What if, is where this all started, so not sure why you replied in the first place if you didn't want to join the what if game. You explained why PS4 wouldn't get as many users as I suggested they may, using PS3 as historical evidence, but that's not an apples to apples comparison. If PS4 sells many more consoles, it should end up with more subs, which you basically answer yourself right after.
There are what ifs that are based on market laws and historical data and there are those based on wishful thinking. And the very high numbers were closer to the second.
Just because I may not agree with your Latin tongue scientific analysis of what if, doesn't mean I'm just moving on and turning a blind eye to what's already been brought up. I just don't agree in some cases and it doesn't seem like you or I were going to budge. Some of the conversation movement was initiated by yourself.
I missed that 64M was just active users. You're correct. I can't find much other than a few posts elsewhere that say last they heard it was around 17M-18M, but those posts were a few years ago, so where it stands now is anybody's guess since MS isn't being clear about many things. If we're going to use the last known official numbers, then XB1 has sold way less units than we assume it has.
Yep I do think X1 XBL Gold may be near 20M (and that would be on a half userbase of X360)
Well you don't give anything away for cheaper than you have to at the start. You get what you can from who you can. Once you've grown a user base and have more control over the market, then you offer more options to keep growing. This would be one of the reasons to offer a cheaper package.
This is perfectly fine reasoning.
You mean if I don't stick strongly to historical evidence like you then we are unlikely to agree? Well I think it's pretty clear that I don't think the historical evidence in this case is near as useful as you think it is based on the hypothetical scenario.
Not exactly. Like when you deviate from historical evidence you need to make a strong case to defend the what if. And yes it is hard to do and be plausible or worse, probable.
You said they would have to do more work which they won't do. Getting people to pay $50 for 2-6 games, depending on the time period, along with offering them big deals on digital items, is less work then getting people to pay $25 without any games or deals? Why did they do more work then on the existing package?
Sorry not sure I understand your point here. Having to sell more things for the same dollar is more cost and work, if your point was anything else please clarify.
Again, you're not taking into account what needs to be for this to make sense. XB is in a position right now where even if they cut their Live price in half, it's highly unlikely it's going to bring in many people because of their position based on PR. Instead, they've offered new separate services and offered deals there to get people on board. The money is still coming in, just from a different service. PS could do this as well instead of Plus tiers if they wanted to. There's nothing they have to do, I just didn't offer it as a suggestion earlier.
Nope, I'm taking in account that they could offer the XBL gold for cheaper on PC and would increase their userbase as well. Similar to what they are doing on the gamepass that is just starting (when it matures the price will likely increase).
Well how much they were making off the hardware is questionable a couple years ago, and they need to make money, but like I said before, you don't offer anything for less than you can get for it based on your situation. That changes over time though and you end up forced to make it cheaper or you have to offer something else or charge more for what you already have.
Seems like you agree with me that you don't charge less unless forced to or expect that to bring more profits overall. Like if your post was on the side that perhaps charging for 40 the PSN (MP and discounts, instead of two tiers) would bring more subs to PS+ and the constant discounts on the service would generate more sales and in the end of the day more profits due to more people being tied to the service (but that wouldn't increase the revenue on subs itself).
Companies do want to maximize profit, but they can't ignore the competition. Many companies have fallen and some gone bankrupt because they took their customers for granted. It's give and take, and it's a balancing act, you just need to know what moves to make and when to move them to keep the scales even. Sometimes you have to be more generous, other times you can be more greedy.
Maximizing profits necessarily needs to do market analysis and competitors.
The prices don't have to be exactly what I said they were, but the cheaper the base price, the more people who will be influenced to join, but again, it's a balancing act. There will be a point where it doesn't matter how much cheaper you make it, people just won't flock to it unless you go all in and make it free, and so you obviously don't want to go below that tipping point. If that point is closer to $40, then that's where it needs to be, if that's the case. Is it though?
On this point I totally agree. The best pricepoint may not even be the current one, although I expect Sony to have done the right analysis to decide it, but my main gripe is the lower tier having the most relevant service that make people sign the service. If you had put 25 for the discounts (but would be hard to justify the free games with it, and perhaps it could offer free trial of MP a number of days in a year) and 50 for the MP and discount possibly I would have agreed.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"