Support NeoGAF

[jond76]

There's a lot of people that are going to explode come E3. I don't have any info, but I just think some of you are in for surprises.

Me? I roll with the punches. I just want details on both machines. I probably won't get the PS4 because my PS3 goes unplayed now. But both of these companies have giant plans, and I want to see what they are.

 

[Shayan]

This will likely be tremendously successful against a $500 machine (assuming that's PS4's price). No one would do this against a $400 machine.

Is this a bad joke or just sarcasm?

people arent foolish these days . They would pay but for a system that is worth the price

15$ per month ..thats like 660$ for the price of a console which is also deemed to be underpowered

 

[mysteriousmage09]

If MS has a $300 SKU at launch, Sony better have one as well.

Or $400 price with no bs contract.

 

[Confidence Man]

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?

Well they're going to have more features to leverage this time, specifically the video sharing and Gaikai stuff. I think they'll put just enough behind a paywall along with all the good stuff from PS+ to make it enticing without compromising themselves.

As for why they haven't been upfront about it, I have no idea. Maybe they just have their own timeline to talk about network stuff and right now is just about hardware, controller, and overall vision.

 

[Izick]

Or $400 price with no bs contract.

That would be a nice surprise, but unlikely. I don't think we'll see either of these things go for less than 5 bills.

 

[bidguy]

Or $400 price with no bs contract.

neither of them are going to sell under 500

 

[MightyHedgehog]

neither of them are going to sell under 500

Yeah, this unfortunately seems to be pretty certain given that the current gen offerings still top out at $299.

 

[Winterfang]

Or $400 price with no bs contract.

Is 400 the price of the Wii U? I can see Sony trying to put pressure on Nintendo like they did with the Vita.

Was the Pro version of the Xbox priced at 500$?

 

[Syphon Filter]

Is 400 the price of the Wii U? I can see Sony trying to put pressure on Nintendo like they did with the Vita.

Was the Pro version of the Xbox priced at 500$?

wiiu is $350 max. The 360 pro was $400. They did release the elite for $480.

 

[Majanew]

Or $400 price with no bs contract.

People love signing contracts and paying monthly. $300 vs $400 might not be good for Sony. Especially since the $300 with 2-yr contract is going to be written out like a very sweet deal. If it's $300 vs $500, then even more so.

 

[DBT85]

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?

Your argument about PS+ not being useful for the PS4 if nothing changes seems to revolve around the launch period AND only taking the PS4 into consideration. It will likely be a subscription that spans all three consoles (as it is currently with PS3 and Vita) so maybe you'd have a couple of PS3 games, a couple of Vita games and a couple of PS4 games in the IGC. It doesn't need to be ALL about the PS4, it's about the PS family as far as Sony are concerned. They want you to have a Vita, they know that a huge swathe of people buying a PS4 in the first year will be people who already own a PS3. So the PS+ servicing all three consoles is where the value is found and the service is attractive.

In addition, it won't take long to have a collection of games on there, games like Killzone or Driveclub being part of the PS+ service 6-9 months in to the PS4 life would surely add incentive to pick the subscription up for anyone not currently subbing, they did the same on the Vita with Uncharted GA and Wipeout 2048 when Vita PS+ was started in November '12, 9 months after launch.

That's not including new games that are part of the IGC from launch, with two small examples being Velocity Ultra and Thomas Was Alone, there have been plenty more. The PS4 is sure to launch with AAA games as well as smaller titles that Sony can drop in the IGC to add value.

It will also depend on how long it takes them to get Gaikai up and running for BC of older titles.

At launch, for PS4 only benefits, PS+ in it's current form could well include:

Discounts of games (even if it is only PSN titles which you CAN'T buy in a store for less)
A couple of free titles, likely smaller ones like a Super Stardust or something.
Cloud saves
Auto patching
Exclusive access to demos/betas
Whatever new online functionality they get running for launch
Probably cross game chat

Within a year they would be adding the bigger titles and have a wider library of titles to offer and swap around.

People expected Sony to start charging for online before they came out with PS+.

I really do not expect them to start charging for online play, they could have done it on the PS3 and then again on the Vita. They didn't.

I would be interested to see the reactions if it stays the same as it is now. MS charged extra for HDDs, wifi and online play this time around against a flailing expensive PS3 that didn't. I'm not expecting a huge price difference between the PS4 and XB3, so I wonder if Microsoft will be able to justify doing any of the same (obviously not WiFi) again, or if Sony will further adopt the same policies and charge for proprietary drives and online.

I look forward to the cheering from either side when we find out.

 

[tranciful]

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.

Sony's been gaining ground on 360. They could very well attribute this, in part, to their online services value advantage. PS3 is more popular than 360 for Netflix and Sony should (and probably does) consider this sort of thing an advantage. You're only looking at part of the equation in making your assumption. You also seem to, oddly, think it's a safer bet to bet on change rather then bet on them doing what they've been doing for years and have always used as a talking point over their competition.

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?

PSN+ seems to be successful and gaining popularity (while you could argue the opposite for XBL). PS4's premium subscription won't have the benefit of a PS3 backlog, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the value on PS4 with PS4 content. After all, new subscribers don't get older PS+ content anyway -- the value to new subscribers will be very much like the value to people who subscribe today (moving forward, they get awesome value).

Overall, I just find it funny that xbox fans are so pessimistic -- to think that because their favorite console of choice screws them over in pathetic ways, other companies won't be able to help themselves and follow suite. You hear the same thing in the threads about 360 dash advertisements for McDonalds: "only a matter of time before sony does it" yet it's been years and Sony still hasn't. Pretty sad to see gamers bend over and expect to be taken advantage of like that. It is wishful thinking -- you don't want to continue looking like a sucker being taken advantage of when there's alternatives out there, so you'd look comparatively better when there's no better alternative.

"Sony currently has no matchmaking infrastructure for third parties the way MS has built up over the last ten years."

Pretty sure this is false, too.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Your argument about PS+ not being useful for the PS4 if nothing changes seems to revolve around the launch period AND only taking the PS4 into consideration. It will likely be a subscription that spans all three consoles (as it is currently with PS3 and Vita) so maybe you'd have a couple of PS3 games, a couple of Vita games and a couple of PS4 games in the IGC. It doesn't need to be ALL about the PS4, it's about the PS family as far as Sony are concerned. They want you to have a Vita, they know that a huge swathe of people buying a PS4 in the first year will be people who already own a PS3. So the PS+ servicing all three consoles is where the value is found and the service is attractive.

Well, I agree that their new service will focus across, at least, PS4 and PSV. PS3 will probably get some form of remote play or streaming, but it will be more of what's already there. Personally, Vita is non-starter, but I don't care for portable gaming, anyway. Yes, I focused on PS4 only because that's all I'm interested in hearing about when buying a new console. I expect not to go back to my PS3 very much post-PS4 launch.

In addition, it won't take long to have a collection of games on there, games like Killzone or Driveclub being part of the PS+ service 6-9 months in to the PS4 life would surely add incentive to pick the subscription up for anyone not currently subbing, they did the same on the Vita with Uncharted GA and Wipeout 2048 when Vita PS+ was started in November '12, 9 months after launch.

I think you're overestimating their willingness to put up expensive new titles so quickly when they'll suffer the same launch period drought that any new system does. All that Vita software being thrown onto Vita's PSN+ was a no-brainer since the system is still in the middle of cratering and they had to entice people to find value in a platform where there wasn't enough to compel them to buy those titles or the system before. Had Vita and those launch titles done better, there would be no way they'd be quite so generous.

That's not including new games that are part of the IGC from launch, with two small examples being Velocity Ultra and Thomas Was Alone, there have been plenty more. The PS4 is sure to launch with AAA games as well as smaller titles that Sony can drop in the IGC to add value.

Cheaper, smaller multiplatform games offered to a dying platform. It's great to have them promote interesting titles brought to their platform, but it's near-death status is really true by every single metric used to determine other platform's lifesigns. In other words, they're throwing everything at people to get them to jump and not necessarily because they'd prefer to.

It will also depend on how long it takes them to get Gaikai up and running for BC of older titles.

Right now, that doesn't seem inside of the launch period at all, given their wording in their presentation and interviews. I wouldn't count on it given the weaknesses of streaming gaming, which can appeal only to a small group with decent-enough connections, and that we're talking about games built for much less latency.

At launch, for PS4 only benefits, PS+ in it's current form could well include:

Discounts of games (even if it is only PSN titles which you CAN'T buy in a store for less)
A couple of free titles, likely smaller ones like a Super Stardust or something.
Cloud saves
Auto patching
Exclusive access to demos/betas
Whatever new online functionality they get running for launch
Probably cross game chat

Within a year they would be adding the bigger titles and have a wider library of titles to offer and swap around.

That's a pretty fair list of existing features being brought forward, but it doesn't sound as good as PSN+ is now nor do I put a lot faith in a such a short timeline to see attractive games added to next-gen IGC. I guess that this feels too far forward to have a good idea.

People expected Sony to start charging for online before they came out with PS+.

I really do not expect them to start charging for online play, they could have done it on the PS3 and then again on the Vita. They didn't.

I've already addressed this before. This doesn't say anything about the future and I believe that things change more than stay the same given the stakes of a new generation in the current climate.

I would be interested to see the reactions if it stays the same as it is now. MS charged extra for HDDs, wifi and online play this time around against a flailing expensive PS3 that didn't. I'm not expecting a huge price difference between the PS4 and XB3, so I wonder if Microsoft will be able to justify doing any of the same (obviously not WiFi) again, or if Sony will further adopt the same policies and charge for proprietary drives and online.

I look forward to the cheering from either side when we find out.

Given the high cost of proprietary Vita memory cards, the lost opportunity for making money on more critical accessories for their console this gen, and that I can't imagine MS getting any worse than they've already been yet, I do feel Sony has seen more reasons to cover their asses with more opportunities for revenue.

I look forward to being excited for both platforms since I intend to buy both.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Sony's been gaining ground on 360. They could very well attribute this, in part, to their online services value advantage. PS3 is more popular than 360 for Netflix and Sony should (and probably does) consider this sort of thing an advantage. You're only looking at part of the equation in making your assumption. You also seem to, oddly, think it's a safer bet to bet on change rather then bet on them doing what they've been doing for years and have always used as a talking point over their competition.

Of course, I'm only looking at part of the equation, since I and anyone else in this discussion cannot see more than that. I bet on change because it's the only constant and because the situation has already changed...it always does every generation. Sony's definitely doing okay with PS3 now, in terms of WW sales, but that doesn't much matter to PS4 which will be very expensive and have none of the advantages that the older system has, outside of sharing a unified online subscription service, perhaps.

PSN+ seems to be successful and gaining popularity (while you could argue the opposite for XBL). PS4's premium subscription won't have the benefit of a PS3 backlog, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the value on PS4 with PS4 content. After all, new subscribers don't get older PS+ content anyway -- the value to new subscribers will be very much like the value to people who subscribe today (moving forward, they get awesome value).

I can't argue for the opposite for XBL as it is in fact growing. PSN+, on the other hand, has no specific numbers to look at recently, so it's hard to say anything about that. Awesome value is definitely a nice thing to look forward to, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in the beginning or even in the first year. E3 should be informative.

Overall, I just find it funny that xbox fans are so pessimistic -- to think that because their favorite console of choice screws them over in pathetic ways, other companies won't be able to help themselves and follow suite. You hear the same thing in the threads about 360 dash advertisements for McDonalds: "only a matter of time before sony does it" yet it's been years and Sony still hasn't. Pretty sad to see gamers bend over and expect to be taken advantage of like that. It is wishful thinking -- you don't want to continue looking like a sucker being taken advantage of when there's alternatives out there, so you'd look comparatively better when there's no better alternative.

I buy all consoles, have a gaming PC. I have subscriptions for XBL and PSN. I'm not the average XBOX fan, and I prefer to try and douse extreme hopefulness in favor of looking at it from a more realistic perspective so that I don't suffer disappointment when these corporations give less and ask for more, as is the usual case. Doesn't make me unhappy, just pragmatic about gaming having been playing video games for over thirty years.

"Sony currently has no matchmaking infrastructure for third parties the way MS has built up over the last ten years."

Pretty sure this is false, too.

Really? I haven't read or heard shit about this for PS3. I expect that to change for PS4, but it's something that I have yet to hear about it. Starting something that complicated this gen will likely be less than ideal, though I'm not saying XBL is perfect by any stretch, it is more solid than anything I've used for what it does.

 

[tranciful]

That's a pretty fair list of existing features being brought forward, but it doesn't sounds as good as PSN+ is now nor do I put a lot faith in a such a short timeline to see attractive games added to next-gen IGC. I guess that this feels too far forward to have a good idea.

All those sound like easily day 1 (except betas/demos, but that's purely timing). How is that not as good as PS+ is today? If you subscribed today, that's basically what you get.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

All those sound like easily day 1 (except betas/demos, but that's purely timing). How is that not as good as PS+ is today? If you subscribed today, that's basically what you get.

It's not as good because the single best thing about PSN+ is IGC. I don't expect that to impress at PS4 launch. I'm all about leaving PS3 behind if I can, even despite my desire to have BC to carry forward games I still probably will want to play after this holiday season.

 

[tranciful]

Really? I haven't read or heard shit about this for PS3. I expect that to change for PS4, but it's something that I have yet to hear about it. Starting something that complicated this gen will likely be less than ideal, though I'm not saying XBL is perfect by any stretch, it is more solid than anything I've used for what it does.

Probably haven't heard about it because it's not a big deal -- it's just matchmaking (something I've done myself as a self-taught indie dev, obviously on a smaller scale). Maybe you're referring to something else?

edit: PSN still lets third parties roll their own matchmaking, of course.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Probably haven't heard about it because it's not a big deal -- it's just matchmaking (something I've done myself as a self-taught indie dev, obviously on a smaller scale). Maybe you're referring to something else?

Just setting people up against each other isn't what I'm looking for. I want smarter matchups and more reliable matching across games than I have now, even on XBL. My experience with PSN has varied so greatly between titles over the years, much more so than I've seen on XBL. Certainly, it's better than the older days of PS3 online where features and matchmaking speeds/quality were more super-flaky with GameSpy and other such poor implementation. Maybe I need to play more recent PSN stuff online, though I end up only really playing exclusives online for PS3 and almost no multiplatform titles there and end up doing all XB exclusives and multiplats on Live.

 

[tranciful]

Just setting people up against each other isn't what I'm looking for. I want smarter matchups and more reliable matching across games than I have now, even on XBL. My experience with PSN has varied so greatly between titles over the years, much more so than I've seen on XBL. Certainly, it's better than the older days of PS3 online where features and matchmaking speeds/quality were more super-flaky with GameSpy and other such poor implementation. Maybe I need to play more recent PSN stuff online, though I end up only really playing exclusives online for PS3 and almost no multiplatform titles there and end up doing all XB exclusives and multiplats on Live.

My XBL experience is limited, as I'm the opposite of you and only play 360 for their exclusives (and no longer have gold). But the last time I had gold, I was playing SFIV on both services and the differences were nil. Actually found games faster on PSN so I preferred that (mostly played on 360 to practice with my sanwa stick since I only had seimitsu for ps3). Matchmaking needs seem to be getting more and more unique to each game so I prefer PSN's open approach -- devs know their needs best, and if they don't have the resources they can fall back on Sony's default matchmaking services which have definitely gotten better over the years. Other than cross game chat (which is in Vita and PS4), I can't think of any network features that PSN hasn't already caught up with (and in some ways, like cross game text chat, I think they've got an advantage -- a text chat lobby for SFIV was SO much better than a cross game voice chat because it's less intrusive with more users). With what they've shown so far on PS4, I think the networking features of both consoles will be a lot closer at launch than they were with PS3/360 launch.

 

[RMI]

$299+($15*24)=$659

People aren't smart enough to figure this out. This thing would still sell BOATLOADS at even this ridiculous price. Sometimes I hare living on this planet.

 

[metalslimer]

There's no way Sony doesn't do a subscription model as well. If I had to guess I would say 250 contract vs 450 without one.

People aren't smart enough to figure this out. This thing would still sell BOATLOADS at even this ridiculous price. Sometimes I hare living on this planet.

Why some people just can't afford to buy things that expensive at once just like most people will not buy a 600 dollar cell phone, or the same with any furniture rental store. I do think that the asking price of 299 with a subscription is a bit much and they would do better adjusting the plan and offering it at 250.

 

[tranciful]

Going back to 'will ps4 charge for multiplayer'

How do you even expect that to work? PSVita remains free but PS4 charges? Or they start charging for PSVita multiplayer for parity? If sony planned on charging, you'd think they would have started with vita when they introduced cross game chat (another feature that is paid on XBL but free on PSN) so they could avoid an inevitable awkward situation.

 

[tranciful]

There's no way Sony doesn't do a subscription model as well. If I had to guess I would say 250 contract vs 450 without one.

I've always said Sony really needs to do the same -- having a subsidized price $100-200 cheaper would be a huge advantage. Hopefully Sony's planned ahead and is prepared to offer this.

 

[Averon]

I seriously doubt Sony will charge for multiplayer. It is only the most differentiating aspect of PSN. I don't think they want to give that up that easily. I think they'll double down on PS+ and load it up with more games, deals, and perks to entice buy-ins.

 

[Nightstick11]

Microsoft sure has been extremely innovative with strategies to rip consumers off.

 

[metalslimer]

Microsoft sure has been extremely innovative with strategies to rip consumers off.

This isn;t really an innovative strategy considering its used by many companies all over the world. A subsidized product is not supposed to cost the same as the unsubsidized product otherwise there is no incentive to buy the unsubsidized product.Whether or not people think this console will be worth it, especially since Kinect is probably a big driving point is another point.

 

[Mandoric]

I've always said Sony really needs to do the same -- having a subsidized price $100-200 cheaper would be a huge advantage. Hopefully Sony's planned ahead and is prepared to offer this.

I'm not totally sure I'd agree. The market for it on the 360 doesn't seem to be that big, and it definitely cheapens the brand--plus it means competing against rent-to-own shops that can offer $0 down. The market that's frugal enough to avoid Rent-a-Center yet still profligate enough to sign up for an installment plan on a brand-new videogame console can't be that big.

This isn;t really an innovative strategy considering its used by many companies all over the world. A subsidized product is not supposed to cost the same as the unsubsidized product otherwise there is no incentive to buy the unsubsidized product.Whether or not people think this console will be worth it, especially since Kinect is probably a big driving point is another point.

Actually, free short-term financing is pretty common when it's being done to push your product.

 

[Uno Venova]

I seriously doubt Sony will charge of multiplayer. It is only the most differentiating aspect of PSN. I don't think they want to give that up that easily. I think they'll double down on PS+ and load it up with more games, deals, and perks to entice buy-ins.

I think the same thing will happen. The predicting for Sony to charge for multiplayer has been going on for years now, and if they don't charge next gen, people will say it will happen even after the console launches.

 

[tranciful]

I seriously doubt Sony will charge of multiplayer. It is only the most differentiating aspect of PSN. I don't think they want to give that up that easily. I think they'll double down on PS+ and load it up with more games, deals, and perks to entice buy-ins.

Agreed. Sony's momentum has been in providing MORE value, not less.

 

[tranciful]

I'm not totally sure I'd agree. The market for it on the 360 doesn't seem to be that big, and it definitely cheapens the brand--plus it means competing against rent-to-own shops that can offer $0 down. The market that's frugal enough to avoid Rent-a-Center yet still profligate enough to sign up for an installment plan on a brand-new videogame console can't be that big.



Actually, free short-term financing is pretty common when it's being done to push your product.

Well I'm assuming that's not the only way to buy it -- I'm assuming it'll be an option, but they'll also offer a regular full priced version with no obligation.

 

[Mandoric]

Well I'm assuming that's not the only way to buy it -- I'm assuming it'll be an option, but they'll also offer a regular full priced version with no obligation.

Oh, of course. I just think that the market it services is small and crowded, and has the potential to damage your brand (the standard tawdry image of rent-to-own, or a few news stories about Little Timmy's video games getting taken away when Daddy leaves/gets laid off/his brother flashes his cock on Uno and gets the Live account banned)

Partnering with an existing retailer's buy now, pay later program does every single thing this can better, except for locking in two years of Live.

 

[jond76]

I dunno, MS is making lots with Live fees millions pay for. Meanwhile Sony is selling off their office buildings... Surely they see the potential revenue.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Seems like a lot diehard Sony fans are hoping things stay the same despite having no evidence to support it.

Of course they are hoping things stay the same, but they actually DO have evidence - precedence.

PS3, PSP, PSV -- all these systems had free online play.

The "rules" change every generation, but surely Sony could have already changed them for their most recent platform?

Sony's free online is a differentiating factor to get more gamers on board. In an interview Kaz said many years ago that he considers online play a "standard feature" similar to air conditioning in a car.

Sony's strategy will be to amass as large of a userbase as possible while reeling in subscriptions for PS+, one way of getting a large userbase is to not have any paywall barriers for basic functionality.

 

[Knoxcore]

Not really.

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


It's a terrible deal.

The only time I ever payed full price for a Gold membership was when Microsoft renewed my subscription. I promptly canceled it and bought a membership for $40 on Amazon a few weeks later. Given that, if this pricing structure is to be believed, the subsidized version isn't such a great deal.

 

[Minions]

The only time I ever payed full price for a Gold membership was when Microsoft renewed my subscription. I promptly canceled it and bought a membership for $40 on Amazon a few weeks later. Given that, if this pricing structure is to be believed, the subsidized version isn't such a great deal.

Subsidized is not meant to be a deal.... it is meant to lower the upfront costs and charge an extra "fee" on top of it for the trouble of them having to charge you monthly. Go check out rentacenter or other "lease to own" companies. You always pay more than upright buying the item. However you can do monthly payments which enable "lower income" (or people with little extra spending money) the opportunity to enjoy higher priced items they ordinarily would not have the option to.

If the nextbox requires live (and a subscription) to function it will be even worse than cell phone plan subsidization. At least in that case you can still do things with the phone even if you can no longer do calls.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I really think Sony are going to charge for online play next generation because Microsoft is making so much money off of XBox Live subscriptions. I hate contracts, so I doubt I will even thinking about getting locked in a contract to save some money on either console, but there are others who probably have no problem with it.

 

[Tyrax]

I really think Sony are going to charge for online play next generation because Microsoft is making so much money off of XBox Live subscriptions. I hate contracts, so I doubt I will even thinking about getting locked in a contract to save some money on either console, but there are others who probably have no problem with it.

Sony built up PSN+ for a reason, they want to lock more services behind a subscription fee

Spoiler

(background system update is behind a fee? what a joke)

but I don't think that online multiplayer will be one of them. That is their differentiator to invest in the system in the first place. You should expect every game to have online passes/fees to activate a used disk.

 

[Syphon Filter]

I really think Sony are going to charge for online play next generation because Microsoft is making so much money off of XBox Live subscriptions. I hate contracts, so I doubt I will even thinking about getting locked in a contract to save some money on either console, but there are others who probably have no problem with it.

People said the same for this gen and sony did not charge.

 

[pharmboy044]

That would be a nice surprise, but unlikely. I don't think we'll see either of these things go for less than 5 bills.

Sony absolutely will have a sku that is $399.

There's no way Sony doesn't do a subscription model as well. If I had to guess I would say 250 contract vs 450 without one.

Sony has no experience with subscriptions when it comes to Playstation so I doubt they will have one at launch.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

People said the same for this gen and sony did not charge.

You can't just drop a network wide subscription price on people mid gen. Playstation Plus was Sony testing the waters. They'll go all in with subscription based online gaming with PS4.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Actually, free short-term financing is pretty common when it's being done to push your product.

Just bought patio furniture like this.

 

[DBT85]

Sony has no experience with subscriptions when it comes to Playstation so I doubt they will have one at launch.

Why on earth would that matter?

You can't just drop a network wide subscription price on people mid gen. Playstation Plus was Sony testing the waters. They'll go all in with subscription based online gaming with PS4.

So the question of the PS3 and PS Vita remains, do they charge only for PS4 but not charge for the other two? Since the PS3 is still going to be around for at least 2 years into the PS4 life, and the Vita could be discontinued tomorrow or live on for another 7 years depending on who you listen to.

 

[eastmen]

IF this counts for the family plan then Its a no brainer for me .


The only way to get the family plan that I know of is through ms at $100. I do this because there are 4 of us on it and so we split $100/4 = $25 a person.

They keep saying the $15 is for family. So if I get 4 slots it would work out as


$700 for the $500 console over 2 years or $390 for me to get the new xbox with the contract.

 

[eastmen]

Why on earth would that matter?



So the question of the PS3 and PS Vita remains, do they charge only for PS4 but not charge for the other two? Since the PS3 is still going to be around for at least 2 years into the PS4 life, and the Vita could be discontinued tomorrow or live on for another 7 years depending on who you listen to.

My guess is they pull a pay wall on the vita . Remote play with the ps3 is free but remote play with the ps4 is only avalible with the subscription.

Sony could also put the sharing feature they have been talking about behind the pay wall .

 

[GavinGT]

IF this counts for the family plan then Its a no brainer for me .


The only way to get the family plan that I know of is through ms at $100. I do this because there are 4 of us on it and so we split $100/4 = $25 a person.

They keep saying the $15 is for family. So if I get 4 slots it would work out as


$700 for the $500 console over 2 years or $390 for me to get the new xbox with the contract.

Tom Warren, another well-known Microsoft blogger, said this like a week ago:

So you might not have to get the subsidized model to get a cheap family plan.

 

[El_Chino]

Tom Warren, another well-known Microsoft blogger, said this like a week ago:

So you might not have to get the subsidized model to get a cheap family plan.

Exactly why I don't think the subscription is AS horrible people are making it.

 

[0xCA2]

Sony will probably handwave the fact that PSN is free on PS3/Vita by simply rolling online up into a bunch of services that you can't get on those platforms. Wouldn't be surprised if free online persisted on PS4 in some way, but in an incredibly gimped and unappealing form; maybe even limiting how much you can play online, for example. That way they can still advertise their console as having free online and still nab some goodwill with that.

 

[Baconsammy]

Tom Warren, another well-known Microsoft blogger, said this like a week ago:


So you might not have to get the subsidized model to get a cheap family plan.

In my opinion, just making it so an entire family can share an account isn't good enough anymore. The next XBL subscription fee has to offer a lot more. I don't care if it's movies/tv etc, it just needs to have more of a value-add than it currently does. Rumors have hinted at XBL next gen being different. I hope this isn't what they were referring to. I'd only classify this as a good first step.

 

[Izick]

Sony absolutely will have a sku that is $399.

I wouldn't count on that. It would be nice, but it's definitely not likely. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[Ol No Bones]

Microsoft sure has been extremely innovative with strategies to rip consumers off.

It's just another option. You can still buy the device like you always would. It's not that hard to understand.