@spacebuster Yeah 60 euro is ridiculously expensive. In the U.S. we only pay $60 for the same. We also have a Family Plan option which gives you four Gold memberships for $99, I think. I'm not sure what the restrictions on those accounts are...I'm pretty sure they want them all to be in the same household, but I don't know how they ensure that. I don't know if they offer that type of plan in NL, that is a lot of money for both you and your son to be able to play online.
@AndresUp I haven't heard that rumor about the PS Network, but I do believe they've got to be losing money to lots of free online gamers. I think the reason the PS+ perks are so sweet sometimes is because they really want to lure people into that paid tier where they can flip online gamers from the loss to the profit column.
@blackace I'm okay with everything you said except for "Nintendo...services have started to catch up." Nintendo is nowhere in the online game. They've just barely acknowledge that it's a legitimate way to play games. The only multiplayer gaming they seem comfortable with is party style (i.e. all in the same room).
That last sentence should end with "...good service that they can sustain THAN give away good service and go out of business." Not being able to edit is making it more difficult for me to get my points across clearly.
First, I understand that a good online infrastructure costs money to operate, so I'm willing to pay for that privilege. Given the amount of red ink Sony's Entertainment Division has run up in the past few years, I bet they wish they had charged for online gaming out of the gate. The paid PlayStation Plus service makes me think this even more.
Secondly, I also think the Gold membership requirement to run certain apps is odd, but in my experience, the "odd" requirements usually come from the content owners, not the content deliverers. They're the ones who come up with the odd restrictions on how many devices can do this or what accounts can do that. Even though the account is free, PlayStation consoles still require gamers to log in before they can run their favorite apps (Hulu, MLB.TV, Netflix, etc). Why is logging in required at all? What does logging in to PSN or XBL have to do with any of those things? I don't know, but I suspect the answer didn't come from Sony or Microsoft.
Finally, XBL does offer perks to Gold members -- early access to games and demos, price breaks, exclusive content, etc. Granted, those perks aren't as good or as frequent as the ones given to PS+ users; it's a perk more than the core rationale for the service, but it is out there.
Before I get accused of being a Microsoft defender, let me just say that I think it would be great to have XBL Gold as a free service. I'd appreciate the savings. But I wouldn't want it to come at the expense of the quality of the service. I'd rather pay for good than get mediocre for free. I'd rather see the gaming companies charge for good service that they can sustain that give away good service and go out of business.
There are so many things wrong with this concept that I don't know where to begin...
Let me just say that this is even worse than digital distribution with DRM. At least if I buy a game on Steam or the PlayStation Network, for instance, I don't have any potential loss in case of damage. In Sony's hypothetical scenario, what happens to my gaming ability if I break my disc or my console is stolen? With digital downloads, I just re-download my game. With Sony's potential protection, I have to replace my game or my console and all the games I had before I was robbed.
If this plan does go into effect, Sony needs to cut the cost of their games in half. Of course, if they did this, they probably wouldn't have to worry so much about used game sales in the first place. :-p
Also, it's worth noting that there was no *legal* basis for this action. The Attorney General basically leaned on a few of gaming's biggest companies and they quickly complied. My guess is that they figure it's less expensive to boot a few thousand people now than to deal with bad publicity or potential lawsuits if something happens down the line.
Legislation like this is driven by the same false assumption that tries to restrict violence, sex, and other mature content from being presented in video games and comic books -- that video games and comic books are for kids.
If you start with that assumption, then of course you don't want convicted pedophiles roaming about in the virtual worlds with your children. But I doubt that most online gamers are kids, and I doubt that many of them could be "seduced" by someone in World of Warcraft, for instance. As was pointed out below, it's not easy to tell who is really male or female, let alone their age.
Parents of young, impressionable children should restrict their access to *all* networks online, not just games. To keep sex offenders from playing a videogame seems excessive and not at all productive.
theKSMM's comments