Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $15/mo XBLG sub, not $10

Don't forget how Sony tactfully dodged the question of free online play for PS4:

Microsoft would be roasted alive on this board if they displayed that level of double talk. Sony fans gloss right over it.

Either they'er both going to be pay-to-play this gen, or they're both going to be free-to -play. It seems that Sony is just waiting for Microsoft to announce their plans before they decide.
 
Dude, it's not about whether or not the option is financially beneficial to the consumer, it's about what looks immediately more appealing at the point of sale. What you're saying makes complete sense, and if the majority of people in this country thought that way the world would be a better place (although our economy would probably be worse than it is now), but business and advertising is psychological.

My original post was challenging the notion that there was some kind of cost savings, or that you're some kind of rich elitist to argue the $300 with sub wasn't a good consumer option. That's why I was focussing on the economics, to disprove that argument.

It sounds like you and I are in fact in total agreement. From an advertising point of view, I think MS is making a great call. This sort of thing will definitely see consoles sold.
 
I will be going PS4 next generation. While the 360 was great, paying $60 a year for XBL is a waste of money. Why pay $60 when the PS4 will (I HOPE) have free online play and not to mention a host of other utilities that do not require a subscription of any kind. Hell the PS3 has had it.

It was a fun ride Microsoft, going Sony this gen.


Well I hope.

I was editing my statement, was hoping no one would quote it in time. :p
 
I will be going PS4 next generation. While the 360 was great, paying $60 a year for XBL is a waste of money. Why pay $60 when the PS4 will have free online play and usage. Hell the PS3 has had it.

It was a fun ride Microsoft, going Sony this gen.

It will?
 
im sure that at sce they would never again replicate the ps3 gen....

In terms of pricing? No. In terms of exotic hardware and a lackluster launch lineup? No. Sony has already shown us they can rectify these errors with the PS4. E3 will just take that even further.
 
Microsoft would be roasted alive on this board if they displayed that level of double talk. Sony fans gloss right over it.

I think it's more that Microsoft have a history of charging for it while Sony don't.

Pretty much everyone here I think expects online play, the key component of online, to be free on the PS4, like it was on the PS3 and the Vita. I also think most expect Microsoft to continue charging for it.

So stuff like the share feature, which has a button on the controller, might be behind a pay wall?

I don't expect the share feature to be behind a pay wall, but I do expect everything that is currently in PS+ (auto downloads patches, firmwares, uploads saves, cloud saving) to stay behind a pay wall, and possibly add in things like cross game chat.
 
Or Sony literally wasn't set on their plans yet when they showed the system (or rather didn't show).



Most believe that basic online will remain free but new services announced will be behind a pay wall. It's all speculation right now.

So stuff like the share feature, which has a button on the controller, might be behind a pay wall?
 
Not really.

Xbox 720 Subsidized: $299 + $15 * 24 = $659
Xbox 720 Unsubsidized: $499 + $60 * 2 = $620


It's a terrible deal.

lol

40 bucks..... How awful!

I think if a $40 difference over the span of two years is too much for some people around here then you're obviously in the wrong hobby. Time for some life assessment.
 

Online multiplayer is a free service, EVERY other platform except for the xbox has free online multiplayer

MS has somehow convinced people online multiplayer isn't supposed to be free

I will eat my disgusting hat if sony charge for online multiplayer
 
I hear this a lot on GAF and it's usually from people who you can tell were never going to consider a next gen Xbox in any case.

PS4:
Always Online - Publisher discretion
No Used Games - Publisher discretion
Backwards Compatibility - Please understand, we have none
Gaikai - Coming* Soon™ after launch, please believe it will work
Entertainment Focus - Please believe our PR that we have no focus on entertainment
Multiple PS+ Tiers - We refuse to talk about it so you'll believe it doesn't exist for as long as possible

Don't forget how Sony tactfully dodged the question of free online play for PS4:

Wrap it up folks. We've effectively moved past the discussion of subsidized consoles and right back into console wars. It was fun while it lasted.
 
Online multiplayer is a free service, EVERY other platform except for the xbox has free online multiplayer

MS has somehow convinced people online multiplayer isn't supposed to be free

I will eat my disgusting hat if sony charge for online multiplayer

Quoted for potential entertainment after E3.
 
I was wondering why people in this thread weren't understanding the difference it makes for some consumers to be able to pay for things monthly, but I think it's simply because it's a

poor vs. rich issue.

Poor people aren't stupid, you're obviously saving money by purchasing the console at full price, but that's not the point! Point is that some people can't afford to dish out 500 dollars all at once. Hell, that's basically what I make per paycheck, and don't begin with the 'get a better job' nonsense, because that's not as easy and some people think it is, and it doesn't matter if you're a spoiled kid, or a rich adult, the fact is that jobs with high income aren't all that available for everyone.

So for some people, it will be a lot easier to drop 300 dollars, and then pay 15 dollars a month thereafter. It's not because they are stupid, or what ever you may have though, it is just a more affordable solution, especially if you have a large family that requires a huge part of your income to sustain.

If you don't 'get it.' You're probably just a spoiled kid, or a misinformed adult, and I mean these things in the nicest way possible, gaf.
 
So stuff like the share feature, which has a button on the controller, might be behind a pay wall?
That is their conundrum. But with the infrastructure necessary for that, it almost certainly will be. You might get a gimped version or a trial. But they have to convey their new features without isolating customers.
 
Wrap it up folks. We've effectively moved past the discussion of subsidized consoles and right back into console wars. It was fun while it lasted.

This thread has been more about "LOL Microsoft" than subsidized consoles. It's hilarious that you would point to those posts as the start of the console wars in this thread.
 
If Sony charges for multiplayer...I wonder what people would still stick by what they said about not buying a console that charges for it? I'm sure some mental gymnastics would be going on for sure.

Anyway, I still think this subsidization thing is fine for people who don't have the means to pay it all up front. Paying an extra 40$ while getting Live as well seems like a fine model.
 
I don't follow Xbox stuff too closely but can someone explain something to me.

299 + 24 * 15 = 659
499 + 24 * 10 (normal live) = 739

Does not compute.

Either way a subsidised model is a great idea. It will look cheap and if they get TV services etc with it too that could be compelling and make the competition look worse at first glance no?
 
If Sony charges for multiplayer...I wonder what people would still stick by what they said about not buying a console that charges for it? I'm sure some mental gymnastics would be going on for sure.

I wouldn't buy it. I'd have no problem buying a WiiU or jumping into PC gaming.
 
I think it's more that Microsoft have a history of charging for it while Sony don't.

Pretty much everyone here I think expects online play, the key component of online, to be free on the PS4, like it was on the PS3 and the Vita. I also think most expect Microsoft to continue charging for it.

I (respectfully) disagree. From what I'm seeing it seems like a nuclear standoff. If Microsoft announces Xbox Live Silver has free-to-play multiplayer and networked services (Netflix) Sony remains the same, adds ancillary features behind PS+ paywall.

If Microsoft announces Xbox Live Gold remains the only way to access free-to-play multiplayer (there's 0% chance Netflix remains behind a paywall) then Sony does the same. Otherwise, they're leaving money on the table that probably won't be made up from extra hardware sales to the the hardcore who know the differences.
 
An option in which consumers are given another choice as to how the they can purchase something shouldn't need to be defended, but this is GAF
Yes. An option that went from $10 to $15.

Next up "Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $20/mo XBLG sub, not $15"

It's not a bad deal!
More options!
Yay!
 
I don't follow Xbox stuff too closely but can someone explain something to me.

299 + 24 * 15 = 659
499 + 24 * 10 (normal live) = 739

Does not compute.

$10/month is the monthly rate. The yearly rate is $60, but even then it's $40 if you go to somewhere like Amazon.
 
If they were to charge for it i think they would wrap it with all the PS+ content into 1 package

I would still be surprised if they done that though

So that makes it right now? They can charge for multiplayer as long as the regular PS+ stuff persists?
 
Yes. An option that went from $10 to $15.

Next up "Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $20/mo XBLG sub, not $15"

It's not a bad deal!
More options!
Yay!

What? If you go subsidize a 360 RIGHT NOW it's $15, there has been no increase
 
I don't follow Xbox stuff too closely but can someone explain something to me.

299 + 24 * 15 = 659
499 + 24 * 10 (normal live) = 739

Does not compute.

Either way a subsidised model is a great idea. It will look cheap and if they get TV services etc with it too that could be compelling and make the competition look worse at first glance no?

Your forced on a contract, if your paying monthly for live your doing it wrong, you can get hella cheap live cards way cheaper than 10 a month.
 
So that makes it right now? They can charge for multiplayer as long as the regular PS+ stuff persists?

Surely getting free full games would make the charge to play online easier to swallow, rather than current live of purely paying for online play?.
 
Surely getting free full games would make the charge to play online easier to swallow, rather than current live of purely paying for online play?.

So charging for online multiplayer is fine? I mean no matter what they bundle with it, the act of charging for multiplayer is fine as long as it has other features included?

This is really blowing my mind. It hasn't even happened yet!
 
I am not a fan of long term contracts for television, gym memberships, or anything else for that matter. Not making a judgement on the next machine, but if this is one of the buying options, I now have one less choice to make come launch.
 
I fully expect people to start making big lists saying "TRUE COST OF 720" lists soon. With "soul" and "You're a fool for paying for somethign that should be free".

Because gaming is purely an artistic pursuit, not a business. Right guys?
 
So that makes it right now? They can charge for multiplayer as long as the regular PS+ stuff persists?

I wouldnt exactly agree with it but it would make no difference to me as i will be subscribing to PS+ anyway

If they were to block netflix to non PS+ subscribers then that would be something different and completely wrong
 
Okay, so what are people going to say if Sony charges for multiplayer and Microsoft offers a comparative service, where Gold nets you free games as well like PS+?

I wouldnt exactly agree with it but it would make no difference to me as i will be subscribing to PS+ anyway

If they were to block netflix to non PS+ subscribers then that would be something different and completely wrong

You were just about to eat your hat a half hour ago about this though. How can you change your complete outlook on all of this within a half of an hour?
 
I really cant see sony charging for online

We are talking about the same company that only charge once for PS+ even though it is on 2 systems
 
He was wrong and people with half a brain who did the math when that previous info came out said $10 didn't work
It's now easy to say he was wrong. I'm assuming you were among the brilliant people with more than half a brain to have pointed out his error back then.
 
They do that to encourage Vita purchases because that system is basically dead

And PSN was probably only free in the first place to calm people's nerves after hearing "$599". If they could go back and change that they absolutely would. They might be $1-2 billion less in the hole from PS3.
 
MSRP for Live Gold is $60 per year, not $50.



Right now the only ones who charge for online gaming is Microsoft and then only on the Xbox. Pretty sure that crappy service GFWL doesn't charge, Steam doesn't charge, Origin doesn't charge, Nintendo doesn't charge and neither does Sony.

I would say "should be free" makes perfect sense. In fact, it is my opinion that Microsoft KNOWS it should be free and that is why they keep adding service and apps to Gold, to increase it's value.

Thanks for the correction, I remembered incorrectly, but that does make the the $499 even more unattractive. Yes you are paying $40 more at the end of the two years, but not having to shell out near as much initially does not make that a bad proposition. Usually paying for something all upfront gives you a better (or more significant) deal

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
 
Okay, so what are people going to say if Sony charges for multiplayer and Microsoft offers a comparative service, where Gold nets you free games as well like PS+?

Paying for basic online sucks..period. You will hear a LOT of people complaining about it if Sony goes that route. Sadly given how MS can get away with it and make so much money I wouldn't be surprised if Sony does something similar. Sure hope not cuz as consumers it's not good for anyone
 
Screw subscription model consoles. I just want to pay for the product without extra fees, just like every other generation before this one (Wii U/PS4/Xbox ???).
 
Thanks for the correction, I remembered incorrectly, but that does make the the $499 even more unattractive. Yes you are paying $40 more at the end of the two years, but not having to shell out near as much initially does not make that a bad proposition. Usually paying for something all upfront gives you a better (or more significant) deal

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

It becomes more significant if you're a deal hunter and get live cheap (or don't want live at all). Not as significant as XBL itself, which is $60 upfront for a year or $10 a month which works out to twice as much. That's a much bigger ripoff than the console plan
 
Top Bottom