Hulu page: Hulu Plus on PS3 will require PlayStation Plus [Update: only during the preview period]

@Ashkental I was just about to say the same thing! The bastardization of the free PSN has commenced.

I'm sorry but lets see the hypocrites bound out in full form.

They turned the last Hulu post into a PSN vs XBL fest.

@Ashkental

Indeed.

@Ashkental Yea here we go =/ pretty soon a free psn wont enough for anything. watch whenever we get firefox or opera as a browser (if that ever happens) we'll need a PSN+ to use it.

@davidjtate Yes, but the ones to blame are people that pay for "LIve", I'll get downvoted but its the truth. Had you not paid for it this would have been on the regular PSN, now because of the precedents set by "Live" subscribers everyone is not thinking of ways to nickel and dime us.

@davidjtate

It's too early to jump to that conclusion. Besides, Hulu's intent was to go to a paid service prior to any PSN plus announcement.

@the angry pro consumer gaming -

Or...one could argue that Sony only ever had free-to-play online multiplayer because they wanted to distinguish themselves from Xbox Live's pay-to-play model.

Had it not been for Xbox Live, Sony probably would have started out charging for online multiplayer on the PSN instead of waiting a few years while using it as a selling point.

Despite what any of us may think, neither company is interested in anything other than money.

@kentuckyfried People are not mad because Hulu is getting paid (ok, maybe they are) but the point is that you'll need not only 10/month but ALSO 60/year for PSN+ wich is ridiculous, it should be a free service, just like netflix, you just pay for netflix and not PSN+.

UNLESS in that 60 price tag for PSN+ Hulu+ is also included, than that would be SWEET.

@BananaBoat Online play was free everywhere except Live, so again it was free until you paid for it. That has now filtered to other companies that used to offer things for free and think of ways to charge us because YOU paid for Live.

Angry pro gamer, why is it our fault?
If Sony is so high and mighty why even do this?

I think you need to stop pointing the finger at XBL Gold members.

@the angry pro:

MMORPGs cost money to play online before Xbox Live existed. After Live came out, PC games are still free to play.

You have no argument. The only one whose now charging for once-free services are Sony and NBC/Hulu.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga No, you're so deluded it's not even funny. The world isn't going to simply give things away for free because no one is willing to pay for them, they simply stop providing them.

Nice try, but cram your irrational ideals and go get a damn job.

@BlackedOut We're not talking about one company genius, were talking about being charged for things that were free and would have most likely been kept free.

@The angry pro consumer

Sony wants to make money plain and simple. They probably have put this model of making money off for quite some time until they feel it is truly time they can offer a good package to lure us in.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga
"We're not talking about one company genius, were talking about being charged for things that were free and would have most likely been kept free. "

I, for one, blame the bottled water industry for both Xbox Live & PSN+
When will the madness end?! Only once we, as consumers, stop consuming! Lets rally at the nearest National Park.

@Ashkental

Well they are also brining Hulu+ to Sony Internet Enabled TVs, so you don't have to get PSN+ if you have a Sony Internet TV.

I bet they will also bring Hulu+ to Tivo, since they are asking about it in their survey so everyone relax, they are going to drop Hulu+ on every piece of home entertainment they can.

All blu-ray players will get it, all Internet TVs will get it, all Home Theatres will get it. So plenty of options.

@jsx92 The only diluted fool here is you, all you have to do is look at how the Cellphone business has changed overtime. Prices have either dropped or services have been extend. Hell I pay 25 a month for unlimited text, data, and 300 min. Just a few years ago people would have called you crazy for thinking of something like that happening. As for gaming we are now paying for the ability to pay for something. Finally for your little comment on me getting a job, chances are pretty high that I make more in 3 months than you do in one year.

@The angry pro consumer -

Before Xbox Live, the only online console game worth mentioning was Phantasy Star Online for the Dreamcast. It was free to play, but really, the infrastructure wasn't there (nor was the fan base) for them to make it pay to play. The model of free to play online you speak of was a PC gaming model anyway, and with the exception of a very select few games (like the aforementioned PSO) there wasn't a precedent for Microsoft to follow with their Xbox Live pricing.

Xbox Live essentially created a new market; It proved that you could monetize an online service through the consoles. If your argument is that Sony wouldn't have realized the profit potential from an online service through their PS3 without Xbox Live setting an example, we'll never know for sure, but I have to disagree. I think Sony would have taken a step back, looked at the millions of potential customers, and figured out a way to monetize them.

@BananaBoat You just proved my point, MS took a gamble that there would be enough suckers to pay for something that was free elsewhere and it paid off. What I'm saying is that had "Live" not fooled people to pay for it chances are the service fee would have been dropped by the time the 360 came about because they knew Sony would have kept it free. In this instance both basic services would have been free and would be on a level playing with them competing with one another by adding services to them.
Unfortunately again there were enough "suckers" to pay for "Live" causing a ripple effect that now every company now see's that people will pay for things that used to be free as long as they streamlined.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga - Cell phones are not games, the absurd plans from telco companies have little to do with LIVE.

My work involves some of the online functionality you'll find in games, and I can assure you I get paid well to do it. Since my work isn't free, and the game developer's work isn't free, and maintaining the servers isn't free, and the giant data centers that house the servers aren't free, so I don't see any reason the service should be free.

So no, I'm in the know and you're out of your mind.

@swooded Seriously kid that's the best you could do? I mean you didn't even attempt to correlate anything to the argument that you had to bring something as ridiculous as bottled water into the discussion.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga said "chances are pretty high that I make more in 3 months than you do in one year."
So, actually, unless you're a millionaire you're well off the mark yet again.

But what I find ironic about this statement is that you're a money-grubbing jerk and you're complaining about other people making money! Go figure!

@jsx92 Cellphones aren't like Live? The both offer services to the consumer, only one has gone down in price while the other charges for things that are free elsewhere.
The difference is that the the cellphone consumer realized and woke up that they were getting screwed for their hard earned cash. This caused them to drop prices and up services, other than the ESPN deal Live doesn't offer anything that can't be found free elsewhere.
Things may not be free, but when you're in a business then you have to cover your operating cost's. Had people not paid for "Live" chances are the service would be similar only free since the only way for Live and PSN to distinguish themselves at that point would be services rendered.
How you people can not see that is beyond me, this is basic economics 101 we're talking about here. Unfortunately for us gamers, we are not getting $15 map packs, and further exclusion of gamers who don't "upgrade". The funny thing is you then go around and complain about being nickeled and dimed, paying $60 for a game and then defend the very thing that caused all this.

@jsx92 See I heal people for a living, I don't try and screw them over by giving them something that they can find for free elsewhere.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga Here's the thing like I've stated I heal people for a living, I've been to 3rd world countries and worked for free, hell I've even paid for some of my patients treatments. My problem with live is that it excludes those that are being left out of their full enjoyment because the company is trying to make a buck at the games expense. This problem is inherent to Live since PSN allows you to play for free. PSN+ I have no problem with since the consumer does not "need" it to be able to enjoy the game with his/her friends. Live on the other hand stands infront of you blocking acces to your friends unless you pay, when you're not even using their serves since Live like PSN is P2P.

@the angry pro consumer: Well, Mr. Healer, don't get me started on healthcare reform. Fact is Live is an extensible service provided by Microsoft for their closed platform with a large user base. Similar services have their own prices, nothing can be offered for free with no strings attached.

I suppose you'd be willing to assist me with my lifetime medical care free of charge without insurance? I didn't think so.

@Ashkental

Shut up, stop sending e-mail to my inbox about stupid discussions that don't have anything to do with the post

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga
[Seriously kid that's the best you could do? I mean you didn't even attempt to correlate anything to the argument that you had to bring something as ridiculous as bottled water into the discussion.]

Well, I also brought national parks into the discussion, on the side. Used to be free but no longer is was the theme there.
The fact is, you turned this article, that was about Sony requiring PSN+ for Hulu+, into yet another useless Live vs PSN debate & there's not much sense in arguing a fanboy flame war. So I made a joke about the base level of your argument:
A) "It is wrong for something that was once free to no longer be free"
B) "It is the fault of anyone willing to pay for a service that the service will not be free for others."
Vote with your wallet my friend. Good luck with the boycott.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga

Dude, you have such a convoluted view of things that I don't even know where to start.

Economics 101? Look in the mirror, guy. Cell phone data plans didn't drop because no one was buying smartphones, cell phone data plans dropped because of competition amongst carriers.

As for your comment about "suckers" and charging for things that are free elsewhere. I have found nothing of the sort. With XBL, I log on, and within seconds I can be in a party chat with ANYONE that's logged into the platform no matter what they're doing on said platform. Within seconds from that, we can all be in the same game together, with one button push.

If I'm on the PC playing SC2, and my buddy is playing Counterstrike, and another is playing The Sims, and another is watching Netflix, we're completely disconnected. I have no idea they're online, even though we're all on our PC playing games (or Netflix). I can't click a button and immediately see all of us taken into the same game together.

XBL has completely changed the way I play games. Whereas before you might find me pub hopping into some server to play with randoms (ugh, I can't even imagine doing that anymore), now I know that any time I log on I can be on my way to playing with a group of friends, and laughing and having a good time, within seconds. It's totally changed the way I play games, and it's 10x more fun that it ever was before. At $3/month I get 10x the enjoyment I was getting before. If that makes me a sucker then give me a lollipop.

Also, MS uses part of the XBL fees for matchmaking servers, which as far as I know aren't offered on other platforms. I admittedly know very little about Steam, but I believe it's more of a digital distribution service, I don't think it has anything to do with matchmaking or anything like that.

@Ashkental Sony actually had a free online model before Xbox on the PS2. The current PS3 online service is an evolution of that idea. PS3 online games run off of 3rd party (or 1st whenever applicable). This leaves Sony available to offer free social networking features. They make money from online shopping rather than subscriptions.

Xbox Live is a part of the reason why Sony decided to monetize but if Xbox Live was not there, I do not think that things would have been too different. Yes, they would have tried to find a way to monetize, however Sony's online plan has always been to offer free gameplay (with option for paid subs such as FFXI)

Like I said, PS+ is an evolution of their free model. The free model still offers tremendous value but PS+ is a package deal that offers extra value on top of what you already get for free. Concerning Hulu+, I believe that if they are only offering to PS+ users, then it should come with the PS+ subscription and not extra. Making it PS+ exclusive plus requiring a Hulu+ subscription will kill Hulu's business. In my personal opinion, it'd be great to see a Hulu Basic (such as the one found on the website, w/ ads) and then Hulu Plus w/ no ads, more content

@chrisredfield31

Sony didn't have a free online model on the PS2. Sony had an ethernet port (via an adapter) on the PS2. Anything that actually happened online was done completely and 100% by the developers of whatever game was using it. You didn't have a username that worked on the PS2 (you had a separate username/account for each game, that was a part of the game developer's system, not Sony's). There was no such thing as a friends list. You couldn't download anything from Sony, no system updates, etc.

PSN was Sony's first and only online model for consoles. Saying that Sony had an online model for the PS2 is like me saying that Dell has an online model for PC games because my laptop has an ethernet port.

I think Bananaboat hit the nail on the head here. XBL not existing would have made PSN much MORE likely to be a pay service. The main reason it was free was because Sony had to offer something to make up for the stark inadequacies it had compared to XBL at launch.

Though in reality, the truth is probably that without XBL the PSN wouldn't even exist at all, even as a concept.

@BananaBoat Xbox Live you have to pay, I believe, because Microsoft houses everything on their servers, profiles, achievements, the marketplace, ect. While on the PC, you use other means. Except for steam, and Games for Windows.

Now it was only a matter of time before PSN was going to get a subscription service. Sony has lost a lot of money from the Playstation 3. It was just announced that they finally are starting to make a profit. This PSN+ is another way for them to cover their losses, and pay for their servers.

"If that makes me a sucker then give me a lollipop."

Quick, somebody make this a bumper sticker!

@Ashkental.

Wow you guys. You know if you don't want Playstation Plus and you don't want Hulu you just don't have to pay for it and it's exactly the same as before yeah?

Not a big deal, get over it. :)

@BananaBoat
So what should a company be interested in, if not money? I'm pretty sure neither Sony nor Microsoft could run their companies on fanboy-praise alone. The problem with the majority of "consumers" today is that (as contradictory as it may be), they don't want to buy anything! In the eyes of Pirate Q. Gamer, shelling out 300 bucks for their system is apparently the end of their investment. Gamers really need to grow up and realize that if they really want quality products to keep rolling out of the Big Three's doors, they're going to our help doing so. So if that means dishing out another 4 and change a month so that I can get even more out of machine that does so much already, then sign me up.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga

Holy crap I haven't seen such a tremendous stooge make this big an a$$ out of himself on Joystiq in awhile.

@Ashkental You do realize that in order to use the Netflix feature on the Xbox, you have to pay for Xbox Live Gold? Netflix on the console only became free on the PS3 and Wii. I could see Netflix making the client for the PS3 a PS+ exclusive eventually.

Alot of folks keep complaining about PS+ because it doesn't have any features you actually want to pay for. Now that they may be adding features, you're complaining that they're putting all the good features in PS+. Make up your mind!

@Vcize
"if I'm on the PC playing SC2, and my buddy is playing Counterstrike, and another is playing The Sims, and another is watching Netflix, we're completely disconnected. I have no idea they're online, even though we're all on our PC playing games (or Netflix). I can't click a button and immediately see all of us taken into the same game together."

yes you can it's called steam.

@Vcize
"If I'm on the PC playing SC2, and my buddy is playing Counterstrike, and another is playing The Sims, and another is watching Netflix, we're completely disconnected. I have no idea they're online, even though we're all on our PC playing games (or Netflix). I can't click a button and immediately see all of us taken into the same game together."

clearly you've never used steam

And Steam basically copied Live with all those features.

@SuperStition - Oh, I completely agree. That is the point I was trying to make; That there are some people that seem to think that either Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo are out to do anything other than make money, when that obviously is the only thing they care about.

I'm not condemning them for it particularly, and while you can run a business the Costco way (consumer friendly to a fault almost) and still make money, it's much easier to run a company the regular way by trying to maximize profits any way you can (usually by bleeding customers as much as they'll allow)

@Vcize

"If I'm on the PC playing SC2, and my buddy is playing Counterstrike, and another is playing The Sims, and another is watching Netflix, we're completely disconnected. I have no idea they're online, even though we're all on our PC playing games (or Netflix). I can't click a button and immediately see all of us taken into the same game together."

Steam (for the games)? MSN Messenger for the whole being online thing? Ventrillo, IRC, skype?

I'm sorry i know the point you are trying to make(withthe whole 360/PS3 thing), but using this as an example is stupid because there is more than enough free software on the PC to do what you want to do. With steam doing everything you said was good about xbox live.

And yes i know everyone you know needs that (before you counter with "but not everyone has that") but if you really are chatting with your mates (not just filling a friends list) then you will all graviate to the system that most of you are already on.

And yes, I believe steam has matchmaking capablities (MW2 uses it) but that might just be a developer own one on top of the steamworks capablities.

@The angry pro consumer gaming ga

/sigh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

@Kougeru

I went from very interested about Hulu+ on PS3 to pissed off and bitter.

@Batman Yeah, nobody plays for both Xbox Live and Netflix.

Oh. :)

@Batman The sad thing is it will work on Xbox Live. Fortunately, the XBL service is worth paying for for other reasons. Honestly, PlayStation Plus is going to have to provide better incentives than free games that I either already have or don't want and discounts on games I don't want.

@Batman
I'm not going to on PSN, but I'll probably be paying the $50/yr for Xbox Live Gold & the $10/month for this since $10 a month is a lot cheaper than the $50 a month I pay for cable.

Granted, this option won't work for everyone, but since every single show I watch is on Hulu it'd be a great option for people like me.