EDIT: Poll: Should SONY charge for PSN?

[MrGFunk]

I think maybe SONY should start charging for PSN, even if it's £10 a year. People would pay and it's untapped revenue that their competition is getting. Surely, this goes someway to making each 360 profitable.

Do you think that would lead to uproar?

I also think SONY needs to drop the price of the machine. So...

I know it wouldn't benefit me as I own one but if the RRP was dropped by £50 and an online fee was introduced I think it could be an incentive for people who only see the 'massive', but not really, £280 price tag. It should be assumed the machine would have a five year lifecycle in someone's home so, with £10 per year as the example, the initial cost would (admittedly without inflation) be recouped.

More uproar?

What do you think?

EDIT:
As a follow up question.

If paying for PSN also meant SONY had money to bid or 'inspire' developers to not make DLC exclusive wouldn't that also be a good thing?

 

[Inverse Skies]

Business wise it makes sense to drop the price of the machine and make back the losses by charging gamers to join the online network. Player wise... well I guess it's like any MMO, we all still pay for those every month so I guess nothing would change in that particular regard. It's be annoying sure, but hey. That's life.

 

[oliveira8]

Or just drop the prices of the games/console and make more games with better support, so crap like Fallout 3 doesnt happen.

 

[VaioStreams]

there's nothing wrong with PSN. i hear the game play isn't as easy over PSN. but i've had no problems setting up a game. i don't get dropped ever and the game play is really really smooth. at this point. paying for it wont make it any better. we wont get anymore content and with the advertising home is pulling in. why bother charging for PSN?

 

[Ranooth]

Well they need the money.

*laughs at Sony's loss on each PS3

 

[Simalacrum]

If Sony start charging for PSN then i WILL go to their headquarters and go on a killing rampage.

 

[Dudemeister]

Some would refuse to buy the console on the principle of an annual charge.

 

[Ago Iterum]

The thing that seperates the PS3 and the 360 for me is their dedication to gamers. We all know microsoft care only about money, whereas Sony have always been the more gamer-aware company. I think it's wrong to keep charging for other features of the console like their online service and such, it should come with the console.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I've just noticed that every time you mention 'Sony' you do so as SONY in massive capital letters. Why is that?

MrGFunk I mean of course.

 

[MrGFunk]

there's nothing wrong with PSN. i hear the game play isn't as easy over PSN. but i've had no problems setting up a game. i don't get dropped ever and the game play is really really smooth. at this point. paying for it wont make it any better. we wont get anymore content and with the advertising home is pulling in. why bother charging for PSN?

- People would probably pay a small £10 a year fee
- Untapped profit for the company
- RRP reduction to sell more consoles (for people who think the price is crazy).
- Larger userbase means developers wouldn't dismiss PS3 for DLC (e.g. Fallout 3)

 

[Eagle Est1986]

No, it shouldn't, it's currently one of it's selling points.
Instead, I suggest that maybe Xbox Live should be free.....
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.68405#628119

 

[MrGFunk]

I've just noticed that every time you mention 'Sony' you do so as SONY in massive capital letters. Why is that?

MrGFunk I mean of course.

Ha, ha, I do always do that. I don't mean it to be shouting. This is how it is written on my TV. I just assumed it was written like that.

It is a funny image though, me having a conversation and mid sentence shouting sony! (looks wrong) through gritted teeth.

 

[VaioStreams]

gaming is an expensive hobby. lets not make it more expensive. and seeing the developers have the choice to charge for their DLC. the devs are going to make money regardless of PSN's being charged or not

 

[Inverse Skies]

[

Ha, ha, I do always do that. I don't mean it to be shouting. This is how it is written on my TV. I just assumed it was written like that.

It is a funny image though, me having a conversation and mid sentence shouting sony! (looks wrong) through gritted teeth.

Lol, that's sort of the impression I was getting. It made it seem like you were waving you fist in anger every time you said their name hahaha

 

[Reokue]

For a lot of my friends that have PS3s the fact that they don't have to pay for PSN was a reason to buy it. Sure there was the big upfront cost, but you don't have to keep on paying them. I think people will get mad for that reason, kind of like a bait-n-switch.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

The thing that seperates the PS3 and the 360 for me is their dedication to gamers. We all know microsoft care only about money, whereas Sony have always been the more gamer-aware company. I think it's wrong to keep charging for other features of the console like their online service and such, it should come with the console.

I don't see how this is true at all.

Microsoft are always securing exclusives and exclusive DLC for their gamers, so it's not really a problem paying for a very good service.

 

[Ago Iterum]

The thing that seperates the PS3 and the 360 for me is their dedication to gamers. We all know microsoft care only about money, whereas Sony have always been the more gamer-aware company. I think it's wrong to keep charging for other features of the console like their online service and such, it should come with the console.

I don't see how this is true at all.

Microsoft are always securing exclusives and exclusive DLC for their gamers, so it's not really a problem paying for a very good service.

It's just from my personal experience.

 

[Skizle]

if they start charging for online play it would lower the price of DLC. ive heard it much more expensive on PS3 than on Xbox 360

 

[tiredinnuendo]

Here's the thing: Most people do not buy the PS3 or Wii specifically for thier robust multiplayer functions. Truth or not, the 360 is often touted as the system that correctly handles online play.

This problem gets carried further in my area of the world (US) by the fact that (in the circles I game in) the XBox has outsaturated the PS3 by a ratio of somthing like 4 to 1, meaning that if I want to play a game online with all of my friends, I get the 360 version. In fact, of all my gaming friends, there's only one who owns the PS3 but doesn't own the 360. Sure, I do miss gaming online with him sometimes, but the choice on my end for online play is either to buy the PS3 version and cut out all but two or three people, or buy the 360 version and cut out one guy.

In short, if the PS3 started charging for online, I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would see the value in paying for it. Right now, I treat the PSN as more like a gimmick. It's an extra feature, much like the built in web-browser, but certainly not the appeal of the system. It's free at the moment because most people in their right mind would not purchase it. Now, if they started charging next gen right from go (and built a network of their own gaming servers maintained and guaranteed by them on which to run it), that might work out okay for them.

- J

 

[stiver]

The thing that seperates the PS3 and the 360 for me is their dedication to gamers. We all know microsoft care only about money, whereas Sony have always been the more gamer-aware company.

Which is why Sony used their profitable game division as a trojan horse to screw gamers and shove blu-ray down everyone throats and make outlandish comments that people will buy whatever they put out. They didn't care about the gamer, the PS3 was about selling blu-ray machines.

Face it, business = making money. There is not a single company that isn't about making money. Any business that looks like it cares, does so because it is more profitable to do so.