First off let me say that I have absolutely no proof that this is going to happen. In fact Sony maintains the policy that they are NOT going to do this, but take a ride on the conspiracy train with me for a bit and tell me your thoughts.
Would you pay to play? With the PSN down for more than 3 weeks Sony took a significant hit to their stocks. Add that with the free content being given away and the Identity theft program (which I'm still waiting for) Sony has got to be hurting in the financial department right now. If I know anything about businesses (not saying I do) it's that they never can make "enough" money. Sure a company can make enough money to cover their expenses but they never make "enough" money. So what happens when Sony decides that they need to make up the losses they suffered during the network down time?
Charging for online play.
(Let me state right here that this is NOT Sony's policy, and they have stated multiple times over the years that they do not want to charge for online.)
But let's imagine for a second that they do start. They could say something like 'Due to the new and increased security on the PSN our operating costs have increased unexpectedly. It is due to this reason that we are forced to start charging for PSN online play...' If they did this would you pay for it? If you would how much? $5 a month or $50 a year? But hey since we're riding the crazy train let's go to the next stop.
Playing to pay games.
(Again I have ZERO proof that this will happen. In fact I can't even think of a reason why this would happen, but it certainly is possible.)
What would you do if Sony started charging you to play games. Impossible you say? No. Let's think about something for a little bit, how much control does Sony have over the PS3? Probably a lot more than you think. Yes they can block out your online ability, but can they block more than that? Yes. Before you say "no" think about it. With each update they change the operating system on the PS3. On update took away backwards compatibility, one update changed the XMB, one update made it so the PS3 can auto shutdown. Whose to say that Sony can't make it so that you have to pay to use your PS3?
Finally again, this is all just speculation and with no credible evidence to support this.
If Sony started charging you play your PS3 would you pay? What if Microsoft start charging you to play your Xbox? What if all the gaming companies started charging? Would you pay to play?
Today, Astragon announced a new installment of the Bus Simulator franchise, simply titled Bus Simulator 27, coming for PC, PS5, and Xbox.
Limited Run Games, MARVEL and Konami have announced MARVEL MaXimum Collection for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S and PC.
would love it if xmen arcade offered two modes. the regular single screen 4 player mode and the ultra wide (simulated dual screen) 6 player mode.
How much you wanna bet that this collection will keep the games in their original aspect radios with no visual fidelity or options?
Was excited until I saw that Limited Run was attached. Their so-called collections thus far have been nothing but sloppily slapped together emulations.
A new Resident Evil Requiem graphics comparison examines Switch 2, PS5, and Xbox Series S, revealing performance gaps and visual trade offs.
interesting that the Switch 2 version renders at a higher internal resolution. I wonder if they dropped it down to the same as the Series S the game would hit the 60 mark more often than it does.
Solid port though, can't wait to play this tomorrow (or whenever my preorder gets to me lol)
I would only pay to play on PS3 if Sony offered a better online service. They've increased their security and I get that that has cost them money, but from what we've heard so far their security measures beforehand weren't at the level they ought to be so I don't think it'd be fair for them to charge us because of this (I don't think they will, since as you've stated Sony have always been adamant that PSN will always be free).
But yeah, if they offered a better service with more options (such as cross-game chat among other things) then I'd certainly consider it.
Its entirably reasonable, if they promise Xbox live level quality, paying will be more than justified.
Sony is aware that some people will pay to play, and some wont. MS understands it too, which is why the tie 3rd party non-gaming services to XBL.
Nevermind that MS has yet to absolutely prove that XBL could withstand a cyber attack similar to the one PSN suffered. Single XBL accounts are often fully compromised, you just don't hear about them. They aren't as news worthy as someone getting ahold of 70 million names and addresses.
I would pay because most of my games are for PS3 and I wouldn't want to lose online access, but I would not be happy about it. I already pay to play as it is. I buy the games.
From that i mean you have to go back to when the notion of live was conceived and launched. There wasnt much of a console online system back in early 2000. Sega had their system but unfortunately they gave in to the pressure of hardware/software costs and chose to exit the market.
This left the console online experience open to whoever was willing to commit to making it work. MS entering the console game was the logical choice to start things off in the right direction. Did you think it would be a free ride??? I sure didnt. I was aware of how things worked on the PC side. Sure you had free games to play but others were membership based and required the dedication to play in order to get the return on investment.
MS started off simple yet the idea was sound. Create the backbone to allow for multiplayer gaming around the world and then sell it to the people and developers to make $$$. Nothing wrong with that as this is a business driven world. The release of the 360 sought only to expand on what the original xbox created and they add ALLOT of stuff that was never there in the first place.
Not only that but 90% of the service was made free to those who didnt play online. The key there is "online". The argument of buying a game to have half of it unavailable has been the angle that others against live have been using. So why not look at it from the other side. People who only buy games to play multiplayer arent playing half their game either. That may not be a direct example but it still is an example. There are millions of people who dont play online nor do they even have their consoles connected.
Those that do are more than likely ones who started off with the xbox in the first place. PS2 had a poor online structure and that is a definite must for a connected console to thrive. The $$$ you pay for the year is quite small when viewed over the course of that calendar year. So now lets jump ahead to current time. There is a reason to why Sony came out with their online system in its free state. It still didnt have the structure that was worth charging for.