Sony charging for online play next gen would be the biggest case of ownage ever

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

The mental gymnastics used to justify it will be worthy of a scientific study :lol:

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

wait what's there to freaking justify?? SONY has every right to charge for this gen and next gen too.

 

I agree but the drone army doesn't. They seem to think it should cost $ony to provide, maintain and upgrade PSN :?

oh my God where the freak is the logic in this? Lems explain to me how this makes sense? Or are you saying it would be ownage because cows flame MS for charging this gen?
#52 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4412 posts) -
[QUOTE="RR360DD"][QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] So you're saying that Sony always copies MS? Glad you agree.

sony always copies MS? A compnay that's been making consoles for years has always copied a company that just joined few years back? And I'm not saying they're copying I'm saying that for the amount of bullshit MS charges Xbox users for Sony is giving free this gen, so next gen if MS keeps charging and with the always on crap, in order to maintain all thier servers and services, MS will need to charge and earn profit just to keep putting out goods, and SONY might eithter take a lot of loss or charge just to keep up. SONY is keeping up this gen with XBL without charging though

Sony is bleeding. I don't know if they will charge for online play but considering how impressive the new PSN looks, and how successful the models been for MS I wouldn't put it past them.

However if you have other ways of making money, I don't see the need to charge. From the things we have seen and heard so far, its almost certain that they will probably charge for some of this just like they do to get certain extra features through their plus service. Like I've said before, if they were ever going to charge for online access, it would have happened already. There is nothing in the PSN terms of service that gaurentee free online multiplayer forever. Why would they need a new console to start charging? That wouldn't do anything but obstruct next gen console sales due to controversy. And there are already ways Sony is making money off the service that Microsoft is not doing such as online passes for first party games as well as charging the game companies for every bit of bandwidth used to download their content. This includes demos which Xbox Live Silver members get free of charge. While Sony is not charging the consumer for most of their things, they are charging somebody.
#53 Posted by DerekLoffin (8807 posts) -
It may be ownage, but it is ownage only Sheep and Hermits can make claim to. MS fans have been claiming all along that because they pay they get better service, so if they now turn around say 'haha, you have to pay too' they are just admitting they were getting ripped off this whole time as well.
#54 Posted by DISSESHOWEDO (1775 posts) -

So Lems are now using a hypothetical situation created by TC as ownage?

Microsoft needs to get you guys some more games post-haste.

Lionheart08

Lems having no games to play is driving'em nust !

#55 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1330 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] wait what's there to freaking justify?? SONY has every right to charge for this gen and next gen too.SuddenlySudden

 

I agree but the drone army doesn't. They seem to think it should cost $ony to provide, maintain and upgrade PSN :?

oh my God where the freak is the logic in this? Lems explain to me how this makes sense? Or are you saying it would be ownage because cows flame MS for charging this gen?

 

:roll:

 

It's pretty self explanatory.

#56 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

I agree but the drone army doesn't. They seem to think it should cost $ony to provide, maintain and upgrade PSN :?

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

oh my God where the freak is the logic in this? Lems explain to me how this makes sense? Or are you saying it would be ownage because cows flame MS for charging this gen?

 

:roll:

 

It's pretty self explanatory.

Apparently it's not so explain yourself
#57 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1330 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] oh my God where the freak is the logic in this? Lems explain to me how this makes sense? Or are you saying it would be ownage because cows flame MS for charging this gen?SuddenlySudden

 

:roll:

 

It's pretty self explanatory.

Apparently it's not so explain yourself

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

#58 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4412 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

:roll:

 

It's pretty self explanatory.

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

Apparently it's not so explain yourself

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

How is Sony losing money on PSN? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Its more like Microsoft has bad us tricked into paying for P2P. And most of the Live upgrades in the past few years have been for two things. To sell ad space and sell Kinect. They tried this shit on PC gamers with Games for Windows Live. PC gamers laughed at them and they had no choice but to make it free.
#59 Posted by OneInchMan99 (1248 posts) -

If the 720 has more exclusives that will be the best ownage.Miketheman83

HaHaHaHaHa.....OOOOHHHHHH......HaHaHaHAHa.......come on dude,seriously,how could that even be possible.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

#60 Posted by blackace (21311 posts) -
If Sony charges for online the kiss@ss cow will find some way to make it into a positive. They will embrace it like everything else. I'll be surprised if they don't charge for online play or for using any of their apps. They need to have additional funds coming in at all times and PSPlus probably isn't cutting it. They aren't making enough off of that alone. HOME is DEAD!! I actually deleted that crap off my PS3 to make room for more games.
#61 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1330 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] Apparently it's not so explain yourselfMurderstyle75

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

How is Sony losing money on PSN? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Its more like Microsoft has bad us tricked into paying for P2P. And most of the Live upgrades in the past few years have been for two things. To sell ad space and sell Kinect. They tried this shit on PC gamers with Games for Windows Live. PC gamers laughed at them and they had no choice but to make it free.

 

Cost of servers

Developer salary

Paying for timed exclusivity deals

Etc etc

 

 

These things cost money to create, maintain and upgrade, they don't just auto magically appear and work. The services are more than just P2P gaming. If you think otherwise then you are the one that sounds ridiculous.

#62 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

:roll:

 

It's pretty self explanatory.

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

Apparently it's not so explain yourself

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

Wait what? A new online service doesn;t have as much content as something that has been their since the original xbox? gasp. Dude, what you're saying is bullshit because first of all people won't need to justify sony. If MS wasn't charging this gen and SONY is then we'll need to Justify MS instead. And I DO THINK IT SHOULD BE FREE. IF I'M PAYING FOR A GAME THAT HAS MULTIPLAYER WHY THE HELL WOULD I PAY TO PLAY THE MULTIPLAYER? If sony charges it's MS' fault because of a simple concept. SONY WON'T CHARGE IF MS DOESN'T. The bad part of MS charging isn't that they're charging for multiplayer it's that 1. There's still ADS IN XBL SOny isn't charging and there's no ads in PSN 2. If youre going to charge for XBL itself, make netflix and other video things/services not require XBL to acess. Make IE not require PSN. 3. MS is charging you to use something you've already paid for on the xbox. 4. WHAT MAKES IT BAD ISN'T THAT MS IS CHARGING FOR THESE THINGS, IT'S THAT SONY ISN'T AND THEIR SERVICE IS JUST AS GOOD
#63 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] Apparently it's not so explain yourselfcasharmy

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to rn and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

THANK YOUUUU THEY'RE LITERALLY BEING ROBBED AND BRAINWASHED AND WON'T ADMIT IT
#64 Posted by ninjapirate2000 (3244 posts) -

Thank You Sony.

#65 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -
[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] oh my God where the freak is the logic in this? Lems explain to me how this makes sense? Or are you saying it would be ownage because cows flame MS for charging this gen?SuddenlySudden

 

:roll:

 

It's pretty self explanatory.

Apparently it's not so explain yourself

STILL WAITING TICK TOCK TICK....tock
#66 Posted by blackace (21311 posts) -
[QUOTE="lamprey263"]funniest scenario would be a 50% failure rate in PS4s with paid online to boot or the next Xbox is more popular in Japan than Wii U and PS4 combined

That would be hilarious, but bad at the same time. The PS1 had about a 50$ failure rate. After 2 years of usage the CD ROM drive stopped reading disks. This happened to just about ever PS1 on the market. All Sony did was tell consumer to ship the unit to them and they would replace the CD-Rom for a fee. Of course they were out of warranty by the time the CD-Rom drive died. I had 2 PS1 fail. My cousin and 2 of my friends had the same problem. It was funny going to their homes and see the Ps1 on it's side or upside down to try and get the CD to play. lol!!
#67 Posted by ninjapirate2000 (3244 posts) -

ITT: Cows damage controlling online fee's before they're even implemented or announced:|

#68 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1330 posts) -

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

casharmy

 

Well I agree $ony could have tried charging but I doubt it would have gone down well when PSN was a total train wreck compared to LIVE.

 

If you think PSN is only free because $ony are kind and loving then you are the one that's delusional.

 

Also dat rage post :lol:

#69 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

ITT: Cows damage controlling online fee's before they're even implemented or announced:|

ninjapirate2000
wow you're an idiot. You're done.
#70 Posted by ninjapirate2000 (3244 posts) -
[QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"]

ITT: Cows damage controlling online fee's before they're even implemented or announced:|

SuddenlySudden
wow you're an idiot. You're done.

hello
#71 Posted by RR360DD (13003 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] Apparently it's not so explain yourselfcasharmy

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

#72 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

 

Well I agree $ony could have tried charging but I doubt it would have gone down well when PSN was a total train wreck compared to LIVE.

 

If you think PSN is only free because $ony are kind and loving then you are the one that's delusional.

 

Also dat rage post :lol:

Or maybe it was free because that was included with the PS3's initial high price? And also with your logic....you do realize that XBL started out with nothing with the original xbox right? and didn't MS still charge for it?
#73 Posted by caseypayne69 (5390 posts) -
I would be ok with the PS4 charging. ?but the servers etc and mic functionality better be bullet proof.
#74 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

RR360DD

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

I'm not saying it's impossible but lemmings are saying it means ownage for Cows which is a stupid thing to say. They're saying we'll need to justify sony's charging....that's stupid
#75 Posted by Vyse_Legends (9387 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"]

ITT: Cows damage controlling online fee's before they're even implemented or announced:|

ninjapirate2000

wow you're an idiot. You're done.

hello

Howdy!:D

Here good sir feel welcome in this thread.:P

#76 Posted by ninjapirate2000 (3244 posts) -

[QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"][QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] wow you're an idiot. You're done. Vyse_Legends

hello

Howdy!:D

Here good sir feel welcome in this thread.:P

Hi:)

Thank you! It feels great to be welcomed.

#77 Posted by RR360DD (13003 posts) -

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

SuddenlySudden

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

I'm not saying it's impossible but lemmings are saying it means ownage for Cows which is a stupid thing to say. They're saying we'll need to justify sony's charging....that's stupid

Its not stupid. Cows have bashed the XBL charge all gen. They bashed lems for it. They've bashed MS for it.

If Sony were to do the same thing next gen, it would be massive ownage because cows would just have to bend over and take it (I'm using their words, not mine) :lol:

#78 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -
[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

SuddenlySudden

 

Well I agree $ony could have tried charging but I doubt it would have gone down well when PSN was a total train wreck compared to LIVE.

 

If you think PSN is only free because $ony are kind and loving then you are the one that's delusional.

 

Also dat rage post :lol:

Or maybe it was free because that was included with the PS3's initial high price? And also with your logic....you do realize that XBL started out with nothing with the original xbox right? and didn't MS still charge for it?

oh and with all that charge, where are they putting it? Why are you still seeing ads on XBL? Why isnt' MS spitting out games with all that money? If they're dong it to maintain their servers, then wtf are they doing it with all that money?
#79 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1330 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

SuddenlySudden

 

Well I agree $ony could have tried charging but I doubt it would have gone down well when PSN was a total train wreck compared to LIVE.

 

If you think PSN is only free because $ony are kind and loving then you are the one that's delusional.

 

Also dat rage post :lol:

Or maybe it was free because that was included with the PS3's initial high price? And also with your logic....you do realize that XBL started out with nothing with the original xbox right? and didn't MS still charge for it?

 

No I don't think it was included in the PS3 price. And yes LIVE was quite bare bones on the OG Xbox but it still cost MSFT half a billion dollars to set up as has been pointed out above. The main purpose of these companies is to make money not provide charity.

#80 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="RR360DD"]

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

RR360DD

I'm not saying it's impossible but lemmings are saying it means ownage for Cows which is a stupid thing to say. They're saying we'll need to justify sony's charging....that's stupid

Its not stupid. Cows have bashed the XBL charge all gen. They bashed lems for it. They've bashed MS for it.

If Sony were to do the same thing next gen, it would be massive ownage because cows would just have to bend over and take it (I'm using their words, not mine) :lol:

lol but see you don't get it. Cows don't bash MS for charging, the Bash MS because SONY isn't charging and has a service just as good and comparable. If SONY is chrging for next gen then we'd be even. If SONY is charging for next gen and has a much better service with no ads and not requring their service for netflix and for other video apps like MS does, lems are still being owned.
#81 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18415 posts) -
It would be a big shame if Sony does charge for online considering how successful it has been providing the service for free. MS has been able to get away with charging and they probably will charge next gen even though they should be offering it for free. xbox live was down the other day, PSN has been down.. no online service is a 24/7 deal. They will always have down time and to charge money to have the service for a period of time is a rip off when there is going to be periods that paying customers can't have access. As for online only.. thats not ownage, thats self ownage. MS can't that be stupid to give sales to Sony.
#82 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

I can see Sony limiting all the extra stuff to psn+ while online MP remain the way it is 

#83 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

Well I agree $ony could have tried charging but I doubt it would have gone down well when PSN was a total train wreck compared to LIVE.

 

If you think PSN is only free because $ony are kind and loving then you are the one that's delusional.

 

Also dat rage post :lol:

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

Or maybe it was free because that was included with the PS3's initial high price? And also with your logic....you do realize that XBL started out with nothing with the original xbox right? and didn't MS still charge for it?

 

No I don't think it was included in the PS3 price. And yes LIVE was quite bare bones on the OG Xbox but it still cost MSFT half a billion dollars to set up as has been pointed out above. The main purpose of these companies is to make money not provide charity.

Yeah and Sony setup PSN for free out of straw and wood right? Yes, they need to make money but there's a difference between profit and just being a completely greedy robber.
#84 Posted by RR360DD (13003 posts) -

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] I'm not saying it's impossible but lemmings are saying it means ownage for Cows which is a stupid thing to say. They're saying we'll need to justify sony's charging....that's stupidSuddenlySudden

Its not stupid. Cows have bashed the XBL charge all gen. They bashed lems for it. They've bashed MS for it.

If Sony were to do the same thing next gen, it would be massive ownage because cows would just have to bend over and take it (I'm using their words, not mine) :lol:

lol but see you don't get it. Cows don't bash MS for charging, the Bash MS because SONY isn't charging and has a service just as good and comparable. If SONY is chrging for next gen then we'd be even. If SONY is charging for next gen and has a much better service with no ads and not requring their service for netflix and for other video apps like MS does, lems are still being owned.

Actually they do. Cows are always saying Steam is better, yet its free. So PSN being better (and thus requiring a fee) just isn't going to cut it. Sorry, but cows aren't getting away that easy :lol:

With cows, its never been about quality. Its been about principle of paying for online play.

#85 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="RR360DD"]

Its not stupid. Cows have bashed the XBL charge all gen. They bashed lems for it. They've bashed MS for it.

If Sony were to do the same thing next gen, it would be massive ownage because cows would just have to bend over and take it (I'm using their words, not mine) :lol:

RR360DD

lol but see you don't get it. Cows don't bash MS for charging, the Bash MS because SONY isn't charging and has a service just as good and comparable. If SONY is chrging for next gen then we'd be even. If SONY is charging for next gen and has a much better service with no ads and not requring their service for netflix and for other video apps like MS does, lems are still being owned.

Actually they do. Cows are always saying Steam is better, yet its free. So PSN being better (and thus requiring a fee) just isn't going to cut it. Sorry, but cows aren't getting away that easy :lol:

With cows, its never been about quality. Its been about principle of paying for online play.

PSN being is awesome right now without a fee so if a fee can make it any better then by all means carry on. Cows wont complain about the fees or flame MS because then we'd be even. SO IF SONY CHARGES (AND GET THIS) THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY OWNAGE IT'LL JUST BALANCE OUT. So, in conclusion, this thread is stupid and TC sucks
#86 Posted by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1330 posts) -

Yeah and Sony setup PSN for free out of straw and wood right?SuddenlySudden

 

The state it was in when it first released they just might have :lol:

 

Yes, they need to make money but there's a difference between profit and just being a completely greedy robber.SuddenlySudden

 

LOL there is no robbing. It costs me less than 10 pence a day for a fantastic service. I couldn't buy a stick of gum for that. Luxury hobbies tend to cost money i'm afraid to tell ya :cool:

#87 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"]Yeah and Sony setup PSN for free out of straw and wood right?HaRmLeSS_RaGe

 

The state it was in when it first released they just might have :lol:

 

Yes, they need to make money but there's a difference between profit and just being a completely greedy robber.SuddenlySudden

 

LOL there is no robbing. It costs me less than 10 pence a day for a fantastic service. I couldn't buy a stick of gum for that. Luxury hobbies tend to cost money i'm afraid to tell ya :cool:

Yeah even more luxury is not having to freaking pay anything to use what you're being charged for. There's no logic behind you lems damage control. just forget it
#88 Posted by Snugenz (12734 posts) -

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] Apparently it's not so explain yourselfcasharmy

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

...

tumblr_inline_mjpot50TFp1qz4rgp.gif

Calm down buddy, don't let that mad cow disease get ya down.

#89 Posted by zenogandia (861 posts) -

TP flopping was the biggest ownage ever. Did anybody else remember Jeff getting death treats? I mean the guy was getting death threats!!

#90 Posted by JohnF111 (14107 posts) -
"What do you think would be the biggest case of ownage on SW" - Lems looking silly at their hapless wishing and hoping that Sony charges for online for nothing other than a quick laugh. How low the low have gotten, so low... so very low.
#91 Posted by Wickerman777 (1504 posts) -

Sony would never force us to pay to pay to use Netflix and  online gaming. Sony are not scum like M$.  :cool:

Gue1

They very well may not put Netflix behind a pay firewall (I've always felt it's nuts that MS does that) but I will be shocked if multiplayer remains free on PS4. MS has already proven that gamers will pay for online play if they're told they have to and I don't think Sony's investors are gonna allow them to deny them that huge source of cash yet again.

#92 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

No I don't think it was included in the PS3 price. And yes LIVE was quite bare bones on the OG Xbox but it still cost MSFT half a billion dollars to set up as has been pointed out above. The main purpose of these companies is to make money not provide charity.

k2theswiss

Yeah and Sony setup PSN for free out of straw and wood right? Yes, they need to make money but there's a difference between profit and just being a completely greedy robber.

 

charging people psn+ for a setting on the console to have your console turn  on to check for updates is pretty bad. I think it's low has MS if not lower 

Dude, I paid I think 18 bucks for three months PSN and played the following games. LITTLE BIG PLANET 2 RATCHET AND CLANK INFAMOUS 2 QUANTUM CONDORUM STREET FIGHTER 5 VIRTUAL FIGHTER I can't even remmeber all of them but dude I just listed 360$ worth of game
#93 Posted by casharmy (6703 posts) -

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

 

It costs money to run and upgrade these services, that's why Microsoft charge (and also make a profit on it). $ony couldn't really charge because a few years ago their online service was miles behind LIVE. So $ony lose money on PSN.

 

Even when this is the case the drones still think it should be free and think Microsoft are just robbing people.

 

However i'm sure if $ony do charge next gen most of the drones will pay for it and find some way to justify it, most likely saying it's all Microsoft's fault, as we have seen already in this thread.

RR360DD

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

Ok so you want to jump to the defense of this idiotic and hypocirital fanboy argument?  So you you also take on all of the stupidity that goes behind it...I am fine with that.  

First of all before I rip you to shreads....

1.  tell me what does any of the added services have to do with the basic underlying fact that the reason MS holds the p2p  ability to play games online ransom!!!!

 :o TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR FOR YOU, IF YOU ARE ARGUING THE SERVICES ARE WHAT THE CHARGE IS FOR WHY THEN IS THE ABILITY TO SIMPLY PLAY ONLINE NOT FREE?????????? (yes you are going to sound stupid when you start backraracking as I point it out with each DC response)

2. You asked what sony could charge for?  Are you stupid..lol nvr mind let's just point out something else that we already know.. :o THEY CHARGE FOR THE ABILITY TO PLAY GAMES ONLINE...:| same as MS...NEXT

3. "PSN only became a worty online service in 2009"....You personal estimation of what PSN is or isn't worth has no factual bearing in this argument...next.

4.  I never said it was impossible for Sony to charge, but I do think its telling of what kind of fanboys you lemmings are praying to the heavens that this happens just to have some kind of vendicatin becuase you guys have been the ididots that have been paying and justifying this crap since the generation before last.  If Sony charges it's not a good thing for gamers...same as it has always been for MS with 360, what the hell is your arguement here?

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR FOR YOU...FEW IF ANY SONY FANS WOULD BE DEFENDING THE ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE SONY DID IT.  I konw I won't be praising it like lems here do just because it's their favorite company or becuase you guys have stocks invested and only interested in personal gain despite degrading the whole of gaming in the process.

#94 Posted by RR360DD (13003 posts) -

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"] lol but see you don't get it. Cows don't bash MS for charging, the Bash MS because SONY isn't charging and has a service just as good and comparable. If SONY is chrging for next gen then we'd be even. If SONY is charging for next gen and has a much better service with no ads and not requring their service for netflix and for other video apps like MS does, lems are still being owned. SuddenlySudden

Actually they do. Cows are always saying Steam is better, yet its free. So PSN being better (and thus requiring a fee) just isn't going to cut it. Sorry, but cows aren't getting away that easy :lol:

With cows, its never been about quality. Its been about principle of paying for online play.

PSN being is awesome right now without a fee so if a fee can make it any better then by all means carry on. Cows wont complain about the fees or flame MS because then we'd be even. SO IF SONY CHARGES (AND GET THIS) THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY OWNAGE IT'LL JUST BALANCE OUT. So, in conclusion, this thread is stupid and TC sucks

:lol: No

This is just a hypothetical situation and already you're trying to worm your way out of it.

If theres a fee, Cows won't complain because .. well they are cows. They are loyal to Kaz (lol). Its nothing to do with being even. The years of 'lems bending over for MS' and 'wahhh its in the principle' would come back to bite cows in the ass.

No way to escape it bro

#95 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

casharmy

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

Ok so you want to jump to the defense of this idiotic and hypocirital fanboy argument?  So you you also take on all of the stupidity that goes behind it...I am fine with that.  

First of all before I rip you to shreads....

1.  tell me what does any of the added services have to do with the basic underlying fact that the reason MS holds the p2p  ability to play games online ransom!!!!

 :o TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR FOR YOU, IF YOU ARE ARGUING THE SERVICES ARE WHAT THE CHARGE IS FOR WHY THEN IS THE ABILITY TO SIMPLY PLAY ONLINE NOT FREE?????????? (yes you are going to sound stupid when you start backraracking as I point it out with each DC response)

2. You asked what sony could charge for?  Are you stupid..lol nvr mind let's just point out something else that we already know.. :o THEY CHARGE FOR THE ABILITY TO PLAY GAMES ONLINE...:| same as MS...NEXT

3. "PSN only became a worty online service in 2009"....You personal estimation of what PSN is or isn't worth has no factual bearing in this argument...next.

4.  I never said it was impossible for Sony to charge, but I do think its telling of what kind of fanboys you lemmings are praying to the heavens that this happens just to have some kind of vendicatin becuase you guys have been the ididots that have been paying and justifying this crap since the generation before last.  If Sony charges it's not a good thing for gamers...same as it has always been for MS with 360, what the hell is your arguement here?

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR FOR YOU...FEW IF ANY SONY FANS WOULD BE DEFENDING THE ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE SONY DID IT.  I konw I won't be praising it like lems here do just because it's their favorite company or becuase you guys have stocks invested and only interested in personal gain despite degrading the whole of gaming in the process.

BAM THIS THREAD SHOULD END HERE. BUT IT WOULDN'T
#96 Posted by Snugenz (12734 posts) -

BAM THIS THREAD SHOULD END HERE. BUT IT WOULDN'TSuddenlySudden

It should end because some fanboy blew a gasket???.

Casharmy rages (fanboy shit usually) in most threads and it doesn't end them why would it happen now.

#97 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"][QUOTE="RR360DD"]

Actually they do. Cows are always saying Steam is better, yet its free. So PSN being better (and thus requiring a fee) just isn't going to cut it. Sorry, but cows aren't getting away that easy :lol:

With cows, its never been about quality. Its been about principle of paying for online play.

RR360DD

PSN being is awesome right now without a fee so if a fee can make it any better then by all means carry on. Cows wont complain about the fees or flame MS because then we'd be even. SO IF SONY CHARGES (AND GET THIS) THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY OWNAGE IT'LL JUST BALANCE OUT. So, in conclusion, this thread is stupid and TC sucks

:lol: No

This is just a hypothetical situation and already you're trying to worm your way out of it.

If theres a fee, Cows won't complain because .. well they are cows. They are loyal to Kaz (lol). Its nothing to do with being even. The years of 'lems bending over for MS' and 'wahhh its in the principle' would come back to bite cows in the ass.

No way to escape it bro

What??? are you outta' your mind? OK FOR ONE READ YOUR RESPONSE OUT LOUD AND THEN PUNCH YOURSELF IN THE FACE first of all I just literally hate you called you just called me bro. Second of all if there's a fee what the fk would cows have to complain about? And if they do complain how would that be valid in system wars? System wars is where you defend what makes your console better or preferrrable to another, so if both companies are charging, we'll be even and the stupid fees argument becomes as irrelevant as the WiiU is to system wars. (hehe) Third of all....OKAY AGAIN, "LEMS BENDING OVER FOR MS" (if you don't get it this time you're an idiot and I'm done speaking to you.) US Cows flame Lems about being charged because we get what you have for free, and we still don't get to view ads or have to pay to use netflix and both services are still comparable. You make no sense at all. Stop damage controlling. Lems got owned in this thread.
#98 Posted by Chutebox (37982 posts) -

I think you should stop dreaming of cows.

#99 Posted by RR360DD (13003 posts) -

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

You frecking dumb fvck ididot what dose XBL have to do with Sony charging for provideing an online service if your initial argument for defending why MS charge for online is that, and I quote, "it cost money to run and upgrade these services"?

What kind of hypocritical mind trick fanboy mumbo jumbo logic are you t@rdlems trying to spin here?  Let's not forget that MS started the generation before last with an online service that was bare to the bones and MS still started off chargeing $50 a year.  

This whole thread is hypocritical and idiotic but your post takes the cake trying to make the argument that Sony couldn't charge because of XBL.  Sony could have charged and justified it by saying that it costs money for them to provide those services as well and the fact that MS did it the gen before last BUT THEY DIDN'T.  There is NO logical counter argement you can make against this so stop trying to pull fanboy s!ht out your ass.

casharmy

It does cost money, MS invested half a billion is setting up XBL in 2002, back when online on the PS2 was pretty much non-existant. Kutaragi didn't believe in online play, hence pratically no progress in the area when the PS3 launched. If I recall correctly, PSN didn't even have a universal friends list when it launched :lol: So what exactly would have Sony charged for? There was no ecosystem like there was with XBL that re-launced a year earlier.

PSN only became a worty online service in 2009, and tell me this, what would cause more of a backlash? Sony deciding to charge mid-generation for online, thus basically forcing anyone who bought a PS3 prior to that to either pay or do without online play

OR

Sony announcing that online play will cost money on the PS4 (which might I add has an impressive looking online service) thus giving people the choice BEFORE they purchase the console.

This is just a hypothetical thread. No ones saying they will charge, but to say its impossible is just fanboy dreams.

Ok so you want to jump to the defense of this idiotic and hypocirital fanboy argument?  So you you also take on all of the stupidity that goes behind it...I am fine with that.  

First of all before I rip you to shreads....

1.  tell me what does any of the added services have to do with the basic underlying fact that the reason MS holds the p2p  ability to play games online ransom!!!!

 :o TO MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR FOR YOU, IF YOU ARE ARGUING THE SERVICES ARE WHAT THE CHARGE IS FOR WHY THEN IS THE ABILITY TO SIMPLY PLAY ONLINE NOT FREE?????????? (yes you are going to sound stupid when you start backraracking as I point it out with each DC response)

2. You asked what sony could charge for?  Are you stupid..lol nvr mind let's just point out something else that we already know.. :o THEY CHARGE FOR THE ABILITY TO PLAY GAMES ONLINE...:| same as MS...NEXT

3. "PSN only became a worty online service in 2009"....You personal estimation of what PSN is or isn't worth has no factual bearing in this argument...next.

4.  I never said it was impossible for Sony to charge, but I do think its telling of what kind of fanboys you lemmings are praying to the heavens that this happens just to have some kind of vendicatin becuase you guys have been the ididots that have been paying and justifying this crap since the generation before last.  If Sony charges it's not a good thing for gamers...same as it has always been for MS with 360, what the hell is your arguement here?

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR FOR YOU...FEW IF ANY SONY FANS WOULD BE DEFENDING THE ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE SONY DID IT.  I konw I won't be praising it like lems here do just because it's their favorite company or becuase you guys have stocks invested and only interested in personal gain despite degrading the whole of gaming in the process.

1. Actually online games are client hosted. And there are other aspects to online play such as leaderboards, stat tracking etc. that are all server based.

2. PSN service was so non-existant at launch that it seemed like there was literally nothing tangable to charge for. Games at launch handed their own online, compared to XBL where it all fell under the same tree. That the difference, if you can't understand that then I'm sorry. Fact is, MS have got away with charging for online because there was a clear and evident system behind it, whether the current subscription model is right or not.

3. It did. Have you even had a PS3 since launch. It seems to me you havent - either that or your a blinder fanboy that I thought.

4. Who's praying? I was just asking which hypothetical situation would bring more LOLs. I think there possibility is there, so I listed it.

"FEW IF ANY SONY FANS WOULD BE DEFENDING THE ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE SONY DID IT"

YEAH RIGHT :lol: They will eventually. But the initial cow tears will be DELICIOUS

#100 Posted by ShadowriverUB (5515 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"][QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

They very well may not put Netflix behind a pay firewall (I've always felt it's nuts that MS does that) but I will be shocked if multiplayer remains free on PS4. MS has already proven that gamers will pay for online play if they're told they have to and I don't think Sony's investors are gonna allow them to deny them that huge source of cash yet again.

Wickerman777

So people buy PS3 insted of 360 because free multiplayer and there people who willing to buy PSN Plus

Whatever. You guys are in denial. Get ready for it cuz it's coming.

Denial of what? Payed PS4 multiplayer for now it's just lems wet dream, they want cows to suffer as they do