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

Forums - Gaming - Xbox One Is Pricey Because Microsoft Doesn't Put Consumers First Like Sony Does

NeoRatt said:
Times when Microsoft let consumers down:

- Announcing games like Alan Wake and Too Human way too early, misleading consumers
- Focus on Kinect over core gaming
- Pricing of X1
- DRM rights on X1

Times when Sony let consumers down:

- Over pricing PS3 ($599) at launch
- Dropping Backwards Compatibility and therefore flip flopping on their BC is important promise
- Dropping dual boot after it was a feature they pushed to sell PS3's
- Announcing games like Killzone 2 and Last Guardian way too early, misleading consumers
- Allowing their PSN to be hacked down for three weeks
- Forcing gamers to pay for multiplayer online through PSN Plus now (Again flip flopping)

Neither company is one I would throw a lot of trust at...

You forgot to add Xbox Live Golds existence to Microsofts list of woes (which forced Sony to create an alternative), Activision convincing them to increase the price of Xbox Live annually, always taking the side of third parties over the consumer in any matter, and threatening Gamestops profits by trying to dip their hand into the second hand market which legally they have zero right to. Oh yeah...you forgot the best of all....Microsoft risked the quality of all launch 360's by trying to beat Sony to the punch. Thats definitely thinking about your consumers. :)



Around the Network

just before I saw the check which said $8571, I accept ...that...my mom in-law had been realey receiving money parttime on their computer.. there sisters neighbour has done this 4 less than 11 months and just now cleared the dept on their appartment and purchased Renault 4. I went here, BOW6.COM



S.T.A.G.E. said:

You forgot to add Xbox Live Golds existence to Microsofts list of woes (which forced Sony to create an alternative), Activision convincing them to increase the price of Xbox Live annually, always taking the side of third parties over the consumer in any matter, and threatening Gamestops profits by trying to dip their hand into the second hand market which legally they have zero right to. Oh yeah...you forgot the best of all....Microsoft risked the quality of all launch 360's by trying to beat Sony to the punch. Thats definitely thinking about your consumers. :)

Live is not a woe and it's adorable the way you blame MS for Sony dipping their hands in the pay to play online model. It's funny, Nintendo is the market leader and yet they aren't being "forced" into creating an alternative. Sony sees a potential revenue stream, they are using it to make money. It's just that simple.

Activision isn't the only company that gets a cut of XBL subscriptions, and you've no way of knowing what all went into them hiking up the price of XBL. What, do you have more video game insight from Michael Bay on this one? LOL

Not even sure what you mean by "always taking sides of 3rd parties" but please do explain because I am sure it will be entertaining to read. And how was MS dipping their hands into GS profits? MS wasn't making a penny off used game sales on Xbone, it was between the publisher and retailers. Funny, Sony has actually done more of the whole "cutting into GS profits" with their PSN Pass than MS ever did yet I am sure you're somehow ok with that.

RROD most definitely belongs on the list of MS woes. Though, they repair them for free, so maybe that's why he didn't include it. But you bringing that up reminds us of another Sony woe: YLOD. Thanks!



Mr Puggsly said:
Zkuq said:
Obviously they're both trying to make a profit but their approaches are different. MS believes they do it by being cold and calculative and maximizing profits at every single turn where possible whereas Sony believe they do it by making their customers happy.

Charging for online play is a great example of how Sony is concernend only with making customers happy.

I seem to be a little late on this, having been using my laptop which doesn't show the VGChartz Buddy properly. That said, the thing is that Sony seems to think it won't be an issue and to be honest, how many complaints about online play have you seen thus far? I haven't seen very many, which definitely hints at gamers not being too unhappy about it. Personally I'm not happy with it but that's just my opinion and unlike MS, Sony's subcription model doesn't scream 'MILKING!!!' all the time because online play is pretty much the only thing Sony has behind a pay wall. MS has a lot more.



Zkuq said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Zkuq said:
Obviously they're both trying to make a profit but their approaches are different. MS believes they do it by being cold and calculative and maximizing profits at every single turn where possible whereas Sony believe they do it by making their customers happy.

Charging for online play is a great example of how Sony is concernend only with making customers happy.

I seem to be a little late on this, having been using my laptop which doesn't show the VGChartz Buddy properly. That said, the thing is that Sony seems to think it won't be an issue and to be honest, how many complaints about online play have you seen thus far? I haven't seen very many, which definitely hints at gamers not being too unhappy about it. Personally I'm not happy with it but that's just my opinion and unlike MS, Sony's subcription model doesn't scream 'MILKING!!!' all the time because online play is pretty much the only thing Sony has behind a pay wall. MS has a lot more.

First of all you're changing the subject. The fact is Sony is charging for online play to because they see MS making a fuck ton of money on Live and want in on that. Sony made a pretty big decision based on profit, not making consumers happy.

I said for years that Sony will eventually charge for online play and that's when the complaints about Xbox Live fees will stop. It will become a discussion of which service is the better value.

You're right, not many people complaining because their favorite company is now doing it. The people who said free online play should be included with the purchase of the game are mostly silent. Funny how that works.



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)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

First of all you're changing the subject. The fact is Sony is charging for online play to because they see MS making a fuck ton of money on Live and want in on that. Sony made a pretty big decision based on profit, not making consumers happy.

I said for years that Sony will eventually charge for online play and that's when the complaints about Xbox Live fees will stop. It will become a discussion of which service is the better value.

This is really a no-brainer. Had the PS3 come out with charging for online play, there would have been no competition. Overpriced, underdelivering in games at launch, and also paying for online would have been certain death. They survived by a free online cookie (what cost them tons of money over the years). It was pretty obvious the next console would no longer be free online right from the start.

And to get back to the topic. No, the XBox One is not overpriced, it is actually much cheaper than the PS4 given the Kinect2 hardware (which in my books is at least a $200 device).



Mr Puggsly said:
Zkuq said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Zkuq said:
Obviously they're both trying to make a profit but their approaches are different. MS believes they do it by being cold and calculative and maximizing profits at every single turn where possible whereas Sony believe they do it by making their customers happy.

Charging for online play is a great example of how Sony is concernend only with making customers happy.

I seem to be a little late on this, having been using my laptop which doesn't show the VGChartz Buddy properly. That said, the thing is that Sony seems to think it won't be an issue and to be honest, how many complaints about online play have you seen thus far? I haven't seen very many, which definitely hints at gamers not being too unhappy about it. Personally I'm not happy with it but that's just my opinion and unlike MS, Sony's subcription model doesn't scream 'MILKING!!!' all the time because online play is pretty much the only thing Sony has behind a pay wall. MS has a lot more.

First of all you're changing the subject. The fact is Sony is charging for online play to because they see MS making a fuck ton of money on Live and want in on that. Sony made a pretty big decision based on profit, not making consumers happy.

I said for years that Sony will eventually charge for online play and that's when the complaints about Xbox Live fees will stop. It will become a discussion of which service is the better value.

You're right, not many people complaining because their favorite company is now doing it. The people who said free online play should be included with the purchase of the game are mostly silent. Funny how that works.

I'm not changing the subject. My point is that customers aren't complaining so they aren't too unhappy, either. That is, Sony isn't making their customers too unhappy so they're evaluation cost vs. customer happiness and in their eyes, they don't lose too much consumer happiness by making online play require a subscription. If it caused too much consumer unhappiness, I doubt they'd do it. Well, in the current financial situation they actually might. Either way, Sony's subscription holds much more value than MS's, and customers won't feel as unhappy.

Have you even wondered why Sony is people's favorite over MS? People have their reasons, you know, they don't just randomly decide to like a company just like that.



Zkuq said:

I'm not changing the subject. My point is that customers aren't complaining so they aren't too unhappy, either. That is, Sony isn't making their customers too unhappy so they're evaluation cost vs. customer happiness and in their eyes, they don't lose too much consumer happiness by making online play require a subscription. If it caused too much consumer unhappiness, I doubt they'd do it. Well, in the current financial situation they actually might. Either way, Sony's subscription holds much more value than MS's, and customers won't feel as unhappy.

Have you even wondered why Sony is people's favorite over MS? People have their reasons, you know, they don't just randomly decide to like a company just like that.

Once again, not staying on topic.

You're avoiding the simple fact Sony made a decision based on profit. Not pleasing its customers. Sony fans pissed and moaned about Xbox Live being a pay service. Now all of sudden Sony fans don't seem to mind. That clearly says something.

Sony is peoples favorite when the price is right. We saw there wasn't much loyalty for a high price Sony console.



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)

Mr Puggsly said:
Zkuq said:

I'm not changing the subject. My point is that customers aren't complaining so they aren't too unhappy, either. That is, Sony isn't making their customers too unhappy so they're evaluation cost vs. customer happiness and in their eyes, they don't lose too much consumer happiness by making online play require a subscription. If it caused too much consumer unhappiness, I doubt they'd do it. Well, in the current financial situation they actually might. Either way, Sony's subscription holds much more value than MS's, and customers won't feel as unhappy.

Have you even wondered why Sony is people's favorite over MS? People have their reasons, you know, they don't just randomly decide to like a company just like that.

Once again, not staying on topic.

You're avoiding the simple fact Sony made a decision based on profit. Not pleasing its customers. Sony fans pissed and moaned about Xbox Live being a pay service. Now all of sudden Sony fans don't seem to mind. That clearly says something.

Sony is peoples favorite when the price is right. We saw there wasn't much loyalty for a high price Sony console.

I am staying on topic, it's just that either you're ignoring what I said in my first post or I didn't express myself clearly. I'm guessing it's the latter. What I meant is that both MS and Sony are trying to do business and make profit (as much as possible) but their approaches are different. Sony favors pleasing their customers when it's clearly not the 'bad' way to go because they think that how they'll make profit, MS favors maximizing profit at every turn where it's clearly not the 'bad' way to go. Now Sony's investing more heavily in their online service and they feel they need to make more money from it, and they thought putting online play behind the pay wall wouldn't make their customers too unhappy. So yeah, they did it to make more profit but they most definitely considered it the smallest 'evil'.

Also, your comparison of Sony fans and MS fans isn't entirely correct. MS has a long history of not treating their customers that nicely, Sony doesn't. Which company do you think is going to get more forgiveness from consumers? You can't just ignore those factors, they definitely affect people's preferences.