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

Forums - Gaming - Why the smartphone model is wrong for consoles

Mr Puggsly said:
VGKing said:
Mr Puggsly said:
VGKing said:

We've all heard the rumors about the next Xbox being sold at $300 w/ a 2 Year XBL contract @ $15/month. At first this might seem like a great deal but it ends up being more expensive than shelling out the $500 right away. That's not the worst of it though. If people aren't smart enough to do the math and waste their money, I have no problem with it. It doesn't effect me and it won't affect smart people.

Here's where it starts affecting everyone.....if this subscription model becomes popular then the $500 console won't drop down in price. If this $300 console sells 10million within its first year, why would Microsoft drop down the price? People are already buying it and its only going to be more popular with time. This isn't just giving consumers options anymore, its about keeping profit margins high and keeping you tied to a single console. It's not good for consumers. Its only good for Microsoft or whoever else decides to follow this pricing model. 

1. You're getting worked up over rumors. Stop it.

2. It may be a great deal to people who don't want to spend a large sum of money at once.

3. Quit worrying about how people spend their money. Especially since we're talking about relatively small amount of money.

4. If the subscription model become popular, than that means consumers are happy with it. Competition still exist.

5. Consumers will have options. There are always options. Xbox Live is a pay service and its been very successful, but I don't see MS's competition doing the same thing.

6. If others decide to adopt the subscription model, their prices will still have to be competitive.

You worry too much VGKing. You worry too much about MS in particular.

1. Not just rumors. There's already a $99 XBox 360 w/ 2 year contract. Microsoft has already started doing this. When was the last time 360 received a price cut?  Next Xbox will be $300 w/ $15/month sub for 2 years. I would bet on it.
2. I already covered this in the OP.
3. I already covered this in the OP.
4. I already covered this in the OP.
5. I already covered this in the OP.
6. Depends. Xbox 360 is competitive right now yet it hasn't received a price cut in years. 

I worry about this industry in general. It just happens that Microsoft has been making the news lately and its fron and center in my train of thought. I mentioned that this would be a bad thing for any of the Big 3 to do. It just happens that Microsoft already started doing it, which is why I used them as an example. Don't be so defensive.

1. The subscription model exist for the 360, but we only see rumors for the next Xbox's prices. Lets wait and see before we get worked up and piss and moan about prices.

When was the last time the 360 received a price cut? Why does it matter? The 360 is reasonably priced comapared to its competition.

2.3.4.5. No you didn't. You just babbled about people being stupid and MS is hurting us all by taking their money through subscriptions.

6. The 360 hasn't needed a price cut. The 360 sells well and is very profitable. Its also cheaper than the PS3 and Wii U entry models.

I'm not being defensive, you're just over reacting.

Sony fans used to worry that Live's success was going to make charging for online gaming standard. But it didn't happen. Sony instead created a different type of service that pleased their fans.

Now here you are, a Sony fan worried that MS's subscription model is going to keep hardware expensive thus hurting consumers. Do your shoulders hurt from always being up in arms with MS?

When avid Sony fans aren't getting upset about MS rumors, they start making predictions of how MS will hurt consumers. Seriously dude, is this the only crap your brain thinks about?

1. The prices don't matter. No one is pissing and moaning about the prices. If you read the OP you would know that.
2.3.4.5. Nope. This isn't about Microsfot, its about the industry in general and where it could be headed. Stop being so defensive.
6. It does need a price cut. Outside the holidays it sells horribly and the PS3 ends up getting ~1million lead in the first 9months of the years. Like you said, PS3 is more expensive.

If anyone is over reacting here, it's you. Console preferences don't matter here. Why are you even bringing them up?



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
No one's forcing you to buy on contract.

You can buy the standard model for $500 if that's what you want. I don't see the problem with choice.

If a person is subscribing to XBox Live anyway and doesn't want to put down $500 upfront, this lets them get the system and start playing sooner for a few extra bucks per month.

It's like you didn't even read the OP.

Mr Puggsly said:
Soundwave said:
No one's forcing you to buy on contract. 

You can buy the standard model for $500 if that's what you want. I don't see the problem with choice. 

If a person is subscribing to XBox Live anyway and doesn't want to put down $500 upfront, this lets them get the system and start playing sooner for a few extra bucks per month.

HIs concern is the subscription model will be a success and deter price cuts for all consoles.

He's always pontificating on how MS is hurting the industry and consumers.

Are you going to participate in the thread or continue on your rampage?

walsufnir said:
I am looking forward to see how this turns to be a good idea if Sony also introduces a subscription model.

Another one who didn't read the thread.



NightDragon83 said:
VGKing said:
Do you guys think that an iPhone 5 really costs $750? Because that's the price you'll have to pay to buy it unlocked.

Subsidized hardware is an excuse to rip off those who don't like contracts. These things are so overpriced without a contract that many will have no choice but to buy into one. A bad thing about this is that if this becomes the norm for consoles, we'll end up seeing a lot of cheap copy-cat consoles from other manufactures. It would no longer be risky to get into the console biz. Anyone could build these PC-like consoles and sell them at huge profits.

If these subsidized consoles become successful we're either in for a huge industry boom or a huge industry crash. Is that really want you guys want? An LG-branded StationBox and a Samsung GalaxyCube?

So the solution is for console manufacturers, specifically Sony and M$, to just continue to take huge losses, potentially for several years, when launching new consoles?

Do you think the PS3 really cost only $499-$599 at launch, or the 360 a mere $299 for the core/arcade model at launch?  Would you rather they had launched their consoles at actual cost, which would have been over $800 for the PS3?

M$ is doing a smart thing here... giving consumers options, while ensuring that they won't be hemorrhaging cash the way Sony was when they launched the PS3.  The subscription thing has been around for decades now... first cable / satellite TV companies, then mobile phone providers, and now videogame console manufacturers.  Except with videogame consoles, they aren't subsidizing the hardware out to a variety of 3rd party manufacturers, driving costs up even more.  Panasonic did it with the 3DO, and Phillips with the CD-I, and look how that turned out.

There's nothing wrong with M$ or even Sony (if they wanted to) giving consumers a subscription-based option to their own services to lower the up-front cost of their consoles.  Seems to me that this all comes down to Xbox Live and how people are still whining about M$ charging for it.  Yes, in a perfect world it would be free... and consoles would still cost under $200 and come with 2 controllers plus a AAA pack-in game.  Sorry, but nothing's perfect.

It is Sony and MIcrosofts decision to launch expensive consoles. I'm not worried about their financial situation. I really don't care. All I do care about is them providing affordable consoles. If that means cutting back on power and going the Nintendo route, I'd be disappointed, but I'd learn to deal with it.

This seems like a great idea. Giving consumers options while increasing profitability for the the console manufacturers. We're already seeing the negative effects of this though. The Xbox 360 hasn't had a price cut in years. Instead, its advertised on TV as "starting at $99". This has nothing to do with Xbox Live or whether or not it should be free.



VGKing said:
Soundwave said:
No one's forcing you to buy on contract.

You can buy the standard model for $500 if that's what you want. I don't see the problem with choice.

If a person is subscribing to XBox Live anyway and doesn't want to put down $500 upfront, this lets them get the system and start playing sooner for a few extra bucks per month.

It's like you didn't even read the OP.

Mr Puggsly said:
Soundwave said:
No one's forcing you to buy on contract. 

You can buy the standard model for $500 if that's what you want. I don't see the problem with choice. 

If a person is subscribing to XBox Live anyway and doesn't want to put down $500 upfront, this lets them get the system and start playing sooner for a few extra bucks per month.

HIs concern is the subscription model will be a success and deter price cuts for all consoles.

He's always pontificating on how MS is hurting the industry and consumers.

 

Are you going to participate in the thread or continue on your rampage?

walsufnir said:
I am looking forward to see how this turns to be a good idea if Sony also introduces a subscription model.

 

Another one who didn't read the thread.

 

 


Read your own thread. people have said it already. Cell phones drop in price, your example used. Being in a contract does not negate needing to be price competitive. They are not mutually exclusive options. You can have contracts, you can purchase up front, you can choose to purchase something else, you can have price drops. There isn't much to discuss here as you have flawed premises that dont make any actual sense. Just because you have some weird belief(unless you have actuall devices or items in real life that have not had price cuts because they are bought in contract, you know facts) that things dont drop in price if they can be purchased by contract doesnt make it true, especially when all devices have price drops wether they can be bought with a contract or not. I bought my car with a loan and contract, and the following year that very same car could have been bought cheaper, I bought a cell phone the same way, and the same thing happened, it got cheaper.



VGKing said:
NightDragon83 said:
VGKing said:
Do you guys think that an iPhone 5 really costs $750? Because that's the price you'll have to pay to buy it unlocked.

Subsidized hardware is an excuse to rip off those who don't like contracts. These things are so overpriced without a contract that many will have no choice but to buy into one. A bad thing about this is that if this becomes the norm for consoles, we'll end up seeing a lot of cheap copy-cat consoles from other manufactures. It would no longer be risky to get into the console biz. Anyone could build these PC-like consoles and sell them at huge profits.

If these subsidized consoles become successful we're either in for a huge industry boom or a huge industry crash. Is that really want you guys want? An LG-branded StationBox and a Samsung GalaxyCube?

So the solution is for console manufacturers, specifically Sony and M$, to just continue to take huge losses, potentially for several years, when launching new consoles?

Do you think the PS3 really cost only $499-$599 at launch, or the 360 a mere $299 for the core/arcade model at launch?  Would you rather they had launched their consoles at actual cost, which would have been over $800 for the PS3?

M$ is doing a smart thing here... giving consumers options, while ensuring that they won't be hemorrhaging cash the way Sony was when they launched the PS3.  The subscription thing has been around for decades now... first cable / satellite TV companies, then mobile phone providers, and now videogame console manufacturers.  Except with videogame consoles, they aren't subsidizing the hardware out to a variety of 3rd party manufacturers, driving costs up even more.  Panasonic did it with the 3DO, and Phillips with the CD-I, and look how that turned out.

There's nothing wrong with M$ or even Sony (if they wanted to) giving consumers a subscription-based option to their own services to lower the up-front cost of their consoles.  Seems to me that this all comes down to Xbox Live and how people are still whining about M$ charging for it.  Yes, in a perfect world it would be free... and consoles would still cost under $200 and come with 2 controllers plus a AAA pack-in game.  Sorry, but nothing's perfect.

It is Sony and MIcrosofts decision to launch expensive consoles. I'm not worried about their financial situation. I really don't care. All I do care about is them providing affordable consoles. If that means cutting back on power and going the Nintendo route, I'd be disappointed, but I'd learn to deal with it.

This seems like a great idea. Giving consumers options while increasing profitability for the the console manufacturers. We're already seeing the negative effects of this though. The Xbox 360 hasn't had a price cut in years. Instead, its advertised on TV as "starting at $99". This has nothing to do with Xbox Live or whether or not it should be free.

While true in the literal sense, they've had several different bundles / SKUs over the last few years that have given added value to the console.  Sony has done the same thing with the Slim since introducing in back in 2009... it's received one $50 price cut and has been at $250 for the past couple of years with various bundles / SKUs.  Both consoles are still selling very well considering the fact that they are going into their 7th and 8th years on the market, so why drop the price further if it's not necessary?



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
VGKing said:

1. The prices don't matter. No one is pissing and moaning about the prices. If you read the OP you would know that.
2.3.4.5. Nope. This isn't about Microsfot, its about the industry in general and where it could be headed. Stop being so defensive.
6. It does need a price cut. Outside the holidays it sells horribly and the PS3 ends up getting ~1million lead in the first 9months of the years. Like you said, PS3 is more expensive.

If anyone is over reacting here, it's you. Console preferences don't matter here. Why are you even bringing them up?

1. You're making predictions and betting on prices we haven't seen. So yeah, it seems the prices do matter to you.

2.3.4.5. This isn't about MS? But they're your main focus for this thread. Don't play dumb.

6. Just because the PS3 is selling better doesn't mean the 360 has been selling horribly. That's just some silly Sony fan logic of yours.

Annual sales also matter more than weekly sales. The 360 has a bigger casual and US following than the PS3 and that's why it has had a bigger boost during the holidays.

You only make threads like this because of your console preference.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

NightDragon83 said:
VGKing said:
NightDragon83 said:
VGKing said:
Do you guys think that an iPhone 5 really costs $750? Because that's the price you'll have to pay to buy it unlocked.

Subsidized hardware is an excuse to rip off those who don't like contracts. These things are so overpriced without a contract that many will have no choice but to buy into one. A bad thing about this is that if this becomes the norm for consoles, we'll end up seeing a lot of cheap copy-cat consoles from other manufactures. It would no longer be risky to get into the console biz. Anyone could build these PC-like consoles and sell them at huge profits.

If these subsidized consoles become successful we're either in for a huge industry boom or a huge industry crash. Is that really want you guys want? An LG-branded StationBox and a Samsung GalaxyCube?

So the solution is for console manufacturers, specifically Sony and M$, to just continue to take huge losses, potentially for several years, when launching new consoles?

Do you think the PS3 really cost only $499-$599 at launch, or the 360 a mere $299 for the core/arcade model at launch?  Would you rather they had launched their consoles at actual cost, which would have been over $800 for the PS3?

M$ is doing a smart thing here... giving consumers options, while ensuring that they won't be hemorrhaging cash the way Sony was when they launched the PS3.  The subscription thing has been around for decades now... first cable / satellite TV companies, then mobile phone providers, and now videogame console manufacturers.  Except with videogame consoles, they aren't subsidizing the hardware out to a variety of 3rd party manufacturers, driving costs up even more.  Panasonic did it with the 3DO, and Phillips with the CD-I, and look how that turned out.

There's nothing wrong with M$ or even Sony (if they wanted to) giving consumers a subscription-based option to their own services to lower the up-front cost of their consoles.  Seems to me that this all comes down to Xbox Live and how people are still whining about M$ charging for it.  Yes, in a perfect world it would be free... and consoles would still cost under $200 and come with 2 controllers plus a AAA pack-in game.  Sorry, but nothing's perfect.

It is Sony and MIcrosofts decision to launch expensive consoles. I'm not worried about their financial situation. I really don't care. All I do care about is them providing affordable consoles. If that means cutting back on power and going the Nintendo route, I'd be disappointed, but I'd learn to deal with it.

This seems like a great idea. Giving consumers options while increasing profitability for the the console manufacturers. We're already seeing the negative effects of this though. The Xbox 360 hasn't had a price cut in years. Instead, its advertised on TV as "starting at $99". This has nothing to do with Xbox Live or whether or not it should be free.

While true in the literal sense, they've had several different bundles / SKUs over the last few years that have given added value to the console.  Sony has done the same thing with the Slim since introducing in back in 2009... it's received one $50 price cut and has been at $250 for the past couple of years with various bundles / SKUs.  Both consoles are still selling very well considering the fact that they are going into their 7th and 8th years on the market, so why drop the price further if it's not necessary?

Pretty sure PS3 had a price cut in 2011.



Mr Puggsly said:
VGKing said:

1. The prices don't matter. No one is pissing and moaning about the prices. If you read the OP you would know that.
2.3.4.5. Nope. This isn't about Microsfot, its about the industry in general and where it could be headed. Stop being so defensive.
6. It does need a price cut. Outside the holidays it sells horribly and the PS3 ends up getting ~1million lead in the first 9months of the years. Like you said, PS3 is more expensive.

If anyone is over reacting here, it's you. Console preferences don't matter here. Why are you even bringing them up?

1. You're making predictions and betting on prices we haven't seen. So yeah, it seems the prices do matter to you.

2.3.4.5. This isn't about MS? But they're your main focus for this thread. Don't play dumb.

6. Just because the PS3 is selling better doesn't mean the 360 has been selling horribly. That's just some silly Sony fan logic of yours.

Annual sales also matter more than weekly sales. The 360 has a bigger casual and US following than the PS3 and that's why it has had a bigger boost during the holidays.

You only make threads like this because of your console preference.

This thread isn't about Microsoft. It's about subsidized consoles. If Sony ever does it, this will apply to them as well.

You are being way too defensive and attacking me for no reason at all. Why? Waht's wrong with you? Stick to discussing the thread, not the person making it.



thranx said:
VGKing said:
Soundwave said:
No one's forcing you to buy on contract.

You can buy the standard model for $500 if that's what you want. I don't see the problem with choice.

If a person is subscribing to XBox Live anyway and doesn't want to put down $500 upfront, this lets them get the system and start playing sooner for a few extra bucks per month.

It's like you didn't even read the OP.

Mr Puggsly said:
Soundwave said:
No one's forcing you to buy on contract. 

You can buy the standard model for $500 if that's what you want. I don't see the problem with choice. 

If a person is subscribing to XBox Live anyway and doesn't want to put down $500 upfront, this lets them get the system and start playing sooner for a few extra bucks per month.

HIs concern is the subscription model will be a success and deter price cuts for all consoles.

He's always pontificating on how MS is hurting the industry and consumers.

 

Are you going to participate in the thread or continue on your rampage?

walsufnir said:
I am looking forward to see how this turns to be a good idea if Sony also introduces a subscription model.

 

Another one who didn't read the thread.

 

 


Read your own thread. people have said it already. Cell phones drop in price, your example used. Being in a contract does not negate needing to be price competitive. They are not mutually exclusive options. You can have contracts, you can purchase up front, you can choose to purchase something else, you can have price drops. There isn't much to discuss here as you have flawed premises that dont make any actual sense. Just because you have some weird belief(unless you have actuall devices or items in real life that have not had price cuts because they are bought in contract, you know facts) that things dont drop in price if they can be purchased by contract doesnt make it true, especially when all devices have price drops wether they can be bought with a contract or not. I bought my car with a loan and contract, and the following year that very same car could have been bought cheaper, I bought a cell phone the same way, and the same thing happened, it got cheaper.

Smartphones get new models every year. Consoles don't. 



I agree with this post.