naruball said:
Your comparison seems to have left out some very interesting fact: 1. There are better deals online for a year subscription. Check e-bay or several other online stores (I usually use cdkeys.com). 2. Who says someone needs a one year subsription every year? Some people might not play video games for three months and choose not to renew their subscription. Who says everyone will game on a ps4 for 6 years? So your math of $50 x 6 years is definitely wrong for many people. 3. Around Christmas there are many deals for cheaper psplus on the pstore. 4. There's a massive difference between a $600 ps3 and a $400 + psplus ps4. a. Inflation (2007 vs 2013) b. It gives the consumer options. If you don't play online, you can still get a ps4 for $400, while the ps3 you had no other option (apart from a $500 ps3 which was discontinued if I'm not mistaken). c. The "$400 + psplus" ps4 gives you around 72 games a year. Some for vita, some for ps3, some games that you don't wanna play to begin with, but for some people it is incredible value. Just because you see no value in it yourself, it doesn't mean that you can talk about the average consumer being "manipulated". If you factor all these things (and maybe some more that I have forgotten), your whole $600 ps3 in 2007 = or > than $400 + psplus ps4 in 2013 doesn't hold much water, now does it? |
Yes, it does. Most gamers want to game online and want to have the option to do so whenever they like. On Wii U I can play Ghosts or MarioKart online whenever I want at no extra charge. If I want the same experience on PS4 I will have to pay an extra fee. The vast majority of PS4 buyers are subscribers - Sony has been very open about this and blunt about it being how they are able to turn a profit on PS4 at $400. You aren't getting some amazing extra service for the fee that is now charged on a service that was once free - it's just a hidden extra source of revenue for Sony.
