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.
Well, yes and no. Microsoft and Sony never turned a profit on their consoles until late last year. Console sales almost always lose the company money in and of themselves. The games and peripherals make up for that lost money, eventually turning a profit a few years after a console's release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbee23
In any case, online play is seen differently by different people. Those who grew up accustomed to free online play through PC games or some other medium usually see it as a staple of any good game, and something that should exist without a fee. I grew up playing console games, and I feel that the online service offered by Microsoft is worth my money. Xbox Live maintains a consistent quality no matter what game you are playing (PSN cannot say the same). Features such as in-game music are also consistent across all games, as they are required to be supported by Microsoft. I am paying for consistency, something that PSN (and frankly, the entire Playstation 3 console) lacks considerably.
:o! Dont let your PS3 hear :\. I feel that online is a necessity in ANY game I have (With certain exceptions). If I have to pay for it, it's too much. Period. You could pay $1000 dollars over 3 and a bit years. I dont even want to THINK of what that would be in Aus dollars >_>... I bought my PS3 under the impression that I could have a console to play online on whenever. The free online was the biggest enticement of all. Thats why I got it over the 360 (Which ALL of my friends have). If I no longer have free online on my playstation3, whats stopping me from buying the 360?Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
I still see your point. For someone who wants online but for some reason can't afford it (I know they jack up the prices in AU, but here it's 50$ a year), it's the best option.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMe
I would still pay...
No, I wouldn't pay, too be honest, if it was 15 dollars a YEAR, I wouldn't pay.
The playstation has the worst online design/features. When you are comparing it with the 360.
I think 50 dollars a month, for something so amazing as Xbox Live, is well worth my money. I have had an incredible amount of lag with the PS3, in a few games like LBP ( Horrid ) and Call of Duty : WAW ( Not as bad as LBP, but still. )
Yes I know that the playstation has dedicated servers and what not, but who cares? When I had my Xbox 360, I don't remember a single MATCH, we're not even talking about a game, but a MATCH! That had lag. It was smooth, and very fun. I just don't see the same thing with the PS3.
Stuff like, in-game music, private chats ( while playing different games, or the same one ) a bigger variety of movies/tv shows ( Umm Netflix? Yup. ) Makes the 50 dollars a year worth it, but what I really liked was talking to people.
On the Xbox 360, almost everyone had a mic, when I switched over to the PS3, I was in shock, I played Resistance 2, today. Joined a match with 60 people, only 2 people had mics.... I find that very sad, and it makes playing the game very dull and boring. I like to communicate and talk to people, and hopefully that changes in 2009, but for now, it's just "meh."
TLDR Version: For what Playstation 3 is featuring right now, I wouldn't pay 15 dollars a year, let alone a month.
Sony have plans to introduce subscription fees for the upcoming game MAG.
Really? i never heard anything about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killian
Sony are considering subscription fees. It's nothing definite, but they were asking opinions in a poll a while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killian
http://media.1up.com/media?id=3618721&type=lg
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
The only thing you pay for in fact is for the actual playing online wich is quite a joke. All your Xbox features are offered to you for free in silver membership and you only pay Gold to actually PLAY. That's all there is to it. And it's also telling you that Microsoft could do without the small fee, it really is just there because they knew people could swallow.
Now the consistency you're talking about isn't there because you pay but simply because Microsoft is having better devellopement guidelines for the approval of their games. It's their TRC rules that are more effective.
Now Nintendo and Sony both have such TRC rules for approval of course but they decided to give more freedom to the dev or simply didn't care (Nintendo lol). All of that "consistency" could be there on any other system for it is not caused by the fact you pay but simply caused by some more effective guidelines. You could also say that you pay for better guidelines but why would I pay for dev guidelines all of a sudden? lol
So what happens here is a psychological effect Microsoft really love. You grew up getting screwed so this means right now you don't mind. I suggest not supporting this practive of theirs.
.
Never, Only if they made uber super server located in Beijing and I would pay them and pee myself because of the super speed no lag games.
I wouldn't pay. No way...
I guess this debate really only concerns those that enjoy playing games online. I'm not one of those people so my opinion shouldn't necessarily compute into the argument, but - like a number of you - I grew up with the NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis when online play on such a small scale hadn't even been considered. That said, I enjoy it to some degree depending on the game, but - for the most part - I'm a single-player campaign gamer.
Therefore, I wouldn't pay a dime for PSN or - if I had a 360 - XBL for that matter. Regardless of anyone's belief, Microsoft is doing more than fine charging people $50 a year for XBL. Sony could certainly benefit by charging a nominal fee, but additional costs like these truly aren't necessary when we're discussing companies like Sony and Microsoft. :)
Yeahhhh... no.
I used to really be into online gaming but then I realized I'm already dropping $50 a month for my internet... no way am I going to drop another $15 a month just to play the online portion of a game that I already payed $60 for.
My days of Xbox Live have long been gone, now... and I haven't looked back.
Long live free PSN.
TBH it's complete BS to pay to play online on any console.
Gaming is here to forget all our problems etc....Why pay for it?
I mean, online playing is probably the biggest point of any console.
And paying just to get no lag, and all that sidecrap is COMPLETE BS.
It's actually sad if you want to have no lag, just to play smooth.
I have little lag on cod : waw, you hear me whine?
no.
Here are the benefits (as listed by Microsoft) of paying for Xbox Live:Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerZero
- Multiplayer games: Invite your friends into a multiplayer match and compete against each other or play co-op through expansive adventures.
- Marketplace: Gold members get early and exclusive access to select downloads, trailers, videos, and more.
- TrueSkill matchmaking: For every ranked game you play, TrueSkill finds the best match for your skill level.
- Parties: Invite a group of friends into an Xbox LIVE Party, then you can all join games and play and chat together.
- Gamer feedback: Use the feedback system to select players you want to play with (or avoid) the next time you're online.
- Watch Netflix movies: Xbox LIVE Gold members who also belong to Netflix can watch Netflix’s extensive library of streaming movies and TV shows right on their console at no additional charge.
The most attractive one is the online play, but other features (such as parties) are very attractive as well. Parties are not a feature of PSN as of yet; I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented something later on, but there's no urgency on Sony's side as you aren't actually paying for the service. Anyway, that's not my point; I'm not paying soely for the features listed above.
That was just one example, and that was more in support of Microsoft as a whole; I wasn't using it to directly support the Xbox Live fee. When it comes down to it, the features Microsoft offers are of a high enough standard that I actually want to support them with my money. I don't see it as paying for online multiplayer, I see it as supporting a service that I enjoy. There are many features of Xbox Live (minus the fee) that PSN is still underperforming on (or even lacking completely).Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerZero
- Private Chat - one of my favorite features. I love being able to talk to my friends no matter what game we're playing.
- Voice Messages - also standard. Combined with private chat, this saves me a ton of money on long-distance calls as I can keep in touch with friends fairly easily. Obviously I don't suggest buying a 360 for the free communication, but it is a nice plus.
- Headsets are standard in almost every console iteration. Aside from the Arcade pack, each console comes with a standard headset. This drastically improves the number of players with the ability to communicate. PSN would see a huge boost in online chat if they simply packaged their official headset along with the PS3.
- Achievements - before you tear into me ("Trophies are the same thing!"), hear me out: Trophies came long after Achievements, as Sony viewed them as gimmicky and useless. However, Achievements quickly became popular, and Sony rushed to include such a feature so they could compete. However, for almost everyone who's used (I mean used, not just tried once on a friend's console) Achievements, Trophies feel like a slow, tacked on afterthought.
- Online Quality - definitely superior to PSN. Much less lag, more reliable, less downtime, etc.
Like I said before, these are not arguments supporting the Xbox Live fee - they are arguments supporting why I feel I should support Microsoft. If you put out a good service and you are dedicated to maintaining it, you should make money in some way, whether or not you "need" the money.
I grew up playing Playstation games, actually. When Xbox came around, I was fairly disinterested - it was a fat, ugly green box with the same games the Playstation 2 had and an uncomfortable controller. My friends tried to get me to play, but I never really enjoyed it. Even when Halo 2 came out, I didn't like it when I first tried it. However, I gave it a second, third, and fourth shot, and all of a sudden, I started enjoying it. Halo 2 is what persuaded me to begin paying for Xbox Live. My friends all had Xbox consoles and copies of Halo 2, and I had fun playing it with them, so I gave it a shot. I was instantly hooked. I still loved my Playstation 2, but it couldn't compete with being able to talk to my friends and play video games without having to be in the same room as the other players. Plus, it was up to 16 players! I loved the fact that so many people could play together, and I loved the service overall. In my mind, Playstation just couldn't compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerZero
My point with all of this is this: Microsoft is a whole console generation ahead of the Playstation 3 in terms of online services. Their online service is way in front of what PS3 has to offer, and it really comes down to quality for me. If you can afford Xbox Live without it affecting you financially and you still prefer PSN, I question your judgment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
Couldn't of said it better CC, that's everything I was trying to say, but couldn't.
Like CC said...
I don't pay the 50 dollars a year to keep playing online with my friends, I pay it, to keep the wonderful services and features up and running.
I myself can compare the Xbox features, and the Playstation features, and I must say that the Playstation XMB, store, and overall features, cannot and probably won't be able to compete with the Xbox 360's features, sad I know but I'm not getting my hopes up, unless they revamp the whole thing, I don't think I can see anything as good as Xbox Live.
I still prefer PSN while having enough money to get live.Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
I hate those *** avatars and the controller is uncomfortable to me.
You pay $50 a year because Microsoft forces you to do it. If there wasn't a nominal fee and XBL still remained superior to PSN, would you send in a yearly donation to keep things "up and running"? My point is merely that Microsoft isn't counting on a single XBL member; they've got things more than covered before people start shelling out for subscriptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaale
The truth of the matter is that there are two types of gamers when this topic comes up: those that enjoy playing online and those that don't. If Sony decided to start charging a monthly fee for PSN I simply wouldn't pay it. Not because it's inferior to XBL, but because I simply don't need to play online to be satisfied as a gamer.
There were a number of reasons that turned me off to purchasing a 360 and a number that pushed me into the PS3 camp. PSN and XBL never figured into that equation.
There's a grand total of about two games I care about playing online, one of them being LBP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
If LBP was a 360 game, and I had to pay a sub to upload my own levels, or play other people's online, I'd just stop caring about the game and probably wouldn't even buy it. Whether I had the money for a sub or not, I wouldn't pay because of the hassle of setting it up, and sorting out my credit card and whatnot.
I know the last part of your message was to try and spark a debate, but it comes across as a bit flamebaity tbh /: Sort of like "My opinion is better than yours".
There's alot of fluff in there. Everything that is within "online play" is one thing. Of course if you pay for online play you will access features within that "online play". Basically you pay for online play. Something that is free all over the world and on any platform that isn't the 360. That's what is a problem to me. The fact that the games are having all those other features inside online play is because of the tight devellopement guidelines THAT WOULD BE THERE EVEN YOU DIDNT PAY. That's my point you may not be seeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
The general online experience on PSN isn't as homogenous as Live and when you hit a bad develloper it becomes bad but it's not because it's free. It's because of Sony's sloppy devellopment guidelines.
This here I cannot tell you anything about it since it's your opinion. Personally I cannot pay because they have better dev guidelines and requirements for approval THAT TRADUCES in a maybe better online experience. Nintendo and Sony aren't charging me on guidelines and why should I pay that to begin with?Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
So buying the console, the games and using their services isn't enough support? Using PSN is enough support, you don't see Sony complain or anything. I mean let's face it, PSN and Live are too very similar services anyways. It really is a question of you wanting to pay or not. I'm in the "not" clan it seems. There's so many things WE COULD pay for. As soon as there is a difference between 2 things we could pay. And this applies to anything in life so where do we draw the line? Huge corporations will NEVER draw the line for you, they will nickle and dime you to the end of times, to the points you really really really can't take it anymore. Up to you to encourage the principle behind all of this.... or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
Really? Private chat and such changed your life to the point your experience is "a generation ahead"? Aren't you hyperboling a little bit there?Quote:
Originally Posted by ConfusedCartman
There's some more convenience here and there, nothing that make PSN a bad service besides Live. I'm also not having lag problems on PSN. Played alot of Motorstorm, Gripshift, Rachet and Clank, Motorstorm2, Resistance2 and my online experience was totally great. LBP is hard to judge because there's no game on the other side that can compare but let's not kid ourselves, I see threads every day on the internet about "wtf Live is slow", blabla, lag. Nothing is lag free and so is Live.
Like I said, when it becomes bad on PSN it's because the dev sucks. That's sad but that's what is. It isn't because it's a free service, it's because Sony is having sloppy guidelines. Paying for better guidelines now? meh. Not for me. MAAAYBE if I was a really freaking dedicated online players that would play certain games that are REEAAAALLY social like MMOs or something. But for that kind of games they already charge since they supposedly need so many servers.
EDIT:
Wanted to add the my finances aren't a concern. It's not about saving money it's about my principle of not paying for something nobody charges for or whatever not finding a true reason for paying it. I also hate, in a general sense, the nickle and diming tendency of our complex and modern capitalism society so I'm trying to encourage this the less I can. There's ALOT of things you can pay for a small amount and not see a difference in your account. It's only when it's hundreds of those things that you will start to think "hey, I should stop that". I prefer stopping this at the root.
.
.