That figure is for all Xbox Live accounts which includes both paid (Gold) and free (Silver). Previous statements from MS have said about half of all Live accounts are Gold accounts. Combining this information we can conclude about 1/3rd of 360 owners pay for Gold.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
That figure is for all Xbox Live accounts which includes both paid (Gold) and free (Silver). Previous statements from MS have said about half of all Live accounts are Gold accounts. Combining this information we can conclude about 1/3rd of 360 owners pay for Gold.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
My bad.
Xbox Live Silver/Gold.
But it's funny that PS+ 90% increased after PS4 lunch. It means that before PS4 being lunched only ~2.2 million PS+ accounts were activated. Now we know that at the end of 2013 there were 110 million PSN and ~4.3 million PS+ accounts.
Is it impressive?!
On the PS4 the titles I have downloaded for "free" with the PS+ subscription are:
1. Resogun
2. Contrast
3. Don't Starve
4. Outlast
None of these are AAA big productions (I want to say Resogun is, but) and I think both 3 & 4 where already available on steam etc. But all of these are brand spanking new for the PS4, so its not like its just old old stuff.
So it being only old games is not really correct and reading Housemarque interviews they are very happy with being on PS+ with their title.
Not the PS3 numbers, but then again it was not a mandatory subscription for anything, like the Gold is for Xbox. You only got discounts, free games and early beta access sometimes with PS+ on the PS3/Vita.
Then again Silver for Xbox was free, so if we compare the attach rate for Gold on Xbox to PS+ on PS4, then its 33% vs 50%. Going by the numbers listed earlier in this thread, is that impressive?
Those 20 million Xbox Live Gold members didn't get subscription for free games, 23 million XLG (30% of 77 million 360s) >> 2.2 million PS+ (just 2.5% of 80 million PS3s and 2% of 110 million PSN accounts). Before 8th gen everyone complained that XLG is a pay wall and PS+ is a good value for money.
But seeing how it turn out 8th gen is really funny. After PS+ being mandatory (for PS4, not PS3/Vita/PSP), subscribers increased by 90%. guess what?! just for playing games online. :smile:
And you are comparing Xbox 360 (not Xbox One) attach rate to PS4. 30% (of 77 million) VS 50% (of 4.2 million). I think comparing 84% VS 15.8% figure of whole XLG/PS+ subscriptions is more funny.
So, no. That's not impressive BUT funny !
Those 20 million Xbox Live Gold members didn't get subscription for free games, 23 million XLG (30% of 77 million 360s) >> 2.2 million PS+ (just 2.5% of 80 million PS3s and 2% of 110 million PSN accounts). Before 8th gen everyone complained that XLG is a pay wall and PS+ is a good value for money.
But seeing how it turn out 8th gen is really funny. After PS+ being mandatory (for PS4, not PS3/Vita/PSP), subscribers increased by 90%. guess what?! just for playing games online. :smile:
And you are comparing Xbox 360 (not Xbox One) attach rate to PS4. 30% (of 77 million) VS 50% (of 4.2 million). I think comparing 84% VS 15.8% figure of whole XLG/PS+ subscriptions is more funny.
So, no. That's not impressive BUT funny !
Funny how? i am missing something?
Because it was.
Because it was compulsory. People who used to be able to play online for free found they had to pay to play online with their new console, so paid. These people would probably also have been willing to pay to play online on PS3 but didn't have to. So I don't see how this is 'funny' as the outcome isn't surprising nor ridiculous.
Those 20 million Xbox Live Gold members didn't get subscription for free games, 23 million XLG (30% of 77 million 360s) >> 2.2 million PS+ (just 2.5% of 80 million PS3s and 2% of 110 million PSN accounts). Before 8th gen everyone complained that XLG is a pay wall and PS+ is a good value for money.
But seeing how it turn out 8th gen is really funny. After PS+ being mandatory (for PS4, not PS3/Vita/PSP), subscribers increased by 90%. guess what?! just for playing games online. :smile:
And you are comparing Xbox 360 (not Xbox One) attach rate to PS4. 30% (of 77 million) VS 50% (of 4.2 million). I think comparing 84% VS 15.8% figure of whole XLG/PS+ subscriptions is more funny.
So, no. That's not impressive BUT funny !
But you are not comparing like for like, you HAVE to have PS+ on PS4 play online, same as XBox Gold.
On PS3/Vita you do not have to have PS+ for anyting, you just get some extra games at a nice discount.
So if we are compaing like for like its 30% vs 50% if we want to compare subscription for online play vs subscription for discounts games, its your number 30% vs 15%.
Silver is no point in adding unless you do a Silver+Gold vs PSN accounts....
Its very early, but if the trends continues like this, doubtful since its early adapters still for this generation of consoles, then its 50% for PS+.
If I guess, I think XGL attach rate is higher for XB1 than PS4, because XB have history of Gold = Online, while its new for PS owners.
And yes PS+ is also a paywall on the PS4 just like Gold on XBL
Well I am not sure I buy that only 60% of X360 owners make an account of any kind (because isn't any account=silver?) is that even possible (EG, use an x360 without a silver account?).
But yeah, comparing 50% on PS4 to anything on the oldass 360 is meaningless, a comparison of X1 to PS4 sub rates would be more viable. If anything it's surprising to me if only 50% of PS4 owners have + (no data here, just common sense). Again just because it's hard to imagine many dropping 400/500+ on a 1/PS4 and NOT signing for Gold/Plus.
Like I said, the percent of 360's (or PS3's) that havent even been turned on in a while is going to be MUCH higher than for X1/PS4.
Is it? Not every Xbox sold is also an active console. Some replaced older, faulty ones, some people bought one, gave it away that ended up collecting dust. It's pretty much the same on all consoles. I've had two PS3s (a launch edition and later a slim), which count towards the total number, but I'm still only one user.
I also know a few people who picked up a cheap X360 to play some kinect games, but to my knowledge never wanted to register a live account. They just got it with a game, connected it and played. These are not gamers in any sense of the word, just people who heard about it, saw it at a store, thought it was cool and ended up buying one for the fun of it. PS2 had a similar effect when EyeToy started showing up in stores. I know lots of people who got a Wii for this too. Millions and millions of Wii users, but I'd bet the effective number of "active" consoles to be quite low.
I think 60% among 80 million consoles quite good.
Shifty is quite correct above; As a PS3 owner, I never subscribed to a Plus membership because there was no need for. I wouldn't have minded if online required it, but it was completely optional. On PS4 it's required for online gaming, thus I've become a now paying Plus subscriber. The number was always going to grow.
Because it was.
Because it was compulsory. People who used to be able to play online for free found they had to pay to play online with their new console, so paid. These people would probably also have been willing to pay to play online on PS3 but didn't have to. So I don't see how this is 'funny' as the outcome isn't surprising nor ridiculous.
So sony adds even more value to PS+ by making PS+ mandatory for playing online? If sth has real value in it there is no need to forcing it to consumers.
Even now people saying PS+ have more value than XBLG. My point is that playing online is the real value, not some free collection of games or few discounts or watching Netflix or searching web on console.This things are good for list wars.
People buying games at their will and XBLG also had and will have good discounts on it. Not many people wait 2-3 month to test their chance on getting their favorite games randomly from PS+ for free.
Paying for PSN? so why sony made PSN free if this people were ready to pay from the beginning of the 7th generation just for playing online? Are you considering PSN and Live equal? you can say that they were equal from 2012 but XBLG came from 6th gen.
And in my point of view comparing 2.1 million PS+ subscription on PS4 with 23 million XBLG subscription on 8 years old console (77 million 360s were sold but what's the number of functional 360s as we speak?!) by percent is funny. It's like comparing economic growth in Turkey with USA and saying Turkey is a real competitor for them. USA is like barrel, Turkey is like tiny tube.
But everyone can and most compare PS4 numbers with Xbox One numbers.
Your comparison is not Like for Like in any degree, either. Also PS+ is PS+ your device determines it's functionality.
I reached to 4.3 million number for PS+ by this assumption that all of PS+ subs on PS4 (2.1 million) are new subs. And obviously my assumption is not true and i don't know to what extent. Actually my assumption was in favor of sony.
So this comparison by percent is even more meaningless. A big part of this 50% number for PS4 subs could be the same PS3, Vita or PSP subs that people were used befor PS4 comes out.
84% VS 15% came from adding 23 million XBLG subs to 4.3 million PS+ subs (27.3 subs), not by adding XBLG to XBLS. PS+ sub numbers is under 4 million for sure.
to all of those that reading my post:
Forgive me if I'm too offensive but I have to. This is my last post on this subject.
Yes, you can use a 360 without a Live(Silver/Free or Gold) account. You wouldn't get dashboard or game updates, but it still works. Unless of course some disc games required a dashboard update. I had thought those actually had the dashboard update on the disc. I knew a lot of people that did this, Mainly because the fat model didn't include WiFi adapter & they didn't use the Ethernet port since running a cable to their router was too far or too messy. Later models had WiFi built-in. So I would expect most of those connecting to at least a Free Live account, but then again, if they only buy disc games I wouldn't be surprise if they didn't use Live either.
As for Games with Gold, the games are getting newer. Their newest release game so far has been Sleeping Dogs. They gave it away 1st half of last month. It was originally released August 2012. Currently they are giving away Dead Island(originally released September 2011) & starting the 16th they are giving away Toy Soldiers: Cold War(originally released August 2011). Right now games are averaging about 3.5 years old.
As for Games with Gold on XB1, Phil Spencer tweeted on Jan 31 that we will know something "fairly soon".
Tommy McClain
You misinterpret. PS+ isn't being forced on users; it's being used as a means to charge an online gaming fee. Sony want an income from online gamers. They could have created a separate online play license and kept PS+ as a content platform, but they chose to combine the two. You can think of PS+ as two separate plans: Number one is a content platform on PS3; Number two is an online license with the added value of extra content.
How can you say that an online gaming fee that comes with hundreds of dollars of content isn't better value than just an online gaming fee?
Okay, that assumes the backbone experience is similar, but in that respect as I understand it, MS have taken a number of backwards steps and Live on XB1 isn't as good as it was on 360.Free to try. Similar concept to free samples and free-to-play gaming. Free online meant people were willing to go online and give it a try where online gaming was pretty new for PS gamers. Once online, Sony hoped they'd get people buying online content. Whether that's a better business model over charging for the service or not is debatable, but it's a legitimate, unsurprising strategy.
No. Where does that come into the discussion??
I tried both Gold and +. As someone who doesnt game online often I have found that PS+ offered me more value than Live did by adding a lot more discounts and free content. Sony tries to add as much value as they can through content while MS presents Youtube, Facebook, Web browsing etc as added value for Gold by putting them behind a paywall. Stupid. Simply stupid
Hi there, welcome to the board. As you might have known the PS3 had a hard launch, and was priced pretty high compared to the competition, Sony did several things to make their platform more attractive. One of them was without any doubt free online gaming. Those that play a lot online just had to apply a bit of math and then the PS3 maybe wasn't that expensive. Or in other words comparing the PS3 to the PS4 may be totally wrong for several reasons. Sony instead try to lure people in with PS+ free/subscription games. There was no way they could change the politics and charge for online with the PS3.
Now with the PS4 they are still offering more value for their subscription and without actually. Plus they have the cheapest more powerful console*
And what are we going to do, if you want to play online you can't choose a free solution anymore. So Sony is actually not risking anything at all, they are just maximising profits.
The real value? there isn't any choice if you want to play online with a XB1 or a PS4.
However there is choice if you want to do other stuff with your console, and if the above numbers are correct then there is a lot of people that don't really care for online. Anything but online gaming is free with the PS4 how Microsoft can live with that is beyond me...
And just for the record, i hardly ever play online on my PS3 or PS4 but i have had PS+ for a long time and i own around a 100 games on my subscription. And the main reason i started was the automatic "cloud" backup that runs every night (kids!).
Read above, and i consider PSN better value than Gold, when Microsoft offers free games on the XB1 i will signup for gold.
I doubt itForgive me if I'm too offensive but I have to. This is my last post on this subject.
*To be determined..
Hi there, welcome to the board. As you might have known the PS3 had a hard launch, and was priced pretty high compared to the competition, Sony did several things to make their platform more attractive. One of them was without any doubt free online gaming. Those that play a lot online just had to apply a bit of math and then the PS3 maybe wasn't that expensive. Or in other words comparing the PS3 to the PS4 may be totally wrong for several reasons. Sony instead try to lure people in with PS+ free/subscription games. There was no way they could change the politics and charge for online with the PS3.
Now with the PS4 they are still offering more value for their subscription and without actually. Plus they have the cheapest more powerful console*
And what are we going to do, if you want to play online you can't choose a free solution anymore. So Sony is actually not risking anything at all, they are just maximising profits.
The real value? there isn't any choice if you want to play online with a XB1 or a PS4.
However there is choice if you want to do other stuff with your console, and if the above numbers are correct then there is a lot of people that don't really care for online. Anything but online gaming is free with the PS4 how Microsoft can live with that is beyond me...
And just for the record, i hardly ever play online on my PS3 or PS4 but i have had PS+ for a long time and i own around a 100 games on my subscription. And the main reason i started was the automatic "cloud" backup that runs every night (kids!).
Read above, and i consider PSN better value than Gold, when Microsoft offers free games on the XB1 i will signup for gold.
I doubt it
*To be determined..
MS does provide free games for XBLG. In fact they are truly free. Even if you cancel your XBLG subscription you keep the game. Im not sure if thats the case with PS+ on PS4. it wasn't like that on PS3. A free game was REALLY a free game on XBLG.
Not yet with XB1.
So you are saying it's not a campaign anymore? Do you have a link to something official?
They announced it back in October....
http://news.xbox.com/2013/10/xbox-360-games-with-gold
Tommy McClain
