Now we found an article over on Loot Ninja something really special, and we say special because you have to be a special person to publish it (Oh damn that makes me special now because I have published it, oops).
Loot Ninja’s title says “Why Sony SHOULD Charge for the PSN”, now give the some credit because they did say they were not rich, nor do they work for Sony, nor do they want to pay full stop for PSN or Xbox Live, but here is what they say anyway.
They have given a few reasons why Sony should to charge for the PSN, oh and none of these reasons is why Xbox fans pay for Xbox Live.
Loot Ninja Say:
That’s right, it says why Sony should charge for the PSN, and it’s not a type-o. And no, I’m not rich, crazy, nor do I work for Sony. I really don’t want to pay to use the Playstation Network, or Xbox Live. In fact, I don’t really want to pay for video games at all, but there is a big difference between what I want and what is practical. So, here are a couple of reasons why, and neither one of them is why Microsoft charges for.
REASON #1-TO SAVE US MONEY
A while ago I saw this post about the developers of the game MAG suggesting possible pricing structures to play the game. For those who don’t know, MAG is the recently announced shooter that promises 256 player online matches. If the game delivers on this, it could change online multiplayer for good. So, when I heard the game may have some sort of fee or subscription for online play I thought, “fair enough.” I mean, “World of Warcraft” and many other MMO titles already charge a fee to play so why not; after all, big online games mean big servers, and big servers mean big server maintenance and big server maintenance means money. But, then I remembered this article about Sony’s possible plans for several future MMO titles and it got me thinking.You see, right now I play whatever game I feel like playing whenever I feel like playing it. If I want a solid shooter, I play COD4, if I want to break out a sword, I’ll throw in Soul Calibur IV, and if I want to be disappointed by a game I’ve waited years for, I’ll play Socom; just kidding, I didn’t buy Socom. (In fairness to Socom, I hear a lot of the bugs have been fixed, but I didn’t buy it because the beta was shit.) Anyway, let’s say that next year Sony does come out with several MMO titles, and let’s say that three of them are really great, but all three charge a subscription fee. Now, instead of buying all three games and playing them whenever I feel like it, I am more likely to chose a favourite, and only pay to play that one. That is not good for me, nor is it good for the gaming industry.
REASON #2-BETTER ONLINE GAMING
Right now there are three reasons for developers to make a great online console game: the pride and joy making a great game, selling DLC, and selling the sequel. While the first reason is the most honourable, it doesn’t put food on the table. Sadly, and understandably, we seem to see developers focusing more on the latter two. It is, after all, the other two reasons that make game studios money and that is, after all, what they are in BUSINESS for. After the DLC has been sold, and the sequel is on its way, there is no money in supporting these games and all too often they fall victim to the glitches, hacks, and cheating that ultimately kill so many online games.A POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Now, I’m not a game developer, in fact, I’ve never had anything to do with making anything resembling a video game so my idea here may be complete bull shit, but here goes. The reason for PSN and Xbox Live to charge a fee is this: to distribute the bulk of the revenue from online play to the developers on a percentage basis based on usage, or to put it another way, incentive payment. We already know that Xbox Live monitors what is being played online each week, as we’ve seen Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 jockey back and forth for the position of “most played game” throughout most of the last year, but what if this meant more to the game developers than just bragging rights; what if it meant money. If the game studios got paid based on how much we played their game, just image how much free DLC and game support would be going on. Of course, this would mean that Microsoft would have to give up the bulk of the money they pocket from our Xbox Live Gold account fee, but if Sony gave money to the game developers and Microsoft didn’t, I don’t think it would take long for us to start to see a big difference on the quality of online gaming in the two consoles and for Microsoft to soon follow suit.
Again, this is just my suggestion, and it may not be a practical one. But, with gamers already being nickel and dimed to death with DLC, and with the talk of subscription fees for console MMO titles already in the works, it just seems like a workable idea. Or, at least a way to get rid of Qore.
Source – Loot Ninja
Latest PS3 news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or join us on Twitter
Tags: PSN
19 responses so far ↓
1 ps3owner // Nov 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
If they did charge us for it, it will he a shed load better than the pile of cack it is now.
Im all for paying for decent service, maybe they could have 2 catagorys one for the payers other for the non payers.
Non payers get the crap payers get what they want.
2 Rich // Nov 12, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Now I know I may not use PSN for all titles, or even to its highest potential, but I have had not one serious ongoing issue with any PSN game. OK everyone has the odd game which is full of lag or even fails due to the server, but out of 1000 games I could say maybe 10/15 have been affected. In view of this I can’t see any reason why a fully functional PSN network should be charged for to make it better, surely it should be broken first?
3 SWR // Nov 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I have to agree with Rich. If I’m not online on COD4 then I’m online on PES09. I’ve had no lag issues with PES09 and only a few with COD4 (which have cleared up by the next game). I do occasionally get a game cut short on COD4 (particularly in Ground War) but other than that no problems.
4 Barnabee Jones // Nov 12, 2008 at 6:17 pm
A few online titles seem to have some hiccups at the time of launch. These issues are usually resolved with in the first 24-48 hours or so. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I can honestly say that every online title I own runs perfectly.
I have been playing Resistance 2… epic 60 player battles, 8 player co-op against HUGE Chimera armies… and the game never slows down or misses a beat. R2 was one of the best online title releases to date. I am hoping that this may set a precedent in the future.
5 ivan // Nov 12, 2008 at 6:41 pm
i don’t really care if you have to pay for psn as long it is better then it is right now
6 Mark S. // Nov 12, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Ivan, ps3owner…. You have to be more specific.. How can it be “Better”?
As SWR and Rich noted, I’ve only had online issues when I’ve first bought a game and the company didn’t set up their servers for the first heavy load (LBP, SOCOM, COD4).
The _only_ item I could say seems to be a problem for me (and yes I’m on a wireless connection) is the store downloads that seem to take FOREVER.. but hey, the majority of those can be done in the background.
7 ps3owner // Nov 13, 2008 at 8:09 am
If people on here cant see how it can be then its just going to be a one sided argument from the fan boys.
I will say this though PSN is so restricted its a joke a times.
8 SWR // Nov 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm
@ps3owner
I hope you are not referring to me in your last post. I ain’t no fanboy! I bought a PS3 primarily as a gaming console, but also for the other features that appealed to me that rival consoles didn’t have. I did consider a 360, but I saw the PS3 as a better value package and of course there’s the RROD issues with the 360.
My earlier post is purely my opinion. I don’t see any flaming or comparisons to XBL - So where’s the fanboyism?
The way I see it is that PS3 and PSN are relatively new in their lifecycle, they are continually evolving and can only get better. Yes the download times from the store are slow, but my main use of PSN is for gaming and as I said earlier I’ve had no significant issues.
9 ps3owner // Nov 13, 2008 at 1:19 pm
rofl…
SWR dont embarress yirself, i didnt even read your reply.
10 zSup3R-Xer0 // Nov 13, 2008 at 1:51 pm
@ Ps3 Owner,
Maybe you could learn to spell before saying speaking bull-shit.
I have a 20mb broadband connection which is soon being upgraded to 50mb and have no problems with lag at all.
If I host a match on any game there is no lag for anyone.
So if you lag it’s your own fault mainly due to your connection!
Microsoft are charging you to host your own games pretty much, most of the servers on XBL games are not dedicated.
Where as on PSN a lot more of the games feature dedicated servers for a service we don’t even pay for.
And no I am not a fanboy, the xbox has no appeal [to me at least] anymore. Only game I want which is on the xbox is Gear of war 2 but then I can always play that on PC.
If you look at all the exclusive games that are on the ps3 or are out within a few weeks or months there are loads
Resistance 2, Killzone 2 , Massive Action game, motorstorm pacific riff and then you’ve got the exclusive R* games that are yet to be announced!
11 Mark S. // Nov 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm
so basically, because I haven’t had any problems, I’m “blind”? come on… I asked for you to explain how it could be better, and you just start name calling?
12 JofaMang // Nov 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I have had almost zero issues online with PSN (other than the ubiquitous first week of new game launch issues). R2, GT5p, Socom, Cod4, GTA4 all play very well online. The update-to-fight-cheaters argument may not be so applicable until the PS3 actually gets hacked; I haven’t been the victim of cheating other than wall bouncers in GT5p (not so common anymore with recent adjustments). Maybe its from having a Fios-like connection (25/25) but I personally don’t see the need for a pay-structure incentive in the PSN.
Is the xmb chat feature (BT headset or PSeye) a part of this discussion? I know its outside of specific online gaming, but I utilize it very heavily with friends and family who have moved away, or just hardcore enough gamers to not get out so much, heh. It works great, and I hope the pseye gets integrated into Home to some degree. I would be pissed if I had to pay to access these features.
13 Barnabee Jones // Nov 13, 2008 at 6:50 pm
If I wasn’t objective enough in my last post… the sometimes excruciatingly long downloads of demos, games, add-ons can be painful. I’m not sure I would be willing to pay a fee to have them sped up a bit though. I have learned to deal with, and work around them. In all honesty, the sped of those downloads are not that important to me.
As far as playing games online, I still stand by my statement that everything I play runs perfectly. It might not have been that way when the games launched, but they all work fine now.
To circle back to the topic, no I would not be willing to pay a fee to fix the minor issues that I have.
14 Mark S. // Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Bj… the download time is the one thing I can agree with. That being said, unless it’s a mandatory update (system / game data), I refuse to do it in anything other than background mode.
Yes, it takes me a little longer that way, but at least my system is not fully tied up performing downloads.. and I’ve got enough smaller games/items to keep me busy while it’s going on.
That being said, it’s the one thing I’ll never understand.. why store downloads take forever, while game updates don’t.. (and they’re all usually similar sizes).
So like you, Bj.. an improvement in store download time is not worth a fee to me.
15 Barnabee Jones // Nov 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Mark I couldn’t agree more. It is a very minor issue. It almost seems petty to complain about it, but I think that the thing most people complain about the most with the PSN. The online gamming is perfect; people tend to harp on the download times from the PSN.
16 riZe- // Nov 16, 2008 at 5:56 pm
People are stupid. They complain that the downloads take forever and what they don’t realize is they are using a wireless internet connection on their PS3 and it takes twice as long to download something on wireless then it does using a wired connection.
That being said, some of the downloads are still quite slow but I just think of the poor people still living with dial up. I do most of my downloading overnight, doesn’t bother me at all. I honestly see nothing wrong with the PSN, I don’t know why we should pay for it to be improved when it’s perfectly fine the way it is right now.
17 Barnabee Jones // Nov 18, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Can you even use dialup? I think the minimal service for games at lease, is Broadband.
18 Highlander // Nov 21, 2008 at 8:30 pm
@Barny Jones
Download speed a problem? Consider this, you’re downloading anything from 500MB to over 1GB for the demos. That’s not a quick download at any time.
A typical broadband connection will manage about 3MBits down (that’s effective throughput, not peak, and certainly not what you were marketed), with some users having higher throughput. I have a service that’s supposed to be >3Mbits but in practice rarely exceeds 1.8Mbits.
To download 1GB at 3Mbits/second will take more than three hours. Nothing will change that. No amount of PSN enhancement by Sony will increase the speed your ISP gives you. So bitching about PSNs download speed is pretty pointless and off target.
19 anthony // Dec 11, 2008 at 4:28 pm
i think that psn should pony up and spend the money to fix psn because it makes people want to buy online games and i dont think that paying for psn is a good idea i bought a ps3 because i love the sony products and i do plan to stick to sony in all game systems ive played 360 before i owned a new system and they are not worth the cost of the online play the laggg and the 12 year old kids gettin tough on the headset but all in all psn should pay to fix the issues that they have with psn
Leave a Comment