Rumor: Survey gauges MAG subscription possibilities

by Alexander Sliwinski { Sep 29th 2008 at 12:57PM }

Sony has refused to comment on the "rumor and speculation" surrounding a possible monthly or yearly fee for PS3's Massive Action Game, reports VideoGamer. The rumor originates from website Bitbag, which cites a PlayStation Undergroud survey asking "15 questions related to payment plans" for MAG.

MAG is the 256-player online game by SOCOM developer Zipper Interactive. Considering surveys are designed to elicit feedback, Sony is probably getting an earful about this issue already.

Source - Sony to charge monthly/yearly fee for MMO MAG
Source - Sony refuses to comment on pay to play MAG reports

Tags: mag, massive-action-game, sony, survey, zipper

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

michaud.jon @ Sep 29th 2008 1:02PM

Duh.......... no Xbox live fees!!!

Jakka(A tribute to whose who fought and failed during the Epic Flamewar of L.A. Noir and MR.ESC) @ Sep 29th 2008 1:06PM

No.

After DRM,Unfinished Games/Patch reliance, Multiple SKU's, Installs and PS3 itself I don't want the Console Market to be any more similar to PC's!

Red Leader @ Sep 29th 2008 3:09PM

Amen to that.

Dirty @ Sep 29th 2008 1:08PM

Lame

Trev @ Sep 29th 2008 1:08PM

That would be lame. Nothing has managed to interest me in pay-to-play games yet, and I don't think a shooter, even if epic in scale and nigh perfect in gameplay (which MAG may not be), is going to change that.

tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 29th 2008 1:09PM

So now we have to pay per month or year to play a shooter? That's bullshit, but I'm not terribly shocked seeing how much time people waste on mutliplayer shooters. It was only a matter of time before some form of nickel and diming was created to milk all that time spent on shooters.

Eggy @ Sep 29th 2008 5:54PM

Guess you never heard of PlanetSide.

Btw. it's just a survey which means jack.

JoeTheBlow @ Sep 29th 2008 1:09PM

Pay a sub for a shooter?
Not a chance in hell.

I refuse to even pay for MMO's anymore, the PSN gets enough of my cash as it is.

Chase @ Sep 29th 2008 1:10PM

If it's more than 20 dollars per year, I pass.

Matt @ Sep 29th 2008 3:23PM

u would pay $ 20 to play 1 game online ?

wow... the people that cry about $ 5 monthly online should talk to you.

Duke @ Sep 29th 2008 1:11PM

I have been very interested in this game since I heard of it, but if they are going to add a fee to play one shooter, then I've lost all interest.

xFenixKnightx (Mr ESC Resurrection Force) @ Sep 29th 2008 1:19PM

http://kotaku.com/5056008/does-survival-horror-really-still-exist

"Silent Hill: Homecoming will be seen as the test of this merger between two worlds. And while I’ll leave the reviewing here to my Kotaku colleagues, I’ve spent hours upon hours over the last few days playing it for my Variety Magazine review, and I’ll just say that in my opinion, it passes the test with flying colors. Yes, Silent Hill fans, you will be happy."

Mr Khan @ Sep 29th 2008 3:37PM

wrong topic alert

Duke @ Sep 29th 2008 3:57PM

Officer Khan, he was updating me after an earlier discussion.

Deeznuts420 @ Sep 29th 2008 1:11PM

my game is massive and in action baby :D

Brian @ Sep 29th 2008 1:15PM

Massive Action, Action, Action!

Marty @ Sep 29th 2008 1:19PM

Gotta pay for those servers somehow, I suppose.

Haggard (steam: haggard_dawn, PSN: HaggyWaggy) @ Sep 29th 2008 3:22PM

They could just go the PC approach and have clans and generous individuals maintain them, but yeah, I could never see myself subscribing to a shooter unless it got about 10x the post-release content that TF2 does.

xFenixKnightx (Mr ESC Resurrection Force) @ Sep 29th 2008 1:27PM

Whats MAG?

Duke @ Sep 29th 2008 1:31PM

Its that new Sony shooter where there is a massive war going and there are squads of 8 (i believe) fighting in battles of 256 players. Sounds cool. BTW - thanks or the above article link!

Killjebus @ Sep 29th 2008 1:38PM

It's the REAL (in my opinion) PS3 Socom. Zipper Interactive has been developing this title for more than 2 years now.

Still if they do a subscription with a shooter, you can count me out.

Vidikron @ Sep 29th 2008 1:54PM

BTW, MAG apparently stands for Massive Action Game. The concept sounds good if they can pull it off, but like everyone else here, I doubt a subscription will work for a shooter. They would be better off just offering expansions and such to keep some income coming in.

Whoppy @ Sep 29th 2008 1:35PM

Only if the game is free :)

WiNG [Life in a Game] @ Sep 29th 2008 2:00PM

So you guys realize the avg console game has 4-8 people on a local server (your console) and even most PC games have 8-32 players on a dedicated server (an expensively maintained computer).

So, um, when you think about it, having 8x the capacity of large PC game servers is not cheap. There is no way your single PS3 is going to host 256 connections itself.

Duke @ Sep 29th 2008 2:04PM

So are you saying that a fee for playing this one game is a good idea?

WiNG [Life in a Game] @ Sep 29th 2008 2:06PM

I am saying it is reasonable when you consider the costs, which will NOT be recouped by the developer and publisher through game sales alone.

You may not like it, but there is a reason companies charge for MMOs.

Hell, even most PC game servers are paid for OUT OF POCKET by the individuals running them.

Vidikron @ Sep 29th 2008 2:56PM

You may indeed be right, but I just don't think a subscription is going to work with a shooter. The game would have to be extremely good and even then it may not fly.

Maverick Saturn @ Sep 29th 2008 2:59PM

If they hadn't thought about that, I would question why they came up with that idea for a game in the first place.

All I can say is lets wait and see what happens, they may or may not suprise us, but if they add subscription to it, lag or lagless, I'm not touching it.

Leobebes (BDF: Braid Defence Force) @ Sep 29th 2008 2:33PM

Here is a question I pose to fanboys on both aisles. If it is true that Sony is losing quite a bit of money on the PS3 and the prospects don't look as if the PS3 will have a dominant strangle hold on overall market share like it did with the PS2, how can they continue to offer all these features on PSN for free?

Or is it that Microsoft charging for their service icing on the cake in terms of profitability?

Maverick Saturn @ Sep 29th 2008 3:01PM

Lol, who cares how? I'm just happy it is, fullstop, I'm already paying for XBL, last thing I'd want is to pay for PS3 and Wii online modes as well, that would be seriously taking the piss.

Whoppy @ Sep 29th 2008 3:05PM

Well are they losing money anymore, when you take in hardware & software for the PS3 alone? Besides free PSN is a way of differentiating themselves from MS.

Kodros @ Sep 29th 2008 3:18PM

The way I see it is that Online is a major part of this and future generations of consoles. It's going to have to be at the expense of the console makers/dev. Games are being bought based on their online capabilities, free demos, free trailers etc...

In other words, games with online gameplay will sell more then games without. But in turn, they have to eat the online cost.

MMO's on the other hand is a different story.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that the rumored subscription plan for MAG gives you quick and easy access to the 256 player servers. Without the sub, you can still play the game but through P2P and therefore less players per server. I'm sure they'll toss out a free 256 player server or two but they would be hard to get into because they would be constantly full.

Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 29th 2008 3:20PM

It's because of a few reasons (I think)

1. Initial cost of the system.
2. It gives them a value advantage vs XBL.
3. Added value to the consumer. I don't think XBL is worth the annual subscription fee.

I pay for Internet connectivity, a wireless router and on the 360 a wireless adapter just for the privelage of playing my games online. I think it's a farce that I am also forced to pay for a service that should be free.

XBL is not a great service because we pay. It's a great service because of the resources MS has put into it. If they announced it were free tomorrow it would still be the same service.

Compare the pricing structure of the two consoles. One bundles all the cost of entry up front where as MS has everything available as an add on. I prefer the Sony approach to the "snap on" or " ala carte" approach of the 360.

It's simply two different philosophys on the pricing structure.

MS does it because they know people will gladly pay for the premium.
Sony does it free because they have to play catch up.

It's not like Sony is our great friend who is looking out for us. They have to offer it free to compete at this point.

Matt @ Sep 29th 2008 3:30PM

immortal: u still haven't added to me to your psn friends.?
and u said that MS resources have made xbox live better, not the cost, however, those resources cost a lot of money and the fees have helped that.
u better believe if sony received money for online services, they would put more resources into that sector of the playstation experience.

now i dont mind paying $ 50 yearly to play all my games online and receive more resources and more free demos, and inside xbox, free map packs, free DLC, free games, free pic packs/themes, extended coverage of major events such as comic con, E3, TGS, etc.

but i would refuse to pay a premium to play 1 game online... there are just too many games out there to choose and playing 1 game online is not worth a premium to me without any other benefits or services.

sony is nice enough to let us play online for free. that is a big service they are providing when they could charge a premium themselves.

Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 29th 2008 7:46PM

@Matt

I added you last night. I hadn't been on in a while.

Sony has already added many upgrades to the PSN. Just look at the store redesign, video store, Home, Life With Playstation, Folding@Home, Free gamer pictures, Free Themes, Free Backgrounds, Trophy support & In game XMB to name a few.

This is in addition to the web browser, Linux support, No maximum file size for downloadable games, Qore, Xam'd, Media Server, Remote Play, Printer, memory card readers, Blu-Ray, Wi-FI, any BT headset & keyboard and mouse support that are all pre-existing.

I know not everything there is directly related to the PSN but the vast majority of the features are. The PSN is constantly upgraded with new features and functionality. It really makes you wonder which service is the premium service.

Also, Live has frickin ADs!!!!! For a service that I pay for the privelage to play my games online it's really a slap in the face that they still have unrelated 3rd party ads.

From your reply I would think that you have the two services confused. Live charges for gamer pics, themes and backgrounds.

My point is that XBL is just another avenue for MS to make money on. They charge for everything seperately almost like ala carte where as the PS3 gives you everything you need right out of the box.

Live would still be Live because thats what the consumer demands. At some point MS will have to offer the current Gold status for free or offer an even more premium service. It's crazy that they charge for Live and that everyone is so happy to pay for it. There are really no problems at all with the PSN. It's certainly not any less of a service.

Final Point - If MS stopped charging for Live it would still be the same system and would still have the same annual updates we are all accustomed to. It's not like MS is hurting for money. As much as these console manufacturers charge they should also provide an online infrastructure for us to play our games on. Its not enough that I pay for my internet, wireless router, wireless adapter and the game. No, I must also pay for the right to play my games online??? That's a big time misconception in my book that people are so willing to pay for the service that is not even all that great.

I will take a free PSN over a $50 XBl any day of the week. I would take a free XBL over a PSN right now as well but who knows how things will be in 2 months from now.

Red Leader @ Sep 29th 2008 3:12PM

Provided the game is excellent, I'd be willing to buy the game, but screw paying a subsciption. Call me a stingy, but I'm not paying for anything more than once.

Matt @ Sep 29th 2008 3:33PM

no point in buying an online game if you don't want the subscription...

Matt @ Sep 29th 2008 3:22PM

does anybody really think sony can allow 256 people to play online in the same game at the same time while millions of others are already playing resistance 2 online and other games..., with out charging a fee?

personally i think this game might be known as LAG after release...
i mean there are lag issues with up to 20 players online.
hopefully i am wrong because 256 players online in a war/shooter games sounds crazy.

Immortal Technique PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Sep 29th 2008 7:59PM

Matt

Thats not the set-up of the game. Its not a 256 player death match free for all. It segmented into smaller portions of say 20 vs 20. Sony can offer it for free as can MS. These companies should be obligated to offer us an online infrastructure to play our games on free of charge IMO.

Some Sony first party games have dedicated servers where as some are hosted locally by a player. I think what Kodros said is the most likely scenario. They will probably offer smaller campaigns for free and have a premium service for dedicated 256 player matches. They might even offer some free servers for the public in 256 player matches. However, the premium subscription service would guarantee access to a server.

Not every game requires dedicated servers. Depending on the set-up many games will offer local hosting like Gears Of War does. Also, server traffic varies from region to region. You might have higher traffic in the states at a certain time but lower traffic in the European region because of the time of day.

Lastly, we have no idea if this game will be downloadable or if it will be sold in retail on Blu-Ray. It's conceivable that they might bundle a lifetime subscription into the cost of the game. At this point the entire conversation about charging is just speculation. If it was done with War Hawk and this game will offer similar battlefields and segments the 256 player action to smaller campaigns its completely possible that it will be a lag free experience.

I don't think they would be making a 256 player online only game if they couldn't deliver on the server end.

I don't see how anyone who plays an MMO or pays for XBL would be against this sort of thing. What if the cost of the membership fee were nominal - like $10.00 per year.

I wouldn't be against this sort of thing if the game is really that good. It also depends on the pricing structure. As I said at this point its all speculation.

Tez (PSN: Tezasaurus) @ Sep 29th 2008 3:25PM

It would have to be damn cheap if they go with a subscription model.

Iridium @ Sep 29th 2008 4:21PM

The entire purpose of the game is to recreate a more war-like atmosphere. The local game will be played with a small ammount of players. When a squad moves into a new area you will combat more players but the players from the area you left will no longer be with you.

That way there are up to 256 unique players on an overall battlefield, but it isn't like there are 256 players on your connection at once. Think about it like playing COD4 with 32 players with the ability to move into the next map while you are playing the game. Once you move in you are playing with the people currently playing the next map.

It still seems to be pretty hard to pull off. If the game and addonns were free of say $10 and th egame was $10 a month to play then I would look at it. However paying $60 for the game with a per month subscription fee, no way.

As soon as the pay to play updates for COD4 came out I took the game in for trade in credit. I refuse to pay for maps or new guns. Besides I care a lot more for single player content. As I have seen over the past few years, single player has taken a back seat to multiplayer and it hasn;t been for the better.