Sony mentions monthly subs again

By Games Industry.biz Published 15 December, 2009

"Sell-and-forget" model is undesirable.

Sony's mentioned monthly fees and PlayStation Network in the same sentence again, firming-up what Kaz Hirai was thinking out loud about last month.

"We would face difficulties if our business depended solely on the sell-and-forget model," responded Sony Japan's Masayuki Chatani when asked by Nikkei Japan about the difficulties of sustaining the PlayStation Network. "After we sell the hardware, though, we continue to sell products such as content and services.

"We can also accept payment in a growing number of ways," he added. "In addition to single-payment packaged software, there are also schemes like monthly fees or per-item charges."

Although there was little context to his answer it may be that in terms of monthly fees Chatani was only speaking in reference to specific titles, such as massively multiplayer online games.

However, there have been persistent rumours that Sony may be considering an Xbox Live style subscription model for the PlayStation Network a whole.

Last month Kaz Hirari stated categorically that current services would continue to be offered free of charge, although the company may begin to charge for unspecified new premium content and services - some using a subscription model.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (92) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Beano #1 2 years ago

    Oh dear...

  • Kill_Crazy #2 2 years ago

    "However, there have been persistent rumours that Sony may be considering an Xbox Live style subscription model for the PlayStation Network a whole."

    Say, what?

  • wizlon #3 2 years ago

    I enjoy playing Uncharted 2 online but I wouldn't pay to do so.

  • feistycheese #4 2 years ago

    Sony will lose a lot of customers if it starts charging for its online services the same way as Xbox live. I dont mind paying a small monthly fee for certain games if they come out, such as MMO's, but I will not pay just to play online with normal games such as FIFA, COD's etc.

  • patchbox360 #5 2 years ago

    the xbox360 is proof that gamers are willing to pay for online, which now makes it stupid for sony to not jump on the bandwagon, thank you very much micro$oft.

  • Beano #6 2 years ago

    "However, there have been persistent rumours that Sony may be considering an Xbox Live style subscription model for the PlayStation Network a whole."

    Actually I beive they have promised that basic features (like being able to play online) will continue to be free.

  • JahB #7 2 years ago

    fine by me, if that means the service will be on par with XBL. however, if they try to charge me before they have a working cross-game party and chat system in place, then no thanks.

  • lordofthedunce #8 2 years ago

    If you shop around the Live sub works out little more that a couple of quid per month. Not a lot really.

    Anyway, it sound as if Sony is considering a fee system for MMOs (nothing new there) or some extra, premium content etc, and not for people who only want the odd bit of multiplayer.

  • mr_goop #9 2 years ago

    Oh my god he wrote Microsoft with a dollar symbol instead of an 's'! It's because Microsoft is a commercial business! That's brilliantly incisive.

  • Widge #10 2 years ago

    A fee system where you pay a standard £x per month and have access to as many MMO's as you want would be nice.

  • Arwin #11 2 years ago

    I think it simply means that Sony has the infrastructure to support a variety of subscription models through its PSN network, and that they are now looking at stuff they can sell as a service. To give a simple example, Sony could set up a system where for 4 euro per month, you get a simple SingStar client and then each month you can download four songs (or 50, or rent songs, etc.). Ditto for videos and so on.

    Of course such a system also easily supports MMO style games and all sorts of other stuff. For someone who mentioned FIFA, EA is already selling services to follow additional national leagues and so on.

  • Beano #12 2 years ago

    They allready sell subscriptions for Qore in the US... I can see thet expanding to other types of media without cutting of the free features.

  • gjgjg #13 2 years ago

    a per hour rate would be nice. i always play more online because i know im paying for it on xbl by subscription, and then hardly ever on psn. if it was more like a phone call it would be perfect.

  • mcwildcard #14 2 years ago

    They've been clear upfront that the current free services wouldn't change, in fact it's the only solid statement they've come out with in regards to this, so I think it's fair to say that they'll be sticking to it.
    Maybe they aren't going into much detail because it's actually a good thing and they want to do some sort of big reveal later next year?
    Sky TV services? Or maybe subscription to unlimited movie rentals?
    It's not necessarily bad, but us gamers are a cynical bunch!

  • muscleblade #15 2 years ago

    This is a good thing for the PS3 owners as this can make PSN actually compete with the quality that Xbox live offer. You get what you pay for you know.

    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 14:51

  • Beano #16 2 years ago

    @hammerhead666 : Yes because MS are soooo original and innovative, right?

  • darren1976 #17 2 years ago

    Have both 360 and PS3 and I dont mind paying the yearly subscription for live because it is worth it. Compared to Live the PSN is vastly inferior, so inferior that I am constantly comparing it to Live in a detrimental way. However I do love BBC iPlayer on PS3 (the fact that M$ wont allow it because BBC want it to be free is a bloody disgrace). I think Sony want to compete with MS online and to do that they have to charge, Live is too polished for free PSN to compete with.

    Exactly what will remain free on PSN is unknown, but Sony need to start making some money from their PSN otherwise it will always be far inferior.

    PS, where is the cheapest place to get Demon Souls on PS3, really want that game!

  • Joco84 #18 2 years ago

    Bad enough they're getting us to pay for themes that were once free, now they're looking at other ways to empty our wallets?

    If I wanted paid subscriptions I would have stuck with my Xbox, but I was swayed to the PS3 with the promise of free online gaming.

    I'm sure I won't be the only one to re-think about staying with PlayStation if they go down the subscription route.

  • miiiguel #19 2 years ago

    Good news for PSN owners, well, at least for the ones who enjoy quality. The "it's free so we can't realy demand for quality" can't stand the test of time.

  • Beano #20 2 years ago

    Live is only "better" in the sense it's better integrated reg. uniform implementation and cross-game chat. Other than that it just as good, if not better in several places - better performance and more dedicated-server games.
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 14:15

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #21 2 years ago

    current services will remain free, please try reading the whole article before complaining

  • davisorle #22 2 years ago

    If you excuse me first of Id like to thank all the fanboys that so far have been saying about XBL not being free, when ofc even an underaged with a single mom can manage to afford 45$ a whole year for quality services if they can afford for a PS3 and its games one would think, and gives us now another replay of smoothing out their change of hearts. Wanna bet that many of those fanboys will start doing so? I know ill be laughing my ass off.

    P.S. I'll be buying a PS3 soon for just a couple of titles that I have in mind so far but PSN not only was already something that I knew I wouldnt be interested unless ofc something was only found on PSN for purchase if ever worth it, but sub for PSN? lol its just funny. I mean yeah it explains why they have been copying hardcore the whole XBL , from achievments up to this point with facebook mentioning ( no need to explain me the differences I know them.. ffs ) but when they are so far back in speed and quality and more importantly, the online experience overall in gaming how can they be considering to charge? Yeah we all knew it was coming ( I did ) but its still pointless. hell, all those kiddos that got a PS3 as a gift from parents will be willing to give a CC number for their kids PSN cactivities? its another matter that Sony has to consider seriously.

    @Spanks
    Its a matter or perspective. I really find it way too convinient paying 45$ a year for such quality services, reliable and fast I think if you consider paying this Xmass for XBL a whole year isnt worth it? I dont understand

    And comes to this.. You dont like paying 45$ a year. If Sony as they say they will not be charging the services but they will do it more specific it can mean the worst for PS owners. Can you imagine the expence in your gaming if you have to pay for servers or even 5$ per 5-10GB or whatever kind of scenario this can only suck big time. Im glad to see this only thrown to the fanboys' faces though , i wont hide it, but I find it unfair adding any sort of paying adjustment to the rest PS3 owners all of a sudden... XBL has always been like that since day one but not PSN. They should wait till next gen and introduce the model like MS did I guess or something to avoid some of the knockback. This is just bad news eitherway.

    Sorry guys.

  • MeBrains #23 2 years ago

    @muscleblade: "you get what you pay for".

    are you hinting at 360's initial shabbiness?

  • Toothball #24 2 years ago

    I'd pay if it meant they actually put some effort into populating the Euro PSN store with actual content. I have no problem with paying for a good service, even if I don't use it all the time.

  • Machiavellian #25 2 years ago

    Live is only "better" in the sense it's better integrated reg. uniform implementation and cross-game chat. Otherthan that it just as good, if not better on several places - better performance.

    Could you tell me where you get better performance with PSN then XBL. I have used both services since the start of this gen and I have not come across anything that PSN does better than XBL. The only thing I can give PSN is that it's free.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #26 2 years ago

    @davisorle

    try reading the article fully before ranting your fanboy shit, the current services will remain free.

  • Beano #27 2 years ago

    "The time it takes to patch and download sure doesn't feel like better performance to be honest. "

    I assume you use wi-fi then ?

    I use wired LAN for both PSN and XBL and downloading is ALWAYS faster on PSN for me - but wifi often cause problems for people and then they blaim PSN.
    When I said performance, I also meant for games running on dedicated servers - better stability, for players, less lag, etc.

  • Mkwone #28 2 years ago

    They say what we currently have will remain free.

    In my mind i'm thinking that subscription may be along the lines of movie/music rentals. £10 a month means you can rent an unlimited ammount of movies for instance seeing sony try and take on the lioves of love film.
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 14:28

  • Beano #29 2 years ago

    "Could you tell me where you get better performance with PSN then XBL. "

    Online games which runs with 40-64 players without lag?

    Ive yet to see that on Live where most games use peer-to-peer architecture.

  • n00bzceam #30 2 years ago

    Hopefully!
    I’m not using my PS3 at all, mostly because I don’t like the games (except Uncharted 1 and 2, those rock) and because the controller is one of the most annoying thing I can get my hands on. But I might consider buying some of the multiplatform games to the PS3, if the online service and friend features were just mildly useful.

  • LHH #31 2 years ago

    Online games which runs with 40-64 players without lag?

    lies. PSN lags it's just not as noticeable as with Live (which can be bloody ridiculous)

  • Machiavellian #32 2 years ago

    "The time it takes to patch and download sure doesn't feel like better performance to be honest. "

    I assume you use wi-fi then ?

    I use wired LAN for both PSN and XBL and downloading is ALWAYS faster on PSN for me - but wifi often cause problems for people and then they blaim PSN.
    When I said performance, I also meant for games running on dedicated servers - better stability, for players, less lag, etc.

    I believe the guy was stating that you first have to download something like a demo or update then you have to install it. Nothing about the process is straight forward it is is annoying. As to speed of download, I have the opposite from your setup. XBL is at least 2 times as fast to download content then PSN and I also have both system wired.

    You have dedicated servers on XBL. Ms give devs/publishers the ability to host dedicate servers for over a 2 years now. Its up to the devs/publishers if they want to have dedicated servers. You do not always have dedicated servers on PSN even though the developer/publisher has to foot the bill. It depends on the conpany.

  • Beano #33 2 years ago

    @LHH: Nope - you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 14:31

  • QotSAfan #34 2 years ago

    "Could you tell me where you get better performance with PSN then XBL. I have used both services since the start of this gen and I have not come across anything that PSN does better than XBL. The only thing I can give PSN is that it's free."

    Server support. Personally i wouldnt mind paying Microsoft for Live if they eliminated lag by using servers. Unfortunately with Live you pay a fee and still get atrocious hosting and ping issues, your money goes to such helpful gaming features like, oh, facebook!?

    Microsofts marketing is brilliant, take a closer look at the services provided and its not all its cracked up to be.

  • kangarootoo #35 2 years ago

    Sweet jesus, this always boils down to the same thing every time the discussion floats to the surface.

    1. Sony state they will not charge for online play.

    2. Conspiracy theory nutters don't believe them, and their nay saying apparently qualifys as "persistent rumours".

    3. In the face of these "persistent rumours", the internet yet again goes through a cycle of "if they charge for online play, they will lose customers".


    This sort of cyclic discussion is denser than jupiter, and it makes kittens cry.

  • Beano #36 2 years ago

    "You have dedicated servers on XBL. "

    True but only a very few do this - Battlefield for example. More PS3 games do it and with more players - Resistance 1+2, Warhawk, Killzone 2, etc.

    Multi-platform games usually are peer-to-peer though - lowest-common-nominator and cheaper I quess :(
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 14:35

  • penhalion #37 2 years ago

    This is something I've been saying for a while now and that some people here have been in complete denial about. Microsofts XBox Live service is as good as it is because they have constant funding to improve it. They run the majority of the servers themselves so that no matter what, a game you bought will always play online even if the company that made it goes out of business. This wouldn't be possible if they charged nothing for the service. You would end up with the lowest priced solution every time. Sony have realised this (they realised a while back I'm sure). It's only now, with a reasonable install base, that they have dared to air what they plan to do and that is emulate XBox Lives model. A yearly subscription for a guaranteed online service.

  • Machiavellian #38 2 years ago

    True but only a very few do this - Battlefield for example. More PS3 games do it and with more players - Resistance 1+2, Warhawk, Killzone 2, etc.

    To be honest very few do it on PSN as well. Yes, Sony first party does it but that's to be expected. Also lets be honest, in PSN early years, Sony had to use DS because the system really was not up to par. PSN has progressed a lot from those days but now Its probably becoming a money pit for Sony. This is probably the reason they feel they need to leverage the service to get more income from it before they would have to start charging like MS.

    You have to give it to MS in understanding that you charge first. Once you have people use to paying for a service you are set. You can never go from free to charging because it would totally kill your userbase

  • VandelayIndustries #39 2 years ago

    penhalion: "This is something I've been saying for a while now and that some people here have been in complete denial about. Microsofts XBox Live service is as good as it is because they have constant funding to improve it. They run the majority of the servers themselves so that no matter what, a game you bought will always play online even if the company that made it goes out of business. This wouldn't be possible if they charged nothing for the service. You would end up with the lowest priced solution every time. Sony have realised this (they realised a while back I'm sure). It's only now, with a reasonable install base, that they have dared to air what they plan to do and that is emulate XBox Lives model. A yearly subscription for a guaranteed online service."

    You might want to read the MW2 splash screen.
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 14:54

  • davisorle #40 2 years ago

    @GamesProgrammer
    Instead ill give you a momment to read my comment you retard.. lol By me saying that Sony charging bit by bit services pinpoints that Im fully aware of the article's content and why im saying Sony's model can provide them bigger income by charging users for services seperate which will also end up costing gamers way more by the end. Even if that includes something as stupid as i.e. 5$ per 10GB of data DL or charge per server for each game etc... Where along the lines do I say that they will charge for being online?

    If you still dont understand ill draw it for ya. Till then, please, keep your mouth shut a bit. Im not flaming for you to react and start crying. Im just stating my fucking opinion. Dumbass.

    EDIT: I just noticed some ppl stating again opinions without knowing wtf they are on about... Ill try to help a bit.
    Dedicated servers are offered on most first party / exclusive games where multiplayer is provided that is. There is no game on the PS3 that excists on 360 and has dedicated servers only on the PS3. At least when your fanboysm comes out try to be more informed pls cause its ugly reading those things.
    2nd When it comes to the rest of those games with no dedicated servers I read someone saying that the 360 has bad connections and he finds the PS3's online better.I wont say that its the other way around cause I know you wont accept it and I have no gain to reason you so I dont care.
    This whole "PSN being better and faster than XBL" is a new joke really. I hope it is by the time i get my PS3 I wont mind it.. lol I wont get butthurt about it, im a damn gamer but shit man..Im tired of people stating things when they dont know. At least make it sound as an opinion. Stating something you dont know is plain morronism :)

    P.S.2 Holy fuck you have no idea of what kind of hail is falling outside right now. My car must be totaled :/ I cant even go out to check. Crazy
    Edited by 2 at 15/12/09 @ 15:08

  • muscleblade #41 2 years ago

    "are you hinting at 360's initial shabbiness? "

    He he. Funny.
    Yeah you get what you pay for when you a buy the PS3 too no doubt. A cheap Blue Ray player and a lackluster gaming console as a bonus. LOL. Its good value if you cant afford a standalone console and Blue ray.

    I have a better console and a better Blue Ray player but they did cost a lot more than the cheaper combo called PS3.

  • GoldLightan #42 2 years ago

    Sucks for people who bought in because they thought the online was perpetually free.

  • LHH #43 2 years ago

    @Beano

    You clearly do not know anything at all

  • Edwin #44 2 years ago

    lackluster gaming console

    COCK.

  • patchbox360 #45 2 years ago

    how is Live better? i can play killzone2, uncharted 2, gran turismo 5, wipeout, demon souls, mw2, SF4 for free. I dont need silly Avatar dolls to dress up. if u've been paying for live since launch you've paid around £100 for Live till now, i mean whats so vastly superior with Live that warrants the Live price times the install base of online users each year? - i just don't see it

  • robg #46 2 years ago

    This sort of cyclic discussion is denser than jupiter

    Soo...not that dense then.

  • LHH #47 2 years ago

    Soo...not that dense then.

    Until you get to the core...

    ...subject

    I'll get my coat.

  • callum9999 #48 2 years ago

    @Muscleblade: It certainly would not be a good thing for PS3 owners if they start charging for the PSN (even though its not suggested they will be). I'm sure a large proportion of PS3 owners (me included) enjoy playing online, but don't do it enough to justify paying for it. If they start charging for it will just mean I will no longer be able to play online. I really couldn't care less about cross-game chat or whatever the XBOX has, I just want to play a game. If I really want to speak to a friend I can just do it over the phone like everyone else does.

  • Machiavellian #49 2 years ago

    @patchbox360
    It depends on your experience. The quality of service from XBL is superior than what I experience on PSN. This might not be the case for everyone but it is for me. I am willing to pay as long as my experience is better than the cost of the service. Most times when I play MP on PSN its a clunky experience. Case in point, a few friends and I had to purchase SFIV and Tekken on the 360 because of better performance with the service. So yes, you can play Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 warhawk for free on PSN but if you do not play those first party games then the service suffers, at least for my neck of the woods.

  • Pac #50 2 years ago

    I think the real issue here, is that if Sony start charging for an online service with a similar subscription model and cost as Xbox Live then this will mean that the cost of online gaming will be cost prohibitive for those with both consoles.

    £40-50 a year is just about the limit I want to spend for online gaming and access to demos etc. £80+ is way too much.

    If I have to decide between Xbox Live and PSN there is no competition at the moment as I play most of my online games on the Xbox. In fact the only game I have really played online on the PS3 is Demons Souls.

    So if Sony start charging for their online service I will be even less likely to by multiformat games for the PS3 it is as simple as that.
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 15:38

  • Machiavellian #51 2 years ago

    I really want to speak to a friend I can just do it over the phone like everyone else does.

    That works for you but if you are me, then calling all of my friends getting them on a party line on the phone would cost a small fortune. I guess it depends on the number of friends you have that game and if they are local. My situation is different because I have friends all over the world. A lot of times we meet up on live. Even better now we can setup a party chat and everyone can be doing their own thing or we can all connect to a MP game and play together. So for the casual only chat with one person and only have a limited amount of friends that they game with, Cross game chat and even the party system within XBL is not a great feature but for me, its the bomb.
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 16:35

  • VandelayIndustries #52 2 years ago

    LIVE may be superior, but it isn't £35-£40 a year better. Not when you consider the lag and connection issues of something like MW2 (which is what I'm currently playing on XBL). PSN being free has highlighted that much to me.

  • davisorle #53 2 years ago

    @Machiavellian
    Isnt it funny? After 4 years that you still have to explain to them the basic function of XBL on what started making it great in the first place and he isnt veen aware of it.

    "I really want to speak to a friend I can just do it over the phone like everyone else does."

    Did he really say that? I mean how on earth can you play while on the phone? We are talking about gaming not your actual social life.. lol Confference phones for everyone.. Funny stuff. Even funnier that I didnt know that you still arent capable to your chat in any of those ways while gaming on the PS3. How come and they have copied all the XBL and not the actual gaming tools that make the multiplayer better? Is it cause the software wont be patched and updated that way easily / incapable or cause Sony rather copy things that they can release on videos for promotion than things that effect the core experience? Makes one wonder on this one.

  • superdelphinus #54 2 years ago

    i'm just awarding points when people use paragraphs now

  • xentar #55 2 years ago

    dont panic! Sony knows it has an advantage in free online gaming and they always stress that they will keep it free. I can imagine some nice paid for services like minigame rentals or the ability to store your saves and stuff on Sony servers... with prices set right it would be cool. If the prices would be high then it will be easy to not use such services

  • Wildsleven #56 2 years ago

    if the premium actually gave us worthy updates each week and improove their featres to a level that it can compete with xbl i think i dont mind paying some certain fee... but for now psn is a joke and on top of that the eu store is shite :(

    but one of the main sell points for ps3 is the free online and stuff so im not sure any of us would like to pay up all of a sudden right?
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 16:42

  • CableNut #57 2 years ago

    xbl only costs me £25 a year...
    You dont need to buy a sub from a shop for £40, you just need to search about for a bargain...
    Ebay for one :)

  • TheApologist #58 2 years ago

    Dammit - no. Gaming is far too expensive already. A monthly sub for online play? Screw that.

    PSN works great for me the way it is - good games to buy, no subscription oncosts. You buy your game and you play it whether it is online or not. That's what I have always liked about PS3 over xbox - what you see is what you get, with no hidden charges for wireless or hard drives or online. And I find it hard to believe PSN doesn't make Sony money.

    If they want to release MMOs, or DLC or that kind of thing with charges up front, fair enough. But you can shove your bloated expensive Live crap.

  • xentar #59 2 years ago

    to be honest, i fail to see the "obvious superriority" of Xbox live. Had both consoles at home, had both connected to internet, had the 30 day gold subsription but living outside of USA i didnt find anything to offer more value to me than PSN. Sure, I head of Netflix but thats on PS3 too and avaiolable with paid for US VPN. The crossgame chat? Is that worth paying for?

  • busboy33 #60 2 years ago

    @Beano:

    "Live is only 'better' in the sense it's better integrated reg. uniform implementation and cross-game chat."

    So if you ignore the stuff that makes Live better than PSN, its not better? I find myself forced to agree with your analysis . . . although it certainly sounds like an advertisment for XBL rather than a defense of PSN.

  • Geordiemp #61 2 years ago

    Lets hope its just premium content.

    I have 2 Ps3 and 2 360's, I have to pay £ 70 per year to play 360's on-line (to hell with that, I exchanged all games recently that need on-line to Ps3, and xbox games that we keep are SP or System link coop).

    So after April 2010, its goodbye xbox live, get 2 free games per year...If a game has a strong internet component then Ps3 only...

    Cant see why I should pay anyone for peer to peer game privalidges, when the game sets up the net code !
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 17:24

  • Retroid #62 2 years ago

    Just to point something out, EA have been using dedicated servers on XBL (just as they were on PS2) since MS gave them the go-ahead on the original Xbox.

    The promise of dedicated servers on PSN was a positive move for both formats because it meant MS couldn't realistically bar any other companies which wanted to offer them from doing so.

  • davisorle #63 2 years ago

    @Retroid
    No wonder. Ty for adding to it.

  • GamesConnoisseur #64 2 years ago

    Newsflash!!

    Sony is not a charity and loving to give everyone a free service which costs them and shareholders a right old packet!

    Like others I wouldnt mind just using the basic service for free, and would certainly consider paying if the price is both reasonable and with great benefits. Hell I did say before that i think Sony will want to be competitive to MS and may come under their pricing but yet offering the goods.

    BUT please dont be an idiot by insisting on services for nothing... if you run a business like that you ll be goner within the time its take you to bankrupt yourselves!

    I would rather subs over the advertising led revenues any day of the week.

  • callum9999 #65 2 years ago

    I see the points raised about saying "just call them on the phone", for if you are talking to lots of people at once. As to the "how on earth would you talk on the phone and play a game" - the exact same way you talk in the game? I.e. a headset... If cost is prohibitive then use Skype.

  • Caimbeul #66 2 years ago

    None of my friends have a PS3, all 360's. Thats the only reason i pay for gold membership. I certainly would not pay for a PSN sub...unless it was £9.99 for a year.

  • Badassbab #67 2 years ago

    It was bound to happen

  • Freek #68 2 years ago

    As has been mentioned before, PSN gets away with being a bitt poorly implemented because it's free, as soon as they start charging you for it that no longer works.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #69 2 years ago

    Okay. Sony knew that if they charged for PSN, off the bat, they would probably not be able to compete with Live. Gamers already had Live subscriptions, and the thought of another subscription would likely put some of them off buying the console.


    Feel free to correct me if I am off in my math (probable):


    -Folks with an XBOX = 28 million
    -Folks using Live = 17 million
    -Folks paying yearly gold sub = 9.52 million (actually more, reported to be 56% of Live users)

    -Yearly subscriptions (rounded down to £30 a head) collected total = £285 million per anum

    £285 million for providing... and ever-improving... giving us free features... uhhm.


    Now PSN has established itself Sony are regarding the pile of cash from Live subs with envious eyes. Who can blame them?

    What does a subscription to play "online" give you. You are the bandwidth, you are the server, you are the owner of the game.

    For me, it boils dow to this: I could afford to pay a yearly subscription for two services, but I refuse to.

    Am I really going to be able to get my moneys worth from two "premium" services?

  • Chufty #70 2 years ago

    The sub is not for playing online games and such like. It will be for the PSN services.

    Games are played over the internet.

  • freakzilla #71 2 years ago

    I once suggested a subs system for dedi servers. Imagine having dedi for all games even MW2 for one monthly fee. I got ridiculed, I guess I was wrong.

    But maybe one monthly fee for all MMOs on PS3, and the money is divided based how much playtime each game gets.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #72 2 years ago

    "The sub is not for playing online games and such like. It will be for the PSN services.

    Games are played over the internet."

    If the rumours are true and Sony does seperate and charge for "services" only, and the online gaming side remains free, then I salute them.

    Me, myself, I buy consoles just to game. Services don't really bother me and I'd rather not pay for stuff I don't use. I use my mobile phone or the net to keep up with rl people.

    But I know folks like an all encompassing gaming/social/videochat/whatever experience.

    Feasible, non-online-play related optional subs sound great to me.


    @Freakzilla: If MS would use a fraction of the £285 million it gets yearly from its Gold subscribers on dedicated servers (only fot the top tier games), it would go someway to justifying the ongoing, unwavering expense.

    I mean, MW2... biggest game ever, no dedicated servers, lag abound - even on the best of connections. It would have played like butter with a little outlay.

    Money > experience
    Edited by 1 at 15/12/09 @ 19:57

  • Grayvern #73 2 years ago

    Real terms threre are few main problems with the online service none of which could be solved with a subscription fee.
    The most is the lack of voice chat due to a lack of pack in mike, and getting users to buy one.

    Also xbox live in terms of downloading both paid and demo has never been paticularily different for me.

    Finally if you analyse the comments it could mean charging for playing in light of sonys upcoming releases of games like mag.

  • Slipstream #74 2 years ago

    I'm not even gonna complain because I know I'd end up paying...if, and only if Sony improve the X Media Bar to the standard of MS's dashboard. I'd be content with that, it really needs the same livelyness, because what we've got right now is really worth £0.00.

    A charge, and no improvement? Well then Sony wont get a penny out of me, but they wouldn't be that stupid, would they?

  • MeBrains #75 2 years ago

    muscleblade: as far as I heard, PS3 has always been one of the best bluray players (with a top-notch engineered console which has great games as a plus). Which BR did you buy which gives the Sony machine a run for its money?

  • harzo #76 2 years ago

    There's a higher level of intelligence on the Jeremy Kyle show than there is on some of these threads... quit yer yapping and go play the games!

  • Murton #77 2 years ago

    Only read the first 10 posts or so and it seems that nobody clicked the links in the article. Everything that is currently offered on the PSN for free, will continue to be free. This has been said by Kaz and a couple other Sony execs now. If they add a subscription model to the PSN then it will likely manifest itself as a PSN Premium service where for the small monthly fee the user can access additional content and services.

    There's much speculation on what sort of services could be offered but the most likely is something similar to Qore (something that only the yanks get at the moment) which gives you a digital magazine with video reviews and whatnot, exclusive or early access to demos and betas, exclusive themes, stuff like that.

    So to reiterate, multiplayer gaming, not counting the upcoming MMO games, will continue to be free. The PSN store will continue to be free to access and demos and trailers will continue to free, hopefully now we can have a little less of the hysteria and a little more discussion on the actual facts.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #78 2 years ago

    hammerhead666
    "Typical sony,always copying microsoft
    Will they ever come up with their own ideas this gen?
    They've ripped off the achievement system with their trophies,now they wanna charge for premium stuff. "

    The essence of Playstation DNA, is real change

  • aphexstwin #79 2 years ago

    im not reading all those comments so i'll put down what i wrote in the ps3 forum. i believe that if sony do online gaming for a fee, then they bomb. no ones gunna pay when it was free to begin with. if they charge for better store stuff and and downloads, then they bomb. im more than happy watching tv when something is downloading and i rarely buy the arcadey downloadable games. ateotd if they wanted to charge for psn as we see it now they should have done so at the beginning. live is the only medium where, outside of mmorpg's, you have to pay to play online and in that respect its definitely not worth it. i only really play bf2mc on live and ms need shooting because the servers are laggy and buggy, and no matter how much you moan about them, they never get fixed. imo, if you want to play games online, psn is equal and sometimes better than live

  • beep #80 2 years ago

    "We can also accept payment in a growing number of ways," he added.

    Hows about a drawing? Me draws real good!

  • TurboBailey #81 2 years ago

    I think this is a good idea :)

    More choice to then end user. The PSN when modern warfare 2 came out was un-usable. If the subscription method elimates this, then surely thats gotta be a good thing. if you have to pay for it (so be it).

    For all those moaning about cost, get a job you bums

  • davisorle #82 2 years ago

    Its just funny how my point is being proven. They are smoothly welcoming already the PSN fees as much as they were pointing out "PSN IS FREE UNLIKE XBL" and shit like that. I cant help it but find t funny and yeta bit pathetic. Nothing unexpected though. Cheers and have fun with thinking abut it over and over lol

  • kangarootoo #83 2 years ago

    @davisorle

    Your "point" as you put it is based on your confusion over the whole play for free issue. As such, you have no point.

  • kangarootoo #84 2 years ago

    Just read through the rest of the last lot of posts.

    Sweet mother of mary.

    I say again as I did on the first page.


    1. Sony state they will not charge for online play.

    2. Conspiracy theory nutters don't believe them, and their nay saying apparently qualifys as "persistent rumours".

    3. In the face of these "persistent rumours", the internet yet again goes through a cycle of "if they charge for online play, they will lose customers".


    MASSIVE STUPIDITY is running through this thread like a flood.

  • D-DAY-Devilduff #85 2 years ago

    make u pay not worth it at all at this time anyway its the only thing psn has over xbox i have 360 & ps3 but i only play ps3 & iv got to say the 360 is better than the ps3 so i think that sony will drop behind more now MUPPETS

  • muscleblade #86 2 years ago

    "The crossgame chat? Is that worth paying for? "

    Sure is. And using the phone that someone silly mentioned will cost you more than the LIve service anyway. For me it certaintly would as i talk hours at a time(usually to people i play coop with mind 4 player coop ftw).I like to talk to friends online while i play games. Makes gaming more of a social thing so when Live added this it was a big deal imo.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #87 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    I don't think its conspiracy or stupidity that people speculate over the future of PSN. With the model that Sony is proposing, at this moment it is hard to discern what viable service they could offer for a subscription.

    Although, if crossgame chat is as important to people as Muscleblade has stated above, then I stand corrected.

    Sony (especially), Microsoft and Nintendo execs have said a lot of things in the past that have turned into bullshit or compromise and the doubts that people have are a reflection of that.

    For me - regarding this industry - until it happens, its rumour. Even if Roger Sony said it.

    Edit: Actually, pass me my tin foil hat :)
    Edited by 1 at 16/12/09 @ 13:40

  • wanderingkid #88 2 years ago

    It's funny how all the XBOX/microsoft trolls hang out on Sony/PS3 threads isn't it ???

  • muscleblade #89 2 years ago

    @Edwin

    Take it easy mate. Its only lackluster compared to the superior 360 from my experience but still a good console compared to the Wii that i also own. No bias here just my own experience. Uncharted 2 is a great game but would have been even greater if it was made exclusively for the 360 i believe. The 360 seems like the most powerful console this gen with the best online service as a bonus. Money doesnt matter much to me, quality do. Im definently a 360 fan and with a good reason too. Its simply the better console in my opinion. Since i dont favor any gaming company exept maybe Capcom i would still preferred the 360 if it was actually called PS3 and was made by Sony.

  • TaoJay #90 2 years ago

    I am a PS3 gamer at the moment, my 360 currently lies dormant, one of the deciding factors was the Live model, as my use of the xbox dwindled, the only titles I really seem to get into was PGR3 (the multi player was great fun) & SFIV.

    For me the only real justification for paying for Live is if every online game is served by dedicated servers, speaking to my Halo addicted friends does not seem to be the case & in PGR I could setup a server on my 360, if so what are they paying for?

    Some simply Chat Tech & for M$ to charge them to sell them stuff....

    The other thing that really rankled was the whole M$ points system, if ever there was a company taking the micky out of its customer this really is it, not only charge for Live, but if you want to buy anything then buy 1000 points but it only costs 800 points for your purchase not that you can get your own money back, why do you thing the whole avatar marketplace to buy digital crap, maybe its an attempt to sweep up those points, into M$ bankaccounts.

    Of course Sony want to make money, and since i've had my PS3 I have played quite a lot of UC2 online & bought & played Wipeout HD & fury, to be honest the money saved was used to by Wipeout a great deal for me, a much fairer way to treat your customer & the amount that went out of my bank account to pay for WipeoutHD&Fury was £17.99 the amount the item costs.

  • kangarootoo #91 2 years ago

    @RESIDENT_nEVILe

    I completely agree with you that it is hard to discern what future services may be charged and may be free, That is not my point. My point is that directly after the initial announcement about paid for services there was speculation among gamers (as we might expect there to be) as to whether play-for-free would go, and in DIRECT response to that Sony pointed out they were talking about NEW services and would NOT change existing free services into chargeable ones.

    Yet every time the subject comes up, people yet again act as if that never happened. In particular, they don't even act as if they don't believe Sony about free online play - they instead act as if the discussions on the subject have never taken place. Exactly the same speculation is taking place in this thread, as if history has been erased.

    If someone said "yes Sony stated that online play will stay free, but I don't believe them" then at least we could have a debate about it. But for some people to simply rattle on as if the unanswered question is still hanging in the air is bizarre (and stupid).

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #92 2 years ago

    Ahh, I agree with your point. It is true that these threads go around in circles because of that.

    Still, be thankful that we're not a Gamespot levels of idiocy... yet :)