger to help you from much more serious problems than what they are facing.

PSN does not offer the same level of social networking as Live offers, and Live seems to be trying to augment that aspect with things like twitter and facebook integration, and the whole "movie party" thing. When it comes to games, they function identically... and in the case of Sony games often the PSN wins with dedicated servers. Now I'm older than many of you guys and gals on here and I'm married, got a kid, and such so maybe the social aspects of Live are important to you and therefore you can see the benefits of the extras and consider it a "better service in general", but they are absolutely Not important to me. I get on my PS3 to either play games or watch BluRays. I have phone, text messages, and email to keep in touch with my friends. The level of interaction I have with my friendslist on the PSN is about as far as I'm willing to go to deal with people that I enjoy playing games with from time to time, but aren't all even friends as much as people I go play baseball against or go shooting with from time to time.

Even still, I can appreciate that not everyone has my tastes in privacy or in social networking. So I'm all for Live style social networking applications and services if people want them. I'm all for them being charged for if people are willing to pay. But if all that stuff is truely "worth it" then MS would do the right thing and put online multiplayer on the free accounts where it belongs. The reason they don't? Most people are just like me and would gladly take a free functional online multiplayer system with few frills over paying for social networking applications. MS offers you several services that all seem nice and help sweeten the bitter pill that is paying to use things you already paid for, but let's be honest, if people were just allowed to play their games online for free the way the enitre rest of the industry allows, most people would ignore Live's Gold level perks, just the way I do.

am sorry but if i wanted to pay for online play i would still have xbox live

the main reason why i play games on psn is because its free

by all means charge the devs for downloads and let the consumer play for free since they did spend their hard earned money on the 60$ game that may or may not have at least half of its gameplay features for online use

and who would want to pay 500$ for a system and also have to pay for online so wouldloose out so bad they would prob quit the gaming business and stick with its other options

Just another 360 owner thats jealous of ps3 owners

free online is one of the great things about the ps3.. why ruin that?

If Sony begun to charge for PSN that would be the final nail in the coffin that is PS3.

If Sony begun to charge for PSN that would be the final nail in the coffin that is PS3.

sexy_robot_man

[QUOTE="sexy_robot_man"]

If Sony begun to charge for PSN that would be the final nail in the coffin that is PS3.

idontbeliveit

I'm surprised there's still room on that coffin for another nail.

They should start charging a very small fee like a dollar or 2 a month and I'd happily pay that if it made the service a bit better. Anymore than 2 dollars I wouldn't pay though.

Here is the real question right here:

Why take the risk of charging for online and losing customers when you can simply keep things the way they are with psn and lower the price of the ps3 to $300 possilby take the xbox 360 out of the console race by more and more people that own a 360 saying well I like my 360 but I will probably be playing it for at least another 5 years so why not go ahead and sell it (get what I can for it) then buy ps3 for $300 and never have to pay for online play again while using ps3.

Probably be playing ps3 for another 7, 8 years or possilby longer. The price of next gen consoles maybe quite step and cost even more money than this past gen when consoles first came out.

Of course this is assuming that MS won't make live free and at this point I doubt they will. So the question is why keep paying for it for another 5 plus years when you can buy a ps3 and most likely save yourself more money by doing so?

Even if the 360 drops the price to say $150 they will still have a hard time selling it with ps3 at $300. Hell even a $100 for a 360 is questionable with the online price tag.

How about Microsoft stops charging people to use their own connections to play their own games online? Neither company should make their console owners have to pay to unlock the online compeonent of a game, simple as that.

[QUOTE="kate_jones"]

who charges to play online games?!? oh right microsoft

you should never have to pay to play a game you already paid for.

Wardemon50

[QUOTE="Wardemon50"][QUOTE="kate_jones"]

who charges to play online games?!? oh right microsoft

you should never have to pay to play a game you already paid for.

MasteRich

I wouldn't pay for PSN in it's current state.