You know what else this means? Multiplatform titles have been almost exclusively PS3 purchases in my home since I bought the thing. You can say it doesn't make a difference all you want, but when you're talking about market penetration and getting your product in front of the people with money to buy more games/services/whatever for that product, there *is* a difference and every little thing counts. Were those purchases because "OMG multiplayer" or "Rah rah netflix!!"? No, they were because the Sony device won it's place connected to the big TV with the nice sound system and the comfy couch. The place where I want to enjoy my games.
You missed the point entirely, and I *did* speak with my wallet. I never subscribed for PSN+ OR XBL. The free features of PSN and the basic features of the PS3 have so far given me the added benefit of one less device in my media center with the fact that the PS3 is an excellent Blu-ray player that also supports Netflix and Amazon Video without me paying Sony an additional service fee on top of the service fees im already paying. Silver level XBL has given me... none of those, that's why my 360 is hooked up to the tiny TV in the bedroom and gets less use than the Roku next to it and the PS3 is the forefront of my media center in the living room.
You know what else this means? Multiplatform titles have been almost exclusively PS3 purchases in my home since I bought the thing. You can say it doesn't make a difference all you want, but when you're talking about market penetration and getting your product in front of the people with money to buy more games/services/whatever for that product, there *is* a difference and every little thing counts. Were those purchases because "OMG multiplayer" or "Rah rah netflix!!"? No, they were because the Sony device won it's place connected to the big TV with the nice sound system and the comfy couch. The place where I want to enjoy my games.
You wanna talk about market penetration because you only buy ps3 games? Take a look at the north american market for video game software sales on a major release that was on both the ps3 and 360. Notice anything? More people are buying the 360 game.
Yeah, no. Is that part of it? Sure, for the COD/Halo crowd. Which is admittedly a sizable crowd. But there's far bigger reasons why there's more 360s in American living rooms than there are PS3s. We don't need to go into the whole dissertation on it, but the 360 launched first, was considerably more affordable, and had more exclusive titles that appealed to the American target demographics. Value adds like keeping Netflix outside of a paywall aren't things that strictly make people go "I'mma go buy a PS3 for netflix," but they do add up to impact the number of people buying PS3s.Mostly because they get a better online experience.
But doesn't that go away with PSN+ being required for online gaming? I mean it was one thing when PSN+ was a couple of cool features but not needed not something anybody felt compelled to get. Once you step into the PS4 is there going to be any affect? I mean will anybody go, "well I know whatever system I am getting I pretty much have to get the Networking subscription, but I am going to buy the PS4 because netflix isn't behind the paywall like the Xbone". It went from having no real measurable affect on system adoption to basically having absolutely no affect at all and anyone that says otherwise wasn't going to get or use the Xbox as the premiere setup no matter what the situation was.Value adds like keeping Netflix outside of a paywall aren't things that strictly make people go "I'mma go buy a PS3 for netflix," but they do add up to impact the number of people buying PS3s.
It helps because when you compare the premium services (XBL Gold vs PSN+) XBL has a lot more bullet points. The average consumer doesn't know Netflix is free on the PS4. They look at the multiplayer requirement and say "Hmm, $50 for XBL and I get multiplayer, netflix, amazon, nfl, free games or PSN+ and I get multiplayer; XBL is a much better value". It is the same reason they don't sell TVs by their actual resolution; consumers are not smart enough to compare two numbers.
That, and anyone who used both services this generation, knows paying $4 a month for XBL is worth it. PSN is awful.
It helps because when you compare the premium services (XBL Gold vs PSN+) XBL has a lot more bullet points. The average consumer doesn't know Netflix is free on the PS4. They look at the multiplayer requirement and say "Hmm, $50 for XBL and I get multiplayer, netflix, amazon, nfl, free games or PSN+ and I get multiplayer; XBL is a much better value". It is the same reason they don't sell TVs by their actual resolution; consumers are not smart enough to compare two numbers.
That, and anyone who used both services this generation, knows paying $4 a month for XBL is worth it. PSN is awful.
In fact, the free XBL "silver" did pretty much everything in terms of multiplayer that I gave a crap about - it let me play multiplayer online, for free.
No, it did not. I question your actual use of XBL products really.
In fact, the free XBL "silver" did pretty much everything in terms of multiplayer that I gave a crap about - it let me play multiplayer online, for free.
No, it did not. I question your actual use of XBL products really.
all credibility out the window.
I never really used friends/matchmaking/whatever. I just hopped in a few multiplayer games here and there. Silver always seemed to let me do that without any issues.
Yes, I am aware that there are some times that completely restrict the multiplayer experience if you don't have gold. Guess what - another paywall feature. Guess what else - not games I ever bought. All I know was that early on in XBL's life, the major difference between silver and gold for multiplayer were the matchmaking options. As of last year (when I had gold), I still didn't see much incentive to pay for it from a purely multiplayer perspective.
On the contrary, I found paying $4/month (or even the ~$3/month or so I paid) to be a colossal waste of money on XBL. It provided zero added value to the system, and I saw literally zero "multiplayer" benefits compared to other free alternatives I have used. In fact, the free XBL "silver" did pretty much everything in terms of multiplayer that I gave a crap about - it let me play multiplayer online, for free.
Simply put, with all the restrictions put forth and the lack of value added, I really couldn't understand why people weren't more enraged about paying a "subscription" in order to simply use their console as it was intended to be used, especially after dropping a large sum of money on it in the first place.
I never really used friends/matchmaking/whatever. I just hopped in a few multiplayer games here and there. Silver always seemed to let me do that without any issues.
Yes, I am aware that there are some times that completely restrict the multiplayer experience if you don't have gold. Guess what - another paywall feature. Guess what else - not games I ever bought. All I know was that early on in XBL's life, the major difference between silver and gold for multiplayer were the matchmaking options. As of last year (when I had gold), I still didn't see much incentive to pay for it from a purely multiplayer perspective.
To everyone saying that MS can now unbundle the Kinect and create a lower-priced SKU - this is not going to happen. The whole point is to make sure every console has a Kinect available so that developers can assume it's there. Sure, you can turn it off or perhaps disconnect it, but they are not going to fragment their installed base by creating a Kinect-less option. Of all the stupid decisions Microsoft has been making lately, bundling the Kinect is not one of them.
To be fair, there seemed to be a fair number of weekends where they had "free Gold" weekends where Silver players could play online for free. Sorry for being a dick, there is a chance a Silver user could play online a little bit. Not often though.
On the contrary, I found paying $4/month (or even the ~$3/month or so I paid) to be a colossal waste of money on XBL. It provided zero added value to the system, and I saw literally zero "multiplayer" benefits compared to other free alternatives I have used. In fact, the free XBL "silver" did pretty much everything in terms of multiplayer that I gave a crap about - it let me play multiplayer online, for free.
On the contrary, I found paying $4/month (or even the ~$3/month or so I paid) to be a colossal waste of money on XBL. It provided zero added value to the system, and I saw literally zero "multiplayer" benefits compared to other free alternatives I have used. In fact, the free XBL "silver" did pretty much everything in terms of multiplayer that I gave a crap about - it let me play multiplayer online, for free.
Simply put, with all the restrictions put forth and the lack of value added, I really couldn't understand why people weren't more enraged about paying a "subscription" in order to simply use their console as it was intended to be used, especially after dropping a large sum of money on it in the first place.
<snip>
Consequently, if it doesn't become a 'killer' gaming device for some serious titles fairly quickly, it will become abandoned by developers even as a pack-in. Hell, we can go back as far as the NES. It launched with the ROB robot, which of course was a marketing gimmick in truth, but despite their pack-in status, no dev wanted to touch it. Ditto even the light gun, which came with most NES units sold in the 80s. Duck Hunt was probably all 99% of people ever played with the light gun, and that was because it CAME with the system, lol. There were a handful of lightgun titles, but most were playable without the gun, and none sold particularly well.
The Kinect sold 24 million units. Now, some of those might have been bundled (but at a $100 premium). That is almost 1/3rd of their install base that wanted a Kinect enough to pay at least $100 for it. I would think MS would be very hesitant to drop it. It is the best selling peripheral I can think of on any console. I think WiiFitness 1 + 2 might have outsold it and you could count the balance board as a peripheral.
They would most likely take a loss and just lower the price, and by that time, the console should be cheaper to make, so it isn't a huge loss.
Developer support is a big deal though. If they can get a few killer apps on it, it will sell. Or even incorporate it somehow into games that isn't completely gimmicky or bad.
Well with regards to Kinect - I would be all for it in a 400$ box. But 500$? Come on. There's the problem right there folks - MS needs a way to show the benefits of Kinect to potential buyers, and most of them aren't hearing it. They look at the price of the PS4 (being 400$) and instantly decide to buy the PS4 instead.
I would *love* for Kinect to be there, but paying 500$ for it when the more powerful PS4 is 400$ makes that decision questionable. Which is why I would love for the device to be sold separately.
Well with regards to Kinect - I would be all for it in a 400$ box. But 500$? Come on. There's the problem right there folks - MS needs a way to show the benefits of Kinect to potential buyers, and most of them aren't hearing it. They look at the price of the PS4 (being 400$) and instantly decide to buy the PS4 instead.
I would *love* for Kinect to be there, but paying 500$ for it when the more powerful PS4 is 400$ makes that decision questionable. Which is why I would love for the device to be sold separately.