Sony must have seen something MS has done right with Live to create a paid version.

Live never was free. It didnt have to be. MS making a free version was more of way to get people to buy the 360 if you really think about it. They wanted their console connected at all times from the very beginning. And gave consumers a choice.

Sony HAD to make their service free at the beginning. You dont do the same thing the next guy does and expect people to just jump on board. Free online was the tagline and lets just say it worked. Now...for how much longer?

Plus is (IMO) a good move for sony as even they knew they couldnt survive with just a free online incentive for long. Discounts on content is always good. Reminds me of a costco membership.

You watch, sony will start doing to the free psn what ice cream companies are doing to the packaging of their product. Little by little the free psn will get more restricted and you will see more and more "plus membership required".

I miss the days of when a half gallon ice cream was really a HALF GALLON.

edit @despair: good points however if they created a restricted level of online play for free does that still mean it is free to play online? I would hope they dont but it is possible. They could limit the game sizes for freebies. Game modes, and even the time to play and STILL get away with proclaiming "FREE ONLINE".

Satellite TV is a poor example. There are more players involved, which can cause the scenario you describe.

For example, Channel X, a relatively small, obscure channel scores a few unexpected hits, gains marketshare and ratings which allow it to charge a higher premium for advertising, and at contract renewal time with the satellite provider, allows for a more lucrative distribution deal. The satellite provider decides it's better for their customer base to move the channel into a higher priced package than to simply increase pricing across the board. People who enjoy the channel will likely upgrade, and people who don't aren't as likely to seek a change in providers.

We can all agree Sony is akin to the satellite provider, but who in gaming can be equated to the company owning Channel X? Sony is both the producer and provider of the free services contained in PSN.

Also, companies know that increasing their customer base and improving customer retention is the theoretically easiest way to increase profitability. Why would Sony risk losses to their base and retention?

As the first full-fledged console online service, MS got away with charging, as there was no 'console yardstick' to measure against. Had other console companies been offering a free, robust online service, do you think MS would have stood a chance with a paid service?

I think there is equally the chance, if not more so, that MS may have to provide free, basic online to silver members while saving all the bells and whistles for gold members, as there is to Sony charging for basic online.

@lonix

why troll man? we are having a discussion, Fat Princess is p2p, and there are more that are p2p on PSN, so don't be a troll.

/on topic

what is next? PSN will have online play, but with PSN+ you will need to pay for party chat, cross game chat, exclusive demos, beta opt ins, rentals of old games, MMORPGs and more. Sure, in the end, PSN offers online play, but to be functional, you will need PSN+. Sony is just getting to a paid service like LIVE one little step at a time, and Sony fans don' t want to accept the fact that a paid service was the way to go since day one for a better online console service. Sony gets in, however their supporters here on N4G think Sony are angels and thinking about the user first, not the bottom quarterly line and you can't have a service like PSN bring in zero money.

Sony's approach is bloody brilliant when you think about it, they are going the route of LIVE, and people don't even realize it, because, lets face it, the back bone of the service, the online play, is there for the users for free.

All MS needs to do now is bring a basic online play function to silver, and it will be an even playing field.

@darthv72,monk339

I get what you're worried about, sony compromising the free online features, new and old, by only offering it on PS+, but what you also have to understand is Sony customers are accustomed to free online and free features added to the system, sony cannot add these commonplace features like, cross game chat, party chat or any of the free online features without having a raving mob at their doorsteps.

I also think that the automatic downloads should have been free to everyone and that is definitely a sign to worry about from Sony, but 1 misstep does not erase years of customer support that sony has shown, sure the updates sometimes take time to come but they are there and cross game chat and other features will probably be introduced soon and free for all.

The reason I see Sony not using PS+ as a starting point to gimp the free users and reward the plus users unfairly is that the format that plus is based on is about digital content for users not features, other than automatic downloads, its all about giving the consumer more than they paid for.

Its incentive and the set up is the longer you subscribe the more you get, and the more you get the more you want to keep it, so you stay subscribed. Its ingenious at keeping customers and as long as they keep releasing games and content free on the PSN there will always be more and more subscribers with less dropping out in fear of losing their content.

This method is similar to M$ for online play, as you lose the ability to play online and other features(ESPN,Netflix etc) if you unsubscribe. The only differences are that sony's is optional with free content still as is, and the content offered on PS+ for digital games etc. far outreaches the M$ gold offer for digital games(note other features are subjective to the user)

..."PlayStation is dominating on every level"....

...Really???

PlayStation are soon heading into a new generation in the not to distant future. They currently have the worst customer satisfaction they've ever sustained as a company. The company is heading for a huge crash while at the same time they'll need to be planning how they are going to try and win back that favour and the build up to their new releases.

Yes financially they're winning but they're going to have to ride out this complete public corporate disaster. No one has faith in the company or the product anymore. They've damaged their public image so much this generation. Greed can kill anyone.

Hulst is a disaster......