Sony Says the "M" Words About PSN Again: Monthly Fees
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
As long as I can still play movies from my computer and download games I'll be cool. I could give 3 shits about online play and Home.
I just don't see why people would pay for Xbox live gold if not for the online play. All that would seem to do is piss off consumers by making what they have now worse for no reason except money grabbing. Of course, the Sony guy might be referring to new content on the horizon, but I don't see anything past, say, restricting certain new areas in Home.AceDiamond said:
You see this? This is my wallet and in it are my money. You will never get this! You will never get this!
...Unless one day you get out of cage and get this :S
...Unless one day you get out of cage and get this :S
I'm sorry to take issue, but I think you can read his words in another way:
Also, per-item charges ALREADY EXIST, on both networks. Did you download a Pirates of the Caribbean Sackboy costume for $1.99 or order the film editing pack for Skate2? Yeah, that's the same thing and in no way construable as a "monthly fee for PSN". As such, it indicates nothing about any future need to purchase PSN time.
There's also an excluded portion here. This sentence is in the original interview, right between the quoted parts:
My main beef is with the first graf of the article. They _did_ use the monthly fees term, but a closer reading of the interview's actual statements does NOT indicate these fees are for the whole PSN or that it's a "sooner rather than later" issue. In fact, he's indicating that there are several options to reduce the follow-on operational costs of a title. ONE is subscriptions, and those subscriptions seem to have been left in the title domain, not the whole network. Just because they have it on the table shouldn't immediately validate the assumption that fees are a done deal, as the first paragraph seems to strongly argue.
Time will tell, certainly. I just don't think this language predicts a PSN Gold Membership level anytime in the next year or two. And no matter what, at least streaming Netflix will most likely always be free on PSN. Natch.
Monthly fees could be TITLE SPECIFIC, i.e. MMO style. Note that the statement seems to be targeted at the software, title-oriented, not the network. There's nothing in those statements that seem to indicate the WHOLE PSN will come under a fee, or even tier itself like XBL.
Also, per-item charges ALREADY EXIST, on both networks. Did you download a Pirates of the Caribbean Sackboy costume for $1.99 or order the film editing pack for Skate2? Yeah, that's the same thing and in no way construable as a "monthly fee for PSN". As such, it indicates nothing about any future need to purchase PSN time.
There's also an excluded portion here. This sentence is in the original interview, right between the quoted parts:
Content focused response. No talk of the NETWORK requiring a fee. No indication that he's talking about anything that wouldn't be title specific. This could include a fee for dedicated servers as an option above free, non-dedicated servers. It could indicate paying to get a God button. It seems reasonable to conclude this may mean the use of alternate streams of revenue to pay for the online services INSTEAD of direct monthly fees. There's nothing there to forcefully conclude that "PSN Gold" is a "sooner or later" affair.
My main beef is with the first graf of the article. They _did_ use the monthly fees term, but a closer reading of the interview's actual statements does NOT indicate these fees are for the whole PSN or that it's a "sooner rather than later" issue. In fact, he's indicating that there are several options to reduce the follow-on operational costs of a title. ONE is subscriptions, and those subscriptions seem to have been left in the title domain, not the whole network. Just because they have it on the table shouldn't immediately validate the assumption that fees are a done deal, as the first paragraph seems to strongly argue.
Time will tell, certainly. I just don't think this language predicts a PSN Gold Membership level anytime in the next year or two. And no matter what, at least streaming Netflix will most likely always be free on PSN. Natch.
Someone already said it, but I'll echo it. As long as I do not have to pay 50 dollars a year to access the store to get new games, I do not care about it.
What company would charge you money to be able to to buy things from them? The only reason I could think you're saying this is because you assume Microsoft is doing this on Xbox Live. That's not the case - you can use a non-paying Silver account to buy games and DLC.malestrithe said:
I would guess that Sony will start adding expanded features that require some sort of membership level, just like Microsoft has with Netflix, last.fm, Facebook, and twitter. The first candidate for this will probably be universal voice chat, since that can come with some hefty overhead.
I'm rapidly losing what little respect I have left in reserve for Sony. At this rate, I might as well just switch to PC and play what I like without being cramped in a shitty little P2P prison.
Uh. No. I honestly do not care about how much Microsoft is asking for. 50 dollars was the first value that popped into my head. It could have easily been any other number value.Virgil said:
Believe that or don't.