Right, some of you won’t want to agree with me here but there’s no use in pretending otherwise – Xbox Live Gold provides a more stable, reliable and feature-rich way to play online multiplayer than Sony’s PSN. I don’t think there’s any disputing that. But it costs money – £40 per year, if you don’t shop around.
[drop2]Now there are rumours kicking about this morning that the PlayStation 4 is going to lean towards a “premium online service” when it is (oh my god, we hope) announced later today. Those rumours suggest that the new online services will come under the moniker of PlayStation World, a name which will even replace PlayStation Plus.I think renaming Plus, a service which has blown away anything that PlayStation’s competitors could offer, would be a bit silly. The subscription service is not only very popular but has captured itself a well-loved place in the minds of many a PlayStation fan. Renaming it would be discarding all of that good will and brand recognition. But regardless, there’s a new slate here so it’s not beyond the realms of possibilities.
More interestingly, though, is the assertion that “most” of the PlayStation 4’s online services will be premium, paid-for subscriptions. Personally, I would have absolutely no problem in paying a fee, similar to Live Gold on Xbox, which ensures a similarly robust network infrastructure. With all the talk surrounding PlayStation Cloud – potentially the new name for Gaikai – there might be a lot more than just online multiplayer up for consideration when weighing up the virtues of any paid service.
So, the PlayStation 4 is widely expected to be revealed this evening. There probably won’t be a price for the console until E3 in June, at the earliest, but what about subscriptions and services? The entire industry is learning the incredibly profitability in monthly fees and microtransactions. What would you be willing to pay for and how much?
BerackyWack
Having both Live and PSN I have to say the difference is not justifiable. To think all those millions of people paying £30 minimum and the difference in quality of service is hard to see. Maybe it has less/no maintenance but thats not worth it. For me to want to pay it would have to be a much quicker and more reliable service. Have cloud storage, no downtime and PS+.
wonkey-willy
that a good point haze..
the battlefield servers that you play and pay for are really quite special..
i have experienced very little lag or disconnects when playing bf3 .but my god blackcops 2 is plop on both live and psn..
i primarily play cod on my xbox but recently picked up blops2 hoping that it would be a smoother experience on ps3? how wrong i was…
Mickey2010
I would pay £40 a year if we still get all the benefits of PS Plus (Free games etc.) ..
Awayze
No.
skibadee
if it is good value for the money no problem.
blarty
I pay for PS+ – love the service, could always do with being a bit better – priority servers for downloads, get Store content the day before etc…. although I see no reason not to continue paying for the service as is currently provided, anything extra is a bonus.
gazzagb
I’d much rather have a base subscription such as Live Gold that everyone pays for, rather than something like Plus which separates users (I know there’s levels of Live, but Gold is the main one). Also with Plus, I don’t like the fact you’re merely renting the games, it’s how they hook you into the contract to keep paying for it.
cam the man
Found this on 4news.it about Playstation World
Here are the top features:
Free
– Online free as the current Playstation Network
– Voice chat between all PlayStation certified devices, ie consoles and smartphones
Payment (annual cost of about $ 89.)
– Playstation Plus (included with these services previously have) enhanced new proposals, users PS4
– Access to Gaikai for cloud-gaming with the option to play for free to list some of the titles in a month, while others pay
– Share photos and / or videos directly to YouTube
– More space for saved games in the cloud
Also states it will be accessible from a variety of devices in addition to the PS4 and earlier PS3 and Vita, including tablets, smartphones, web site via PC, Smart TV.
seedaripper1973
I hope this is true.
CarBoyCam
If the subscription service had all of the current PS+ features (and possibly more) I don’t think I’d mind. But I think it would be a bad decision from Sony to make people pay for online play. It’s one of the things they have over XBL…
The Von Braun
6 months ago, i’d have said NO, no way am i paying out ontop of my line rental+broadband, just to game online, but since then i’ve switched to Xbox Gold and downloads are a lot quicker than PSN, so IF and only if, Sony invested the money into bringing PSN servers etc upto XBL standard, i’d have no concerns.
What still gets on my t*ts with Xbox Gold membership though, is fact that i could’nt even send a photo.to friends unless i had it, i’m paying a fee, yet the Xbox dash is now swarming with adverts (personally feel MS should’nt have both:the consumer paying and the advertisers, one or the other).
If Sony charge and PSN still takes as long as it does with downloads, it’ll drive people away.
My current concern though is wether Ps4 will connect seamlessly to my BT Home Hub 3 like my 360/iPad do, or wether it’ll be the PS3 nightmare all over again.