PlayStation Plus Europe gets free Sleeping Dogs, F1 Race Stars and Quantum Conundrum
Earlier today Sony revealed the February lineup for PlayStation Plus members over in Europe and it’s a doozy. PS+ members will be treated to the critically acclaimed title, Sleeping Dogs in February along with a few other games making it into the Instant Game Collection.
Games that make it into the Instant Game Collection are typically a year old, but Sleeping Dogs came out just last August. The open world game received much praise for mixing up the best of GTA, Just Cause and Arkham City into a neat package.
The second Instant game to make it in will be F1 Race Stars, developed by Dirt franchise creator, Codemasters. The collection rounds out with Quantum Conundrum, which was designed by Kim Swift, one of the creators of Portal. US PS+ members were treated to this brain-bending game not that long ago.
PlayStation Vita owners will be treated to WipEout 2048 and Ubisoft’s Lumines: Elctronic Symphony.
If you don’t have PS+, now may be the time to sign up as there is a promo on the subscription:
On top of all that, I’m very pleased to announce that as of 6th February we will once again be bringing you a fantastic discount on the 90 day membership for PlayStation Plus. For two whole weeks you’ll be able to get over 30% off the regular price – that’s €9.99/£7.99, reduced from €14.99/£11.99. A bargain, no?
On top the games mentioned above, you will still be able to pick up January’s Instant Games such as Guardians of Middle Earth, Mortal Kombat and Jet Set Radio. Head over to the European PlayStation Blog to read about the rest of what’s coming in February.
US PS+ members will have to wait a little longer to find out what’s coming in February, but this was a great month with Darksiders, NBA Jam: On Fire Edition, Mega Man 9 and 10 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma Plus for the PS Vita. To top it off the 13 for ‘13 promo is still running where you can pick up titles for a few dollars.
With the PlayStation Webstore for the PC live now, you can head on over and queue up the games into your cart from your PC and download them on the PS3.
63 Responses to “PlayStation Plus Europe gets free Sleeping Dogs, F1 Race Stars and Quantum Conundrum”
Leave a Reply:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!
January 29th, 2013
Very good news. Really enjoyed the demo of this game.
I don’t even need to buy games these days. PS+ gives me far more than I need.
January 29th, 2013
Quantum Conundrum is a good pickup. The only thing I didn’t like about it was the poor UE3 performance. The game isn’t graphically intensive at all, but it still performs like shit.
January 29th, 2013
http://www.destructoid.com/plus-points-sony-s-ps-plus-humiliates-the-game-industry-243470.phtml
“Sony shows subscription services how it’s really done
Sony has made a lot of mistakes over the years, and I’ve cheerily called the publisher out on many of them. For all its hubris, however, and for all its missteps, the PlayStation brand owner is prone to having some really quite brilliant ideas now and then, proving itself surprisingly savvy and innovative when the need arises.
Among these ideas, PlayStation Plus is undoubtedly one of its best, though I was cynical towards the idea of a subscription-based PlayStation Network service at first. Early propositions made it sound quite undesirable, and given Sony’s other attempts at aping rival Microsoft — Trophies spring to mind — I expected something pointless and poorly implemented.
That’s not what we got. Instead, PlayStation Plus is one of the most consumer-friendly, convenient, and worthwhile ideas to hit the PlayStation 3. More importantly, in an industry where publishers are trying to take more money than ever for less content, Sony’s the guiding light in how to draw a steady payday from users in a way that makes everybody happy.
PlayStation Plus is a subscription-based service that offers free games, major discounts, and exclusive downloads to customers for $49.99 a year. Every week, the service offers new freebies and cheap titles, giving away not just classic PlayStation games, but current-gen titles including big hitters like inFAMOUS and The Walking Dead.
In keeping its commitment to offering free online play, Sony had to work extra hard to ensure PS Plus was worth paying for, and the results can be measured in numbers. The company recently revealed Plus’ discounts and giveaways amounted to a cumulative $2,472 in 2012. While it’s unlikely a customer downloaded absolutely everything required to get these savings, it would be quite easy to at least make back the $50 entry fee in content.
It sounds almost ridiculous to say it, but Sony has been pioneering the practice of giving stuff away in exchange for consumer loyalty. Yes, it seems like a no-brainer tactic, but the idea seems to have eroded in so many areas of the industry that Sony’s remarkable for doing it. You give Sony money, and Sony gives you stuff in return. It doesn’t unlock stuff that was gated off, it doesn’t provide what the competitor was already providing, it just gives you things. It’s almost crazy to see that now, especially on consoles.
And yes, it’s true that PS Plus doesn’t let you keep the free content once you unsubscribe, but if you weren’t getting your money’s worth while still tied to it, then frankly, you have nothing worth missing. Even as a “rental” service, it’s a killer deal, and the discounts are nothing to sniff at.
Compare this to Microsoft, a company struggling more and more to justify its subscription service with a straight face. The Xbox 360 owner has systematically worked to hold its content to ransom in an increasingly futile bid to make Xbox Live Gold look worth its fee. The biggest feature is, of course, online play — something available for free on PS3, Wii U, and PC. The company took something that was already a given, and held it back.
It’s done this with practically every feature on Xbox Live Gold. Netflix, Amazon Video, and (before retirement) social apps like Twitter and Facebook all require Gold subscriptions to use, despite these items being freely available on almost every electronic device on the market. Hell, my television can access Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and a Web browser, and they’re all better than the Xbox 360 versions — they browse faster, they stream more consistently, and their search functions blow the 360′s pathetic offerings out of the water.
This is the reality of Xbox Live Gold, a service I believe only continues to thrive due to the habitual nature of consumers, and one that I don’t think can sustain itself indefinitely. Xbox Live Gold has never offered the consumers anything. It’s never actually exchanged a feature outstanding enough to justify an outstanding payment. All it does is take away. Even demos are held hostage, given a delayed release for Xbox Live Silver users in a fantastic example of just how desperate Microsoft is to create the illusion of worth instead of providing actual value. Xbox Live Gold is all smoke and mirrors — a delayed feature here, a withheld app there, a carefully constructed facade. So carefully constructed, in fact, it may have been less effort to actually give consumers something.
Oh, and let’s not even get started on the ads Xbox Live run on its paid service.
There’s a strong sentiment in the games industry that the consumer should be the load-bearer for a publisher’s problems. Game budgets running out of control? Charge $60, regardless of quality, and take content out to sell as “downloadable” content later. Piracy is a perceived problem? Shovel in a load of DRM as a placebo, which only really has the affect of controlling those consumers who already paid you fair and square. Used games a potential threat? Lock online play in a cage and make used gamers pay a direct fee, while those who bought it new waste time inputting a code to show their fealty.
Sony’s not above some of those practices itself, of course, but at least when it comes to PS Plus, the company truly did its loyalest consumers a solid.
It’s disgraceful that Sony’s PS Plus philosophy is such an anomaly in the videogame industry, that choosing to reward, rather than punish, the customer is downright unique in contrast to Sony’s closest rivals. The idea that a subscription service legitimately exchange content for cash should not be something so extraordinary as to be praised, but that’s the situation we’re in. PlayStation Plus really shouldn’t be considered excellent, it shouldn’t be applauded for going above and beyond. It is though, and while that’s a damning indictment on the rest of the industry, it certainly makes Sony the good guy — in relative terms, if nothing else.
I love PlayStation Plus. I fully admit I thought it’d work out terribly, and thrilled to say I was wrong. PS Plus stands as a shining example of how you deliver a compelling, rewarding videogame service, and exposes the competition as nothing more than a glorified seller of snake oil.
Now … if it can get the PlayStation Vita Plus services kicking as much ass as the PS3 one, I’ll be doubly impressed.”
January 30th, 2013
For me the problem with the PS3 is, It just isn’t as good for online play with your buddies as the 360. It’s gotten a whole lot better as time has passed, but the 360 has had a rock solid online service from day 1.
As for the 360s online fee itself. This was started way back in the original xbox days, when such a holistic service did not exist on any other system. It allowed you to sign in to an online gaming community, where you could see what you mates were playing, chat and join in with your buddies, or with total strangers.
Now while you could do all this on a PC, and PS3 it was nothing like as easy or as seamlessly integrated into the system as it was on the 360.
PS3 fanboys get all butthurt about the fact that MS charges for the online services. when the reality is they should be happy that MS are maybe giving a good reason for gamers to switch alliance. After all, “IF” what what they preach is true, that what Sony has to offer, “is as good if not better”, and it’s free! . .what the hell is stopping a mass exodus of gamers to the PS3?
I won’t ague against the value of PSN+, because it is indeed great value, what it doesn’t do is make the 360 sub any less worth paying.
You can also thank MS for all the free stuff Sony is throwing at you, because you can bet your ass if it were not for MS and the 360, Sony would not be nearly so generous. This is not out of the goodness of Sonys’ heart. To me this looks like more an act of desperation to try and pull in the required numbers and make some money before it’s too late.
January 30th, 2013
“Now while you could do all this on a PC, and PS3 it was nothing like as easy or as seamlessly integrated into the system as it was on the 360.”
I disagree. PC integration was pretty seamless. Just needed some third party software like Xfire etc. and it could be done. Services like this also existed prior to XBOX.
“what the hell is stopping a mass exodus of gamers to the PS3?”
My educated guess. Complacency. It’s a hassle too. You may want to switch over but maybe a high percentage of your friends only have or want to have the 360.
MS was very smart getting the console out prior to the PS3, even if it annihilated people’s peace of mind when buying new MS hardware. That alone ensured there were enough “friends” to hook other “friends”. It was a smart move in hindsight.
I believe MS can be quoted saying, the first to 10M console lead wins the console war. Lol. Well it appears that won’t be true.
January 30th, 2013
“what the hell is stopping a mass exodus of gamers to the PS3?”
-Even if it is better value in the long run, the initial capital cost to switch to PS3 (~£200 plus games) is still more money than a lot of people can afford.
-Who wants to switch consoles this late in the generation? Seriously..
-Lack of information/uninformed gamers. Most ‘casual-to-serious’ gamers that I talk to haven’t even heard of PS+. Some didn’t even know that it is free to play online on the PS3.
-As phranc said above, they’ve grown used to playing with their friends on the xbox. To switch would be to lose all of that. Never mind all of the game progression and achievement collecting.
The way I see it is that the great value of PS+ is not to draw in customers right now for the PS3, but to entice xbox owners to switch consoles when it comes to the new generation – the PS4.
January 30th, 2013
Godless,
Both companies are in business to make money but the way a company goes about making money says a lot. Microsoft are just plain greedy. There is no end to them nickel and diming their gamers. Microsoft has a better online/os operating system then Psn but this doesn’t justify them ripping off people to no end. Microsoft is the only service that charges and still floods their users with ads because they are so greedy. Also, the apps that Microsoft charges people to use are even inferior to apps that are free to use everywhere else.
January 30th, 2013
My favorite line..
“PS Plus stands as a shining example of how you deliver a compelling, rewarding videogame service, and exposes the competition as nothing more than a glorified seller of snake oil.”
January 30th, 2013
I love that quote as well Phranctoast. Sony is leaving quite an impression at generation’s end.
January 30th, 2013
I really don’t understand it when people call corporations ‘greedy’. They’re in the money-making business, and they’re trying to make as much as possible. What’s the problem?
Obviously from a consumer point of view Sony is the ‘better’ company. But I don’t blame MS for their tactics, I blame the consumer for not making a well-informed decision about where to spend their money.
January 30th, 2013
@Dans
I think it’s really for lack of a better term to explain when they don’t agree with their business practice or practices.
This highlights it better
“Xbox Live Gold has never offered the consumers anything. It’s never actually exchanged a feature outstanding enough to justify an outstanding payment. All it does is take away. Even demos are held hostage, given a delayed release for Xbox Live Silver users in a fantastic example of just how desperate Microsoft is to create the illusion of worth instead of providing actual value. Xbox Live Gold is all smoke and mirrors — a delayed feature here, a withheld app there, a carefully constructed facade. So carefully constructed, in fact, it may have been less effort to actually give consumers something.”
January 30th, 2013
Apparently no ones above it…
http://gamer.blorge.com/2012/01/27/sony-reveal-special-300-bundle-for-the-ps-vita-3gwi-fi-model/
January 30th, 2013
Snake oil is cool
January 30th, 2013
“Oh, and let’s not even get started on the ads Xbox Live run on its paid service.”
Hear that Godless?
XBL is a lag fest compared to PSN…there’s no reason to charge for online play on Xbox…That’s probably why there are more PS Home users than XBLG subscribers lmao
January 30th, 2013
“Snake oil is cool”
As long as you’re not on the receiving end it is
January 30th, 2013
“For me the problem with the PS3 is, It just isn’t as good for online play with your buddies as the 360. It’s gotten a whole lot better as time has passed, but the 360 has had a rock solid online service from day 1″
PSN is better and has less host migrations. I never had trouble logging Ito PSN as well (unless there is a maintenance), LIVE I had a lot of trouble connecting.
Live has been great side day one and PSN was awful but now PSN has improved drastically over the years whilst MS has not.
January 30th, 2013
Well said Dans.
The author also seems to forget that most all of those services didn’t exist on other home consoles at all at the start when 360 kicked off this gen, and some took a year after they launched to get similar services.
The reality is Microsoft introduced most of those services when the competing consoles had nothing like it. Then the competition came in and decided to play catch up, realizing that their only chance was to offer the services at no extra charge.
That said, trophies and PS+ were both key in my decision to switch to PS3, and it was no hassle at all.
What I would hope is that PS3 continues to gain in sales over 360, that PS4 retains PSN+ and overtakes 720 because of it, and that Microsoft finally gives in to appease customers like me who leave them for PSN+, changing XBLG to offer similar or greater value than PSN+ just as Sony changed PS3 over time to offer greater value than 360.
January 31st, 2013
The biggest feature on XBLG is online play and MS offered it after the PS2 did, and under a subscription.
January 31st, 2013
@Godless.
If Microsoft offered online play on Silver, would you still subscribe to Gold?
What if the only feature different between XBLG, and XBLS was “Party Chat”. Would that still be worth $60/year to you?
January 31st, 2013
Yes, there were a very few online game offerings on PS2, but the quality varied and wasn’t consolidated under one standard.
XBL (2002) came before PSN (2006), and XBLS was the first to later standardize trophies, downloadable games, and demos for most games. XBLG was the first to standardize leaderboards, DLC, online play (for all games that had it), not to mention video streaming.
PSN offered all of that stuff later in order to catch up to 360′s lead, and worldwide at least, that strategy seems to be working out for them.
If and or when Microsoft starts to lose traction to Sony in the U.S. is when we’ll likely see them change their strategy as Sony was forced to early on this gen. If PS3 had met Sony’s sales expectations early on this gen, we probably wouldn’t even have trophies at this point, let alone PSN+ in it’s present form.
January 31st, 2013
“Yes, there were a very few online game offerings on PS2, but the quality varied and wasn’t consolidated under one standard. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_online_games
Me and you will have to agree to disagree on what we consider “a very few”.
You are correct about the difference in quality as Sony allowed the publisher to create the online environment, as there was no Standard.
“XBL (2002) came before PSN (2006), and XBLS was the first to later standardize trophies, downloadable games, and demos for most games. XBLG was the first to standardize leaderboards, DLC, online play (for all games that had it), not to mention video streaming. ”
XBLS was only first to Standardize these things as the console was out a full year ahead of the PS3. The only thing that warrants anything on that list is video streaming, which was free everywhere else, and console exclusive for a year with a contract between the two companies. Sony on the other hand brought MLB.tv, and even Amazon IV as well as Hulu plus out ahead of MS…..Still, not hidden behind a paywall.
“PSN offered all of that stuff later in order to catch up to 360?s lead, and worldwide at least, that strategy seems to be working out for them. ”
Were they? Or were they simply following an industry standard of NOT charging for things that are free EVERYWHERE else? The PS2 offered online play without a subscription, and they hardly needed to catch up to the XBOX’s lead.
“If and or when Microsoft starts to lose traction to Sony in the U.S. is when we’ll likely see them change their strategy as Sony was forced to early on this gen.”
I guess that depends. As long as they continue to suppress 50% of the games you purchase behind a paywall, and you want to play the MS console online, you’re left with no choice but to pay. It will have to wait until Next gen for the real test.
“If PS3 had met Sony’s sales expectations early on this gen, we probably wouldn’t even have trophies at this point, let alone PSN+ in it’s present form.”
Conjecture. Trophies/achievements even made it onto Steam/iOS games and that’s not a direct console competitor.
Jim Sterling hit the nail on the head with this story. I can’t stand the guy and usually disagree with him, but I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day….:)
January 31st, 2013
Correction: very few highly rated games.
“XBLS was only first to Standardize these things as the console was out a full year ahead of the PS3.”
As I understand, it took a couple of years for PS3 to incorporate trophies after it had launched (and that only after being pressured from it’s customers), and 3 years for it to finally have Netflix. Demos, downloadable games, and DLC were nowhere near as ubiquitous the first year on PSN as they were on XBLS. Sony brought most all those things much, much later after they saw PS3 was not coming close to meeting sales expectations.
“industry standard”
There was no existing standard for those services on home consoles before XBL.
“The PS2 offered online play without a subscription”
Because third parties towed the cost of maintaining the servers for their own games.
“you’re left with no choice but to pay.”
I had a choice, I simply switched. If by “pay” you mean pay for another console, I already had that other console. I realize not everyone can afford to do this immediately, so I agree with you to a degree… but we’re still talking about relative luxuries in the first place, so I’m not all that sympathetic.
“Conjecture.”
Fans didn’t press Sony for trophies for years because Microsoft had achievements? I agree there might have still been some feedback to Sony from iOS/Steam alone, but I think even you can agree there wouldn’t have been nearly as much had it not been for Microsoft leading the way there on home consoles.
January 31st, 2013
“As I understand, it took a couple of years for PS3 to incorporate trophies after it had launched (and that only after being pressured from it’s customers), and 3 years for it to finally have Netflix. Demos, downloadable games, and DLC were nowhere near as ubiquitous the first year on PSN as they were on XBLS. Sony brought most all those things much, much later after they saw PS3 was not coming close to meeting sales expectations. ”
I just want to point out, that other than Netflix, none of that other stuff is behind a paywall more or less making the point moot.
Online play was the biggie being held back, and like I already iterated, was available on the PS2 before the XBOX.
“There was no existing standard for those services on home consoles before XBL. ”
Not on consoles, but seriously.. who cares? It was available prior on other devices without being behind a paywall. It cost MS nothing. They’re not running the service. It’s just another example of them holding back to give an illusion of value.
“Because third parties towed the cost of maintaining the servers for their own games. ”
Beats the shit out of the customer footing the bill. Wouldn’t you agree?
“I had a choice”
No you didn’t. Not if you wanted to play games online on a MS’s console….which is what I said, before you cherry picked my quote apart.
“Fans didn’t press Sony for trophies for years because Microsoft had achievements? ”
Yes they did, but I don’t see how this has anything to do with hitting Sony’s sales expectations,and that dictating Sony policy based on what MS did. Sony had an uphill battle with themselves more so than with MS. MS even admitted this. They have said, they didn’t beat Sony..Sony beat Sony.
” but I think even you can agree there wouldn’t have been nearly as much had it not been for Microsoft leading the way there on home consoles.”
I really can’t give MS any credit here at all. I can’t speculate as to how PS+ would have been handled. I’m sure Sony realized they needed a continued revenue stream. PSN+ started with giving games away, and acted more like a Bands “fan club” even before it got insanely better with full retail games.
January 31st, 2013
“none of that other stuff is behind a paywall more or less making the point moot.”
For the most part, none of that other stuff was on home consoles before XBL, so the same could be said about your point. As for online play, XBL was the first successful system to implement it with consolidated standards for a home console.
“seriously.. who cares?”
I care whether or not I have a service that is down for months due to a lesser standard. I care whether or not I constantly get booted off and on a service when I am trying to play a game or simply use a service on the console.
“It cost MS nothing.”
The achievement system cost them “nothing”? Is that why it took years for Sony to implement a similar system? Servers and their maintenance and constantly updating security cost “nothing”? I don’t think so. Ask the Sony division whether or not the $390,000 they had to pay was “nothing” to them.
“No you didn’t. Not if you wanted to play games online on a MS’s console.”
Yes I did. Because there were and are more than enough other games to play on Sony’s console.
“I don’t see how this has anything to do with hitting Sony’s sales expectations”
Low sales means they would be more inclined to listen to fans feedback in order to do what they can to increase sales. I.e. this is what the competition is doing, it’s working for them, customers (existing and potential) want it.
“They have said, they didn’t beat Sony..Sony beat Sony.”
They can “say” that all they want. The fact remains that if Microsoft wasn’t still competing with them they would have twice as many sales.
“I really can’t give MS any credit here at all”
Seriously? You don’t think Microsoft has influenced what Sony has done with PSN, PS3, or PSN+ at all since the start of this generation? Then you are much more close minded than I thought.
January 31st, 2013
“We’re glad to see Sony finally realizing the appeal of an achievement awards system. It’s very similar to what Microsoft offers, but that’s fine. It’s actually the closest 2.40 comes to mimicking Xbox Live”
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/30/ps3-s-trophy-system-explained/
January 31st, 2013
It’s safe to say there’s absolutely no point in debating with you as you keep taking what I’m saying out of context. I feel I need to repeat the same thing over and over since you like to just cherry pick apart my sentences and then answer it the way you feel that has in no way any place in the discussion.
The best part of this is you’re arguing for something you truly don’t believe nor support.
Let me know when you feel like coming back to this and debate like a real person. You always seem to get like this when you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Good day.
January 31st, 2013
I see, so you basically have no response to any of my points, which are perfectly valid, and address directly the points you brought up.
The best part is this generation has benefited greatly from the direct competition between Microsoft and Sony, even though you can’t admit it.
Let me know when you won’t let facts upset you because of whatever personal bias you hold. You always seem to get like this when you get upset and can’t concede to even the most obvious, valid, and fact-based points.
Have a wonderful day.
January 31st, 2013
“I see, so you basically have no response to any of my points, which are perfectly valid, and address directly the points you brought up.”
-What’s the point? You’ll just take three words from a sentence and answer that ignoring the rest…. Completely missing the point, and then get all bent out of shape when I won’t pick up your own straw man for you to knock back down.
“The best part is this generation has benefited greatly from the direct competition between Microsoft and Sony, even though you can’t admit it.”
Didn’t say anything like this. Said that PS+ is so different than XBLG you can’t credit MS for it at all. Unless now you want to go on record and say MS invented subscription models…..
January 31st, 2013
“The plan, according to the interview, is to build an infrastructure capable of supporting online delivery of PS3 games from various game studios, and through a single, unified service. The service should also be able to dispense game updates, expansion packs, and the like. It sounds like a nice companion to the global gaming services Sony annouced last month, which should match “Xbox Live (on the Xbox 360) feature for feature, and then some.”
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/02/6246-2/
January 31st, 2013
“You’ll just take three words from a sentence and answer that ignoring the rest…. Completely missing the point, and then get all bent out of shape when I won’t pick up your own straw man for you to knock back down.”
Fine, I’ll use entire quotes just to show you I wasn’t taking anything out of “context”:
“I just want to point out, that other than Netflix, none of that other stuff is behind a paywall more or less making the point moot. Online play was the biggie being held back, and like I already iterated, was available on the PS2 before the XBOX.”
My response is the same.
“For the most part, none of that other stuff (trophies, DLC, video streaming) was on home consoles before XBL, so the same could be said about your point. As for online play, XBL was the first successful system to implement it with consolidated standards for a home console.”
Your argument it was on “other devices”. My point is it wasn’t on home consoles. Microsoft, for the most part, was the first to bring it. I addressed online play separately, but as you already conceded, there was no set standard consolidated.
“Not on consoles, but seriously.. who cares? It was available prior on other devices without being behind a paywall. It cost MS nothing. They’re not running the service. It’s just another example of them holding back to give an illusion of value.”
My response is the same.
“I care whether or not I have a service that is down for months due to a lesser standard. I care whether or not I constantly get booted off and on a service when I am trying to play a game or simply use a service on the console. The achievement system cost them “nothing”? Is that why it took years for Sony to implement a similar system? Servers and their maintenance and constantly updating security cost “nothing”? I don’t think so. Ask the Sony division whether or not the $390,000 they had to pay was “nothing” to them.”
My point there is that there is a clear cost that can’t be denied. Whether or not the console manufacturer decides to subsidize that cost with something else other than a direct subscription cost is up to them. Just because it has been on PC’s doesn’t mean anything, because PC manufacturer’s aren’t held liable for damage/viruses/identity theft from other manufacturer’s online capable software.
“I guess that depends. As long as they continue to suppress 50% of the games you purchase behind a paywall, and you want to play the MS console online, you’re left with no choice but to pay. It will have to wait until Next gen for the real test.”
My response is the same.
“I had a choice, I simply switched. If by “pay” you mean pay for another console, I already had that other console. I realize not everyone can afford to do this immediately, so I agree with you to a degree… but we’re still talking about relative luxuries in the first place, so I’m not all that sympathetic.”
“No you didn’t. Not if you wanted to play games online on a MS’s console….which is what I said, before you cherry picked my quote apart.”
I had already specifically stated my “choice” was to switch PSN instead of continuing to pay for XBLG. “play games online” can be done on PS3. I specifically stated I already had a PS3 and my “choice” was to switch to it. In other words, I basically explained “my” choice, which I, and other gamers here have already made. Now, if one “only” wants to play games on an MS console, there must be a reason for that, and they are willing to pay the price because of it. It might be for games exclusive on 360. It might be because most of their friends are unwilling to make the choice and switch. It might be any number of things, but whatever they are, I personally did not feel strong enough about them to continue paying. I already stated that not every gamer may be able to afford to switch consoles immediately, but they could over time, and it was still a luxury, so I didn’t really sympathize. So basically, speaking for myself, which only I can do (not you), my response is the same: “Yes I did (have a choice). Because there were and are more than enough other (online – you didn’t specify exclusive) games to play on Sony’s console.”
“Yes they did, but I don’t see how this has anything to do with hitting Sony’s sales expectations,and that dictating Sony policy based on what MS did. Sony had an uphill battle with themselves more so than with MS. MS even admitted this. They have said, they didn’t beat Sony..Sony beat Sony.”
I never said it “dictated” Sony policy, I said Sony learned and copied some of what worked for Microsoft, then responded as to how a company may be more willing to listen to customers feedback in order to gain potential customers. My response is the same.
“Low sales means they would be more inclined to listen to fans feedback in order to do what they can to increase sales. I.e. this is what the competition is doing, it’s working for them, customers (existing and potential) want it. They can “say” that all they want. The fact remains that if Microsoft wasn’t still competing with them they would have twice as many sales.”
“I really can’t give MS any credit here at all. I can’t speculate as to how PS+ would have been handled. I’m sure Sony realized they needed a continued revenue stream. PSN+ started with giving games away, and acted more like a Bands “fan club” even before it got insanely better with full retail games.”
I never specified PS+ alone. I specifically stated:
“Fans didn’t press Sony for trophies for years because Microsoft had achievements? I agree there might have still been some feedback to Sony from iOS/Steam alone, but I think even you can agree there wouldn’t have been nearly as much had it not been for Microsoft leading the way there on home consoles.”
But since you misunderstood, let me expound. There wouldn’t be nearly as much on PS3, PSN, and PSN+ (including such things as trophies, video streaming, etc.) had it not been for Microsoft implementing it on 360 first. Does this mean these things wouldn’t exist at all today? No. It means there probably wouldn’t be as “much” available (or as soon) on PS3 had it not been for at least some of the leading examples Microsoft set.
January 31st, 2013
I’ll get back to this topic 1pm est tomorrow. My response is too long for the phone and I won’t be around in front of pc until then. Inspection then webinar. Not ignoring your well thought out and lengthy post.
February 1st, 2013
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/31/3938112/microsoft-lifts-xbox-live-gold-requirement-for-netflixs-house-of
February 1st, 2013
*To start this I feel it’s best to address the appropriate topic right off the bat. You feel Jim Sterling either forgot or didn’t address the fact that Microsoft was the first to bring a consolidated service to consoles with the introduction of Xbox Live. This was never an argument or anything forgotten nor denied IMO, It’s just a moot point relative to the topic at hand. They were first with XBL, which incurred an initial cost to develop and a small cost to maintain. Your point seems to be, that since they were first, everyone else after, others have to do what they charge for, for free. I call Bullshit on this, and I’ll explain why.
**Advertising alone paid for and maintains XBL. Publishers pay a flat fee to use XBL matchmaking and other consolidated XBL features. Customers use their own 360′s as servers as MS doesn’t run dedicated servers for their games (with very few exceptions).
***I also would like to point out that many of these “services” are part of Xbox live Silver, so Microsoft themselves don’t feel that it’s a justifiable service to charge a subscription for. This includes Achievements. Voice Chat, Avatars, XBLA, Xbox Video, MSN, The leader-boards you mentioned, The Demos, The DLC, and the Downloadable games etc……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live#Xbox_Live_features
+ Microsoft however feels that Netflix, a service they neither provide nor maintain does somehow warrant being subjected to an additional subscription. Netflix runs the streaming service, not Microsoft. Netflix existed prior to XBL all over the place, and continues to on other devices without the need of an additional subscription.
Now to address the quotes.
“Your argument it was on “other devices”. My point is it wasn’t on home consoles. Microsoft, for the most part, was the first to bring it. I addressed online play separately, but as you already conceded, there was no set standard consolidated. ”
So since, MS was first to consolidate online play into one package it warrants a subscription? As I pointed out the PS2 was first to introduce online play in games between the two companies, but no..not all on one package. I also want to point you back to *** which shows that even MS themselves don’t agree that those other services warrant additional cost from the consumer. Since MS does believe it does, being first there remains a moot point.
“My point there is that there is a clear cost that can’t be denied. Whether or not the console manufacturer decides to subsidize that cost with something else other than a direct subscription cost is up to them. Just because it has been on PC’s doesn’t mean anything, because PC manufacturer’s aren’t held liable for damage/viruses/identity theft from other manufacturer’s online capable software. ”
This falls into the category of clear misinterpretation between the two of us. I was specifically talking about Netflix and other similar streaming services as costing them nothing, but again, we can point to *** in which MS themselves don’t believe the mentioned list warrants a cost to the user. I re-read what I wrote and I can see how it could have been taken out of the implied context.
“I had already specifically stated my “choice” was to switch PSN………………………”
This is something you clearly took out of context. First things first… when I said you have no choice, that meant ‘one’ or ‘everyone’ has no choice, so we can stop the silliness. In that paragraph, I clearly stated that if you want to play online on MS’s console you’re left paying to do so.
You did follow that up with “if one “only” wants to play games on an MS console, there must be a reason for that, and they are willing to pay the price because of it. It might be for games exclusive on 360. It might be because most of their friends are unwilling to make the choice and switch. It might be any number of things, but whatever they are”
It might be complacency, it could be habitual. The 360 did release first allowing it to get a firm hold on customers.
“Low sales means they would be more inclined to listen to fans feedback in order to do what they can to increase sales. I.e. this is what the competition is doing, it’s working for them, customers (existing and potential) want it. They can “say” that all they want. The fact remains that if Microsoft wasn’t still competing with them they would have twice as many sales.”
My point still remains that the low sales don’t necessarily translate into borrowing ideas from the competition. It’s just speculation as to the cause of such borrowing. Remember. Sony’s been outselling MS on an annual basis (with the exception of 08′ by 100K units). Also, MS also borrowed some ideas from Sony, and they were leading in total sales. Cloud storage for one. Nintendo also led sales with the Wii and will borrow from time to time. Just look at Going Commando and Mario Galaxy.
Now. With that said. MS did a very good job at consolidating Insomniacs idea of “Skill points” into one unified package and calling them Achievements. Sony without a doubt borrowed this idea, and it was probably the biggest “achievement” Microsoft contributed to in the console business so far, and deserves praise. Achievement unlocked
“I never specified PS+ alone. I specifically stated:”
OK… You never did, but the topic of conversation is subscription services and subscription models, the misunderstanding is understandable.
“But since you misunderstood, let me expound. There wouldn’t be nearly as much on PS3, PSN, and PSN+ (including such things as trophies, video streaming, etc.) had it not been for Microsoft implementing it on 360 first. Does this mean these things wouldn’t exist at all today? No. It means there probably wouldn’t be as “much” available (or as soon) on PS3 had it not been for at least some of the leading examples Microsoft set.”
OK. I can agree on the possibility of that. Competition allows other companies to achieve higher goals than they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Now before it comes up…and it always seems to. I am in know way saying Microsoft can’t run their business in whatever way they see fit. That’s their prerogative. If Microsoft wants to charge their consumers a fee each time they turn the console on…again, that’s all up to them. However it’s our prerogative to critique such actions in which we feel suitable fees are unwarranted based on the degree of “service” or lack there of provided. Jim Sterling appeared to do just that, and I’m doing that as well. You vote with your wallet, and that’s also commendable.
February 1st, 2013
What this boils down to is: does the consumer have a choice between Sony and Microsoft? Yes. Do consumers still choose Microsoft over Sony? Yes. Do those consumers have varying valid reasons for why they pay for the service? Yes. As long as they do, Microsoft will be “justified” in charging whatever their customers are willing to pay for this luxury item/service.
In other words, Microsoft is still charging what they do not only because there is a clear cost for it (regardless of whether or not the competition decides to directly charge their customers for it), but they also profit more than the competition because people see value in the service, and are more than willing to pay for that value, whatever it is to them.
Is Halo good enough for people to want to pay an added fee online? Yes, just as World of Warcraft and similar games are. Do all consoles have the same amount of “free services” available on them at any given time (added in addition to online capabilities)? No. Each console is different.
People forget that corporations just don’t charge whatever they “feel” like, they base those charges off what people are willing to pay for the value they receive.
PS3 has it for “free”. Good. I’m glad. That’s one of the reasons why I switched to it and invite others to make that “choice” and do the same. But just because I choose that and it’s right for me doesn’t mean I should then immediately decry Microsoft for selling “snake oil” when people every day are making a clear choice to pay because of how fun Halo online is for them, or Gears of War, and any and every “free service” that gets added to that which makes their console more capable than it was before (this is simply gravy for them).
None of these consoles have been static this generation. They have been constantly changing (at least two of them) from year to year in software and capabilities, learning from each other what the consumer wants.
Are both consoles incredibly more capable than they were at the start of this gen? Yes. Is one able to charge for relatively the same services at this time? Yes. Why? Because people prefer one over the other for varying reasons which make sense to them.
February 1st, 2013
@roca,
Looks as though Kevin Spacey prefers Sony as well.
Money well spent for Sony?
February 1st, 2013
LOL I guess I forgot to add that as well towards the end of my post in the last paragraph…. I’m not denying anyone their right to have a choice or their right to spend money the way they want. However I’m expressing my right as a consumer/potential consumer to critique a “service” that barely provides one.
IMHO, Holding a portion of a game you already purchased ransom until you fork over additional funds is a pretty screwed up business practice and completely deserving of our ire.
Rather than providing a service, they took away a capability that has always remained free, even on their own OS platform. In fact, XBL or Games for Windows is free on the PC.
So I guess in a way Microsoft is innovative.. They’ve invented a pay to play online model for consoles.
Are they charging a fee for Skype yet? Wait for it………
I would like to get Godless’s input on the question I asked him….. I can’t imagine he would still be a Live subscriber, but who knows. Could Cloud saving and Party chat be worth the subscription price?
At the start of the next gen I have to imagine things changing over at Microsoft. I find it difficult to believe people will continue to tolerate this practice. Of course I also find it difficult to believe that MS would stop charging for it if their sheeple continue to pay.
Now I’m sure it won’t be drastic changes, like not denying people MP, but subtle changes, like a universal Clan system, or discounts to Gold Members. They did take it a step in the right direction for Cloud saving. Hopefully for their fanbases sake MS learns to give rather than to just take away.
Have a great weekend.
February 1st, 2013
I’m just grateful that home consoles are extremely more capable than they were at the start of the gen. From my point of view, I highly doubt they would be so (to the degree that they are now) if only 1 console manufacturer offered a consolidated network of services, free or not.
It’s clear the services evolved based off what the immediate competition offered and what the host company could afford to implement over time. There are plenty of free services still available on computers that could be implemented on home consoles, but no manufacturer has implemented them all.
It’s probably a given that when one company (say… Microsoft) offers the next “free” service that isn’t on the competition’s console, people will be immediately whining about how it’s “snake oil” behind a pay wall even though they are the first to implement it on home consoles.
lol. People forget so easily what did not exist at all at the start of this gen, how much each present gen console was initially lacking at launch. Like they all just flipped a switch day one to have all the online services working as they are today. Not surprised.
February 1st, 2013
“It’s probably a given that when one company (say… Microsoft) offers the next “free” service that isn’t on the competition’s console, people will be immediately whining about how it’s “snake oil” behind a pay wall even though they are the first to implement it on home consoles.”
You’re probably right and it will be Skype. Free on PC, smart phones and even the PSP yet locked behind a paywall on the 360.
I guess telling the truth is now considered “whining”.
February 2nd, 2013
Interesting. I wonder why it’s on PSP and not on PS3. Or if such services were so easy and cost free to implement then why weren’t they all on home consoles since their inception, or why they still aren’t all on home consoles.
All for the truth, as long as people don’t conveniently forget three quarters of it and oversimplify things that have taken years worth of efforts to get where they are today.
As I said, I have little sympathy for those who complain and blame a business about having “no choice” on something that is a luxury item in the first place.
February 2nd, 2013
“Interesting. I wonder why it’s on PSP and not on PS3″
Probably since PS3 already has video and voice chat over IP themselves…….PSP being portable makes a better case to use as a phone?
“Or if such services were so easy and cost free to implement then why weren’t they all on home consoles since their inception, or why they still aren’t all on home consoles.”
With the invention of cell phones, some luxuries lose their value?
“As I said, I have little sympathy for those who complain and blame a business about having “no choice” on something that is a luxury item in the first place.”
Agreed.
No choice if you want to continue to play on MS’s console online.
Now when did online play become a ” luxury” item? It was and remains a given before MS monetized it.
My sympathy runs thin with people trying to justify things not justifiable when they don’t practice what they preach.
Can you honestly tell me that the above article isn’t 100% accurate despite Jim omitting your non relevant point?
February 2nd, 2013
“Probably since PS3 already has video and voice chat over IP themselves…….PSP being portable makes a better case to use as a phone?”
Still, by your logic, there is no need to limit VOIP phone calls to one device over another regardless of form factor, as Skype has been on desktop PC’s for years.
“With the invention of cell phones, some luxuries lose their value?”
So you are saying cell phones (and or perhaps even mobile devices such as tablets) have made services that could be made available on home consoles less valuable and less of a value proposition for console manufacturers to incur the costs of bringing such services to their consoles?
“No choice if you want to continue to play on MS’s console online.”
“playing online” is no longer the only factor. Even when it was, having one standard for all online capable games had it’s advantages that gamers valued enough to pay for. As time has ‘continued’ more services have been added, several before the competition decided to add them.”
“Now when did online play become a ‘luxury’ item? It was and remains a given before MS monetized it.”
Since it’s very inception. One either had the gear and money to play online, something that is itself a luxury of time and resources, or they did not. Some online games charged an added subscription fee, some did not. It was never a “given” on PC’s and still isn’t. It was never a “given” on home consoles, and still isn’t.
“My sympathy runs thin with people trying to justify things not justifiable when they don’t practice what they preach.”
Fortunately the only thing I’m “preaching” here is that gamers have a clear cut decision as to what luxury items they choose to indulge in.
I “practice what I preach” in that I made the choice to go with Sony over Microsoft (for now) because of the relative value they have decided to add to PS3 years AFTER it was launched. Those things, trophies and PS+, were enough for me.
Some gamers had enough when PS3 launched, other gamers are still satisfied with the value 360 (and or XBLG) has brought them since it launched. Some gamers don’t play that much online at all. XBLG can be a complete non-factor for them.
Some gamers love Halo and Gears just as much as those who loved WoW or other online subscription based games in the past. Paying for XBLG is still a value proposition for them. All gamers who have been on 360 since the beginning of this gen have seen 360 (not counting the ones that RRoD’d) become more and more capable each passing year. Therefore I’m not going to stand on a soapbox and spout some nonesense about them being “sheeple” because I haven’t been on XBLG in years and I haven’t spoken to them personally about what values they still think are worth paying for.
“Can you honestly tell me that the above article isn’t 100% accurate despite Jim omitting your non relevant point?”
As I’ve said, the little truth he stated is fine, but it is not the “whole truth”, and what little he does state is clearly and maliciously biased. He’s entitled to his opinion, but it is just that when ignoring such things as timing and the constantly changing nature of online services just this generation.
PSN Pass didn’t come about years after PS3 launched because there is “no cost” to online gaming.
Cost, timing, value, competition and sales are relevant points. They have driven this industry and others throughout history. To ignore them now, or to look at only one corporations offerings over another’s in a relative smidgeon of time as if it existed in a vacuum, would be beyond naive.
February 5th, 2013
“Still, by your logic, there is no need to limit VOIP phone calls to one device over another regardless of form factor, as Skype has been on desktop PC’s for years.”
And by your logic (Timing), The PSP had Skype prior to the 360 getting it, and it was free to use, so putting it behind an additional paywall defies the established standard of it being free to use with an Internet connection…
“So you are saying cell phones (and or perhaps even mobile devices such as tablets) have made services that could be made available on home consoles less valuable and less of a value proposition for console manufacturers to incur the costs of bringing such services to their consoles?”
I’m saying it’s usefulness is slowly getting outweighed by free mobile to mobile minutes, especially considering it being a more valuable function on the go.
Could have Sony added Skype on the PS3? Sure. You would need a PSEye to use it, and that already has it’s own established software. Software that allows you to converse with 6 people at one time to Kinect’s 1 I might add.
Next gen we’ll likely see a partnership with Google for Google voice, and a Chrome browser tailored to the PS4. I can see this happening fairly cheap for Sony if not at any expense at all, as Google would love to 1Up Microsoft.
““playing online” is no longer the only factor. Even when it was, having one standard for all online capable games had it’s advantages that gamers valued enough to pay for. As time has ‘continued’ more services have been added, several before the competition decided to add them.” ”
Playing online however is the most important factor. It’s the most noted factor. Many of the other features you continue no name are available on Silver, making the point irrelevant as even MS does not believe it warrants a subscription.
” Some online games charged an added subscription fee, some did not. It was never a “given” on PC’s and still isn’t. It was never a “given” on home consoles, and still isn’t.”
Yes. And those games earned their subscription. Something both you and I don’t believe MS is doing by proof of not being XBLG subscribers. Let’s look at MMO’s for instance. The developers are constantly updating with new missions and content. The servers alone hold thousands of people which is a great cost. MS uses peer to peer servers, with matchmaking subsidized by the third party publishers, as well as adverts. Apples and Oranges……..
“As I’ve said, the little truth he stated is fine, but it is not the “whole truth”, and what little he does state is clearly and maliciously biased. He’s entitled to his opinion, but it is just that when ignoring such things as timing and the constantly changing nature of online services just this generation.”
I’d go as far as to say that it’s completely factual when he’s talking about the comparison, and not just opinion based.
Let’s debunk the timing point so we can show how irrelevant it is in this conversation.
From the start of this gen, Sony had an internet browser that cost no additional fee to use on the PS3 other than your ISP of course. Years later, MS released one on the 360, and puts in behind a paywall. Right there. Timing being a legitimate subject in this conversation gone.
“PSN Pass didn’t come about years after PS3 launched because there is “no cost” to online gaming.”
Let’s be honest with ourselves here. That’s a used game deterrent and nothing more. This is proven when it appears on games that don’t use dedicated servers. I guess I can’t blame them. Seeing Gamestop pushing used games over new games and seeing Gamestop in the black year after year when the creator of those game are in the red has to take it’s toll. On a personal level though, I think some changes need to occur to the current system, which I’ll provide on request as it could be it’s own topic.
“Cost, timing, value, competition and sales are relevant points. They have driven this industry and others throughout history. To ignore them now, or to look at only one corporations offerings over another’s in a relative smidgeon of time as if it existed in a vacuum, would be beyond naive.”
In a comparison between the two?
*Cost. XBLG is $60/year compared to PS+ being $50.
*Timing. Debunked above.
*Value. Here I agree with you. Value to the consumer is the most important factor, and why I’d love further godless input. From an actual ‘provide a service deserving of a subscription’, I think the biggest Xbots could look at Jim Sterlings and admit it’s entirely factual while Cloud Saving, and the communication factors are what makes XBLG worth it to them. The communication differences are the only clear cut asset MS has over Sony under the subscription.
*Competition and Sales. I just can’t see it’s relevancy in a comparison of subscription services. Sales were debunked, and while I agree with competition, I don’t see it being relevant to the comparison Jim Sterling made.
February 5th, 2013
“And by your logic (Timing), The PSP had Skype prior to the 360 getting it, and it was free to use, so putting it behind an additional paywall defies the established standard of it being free to use with an Internet connection…”
Better to have it available on a home console than not at all.
“I’m saying it’s usefulness is slowly getting outweighed by free mobile to mobile minutes, especially considering it being a more valuable function on the go.”
So it’s “usefulness” is getting outweighed.
As I said, it’s less valuable to the consumer and therefore less valuable for the console manufacturer to bring to home consoles.
“Could have Sony added Skype on the PS3? Sure. You would need a PSEye to use it, and that already has it’s own established software.”
No, you wouldn’t have to have a PSEye to use it, as the software works perfectly without a camera on other devices (iPad, iPod Touch, laptops, PC’s, etc.).
“Next gen we’ll likely see a partnership with Google for Google voice, and a Chrome browser tailored to the PS4.”
Sounds great. Maybe someday it will actually happen.
“Playing online however is the most important factor. It’s the most noted factor.”
I understand what you are saying, however, “most important” is dependent on the individual customer. It was not the “most important” for me, Netflix was.
Eventually, years after PS3 came out, Sony realized that importance and decided they better start offering it as well, and at no charge in order to entice customers to their product over the competition’s.
“Many of the other features you continue no name are available on Silver, making the point irrelevant as even MS does not believe it warrants a subscription.
Except those services can be offered via Silver because whatever costs they initially occurred or still incur are subsidized by other means (such as Gold).
“Yes. And those games earned their subscription. Something both you and I don’t believe MS is doing by proof of not being XBLG subscribers.”
Earlier on this gen it did for me. I changed my mind as a customer and acted instantly once I found a better option. As I’ve already stated, Microsoft will change it’s mind and act once it’s customer base erodes to the point where they feel it is a better option for the corporation to add more value to XBLS/G, just as Sony decided they needed to act to add value to PSN and create an even more valuable service to gamers with +.
“From the start of this gen, Sony had an internet browser that cost no additional fee to use on the PS3 other than your ISP of course.”
A year after 360 launched. An entire generation after PS1. As I said, timing. How often do you use the browser on PS3? I don’t. Value.
“That’s a used game deterrent and nothing more.”
Oh really? It’s not another source of revenue for Sony?
I’ll be back. Jury duty.
February 5th, 2013
…
“I guess I can’t blame them. Seeing Gamestop pushing used games over new games and seeing Gamestop in the black year after year when the creator of those game are in the red has to take it’s toll.”
Neither can I, which is also why I don’t blame Microsoft.
“Competition and Sales. I just can’t see it’s relevancy in a comparison of subscription services. Sales were debunked, and while I agree with competition, I don’t see it being relevant to the comparison Jim Sterling made.”
It’s relevant in that XBLG and 360 are still thriving because of their customers. If and or when enough sales/subscriptions are lost to PS3 and PSN+ for Microsoft to make drastic changes to their existing service, they will; just as Sony made drastic changes to PS3 since it was launched, then added PSN+. That entire process took years after PS3 was launched.
Microsoft and Sony are now at a point where they are transitioning to the next gen, and as Sony has already publicly stated, what each corporation does with their console hinges on what the competition does (and consumer reaction).
February 6th, 2013
“Better to have it available on a home console than not at all.”
And even better having it without a subscription when that’s never happened before.
“No, you wouldn’t have to have a PSEye to use it, as the software works perfectly without a camera on other devices (iPad, iPod Touch, laptops, PC’s, etc.).”
You would if you wanted to use the video features. Voice chat is also available through the PSN too. No subscription required. Also available now through XBLS, but with the move to Skype it looks like past free features on XBLS will now get stuck behind the paywall.
” It was not the “most important” for me, Netflix was.”
Why didn’t you just hook up your laptop to the TV? Why pay MS anything for this?
“Eventually, years after PS3 came out,”
A year after Microsoft’s contract expired.
“Sony realized that importance and decided they better start offering it as well, and at no charge in order to entice customers to their product over the competition’s.”
Sounds like a lot of conjecture. Especially given that Netflix was never subjected to an additional paywall in the past on the PC… But fine.. It was first on console so I’ll bite. Sorry. Your argument hold no water and I’ll explain once again why.
PS3 was first of the two (by YEARS) to have an internet browser on the console. Your argument appears to be that since one had it first, it entitles them to charge for it. OK…well, Sony had the browser first, didn’t charge for it, MS comes out years later with one… Charges for it. Can we finally lose the “Time” argument now? It hold no water. Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and I contradicted it pretty well.
“Except those services can be offered via Silver because whatever costs they initially occurred or still incur are subsidized by other means (such as Gold). ”
Wow.. The conjecture machine. So they subsidize the lot (Silver) with the few (gold). OK now. Not advertising or by publishers.
Like I already stated ad nauseum, Microsoft does not believe that stuff warrants a subscription. That means Carlb is not allowed to defend the subscription using something MS does not agree with! Honestly…. Defending a stance, they never took.
*rolls eyes*
“Oh really? It’s not another source of revenue for Sony? ”
Cool. You’re back to taking whole paragraphs out of context once again. Let’s see how many more times that could happen….
“Neither can I, which is also why I don’t blame Microsoft. ”
Happened again. Not really surprised.
“It’s relevant”
Competition is not false, just not relevant to the topic at hand. At no point does it falsify or dismiss any of the well made points Jim Sterling brought up about the nature of Microsoft’s business practice.
As far as Sales. Again. Hasn’t the PS3 been outselling the 360 on an annual basis since it’s inception? The answer is Yes.
“Microsoft and Sony are now at a point where they are transitioning to the next gen, and as Sony has already publicly stated, what each corporation does with their console hinges on what the competition does (and consumer reaction).”
You kind of took that statement out of context. They said there’s no reason to announce specifications if it gives the competition time to update their own. I’m pretty sure the specs of both machines are pretty stone solid by now given that developers had dev kits for some time now, making that Sony statement less believable, but that’s my interpretation.
While your points you made are not wrong per se, In the conversation at hand their irrelevant to the topic. Kind of like Microsoft’s “Subscription service” they’re all smoke and mirrors.
I don’t feel you sufficiently dismissed some factual information. These include.
”
*The Xbox 360 owner has systematically worked to hold its content to ransom in an increasingly futile bid to make Xbox Live Gold look worth its fee.
*The biggest feature is, of course, online play — something available for free on PS3, Wii U, and PC. The company took something that was already a given, and held it back.
*It’s done this with practically every feature on Xbox Live Gold. Netflix, Amazon Video, and (before retirement) social apps like Twitter and Facebook all require Gold subscriptions to use, despite these items being freely available on almost every electronic device on the market.
*Xbox Live Gold has never offered the consumers anything. It’s never actually exchanged a feature outstanding enough to justify an outstanding payment.
*All it does is take away. Even demos are held hostage, given a delayed release for Xbox Live Silver users in a fantastic example of just how desperate Microsoft is to create the illusion of worth instead of providing actual value.
*Xbox Live Gold is all smoke and mirrors — a delayed feature here, a withheld app there, a carefully constructed facade. So carefully constructed, in fact, it may have been less effort to actually give consumers something.”
Even XBLG customers that find the value in their decision to be a subscriber, maybe due to wanting to play Halo or Gears online, or because they love MS’s communication tools, will be hard pressed to dismiss such factual points. There has yet to be a compelling point that dismisses this.
Microsoft and Sony are now at a point where they are transitioning to the next gen, and I agree with Jim Sterling that Microsoft’s current subscription model will not be able to sustain itself if they do not make some drastic changes.
How will MS react, If come next gen, Sony has cross game chat and party chat (which is the only differentiating service)?
What if Sony also has a standardized clan system?
Will Microsoft still be able to trap online play behind a subscription for their few exclusives?
Sony has a few steps in order to win back NA from MS, and the above items I feel will be imperative in doing so. Others include:
-Making sure they don’t give MS a year head start to get a solid fanbase.
-Locking some exclusive content for popular FPS’s such as the COD franchise or BF.
-Having backward compatibility from the start, even if it’s just optional.
-Releasing two SKU’s. One Digital only, the other with physical media.
-Maintaining the current quality of PS+, and advertising it.
-Don’t release the console at $600. $400 is tolerable. Also release with a subsidized payment option which includes PS+ like MS did with XBLG, only Sony’s actually hold true value.
-Release two types of controllers. One original Dual Shock layout. Another with Dpad and Anaolog switched with 360 type layout. There’s a lot of people that prefer this layout. Don’t make the controller a factor in someone not purchasing your system. Also gives more options to sell hardware (controllers) before a third party jumps on it.
-Headsets in each purchase… Not sure. On one hand it’s something less you can sell, on the other, it helps establish a better feeling of community. I’ve always preferred to keep the headset away from asshats and keep it in the hands of people serious about playing online.
-Lock in some new exclusive content early on. Agent could be the answer to this.
-Have Planetside 2 a launch game.
-Create a digital rental system so as to directly compete with third party systems like Gamefly. In fact, work with MS, and Nintendo to establish a deal like what happens with Netfix where Gamefly doesn’t see new games until a month in allowing digital game sales to sour for early adopters while making premium on games you create.
-Don’t eliminate second hand sales but figure a way to make your product more desirable with incentives. Ect. Buy new and get the first map pack, other DLC for free, but then don’t release that until a month after game releases prompting people to keep their games out of second hand stores until they get the free DLC coming their way.
-All first party games come with a month voucher for PS+ that “add on” to your current sub if you have one.
-Have an exclusive IP that is tailored to 12 year olds. I hate to say it, but get them, you get NA, as they’re the ones going to be getting a high percentage of games for the following 8 years.
-Try and produce another very popular/great sports franchise like MLB The show. NBA sounds good. Being made by two teams and not one like they did before.
Maybe I’ll copy this to another topic, as I couldn’t even get Godless to answer a simple question here…
February 6th, 2013
“And even better having it without a subscription when that’s never happened before.”
I agree. Unfortunately Skype isn’t on PS3 with or without a subscription and you can’t make phone calls with it as you can on the other console.
“Why didn’t you just hook up your laptop to the TV? Why pay MS anything for this?”
I tried that, and even though my laptop had an HDMI output, the quality was nowhere near as good as when it was output through the 360.
“A year after Microsoft’s contract expired.”
Why would it take them an entire year if it was so simple and cost free to implement?
“Sounds like a lot of conjecture. Especially given that Netflix was never subjected to an additional paywall in the past on the PC…”
It’s sounds like business. Sony wants to regain the marketshare they lost to Microsoft and will do what they can to that end. The PC business model is different because it is so saturated, and in general most PC’s are able to run whatever software their is available on the internet (open platform w/PC’s vs closed w/consoles).
“Sony had the browser first, didn’t charge for it, MS comes out years later with one… Charges for it.”
Yes, Sony brought it out “first”… a year after 360 launched and had already gained a 10M lead… with a browser that was (and still is)… less than ideal. In other words, they needed a hook and it wasn’t worth trying to charge extra for by itself. Sony needed to regain the lead as quickly as possible and offer whatever they could for no charge. Microsoft already had it’s console out, had already established XBLG, and anything added to it was a bonus for people who were already subscribed. Timing.
“So they subsidize the lot (Silver) with the few (gold). OK now. Not advertising or by publishers.”
To a degree when it started, yes. There were not nearly as many ads back then. As it grew in popularity ads were probably able to take over much of that.
“As far as Sales. Again. Hasn’t the PS3 been outselling the 360 on an annual basis since it’s inception? The answer is Yes.”
Again. Would they have been able to catch up if they charged what Microsoft does? The answer is likely no.
“You kind of took that statement out of context. They said there’s no reason to announce specifications if it gives the competition time to update their own.”
Not at all. They admitted competition can change based off of what they do. The same applies vice versa.
“The Xbox 360 owner has systematically worked to hold its content to ransom in an increasingly futile bid to make Xbox Live Gold look worth its fee.”
The content is not being held “ransom”. They brought the content to the console market and they charge what what the market is willing to pay.
“*The biggest feature is, of course, online play — something available for free on PS3, Wii U, and PC. The company took something that was already a given, and held it back.”
Online play has never been a “given” on consoles or PC’s in general. The company didn’t “hold” anything back, they incur costs for bringing online play and are in a position to charge for whatever those costs are and make a profit on top of that. By doing this they also make sure they can take care of any liabilities, such as Sony’s recent $390,000 one.
“*Xbox Live Gold has never offered the consumers anything. It’s never actually exchanged a feature outstanding enough to justify an outstanding payment.”
It offers consumers the ability to make their 360 console much more capable than it was at the start of the generation. “Justification” is decided by the consumer.
“*All it does is take away. Even demos are held hostage, given a delayed release for Xbox Live Silver users in a fantastic example of just how desperate Microsoft is to create the illusion of worth instead of providing actual value.”
All it does is make an XBox 360 more capable than it is out of the box. There is nothing being held “hostage”, the game console still plays games out of the box just as the previous one did last gen. Being able to access a consolidated service that gives 360 more capabilities is no “illusion”.
“Microsoft’s current subscription model will not be able to sustain itself if they do not make some drastic changes.”
Home consoles just this gen have already made “drastic changes” in order to remain relevant. I see no reason why next gen would be any different. As I already stated, Sony/Microsoft continuously change based upon what the immediate competition is doing. Sony had to make “drastic changes” in order to catch up to Microsoft. If Microsoft loses enough ground they will also make “drastic changes” in turn.
February 6th, 2013
“‘…they studied the Sony model and saw that Sony could not make money on that hardware model, ever. So they supplemented it with software royalties, and Microsoft copied that model.’
According to Kempin though, Microsoft never really managed to nail the whole software-supplementation thing, with Halo ending up as the only exclusive software franchise they could depend upon. This meant in the end they had to look elsewhere.
‘There are actually two things,’ he explained. ‘First, every developer who now has an Xbox game pays a small royalty to Microsoft for the honour of having it on that system. The other way they make money is that they finally got their act together on the services and actually that’s where the money is being made. So they’re just maybe a little bit above breakeven, that’s all there is. This is not a big money-making machine for Microsoft.’”
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/06/why-microsoft-got-into-the-console-business
February 7th, 2013
“I tried that, and even though my laptop had an HDMI output, the quality was nowhere near as good as when it was output through the 360. ”
Has Netflix fixed this yet? I recall PC quality being less than optimal in the past anyway.
“Why would it take them an entire year if it was so simple and cost free to implement?”
Let me rephrase that. A year after and once Microsoft’s contract expired. So no.. Not two years later, even though I really believe you know what I meant.
“It’s sounds like business. Sony wants to regain the marketshare they lost to Microsoft and will do what they can to that end. The PC business model is different because it is so saturated, and in general most PC’s are able to run whatever software their is available on the internet (open platform w/PC’s vs closed w/consoles). ”
+It sounds like you’re throwing shit at canvas and trying to see what sticks. You’re explanation doesn’t address the Roku, or other streaming service providers that also don’t charge a subscription on top of the initial cost of the device. As far as “business” is concerned. No ones telling MS how to run their business. Just pointing out phases of it that are unjust in comparison to all the other business models out there. They invented putting free services behind a paywall. As much as you try and justify and defend that, by saying it’s “their business” to do so, or it’s “people’s choice” whether they buy into it or not, the fact remains true.
“Yes, Sony brought it out “first”… a year after 360 launched and had already gained a 10M lead… with a browser that was (and still is)… less than ideal. In other words, they needed a hook and it wasn’t worth trying to charge extra for by itself. Sony needed to regain the lead as quickly as possible and offer whatever they could for no charge. Microsoft already had it’s console out, had already established XBLG, and anything added to it was a bonus for people who were already subscribed. Timing.”
The browser has been around before Sony had a subscription service, yet didn’t feel the need to add it to one of the PS+ benefits once the subscription service arrived. If Sony already had the standard for online browsers on a console established, why wouldn’t MS make this a benefit for Gold members only and not for all? I’ll tell you. MS is a company that tries withhold rather than give. Watch when Skype gets hidden behind a paywall as it’s replacing MS’s current VOIP chat, locking out Silver members who already were able to speak to each other (outside of online gaming). You’re Timing point is riddled with holes. That’s been shown here, and even with the PSP use of Skype not behind a paywall and it came out first there.
“To a degree when it started, yes. There were not nearly as many ads back then. As it grew in popularity ads were probably able to take over much of that. ”
+++I heard from a MS publisher themselves on a podcast (I’m sure you can dig up these stats on google) That Microsoft charges publishers 60K for a lifetime of hosting match making and voice comm over XBLG. I’m sure that lifetime can be extended after a specific amount of time for further funds. MS themselves incorporates that relatively small fee into the budget of first party games. Most of their games run on peer to peer servers with very few exceptions. I’m sorry Carlb. You’re not selling me on this.
“Again. Would they have been able to catch up if they charged what Microsoft does? The answer is likely no. ”
No one does for that so it should be a given that Sony wouldn’t.
“Not at all. They admitted competition can change based off of what they do. The same applies vice versa. ”
Yeah. You generalized the statement to fit your point here.
“The content is not being held “ransom”. They brought the content to the console market and they charge what what the market is willing to pay. ”
Online play certainly is. What the market is willing to play is besides the point. You have to pay in addition to play the rest of the game you already purchased in which MS is withholding.
“Online play has never been a “given” on consoles or PC’s in general. ”
Yes it has. Online play was available on PS2 first for consoles. PC first with no additional paywall. I already justified MMO cost.
“The company didn’t “hold” anything back, they incur costs for bringing online play and are in a position to charge for whatever those costs are and make a profit on top of that. ”
Reread +++, and +
” By doing this they also make sure they can take care of any liabilities, such as Sony’s recent $390,000 one. ”
Seriously going there. We can talk for days and days about MS fines, and vulnerabilities in their software. Sony should pay that and call it a day. Lawyer fees will be more expensive.
“It offers consumers the ability to make their 360 console much more capable than it was at the start of the generation. “Justification” is decided by the consumer.”
“More capable” by selling them something free everywhere? So, MS made the 360 “more capable” by first “incapacitating it”.
“All it does is make an XBox 360 more capable than it is out of the box. There is nothing being held “hostage”, the game console still plays games out of the box just as the previous one did last gen.
Being able to access a consolidated service that gives 360 more capabilities is no “illusion”. ”
“More capable” by selling them something free everywhere? So, MS made the 360 “more capable” by first “incapacitating it”. The illusion of worth.
I can see we can go back and forth for days and we’re not going to agree with each other even though your practices suggest you don’t believe or act on your own debatable points. I believe poor arguments consist of “their business practice” and “peoples choice” as that can be used to debate nearly any critique or opinion ever established taking any responsibility away from the company in question.
So.. Keep up the good fight. The MS needs someone to defend their stance.. even when they don’t take the same at times as shown with plenty of examples, and the Xbot crowd needs someone to defend their stance on value, even when most of them would agree to all the points made here.
BTW. That IGN article is great. You however quoted the wrong places.
All it does it make MS appear as petty immature griefers. I even have trouble believing that. You don’t run a division due to spite.
February 7th, 2013
Entitlement mentality.
February 7th, 2013
“Has Netflix fixed this yet? I recall PC quality being less than optimal in the past anyway.”
Not the last time I checked a few months ago (Dell XPS 13 to Panasonic Viera).
“A year after and once Microsoft’s contract expired. So no.. Not two years later, even though I really believe you know what I meant.”
Honestly, no, I’m just going off of what you stated and not cross checking everything you state. But perhaps I should. So you are saying Microsoft PAID Netflix for a contract years after Netflix streaming was first made available. Sony could have done the same before Microsoft, or perhaps even had Netflix on PS2 (Considering Wii is also Netflix capable).
“It sounds like you’re throwing shit at canvas and trying to see what sticks. You’re explanation doesn’t address the Roku, or other streaming service providers that also don’t charge a subscription on top of the initial cost of the device.”
Open platform vs. close platform is reality, like it or not. My explanation does address Roku, as it is relatively open platform in comparison to home video game consoles, which Roku is clearly not. However, if you really wish to bring Roku into the conversation, then why doesn’t PS3 offer all the same services as Roku if such a thing is so simple to do?
“As far as ‘business’ is concerned. No ones telling MS how to run their business. Just pointing out phases of it that are unjust in comparison to all the other business models out there. They invented putting free services behind a paywall. As much as you try and justify and defend that, by saying it’s “their business” to do so, or it’s “people’s choice” whether they buy into it or not, the fact remains true.”
You’re equivocating they are “unjust” when they have established a console and a service encompassing many services that people are willing to pay for. Microsoft has been the first to bring many of those services to home videogame consoles while Sony and Nintendo sat on their hands or tried to play catch up. As much as you try and criminalize or moralize it, it’s very simple. They make a product. The product works out of the box. If you want the product to do more, you have the option of paying for it to do more. There is nothing “unjust” about this, it’s perfectly fair and clearly advertised.
“MS is a company that tries withhold rather than give.”
In my experience corporations primary purpose is to make a profit. Some do this by giving stuff away in order to entice more customers to their product, others are able to charge for services that their competition decides to give away. Others may also recognize the liabilities involved in such services, and decide to charge up front for those liabilities, instead of having to pay hundreds of thousands later out of their own pocket. Again, nothing “unjust” about that, just business.
“Watch when Skype gets hidden behind a paywall as it’s replacing MS’s current VOIP chat, locking out Silver members who already were able to speak to each other (outside of online gaming).”
That will be great, as I would love to see Sony match that service in quality then offer it for free just because they like to “give” so much out of the goodness of their hearts and it “costs nothing” to provide the service.
“I heard from a MS publisher themselves on a podcast (I’m sure you can dig up these stats on google) That Microsoft charges publishers 60K for a lifetime of hosting match making and voice comm over XBLG.”
Publishers profit off of their software don’t they? In essence, this is no different from the royalties of the past. The publishers pay the manufacturer in order to profit with the software sold for that console. The largest profit margin for console manufacturer’s has alway been software over the life of the console, not hardware.
“Yeah. You generalized the statement to fit your point here.”
No generalization. They clearly admitted the competition can and most likely would adjust based off what they would do. Don’t try and hold them above their own observations of reality.
“Online play certainly is.”
No. It’s not. You can play online on your PC or your iPod or your PS3 or any other device. 360 doesn’t have the monopoly on online play.
“What the market is willing to play is besides the point.”
It’s everything to do with the point. They make the choice just like we have. We may be in the minority or majority at any given time, but you can bet that corporations focus on what the market is willing to “play” and “pay” for.
“You have to pay in addition to play the rest of the game you already purchased in which MS is withholding.”
Except I know ahead of time what I’m getting into, as it’s clearly stated on the box whether or not you have to pay. People who prefer 360 over PS3/Wii choose to pay if they desire to play online. As I’ve already stated before, not everyone does.
“Sony should pay that and call it a day. Lawyer fees will be more expensive.”
Maybe they have another HQ to sell in order to do so.
“’More capable’ by selling them something free everywhere? So, MS made the 360 “more capable” by first ‘incapacitating it’.”
Just because my home phone has an ethernet cable port doesn’t mean I should be able to hook it up to a TV and surf the internet on it.
“I can see we can go back and forth for days and we’re not going to agree with each other even though your practices suggest you don’t believe or act on your own debatable points.”
I believe in and have already acted on these points in that I, as a consumer, have already made the choice in choosing Sony over Microsoft, for now. As I’ve already explained, and you keep conveniently forgetting, I believe that if Microsoft allows Sony to regain enough of their marketshare, Microsoft will be forced to change. Regardless, they are perfectly “justified” in charging whatever they want for the services which are not guaranteed out of the box for their specific product. Just as I don’t expect my PS3 to have everything Roku does, or vice versa, I don’t expect 360 to have everything PS3 does, or vice versa.
February 11th, 2013
“I can see we can go back and forth for days and we’re not going to agree with each other even though your practices suggest you don’t believe or act on your own debatable points. I believe poor arguments consist of “their business practice” and “peoples choice” as that can be used to debate nearly any critique or opinion ever established taking any responsibility away from the company in question.”
February 11th, 2013
http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/08/30/microsoft-to-increase-xbox-live-subscription-cost/#comment-137179
“After reading this and seeing as how XBL Gold offers me NOTHING I can really use here in Japan (and extremely little else I would use stateside), I cancelled my automatic renewal of Live, which should expire in March (I tried to navigate the menu on 360 to do this, then was directed to go on my PC, then I had to navigate and guess my way through to the menus and screens for the option to do so).
Finally, I chose to shut off automatic renewal, at which point it said:
“We don’t want you to miss out on all the fun!
When you disable automatic renewal, your current Xbox LIVE Gold membership will not automatically renew at the end of its term. We respect your decision but before you proceed, allow us to take a moment to remind you about why NOW—more than ever—it’s great to be Gold!… Play Online with friends. Instantly stream movies from Netflix. Get exclusive add-ons and discounts. The stadium experience in your living room. Enjoy video chats with your friends. Connect with friends on Facebook right from your TV. Update your status on Twitter right from your TV. Stream personalized radio from Last.fm.”
I had to laugh to myself at this point. I can already play online with friends on PS3 for free if I desire, I don’t have the option to stream movies here in Japan (and I can also do this on PS3 for free), I get at least four games a month for $10 less with PSN plus with “exclusive add-ons and discounts”, I don’t care about ESPN, I can already video chat with up to six friends at once if I choose to do so on PS3 at no extra charge, PS3 has a non-gimped version of Facebook for free, I don’t use Twitter (which is also free on PS3), and while I listen to Last.fm occasionally, I just clocked Pandora playing music from the XMB on PS3 (bookmarked through the browser – and on the slow ass connection here) at 1 minute flat.
Three more screens of CRAP trying to talk me out of cancelling automatic renewal (online games! perhaps you would like a different subscription plan? are you sure?) it was finally done. Good riddance.
You think Halo Reach online and 1 mo. timed exclusivity for a few shooters is that special MicroShaft? Congratulations M$ (they fully deserve this moniker now, there is no denying it), Sony has fully eclipsed you at your own game, and you still had to tack on another $10? If games or valuable features that I want to actually use are not added to the Gold subscription before mine expires (Mar 2011) you just lost another Gold customer, and the only reason I have it now is because I am locked in and can’t get a pro-rated refund.
I encourage all dual PS3/360 gamers to vote with their dollars for the gaming/feature value that PSN Plus/PSN offers over XBL Gold.
The sad thing about this is that there are so many Halo/MW fans out there who will gladly fork over the money w/little complaint, and this is exactly what M$ is counting on. Pardon me in losing my normal civility and composure in frankly saying the following: PSN PLUS RULES WITH FOUR GAMES PER MONTH AND YOU OFFER US ESPN AND A $10 EXTRA CHARGE? MICROSHAFT SUCKS. XBL GOLD SUCKS. You sneaky little fucks think people won’t cancel their subscription because you buried the option to do so? THINK AGAIN, YOU GREEDY FUCKING COCKSUCKERS!”
You said it all and were right. I understand the only reason this has kept going on and on is for debate but at what cost? You sacrifice how you truly feel for the sake of what?
Sounds like you kinda agree with Jim Sterling. Lmfao!
February 11th, 2013
As I already stated several times here and in the past, I personally prefer PSN plus over XBLG. However, just because I’m not personally willing to pay for whatever services XBLG consolidates doesn’t mean that I will deny other users still think it is worth paying for. Those paying users are the ones Microsoft is focusing on.
It seems you conveniently forgot I had a similar knee-jerk reaction to PSN Pass when it was first announced.
I don’t personally like it either, but I’ve come to understand that businesses aren’t always that successful by giving away things for free that have a very real cost.
Just as I now understand why PSN Pass exists and charges users for services they did not pay for in the past, I also understand why XBLG exists and charges users for services they did not pay for in the past. Sony doesn’t pay for things like a $390,000 data breach on PSN with goodwill, and their net loss has been ~$10B over the last five years. Perhaps giving away things that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars is a great idea, perhaps not.
February 11th, 2013
http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/sony-slapped-with-390000-uk-data-breach/240146918
February 11th, 2013
Also, at the time of my statement two and a half years ago, I did not use Facebook, and I still don’t use Twitter. At the time, I was also not able to use many of the services offered, and I’m still not interested in watching sports. I also didn’t play games online and did not love Halo or any other games online.
Those things and whatever other services they’ve added since then (it looks to be several) to me aren’t worth the cost of the subscription. To others they are. I don’t pay for a lot of things other people do, such as theater tickets, blu-ray discs, new expensive cars every year or so, expensive clothing every month, eating out all the time, cable tv, etc.
Whatever personal preferences I may have about those things and others which hold little to no value for me, I’ve come to learn it doesn’t matter as long as other people value them and are willing to pay for them.
As for videogame consoles, it’s clear that even though I personally own all the big three from this generation, I prefer PS3 for my own reasons, while others prefer Wii for their own reasons, or 360 for their own reasons which are not my own. They are willing to pay extra for what they value, even though I may not personally value it, and as long as they are, any business is justified in charging for those services connected to their own specific product if they so desire.
February 12th, 2013
“As I already stated several times here and in the past, I personally prefer PSN plus over XBLG. However, just because I’m not personally willing to pay for whatever services XBLG consolidates doesn’t mean that I will deny other users still think it is worth paying for. Those paying users are the ones Microsoft is focusing on. ”
You don’t have to deny anyone anything. No ones asking you to do that either. You certainly also don’t have to argue with me in favor of something on specific points you agree with. It makes you appear hypocritical. You also don’t need to make up excuses for Microsoft as to why they should be charging for services they themselves don’t believe warrant an outstanding charge for.
“It seems you conveniently forgot I had a similar knee-jerk reaction to PSN Pass when it was first announced.
I don’t personally like it either, but I’ve come to understand that businesses aren’t always that successful by giving away things for free that have a very real cost.”
You can still critique PSN pass all you want. There’s fundamental flaws in it that should certainly be addressed. Stating those flaws does not make you entitled or any other stupid adjective you can come up with.
You however weren’t purchasing those games. You were renting them, while expecting the same experience someone who purchased them would get.
I’m not sure why you continue to go down the route of the “390K fine”. It was a coordinated attack against Sony’s infrastructure, where such attacks have taken down services for branches of Gov’t in the past too. If you need to compare Sony to MS here, they’ve also been fined up the ass, and the security throughout their software only gets better on a service pack by service pack release.. Honestly.. Enough with that already. With all money MS has, their main source of income is riddled with security flaws.
“As for videogame consoles, it’s clear that even though I personally own all the big three from this generation, I prefer PS3 for my own reasons, while others prefer Wii for their own reasons, or 360 for their own reasons which are not my own. They are willing to pay extra for what they value, even though I may not personally value it, and as long as they are, any business is justified in charging for those services connected to their own specific product if they so desire.”
So they can get away with it as there’s no choice if you want to stick with that specific platform so it’s OK? You can critique a service while not denying anyone their “desires”. You did it here before.Have some balls and speak how you feel. You wouldn’t look so hypocritical in 90% of your debates if you took a stance, and stuck to it. What makes you think that you’re in any way denying someone something they think that has worth to them by calling out poor industry practices?
February 12th, 2013
I’ve already spoken how I “feel”, it means little to nothing when facing the reality of the matter, which is people are still willing to pay the price, years later, for what they personally value regardless of your “feelings” or mine.
There are plenty of people who want the services (that are available on other devices for free) on their game console enough to pay a subscription fee for them to be consolidated. Perhaps it’s because they don’t wish to purchase yet another device (or two) with those services included out of the box, and or simply convenience.
I understand this now and even though I personally don’t pay for it at the moment, I don’t think it is a “poor industry practice”, as there does seem to be some real cost and liabilities connected to bring those services to a proprietary game console.
It is clearly advertised you pay those costs up front if you desire, if not you can simply choose the competition which offers some of those services for free, and or perhaps get another device which has whatever services are missing from the competition’s product.
February 13th, 2013
I believe poor arguments consist of “their business practice” and “peoples choice” as that can be used to debate nearly any critique or opinion ever established taking any responsibility away from the company in question.
It comes down to lazy debating. What one does when they know they’re argument is on the weak side.
February 13th, 2013
I believe poorer arguments consist of “one’s feeling” above others and anthropomorphizing business products/services.
It comes down to ignoring the realities of the marketplace. What one does when they fail to realize business goes well beyond their own “feelings”, and others hold different values.
February 14th, 2013
All I see here is that you’re admitting that you are no longer entitled to have any opinion or critique when talking about video games or video game manufacturers. Not when, “It’s Peoples choice” or “It’s their business practice” can be used to make a legitimate counter argument.
That’s fine with me, but let’s see how long that lasts.
BTW. Try not to copy my sentence structure. You already know it bothers me, and I asked you to stop. It’s a very immature way of replying to people and it makes you appear less than sincere and quite frankly.. A douche.
February 14th, 2013
I’ve already stated my opinions and thorough critique as you already so happily pasted for me. I’ve also made the choice to switch to Sony years ago, then moved on. As you can see, that makes little to no difference in the face of the marketplace, as others value XBLG more than I do for their own reasons.
So, moving on from my own personal opinion and critique, I looked at why certain people do choose to pay, and their reasons, while I don’t share them, are understandable and valid to me. I’ve also already stated the marketplace may well shift to favor PS3 instead of Microsoft in the U.S., it just hasn’t yet. I think if and or when it does, Microsoft will pay attention to that and change as necessary if they care about their bottom line.
If you are willing to criticize others and be, quite frankly.. “A douche”, be prepared to have the response take whatever form it may, including revised sentence structures. You already know I’ll be patient , and have said as much, as long as you remain civil
and can retain some modicum of respect for those whom you are addressing.
February 14th, 2013
You’re a beacon of maturity. Thank you for reminding me why I’ve never bothered to follow up knowing you better through PSN.
February 14th, 2013
Ditto.