Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 4 Feb 2010.
50gigs of data! What is he on about...? Most of the games I'm sure take up less than 10gigs and it's only some of the Sony and CGI-heavy games with no effort in compression that take up almost 25gigs.
Yes, go on, make one of your few one-up points to the 360 a thing of the past.
It'll be glorious.
Very disappointing news since it was a major selling point for the PS3
If they start charging for access to PSN, then they lose one of the advantages they have over MS.
Not a good idea free internet gaming is one of the few advantages the PS3 has over the 360 at the moment. I've argued with people that the PS3 is cheaper in the long run in that with the 360 you pay £35 a year which will slowly addup. this removes that advantage.
Sure hope thats not really going to happen, dont really wanna pay money for the one time a month i play online
This has been rumoured for a while now and it seems extremely unlikely that you will need a subscription just to play online - it will only be required for certain 'premium content'.
double post :/
I can see it working if they give something back - but they'll need a two tier structure, the same as MS has with Gold and Silver subscribers.
They could leave PSN completely free for those who don't wish to pay for it. These people won't be any worse off than they are now. For those that do subscribe, they could have earlier access to demos, or discounts applied to their accoutns if they want to buy PS1/PS2 games.
id rather just use a computer, in the next 5 or so years there will be a working xbox 360 emulator and if youthink on it of terms of oeprating costs pc's wi nhands down becasue you have no montly subscription (except internet) when with the 360 you pay for internt (lets say Â£30 a month and 360 subcription thats allmost Â£400 pounds a year)
my computer runs graphics just as good as the 360 and it only cost me Â£160 for the graohc8is card and processor
You can already buy PS1 games from PSN
now we know why backwards compatibility was removed.
what about those of us who still have a PS1 and PS2 collection? do we have to buy the games again if we want to play them on the PS3 cus that's what it sounds like.
Hmm PSN already pretty much sucks, why ould you pay for it?
Unless they do a dramatic change.
There is so much wrong with that I'm not sure where to start..
First off, counting the internet bill as part of the playing online package is ridiculous, especially if you don't include the same cost for your PC online gaming. But then, given the cost of internet per month, usually under £30, and the amount of things that are done online these days, I doubt it's really fair to include it as a "monthly" cost for gaming.
I think your timing estimates for an emulator are off. In fact, I don't think there ever will be one. What appears to be the major selling point for the 360 is the Xbox Live malarkey, which you won't get with an emu. Why bother putting all that work into porting the Xbox OS to a PC, dealing with all the hardware issues, only for no one to look at it.
I'll cite PS1 and PS2 emulators as an example - They're not fully functional even now. Chances are low that there will ever be a 360 emu that even remotely touches on the games list available on the console itself.
As for the costs? £160 now, yes, but what will that be when the next series of consoles are released? I don't know about you, but upgrades are pretty much at least an annual thing for most PC gamers, whether it's the entire box or just part of it. You also fail to take into account the cost of everything else that goes into a PC, and comparing that to a console.
PCs are more expensive, maybe not on console launch, but they will always have higher running costs than a console, purely because of the upgrade paths.
I wondered why sony sent me a web based questionaire recently that I filled in, and most of the questions were regarding subscriptions.....?
As said above, it's likely Sony will have the PSN as it stands now as the free option, with a premium chargeable service on top. The questionnaire I filled in a while back on this very topic listed NEW features as the charging options (early access to demos, betas, enhanced Facebook connectivity, free PSone titles etc.), rather than attacking the current core competencies.
Overall, this would actually put the PSN in a promising position. The free option (ie: PSN as it is now) would be superior to the Xbox Live Silver offering, and the PSN Premium would offer far more than Live Gold.
Hmm, I must take exception to this statement. Gaming PCs are upgraded regularly, but only because the PC games themselves are becoming ever more complex and demanding of equipment. Were there a single, unified PC platform that gaming companies built to (see: console games), there would be no need to upgrade regularly.
Pretty much every household needs a PC, as it has many other uses besides gaming. A household does not NEED a console, it is a luxury. If you could only have one (PC or console), the smart money would be on a PC.
This is not entirely true as well. MOST of the top PC games that are available for online play (comparing apples to apples since the main topic is about PSN) require a paying subscription. There are exceptions of course......and those that are free are subsidized by advertisements for the most part. The money always comes from somewhere.
About the fee that's completely rubbish. About the full-size PS3 games being downloaded, he's right, there isn't such high speed broadband avaliable to all. It would require 10Gbit connections to be worthwhile
Separate names with a comma.