Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
E3 PlayStation (Games) Sony The Almighty Buck Games

Sony To Detail "Premium PSN" Plans At E3 171

Posted by Soulskill from the if-only-we-could-still-access-psn dept.
ranulf writes "VG247 is reporting that Sony will reveal their plans for 'premium PSN' services next month at E3, even though they've long stated that one of the PS3's advantages over the 360 is that they offer PSN for free. In addition to the premium services, they intend to offer a free PSN game to subscribers each month (from a choice of 'two to four games'), which should make the premium PSN effectively free if you already bought a game every month. VG247's source claims 'nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects,' and that 'there’s nothing in the premium package which will gimp regular PSN users.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony To Detail "Premium PSN" Plans At E3 More

Sony To Detail "Premium PSN" Plans At E3

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds Ok (Score:2, Interesting)

    by H0D_G ( 894033 )

    Sounds good, especially if you get to pick the PSN title

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by anss123 ( 985305 )

      Sounds good, especially if you get to pick the PSN title

      Sounds like a "book of the month" club to me. Just with games and no option to send games you don't want back.

    • Re:Sounds Ok (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:08AM (#32262106)

      Yeah, but it'll only be a matter of time before SONY, those lieing cheat bastard fucks, arbitrarily start disabling aspects of it. Honestly, how naive would you have to be to spend anything on a SONY product, at this point?

      • Imparing free PSN users would be like removing a feature. SONY would never do such a thing.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by schm0 ( 1088653 )
        Hey AC, you wouldn't happen to be one of the small minority of users who are still miffed about the removal of the other OS/backwards PS2 compatibility, would you? :) Don't get me wrong, what Sony did with that is certainly devious and a bad business decision. But let's not extrapolate this to mean that it's the status quo for all services Sony offers, including an as of yet unannounced official service that has rumored features.

        • Sony has a rather long history of screwing people over, the linux/ps3 thing was just the latest example, and thus tends to be on top of the pile when people go for examples of sony being lying cheating thieving bastards (remember the audio-cd rootkits?)

          anyway, anyone who trusts sony further then they can throw em (and i dont mean a ps3, i mean the corporate HQ), gets what they deserve

          Also:

          *Points at ps3 fanboys screaming over free internet functions* HA-HA!

        • the removal of the other OS/backwards PS2 compatibility

          The former was dropped as a feature from new machines, and then effectively removed from everyone's machine. The latter has only been dropped as a feature (to date anyway), not removed from anyone's existing machine.

  • Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned out (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:30AM (#32261882)
    Once upon a time, long ago there existed a service called Xbox Live. It was free and children played hapily, until the EVIL LORD GATES decided that he would monetise the service and the free version went away if you wanted to play on line.

    The same thing will happen to the PSN, first they'll start by adding new features only for "Premium" subscribers just as MS only added new features for "Gold" subscribers. After a while Sony will start taking away features from the free service whilst maintaining them on the "Premium" service. Little features at first, hardly noticeable, a form of slow attrition. Then before you know it, there is no functionality left. Game publishers like EA and Activision will jump right on board making their games playable only over "Premium" subscriptions. Now Sony has the numbers on the Playstation 3 they will start to monetise it, to bleed money from their existing customer base as sales are bound to drop off.

    It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

    Why doesn't Slashdot have a Star Wars opening credits formatting option?
    • When has Xbox Live ever been free? I'm sure I've been paying for it since 2003

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        When has Xbox Live ever been free? I'm sure I've been paying for it since 2003

        Launched in November 2002 there were two levels of subscription, Xbox Live Silver and Xbox Live Gold, the Silver subscription was free but fairly useless (I think it's still around but no-one acknowledges its existence any more). Microsoft was pretty quick to Monetise XBL.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Negatyfus ( 602326 )
          As far as I know, you could never play online with a Silver subscription. So what's changed? Nothing. They did not "slowly take away" features on Xbox Live. If anything, they *added* features. But yeah, paying for online play is a pain (but it still offers a little more than just your typical dedicated server in the PC world).

          • As far as I know, you could never play online with a Silver subscription.

            FFXI on the Xbox 360 has always been available to Silver subscribers (asking people to pay two subscription fees just to be able to play at all is too much for even Microsoft to ask).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by SCPRedMage ( 838040 )
          You're full of shit. When Live first launched, there was no Silver and Gold, only subscribers. The Silver and Gold levels weren't introduced until the 360 launched in 2006, and you have NEVER been able to play online with a Silver subscription, outside of a promo weekend deal.

          • Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (Score:4, Informative)

            by SCPRedMage ( 838040 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:07AM (#32262102)
            I should probably add to that, the original Live was NEVER, at any point, FREE. If you wanted to play online with an original XBox, you had to either pay, or use tunneling software software like XBConnect or X-Link.
          • There is silver and gold. I am a silver member. Silver = Not Gold. As a silver member you can go online. You can purchase game / items from the online store. I can't play games with online connectivity. I refuse to pay a monthly fee to play. Sometimes my games come with a free month of gold, but I don't even use that. The only thing I have ever bought, were expansion packs and songs for rock band.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Khyber ( 864651 )

              Umm, games that already required a monthly fee were playable online for free under a Silver account. Microsoft didn't have the balls to try double-charging.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Khyber ( 864651 )

            "You're full of shit. When Live first launched, there was no Silver and Gold, only subscribers."

            Hi! You're full of shit. There were MANY games which were playable online under a silver subscription for free.

            I was a support tech, want me to start breaking down the list of games Silver subscription users could play BEFORE 2008?

            Starting in 2008 Silver and Gold accounts lost distinction and Silver accounts were allowed to play all games online free.

            • There were MANY games which were playable online under a silver subscription for free.

              I was a support tech, want me to start breaking down the list of games Silver subscription users could play BEFORE 2008?

              Yes please, I was unaware of any (aside from those that didn't use XBL for online).

              Starting in 2008 Silver and Gold accounts lost distinction and Silver accounts were allowed to play all games online free.

              Ummmmm, the only references that I can see to this are temporary offers, usually weekends, and one that ran for several arcade games for a couple of months. As far as I can tell, Silver users can only play online during these special offers. Have a link that proves me wrong? I'd love to get my fiance playing online without needing to buy her another account.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flitty ( 981864 )
          Console History Fail. I just threw away my initial Xbox Live Starter Kit disc with MechWarrior on it. It came with a headset. I believe it cost me about $40 (I worked at a game store at the time). I bought it when I started playing halo 2 online. There was no silver subscription service at the time, that was created with the 360 so that MS could sell digital downloads to people who didn't subscribe to XBL. Before the Xbox Marketplace on the 360, there was no functional reason to have a silver account.

          • PS2's network adapter was expensive, and other consoles only had phone-jacks.

            Dreamcast had a broadband adapter that installed by replacing the modem that shipped with it. However: a) DHCP didn't work with it and b) it had a production run of about three. GameCube also had a broadband adapter that plugged into one of the serial ports, which is actually not that hard to come by.

            • That doesn't change that the XBox was the first to be networked out of the box, without the need for an add-on.

        • As others have mentioned, you are mistaken, since the silver membership was released with the 360. [cnn.com]

          Xbox 360 will offer a multi-tiered system for its Live component. One of those tiers will be free.

          Members of the free tier, dubbed Xbox Live Silver, will have access to the system's online community function, allowing them to chat with other players and freely download game demos. They will not be able to play games with others except during occasional 'free preview' opportunities (much like those that cable movie channels sometimes offer).

          Xbox Live Gold members will pay an as-yet undetermined annual or monthly fee to play with or against others. Current Xbox Live members, who currently pay $50 per year, will be able to keep their online nicknames.

          Unless you can find a reference to XBL Silver from 2002, your comparison doesn't hold water. XBox Live added free features to its subscription-only service, while Sony is adding for-pay features to its free service.

    • Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (Score:5, Funny)

      by Thanshin ( 1188877 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:45AM (#32261962)

      Why doesn't Slashdot have a Star Wars opening credits formatting option?

      That option is only available to premium Slashdot subscribers.

    • Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tukz ( 664339 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:01AM (#32262044) Journal

      I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

      I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.
      And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.

      I think this idea, on paper, is great. Add new features and services, but only available to paying customers as opposed to the current PSN where everyone is roaming free for "basic" services (buy games, download trials, play online etc).

      If people want some of the more exotic features, you pay a subscription. You don't have to, it won't cripple your current experience.
      If Sony manages to keep this strategy, I really can't see a problem with it.

      • Re:Playstation, ask the Xbox how this one turned o (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:15AM (#32262150)

        I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

        It's Sony.

        If this comment was about IBM, Shell, BP, or even Microsoft I could somehow, in some weird alternate universe put aside my all too useful cynicism and give them the benefit of the doubt.

        But it's Sony, one of the most anti-consumer companies ever to exist.

        If people want some of the more exotic features, you pay a subscription. You don't have to, it won't cripple your current experience.
        If Sony manages to keep this strategy

        I just can't see that happening. I reckon the PS3 hardware sales are going to level off, it's a natural thing for this to happen after a while and it will/has happended to the Wii and Xbox360 (and all products really) so it's a logical assumption that Sony wants to start monetising it's existing user base.

        • But it's Sony, one of the most anti-consumer companies ever to exist.

          I won't argue there, but Sony hasn't been so bad with the PS3. Yeah, the install other OS option was attractive to me, but I never used it. I play games on the PS3, I run linux on my PCs.

          Also, the PS3 supports quite a bit of standard hardware. Standard power cable, no expensive proprietary external brick. Bluetooth for headset connection. USB storage/charging. 2.5" SATA Hard Disk. Included 802.11g, as well as wired ethernet.

          It's not like consumers have been totally shafted by Sony on this device.

          • I won't argue there, but Sony hasn't been so bad with the PS3. ... It's not like consumers have been totally shafted by Sony on this device.

            Wait, what? That better be sarcasm.

            Sony has been ESPECIALLY bad with the PS3. Back-compatibility with your PS2 games? Hope you bought a launch system. Want a controller with force-feedback? Hope you didn't buy a launch system, if you did you'll need to pony up another $40 each for new controllers. SD/MS/CF card readers? Gone. Spare USB ports? Gone. SACD pl

      • I understand your point completely, but how about giving the benefit of the doubt for once?

        We tried that when they released the slim PS3 without Other OS support ("don't worry, they won't take it away from current PS3s"). Look how that turned out.

      • No Sony would never degrade the free online multiplayer as it's a huge selling point just like the other OS option is a huge selling point, oh wait...

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by kiddygrinder ( 605598 )
        the problem is the online multiplayer on psn is shit, i play online games a lot on pc but i've only ever played a few games of tekken here and there on ps3 cause it's just a pain in the butt. if it was pay to play i would guess that quite a few people would just stop playing online.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services.

        How quickly they forget [slashdot.org].

        Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, I must be an idiot. If you trust Sony, you're the idiot.

      • Because I got screwed so badly with the Linux option. Not that this matters to me, I decided to keep Linux and forgo all PSN access, but Sony has lost the "benefit of the doubt" once and for all.

      • I gave Sony the benefit of the doubt with my PS3 until they pried away my Other OS feature.

        I'm very interested to see how these class action lawsuits turn out.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by CaseM ( 746707 )

          I'm from the future and here's how things turn out: A settlement is reached and the lawyers prosecuting the case reap a large sum. The plaintiffs are given a coupon for 50% off their next PSN purchase.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by denobug ( 753200 )

        I know it's the old story of "but they promised!", but currently I see no signs that Sony is moving currently free services over to Premium services. And why should they? It's a huge selling point for the PS3 still. Free online multiplayer. Taking that away, could seriously cut down their userbase.

        The market changes as time goes on, so does the company's direction to either maintain market share or to get more money. I doubt Sony will care about maintaining user base if they dominates at 90% of the market share and they can get a a sizable revenue from tens of millions of users. XBox Live was up front about the fee since the beginning. A sticker shock for sure but they are not deceptive of their intentions. They have maintained their position since day one, and somehow there are people willing t

      • Because Sony is Evil. They can't help it. Its like trying not to punch a kitten.

    • Yeah. live has always had the paid for model, it might've been free on beta but i'm pretty sure you still had to buy the pack.

    • As a consumer I resent this, but cmon. There *IS* a cost to having servers running 24/7. I loved playing Battlefield Bad Company (1) with my friend, we must have racked up a COUPLE HUNDRED hours playing it online, and we were almost always on full teams of 12 a side, 24 in total. What does that cost? Certainly more than what he paid for his secondhand copy of the game! I paid full price, but even $120 NZD (~$85 USD) for the game is not really that much with development costs on top of A COUPLE HUNDRED
      • sure there are costs but you have no idea what they are, what the profit margin is and if they even lose that much money running servers, so you point is pretty much moot.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by dafing ( 753481 )
          Well, what do you think it costs to have a single server running for a couple hundred hours? In terms of power, and bandwidth. I know that in NZ, we have bandwidth caps (for home and business plans generally), I get 10GB of internet use a month. After that, and 10GB goes by quickly, I am reduced to about 10KB per second, its inhumane!

          My point is, its different when you buy a game like Metal Gear Solid (ignoring MGO like most people) for 120 NZD, and play it just for the singleplayer, and buying anothe

          • Well it's the developer's problem. They decided that control over the future availability of online play through their servers(= cripple service in time for next sequel) is more valuable than saving costs by providing players with software for dedicated servers.

          • couple of reasons: 1. it means there will be less people online, meaning the overall online experience will be worse 2. sure you can say that the $2 a month is for online, but it's all just money. the $2 a month could just go straight to new porshes for the managing directors.

    • It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

      There are plenty of PC games that require a subscription to play online. So what are you talking about?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by schm0 ( 1088653 )

      It is antics like this that are the reason I remain a PC gamer. To be nickled and dimed for such basic service like online multiplayer and internet chat is ridiculous to me.

      Apparently you've never played any MMO, the Sims, or downloaded any additional DLC on your PC? While you may lament the age of DLC and premium online subscription fees, but until an open-source alternative arises the pricing models will change until they milk the consumers for all they're worth. Welcome to capitalism. The free service, allegedly, is not going away. Personally, I'd wait and see what they are going to offer at E3.

    • Only on Slashdot can an anti-Microsoft post containing false info end up as +4 Insightful.

  • Sony can't be trusted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:47AM (#32261974)

    Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction, but Sony still hasn't won my trust back over the retroactive removal of the Install Other OS feature from already-bought PS3s. [slashdot.org] I really should have learned better than to trust them after the rootkit fiasco, [wikipedia.org] too. Now that they have twice demonstrated their willingness to sabotage their customers' private property in order to protect their own business model, it's absurd to think that I or any self-respecting geek would want to do business with them any more.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dmiller ( 581 )

      Sony has managed to lose my trust too. I was a very happy customer of PS1-3, but the retroactive otheros thing has put me right off. I rarely used Linux once I installed it, but that they were willing to retrospectively nuke an advertised feature of their product clearly demonstrated to me that they do not put the customer first. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do start crippling the PSN for non-paying customers.

      The dumbest thing about the OtherOS removal is that it is probably not even going to h

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Sony has managed to lose my trust too. I was a very happy customer of PS1-3, but the retroactive otheros thing has put me right off. I rarely used Linux once I installed it, but that they were willing to retrospectively nuke an advertised feature of their product clearly demonstrated to me that they do not put the customer first. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do start crippling the PSN for non-paying customers.

        The dumbest thing about the OtherOS removal is that it is probably not even going to help

        • As time goes on, more store bought PS3 games will also require you to update your firmware, they will even provide the minimum supported version on disk "for your convenience." Don't think just because you don't go on the PSN that you are safe to keep buying games.

  • "Effectively" is rather subjective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IBBoard ( 1128019 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:53AM (#32262004) Homepage

    they intend to offer a free PSN game to subscribers each month (from a choice of 'two to four games'), which should make the premium PSN effectively free if you already bought a game every month

    That depends entirely on what games they give away as the free options. I've not got a PS3 and not seen the PSN (why waste money on a cut-down computer that isn't even as good as the real thing?) but if you buy the best game from the PSN each month then I doubt that it would be the one that they put in the list of freebies. Chances are it'll be some fairly naff one or a middle of the range one that they just want to increase the numbers on without giving away anything they could make good money on.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by grrowl ( 953625 )
      It's more likely the PS3 is more powerful than your PC
    • Not only that, but if you often only have two choices then it's likely that at least some of the time the free options aren't even in genres you're interested in. For me, a mediocre puzzle game is better than nothing but a slightly better than average football game has absolutely no value to me. If I had the option of choosing between two football games I probably wouldn't even bother downloading any at all. I have pretty eclectic tastes but I could easily come up with at least 4-5 types of games that I rea

  • ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

    As it is, even when playing mature rated games, there are still far too many immature kids in the game, either griefing outright, or in other ways to spoil the fun for everyone, and in general unable to behave with minimal civility that most adult typically show, even when online.

    Although the design of PSN and the games already shielded it somewhat (eg lack of global chat, only voice chat within squad with mute function, so

    • if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games

      Don't worry, you won't.

    • ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

      As it is, even when playing mature rated games, there are still far too many immature kids in the game, either griefing outright, or in other ways to spoil the fun for everyone,

      13-15 year olds have the buying power. No joke. You lose. Better resign yourself to those 12 year old kids kicking your ass at Tekken.

    • 12 year olds have more disposable income than you, so don't expect fewer of them on a paid network. They don't have mortgage/rent or car payments. They don't have to buy their own food. They just ask for Mommy's credit card (or don't ask, Mommy won't notice anyway).

    • ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

      Um, have you ever tried playing a game on Xbox Live? It's the only "premium" multiplayer service I've ever used and it's filled to the brim with foul mouthed 12 year olds.

    • ... if it means I will see fewer 12 yrs old in multiplayer games. And I am serious.

      What you're essentially asking for is to play with other people who pay money for the regular experience. The stiff white geezers at country clubs all know too well about this.

  • Chose Linux support over PSN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amaiman ( 103647 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:00AM (#32263236) Homepage
    Too bad I no longer have access to PSN since I refused to install the update that would have removed Linux support from my console, so I won't be able to use this premium subscription. Maybe I'm cynical, but I read "nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects" as "of course, any NEW multiplayer games you buy will be subject to the new 'premium' requirement to play online"... Sony does have a documented history of promising one thing and then doing exactly the opposite.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bucklesl ( 73547 )
      I went ahead and bought a new PS3 slim and kept my old PS3 with the 3.15 firmware on it. I also sent the FTC and state attorney general a complaint about this problem and a week ago the attorney general formally sent Sony a complaint letter. I seriously doubt anything will happen, but at least it made me feel better. For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards. Maybe I can sell the USAF my old PS3.

      • I went ahead and bought a new PS3 slim and kept my old PS3 with the 3.15 firmware on it.

        IMHO, that's exactly what Sony was pushing for. Now you've not only given them money for the first PS3 you bought and got screwed over on, you went and gave them more money. The phrase "Please sir, may I have another" comes to mind.

        For all the moaning about the linux support removal, I'm sure hardly anybody did anything about it except complain on message boards.

        There are now three law suits on the go in the states over just this issue.

        Maybe I can sell the USAF my old PS3.

        I hear a PS3 with 3.15 or less is going for quite a bit on E-bay. I wasn't able to find any, I guess they're all sold out ;)

    • Particularly when Sony can point the finger and say, "Hey its not us with the requirement, that's EA (or whoever), its not our fault" while at the same time offering incentives or kickbacks to publishers that only develop for their premium service. Publishers will justify their greed by saying that it needed to use the premium service to "ensure the best quality play experience for their users", because you know, "they are all about quality".

      Meanwhile at the legion of doom: Users see features being limited

  • The current service lacks much of the functionality of xbox live. I don't mind paying a small amount for the service if they provide me a better experience. I don't game that much anyway. However, if prices start outweighing the services they provide me with I'll drop the service and console in the trash and be done with it.

  • I'm only an occassional gamer.

    I'll play for a month, then I'll have a busy month or two and my PS3 will just collect dust.
    Free online play was a key deciding factor for me, I'm not willing to pay for a service that I don't use on a regular basis.

    • This seems to be exactly what people were saying was going to happen back in April (at least) when the Other OS was removed.

      "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

      THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

      THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

      THEN THEY CAME for me
      and by that time no one was left to speak up."

      Pastor Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org]
  • We have already seen Sony show that they don't care by breaking into and rooting customers computers, DRM'ing everything from games to the hair on my Dogs ass, then on to the PS3- they disabled the install other os feature, taking away a part of the originally promised features. Why should this even be news now. They are simply continuing on in their quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox. Now that they have you locked in, you will see that the exra $$ you
    • I don't really think it's that Sony is evil and they're on a "quest to take away every feature that made the PS3 a more desirable product over the xbox." Being a corporation that's interested in making money, it's more likely that someone said "increase profit margin, or lose your job" to someone down the ladder, and thus we got (1) reduction in hardware capability and hardware manufacturing price, and now (2) reduction in features in the software. What got them in a pickle in the first place was they made
  • Sony has proven their disloyalty to customers time and again. Its only a matter of time before PSN heads down the same road as xbox live. They must believe they can support themselves on hardcore gamers alone, because I know I'm not going to pay 20$ a month to get fragged 10 times a minute by some fat loser who plays 18 hours a day.
  • Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....Thats impossible!
  • Don't mistake this for fanboyism or anything like that (I have both a PS3 and Xbox), but XBox has the only online service thats worth paying for. PSN and Wii are pathetic. The funny part was that the idea of paying for online gaming was one of the big sticking points that PS3 fanboys had against the Xbox. I guess now that Sony has a sizable market share, it's about time to change that tune. Oh well, at least it plays blu-ray.

    • The big reason is that PSN doesn't moderate their community like XBL, partly because they don't have income to pay for moderators and partly because the publishers are expected to do the moderation. Thus, the cheater on the PS3 needs to be banned from every single game, whereas on XBL a single ban applies to their entire account. As well, the PS3 cheater can just get a new account (for free), whereas there is a monetary incentive to not get banned on XBL (you don't get refunded for time you were banned).

  • Buy Sony and you get what you pay for... Well maybe not, they might just take it away, or limit your use. Its only fair, I mean its not like you own it or anything, or were sold something that was advertised with certain features or anything... right?

    I am going to go out on a limb here and call it right now. Sony is going to screw everyone it can.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close