Analysts: Sony could defray costs by stripping down PSN’s free services

[Sufi]

Big difference between a Ferrari and a 60 dollar a year online fee. Is 60 dollars a year (most people dont even pay that)really going to make or break you? If so then you shouldn't be spending your money on a 3 or 400 dollar game console if things are really that tight. Now if you CAN afford it and dont want to pay it then I already said that I can understand that.

I'd say most people fall into the second category.

[radgamer420]

I'd say most people fall into the second category.

I agree, I think they do too. And if they do fall into the second category then I understand where theyre coming from. I've said that twice already. But the poster I initially responded to wasn't talking about the second category.

[Sufi]

I agree, I think they do too. And if they do fall into the second category then I understand where theyre coming from. I've said that twice already. But the poster I initially responded to wasn't talking about the second category.

Afford is a very loose term.

I can take another activity out that costs money and switch it to something else that I'd rather do.

For example, when I was playing World of Warcraft, I stopped buying games on the PS3...1) because I don't have time to play. 2) it'd be a waste of money to spend money on something I don't have time for.

I wouldn't pay for online because I'm not on all the time...I don't want to afford it.

It's not worth it. So technically I can't afford it because while it's a small fee, it's not something I wanna lose money on because I have no value of it.

I can't afford buying DVDs from Blockbuster or Redbox...not because I don't have the money to pay for it but because it's too expensive considering how cheap Netflix is (if you know what you're looking for).

It's a loose term. In reality, everyone can pretty much afford whatever (within a certain reach) if they value it.

[radgamer420]

Afford is a very loose term. I can take another activity out that costs money and switch it to something else that I'd rather do. For example, when I was playing World of Warcraft, I stopped buying games on the PS3...1) because I don't have time to play. 2) it'd be a waste of money to spend money on something I don't have time for. I wouldn't pay for online because I'm not on all the time...I don't want to afford it. It's not worth it. So technically I can't afford it because while it's a small fee, it's not something I wanna lose money on because I have no value of it. I can't afford buying DVDs from Blockbuster or Redbox...not because I don't have the money to pay for it but because it's too expensive considering how cheap Netflix is (if you know what you're looking for). It's a loose term. In reality, everyone can pretty much afford whatever (within a certain reach) if they value it.

Well you can play semantics and word games all you want but we both know what we're really talking about here. Youre talking about being thrifty and spending your money wisely which is different than not being able to afford something. Not being able to afford something means you just dont have the money to spend for it without being broke afterwards. Heres a definition - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/afford. "Unable to bear the cost of." Or if you can afford it "to be able to bear the cost of." Anyway at this point youre just arguing for the sake of arguing now. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

[mynd]

Afford is a very loose term.

I can take another activity out that costs money and switch it to something else that I'd rather do.

For example, when I was playing World of Warcraft, I stopped buying games on the PS3...1) because I don't have time to play. 2) it'd be a waste of money to spend money on something I don't have time for.

I wouldn't pay for online because I'm not on all the time...I don't want to afford it.

It's not worth it. So technically I can't afford it because while it's a small fee, it's not something I wanna lose money on because I have no value of it.

I can't afford buying DVDs from Blockbuster or Redbox...not because I don't have the money to pay for it but because it's too expensive considering how cheap Netflix is (if you know what you're looking for).

It's a loose term. In reality, everyone can pretty much afford whatever (within a certain reach) if they value it.

Your talking about opportunity cost. Not affordabilty.
Affordabilty means you've already made your desicision that you want it.

[Chille]

But you would still buy a Playstation console?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Of course i would, xbox controller puts me off, and wii u controller is to big also, so yeah playstation for me

[Dennis Dyack]

Of course i would, xbox controller puts me off, and wii u controller is to big also, so yeah playstation for me

As I believe most people would. They may opt out of PSN but they won't abandon the Playstation line just because there is a cost for PSN.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Ghost-Rhayne]

I firmly stand behind the assertion that the most basic element of online gaming will be free next gen on the PlayStation, but Sony will make a very enticing subscription service. It's for the same reason that Guild Wars 2 remains free to play; If you have something that sets you aside from the competition and brings customers to your product, you risk losing them when you change that aspect on the products successor.

It's pretty much a fact that it is cheaper to retain your current customer base than it is to earn new ones, this is why businesses are so into CRM. Sony runs the risk of losing loyal customers if the do a 180 on such an intregal part of their conesoles DNA.

[Chille]

As I believe most people would. They may opt out of PSN but they won't abandon the Playstation line just because there is a cost for PSN.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Thats just silly if people did that.

[radgamer420]

I firmly stand behind the assertion that the most basic element of online gaming will be free next gen on the PlayStation, but Sony will make a very enticing subscription service. It's for the same reason that Guild Wars 2 remains free to play; If you have something that sets you aside from the competition and brings customers to your product, you risk losing them when you change that aspect on the products successor. It's pretty much a fact that it is cheaper to retain your current customer base than it is to earn new ones, this is why businesses are so into CRM. Sony runs the risk of losing loyal customers if the do a 180 on such an intregal part of their conesoles DNA.

I doubt that there would be this mass exodus of PS fans jumping ship. The average Sony fan in the real world outside of internet PS forums would just pay the fee as long as the online service is good.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

I doubt that there would be this mass exodus of PS fans jumping ship. The average Sony fan in the real world outside of internet PS forums would just pay the fee as long as the online service is good.

Perhaps, time will tell. I'll take a month ban if PS4 requires subscription to play online. I don't think it will happen.

[radgamer420]

Perhaps, time will tell. I'll take a month ban if PS4 requires subscription to play online. I don't think it will happen.

I hope it doesn't but I think it will. But I think it will be much less than what MS charges. I'm only supporting one console next gen and that will most likely be PS4 because of all the IPs and Sony's unwavering focus on the core gamer. So if Sony charges for online I'm still onboard.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

I hope it doesn't but I think it will. But I think it will be much less than what MS charges. I'm only supporting one console next gen and that will most likely be PS4 because of all the IPs and Sony's unwavering focus on the core gamer. So if Sony charges for online I'm still onboard.

I'll still be on board too, but paying for online will be a bitter pill for me to swallow, however, if Sony keep up the onslaught of exclusives and have interesting Vita integration it will be like a teaspoon of honey to take away the bitterness.

[radgamer420]

I'll still be on board too, but paying for online will be a bitter pill for me to swallow, however, if Sony keep up the onslaught of exclusives and have interesting Vita integration it will be like a teaspoon of honey to take away the bitterness.

lol Yep, I agree.

[Dennis Dyack]

I'll still be on board too, but paying for online will be a bitter pill for me to swallow, however, if Sony keep up the onslaught of exclusives and have interesting Vita integration it will be like a teaspoon of honey to take away the bitterness.

As will most fans of the Playstation brand.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Ghost-Rhayne]

^^ Still don't think it will happen...But time will tell if I take my month long ban inspired holiday from PSU when next gen starts. lol

[MATRIX 2]

I firmly stand behind the assertion that the most basic element of online gaming will be free next gen on the PlayStation, but Sony will make a very enticing subscription service. It's for the same reason that Guild Wars 2 remains free to play; If you have something that sets you aside from the competition and brings customers to your product, you risk losing them when you change that aspect on the products successor.

It's pretty much a fact that it is cheaper to retain your current customer base than it is to earn new ones, this is why businesses are so into CRM. Sony runs the risk of losing loyal customers if the do a 180 on such an intregal part of their conesoles DNA.

I think you've got it a bit mixed up.

Sony will likely charge for online gameplay with the ps4. So they will have to up the quality of PSN across the board if they want people to pay for it.

Seeing how well PS+ worked, I'm not too confident in your theory. (even with that leaked, hypothetical 3 tier pricing chart)

I think you underestimate the amount of people willing to pay for online gameplay.

remember MS got people to pay $50 (retail/msrp) just to play online games and voice chat on the original xbox.

If people were willing to pay $50 just for that, considering all the options today, paying for online doesn't seem like a big deal at all.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Well it's all just farting in the wind until next gen. Time will tell who had the more accurate foresight.

[Sufi]

Well you can play semantics and word games all you want but we both know what we're really talking about here. Youre talking about being thrifty and spending your money wisely which is different than not being able to afford something. Not being able to afford something means you just dont have the money to spend for it without being broke afterwards. Heres a definition - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/afford. "Unable to bear the cost of." Or if you can afford it "to be able to bear the cost of." Anyway at this point youre just arguing for the sake of arguing now. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that when people say they can't "afford" something, they don't know what they actually mean.

Your talking about opportunity cost. Not affordabilty.
Affordabilty means you've already made your desicision that you want it.

I added that little bit in there but the rest of the paragraph is what afford means.

I can't afford a Ferrari. I can pretty much afford anything else if I really wanted it.

[Bigdoggy]

Sony will likely charge for online gameplay with the ps4. So they will have to up the quality of PSN across the board if they want people to pay for it.

Seeing how well PS+ worked, I'm not too confident in your theory. (even with that leaked, hypothetical 3 tier pricing chart)

they still wont charge a subscription fee to play online. the fact remains that they have other services on the PS3, not just PS+. music, movies, etc etc. charging a subscription for playing online with actually dwindle the sales on there other subscription service and that's pretty much a guarantee.

also, not all of the MMORPG's in the future are going to be free to play monthly and only survive off of micro transaction. next line of MMO's when the next Playstation hits, chances are EQIII will be out, already heard talks of it, that will be subscription based.

if you charge for online play, you take away other potential sales from other services..

it's like I said before I can see the difference on this topic for the people that actually want PSN to have a subscription Vs common sense which I just don't see on here.

[Soldier 95B]

I think you've got it a bit mixed up.

Sony will likely charge for online gameplay with the ps4. So they will have to up the quality of PSN across the board if they want people to pay for it.

Seeing how well PS+ worked, I'm not too confident in your theory. (even with that leaked, hypothetical 3 tier pricing chart)

I think you underestimate the amount of people willing to pay for online gameplay.

remember MS got people to pay $50 (retail/msrp) just to play online games and voice chat on the original xbox.

If people were willing to pay $50 just for that, considering all the options today, paying for online doesn't seem like a big deal at all.

I agree. PSN will most likely be fee based for the PS4.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[radgamer420]

Well for the record I certainly dont WANT Sony to charge for online next gen. I'm hoping to be proven wrong about thinking that they might.

[MATRIX 2]

they still wont charge a subscription fee to play online. the fact remains that they have other services on the PS3, not just PS+. music, movies, etc etc. charging a subscription for playing online with actually dwindle the sales on there other subscription service and that's pretty much a guarantee.

also, not all of the MMORPG's in the future are going to be free to play monthly and only survive off of micro transaction. next line of MMO's when the next Playstation hits, chances are EQIII will be out, already heard talks of it, that will be subscription based.

if you charge for online play, you take away other potential sales from other services..

it's like I said before I can see the difference on this topic for the people that actually want PSN to have a subscription Vs common sense which I just don't see on here.

Who are people going to go to? Nintendo? Please.

It makes no sense at all for sony not to charge. Sure people will complain, but they will roll over like they always do. (Just look at what COD is getting away with)

You can deny it all you want, but companies exist for 1 reason, to make money. This is a lot of potential income to ignore.

Well for the record I certainly dont WANT Sony to charge for online next gen. I'm hoping to be proven wrong about thinking that they might.

Obviously, but that's not how toe world works. Especially since Sony is a shadow of its former self.

[Dennis Dyack]

Well for the record I certainly dont WANT Sony to charge for online next gen. I'm hoping to be proven wrong about thinking that they might.

I don't think anyone really WANTS to see Sony charge for online play, but it's inevitable.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[radgamer420]

I don't think anyone really WANTS to see Sony charge for online play, but it's inevitable. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Yep exactly. But some people in this thread seem to think just because we're predicting that Sony will charge means that we want them to charge. Dont understand that one.