would you be fine with a paid psn service next gen

[LfCpS3]

As much as i would hate it, i would end up paying for it like i do with live.

[unicron7]

As much as i would hate it, i would end up paying for it like i do with live.

Fight the power bro. Fight the power.

[Dwenny]

I like the choice as it is now. Make other services, such as PS+, an option.

[F34R]

You didn't state facts, you stated a prediction/guess just like the rest of us, and a weak one at that. How do you know people would pay for it? I think most would raise hell over something like this.

Then again, we are talking to the infallible F34R. You really should let us use that crystal ball that lets you see the future and know all.

I know I wouldn't pay to play people online, as would most on here. Free PSN is a huge selling point and they would be idiots to get rid of it. I equate charging people to play online as blatant fraud. Cheating customers. I guess they would have to make a choice. Keep it free and let people game, or start charging needlessly and rack up an obnoxious profit.

Obviously your opinion is stronger than ours though. I concede. I'll stop posting.

Well, let's see... There are at least two PEOPLE in this thread alone that said if it were like Live, they would pay for it. Checking the poll also shows that more than one person, which equates to PEOPLE, would pay. So, there you have it. If you'd take more time reading the actual text and understanding the meaning instead of looking for ways to argue and denounce me, you wouldn't end up looking like this each time your try to "debunk" a post of mine. No need for a crystal ball. Just a little comprehension skills will do fine.

[emmerich]

If it was to the same standard as Live then yes I would certainly pay for it. Who wouldn't?

You'd have to be stubborn not to, or tight.

[Two4DaMoney]

Nope, I wouldn't pay. They can fuck off just as MS can.

[Pez_555]

Well, let's see... There are at least two PEOPLE in this thread alone that said if it were like Live, they would pay for it. Checking the poll also shows that more than one person, which equates to PEOPLE, would pay. So, there you have it. If you'd take more time reading the actual text and understanding the meaning instead of looking for ways to argue and denounce me, you wouldn't end up looking like this each time your try to "debunk" a post of mine. No need for a crystal ball. Just a little comprehension skills will do fine.

Lol 1-0

[Fon]

If it denies my ability to play online games unless I get a paid subscription then I'll migrate to PC gaming. It makes more sense if they continue their separate services like they do now(Free and PS+)

[Minnzy]

I wouldn't! ... though I don't play any console online :O

OH DEAR GOD! If people start paying for PSN that'll just lead to more fanboy debates! "I pay 0.00001 cents more than you so clearly my service is better!"

If it denies my ability to play online games unless I get a paid subscription then I'll migrate to PC gaming. It makes more sense if they continue their separate services like they do now(Free and PS+)

Move to a free service that has always had better and more varied options than the competition? ABSURD!

[Nitey]

When people say they would pay for it if it were more like Live, what do they mean exactly?.. That they would pay if it incorporated xgc or?


I dont think I'd pay for online gaming. Dont really play enough of it to warrant a subscription. Perhaps in short bursts, like 1 or 3 month subs I would consider - Doubt it tho lol

[Fenix]

Most likely next gen it'll be a paid service, I'd be happy as a pig in shit if it remained free - not really a fan of this playing for online, unless its something like PS+ where you get free PSN games. Not games i'd buy per say, but I wouldnt of tried them if I didnt have PSN+. They've been fun, and interesting since the month or so I signed up.

[AaronSOLDIER]

The results of the poll pretty much says it all, Sony would be stupid to lose its biggest advantage over the competition (except the exclusives).

[keefy]

It needs ot be massively better to warrant a mandatory fee hell even the optional PS+ is a disappointment.

[F34R]

The results of the poll pretty much says it all, Sony would be stupid to lose its biggest advantage over the competition (except the exclusives).

LOL. I hope you don't mean to suggest that this poll is at all representative of what the general public might view... you're talking about millions of people that buy COD each year, and the same millions that buy overpriced maps (according the the "forum consensus")....

[hellcat420]

no i wouldn't pay. if they try this ill go back to gaming on pc.

[$Greatness$]

Why compare PS+ with Live?

PS+= Related to gaming.

Live= Related to gaming and gameplay.

Live= Related to extortion

Ps+ = Equivalent of a Sams Club/ Costco membership

And before anyone cries "FANBOY", all I have to say is....


Child Please... I own both.

[HellsJester]

Fuck no. Paying to play online is bullshit. Normally you're using YOUR bandwidth or other players, not the networks unless they themselves have set up dedicated servers, but usually that is done by individual developers, not by PSN or Live. Paying for an online play service is the biggest ripoff ever, and people fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I was a PC online gamer years and years before console online gaming took off, and I never payed a cent for online matches. Nobody lost any money and nobody suffered financially because of it. Online pay services are one of the biggest fucking ruses to ever be implemented. My hatred for them knows no bounds.

Nothing more needs to be said than this.

[Sufi]

Live= Related to extortion

Ps+ = Equivalent of a Sams Club/ Costco membership

And before anyone cries "FANBOY", all I have to say is....


Child Please... I own both.

Live has extra features that relate to gameplay, that's all.

[ozman79]

How do you know people would pay for it?

Because they already do pay for it. On Xbox Live. By the millions. You said it yourself; people don't pay for Xbox Live because they want to, they pay for it because they have to. Microsoft don't give you a choice if you want to play online with their console. So if Sony suddenly said PSN would be a paid service like XBL when the PS4 hits, the same mentality would prevail - people will pay for it because they have to. And I guarantee you, as with XBL, more people will just suck it up and pay up, than will make a fuss about it and stop online play altogether. And no-one who only plays Playstation is going to jump ship to Xbox because they'll encounter the same issue with pay-to-play there too.

I think most would raise hell over something like this.

Yeah, they'll raise hell on the internet. Then they'll get bored and cough up to Sony so they can carry on gaming.

Think about it; the internet is overflowing with people who claim to hate Call of Duty/Treyarch/Activision. Every year message boards throughout the gaming community are awash with a plethora of threads about how CoD sucks, and "I'm never buying another CoD game again!", and how the latest Battlefield game is going to kick CoD off the top spot, and so on, and so on...

...and yet every year without fail, each CoD game outsells the last.

[SprSynJn]

What makes you think people would pay when the 360 is the only gaming machine that requires payment? That's including PC of course. I understand there are people who wouldn't mind, many obviously. But that doesn't mean everyone is willing. I can guarantee you there are millions who picked the PS3 because of it's free online.

As far as I'm concerned, no I wouldn't. I find it too much when you pay for the system and the game, then you must pay for online. Too much.

[ozman79]

I can guarantee you there are millions who picked the PS3 because of it's free online.

And you think those millions are just gonna drop online play, just like that? Sure, some will, but I'll bet real money that the majority will pay. As has been pointed out, people are already saying they'd pay it in this thread. That's by no means representative of the general population, but it's an indication. Given the examples already cited, like Xbox Live, it's a sure bet that the majority would just pay for it. Or at least a significant enough portion will to make it profitable for Sony, and once it's profitable, it's there to stay.

[Kauldron]

People pay for Live because they have to in order to play online, not because they want to. If Sony tried some shit like this, my online days on PSN would be over then too. There's absolutely no need for pay to play online games. It's just a big scam. I think if everyone threw down the gauntlet in response to a "pay to play" announcement, Sony would retract that shit in a heart beat.

Right on. Exactly how MS tried to take live to the PC community.

They threw that shit right back in their face.

[$Greatness$]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. This "Pay to play" shit is stupid no matter how you wanna twisted it. Playing online was a given back in the day until Microsoft started fucking shit up and the casuals started following suit as if we owed them something. I wouldn't be fine with Sony starting to charge next-gen even though that's where we're heading. Of course I'd pay because I simply wouldn't have a choice. I want to play with my cousins and friends and since split-screen is a thing of the past, the ball is in the developers court.

I'd feel a lot better about paying Sony since they are my system of choice as opposed to be using the 360 for just shooters period. So hopefully next-gen they may add on the PS+ service with their premium deal to sweeten the pot. I wish gamers would grow a set of balls and stop believing the bullshit these companies type because XBL or a premium PSN isn't needed. Online passes aren't needed. DLC isn't fucking needed if its going to be premeditated garbage that's on the disc or planned from the jump. Just talking about this generation of gaming gets me pissed. Ugh..

[keefy]

Right on. Exactly how MS tried to take live to the PC community.

They threw that shit right back in their face.

There are ways around it on PC e.g tunngle and hamachi and since GFWL uses mainly peer to peer it makes no difference in quality to the experience.

[Sufi]

Because they already do pay for it. On Xbox Live. By the millions. You said it yourself; people don't pay for Xbox Live because they want to, they pay for it because they have to. Microsoft don't give you a choice if you want to play online with their console. So if Sony suddenly said PSN would be a paid service like XBL when the PS4 hits, the same mentality would prevail - people will pay for it because they have to. And I guarantee you, as with XBL, more people will just suck it up and pay up, than will make a fuss about it and stop online play altogether. And no-one who only plays Playstation is going to jump ship to Xbox because they'll encounter the same issue with pay-to-play there too.



Yeah, they'll raise hell on the internet. Then they'll get bored and cough up to Sony so they can carry on gaming.

Think about it; the internet is overflowing with people who claim to hate Call of Duty/Treyarch/Activision. Every year message boards throughout the gaming community are awash with a plethora of threads about how CoD sucks, and "I'm never buying another CoD game again!", and how the latest Battlefield game is going to kick CoD off the top spot, and so on, and so on...

...and yet every year without fail, each CoD game outsells the last.

You gotta point.