Lady Deathstrike
Banned
But then you have to factor people who bought a PS3 because the online was free.
Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $15/mo XBLG sub, not $10
- Thread starter Nero3000
- Start date
But then you have to factor people who bought a PS3 because the online was free.
So do that?
The whole PS+ system is great though
I dont currently own a vita but i can still download vita games and have them ready for when i do get a vita
Str0ngStyle
Member
Is there a precedent for this? Cause I made out like a bandit during the early years of the 360 cause my Toys R Us was closing and I bought all the OG Xbox Live starter kits with a 1 yr membership for $5 each
Sexually Aggressive Uncle
Member
It's still 15$, the same as a subsidized 360. Not really sure why you're getting bent out of shape about this. Time to move on.
BRocknRolla
Member
This has nothing to do with "poor vs. rich." It has to do with immediate gratification and higher cost vs. delayed gratification and lower cost. No one, rich or poor, needs to buy an Xbox. If you can afford an xbox at $300, you can likewise afford to wait and save to buy the cheaper system. No one is calling poor people stupid. It's trashy to suggest that.
This is patently nonsensical. Who is saying, "Get a better job?" That would obviously be dickish and elitist, and I don't see anyone making that argument.
If someone doesn't have $500 now, but has $300, that doesn't mean they can't save up that extra $200. If they have $15 a month to budget on entertainment for videogames to pay for a subscription, it will take them about a year to save up the extra, and they'll end up paying less long term. It's not about being rich or poor, it's about saving your money.
No one has to buy a console when it launches. These are luxury items and we should pay only what we can afford for them. If money is a concern, you go with the one that ends up costing you less, even if it means you have to wait a year, because that is the financially responsible thing to do.
But then again, maybe I'm just a spoiled kid or misinformed adult.
Iced_Eagle
Member
The same thing that would happen if you don't pay your cell phone bill, they shut off your service. The 360 subscription version does this today as well I believe.
It's actually a bit weird that some people are viewing this as a negative... They aren't getting rid of buying the console outright, so if you have the money and don't want to have a subscription, you have that flexibility and can just buy the console outright. Nothing changes there. If you'd rather pay less up front and just do a monthly fee, there's a great option. The fact that you pay an extra $40 over 2 years is fairly inconsequential to me. You're getting a good deal by paying less up front, which is perfect so you have additional money to buy more games or more controllers for friends. If you were to buy the full priced console using a credit card, you're also going to end up paying more than someone who paid cash due to interest payments.
I'm on the fence on whether I'd want to do the subscription deal myself. On one hand, I would love to be able to save $200 (assuming the normal cost is $500) and then use that extra money to buy a few extra controllers and games. I also know that I'm going to have this console for 2 years, and it will probably be my primary console (getting PS4 only for the exclusives, unless there's a third-party game which is unbelievably better on the PS4 than the Durango). I also know that I'm going to continue to subscribe to Gold (I've been a subscriber since the 360 launched). On the other hand though, I do have the funds to just buy the console outright, so if I ever needed to sell it in a pinch, I have that option. It would also give me a few extra dollars each month since I took the initial hit when I bought the thing. Definitely need to hear some info straight from the horses mouth to see which would be the better deal. If they made the price even lower at let's say 199 plus the 2 year subscription, I'd be all over that. That would be a ton of savings at the time of purchase that I could use to get more games and 3 additional controllers (assuming the box just comes with one controller).
I doubt many people would give it up. Microsoft got away with it for 7 years so clearly a bunch of folk are already used to it.
Personally provided PS+ stays at least as it is right now, then my subscription will not be ending any time soon. If that means that it includes online play then great, no extra spending that I wasn't already choosing to pay for for other reasons.
It's certainly a possibility, but I imagine the profitability of both consoles has already calculated incomes from subscriptions so plans could well already be set.
Sony could have changed it with the PS3 if they had wanted to, they could have left any existing accounts with free online and then charged for anyone with a new PSN account after a certain date. They could have changed it with the Vita. They left it as it was and they seem to be getting a lot of subs from PS+ though we don't know the numbers.
Microsoft are not typically very reactionary. They have a plan and they stick to that plan for better or for worse. If Microsoft currently plan for Pay Online and Sony announce it as free, I'd expect Microsoft to carry on charging since they had already decided to do it.
We'll never know of course, unless one charges for online and one doesn't. We also don't know who will announce details first.
Back on topic, I would be incredibly surprised if Sony doesn't also have a subscription model available, giving out PS+ to counter XBL.
SteveWinwood
Member
I still don't understand the people who pay for xbox live so hey whatever, buy your layaway consoles if you want.
GetemMa
Member
I just don't find 300 to be all that subsidized.
When those two years are up you have paid 660 dollar for that console before tax.
If it were 199 with the 2 year /15 a month contract then I might partially see the advantage.
That said, there is no way this can be done without DRM, so it is a non-starter for early adoption on my part.
I honestly don't think the masses are going to fall for this the way MS thinks they will. People are not all complete and total morons. Maybe half, but they can still figure these numbers out even if it is in the aisle of the store with the calculators on their phones. If Sony comes in below 500 with no pay wall, then I see a lot of people walking out of that aisle with a PS4.
When those two years are up you have paid 660 dollar for that console before tax.
If it were 199 with the 2 year /15 a month contract then I might partially see the advantage.
That said, there is no way this can be done without DRM, so it is a non-starter for early adoption on my part.
I honestly don't think the masses are going to fall for this the way MS thinks they will. People are not all complete and total morons. Maybe half, but they can still figure these numbers out even if it is in the aisle of the store with the calculators on their phones. If Sony comes in below 500 with no pay wall, then I see a lot of people walking out of that aisle with a PS4.
Unknown One
Member
Sony will get roasted alive if they charge for online play. I'll be there roast on them every chance.
So then charging for online multiplayer system-wide is fine as long as you get other benefits with the subscription?
MightyHedgehog
Member
Hardware has been subsidized for decades and you're paying more per software release to cover that upfront loss. Razors and blades.
hence the always online rumour.
Dreamgazer
Member
I'll bring starter fuel.
The next time you go out and buy a new Cell Phone, please do let me know if you feel stupid.
No, charging for online multiplayer is a douche move, there is no question of that.
But if online play was put behind the PS+ pay wall, a pay wall I already subscribed to because of the multitude of other benefits, then I'd get a PS4 and carry on my subscription because for me, nothing actually changed. Obviously that isn't the same for the millions of folks who don't already have a PS+ sub.
For me, XBL never offered enough on top of online play to seem like good value for money. I never owned an Xbox as a result.
As I said before, I really doubt Sony will charge for online play. But I can see crass game talk being behind a wall.
SteveWinwood
Member
So actual phone service is now not the point of the phone? Oh okay.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I was.
fi3rypho3nix
Banned
So the version of Xbox Live coming out (that we know nothing about) is not an actual service?
Unknown One
Member
Nah you gotta bring in the tanks my old bfbc2 comrade.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
There will be some brushback but considering how good of a reputation PS+ has now its not going to be that bad. Really easy to justify paying $4 a month for a PS+ service especially compared to a XBL Gold. Especially if a bunch of consumers are paying $15 a month for XBL.
Sexually Aggressive Uncle
Member
You mean with those cell phone doohickeys that people carry around nowadays? The ones that are subsidized just like this darn xbocks? Man if they could only have calculated the savings before agreeing to buy into that contract with their service provider for their phone. Don't those idiots know that they could've just bought the phone at 800 bucks instead of 300? Those morons!!
We need to shout to those fools that they could save 40 dollars over a two year period if they would buy the $500 system.
40 dollars!!!!!! In two years!!!
Do these people not understand how much money that is?? You could buy lunch with that!
Idiots!
I agree, but in his particular case its just more obvious. I just really dread this becoming the norm. What are your thoughts on this?
meh, people defending Sony theoretically going pay-to-play multiplayer are being apologists (or are fine with XBL Gold as it is). Me personally... I subscribe to PS Plus and would STILL find it a dick move to put multi-player behind a pay wall.
Simple network connectivity and trivial services should be free. End of story. Apps (i.e. netflix, hulu, youtube), and online gaming (including friends, basic framework, etc) should all be free with the purchase of the hardware.
Now ANYTHING additional... Game streaming.. Gameplay video uploads.. Cloud Saves.. Cable box remote control, whatever... Fine hide that stuff behind a pay wall. But if I can't access ALL FEATURES of a non-subscription game (i.e. MMO) without paying the console manufacturer an ADDITIONAL monthly subscription... that's bullshit.
Why do I have to pay MS $4/month to watch Netflix who I already pay $8/month?
It's why I bailed out of the 360 this gen 4 years ago (you can check... camel75slayer gamertag) and why I have no interest in the next xbox. IF Sony actually pulls the same thing with PS4... I will probably go exclusive to the PC... I only say probably because it's tough to shake a stick at 1st and 2nd party Sony..... grr...
Simple network connectivity and trivial services should be free. End of story. Apps (i.e. netflix, hulu, youtube), and online gaming (including friends, basic framework, etc) should all be free with the purchase of the hardware.
Now ANYTHING additional... Game streaming.. Gameplay video uploads.. Cloud Saves.. Cable box remote control, whatever... Fine hide that stuff behind a pay wall. But if I can't access ALL FEATURES of a non-subscription game (i.e. MMO) without paying the console manufacturer an ADDITIONAL monthly subscription... that's bullshit.
Why do I have to pay MS $4/month to watch Netflix who I already pay $8/month?
It's why I bailed out of the 360 this gen 4 years ago (you can check... camel75slayer gamertag) and why I have no interest in the next xbox. IF Sony actually pulls the same thing with PS4... I will probably go exclusive to the PC... I only say probably because it's tough to shake a stick at 1st and 2nd party Sony..... grr...
SteveWinwood
Member
How did I say that?
Do you believe that xbox live is the point of buying an xbox?
I believe getting phone service is the point of having my phone. That's why I own it. I'm sure most people are the same.
I'm sure for some people playing online with their friends is the entire point of buying an xbox, but I would believe there are plenty who don't.
Killing_Joke
Member
I don't think anyone is against subsidized options. We just want good pricing and this is shitty pricing. Never thought MS would go with a $499 SKU.
statham
Member
*looks at current $99 subsidized deal.......
SirIgbyCeaser
Banned
The subscription model would guarantee console exclusivity for many people.
The mentally that i'm paying for this service and I might as well use it fully will be armstrong with users.
Meaning no more of owning both 360 and PS3 type gamer in the future.
The mentally that i'm paying for this service and I might as well use it fully will be armstrong with users.
Meaning no more of owning both 360 and PS3 type gamer in the future.
Why exactly is this shitty pricing?
You're paying 40$ more in the end, and you basically get XBL Gold included that whole time.
If you don't let your sub expire and just re up it's only $45 and that's without a deal.
statham
Member
and what did you see?
Sexually Aggressive Uncle
Member
Meh. I'm still getting both.
No. Any Xbox can be subsidized.
A short overview of the process:
1) Get credit approval from MS.
2) Bring printout to store.
3) Sign contract.
4) Store rings up Xbox 360, scans serial.
5) Store sells Xbox with subsidy discount.
statham
Member
no drm
BRocknRolla
Member
Exactly! Sounds great to me!
That would be a much tougher business argument I imagine, but who knows, if the subsidized model was equivalently priced, it might drive early adoption and additional time invested in Live, even if it means MS has to wait for the console to be paid off over a longer period. That's a pretty ethereal argument to a room of suits I imagine, but I think it makes some sense.
fi3rypho3nix
Banned
Yes, it certainly was with the original Xbox and early on in the 360. It was a major selling point and can continue to do so. Just because their early innovation has been met by competitors does not mean they could not continue to innovate. I love my other consoles, but Live was innovation, just more so years ago.
GetemMa
Member
Two years of PS4 with no pay wall = $500 (at most)
Two years of Xbox = $660
$160 difference. Not $40. I don't know how you managed to come up with that number.
With smart phones, people have almost no choice but the subscription model and I would assume nobody wants to buy a phone without a service plan. With consoles they do. I'm sorry my point was so hard to grasp for you.
The rest of your post is incoherent babble.
MightyHedgehog
Member
How is this different than using a credit card or taking out a loan? I keep asking this question and no one answers because it's not. Sure, the numbers work out different (because you get different things), but the concept is the very same, which is to pay a little more to have something now. It's also an option someone has to qualify for with a credit check. The most important part, though, is that it's an option, and not a requirement. Why people cannot grasp some simple facts about how things are sold and how they've likely received gifts via this payment method, I have no idea. This is nothing to dread.
statham
Member
I believe whatever gold you have left will be added to the end on the contract.
and this affects the next xbox how?
Yeah, that is most likely what they will do.