Ninja Moomin
Banned
I love the Halo Fanboy wet dream in the latest one ... that and the digs against MS in favour of Sony... its subtle.
I'm starting to think this is FUD PR being deliberately put out.
Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $15/mo XBLG sub, not $10
- Thread starter Nero3000
- Start date
I love the Halo Fanboy wet dream in the latest one ... that and the digs against MS in favour of Sony... its subtle.
I'm starting to think this is FUD PR being deliberately put out.
maximum360
Member
I agree. These pastebin rumors are going from extreme to extreme.
I feel this is exactly how Sony will frame it when they say you can't get online gaming without PS + next gen. How many gamers who have PS + but hate the idea of paying for online won't get a PS4 because of that? Probably none.
JonathanPower
Member
There's also zero evidence that Sony would sell the PS4 at a loss for 400$. The PS4 is supposed to be cheap to manufacture thanks to having AMD providing all the hardware. Durango may be more expensive due to Kinect and the eSRAM.
Bleedorang3
Banned
lol wat.
What? Where are you hearing that from?
H_Prestige
Banned
The only expensive part of the ps4 is the GDDR5, which will drop in no time.
I'm surprised people haven't learned their lesson after the Vita fiasco. "OMG ALL THAT POWAZ AND 5" OLED!1111!!! $399 HANDHELD CONFIRMED!111"
With the Xbox and Xbox 360 you only paid for one sub. It was not per console in the past.
Again, yes, MS shuts off the console if you don't pay. No, it doesn't confirm always online. It is what is done today.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56761594&highlight=#post56761594
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56776080&highlight=#post56776080
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56791732&highlight=#post56791732
Except, what you're saying is not true. Because if the fees are not paid, the console is disabled.
There have been multiple reports of people getting scammed on CL and eBay because they bought cheap "new" Xbox 360s that stopped working after about a month.
Basically, scammer signs up for the subsidized plan, pays ~$100 for Xbox 360, sells for $200 and never pays the bill. Yes, this is a negative credit hit for them, but if they're doing that much work to net ~$75-80, they're probably not too bright as it is.
If you keep said console offline, it will prompt you to go online after 30 days have passed to verify the subscription. If you don't do so, it will stop working until you do.
If you do go online and the sub has not been paid, you won't be able to play games or run apps. You'll just get a message like this:
Sorry for the low quality imgur link. I just grabbed one of the first links from Google.
And, since it's a contract, MS can only talk about it (due to debt collection laws in the US) with the person whose name is on the contract. As the secondhand buyer, you're SoL.
The "debunking" was debunked.
This is the most BS sounding pastebin yet, why do people out no effort into these things and always use implausible, all-encompassing perspectives that include high up information on both sides?Why is that written in your tone of voice? Edit: I'm adding a
Here's one I found on there by searching - posted it in the thread about the subscription last night:
http://pastebin.com/WYBaRtE3
Officerrob
Banned
The Vita required an insanely overpriced accessory which basically raised the introductory price.
Barrel Cannon
Member
Meh if I buy it ill buy it full price. People forget that its meant for people who can't afford it a launch. Its like getting a mortgage or getting a phone on contract. If you are too poor to buy a house outright or phone outright you opt for a payment plan at the expense of paying more in the end. Its the exact same thing here. Except its less of a neccesity.
H_Prestige
Banned
That's because Sony wants to make money and is grossly overcharging. The Vita itself is $250 was sold near cost.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
I hope Sony doesn't do this lame ass subscription thing.
Winterfang
Banned
I would not do this sub, but I can how it might be appealing to others.
15 bucks a month for two years is not that much of a premium to pay versus 499 plus two 60 dollar fees. The reason I wouldn't do it is because I'm already subbed a couple more years with Live Gold cards I purchased for 35 dollars. 299 a month with a 15 dollar monthly fee can be easier on the wallet long term then one big 499 payment.
If you compare this to cell phone premiums, they are asking 80 to 100 dollars a month for service. I'm a little surprised MS would offer a subscription plan with such a low premium versus buying everything outright.
15 bucks a month for two years is not that much of a premium to pay versus 499 plus two 60 dollar fees. The reason I wouldn't do it is because I'm already subbed a couple more years with Live Gold cards I purchased for 35 dollars. 299 a month with a 15 dollar monthly fee can be easier on the wallet long term then one big 499 payment.
If you compare this to cell phone premiums, they are asking 80 to 100 dollars a month for service. I'm a little surprised MS would offer a subscription plan with such a low premium versus buying everything outright.
MightyHedgehog
Member
They already started down that road with PSN+. They're going further down that road with PS4. I don't even know how anyone doesn't see that happening after their purchase of Gaikai and their focus on their future plans utilizing it at their February presentation.
Officerrob
Banned
You hope Sony wouldn't offer an option that could conceivably get more people to buy their console? That's definitely one way of thinking...
DAMN. MS dont play.
Syphon Filter
Member
the sub thing sucks, i rather just get the $499 and get it done right there.
Wow. What if you don't connect your 360 to the Internet, does it ask you to do so for validation? Or is the payment always done through the console and that's how it can tell when it should disable itself?
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I think people fear that todays option may be tomorrows requirement.
For example, the next Xbox will be $1000 and only the subscription model will be available.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
There was a LOT of chatter about this around Feb of this year when people who bought Entertainment for All systems secondhand (from eBay, CL, etc.) started getting screwed because they had no way to reach the seller.
If the system hasn't connected to Xbox Live in 30 (possibly 60) days it gives you a pop up message saying it needs to connect to verify status. It starts warning a few days out, then a few hours out, then eventually disables itself with an error message saying you need to connect.
$10 Didn't make much sense to me since it actually made the $299 Xbox the cheaper of the 2 SKU's. Even after 2 years it would be @ $540 as oppose to the 499.99 Xbox with a 2 year subscription @ about $620. This puts the cheaper SKU @ about @ $660 after 2 years and makes much more sense.
Yes, anyone with half a brain knew that the original Thurrott pricing rumor did not make any sense. In fact it made me wonder about the validity of the remaining rumors he published simultaneously...
Its the future man..if they don't do it at launch they will eventually.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
I don't think Sony will make you pay for online.
I can see some advanced features of the PS4 being behind a paywall though, like the share button (at least they may charge you to upload, I think that local saves of videos will be free). I think they will continue charging for cloud uploads, streaming, etc...but keep everything else free (online play, cross game chat, etc) similar to the Vita.
I can see some advanced features of the PS4 being behind a paywall though, like the share button (at least they may charge you to upload, I think that local saves of videos will be free). I think they will continue charging for cloud uploads, streaming, etc...but keep everything else free (online play, cross game chat, etc) similar to the Vita.
MightyHedgehog
Member
I think they will. That they have refused to confirm that online play is free for PS4, the same as PS3, with direct questioning convinces me of that. It's the changes in the new package that they're working out, in part, based on MS' announcements, so as to offer a competitive service. I expect next-gen PSN+ or similar to be analogous to XBLG as I expect next-gen Gold to evolve similarly to offer the best thing about PSN+ which is IGC. I hope that MS can manage BC, because I want to keep my digital and physical library accessible on one unit. If they can do it, I imagine that having those hundreds to thousands of releases available for them to choose from offering at the start will make their version of IGC extremely compelling.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Well, if Sony wanted to charge for online, they could have started with the Vita. It's going to be a mess if they try to charge for online for the PS4 but not the Vita.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Sony didn't confirm Vita's plans for a while either. You're reading too much into a non-committal answer.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Who seriously plays online with a portable device that relies upon wi-fi connection or more expensive 3G/4G service? There's no way to charge for online play for something so unreliable and expensive to start. A home console, however, is more or less guaranteed the best, most stable connection and a center of connectivity to media and services. Plus, unlike at the start of the generation where no one could guess that XBLG would continue to grow in popularity and be accepted by the largest console playing-group in the market, Sony now has every reason to get money back for the cost of building and maintaining their online services.
I might be, but launch year E3 is always full of surprises.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
So your argument is: "No one plays online with Vita or 3DS"?
Well, I am not an online player but I have played my share of Mario Kart 7 online and I always connect to PSN when I play Persona 4 Golden.
Also, there is just one PSN account spread across all devices. If they were going to start charging for online play, they would have done it with the Vita. It's not like there is a new Sony handheld coming out soon, Vita is the next gen handheld.
Of course, I could be wrong too.
MightyHedgehog
Member
No, my argument is that it's too unstable and inconsistent in its quality of service to expect people in North America to be happy with paying for it. In Japan, they're used to paying extra per individual software title, per month to get access to online on portables. But they've got a far more usable wireless infrastructure than NA or Europe.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I guess we'll see.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
and what about the outrage when they don't?
seems like a lot of diehard microsoft fans are hoping and expect Sony to charge, even though they have no evidence to support their beliefs.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
Live Gold looks pretty pathetic next to PSN and PS+. Maybe they are hoping Sony will shoot themselves in the foot because they know Microsoft won't change for the better.
Iced_Eagle
Member
Well, it's all speculation until Sony confirms it of course.
The evidence that is fueling these rumors:
1) Reporters asked Sony at the PS Meeting directly whether online play would be free on the PS4, and Sony wouldn't answer the question, saying they aren't ready to talk about their PSN strategy. That made me raise some eyebrows, because it sounds like they're having a change in strategy with the PS4. If MP was free, I don't see why they wouldn't have just confirmed it to lay this speculation to rest.
2) Rumors that PSN is getting replaced by Playstation World, and that most of the features Sony showed at the PS Meeting would be included with this subscription. The rumor didn't say whether online play would be included with the PSWorld subscription or not, only that most of the new features would be a part of this subscription. If Sony is relaunching PSN, this would be the time if any to have MP be a part of the subscription.
Personally, I think Sony is going to have MP as a part of their new PS World subscription. I think Sony needed to have MP be free on the PS3 to compete with the 360. Sony just did not have the same level of infrastructure that MS had set up since the original Xbox, and they were playing catch up. It does cost money to run the matchmaking servers, and surely not an insignificant amount since so many players play MP games (Call of Duty being the biggest of course). I'm assuming that Sony offers a matchmaking service to developers like MS does with XBL, but it is possible that Sony doesn't have any service like that, and leaves it up to the developers to make that themselves, in which case the costs are less.
Sony does need to find ways to make more people subscribe to PS+. If they can find a way to improve matchmaking and can justify charging for online play or find other ways to make it a good value, they are going to pursue that. MS makes tons of money with XBL, and Sony surely wants a piece of the pie. MS isn't standing by, and I expect there to be lots of big changes to Gold next-gen that can compete with what Sony is offering today, and Sony needs to be prepared and have a good answer to this, and position PS+ (or PSWorld) as something every Playstation 4 gamer would really want to, or need to subscribe to.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Seems like a lot diehard Sony fans are hoping things stay the same despite having no evidence to support it.
Every console generation, the rules have changed to suit the new environment. If MS is making tons of money on Live and its subscription rate is growing despite being inside of a longass recession, and Sony's finances aren't exactly stellar, something's going to change on all sides of a new start since they compete very directly on all fronts of the console war.
It's not wishful thinking to expect Sony to charge, only reasonable to expect in light of the evidence of their direct competition making serious headway with a plan that they need to emulate. PSN+ is really not going to have the same value on PS4 due to Sony having confirmed that there will be no local BC and streaming gaming isn't ready for primetime, even according to Yoshida and Perry. What value does Sony's only currently existing PS subscription gaming service have with just discounts on the next-gen platform? Are they really going to lean on expanded social video/picture sharing and cloud service in place of a large library of current, yet mostly older titles to offer in a revolving door selection of titles? Sony currently has no matchmaking infrastructure for third parties the way MS has built up over the last ten years. Where's the plausible scenario for a PS4 subscription service to be attractive on the same level as PSN+ is now with PS3 and PSV?
Confidence Man
Member
They'd be fools to charge for multiplayer. Sharing video and all that will probably be behind a paywall, but basic multiplayer? Why give up that point of differentiation? People choose their platform over Microsoft's based solely on the fact that there isn't a paywall that blocks you from using the software you bought in it's entirety.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
I agree with this. Does anyone expect Microsoft to do free multiplayer with the $500 non sub model Xbox?
MightyHedgehog
Member
I agree that's a point in their favor for differentiating, but it seems arguable whether it works to a great enough degree that it covers their costs of supporting what is now a much more expensive online operation. Again, I think they'd flatout confirm that part if it were still true. I mean, there's little reason to expect the MS will cede multiplayer to non-subscribers now that it's been successfully integrated into their subscription plan for over ten years now. Why not lay that bit to rest?
Caffeine
Gold Member
[/URL][/IMG]
requires moar ads
.ye they probably would deactivate the console when my 1 year wow subscription lapsed because my debit card number changed, they deactivated my diablo 3.
If both consoles charge to play online, I see a large amount of the PS3 folks not upgrading for a long while, and a good segment willing to walk away entirely- PC gaming looks a lot better when it's cheaper.
I could even see it saving the Wii U if Nintendo plays it smart.
Having other services beyond a paywall is fine, but I think many folks on the PSN side view online gaming as a core function of a console and I can't see them happily starting to pay. The biggest selling point of the PS3 this gen was the free online.
It is very hard to get someone who is used to free to start paying. Microsoft never made XBL free even with the old XBox, so they could get away with it, I don't think Sony could.
I can see Japan supporting the PS3 for at least 2-3 years easily after the PS4 comes out, so Sony won't be able to killswitch the console easily.
Thankfully I don't have to buy the consoles at launch- the game I would buy a console for won't come out for at least 2 years I think. (I may also be too broke)
I could even see it saving the Wii U if Nintendo plays it smart.
Having other services beyond a paywall is fine, but I think many folks on the PSN side view online gaming as a core function of a console and I can't see them happily starting to pay. The biggest selling point of the PS3 this gen was the free online.
It is very hard to get someone who is used to free to start paying. Microsoft never made XBL free even with the old XBox, so they could get away with it, I don't think Sony could.
I can see Japan supporting the PS3 for at least 2-3 years easily after the PS4 comes out, so Sony won't be able to killswitch the console easily.
Thankfully I don't have to buy the consoles at launch- the game I would buy a console for won't come out for at least 2 years I think. (I may also be too broke)
MightyHedgehog
Member
I don't agree with the practice of online multiplayer being locked away, but I've little choice on my preferred platform due to software I prefer, a set of consistent features I use, and social circle that has similar reasons to pay. I expect resistance but hot exclusives are the big shiny carrots that push one to pay.