The bugs of Planetside are due to the game engine, as well as the reliability of the continually added content. As with the majority of software, most bug complaints stem from computer issues blamed on the software itself, however, some bugs genuinely do exist. In any other game, a patch would be released about every 6 months to address complaints and technical issues, however Planetside thus far has released a new patch about every 15 days including new content, changes recommended by customers, and bug fixes. The argument "I'm a paying customer, and I demand this be fixed" really is an issue addressed by Sony. The last two patches, spaced 7 days apart, were almost entirely devoted to customer requested fixes and changes in the game, especially addressing empire balance issues based on customer recommendations. Bugs do raise their heads, but they are addresses MUCH faster than in an offline game. Many say that the Protoss unbalanced StarCraft - this was never resolved.

Exactly what does the monthly fee cover? There is of course the cost of the massive servers themselves to create the worlds in which hundreds of people can continuously engage in massive conflicts. That aspect is not in doubt, but what other benefits does the monthly fee provide? Besides the servers and the environment, you are allowed a finite number of characters, no guarantees of a good connection, and tons of equipment that at the highest possible rank, you can use 28% of (23 possible cert points ÷ 81 points total for all possible certifications). In most first-person shooters, you can use any weapon at any time, a fact that is necessary for advancement in the game. In tactical shooters, your weapon selection is limited to a character class, but you are free to change that at any time. In Planetside, a system of certifications keeps you from using equipment you are not certified in. Becoming certified in equipment is the only static aspect of your character, besides it's name. You can only have a limited number of certification points, which you gain by advancing in rank, which only occurs by killing enemies or capturing bases.

The continual struggle to capture bases it the next pivotal point in the anti-pay argument. Planetside creates a static world, where the same 10 battle continents have the same sets of bases all of the time, and empires can keep and maintain these lands indefinitely. This is typically not the case though; so many game sessions consist of taking the same bases and continents you took yesterday, which is admittedly repetitive. This, however, is not the design or fault of Sony, as it is perfectly possible to hold as many continents as an empire wishes, as long as the empire's manpower is willing to do so, and this is something that can only be achieved of course on a game world that is always constant. Base capturing is also the foundation of the plot, as the premise of the game is planetary conquest by three feuding empires. Is this a weak plot? Yes. But, this is not an RPG, it is a first person shooter, a genre known for plots that are only as deep as necessary to justify the violence, or at least create a setting for it. Was Planetside's plot designed to frame nothing more than a setting for a war? Perhaps the plot IS the content of the game itself. Real wars have little more background, and those are defined by events such as key battles, memorable events, interactions of the soldiers, and notches on a rifle stock. Each of these things can be taken from Planetside, so the plot of the game is in a sense the user-created events in the game. Your ability to share this with other players, gain a reputation, build a group of friends to fight with, and advance alongside them is the end result of the subscribed static world.