What free games will I get at launch? I don't have a ps3 or a vita so will sony give me out free launch titles the first 3-6 months of the console launch?
Also I've been getting free games with my gold subscription on the xbox 360.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
What free games will I get at launch? I don't have a ps3 or a vita so will sony give me out free launch titles the first 3-6 months of the console launch?
Also I've been getting free games with my gold subscription on the xbox 360.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
A version of DriveClub is free at launch. This is ideal to me, I loved Motorstorm and played hundreds of hours of Gran Turismo when it launched on the original PlayStation, but nothing of what I've seen of Drive Club would lead me to buy it. But for free? I'd bet Knack will go PS+ free within a few months.
I subscribe to PS+ for two reasons:
- never having to deal with game patches. oh man, I remember the horror!
- the free and discounted content.
Discounted and free content through PS+ is an area where Microsoft are playing catchup. When I first subscribed to Plus, I immediately downloaded games far exceeding the cost of what I'd just paid. PS+ and PS3/Vita Cross By/Cross Play is a significant factor of me buying Sony first next generation.
GrimThorne
Newcomer
I think they understand their install base quite well. They know that their base doesn't like to pay for anything, or be charged more for services they feel should be basic/standard.
It's arguably not the best business model, but it's probably just as simple as that.
I expect there will be discounts for some titles and probably free indi titles etc. Most likely PS4 versions of Vita/PS3 cross buy games already there etc.
If I was managing PS+ I would at least try to do that
Ultimately this argument is pointless if you ever intend to play online (which I assume most people do). At that point you no longer care what is or isn't behind a paywall. And when you look at all the games with seamless multiplayer without lobbies, you really are missing out if you aren't a subscriber. As such, Sony may be looking generous, but they no doubt expect to get Xbox-live levels of subscribers on PS+. I don't know why you'd buy a $399 console just to watch Netflix when there are plenty of other streamers for $99.
You people are arguing a moot point. Let's move on please.
You people are arguing a moot point. Let's move on please.
Some 40% don't
Why? It's a relevant aspect to the business propositions of the two companies. If charging fees for services didn't come with any business drawbacks, everyone would be doing. Google would be charging $10 a year to every Google subscriber to use their services, etc. We also wouldn't have free-to-play games as every game could charge a subscription fee. A pay-to-access service structure affects who is willing to buy into your platform. The degree of that impact on XB1 and PS4 is a very relevant topic and this is the thread to discuss it. I find the intention to silence a topic one considers they have the only relevant perspective on is in very poor form. The only legitimate reason to silence a conversation is if either it's completely crazy and generating noise, or has been done to death before and there's no new ground being covered. The services behind each company's paywall for the next-gen consoles is still fresh conversation (even if not terribly surprising).
Well I hear tell that 40% (
)of the 360s sold don't have gold accounts so I guess I would say that there is something of a market for such a product. I mean these people DO EXIST even if you find their existence debatable I mean how much functionality put behind the paywall can be justified ? Is it reasonable to put all multimedia functionality into the gold account. Wanna stream something from your computer .. need a gold account ( I don't know if that is the case I'm just making a point).
MS should be honest and get rid of the silver account and market the XB1 as an internet appliance that needs a fee to use but for some reason they don't ... wonder why
Now the real question is for those who believe that there is no real valuable customer base WITHOUT a gold subscription why all the drama about always online and cloud computing ???
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the offerings from Microsoft are solid games and you get to own them forever! .
However the stream of games that ps+ so far has offered has been remarkable, so much that it really keeps people paying for ps+
It's 2 different strategies online players on the xbox will get everything the xbox one had to offer.
Sony on the other hand tries to convince everyone into ps+, you don't really need to have a desire for online gaming to buy ps+ you just need to want cheap games.
However those that doesn't wanna subscribe to "games" and doesn't play a lot online might feel fine with all the out of the box features. No business from them.
Microsoft on the other hand might convince the same group that they have to pay for gold.
I would speculate they carry over the rebate in the PS store like there is now and give access to betas of multiplayer games. The full value wont arrive until there is games to be had, until then many might stay off.
The problem is that as good a deal as PS plus is, it hasn't gotten adoption at anything like the levels of Gold. I suspect that's the primary reason online play is behind the paywall on PS4.
Offering people free games isn't the same incentive that locking people out of multiplayer is.
Offering people free games isn't the same incentive that locking people out of multiplayer is.
I'd say it's the latter and definitely not the former. It just has to do with having a flexible business model where the expectations behind the service are easily apparent to the intended audience.
Sony doesn't charge for other non-gaming entertainment services because they understand that people have already paid for those services in advance, and creating a subscription service with additional incentives attracts new users and XBL users alike.
PS Plus also isn't the only way Sony makes money from PSN, they still profit through digital content as well. They will more than likely take a share of profit through any F2P and MMO games, so keeping those free of PS Plus helps in a lot of ways.
Does MS profit in similar ways through XBL? Sure they do, but Sony's way makes it the more attractive option. It's a flexible yet plenty profitable plan for the long-term, not stern and super profitable for the short-term.
The only thing MS can do is market their product like the competition doesn't exist, and explain all the benefits well-enough while glossing over the downsides. Unless they somehow gain a swarm of new customers, and quickly convert 360 uses to One users, they will have lose some marketshare to Sony.
Right by putting all that functionality behind the gold wall
It is a way to do it of course it but will such a very casual gaming crowd appreciate that kind of behavior ?You are. Netflix will drop the quality of the stream if there is a performance issue and cache data as the stream plays, then return to a higher quality stream as the cache grows large enough. There is almost no time spent waiting for the stream to cache under normal usage; it isn't even an option in the UI. The numbers aren't distorted, people really do use both consoles more for entertainment apps than playing games.
Right by putting all that functionality behind the gold wall
I think you might be confusing casual with cheap. They aren't casual because they can't afford to buy games.
I don't think I am confusing them and I surely understand that it's not about affording games. Being discerning in buying something that costs 500 bucks isn't being cheap, it's being reasonable.
The very occasional gamer will look at 400 bucks vs 560 and make a decision as to whether or not 160 bucks is worth it to control a TV with voice and gestures since that is really the only difference forgetting the NFL deal ( which will costs extra I would assume ). Lots of TV centric folks have DVRs and such already so how the XB1 and it's surcharge plays with them is anyone's guess.Personally I think the Kinect will catch on when it comes to apps rather than gameplay at first so later on I could see more interest in a Kinect system that happens to play games but right now TV control is what is used to sell the system. It will be enough for many people but how many.
I don't think I am confusing them and I surely understand that it's not about affording games. Being discerning in buying something that costs 500 bucks isn't being cheap, it's being reasonable.
Personally I think the Kinect will catch on when it comes to apps rather than gameplay at first so later on I could see more interest in a Kinect system that happens to play games but right now TV control is what is used to sell the system. It will be enough for many people but how many.
I doubt very much you speak for the casual gamer. Some won't want to spend money on a subscription, others will think nothing of it. Just like some won't spend $5 for a coffee and others think nothing of it.
As a business starbucks doesn't really give a crap about the people who won't spend more than $1 on a cup of coffee yet that has managed to work out pretty well for them. It's the same here, offering services aren't free, many people expect to pay for them. Some people won't but the people who aren't going to make money for your business aren't really worth having as a customer.
So they might take their business somewhere else? You are making it seem like it doesn't matter where the customer is. If someone prefers the Gold offerings over the PS+ offers Sony should better care.
And just because some of the coming console owners doesn't want to pay for online play doesn't make them non paying customers
If they're not paying, then you don't care about them. If the people who buy a PS4 because it's services are free are also the sort of people who are going to pay next-to-nothing on content and services, then MS won't miss anything. Going with AlphaWolf's Starbucks analogy, Starbucks is missing out on potentially millions of customers by not charging $1 a coffee, but in terms of profit they are far better served selling a higher priced product to a smaller number of people. It's the same (MS hopes) with services on a fee-chargeable network service. The sorts of people who won't pay for MS's internet service and the sorts of customers MS doesn't want, and catering for them would reduce total profitability as the customers who are willing to pay get away without paying anything.
Similar threads
