By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

You can be profitable by valuing the consumers and coaxing them to pay you rather than forcing them to pay you. XBL vs PS+ is a fundamental example. PS+ gives you free games that are accessible with the service, the more games you have the more incentive you have to subscribe, similar to the gamerscore with XBl. Now PS+ requires payment for multiplayer to make the service more valuable by taking value away from the console. Its a shitty practice, but XBL has this problem in spades. Rather than just multiplayer, practically the entire feature set of the console requires XBL, stealing value away from the console to make itself look like a premium service, but of course it should have ads because MS is bleeding money from every oriffice.

Leave you conjecture at the door, the only reason you think all companies act like this is because Microsoft Xbox has indoctirnated you.

What example are you talking about.  You were vague to begin with so why don't you make that part a little more clear.  Also what wild claims am I making.  The claim that Sony, MS and Nintendo are a business and they make decisions based on business not some type of customer love which is what you are stating.  You talk about changes Sony has made during the PS4 era but forget about the policies during the PS3, PS2 and PS1.

What has changed Sony has nothing to do with valuing the customer and all about competition.  With no competition, Sony only tries to keep their marketshare and dominance.  With competition, they have to win customers from competitiors which is why you would see more consumer related practices from all of the OEMs

@Bolded, I totally agree with that line.  The thing is, you only see companies doing that when they are at the bottom not at the top.  This is one reason why new companies in an established business have a better chance

@2nd Bolded:  This part here shows exactly how much you do not understand about business. For some reason you believe that PS+ and the rental service was something Sony did because they wanted to add value for customers.  This is flawed logic.  Sony came up with the rental service because they needed something that XBL their biggest competitor in that space did not provide.  Sony was willing to eat the cost for profits by offering such a service to gain more subs.  Sony needed something that customers could easily see value in without worrying about their spotted networking past.  Withou XBL, you would not have PS+ in the form that it is now if Sony did not have any competition.

Why is Sony putting MP within PS+ when they did not do it for the PS3.  Reason is because PS+ is a cost and not a profit.  In order to make the service pay for itself, Sony need more people to subscribe.  Those rentals are not cheap since Sony has to pay for that exclusive window for downloading the game.  Throwing MP in the pot ensures getting more subs just like it does for MS XBL.  

Most companies when they are in a position of weakness will do loss leader type of deals.  These deals are great for consumers but bad for the business to try to substain long term.  PS+ is a prime example.  First iteration of it was a solid plan that probably was and still is a loss leader.  Sony is probably paying more for delivering the serivice then they have in subs to pay for it.  Force MP on the PS4 ensures you get more subs because a lot of the games coming out have a MP component.





In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank