Risk Breaker
Member
Microsoft gets more money this way. They can also say "NEW XBOX FOR ONLY $299**".
Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $15/mo XBLG sub, not $10
- Thread starter Nero3000
- Start date
Microsoft gets more money this way. They can also say "NEW XBOX FOR ONLY $299**".
that's retail price though. i know i'm not speaking for general consumers, but when is the last time you paid full price for a year of live? the deal gets exponentially worse when you take sale prices into account
u forget
-could cause inappropriate uses of 3rd party exclusives
-1.2millions of panic attack
H_Prestige
Banned
Estimated by who? Eye is not included in base SKU. Sony can sell at a loss. $399 is very likely.
SniperHunter
Banned
As someone who uses Steam and PSN a lot, the Xbox Live stuff is a complete ripoff...especially since both Steam and PSN are free and I can play any online game for free.
If Valve or Sony asked me to pay $15 a month, I would start using Origin and buy a Wii U.
If Valve or Sony asked me to pay $15 a month, I would start using Origin and buy a Wii U.
I think you're on the wrong type of forum then.
Arkage
Banned
I imagine Sony doing subbed as well if MS does. Notice how there has been no rumors of PS4 pricing, so I suspect they're waiting to see what MS does. Their sub will likely be cheaper and include free PS+ games. Imagine a $300 PS4 with a $5-10 month sub (the current price of PS+) also including a free PS4 launch game through +.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Can Crusher
Banned
What I find both hilarious and disturbing is how so many just automatically factor in that they will be paying for Gold anyway, so think it's a good deal. People are so used to paying to play online and for access to all of the apps, etc that it is just considered commonplace to do so and they do not even give a passing thought to the fact that they are paying a middle man fee for that which is free everywhere else. This model will be incredibly successful and Microsoft already knows it.
Another thing to consider is that this model will allow those who normally are of smaller means and who wait a year or two for that first price drop, to actually purchase the system soon upon release.
Could mean a large spike in software sales, peripherals and related services in that first two years, at full price, where otherwise there would be none.
Could mean a large spike in software sales, peripherals and related services in that first two years, at full price, where otherwise there would be none.
Whilst folks around here obviously don't (and for the brief period I had gold I didn't either), I do wonder what percentage of gold folks are the same. Certainly the folks paying with credit cards are all paying full price.
SniperHunter
Banned
well I already got a PSN+ 15 month membership so I should be ok for a while...but yea if Sony asked me to pay $15 just to play online games, I would bailout.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
That was my intial view as well but i honestly believe once it saturates a certain market this deal wont mean much.
all its going to do is bring in the people who would normally dive in a year or so after launch a bit earlier and people who typically have a much lower attach rate for games (COD box) Not only that, it actively discourages multiple console purchases.
Can Crusher
Banned
That's the whole trade off.
It's like you never bought anything in installments with interest. It's absolutely normal and obvious, thinking otherwise is misguided.
Well increasing the install base early on means a lot. A lot.
Say what you want about Microsoft, but it's a good business strategy.
Impeccable
Member
How will they afford that stuff?
honestly i got x360 and ps3....i never played online with the ps3 (tried sometime with gt5 but was tedious and long to find a race)
xbl well if wanst for some video app (cubovision and mediaset premium) that i use..i would never pay for it
but as pc mmorg player im used to play online....
so if they give me something like sky on demand this gen on the xbl i WOULD BE HAPPY to pay for xbl i just ask this...
Its ok because you don't really feel microsoft take 10$ out of your bank account every month anyways, plus no one actually pays full price for it in the first place.
Delusibeta
Banned
Fuck off, Microsoft.
Saint Gregory
Member
Does anyone know how the 99$+sub 360 is doing so far?
Oppo
Member
I can already do that, though. It's called a credit card.
The negative part of it is that it means the unsubsidized box will probably be on the higher end price-wise. Higher than it would have been without having this model to "rely" on.
It's weird. It's simultaneously too cheap to be advantageous to MS, and too expensive to be advantageous to customers. It's like a lesson in why microlending has such high APRs.
MightyHedgehog
Member
As well as software sales and as well as high penetration rate of online customers. This is what third parties want and if it happens earlier than the competition, it will be a huge competitive advantage over the long haul, greenlighting more platform-specific software and features, attracting more developers, and building a library and platform that attracts more customers.
Never said it was a bad strategy, just surprised how much it turns out in the long run
Your right. It's not like I don't have a contract for a phone I'm paying off now.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Its a bad cycle. People went to MS for way better online (included headset added to the sense of community greatly), so people stay with MS for the people. Sure I could go buy a PS3 and have free online, but all of my friends play games on XBL which makes PSN not a great proposition for me. Yes all things being equal PSN is fine, but MS cemented their userbase which makes it hard to switch unless all of your friends do too.
Yours?
flyinpiranha
Member
Think it's a good strategy. I would rather own it outright without a contract but all people aren't me. I think this could work for a lot of people.
It's basically just a credit card at this point with the $40 extra you end up paying. Some people can't afford $560+games right of the gate but an extra $20/year and paying off monthly isn't that hard to do.
I mean shit, are people really pissed there is AN OPTION for others? Holy fuck.
It's basically just a credit card at this point with the $40 extra you end up paying. Some people can't afford $560+games right of the gate but an extra $20/year and paying off monthly isn't that hard to do.
I mean shit, are people really pissed there is AN OPTION for others? Holy fuck.
And yet the cell phone model that works the same way is a roaring success.
Aquamarine
Member
Indeed.
What a wonderful strategy for Microsoft to force you to pay for access to basic services and basic features like multiplayer gaming.
The lack of outrage towards Microsoft's blatant anti-consumerism can be hilarious at times.
what many obviously don't understand is that these deals are not meant for people like us here in a hardcore gaming forum who scour the internet for the best deals. obviously we can find better deals than this (for example I pay 32euros for my yearly gold subscription not the 60 that ms wants officially).
most people wont though or don't bother. they just go to the store see that the new xbox can be bought for 200$ and buy it.
most people wont though or don't bother. they just go to the store see that the new xbox can be bought for 200$ and buy it.
BloodMoney
Banned
buying a console with debt to be repaid over 2 years...
It's really hard to know how this will pan out. On the one hand a cheaper price tag definitely helps, but people are wary of long term contracts. As has been said before, the fact that you can't opt out and sell/transfer the subscription will almost certainly lead to negative press as well.
That said, if MS actually increases the value of Live by offering more than they now do, I could see it being a popular option.
That said, if MS actually increases the value of Live by offering more than they now do, I could see it being a popular option.
No, its not. At its cheapest, $449 for the PS4, but Sony will probably bump to $499 for the sake of being at profitability or damn near close. They just posted another quarter of losses, they can't keep bleeding money.
Bleedorang3
Banned
This thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=514688
Edit: A quick search around the internet corroborates these numbers:
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63125
http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php/308731-PS4-BOM-(bill-of-materials)
I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings. Sony is either losing money on a $399 price point or they're pricing it at $499 and making a profit (hopefully). $449 could see them make a slight loss to a slight profit, depending on what prices they can negotiate.
NeededSleep
Member
Was just curious is all. If it comes with a 2 year warantee for the duration of the contract, that might end up being the better deal for me if I purchase the nextbox.
Ive had bad luck with launch consoles before
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Not as much as it used to. The Wii is a textbook example of that.
Maybe in previous generations because that mean exclusive 3rd party games, but honestly with publishers needing to make as much profit as possible and the internals of both consoles being so similar, I doubt there will even be as many this generation between the two.
The only other benefit is more profit for MS but once again, this isnt going to pull in people who werent going to buy the console anyway (2 years is a big commitment) and that inital profit may mean sales slow faster.
Furthermore even if is a success it means little tobanyone but microsofts bottom line. If it is a success, Sony can do the same thing at any point too.
Or they're banking on better results with a far more expensive, attractive product, as the 360 was already out for many years before they started doing contracts, and to most consumers it looked like: "$99 Xbox with contract, or $200 Xbox with no contract", which was a bad look.
But if people aren't excited to sign a contract for a video game system, this will still largely be a failure similar to the 360's contract model.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the general consensus around GAF. People here are so quick to trash Microsoft. But If you take a step back and look at it from a business prospective it's damn impressive.
I'll be most likely skipping next-gen and playing on my PC. I might dive in when I see more of Destiny though.
The Shift
Banned
Mind boggling isn't it - does the bolded include the $200 hardware subsidy or do I pay that above the $659?
Would that make Live $80/year?
MightyHedgehog
Member
Without local BC, are people gonna go for some 'free' PS1/PS2/PSP/PSV games since that's the biggest feature of PSN+?
moai
Member
This is very important. Very similar to the always online rumor threads, people were being acussed of being selfish because they were fine with online because that didn't affected them. There are many people out there that can't afford a full price console and can make use of this type of sales model.
Similar threads
- Locked