Nowadays, the console manufacturers are focusing more and more attention on getting people paying subscriptions services for their systems. By offering free games, special discounts, making online multiplayer exclusive (shame on you) to the subscribed... Letting Nintendo consoles aside, because they don't have any subscription service (yet), it seems that both Sony and Microsoft (specially MS) want to push subscriptions as much as they possibly can.

For those services to be profitable to the companies, they need as many people as they can to get the consoles, because without console, there's no service. I'm sure a this source of income is a bigger and bigger part of the income they get from consoles. So here's a question: If this two companies wanted to push their subscription services as much and as aggressively as they possibly can, how cheap could they sell their systems? Would they take losses as long as people paid subscriptions later, or would they preffer a safer strategy?

They could give them out for free.

TV companies (Cable/Sky) have 2 main revenue sources advertising between TV programmes and the subscription charges for consumers to use their services. Generally in the UK the TV boxes (like Virgin's Tivo or Sky Plus) are free when you subscriber but you have a minimum contract, say a year, before you can change.

Now sure what you get isn't quite the same as TV companies, there aren't adverts between playing games however, if Sony, MS or Nintendo ever moved to a fully subscription model, you'd theoretically get the consoles for nothing but you'd pay more for the subscriptions.

So instead of £40 a year for PS+ only then £300 for the console once, you'd pay say £20 a month for 2 years PS+ and the console. For the consumer, you pay only £20 upfront so better for those who have trouble saving but in the end the cost to Sony is £480 instead of £380 over the 2 years. Although, I don't think their infrastructure is set up the same as Virgin or Sky, they don't have people in shopping centre's trying to flog you the subscriptions.




... this what you mean?

My question is more in the lines of: how far would they go to push subscriptions? Would they go out of their way to get the system in as many houses as they can to get people to subscribe (hardware losses today, subscription income for a decade), or would they prefer a safer route and keep hardware losses at minimum?

They are as cheap as they get now to be honest, i dont think they would like to get involved into different laws and regulation to sell you the console like a mobile phone

You get the basic model for 99 Dollars with one year of the standard membership. That means you can play one year with some advertisements here and there - yes, also in the games and in the menu. There would also be a pro membership without ads and an elite membership with access to a fairly large catalogue of games. Once your subscription runs out, your console is useless.

Doesn't that sound great? Same principle as Netflix and Spotify, make the people pay forever and because of seemingly low price points, people are loving it. Luckily, such a thing can't happen with consoles. They would never get away with locking you away from physical games you bought. So the would have to first get rid of physical releases, which won't happen in the near future.

I don't like subscriptions, btw. =P

cheap/free products based on a service platform work because without the service they become useless (phones locked to provider, free on contract), satellite box / cable box without subscription = paperweight.

Take subscription away from the PS4 and you can still play it just fine, or make a new account and buy psn whenever you want.

Not the same thing, at all.

wait... they are not focused in getting subscriptions already?

They are, but what if they tried to get subscriptions even more aggressively?