Does The PlayStation Plus Price Hike Add Up?

Why ScreenGurus Kuma doesn't think the PS Plus price hike is justified as things stand.

[Kingthrash360]

The price hike is bull, and sony will receive major flack for it.
....but seeing that xbl costs the same, I'd say both don't add up.

[Eonjay]

The price hike is anti-consumer, but people - I mean real average people - don't seem to care. I talked with some friends and surprisingly they don't care. I think the thing is that when Xbox 360 was really popular in the US last gen, people just got used to paying... and back then Microsoft didn't really give you crap. So for them, they get discounts, free games and online.

If you don't like it I say don't renew your membership. I doubt folks will do this but anything outside of that or a massive retaliation (there wont be for $10) this is pointless.

I would like to add that I am expecting higher quality content now. I mean if 10 million people give an extra 10 a year, thats $100 million and that can go towards some really decent content.

[MYSTERIO360]

@The_infected I agree with you but i feel this price hike has been a response to MS having their prices set higher then sonys for years. Even when Sony was offering games, discounts and extra features with plus back when it started MS where only offering online play with discounts for a higher price for much longer and not many called them out on it. Even with the PS4 launch sony where offering just as much as MS ( you could argue more given how plus runs across many PS products) at a slightly lower price.

Now Sony want to match MS in pricing consumers are on sony backs? I know paying more for something sucks and it feels like Sony are ripping off consumers (as well as MS) but this is just sony adjusting themselves to what MS got away with for years. I just wish gamers would of spoken up when MS tried to pull this same scummy move back when but unfortunately its to late now.

@Eonjay Ill be the first to say i don't agree with paying online for anything (let alone increasing prices) but i can see why sony are upping their subscription and feel it wholly unfair for sony to have to up their offering while MS give nothing new and doesn't get slammed for it.

[ifistbrowni]

The thing is, I own both consoles. For the last 3 years, I've primarily played on PS4 when it came to online multiplayer - the games ran better and it was a cheaper subscription. So, after the first year of Xbox One, I let my subscription for XBL lapse. When Gears Of War Ultimate Edition released, I bought a 3 month renewal - then let it lapse again and haven't re-subscribed since.

Now that the subscription is the same price and games are mostly on par between both consoles, I'm in a bit of a pickle. I could subscribe to XBL and play the exclusive multiplayer I loved - Halo and Gears + all the 3rd party experiences like Battlefield, TitanFall and Madden/NHL/FIFA/etc

Or

I can stay subscribed to Playstation PLus and only play the 3rd party experiences. The thing is, Sony has me by the balls. My Destiny character on PSN has so many hours put into it and when Rise of Iron releases, i wouldn't like to start from "scratch." Plus, I primarily bought digitally, so if I did try to make a switch to Xbox One primarily, I wouldn't have anything to "sell" to give me a jumpstart on XBL games. The only current XB1 games I own are Gears of War Ultimate, Halo MCC and Dead Rising 3.

But, my point is, I'm seriously contemplating lapsing my PS Plus just to move over to XB1 and play online on that console. There are more experiences over there - more bang for my buck. I have limited time to play games and it only makes sense to be subscribed to one online community at a time (for the time being). There hasn't been an exclusive PS4 game yet where I felt like I HAD to have online to get the full experience. Uncharted 4 Multiplayer is a lot of fun, but I don't find myself playing it nearly as much as I played 2 and 3.

[KiwiViper85]

Its gonna be even worse when Microsoft steps on stage to reveal Scorpio, And announces that Online multiplayer is now free, while also offering GwG to PC.

[TKCMuzzer]

It's hard for people to comment, to get true figures we would need to see Sony's outgoings in order to make a valid judgment on what the increase is trying to cover. Their profit margins may be the same if their outgoing have gone up by the same amount.

[freshslicepizza]

@Eonjay
"The price hike is anti-consumer, but people - I mean real average people - don't seem to care."

people do care but they dont have many choices if they want to play online and with so many games being online its almost a must have now. that's why you see some people try and justify the price with the free games they offer. which is not really true because if they took away multiplayer form the paywall memberships would go way down.

microsoft has made investments in cloud gaming and dedicated servers, what is sony doing with the extra money besides stability updates?

[daynnight365]

Great post, don't get all the downvotes

[IamTylerDurden1]

Yet ppl accepted paying $60 for Xbox Live last gen, even when MS wasn't giving you free games. They did it with a smile.

PS+ is now the same price as XBL, makes sense.

[NotoriousWhiz]

I can regularly find XBL discounts on Amazon for <= $40. I have had no such luck with PS+. From what I hear, black Friday may be your only shot.

[lipton101]

$10. That's it. $10. Skip a coffee a day for half a month and you'll recoup the loss. It comes out to a whopping 16¢ / day for premium, up from approximately 14¢ per day. Whine all you want because at the end of the day, you'll pay for it. So will I. So will everyone else.

[Nineball2112]

Oh lord. Let's not start with the $x.xx cents per day arguments again. That's ALL we heard last gen with the Xbox Live versus PS3 free wars. LOL

If I had my way, I'd wouldn't pay for ANYTHING above my internet connection. I think BOTH are bullshit but we honestly don't have choice if we want to play multiplayer games. It sucks but it is what it is.

[DragonKnight]

People who don't think we have any other choice are ignoring their own rights.

You have the choice of forgoing online play until these companies reverse anti-consumer practices. Just because you don't want to, doesn't mean you have no other choices. And by paying it because you can't be without online gaming, you're complicit in anti-consumer practices.

[lipton101]

I have a choice and I'll pay. I also have a pc with a butt load of games. And I have the means to buy a brand new gaming of right now on a whim if I wanted to go play whatever I want to my hearts desire for "free." But instead I'll pay $60 / year when the time comes for my ps+ with the faith that they'll use that money and reinvest it into a better gaming experience for everyone. $10 is not price gouging unless you have to wait for Christmas every year for mommy to buy you the game you want this time. Cry me a river and pay up, or don't play online. It's that simple. If $10 will break your bank then sell your shit because you have some major issues and shouldn't be playing video games in the first place

[s45gr32]

I don't pay for online gaming on PC plus lots of deals and steals when it comes to game purchases, free cloud saves, free dlc, etc.. No subscription needed.

[ShaunCameron]

Agreed. At the end of the day, video games are a luxury and a privilege.

[joeorc]

@Kingthrash3607h ago
[The price hike is bull, and sony will receive major flack for it.
....but seeing that xbl costs the same, I'd say both don't add up.]

Is Microsoft offering Cord cutting Cable TV with DVR functionality streamed not to just PlayStation devices , but also Roku, Amazon fire, Chromecast , Android OS, Apple IPhone, iPod, I Pad..

Or

is Microsoft's streaming A catalogue of games over 400 now to not just PlayStation devices now , but PC's , Smart TV's , Smart Phone's !

That requires more Capitalization and more investments...

I am sure Sony could do just what Microsoft is doing and just say , no to live cable TV cord cutting or Streaming to PC's and further cut resources and not invest filurther in expanding their network structure so as to be able to increase money coming into their company and just not grow their company so as to once again, be still seen Sony why no investment back into your network and offerings. Despite the perceptions, Sony's network of Services on PSN is not just for PlayStation gameing for online use play only, it's for more content also to be offered , because Sony does more than just games..

Movies , TV shows..Sony is not going to neglect those consumers , because many consumers use their PlayStation systems for such content consumption.
Microsoft does not really make TV shows or movies like Sony does..

They do not have to worry about such.they have 3rd party to carry those services.

Part of your PSN+ service fee no doubt goes towards some of that movie and TV show streaming or network content service.

That's just the reality of the situation. I doubt many even think about that..

Nintendo make movies & TV shows for streaming through their online network?

How about Microsoft hmm?

@ShottyatLaw41m ago
[Those other media services come with additional costs, though. Essentially you're advocating for Sony to allocate some of my PS+ money to extra services that, if I wanted to utilize them, I would still need to pay extra.

No thanks]

Why do you think they are under the name:
PlayStation Vue
PlayStation Now

PlayStation + is like those other services under PlayStation Network..

The money for PlayStation + goes to PlayStation Network as a whole! Just because they are charging a separate fee for all , does not mean the revenue made by all three is not helping to make the entire network better or only one part. But not the others.

PlayStation Networks Capitol is all of those services..

[ShottyatLaw]

Those other media services come with additional costs, though. Essentially you're advocating for Sony to allocate some of my PS+ money to extra services that, if I wanted to utilize them, I would still need to pay extra.

No thanks.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

Well at least XBL gets new features and a lot of benefits and the free games are actually free.

[blackblades]

Still say you find deals on them on online retails. Also you never know , it hasn't happen yet and we still got a few sony conference before it does and firmware update. They might say why they doing it.

[sAVAge_bEaST]

Yes, this is B$.. They better add AAA games to the line up.. ..

[IamTylerDurden1]

Games like NBA 2K16, Saints Row, Yakuza 5, Infamous, Injustice Ult Ed, Dishonored, Freedom Wars, Killzone Mercenary, TWD Season 2, Thief, Call of Jaurez, Persona 4AU, Dragon Age, Medal of Honor?

Or do u mean highly touted games like Resogun, Rocket League, V2x, Outlast, Oreshika, Grim Fandango, Bro Force, Gone Home, Beyond Good n Evil, and Transistor?

[spoilerjerk]

Playstation and Microsoft online services are becoming just that... a pass into online play. Outside of that I expect to see even less and less free games as times goes on. As it stands now both consoles have been scrapping the bottom of the barrel for most of this generation.

[IamTylerDurden1]

If u own all 3 Sony devices it's a steal.

[Yi-Long]

It depends on what they add to the experience: if the quality of the PS+ titles goes up, or they'll start offering a few movies as well each month, or better deals on new games or DLC, then it's fine.

If it remains as it is right now, where every month we have more and more people complaining about the lack of quality titles being offered, I can see an increasing backlash happening.

[jb227]

It never even crossed my mind about giving movies...Sony is in a good position to do that, especially if it is one of their own flicks. It would be pretty cool to have at least a free rental show up on there from time to time.

I agree though, no one can really pass judgment on this move as of right now...it simply brings Sony up to the current price of its competitor, but as a byproduct I'd be willing to bet that at least for the next few months that the PS+ offerings will get a bit of a shot in the arm. They'd almost have to do it in light of the hike, and from what I understand Sony hasn't announced September's offerings yet so they may be holding off until the Meeting to drop a cool September lineup for subscribers & to outline what the increase will net users.

[feraldrgn]

Not defending it, but didn't Sony say it was due to the market changes since 2010, when they 1st introduced it?
ie: the value of certain currencies dropping?

[TKCMuzzer]

Virtually all companies do it to manage increase in costs, for some reason though it's only in gaming industry does it seem to cause so many issues. It may be to do with the age ranges involved, most subscription services are paid by adults (TV, internet, phone line etc) so annual increase do to economy changes are expected and become part of life. As PS+ and Xbox Live attracts these people it also attracts a younger demographic who don't pay these kind of bills regularly so are not accustomed to price increases, therefore making it an unacceptable increase. I could never understand prices going up, now in my job, I see how costs go up every year and the only real way to alleviate that is to pass it onto the customer.
Wait for reality to bite guys, get a house, car etc $10 on your PS+ subscription every six years will seem minor to everything else leaving your bank account.

[ruefrak]

I'm sad to admit that the price hike probably is justified. When the service first launched for $50/year, it offered very little. Then the Instant Game Collection came around and suddenly $50 seemed like a steal. Then the PS Vita was added to the service at no extra cost. Then the PS4 was added to the service for no extra cost. So for those of us with all 3 platforms, we are now getting 6 free games each month for free, 72 games a year. Some are good. Some are not as good. But when you factor in the sales and other benefits, $60 a year is still a really good deal.

[NotoriousWhiz]

Ps+ is and has always been a great deal for ps3 owners. Ps4 owners on the other hand...

[IamTylerDurden1]

For me, a PS4/PS3/VITA owner it is a steal. 6 free games per month, monthly flash sales, and other discounts. I'm payed up for 15 more months anyway. Instead of complaining, just grab a yr of PS+ for $50 now. Or get it half price on b Friday.

[Rhezin]

No. Not in any way, shape, or form. Don't become complacent -_-

[Aenea]

There was and there will be no PS+ price increase for where I live so I'm not expecting changes all of a sudden.

Usually these things are done because of exchange rates and they see a sudden drop of income in some countries with lower valued currencies. Doesn't mean they suddenly are going to spend more so don't expect anything more or new from Sony...

The US hasn't had a price increase since 2010, other countries have, perhaps it was time, huh?

Edit: added the word countries

[Liqu1d]

It's funny how there wasn't this level of outrage when Europe had price increases.

[Aenea]

People in the US are all special snowflakes!

*here's a trophy for posting*

[Yetter]

Just watch MS drop the hammer and remove the paywall around online play. XBL membership for free games and discounts and thats it.

I know it seems unlikely but lets remember these three things.

One: MS can afford to do this.
Two: Its a another step towards unifying the Xbox and the PC(where online play is free) which seems to be all MS can talk about these days
Three: xbox is behind PS by quite a bit, a hail mary like this would be the perfect move to pick up marketshare

[MasterCornholio]

Will Investors allow it though?

I mean the subscriptions do provide a hefty amount of income for the Xbox division.

[Yetter]

Its possible, as I just posted a second ago for my reply to NotoriousWhiz a new xbox customer on average is worth 3000$ throughout the course of the console gen.

[joeorc]

MasterCornholio1h ago
Will Investors allow it though?

[I mean the subscriptions do provide a hefty amount of income for the Xbox division]

Exactly, I mean Xbox was designed from the get go for the online revenue generation, and that was since the Xbox original ..how are they going to ask investors and stock holders to not count on that revenue anymore ...

Not going to say there is a chance of no..bit if I was betting, that would be a big..are you insane? at a board meeting

[NotoriousWhiz]

From a business perspective, what good is an increased market share if it comes at the cost of revenue? Particularly the yearly kind.

[Yetter]

Yes 60$ a year per user would be a lot of revenue to lose but Don Matrick (formally Xbox head and thankfully he's gone) was quoted saying an xbox customer is worth around 3000$ through the course of one console generation.

Its all about licensing agreements and software sales

[ifistbrowni]

man, if they did this it would be a major mic-drop moment. I don't see it happening though.

It would literally crap all over Sony.

[Yetter]

I too believe this is wishful thinking, but there is hope and I'd love to see MS make this console gen a real horserace again

[gangsta_red]

I would love to see this too but I doubt it.

[joeorc]

Really? A mic dropped moment, as the investors and stock holders would not be sitting there, most likely they would pick up the phone and say let me get a hold of other stock brokers and getting a stock holder meeting ready ..

[Liqu1d]

So free online would be a good thing then? Interesting, all last gen an online paywall was good.

[gangsta_red]

I seriously, seriously doubt this.

You have to look at the current business market and how other companies are offering similar services for a monthly/yearly fee.

These businesses have the Vegas type of mind set or the old Zynga F2P game plan. You don't take a sucka for a lump sum and leave him broke, you keep him at the table and drain him for extra cash over a long period of time.

Sony and MS won't make much on a one time purchase of their consoles, they want you to have their system and then charge you for a continuing service for years to come.

[smashman98]

I see lots of complaints about this. We were given a months notice. There competitor who they've since surpassed is @ 60. Ultimately this is another one of those things. If you don't like it don't support it or stock up before the 22nd and don't worry. Ultimately I think the majority is ok with it. Companies are allowed to charge whatever they like for their products and charging what the less popular competition charges is an understandable business move.

[kingmushroom]

Meh ill buy two years right now and won't stress out
.

[DualWielding]

would add up if they were giving the quality of games they used to give during the PS3 era

[Rude-ro]

Did not bother the media or consumers when Microsoft did it three years ago.
But, since the Microsoft media shills have something, here comes all the articles attacking Sony. seems to be the trend this week.
Gaming media, been trying to kill gaming since 2001

[Kiwi66]

So when people question something that Sony does its "the media and everyone is attacking poor ol sony" yet they do the same to ms & nintendo but for some reason it only bothers you when its sony

[Rude-ro]

The media does attack Sony. The consumers and voices of the community than attack Microsoft. This exists because people have had to stand up against Microsofts media shills attacks since 2005 when they all went crazy attacking Sony.
It bothers me when the media is used to try and negatively affect companies to try and create a path for another corporation. I.e. Microsofts dirty tactics of which they have been sued for before. It is a fact.

[alfcrippinjr]

it is total bull shit costing more in Canada $20

for this we should be getting better games and be inline with xbox
any play station plus game should be free for life if you dont decide to get it again.

this is going to hit sony big-time what they have done.

and force people over to the pc side of the business free online and cheaper games

[joeorc]

Streaming games to PC with PlayStation Now..but of course all the extra costs and server maintenance fees and such do not matter..just like Sony was Willing to take a $200.00 get for all the PS3 cycle and shoved Blu-Ray down people's throat, dared to charge $599.00 system, with free online gaming that was sub par..had no games and

Yet today 4k Blu-Ray playback is being used by a certain group of gamers as a negative because Sony is not offer such in the PS4 Slim..you would not have cheaper Blu-Ray optical drives to have in another console if HDDVD took off..by a company that really had no vested interest into HDDVD or Blu-Ray..

But now Sony increased the PSN+ by $10.00 a year, and its freaking does not add up? About what? What do you freaking know about the monthly expenses that Sony is expanding on..Sony paid millions for Gaikai and now PlayStation Now is going to PC's, but no....
Sony is not investing right back into their services.. No they are just money grubbing Corporation nly out to get money.

Never mind that Cable TV Corporation companies have pretty much had a strangle hold on cable TV..Sony was now able to offer Cord cutting Cable TV live broad casting per month with DVR functionality to included.. But instead of keeping it high price, they lowered it who would of thought!

After 5 years Sony increases the PSN+ rate for the 1st time and it does not add up?

Give me a freaking break../ end

[roland82]

It's time for both Sony and Microsoft to offer different subscription plans. Give us a cheaper option if we just want to play online and not care about the free games.

[Yetter]

not a bad idea at all

[ApocalypseShadow]

It was bound to go up based on the consumers accepting price hikes. Gamers accepted Microsoft adding pay to play and raising the price was accepted. Sony added games and discounts as an incentive and gamers accepted.

My Netflix is going up. But the amount of movies and shows I watch is less than if I went to the theater for things I didnt see. My cox cable is going up. But I can accept it because I get great Internet. But I may get rid of the channels. My utilities are going up. My gas has gone up.

What you accept is up to you. But as for Sony, my psn was $25 when I bought my PS4.I got more from it than what I paid Sony to play in discounts and free games. They may offer more for the price hike, but if not, then my choice is to accept it or not with my wallet.

I'm mostly a single player gamer. So online means nothing to me. But for those who play online all the time, I feel for you but it's your choice to pay 10-20 dollars more. Or tell Sony to jump off a cliff. Or shop around for a psn deal.

[Silly gameAr]

Do we know if they're adding features or not in September to justify the price raise? Are we being overly dramatic as usual when something changes that we don't like? Are we capitalizing on hot topics that we can turn into click bait for hits? So many question that we could turn into click bait articles.

[FallenAngel1984]

Well at the very least gamers can still opt to find PS+ subs on discount at certain discounts like XBL gamers have been going since their service had a price hike in 2008.

[gangsta_red]

I said it before and I'll say it again...

The only reason why Sony offered free online for PS3 was because they came out a year later than the 360 and had to entice players to purchase their PS3. It's the reason they then offered PS+ as an optional service but had to offer free games in order to get people to pay for something that is offered for free.

The cost of maintaining and also adding other services though is a lot and Sony had to make pay to play online mandatory for the PS4. Once again though they tried to undercut MS by offering their service for $10 bux cheaper but then the cost for maintaining was still too much and the sweet spot is more than likely 60 which is what MS is also charging so again Sony made the changes.

I guess we can take away that MS knew all this from the start and was upfront with it from the very beginning with their users. Either Sony learned this the hard way or they took a different approach by just gradually implementing and getting to where we are now.

[Silly gameAr]

What?

[gangsta_red]

Sony is following in the same footsteps as MS.

[jb227]

By the same token, the only reason that MS pulled the Kinect as a requirement from the XBO, the only reason MS introduced BC & the only reason MS added its own GwG free lineup each month was in response to Sony's sales domination. You can't really believe one w/o the other, and they all resulted in benefits to the consumer, so I'm not sure if any of that is an issue. Even now when Sony is raising the price of their service, they are only doing so after being the cheapest on the console front since its introduction as a requirement, and they are only bringing it in line w/ MS.

As far as MS being upfront, we could rattle off many instances where that simply hasn't been the case, some from as recently as a few weeks ago, but we'd be here all day. Plans change, but the bottom line is that Sony gamers enjoyed free MP & Streaming capabilities all last gen while MS gamers had to pay for the privilege. Then Sony was fully up front from the unveiling of the new console that PS+ would be a requirement for MP for the PS4. At that point they gave consumers plenty of time to make up their mind as to whether or not that was a dealbreaker. I'm just not seeing how any of this particular scenario was dishonest or shady on Sony's part in any fashion.

[gangsta_red]

"By the same token, the only reason that MS pulled the Kinect...."

Sure, don't think I ever disputed or even said that wasn't the case...but okay.

They were the cheapest but it must have cost them because they are now bringing it in line with MS as you said.

MS has not raised it's price since, they must have knew the cost of service way back when they first raised the price and with that it seems more features and options have regularly been updated for the X1/360 more than the PS4.

Sony seems to undercut MS in some areas but in the long run it comes right back to what MS is charging or has in place. Which imo is not being upfront because you look for the cheapest deal and get roped in only to have that rug pulled out from under you when that price decides to charge the same as the competition.

"Then Sony was fully up front from the unveiling of the new console that PS+ would be a requirement for MP for the PS4."

No, it was a bullet point on a power point presentation that was after the main unveiling of the PS4. I hardly call that upfront.

"At that point they gave consumers plenty of time to make up their mind as to whether or not that was a dealbreaker."

How? If you want a PS4 and play online you have to pay for it. What other option dis they have?

"I'm just not seeing how any of this particular scenario was dishonest or shady on Sony's part in any fashion."

I don't see it either, since I never said it was dishonest or shady...did I?

[jb227]

"I guess we can take away that MS knew all this from the start and was upfront with it from the very beginning with their users. Either Sony learned this the hard way or they took a different approach by just gradually implementing and getting to where we are now."

"I don't see it either, since I never said it was dishonest or shady...did I? "

I mean that compare contrast scenario insinuates that Sony was dishonest. That would be the opposite of 'upfront' & that is why it looks like that statement insinuates flat out 1 of 2 scenarios, either that Sony was ignorant or that they weren't "upfront", which is the equivalent of being shady or dishonest.

You could say that MS were psychics that could see the future of every expenditure they'd need 10 years out & perfectly set the initial price accordingly, or you could say that MS just set a price they could profit off of that gamers would pay, then Sony brought theirs up when they saw that MS had no problem pulling in subs w/ that extra $10. You could also say that another side benefit of MS being the first to market for last gen essentially gave them carte blanche to institute the entire idea of paid MP on consoles, considering gamers wouldn't be able to experience next gen mp whatsoever for an entire year unless they bought a 360 & a Live subscription. Bottom line is that MS set that precedent, so I don't see how it is wrong of Sony to have potentially saved their fan base a hundred bucks or more in combined subscription savings compared to Live from this gen alone.... factor in the entirety of last gen as well & you are looking at a tremendous amount of money that Sony straight up left on the table while MS was gobbling it all up. That's why I don't really understand your point, because ultimately Sony has saved a lot of gamers a lot of money, and I'd personally rather save hundreds of dollars before a slight increase than paying that same price in perpetuity.

As far as Sony not releasing the info about the PS+ requirement for MP on PS4 until after the February event, I can't recall the specifics of that myself but bottom line is that info was fully circulated & in the wild nearly a year before the console launched, which I absolutely call "upfront". MS announced the DVR feature early on for the XBO at a conference, only to quietly confirm through an interview buried amongst many other questions that it would now be entirely off the table. That is the kind of thing you could consider as "hardly upfront" in my eyes, but to each their own.

"How? If you want a PS4 and play online you have to pay for it. What other option dis they have?"

Simple, you could buy an Xbox & pay 10 bucks more, or you could buy a Nintendo and have a much thinner feature set for free. Those are the options that were given for gamers who wanted mp privileges. Beyond that, I'm not sure for the XBO but the PS4 launched w/ plenty of f2p titles that didn't require any kind of subscription to play online. Either way, Sony was upfront about the move & they saved a lot of people a lot of money before they switched to the current price. I mean it would have to amount to literally tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in savings compared to Live subs. That figure is pretty substantial...so whether it was ignorance or dishonesty on Sony's part, it certainly benefited gamers and at the end of the day that's probably key here.

[gangsta_red]

"I mean that compare contrast scenario insinuates that Sony was dishonest."

How does that insinuate they were shady or dishonest? It means Sony either didn't know of these costs or they started at a base number and gradually increased it as time went on as I stated literally.

"That is the kind of thing you could consider as "hardly upfront" in my eyes..."

You basically gave two of the same examples from Sony and MS and yet for Sony you claim it was fully circulated and for MS it wasn't, even though there were just as many media outlets that reported that very news of them dropping DVR.

"Simple, you could buy an Xbox & pay 10 bucks more, or you could buy a Nintendo and have a much thinner feature set for free."

But then where would you play the new Uncharted, God of War 4 and many other exclusives that you and others say can't be found any where else?

"...f2p titles that didn't require any kind of subscription to play online."

Extreme reaching, I am positive that no one had the F2P games in mind when purchasing a PS4. And it definitely wasn't a selling point for the PS4.

Sure it may have benefited gamers that they were able to save an extra 10 bux a year but it has to sting somewhat that a lot of these bragging points for fans and practices that made Sony seem like the good guy are slowly being taken away. I guess it depends... do you like to be gradually screwed over or upfront from the beginning screwed over.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

Nope!

Funny how with the PS3 PS fans were all happy that PS+ wasnt required and online was free.
But because their love for Sony extends across dimension. They accepted the paywall that resulted a much much worst online experience and features and accepted the price bump.

Sony getting cocky again. It's gonna bite them hard.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

it's complete bs. no matter how you wanna spin it, the prices to play online for console is ridiculous. neither service justifies a price increase, especially since the "free" content has been arguably getting worse. the stability/security of the service itself hasn't been getting any worse or better either, so not really sure what they're gonna be spending all this excess money on now. it was already just gravy on top of everything, now they want a cherry on top of their gravy?

[Majin-vegeta]

Dont like it take your business elsewhere

@Cho No its called using common sense.If youre phone provider is over charging you do you stay or leave??Oh wait you answered leave.Then by all golly pack your bags and move onto another platform.

Exid-Oh shoot this guy knows what Sony plans to do after the price hike.Tell me csn you give me the winning lotto numbers for the next drawing?Since you seem to know Sonys plans

@Cho-SMH it seems you kids dont get my point...not surprised coming from millenial children.

@Faye-Ughhj kinda early to tell dont ya think?

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

it's sheep like you that make it possible for companies to do it lol

edit: do you actually have any legit argument?

[EXID]

Are you seriously okay with paying an extra amount of money for no reason whatsoever? Seeing as Sony has pretty much won this gen, I think we can all put away our fanboy/girl tenancies aside and look at things objectively now. The ONLY reason for this increase is because they can. The service will not change one bit(for better or worse), so what exactly are we paying extra for? If anyone can answer this with no bias, I'd legit like to know.

[theFAYEsorceress]

"take your business elsewhere" is such a moronic thing to say to something like this lol the vast majority of people are against paid dlc, which is literally extra content that you get to play, but you're ok with spending "x" amount more per month/year for... what? what more do we get from this price increase? extra content? better sales? early access to something? what?

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

it's very clear from your edit that you have absolutely no clue what's even being argued here lol when you stop being a blind fanboy, mebe you'll be able to see what the real issue is.

[theFAYEsorceress]

@your stealth edit: it's not really too early to tell at all. what did sony add when they made it mandatory on ps4 to pay if you wanted to play online? nothing. everyone knows these services are pure profit for ms and sony. it's a greedy play by sony because they CAN, not because they have to(for quality) or because they want to make their service better for us. both give us the bare minimum of what they have to because that's all they need to do at this point. it's really as simple as that.

[ShaunCameron]

@ Faye

He's right, though. If you don't like what Sony's offering, you're free to go deal with another company.

And who is this "vast majority" of people you so speak of?

[Urzusix]

Yeah this is kinda a joke, already happened here in the UK last year and didn't see 100 bloggers crying. End of the day, this is Sony getting the bad news out the way ready for 7th of September. We have no idea what could happen, maybe they will add PS Now into the PS+ (We can hope) Sure you don't have to pay on PC but PC isn't a unified system with party chat, Trophies and security(Look at Division on PC) that stuff cost a lot of money.

[Bladesfist]

Better pay up so Sony can afford to keep them trophies coming! It's not like there are free chat programs on PC either. /s

Look at the Division on PS4 https://www.youtube.com/wat...
The call of duty games also never ever were hacked on console right?

[thelaughingwiseman]

PS+ hasn't added anything that makes it worth 60 bucks. The free games tend to be lame ass indies and the discounts aren't dramatically different from original price for AAA games. You can find better prices from other websites and in hard disk. I consider hard disk a positive because you don't have to waste so much harddrive space. People mainly buy PS+ just to play online multiplayer anyways. Sony hasn't increased the speed or performance for multiplayer games because they can't. I don't know what makes PS+ worth the 50 or 60 bucks. Ehh but what can you do? You either want it or you don't. I can just dump PS+ all together and just play single player games.

[mochachino]

Yeah, it makes more money.

[cfc83]

No it doesn't add up. You already pay your net provider. I'd also say the UI is basic, plus flagship exclusive UC4 doesn't even have dedicated servers. What's the increase for ?

[daynnight365]

Imo all sony did was meet the status quo...
What's needed now is for sony to step up their monthly offerings

[PizzaSteve]

Stupid move by Sony. Best to wait for deals to get them cheaper. I don't play mutiplayer like I used to cause of work and I mostly play MLB the Show and BF4.

[OpenGL]

It's easy to see why Sony raised the price: Xbox Live Gold was already $59.99, most people bitching will ultimately still pay for PS+ as they have no choice, and Sony is more interested in increasing profitability than keeping prices static.

Sony said at one of their shareholder meetings a few months ago that they expected to see an increase in the amount of money people spend on PSN, this must have been what they meant.

[showtimefolks]

It adds up in USA but other regions are being charged a little too much. But we just don't matter and here is why. We are the vocal minority

Casuals will just pony up the extra cash and if you already have ps4 what are you your options? Not play online

So for few weeks we will get articles like this and than people will simply move on

Also i would like to believe if Xbox one was ahead by 20 million event than ms would offer this content but we all know the under dogs usually give better deals just because they are so far behind

Maybe I am different but I usually buy AAA games at launch so by the time they would be available on plus many would have already played those. Mi like these smaller titles that we otherwise wouldn't play and that way we play some unknown gems

But I agree that Sony should start offering one AAA game even if it's killzone or knack

[Satava]

Seriously ? this guy just spent hours typing this article trying to justify a $10 annual increase is NOT WORTH IT ? It's just 2 cups of starbucks coffee or 1 pint of beer

[P_Bomb]

I'd rather have the pint of beer. Least I can get a buzz off it. This gives me nothing.

[Kevlar009]

It's a no brainer it's about the money. They've got millions using the service, easily 150+ million more a month from a service they don't have to significantly improve. Sony needs money and a digital service, i.e. PS Plus is the best way to get money. They know the increased revenue will offset anyone who leaves. You can thank Xbox LIVE in part, along with any other company who used an internet service to get more money.

[agame914]

xbox live been $59.99 since 360..but he really cares? you will be able to find deals for both of the subscriptions for way cheaper all over the internet anyway

[jznrpg]

It makes total business sense to match your competition in pricing when you are at the forefront. Any company needs to be profitable to be able to continue and once it isn't it will be gone. Gamers ,if they had it their way (not all but a lot) would have prices of every piece of hardware , accessories, games and services be cheaper to a point any company would go bankrupt. Approximately 80 cents a month is not much of a raise . I know nobody likes price increases but they are inevitable. Gaming is a hobby not a need in any way and it is a lot cheaper than many others. I personally eant to help

[ShaunCameron]

Exactly.

[KickSpinFilter]

Love it people loosing there minds over 2 more cents a day 14 cents (US) to 16 cents (US).
Also wait for it to be on sale after new price then your paying exactly the same as you were before the price hike when you used not to buy it on sale. LOL. Is the new price a bummer ya, but it's been cheaper than XBL for years. Now they are the same price.

[Miacosa]

Yes, yes it does. Infrastructure improvements and the continued offering of better games with Plus costs money over time. So after the price being static for 6 years or so economic conditions finally caught up. There're always sales to be had for PS Plus so if one cannot afford the 17cent per day search around the web and you'll never have to pay the full price.

PS: I do think that in and ideal situation all this would be free for all consoles like it is on PC

[s45gr32]

Don't Playstation Gamers need to pay their ISP on top of PS Plus like xbox gamers. No wonder the elders scroll failed on consoles, meaning paying a monthly charge for elder scrolls online plus the PS Plus/Xbox One subscription. Paying for online gaming is plain retarded.

[Artemidorus]

It's a rip off but they should make a ps plus with no monthly or discounts just the online for a cheaper rate

[IamTylerDurden1]

Xbox Live has always been $60. So, why not give ms flack for being greedy for far longer?

Price hikes are never great for the consumer unless they bring better content. Time will tell.

[gangsta_red]

Maybe you weren't around long enough or too young to remember but flack was given.

http://n4g.com/news/1127242...

http://n4g.com/news/594722/...

Pointing your finger at the other side doesn't solve the problem though.

[iTechHeads]

Cancel your sub. It's your right.
No one forces you to pay for PS+.

[Fullmetalevolust]

I truly hope that someone at the September conference/meet up asks this very question and what sort of content will be expected. Or did Sony had to cover the cost by adding more servers to host more PS players online? An explanation would be great. As far as I'm concerned, Im buying it on sale when it's 38 bucks.

[adaminoregon]

Still waiting for a game this gen that would make me pay for psn. Haven't seen it yet.

[chris235]

i don't care. the ps plus titles are pure garbage. i am merely paying the plus fee for supporting reasons. i never play online and i almost never download their "free titles". but not everyone is like me. most of the users are depending on a couple free titles oer month. and for them i am feeling ashamed that sony is treating them like .. you get the point.

[ParanoidFreak]

It's not justified at all... unless they are offering more value to compensate but they won't

Also they don't care that you don't like it... they know they'll lose some subscribers but the price hike towards those that stay more than make up for any fiscal loss

So bottom line is this: price goes up, service will stay sh*tty with the same cr*p free games, no new benefits

Sony is challenging you to stop paying for PS+ because they know that as long as we're addicted to online gaming, they will milk us for all they can

So give them the middle finger in return and cancel your PS+ sub if you can see past the smoke and mirrors... the time for paying for online access to games you've already purchased HAS TO STOP... why are gamers so d*mn complacent these days?

EDIT: I also want to point out that so many "free" Indie games that *debut* on PS+ have the developer's compensation tied in to the PS+ fee as they know some titles are garbage and would never sell on their own merit... YOU ARE STILL PAYING... NOTHING IS FREE

[feedthereaper]

Inflation suggests everything must go up in price...... the question is, why has MS avoided price increases for over a decade?
My suspicion is that it was far higher than needed to be but a new thing, a gamble in some ways back then and Microsoft knew that if it took off, they would be raking in a huge amount of money, if it flopped it could be lowered or dropped, start off high and drop if needed. What happened is the consumer never realised the true cost of what it would take to run a fantastic 360 Multiplayer environment and because it worked so well, were willing to accept it.

Now a decade later inflation has probably lowered the profit margins on XBL, but with it, a huge investment in servers and cloud computing by MS has allowed them to reduce the costs of providing multiplayer, the end result is they have managed to keep the costs down to match inflation meaning a great experience for gamers, a price point that still brings a profit and a gamer that has accepted this price point for a decade.

Sony has now entered the business 3 years ago by offering a similar subscription model, and entered at a similar price point as Microsoft, but now they are taking the first step towards pushing up the price based possibly on inflation, something that Microsoft have resisted for so long it is now ingrained in gamers minds that this is the price point we should always pay. Sony have stepped out of the price box and are now getting labeled as greedy when Microsoft are probably close to pushing their own price us soon as it was inevitable eventually (I am surprised it didn't happen 3 years or more ago) but were outdone by Sony to do it. What this means is Sony will be seen as Greedy, while Microsoft can sit back another 6 months, let them take the flack and then increase their price similarly with an explanation that they managed to keep it the same price for a decade and eventually all good things come to an end and price increases must come, and the gamers will have had 6 months of getting used to (and berating Sony) over it that it will be less of a sting in the tail.
Microsoft I would imagine have been sitting sweating and waiting for Sony to make the move for ages so that they can follow suit but not wanting to be the big bad wolf that does it first.

[Skankinruby]

All the losses sony took last gen to win consumers hearts and it got them nowhere. Now they capitalize on the upper hand they have this gen and they're crooks? Even with this raised price they are barely matching what microsoft has charged this whole time and never gotten flack for it. Stupidity reaches new heights with every article on here

[its_JEFF]

I have no problem with the $10 price hike, it's $10... a year, not a month but a year. That's less than $1 a month hike. Where was the outrage when Netflix raised the MONTHLY price for those who were grandfathered in earlier this year? I can tell you that it was more than a $1 a month. I didn't hear a peep. I don't know if it's just gamer's, some, but it seems like our lot is just ready and waiting to get offended by something. So ready to cry foul, so eager to pick up their pitch forks and torches.

My guess is Sony has always wanted to charge the same as Xbox Live, but wanted to ease consumers, who up until that point didn't have to pay, into paying. Looks like they should have just came out from the get go @ $60, would have saved them a lot of BS their getting now. Should have just taken it on the chin to begin with, but even then there would still be the vocal group of whiners.

[Chaosdreams]

Netflix, rather, any subscription won't be a fair comparison unless the comparison is Microsoft's service.

That's because PS+ is a limitation, on an existing physical medium. Online is restricted, to games we physically purchase. That's as if we purchased a movie, only to find out we couldn't watch half of it, because we didn't want to pay for its renewal. Netflix is easier to walk away from than PS+, because PS+ is a leech.

We already pay for our internet.
We pay for our console, and our games.
But PS+ restricts us, and baits with "access to discounts and free games, while a member." But the discounts, and the free games aren't enticing or worth the cost. It makes us pay for online a second time. Truthfully, it doesn't matter what the cost is, the service itself is a scam.

Moreover, the price increase doesn't even match the inflation standards. As a Canadian I'm being hit with a 33% increase in price, so I'm paying $20 extra, when I shouldn't be.

This is anti-consumer, but from a business standpoint, smart.

This isn't people being easily offended. People are just tired, and its gotten harder for them to look away as easily as before.

[its_JEFF]

I personally don't see the difference, Netflix and PS+ are both something that one can walk away from. Neither is necessary.

Since you brought it up, how does it stack to Xbox Live? A service that has been charging $60 for years now. They had great online but hide everything else behind that pay wall. Now PS+ wants to hike the price up to the Xbox Live level and that seems to be a big problem. I'm only saying that people seem easily offended because people seem okay with paying more upfront for less with features added later. Than paying for less, with extra features, but a price hike later down the line.

Let me ask you this, would it have been better for PS+ to be $60 from the start?

[Chaosdreams]

Neither is necessary, that's correct. The differences lie in how easy it can be to walk away from it. I don't feel like reiterating my point, but to summarize, Netflix is in itself a service that doesn't impede on the quality of the medium itself. It let's you watch a movie, but you don't own that movie. Ps+ however acts as an access, a gateway, to online functionality off of the product (game) that's been purchased. If someone stops paying for Netflix, they stop paying. If someone stops paying for Ps+, they have games that only play single player, if the game itself even offers single player.

Truthfully, we shouldn't be paying for online features. Xbox Live started a poor trend and it gives Sony an excuse to follow in price. This isn't people being easily offended (though people are in many cases). This is people pointing out an anti-consumer practice. (Business standpoint it's great for Sony, cash flow) but for a consumer, it's not beneficial what so ever, which is why people are frustrated.

As for your question. No, it wouldn't have been better from the start. The only instance that paying for online, is even remotely acceptable, is if the benefits are indisputable in quality and worth. PS+ (I can't comment on Live, I don't have an Xbox) doesn't offer anything remotely beneficial. This year in particular has been equivalent to a barren wasteland, and now the price goes up $10-20 depending on which country, just because? Because Xbox costs that amount? Because they might make the service better (doubtful)? Because... Well we don't know why, but I doubt Sony will have any reason beyond a comment like "to ensure the quality..."

Anyways, yeah.

[BLKxSEPTEMBER]

I only buy PSN 3 months at a time because FOR ME it's not worth it. Anyone know if they raised the price on the 3 month Sub?

[solid_snake3656]

$60 for a game + addon's + paying internet provider + paying for psn = gaming is expensive as hell.