If PSN had a subscription fee of about 15$ monthly, would you still use PSN?
I know I would, but what about you guys.
Printable View
If PSN had a subscription fee of about 15$ monthly, would you still use PSN?
I know I would, but what about you guys.
I wouldn't.
Nope. I wouldn't care how much improvements they added to the service, I'm not in the business of paying subscriptions for services like that.
no I wouldn't, Like ace I generally don't pay for things like that - but even if i had the cash laying around I wouldn't - PSN simply doesn't have enough content or features to pay for.
What if those $15 a month bought better features?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrgenji
Do you mean just like the online system altogether?
Then yes, I would, b/c I'd split it with my sister, online games are what the PS3 was made for imo :)
Games get boring without playing with other people :)
I'd pay for it any ways but doesn't Xbox have to pay more?
I'm not really into online multiplayer myself.
Playing with people in the same room is much more fun because you get all the banter and whatnot (I know you could use headsets, but it's just not the same at all).
I'd be really PO'd if I had to pay to get onto other people's LBP levels (and I think it'd be commercial suicide for Sony anyway).
WHAT?!
X360 only has to pay 60$ a year to play online.
and PS3 15$ a month = 15$x12= ehm...way too many!
I'd switch over to X360 then, even While I hate that stupid console.
So like £10, I probably would, I love Gta/R2 online too much :O
No. Not for that kind of money. It's WAY more than 360, and the Xbox live is SO much better, better servers, less lag, more players, more players with headsets, more content better usability. Your mileage may vary, but for my money the 360 is much better online (though let's not start a console war thread here) but there is no way I would pay that much more for PS3 online.
So sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by flakmagnet
PSN is the only one that uses dedicated servers for it's first party games. On LIVE you're sent P2P, meaning your connection varies on who is hosting the room.
I'm never having lag on PSN.Quote:
Originally Posted by flakmagnet
15$ a month is way more than Microsoft charges for Xbox Live, and PSN is substantially worse than Xbox Live, so definitely not. I would consider paying 25$ a year, but that's still pushing it.
$50/12 months = about $4.17 per month.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigSackBoy
Yes, but Live's quality is consistent overall. On PSN, some games are supported, others are not. It all depends on how much they want to spend per game on servers. Since we, as the consumer, are not paying anything for those services, the quality and consistency is much worse. You would never see the kind of connection issues LittleBigPlanet has over Xbox Live because Xbox Live uses the same servers for each game instead of setting up new, dedicated servers per game. And, you're right, connection quality does depend on host speed; however, that's hardly ever a problem as Xbox Live automatically chooses the fastest connection in the party to act as host.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightGrenades
Uh... If they had 15 dollars a month, I would consider starting a mass rebellion against Sony :p.
If we had to pay a certain amount of money, they BETTER make it better...
no 15$ is a crazy amount!!!!!!! i would stick to xboxs 5$!!!! <3
I guess the essence of the question is, even it wasn't formulated right, "would we pay for PSN or not".
Personally I certainly wouldn't pay. I'm not paying for Xbox live and i've never paid for online play on PC either. Playing online is ALWAYS free outside MMOs that are having other reasons to charge people.
Xbox Live is not the norm but the exception. The fee they are asking truly is unjustified, no matter how you look at it.
Lastly, I'm not a big online gamer. And I would certainly NOT want a subscription to tell me when I should play or not. Seriously. "Online gaming = serious business" ? lol.
.
Stop putting ideas into there heads -_-
No. No no no no no. I hate paying monthly for anything. They're charging me for a virtual chair already, and I'm sorry, but I don't feel my Home avatar's fatigue. He can stand for days for all I care. No. One of the top reasons people bought the PS3 in the first place was for the solid, free online.
TLDR... Why would they bother? It's not broken, and it will likely just annoy and aggrovate the gamer community. It sets them apart from the 360 anyway, and that's a good thing commercially.
I would have to agree with the general sentiment, that being there is no need to charge for the PSN access.
Microsoft can and does charge for online access for the 360. The Wii, PC and PS3 at the moment do not.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that running servers cost money, and the argument that having a centrally paid fee like the 360 allows smaller companies to use the general servers and not have to worry about that infrastructure being built for their games.
But... the 360 when I bought it came with a years online Gold access to live. When that year ran out, I had a good long hard think about it, and then never bothered to renew. I just could not justify the price, however minor from a big budget point of view (it's something like 60 cents AUS$ per day), for the one or two games that I occassionaly played online. I just lived without and let the Gold subscription slide.
This lead to a general decline with the 360 use all together, and you now have my current situation where I haven't fired up the 360 for... I think 6 months at least.
When I did leave Gold, all the "PSN" type features the service offerred apart from online multiplayer play was matched by PSN for free. I know the 360 silver allows access to most of that stuff, but still, I just can't see that big an increase.
Since the time when I gave the 360 the cold shoulder, I've started playing a lot more online. R2 I go play multiplayer every now and then. LBP speaks in and of itself. It would be quite a hollow game if there was no access to other people's levels or new content downloads, and I know some people enjoy publishing their level and tracking their stats. I've also got the freedom to take any game I have with multiplayer mode on the PS3, put it in and play without worrying about extra costs.
So why in the world would they put on a fee now? It might cause me to give the PS3 just as cold a shoulder as I ended up giving to the 360.
From my understanding, it's through the purchase of a game that the cost of a server being run is paid. I almost always buy my games brand new, and I can live with these hidden costs.
So... TLDR... Why would they bother? It's not broken, and it will likely just annoy and aggrovate the gamer community. It sets them apart from the 360 anyway, and that's a good thing commercially.