Ben-DutkaThe entirely free PlayStation Network remains a big bonus for many gamers but analyst Michael Pachter believes that Sony "can't afford to be magnanimous forever."
There have been more than a few rumors concerning a potential paid subscription for the PSN and although all have proven to be false thus far, and Sony hasn't offered anything official, the whispers persist. And in speaking to Critical Gamer , the Wedbush Morgan analyst admitted that he "really can't say" what Sony's plans are, but an online charge in the near future is still inevitable. Said Pachter:
"It seems to me that online game play can bear a monthly subscription (something as affordable as $50/year)… Free online play is a good marketing tool, but I don’t often hear consumers say 'I bought a PS3 because PSN is free'… more often, I hear people say 'I bought a 360 because of Xbox Live'… Sony gives a ton of value for free, but the company isn’t so profitable that it can afford to be magnanimous forever."
His statements could raise the ire of many a PS3 fan, simply because they imply that Live is the better service and worth paying for. The Network has made great strides in the past couple of years and perhaps Pachter's comment here can be considered outdated. But at the same time, the idea of a Premium subscription service for the PSN isn't out of left field and in all probability, we'll see one before the end of the year. But that does not mean it'll be required; the widespread belief now is that it will be optional for users.
But maybe not. Maybe Sony believes they've gained equal footing with Live and can now legitimately charge for a great service and if so…well, $4 or $5/month isn't exactly crippling. Ah, but is it not the principle of the matter? Free online forever? Or are we just being spoiled?
Also, as an added note, although my wife doesn't like video games or care about this site, she says you're an unintelligent, demeaning, and disgusting individual for using the word 'retarded' so flippantly…
I'm not one to judge on that, but she's a DSW (Developmental Service Worker)… That means she works with people with developmental disabilities. Consider this a virtual slap upside the head from her.
EDIT: Don't worry, I already learned the hard way after using that word once… I won't use it negatively ever again.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/10/2010 4:49:48 PM
Last I heard Sony said they would never charge for playing online, but they might start charging for other premium services. Which is fine by me, as long as I can still play the occasional game online. I'm not a big online gamer, but it would be pretty irritating to not be able to play online if I wanted to. It's a bonus for the PS3 for me – if I had to pay for online I wouldn't and games like Fat Princess and the upcoming Red Dead Redemption would be gimped for me.
if they charge i will stop playing online even if it means missing great online titles. i bought the ps3 system cause online gaming is free. why should i pay for something thats meant to be free??
thats why i always gonna dislike xbox360: pay for internet acces then pay for online gaming? you suck monkey ass xbox!
lets hope sony dont start sucking monkey ass as well.
I don't like xbox, but if ps3 made me pay for online I would get an xbox. You can pay 12$ a year for live if you have a credit card and pretty much all my friends have xbox.. So if Sony makes me pay I'm pretty sure me , and a lot of other people would get rid of ps3's and get xbox's .. So I think it'd be a mistake to make people pay for online.
As long as they don't take anything away from my current "free" PSN account I couldn't care less. I have played on-line only a hand full of times and none w/in the last year or so. I say if they want to charge for extra, stuff that is above and beyond what is currently available, fine.
micro&soft has shown that people are stupid enough to pay for something that has long been free so now more companies are going to look into it.
The basic PSN (access to demos/trailers/PSN game purchases/etc.) should always be free as a marketing expense to Sony, but I wouldn't be surprised if they started charging for multi-player gaming (as long as any multi-player demos/betas still play for free) and other premium/bandwidth-heavy use as those are more costly to justify for free.
I'm not sure there's a big cost to most multi-player games. Most games don't go through any sort of sony server as games are played P2P.
Take MW2, for example. The quality of online play is dictated by whomever is randomly selected to be the host. IW and Sony don't have a server that hosts these games.
I'm not a fan of subscription based payments and much prefer the individual content payment system that we have now. I would be very surprised if the content charges levied on customers wasn't sufficient to cover the costs of creation and a share of the network fees.
One major concern I have is that some of the pay on demand content (psn games/DLC etc) may only become available for subscription payers.
As an example, imagine if one of the two DLC's for Assassins Creed 2 was only available for if you were a monthly subscriber?
THAT is the model I would want to avoid. I want the option of paying for any of the element individually as is the case now.
Not saying that approach is being considered by Sony but I'm just speaking my thoughts.
As for online multiplayer; The free play is a major draw for those like me who only play once in a blue moon as we don't see the point in paying monthly for a service we will almost never use.
A the Highlander says he pretty much has this whole argument grasped. There is no need to argue anymore. We all stick to his statements, to end ANTI-SONY fanatics.