First of all, I don´t think they´ll do that, Live Gold is a huge source of revenue, but if they did it while maintaining the same everything...would you say it´d be a move capable of seriously crippling the PS4?

No because obviously the Sony selling point of free online didn't cripple MS.

if it weren't for that pay wall i'd probably be an xbox fanboy.

Well, as you said, they aren't going to do that. Microsoft needs some kind of revenue to maintain their walled garden environment. I imagine their costs are a lot more than with Sony or Nintendo. They are much more likely to keep Live while emulating PS+ somewhat.

If they did move some online features to Silver, though, it would be a big move. I know that PSN being free was a major consideration for me choosing between the 360 and PS3. Carry-over gamers probably would still go with their favorite choice from this gen but it could certainly influence new gamers.

I also think Live made the 360 less attractive than the PS3 as a "second console" and that this accounts for a little of why the PS3 has sold at a higher rate this year when many people already have one or the other. Anyone buying a 360 just for Halo or Gears has to pay a premium on top of that, which is kind of a negative factor.

Ugh another PSN and XBL thread, this is only going to have arguments in it.

XBL already has more features than PSN and is respected even with a price. If it was free then their would be no reason to even compare PSN and XBL. With that said PSN will add more features in the PS4 PSN and close that gap too. However here is my predictions.

XBL will be adding the multimedia service which will be it's biggest difference. Cable, Movies, Internet, all in one. Kinect is now a keyboard, mouse, and remote in a way.

PSN will be adding PS+ as the online service and they willbe adding party chat. PSN+ will be a paid subscription next generation but at a cheaper cost than XBL.

In the end these are two totally different services. XBL has XBLA, Halo, Gears, Party chat, and so much more atm that PSN doesnt have but on the other hand things could change next generation so it is too hard to predict accurately. I stated my prediction though.

Hell yes, in some sense. It might not look like a big deal but it is. If someone with neither systems wanted to buy a new console they have to pay an extra $50 (not sure how much gold card is $60?) with Xbox including paying annually. For those who had the Xbox for years now thats a free full price retail game lost when you compare to other systems.

Xbox is doing fine now, but if they cut that off then ps will lose a small amout (which is still so many) of a user base for its system. Xboxlive is great ( i play halo so much at friends) and more people go with that if it were to be free.
Just look at 3DS and Vita. Vita's more powerful about equal game quality with each other (nintendo has advantages though). When the 3DS was $250 (before price cut) they sold about 3.2mil units (in 5 months) while vita same price had to beat that number by this holiday, almost a year (9months WW). Difference you paid more for vita because of expensive memory. If the memory was cheap or included Vita should be at 5-6mil already. I cant tell you how many people have a psp but no vita because of this.

The memory card for the Vita is the reason I didnt buy it.  The price on those things are ridiculous.  If it wasn't for that I probably would have bought the Vita at launch.

imho, if i were microsoft, id remove the paywall completely, immediately, showquarter screen commercials during multiplayer loading screens and give tiered discounts based on volume purchases. ie 1 game is full price, next game is 50% off third game is 75% off, must be purchased all at the same time.
i think profits would skyrocket.

Either that or buy two full retail games in digital format and get live free for a year.

Or, spend 100$ on digital purchases, get a free year, for every 100$ spent.

JayWood2010 said:



tbone51 said:
Hell yes, in some sense. It might not look like a big deal but it is. If someone with neither systems wanted to buy a new console they have to pay an extra $50 (not sure how much gold card is $60?) with Xbox including paying annually. For those who had the Xbox for years now thats a free full price retail game lost when you compare to other systems.

Xbox is doing fine now, but if they cut that off then ps will lose a small amout (which is still so many) of a user base for its system. Xboxlive is great ( i play halo so much at friends) and more people go with that if it were to be free.
Just look at 3DS and Vita. Vita's more powerful about equal game quality with each other (nintendo has advantages though). When the 3DS was $250 (before price cut) they sold about 3.2mil units (in 5 months) while vita same price had to beat that number by this holiday, almost a year (9months WW). Difference you paid more for vita because of expensive memory. If the memory was cheap or included Vita should be at 5-6mil already. I cant tell you how many people have a psp but no vita because of this.




The memory card for the Vita is the reason I didnt buy it.  The price on those things are ridiculous.  If it wasn't for that I probably would have bought the Vita at launch.

↓Tbone↓

This is what i mean. Certain added things that should be cheap or free make the difference.
Nintendo has always been good in certain aspects of this (not talking about online). Backward Comp., Use of any memory sd card, etc.

Anyway i think IMO, if Xbox started out with no pay plan then the ratio of ps3 between the two would be 8-10mil instead of just 2mil.
Thats a big difference which could of made up that gold card with hardware.