• 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by KuribosShoe (640 posts) -

Alright, so, I've been thinking a lot about this.  I have both a 360 and a PS3.  I love both systems, so please try not to paint me as a fanboy, here.  I am probably not as into multiplayer stuff as much as the average guy, but I do enjoy it every once in awhile.  PlayStation Plus and XBL Gold both cost $49.99 a year.   
 
On XBL, that gives you access to online gaming (free with basic PSN),  Netflix (also free), and one free game, namely, 1 Vs. 100.  Where you have slightly more than no chance to win more games.  On Plus, you are actually paying for benefits. Exclusive access to betas and demos, which, sure, you could say are just as easily offered free to everyone, but so is online multiplayer.  New free games and stuff every month, and yeah, I know they go away when you stop paying for them, but since you're getting new stuff every month, and if you keep up the service, isn't it likely you'll get your fill of that stuff eventually?  
 
 If Microsoft started offering free games for Gold, people'd flock to it, regardless of whether or not you got to keep them after you cancelled.  Where I think the problem lies, is that nothing Sony's doing is essential.  There's nothing you need Plus for.  Which I think is a good thing.  It's an actual premium service, instead of Microsoft's policy of selling you the XBOX and making you pay for a part of it forever.  
 
 So really, for a guy like me with both systems, I'd rather pay that $50 to Sony and get something, and just use my ps3 for all my multiplayer and netflix and hulu plus needs.  For games like Halo, I think I could buy a month or two of service and be good, although I realize I may be a unique case here.  Really, at this point the only thing I need either service for is Hulu Plus, so if I'm going to pay $50 a year, might as well pay it to the guys who will give me something for it.  Even if it does go away when I finally decide to stop paying it.

#1 Edited by KuribosShoe (640 posts) -

Alright, so, I've been thinking a lot about this.  I have both a 360 and a PS3.  I love both systems, so please try not to paint me as a fanboy, here.  I am probably not as into multiplayer stuff as much as the average guy, but I do enjoy it every once in awhile.  PlayStation Plus and XBL Gold both cost $49.99 a year.   
 
On XBL, that gives you access to online gaming (free with basic PSN),  Netflix (also free), and one free game, namely, 1 Vs. 100.  Where you have slightly more than no chance to win more games.  On Plus, you are actually paying for benefits. Exclusive access to betas and demos, which, sure, you could say are just as easily offered free to everyone, but so is online multiplayer.  New free games and stuff every month, and yeah, I know they go away when you stop paying for them, but since you're getting new stuff every month, and if you keep up the service, isn't it likely you'll get your fill of that stuff eventually?  
 
 If Microsoft started offering free games for Gold, people'd flock to it, regardless of whether or not you got to keep them after you cancelled.  Where I think the problem lies, is that nothing Sony's doing is essential.  There's nothing you need Plus for.  Which I think is a good thing.  It's an actual premium service, instead of Microsoft's policy of selling you the XBOX and making you pay for a part of it forever.  
 
 So really, for a guy like me with both systems, I'd rather pay that $50 to Sony and get something, and just use my ps3 for all my multiplayer and netflix and hulu plus needs.  For games like Halo, I think I could buy a month or two of service and be good, although I realize I may be a unique case here.  Really, at this point the only thing I need either service for is Hulu Plus, so if I'm going to pay $50 a year, might as well pay it to the guys who will give me something for it.  Even if it does go away when I finally decide to stop paying it.

#2 Posted by canucks23 (1087 posts) -

Yea i haven't understood the ps+ complaining at all. They're not taking anything away from you by offering this so chill, If people wanna pay a subscription to get random free stuff every month then let them. It's kinda fun seeing what new free stuff/discounts you could be getting the next month.

#3 Edited by Pessh (2459 posts) -

Owning both systems doesn't mean shit and posting that will probably just get you attacked by the troll army. I'm only on PS3 at the moment, but I would rather have the ability to play online than get 4 games a month, most of which I'm not interested in anyway. Fortunately I get online play free, and as i'm not interested in throwing money away on poor quality games I don't spend anything on online services. It's a bit early to start talking about playstation plus anyway, we won't have a proper idea for at least a year, they say betas and shit now but that doesn't mean you'll be getting that. Sony would charge for online play, but can't because they're offered it for free for so long and its one of their few remaining selling points over the 360, instead they offer this sub par service.

#4 Posted by Screble (28 posts) -

I can certainly see your point on this matter; however, I personally will not be spending for the extra "premium" content. While you have valid points in it's comparison to Xbox live gold the free PSN multilayer still isn't quite up to where gold membership in terms of functionality. Also maybe it's just me, but  feel like that if Sony had rolled this out initially then I wouldn't have had much of a problem with it. Now that everyone has gotten used to not having to pay for their online service though it just fells a little odd at the thought of it. And while the thought of free games is a nice notion it only is a benefit if you don't already own the game. I wish they had multiple games and let you have some sort of voucher where you could choose which one you wanted instead of throwing out one to everybody.

#5 Edited by triple07 (1198 posts) -

I disagree because with Xbox Live you are paying for better multiplayer like faster matching and better integrated friend lists and the like while with Playstation Plus you are paying for extras. For me I'll keep paying for gold and playing most multiplayer on the 360 and playing PS3 exclusives or games which are better on the PS3 on it. Just my opinion though as there is nothing wrong with the PS3's online I just find it kinda lacking compared to the 360. I do see what you mean though. I'm not convinced that Microsoft won't do something to compete with Playstation Plus though, they have offered discounts for games to people on gold and stuff like that.

#6 Posted by JokerClown88 (1051 posts) -

Playstation + is exactly what it its advertised to be.  Your normal Playstation experience Plus a little bit extra.  I dont see how people can hate on that.  Its not like you have to pay for it to play online.

#7 Posted by Raven_Sword (3447 posts) -
@KuribosShoe:

Honestly, its only going to be worth it to the person who does pretty much all his things on a PS3 or buys most of his stuff off PSN. thats not me, I own both consoles and I share my time equally between them. Also, this service is assuming your going to want the games there offering for free or that your going to want the Demos they give you or the discounts they give you? Why would I care for a free trial of Infamous is I already beat the game a year ago? Why am I going to care about MK 2 being discounted to 2.50 if I dont wanna buy MK 2 (although maybe i do if it has trophies), what if I dont give two shits about their Exclusvie Avatars they offer to me for free? See, this is the flaw with this syestem: It assumes I buy all my stuff off PSN and that I will want everything they offer me for the month. If they could give me a layout for the year of the stuff theyre giving me, thatll maybe make it easier for people.
#8 Posted by Belonpopo (1822 posts) -
@KuribosShoe:  
#9 Posted by Nasar7 (2790 posts) -
@triple07 said:
" I disagree because with Xbox Live you are paying for better multiplayer like faster matching and better integrated friend lists and the like...."
I have had a 360 for years and just got a PS3 last November and I am continually baffled by the claim that XBL is any better than PSN. Could someone explain to me how this is so? The matching in my experience is not any better, faster, more accurate etc and IMO the friends list integration on PSN is just fine.
#10 Posted by Famov (768 posts) -


Your logic doesn't make all that much sense.

 

Comparing XBL Gold with regular PSN has always been reasonable. But you're not 'getting more' for PS+ than Xbox Live, you're getting less  because regular PSN already has most of the features that XBL Gold offers with its service. Comparing the extra features offered by XBL and PS+, the latter clearly has far less to offer.

#11 Edited by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -
@KuribosShoe: Honestly, I refuse to pay for demos or betas, I won't do it. The 'free' games don't interest me at all. All that's left is the cross-game chat, and if the multi-player is free, $50 for cross-game chat is a LOT of money just for that feature.
#12 Posted by triple07 (1198 posts) -
@Nasar7: 
For me its mostly just anecdotal evidence but to me it just seems like Live works smoother and the online seems more stable but I play most of my games on the 360 and I've never had the same game on both systems so it could very well be the games and not the system. Also I just like how the 360 handles friend lists and interaction better. One of the main complaints is that PSN doesn't allow cross game chat which is a small issue for me but some people seem to really want it on PSN. Of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with PSN I just think Live works a little better.
#13 Edited by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

How's that cross game chat? Multi-person party chat? Multiple chat channels? 
 
...anyone?

#14 Posted by Damien (1384 posts) -
@KuribosShoe:  I totally won something from 1 vs 100, so my chance was certainly slightly greater that none!
#15 Posted by phantomzxro (1583 posts) -

I agree with you to an point but i would not go as far an say playstation plus is better. I would say it is way to soon to call anything right now, microsoft has lined up every new feature into gold which make the value worth it but at the same time forces you to jump on the gold membership. I think it is still yet to be proven if the plus service is worth it because i don't mind dropping 50 a year for cool stuff. But the first month of stuff was a bit lacking in value and that goes double if you don't want or already have wipeout hd. If they can prove that you will get awesome stuff every month then it will be a cool service but as it stands now i'm worried theat all the free stuff you will get will be junk. I'm also worried that all the discounted stuff will be older titles that you really don't care about anymore or will only knock a dollar off.
#16 Edited by EpicSteve (6499 posts) -

I think the early demo access is their way of saying "we're just holding this demo for an extra week for the cheap assholes".
 
It doesn't matter what Sony gives you, Microsoft simply has a better overall structure.

#17 Posted by drakattack (144 posts) -

I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.
 
THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?
 
BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED

#18 Posted by ka_tet19 (80 posts) -

 I think what Sony is offering is 

  • Fundamentally different than what Microsoft is offering. Live is a service, PS+ is more like a membership to a store.
  • Possibly substantial content, this is perhaps the real problem with the PS+. Like others have stated until PS+ has been around for awhile we won't know what Sony's expectations are for delivering content. Europeans were offered  LBP for free with the first year paid, that kind of big name recognition needs to happen everywhere. 
 
Ultimately PS+ working or failing will depend greatly upon what kind of content is given, so it's a $50 gamble right now, you could do worse, but you could do better as well.
#19 Posted by Snail (8660 posts) -
@drakattack said:
" I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.  THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?   BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED "
Well I'll have you know-- Hold on, I just heard a huge explosion coming from my bedroom.
 
Oh.
 
My fanboy-radar just blew up.
#20 Posted by MadeinFinland (839 posts) -

I think PC Multiplayer is best. All you need is internet. For consoles, you're paying on top of your needed internet.

#21 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1212 posts) -

I'm not a PS3 owner but if I were I'd be pissed at this whole plus thing. I always respected Sony keeping online play free (as it should be). Obviously the board members at Sony have watched Microsoft successfully hold 360 owners hostage for $50 a year and now that the user base is at a point where they are committed to the console they pull this. Anyone who doesn't think that multiplayer gaming won't eventually cost them on the PS3 is dreaming. Then we can determine what's the better deal.

#22 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11379 posts) -

Yeah, the PS+ probably is the better deal, but I'm still to cheap to pay for either one. 

#23 Posted by Jayzilla (2571 posts) -

if playstation's multiplayer network were as good as the xbox's, i would wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

#24 Edited by haggis (1677 posts) -
@KuribosShoe: Xbox Live Gold members sometimes get early access to demos, and MS has given out games for free. (Though, unless I'm mistaken, those games didn't require Gold membership for download. But I could be wrong about that.) I am having a hard time seeing PSN as premium when what they're offering for free games is kinda lousy. When you pay MS the $50, you're paying to play online. When you pay it to Sony for PSN+, you're getting some lousy free games and access to already free demos a little early. Which is why I won't be getting it.
 
Sony is basically looking to increase revenue, since the regular PSN is proving to be rather expensive to maintain. But unless they can come up with some decent content for it, PSN+ is really no different at all from Xbox Live Gold. The key feature is online play, which is what drives people to pay the $50 for Xbox Live Gold. But PSN already has that for free. So unless Sony gives something gamers feel is worth $50, I doubt there will be all that much interest.
 
Drakattack above is correct. This is basically Sony getting its customers used to the idea of paying for Playstation Network access, because in the next generation console, online play will not be free. They're just turning up the heat more slowly. Depending on the economy and Sony's bottom line, we may even see a move to a pay service for online play before the next generation of consoles hits.
 
Edit: Oh, another thing: if Sony produces any decent free games for the PSN+ service, I will eat my hat.
#25 Posted by Zidd (1857 posts) -
@haggis: PSN has tons of quality games to choose from. They will probably put pixeljunk games for free at some point.
#26 Posted by OneManX (1693 posts) -

The problem is MS made the smart (still lame) move of hiding all the perks behind the Gold wall. Netflix, timed demos, beta, Hulu (coming soon) and PSN+ doesnt hve all the bells and whistles of Gold, yea the games are cool, but what if you dont want the game. And the lack of Cross game chat... 
 
Overall, the Ps3 is my single player console and the Xbox is my online console, no point in crossing the streams now.

#27 Posted by NickLott (793 posts) -

Just a side note, while XBL is 50 dollars (plus tax) if you go the recurring route, if you stick to 12 month prepaid cards, it's really easy to find deals for $30-$35 bucks flat. 

#28 Posted by rdav1109 (120 posts) -
@Pessh said:
"Sony would charge for online play, but can't because they're offered it for free for so long and its one of their few remaining selling points over the 360, instead they offer this sub par service. "
EXACTLY. 
#29 Posted by Spoonman671 (4768 posts) -
@haggis said:
" @KuribosShoe: Xbox Live Gold members sometimes get early access to demos, and MS has given out games for free. (Though, unless I'm mistaken, those games didn't require Gold membership for download. But I could be wrong about that.) I am having a hard time seeing PSN as premium when what they're offering for free games is kinda lousy. When you pay MS the $50, you're paying to play online. When you pay it to Sony for PSN+, you're getting some lousy free games and access to already free demos a little early. Which is why I won't be getting it.
 
Sony is basically looking to increase revenue, since the regular PSN is proving to be rather expensive to maintain. But unless they can come up with some decent content for it, PSN+ is really no different at all from Xbox Live Gold. The key feature is online play, which is what drives people to pay the $50 for Xbox Live Gold. But PSN already has that for free. So unless Sony gives something gamers feel is worth $50, I doubt there will be all that much interest.
 
Drakattack above is correct. This is basically Sony getting its customers used to the idea of paying for Playstation Network access, because in the next generation console, online play will not be free. They're just turning up the heat more slowly. Depending on the economy and Sony's bottom line, we may even see a move to a pay service for online play before the next generation of consoles hits.  Edit: Oh, another thing: if Sony produces any decent free games for the PSN+ service, I will eat my hat. "
Wipeout HD.  Your hat, sir.
#30 Posted by Damien (1384 posts) -
@Snail said:
" @drakattack said:
" I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.  THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?   BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED "
Well I'll have you know-- Hold on, I just heard a huge explosion coming from my bedroom.  Oh.  My fanboy-radar just blew up. "
While drakattack could've phrased his response more elegantly, where is he wrong?  This is a relatively low cost venture for Sony and it is slightly similar to Steam sales.  Paid multiplayer is universally assumed for the next generation Sony console.  Free multiplayer would be a huge surprise.  Part of what this also does is acclimate PSN users to paying $50 msrp for an annual service.  Like it or not, he's right.
 
@MadeinFinland said:
" I think PC Multiplayer is best. All you need is internet. For consoles, you're paying on top of your needed internet. "
Only because there is no unified platform.
#31 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

xbox live they have make people without gold wait a week for a demo to come out, just like PSN+. i'm going to wait a little bit for it to be a full service, if you know what i mean. everything that they mentioned is fully out and working.

#32 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

I'd say normal PSN is a better deal than Xbox Live Silver because you can play online.  However, Gold is better than PSN+ because it's how you play online games.  Plus Xbox Live Gold months are given out free fairly often, and you can almost always buy a year for Gold for $30 or less.

#33 Posted by Spoonman671 (4768 posts) -
@Damien said:
Paid multiplayer is universally assumed for the next generation Sony console. 
No, it's not.
#34 Posted by NekuCTR (1663 posts) -

Wow... that was actually really helpful. A++ on this topic.

#35 Posted by Spence_5060 (356 posts) -

In my opinion, the point that you made is that the online service in general of the PS3 is better than the 360 because its free. That doesn't make the premium service better than the gold service just because you already have multiplayer for free. Now I can't comment on if what they offer for free every month is even worthwhile or not because that is a matter of opinion, but that pretty much is what bases the statement of whether or not which one is better, opinion of what each offers and what you value.

#36 Edited by haggis (1677 posts) -
@Spoonman671: I said a decent game. Wipeout HD hardly qualifies (I'm still mystified why anyone finds it worth playing). But hey, maybe the Fat Princess content and Age of Zombies will make up for it :/
 
Hat is still firmly on my head.
 
Edit: And remember, they're only "free" so long as you're subscribing. As soon as your PSN+ membership ends, they are free no longer.
#37 Posted by immike (714 posts) -

Try separating your wall of text more next time. It's easier on the eyes. 
On topic: PSN+ is definitely more acceptable than something like XBL to those who have really looked at what they are paying for. $50 so I can play online when no other console does this. I'm talking PC, PS3, DSi, PSP, and so on. The only reason XBL isn't free is because they got it out there first.  
 
PSN+: You pay for extra things that enhance your experience. You have free online that is enhanced by free DLC, themes, avatars, and full game trials. The service is there for those who use the PS Store often or want more out of their PSN experience. There is absolutely nothing there that players need. Some oppose this saying that the service is useless, but others are grateful for an offer and also the fact that it does not take away from what was already free. 
 
XBL Gold: You pay to join the community. If you cannot play online, what is the point of having a silver account? So I can talk to my friends who are playing the latest online games? Having a silver account is basically like having nothing. However, a Gold account is a great service regardless. Many people, including myself, agree that XBL is only the way it is, because no other service has matched it's offerings so far. Notice, I didn't say it's a good deal, because it isn't. If they made it so that online multiplayer was free, then XBL Gold would seem more reasonable. Party chat, exclusive content, and free stuff would be a fair incentive to pay for gold.  
 
While I think both are justifiable, Sony's plan sounds like the value pays off in the end. I hope XBL will change in the future, but it only will if Sony can match the service in a reasonable manner. This seems like a good step in that direction.

#38 Posted by RJPelonia (863 posts) -

Valid points. I do not have an Xbox 360 nor do I have a PlayStation Plus subscription, so I am unable to fully give reason to how they compare.

#39 Edited by haggis (1677 posts) -
@Diamond: "...you can almost always buy a year for Gold for $30 or less."  This has been my experience. I've had Gold for a few years now, and never paid more than $25-30 per year. Between free months and special deals, it's been pretty cheap. Not everyone takes advantage of those deals, though (God knows why).
 

@immike:

"XBL Gold: You pay to join the community. If you cannot play online, what is the point of having a silver account? So I can talk to my friends who are playing the latest online games? Having a silver account is basically like having nothing."
 
The only things you don't get with a silver account are playing online and Netflix (and some early demos, but they're few and far between). With Live Silver you get access to all the stores, demos, free video content (of admittedly uneven quality), Zune video service, facebook, live.fm, and twitter. That's not exactly "nothing."
 
@Zidd: We're talking about PSN+, not PSN. I guess what I'd say about the difference between XBL Gold and PSN+ is that with Live Gold I know what I'm paying for (Netflix and Online Play), and with PSN+ I'm paying for ... stuff Sony wants to give me. I don't know yet what that stuff is, but they promise that it's cool. They need to prove it before I'd be interested.
#40 Posted by trophyhunter (5800 posts) -

you can still play online for free 
that's better than gold and plus, suck it.

#41 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

What the fuck is everyones problem? How the hell do you think that you're not getting more with Playstation Plus? For all you demo lovers. You guys are just looking at the glass as half empty. You swear that you will never see that demo. Well, pay them $18 or $50 and you'll get it a week earlier. For everyone else that thinks that demos is all your getting, yeah fuckin right. You know there's more shit, but you fail to look at everything. You just see the small shit and think that's all you're getting. Let's see, you get Wipeout HD, 9 add-ons for some crap games, Rally Cross (a crap PS1 game), Age of Zombies (probably a crap Minis game), some avatars, and a theme. I think that rounds up close to $50. If someone can do the math then that's great. Either way you get a bunch of crap on top of the service we already get for free. Compared to Xbox Live, which I do agree, their community based stuff is freakin incredible, but you don't get anything unless you pay $50 a year. 
 
Let's look at it this way. You already get tap water for free, but to get better tasting water delivered to your home and being able to put it into a dispenser to make it cool is something to pay for. But, you don't have to.

#42 Posted by immike (714 posts) -
@haggis: Almost all of those service SHOULD be free (the caps were for emphasis, not anger btw :P). Access to the store, netflix, and facebook are separate services, so paying for them would be a huge disappointment. As with the Zune video service...what do I have access to? A few free shows? It's just another store to pay for things. I agree, it's not exactly nothing, but I still don't feel part of a community when I have silver. Paying to play is the main negative aspect of Xbox live. The xbox 360 is primarily a video game console and not being able to play online out of the box (besides the small trial) is a shame. That's just what I was trying to say.
#43 Posted by Raven_Sword (3447 posts) -

Oen cannoy judge this off the first month alone. Give it 4 or 5 months then make your judgement maybe.
#44 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3081 posts) -

I guess I'm unlike the majority in that I don't play a whole lot of multiplayer. Why, if it wasn't for the downloadable content (and game patches), I wouldn't even go online at all.

#45 Posted by FCKSNAP (2299 posts) -

Everyone forgets that Microsoft holds off exclusive Demos and Betas for Gold members only too. I remember last year every game demo wouldn't come out on PSN until Silver members on 360's had access to them.

#46 Edited by Scrumdidlyumptious (1641 posts) -

Playstation Plus is definitely a better deal than XBL Gold. But as you said nothing Sony is doing with it is essential, which is why there is less incentive for most people to get it since Sony hasn't got their userbase (and developers) by the balls like Microsoft does. Sony needs to be a bit more of an asshole to compete imo (not that I'd want that).

#47 Posted by Damian (1538 posts) -

I can appreciate that XBL is the superior service in most technical regards, but I'm still flabbergasted that people chime in so often promoting the virtues of the paid model.
 
Now, I don't expect XBOX-only owners to praise "the competition", but I think it's fair to expect multiplayer on multiplayer titles to be PART of the $60+ investment, at very least during its 90-day warrantee period. And I think it's obvious that if we want multiplayer to be an assumed part of the package, then we should probably stop chanting "I love paying Microsoft monthly to play the games I've already bought!" 
 
We should be hoping PSN steps up its FREE game, and adds the last remaining features that hold it back from being on par with XBL, leaving Microsoft to rethink the value of their subscription in hopes to make it cheaper for everyone, while holding Sony to its free model. The way these topics go, it seems a lot of people would rather PSN charge $50 annually for party chat.

#48 Posted by ThePhantomnaut (6201 posts) -

Don't give a shit. Both do just fine in different ways.

#49 Edited by 234r2we232 (3181 posts) -
@drakattack said:

" I think every single person here is missing the ONLY 2 reasons PS+ exists. It is offering basically NOTHING to it's subscribers for 50 dollars a year and every subscription to the service is a huge profit-point gain for Sony. What PS+ is offering will cost Sony very very little in actual upkeep but will generate a nice amount of revenue. It's kind of like Steam sales; the game may only cost 2.00 on sale but it doesn't cost them anything to give it to you, so what do they care.  THE NUMBER ONE REASON PS+ IS IN EXISTANCE?   BECAUSE WHEN PS4 COMES OUT IN 3-4 YEARS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONALITY WILL COST MONEY. THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE MULTIPLAYER. GUARANTEED "

EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME IM TALKIN REAL LOUD
#50 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -
@immike: You were claiming more than just "not being able to play online out of the box (besides the small trial) is a shame." You were claiming that Silver offered "nothing" besides "texting." And the fact is that Silver offers quite a bit of value, and being free, there is no reason not to sign up for a silver account. You asked why anyone would sign up for it, and I offered a list. That's all. Not being able to play online out of the box is actually not a problem for many gamers. I've found that people like the choice, and those that want to play online are fine paying MS's relatively small fee for it. at $4.17/month (less if you take advantage of the frequent deals), it's not a huge expense. On average over the last three years, I've paid $2.64 per month for Live Gold.
 
As for the relative merits of PSN over Live, I suspect different gamers with different needs would make different choices. In this particular discussion, though, what advantage Microsoft has over Sony is that people know what they're paying for. We pay for online play (and maybe Netflix). With PSN+, we're basically paying for whatever Sony decides to give us. We can't be sure of what that is. We might hope it's decent, but we can't be sure. I can't imagine why people would pay $50 for PSN+. The item of real worth is online play, and they get that for free already.