By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox live price increase is a slap in the face to PSN & Sony

SpartenOmega117 on 17 October 2010
thismeintiel said:

If anything, it's really only going to hurt them next gen.  MS may be doing well this gen because of Sony making many mistakes in the first year or so of the PS3's life, but believe me, Sony isn't going to let that happen again.  MS is going to have much stronger competition out of the gate next gen.  I mean if Sony comes out with their next system using similar tech that's in the PS3, albiet in advanced forms, the price for their next console is probably going to be around $300 - $400.  By this time Blu-ray will have carved an even better share in the media market.  Now let's say Sony keeps the same model they have for PSN.  Free for all, but one can subsribe to PSN Plus for added features.  And then both the PS4 and Nextbox comes out within 6 months of each other.  Which is everyone going to pick?  I'll guarantee you most will be picking up the PS4.


thats assuming that sony releases the ps3 for around $300-$400. Sony has gotten a little cocky lately. If sony release the PSP2 around the same price as the 3DS ill believe that they will not make PS4 that expensive.



Around the Network
ConnorJCP on 17 October 2010
thranx said:
snfr said:

*looks at thread title*

 

Can somebody please explain me how this is a slap in the face to Sony?? I don't get it...

its a slap in the face because not only can MS charge for what should be free( according to some people), but they can increase the fee for it and people will still pay. Of course that is because its such a great service (at least in my opinion, worth every penny even after the increase.

Sony, Nintendo or any other company "can" do what ever they want. They just dont think it would be a wise business decision. 



Smart Men answer questions, Wise men ask questions.
Gamers play games, True Gamers support Gaming

thranx on 17 October 2010
ConnorJCP said:
thranx said:
snfr said:

*looks at thread title*

 

Can somebody please explain me how this is a slap in the face to Sony?? I don't get it...

its a slap in the face because not only can MS charge for what should be free( according to some people), but they can increase the fee for it and people will still pay. Of course that is because its such a great service (at least in my opinion, worth every penny even after the increase.

Sony, Nintendo or any other company "can" do what ever they want. They just dont think it would be a wise business decision. 

No, any company can only do what its customers want. How many ps3 owners will pay $50 a year to play online? How many would jump ship to the 360 than. Sony is still beholden to its stock holders, they have to turn profit or their stock holders will change things. They think its a bad decision cause they know they would loose customers.



Legend11 on 17 October 2010
thranx said:
ConnorJCP said:
thranx said:
snfr said:

*looks at thread title*

 

Can somebody please explain me how this is a slap in the face to Sony?? I don't get it...

its a slap in the face because not only can MS charge for what should be free( according to some people), but they can increase the fee for it and people will still pay. Of course that is because its such a great service (at least in my opinion, worth every penny even after the increase.

Sony, Nintendo or any other company "can" do what ever they want. They just dont think it would be a wise business decision. 

No, any company can only do what its customers want. How many ps3 owners will pay $50 a year to play online? How many would jump ship to the 360 than. Sony is still beholden to its stock holders, they have to turn profit or their stock holders will change things. They think its a bad decision cause they know they would loose customers.


I'm going to make a prediction that both Nintendo and Sony will eventually require paid subscriptions to use their online as well.  Why?  Simply because the increase in game sales won't keep up with the increase in game development costs and something will have to give. 

I seriously doubt Sony will continue to take losses from the Playstation brand forever (and that is what will happen if Sony doesn't change the way they're doing business).  I'm sure some people will want to point out a small profit the PS3 might be making now but how much is left after you take out the billion required to develop, produce, and launch the next console?

Anyways for those bashing Xbox Live I'm sure your tune will change when the competition does the same (it always does).



elvacano80 on 17 October 2010
NiKKoM said:

I think Sony and Nintendo are hitting their heads for making it free... they could have earned so much more money..


This



 

 

Around the Network
ConnorJCP on 17 October 2010
thranx said:
ConnorJCP said:
thranx said:
snfr said:

*looks at thread title*

 

Can somebody please explain me how this is a slap in the face to Sony?? I don't get it...

its a slap in the face because not only can MS charge for what should be free( according to some people), but they can increase the fee for it and people will still pay. Of course that is because its such a great service (at least in my opinion, worth every penny even after the increase.

Sony, Nintendo or any other company "can" do what ever they want. They just dont think it would be a wise business decision. 

No, any company can only do what its customers want. How many ps3 owners will pay $50 a year to play online? How many would jump ship to the 360 than. Sony is still beholden to its stock holders, they have to turn profit or their stock holders will change things. They think its a bad decision cause they know they would loose customers.

Sorry but once again your wrong. CAN means is able to, Sony CAN easily issue a monthly fee, even fi the customers wont play online anymore. WOULD they, now thats a different story.

Get your words right.



Smart Men answer questions, Wise men ask questions.
Gamers play games, True Gamers support Gaming

NYANKS on 17 October 2010
Legend11 said:
thranx said:
ConnorJCP said:
thranx said:
snfr said:

*looks at thread title*

 

Can somebody please explain me how this is a slap in the face to Sony?? I don't get it...

its a slap in the face because not only can MS charge for what should be free( according to some people), but they can increase the fee for it and people will still pay. Of course that is because its such a great service (at least in my opinion, worth every penny even after the increase.

Sony, Nintendo or any other company "can" do what ever they want. They just dont think it would be a wise business decision. 

No, any company can only do what its customers want. How many ps3 owners will pay $50 a year to play online? How many would jump ship to the 360 than. Sony is still beholden to its stock holders, they have to turn profit or their stock holders will change things. They think its a bad decision cause they know they would loose customers.


I'm going to make a prediction that both Nintendo and Sony will eventually require paid subscriptions to use their online as well.  Why?  Simply because the increase in game sales won't keep up with the increase in game development costs and something will have to give. 

I seriously doubt Sony will continue to take losses from the Playstation brand forever (and that is what will happen if Sony doesn't change the way they're doing business).  I'm sure some people will want to point out a small profit the PS3 might be making now but how much is left after you take out the billion required to develop, produce, and launch the next console?

Anyways for those bashing Xbox Live I'm sure your tune will change when the competition does the same (it always does).

When it does happen I hope you don't contemplate it a victory for yourself, as you're regrettably the one hurt by this.  If anything, this has proven that people will readily pay for things that should be less or free.  They can raise it 40 bucks more and they would still have the big COD fans pay at the very least, that isn't the point.  I believe that Sony had the better consumer model here, but MS will have forced Sony's hand eventually, yes. 



cmeese47 on 17 October 2010

The world is full of people willing to take it in the ass. They have made lots of television shows about it. Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Jersey Shore and more show that much each day. But who am I to judge if you like MS frat boying you from behind then charging you 60 dollars a year for it that is cool with me. Don't mind me though I am just here for the show, watching fanboys get raped is just like a TJ Donkey Show it is sick, but hard to stop watching and you certainly don't want to join in.

Metaphorically speaking of course.



Carpevi on 17 October 2010

Hey, you can pay $200 per year for XBOX Live, and be even more happy. And Microsoft won't protest . Do you know why? Because you can!



thranx on 17 October 2010
ConnorJCP said:
thranx said:
ConnorJCP said:
thranx said:
snfr said:

*looks at thread title*

 

Can somebody please explain me how this is a slap in the face to Sony?? I don't get it...

its a slap in the face because not only can MS charge for what should be free( according to some people), but they can increase the fee for it and people will still pay. Of course that is because its such a great service (at least in my opinion, worth every penny even after the increase.

Sony, Nintendo or any other company "can" do what ever they want. They just dont think it would be a wise business decision. 

No, any company can only do what its customers want. How many ps3 owners will pay $50 a year to play online? How many would jump ship to the 360 than. Sony is still beholden to its stock holders, they have to turn profit or their stock holders will change things. They think its a bad decision cause they know they would loose customers.

Sorry but once again your wrong. CAN means is able to, Sony CAN easily issue a monthly fee, even fi the customers wont play online anymore. WOULD they, now thats a different story.

Get your words right.


No they are not able to. As you said, they thought it would be a bad business decision, ie they would not gain asmuch as they would loose, so they decided to go for free online, and advertised it that way. So they can't, especailly now that they took that stance and advertised free on line. Now there hands are tied, if they started charging now people could sue for false advertising. They are stuck where they are at until their next system when they charge for online right off the bat.