They won't be the leader next gen. But they will be profitable and a good alternative. Everybody wins.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
If MS kills XBL Gold requirement for Multiplayer and focuses on Gamepass, then they will "win" next gen.
- Thread starter HadesHotgun
- Start date
I also chose a PS3, favored it over 360 for the same reason, free online.
By the end of the gen, it didn't matter. I started liking the 360 more, and wound splitting my time playing on both.
What changed over that time? I liked the 360 controller more, and games for both PS3 and 360. Where friends, co workers went.
Exclusives, 3rd party exclusives for both consoles.
That's what mattered in the end for me.
The posts about MAU vs consoles sales...why not both? Why not both....
Having more ppl in your ecosystem is not to be dismissed. If consoles sales can do that, I'm pretty sure it's still a valid metric.
I've already said...why did you think Sony got on the streaming and remote play train so fast. They are aware console sales isn't the end, the whole story.
I bought a Xbox 360 in early 2006 last gen, just because PS3 was still 1,5 years (Europe) away at that point and I was thirsty for next gen.
Sony will never ever give Xbox that much headstart in their key territories again. Of course, everything is subjective, but it is no hyperbole that Xbox is far less present in the awareness of the general public in Europe than you might think. Playstation and Nintendo are synonymous for gaming even for non-gamers in Europe. No one even uses the term "xobx" here. Sure it has a healthy fanbase, but it's neither dead nor is it truely alive.
100 bucks both for a year. Maybe wishful thinking but would be great
I repeat, I never questioned or said that the brand Playstation is not stronger globally than the Xbox.
Sony won in Europe and in the PAL territories the last gen against xbox 360 did it this time with the PS4 and will presumably win also in the next generation in those territories. But from here to say and regurgitate the usual story ... that sees the xbox without escape... and microsoft panicked when only seven years ago we had pratically a total different story.
i get pissed off at that user and stopped to answer him because lack of sincerity..and with all this able to point the finger by blaming others as fanboy
eh. I'm an idiot with a huge backlog I'll never complete. If I was smarter I'd just use gamepass and never buy anything except very view 'tentpole (to me)' titles. There are already games on there (and on ps now) that I've bought but never/barely played.
I see and hear your reasoning TC, but despite your attempt to head off the argument, it HAS to be made. They just aren't going to give up their biggest source of free money that they make in this console business.
Nobody likes it, but for the most part we are all trained to buy that membership on whatever platform we use. Yes, it would be amazing to not have the fee, but does MS sell enough extra consoles to make up for the loss of revenue of everyone paying for this annual membership every year. Doubtful. As such, giving it up would simply not be good business sense.
Now, I do think the more realistic argument would be for highly discounted game pass (or in Sony's case, PS Now) that would come with the membership. Rather than a sizable monthly fee- give people the option to get a year of Live/PSPlus + Gamepass/PSNow for $99.
This kind of offer I think would be quite tempting for many, and would really get people engaged with the respective platforms, and generate some additional revenue.
Nobody likes it, but for the most part we are all trained to buy that membership on whatever platform we use. Yes, it would be amazing to not have the fee, but does MS sell enough extra consoles to make up for the loss of revenue of everyone paying for this annual membership every year. Doubtful. As such, giving it up would simply not be good business sense.
Now, I do think the more realistic argument would be for highly discounted game pass (or in Sony's case, PS Now) that would come with the membership. Rather than a sizable monthly fee- give people the option to get a year of Live/PSPlus + Gamepass/PSNow for $99.
This kind of offer I think would be quite tempting for many, and would really get people engaged with the respective platforms, and generate some additional revenue.
Sadly, I doubt anyone will do much about it. Granted, you have publishers like Steam and GoG preserving older PC titles but console gamers are losing the war on preservation. If it's not a hard copy or installed on secondary memory, it can be taken away at any moment. That being said, if the growing opinion that Microsoft will lead the big three next gen comes to pass, I expect MS will lean back on the quality of GWG games just like Sony did when the PS4 surged ahead in sales. Then we'll probably see more effort spent on Game Pass titles since their goal seems to be less on giving away free games but driving Game Pass title sales.
They'll probably just combine Gold and Gamepass into a single service.
Ideas:
$20 a month just for the XBL+GP service.
$30 a month for the combo service + a Low-End Xbox One S console for two years contract. You own the console after 2 years.
$45 a month for the service and High-End Xbox One X console for 2 years. You own the console after 2 years.
After 2 years, you own the Xbox you have and the fee drops to the standard $20 a month.
aka - the Smartphone model.
Ideas:
$20 a month just for the XBL+GP service.
$30 a month for the combo service + a Low-End Xbox One S console for two years contract. You own the console after 2 years.
$45 a month for the service and High-End Xbox One X console for 2 years. You own the console after 2 years.
After 2 years, you own the Xbox you have and the fee drops to the standard $20 a month.
aka - the Smartphone model.
Last edited:
Gamepass+multiplayer 14.99 without gifting games! Remember this post )
They just need to merge both services into a basic fee, then probably add a premium version with some other privileges on top.
What does that even mean? Consumers decide how exactly? By doing what?
On here it's deemed they decide by buying the most consoles. That has worked pretty well up until now but it will not going forwards and that was my point.
I don't think paid online factors too much into the masses' console purchasing decisions compared to more niche groups. One reason why it has expanded onto other platforms, and why so many customers flocked to the platform that created the idea. So I don't think removing it will cause huge waves in the long run, but I think combining Gold+Gamepass would be a great deal/value.
I think putting first party games day and date on gamepass is already likely an expensive proposition for them. I think they're likely going to want to keep XBL subs as a way to offset that.
If anything I could see them updating the two offerings. Eg :
- remove free games from XBL - why incentivise people to *not* sign up for game pass where you're getting more games?
- possibly reduce XBL cost as a result of removing games so its more like Nintendo money?
- Have a combined gamepass/XBL subscription at a discounted overall price
So eg XBL is $9.99 per month. Drop GwG and make it $7.99 per month. Gamepass is $9.99 per month. Launch a 'XBL platinum' for $14.99 per month which is gamepass + XBL (along with the usual discounted yearly prices)
If anything I could see them updating the two offerings. Eg :
- remove free games from XBL - why incentivise people to *not* sign up for game pass where you're getting more games?
- possibly reduce XBL cost as a result of removing games so its more like Nintendo money?
- Have a combined gamepass/XBL subscription at a discounted overall price
So eg XBL is $9.99 per month. Drop GwG and make it $7.99 per month. Gamepass is $9.99 per month. Launch a 'XBL platinum' for $14.99 per month which is gamepass + XBL (along with the usual discounted yearly prices)
I've been thinking for a while they should drop the charge and that they will once they position Game Pass where they need it to replace the Gold sub. It doesn't make since I can play on Live on all platforms for free, but the one that they own (aside from Windows 10) I have to pay for multiplayer. It's only logical sense that they either remove it or add it to the other platforms. And highly doubt they would add it to the other platforms. Some major backlash would come from that.
Hmm... gonna briefly ponder this again.
Xbox Live Gold is $60 a year, which equates to $5 per month. Microsoft could simply integrate that price into the Gamepass sub somehow and allow it full online Multiplayer access. They could do this while keeping Gold exactly as it is.
Xbox Live Gold is $60 a year, which equates to $5 per month. Microsoft could simply integrate that price into the Gamepass sub somehow and allow it full online Multiplayer access. They could do this while keeping Gold exactly as it is.
I have no desire to use gamepass or pay anymore for XBL.
Only way to reach me would to include gamepass in gold for the same price.
Only way to reach me would to include gamepass in gold for the same price.
Gold seems almost pointless right now compared to what Game Pass offers. You get discounts anyway on GP titles (although not necessarily as much as Gold discounts, obviously). Personally, I don't play online anything, and the free game offerings pale in comparison. I'd be OK with doing away with Gold or as others have said, just merge the two into a single service.
I remember all those "Sony's leaving money on the table not charging for online!" shitposts that plagued the old board. Now Sony dominates another generation and money is no longer important, but "hearts and minds" is.
LOOOOOOL
A multi-billion dollar company isn't about to drop millions of dollars in revenue to make the consumer feel better about a console purchase.
LOOOOOOL
A multi-billion dollar company isn't about to drop millions of dollars in revenue to make the consumer feel better about a console purchase.
How else could it have gone when the title has "win the generation" in it?
One way I could see it working is if they kill gold requirement for multiplayer, but instead launch a new premium game pass sub where you have the perks of gold plus the game pass sub. So basically:
Game Pass (10$ month): Access to game pass catalog.
Game Pass Gold (15$ month): Access to game pass catalog, games with gold, and deals with gold.
An extra 5$ per month is 60$ per year, so equivalent to gold revenue. Now how many people would subscribe to these services is the question.
Game Pass (10$ month): Access to game pass catalog.
Game Pass Gold (15$ month): Access to game pass catalog, games with gold, and deals with gold.
An extra 5$ per month is 60$ per year, so equivalent to gold revenue. Now how many people would subscribe to these services is the question.
I think if the PS5 is BC there's nothing MS can do to "win"...they're too handicaped going into next gen, living as we are in the digital age
An installed base of aprox 50M vs 120M at next gen launch is not something that can be overcomed easily, whatever they do.
People will be tied up into Sony's ecosystem and BC will just seal the deal.
An installed base of aprox 50M vs 120M at next gen launch is not something that can be overcomed easily, whatever they do.
People will be tied up into Sony's ecosystem and BC will just seal the deal.
That makes me wonder if you will need PS Plus to play PS3 games online on the PS5. Would be a bit silly if you needed it on one machine and not the other (the PS3).
Although Microsoft currently has a system where you need Gold on the Xbox One but not on Windows 10 so it's not entirely far fetched.
They could make it free if they want to because let's be real, how many people will own a PS5 to play PS3 online games and not play any PS4 or PS5 online games?
They wouldn't loose any money at all imo
Exactly, the brand-power + ecosystem combo is an uphill battle you simply can't win. It's Pepsi vs. Coca Cola.
If you took the next Xbox and put a "Nintendo" sticker onto it...well, that would be an epic showdown.
Also, something people on Era don't consider: X1 was heavily overstocked in Europe and Europes's biggest retail chains for electronics Saturn and MM provided Tier 2 countries with Xboxes. Something like that is not going to happen again. Stock and logistics cost a ton of money. Retailers in Europe will be more cautious with their orders this time for sure, well, unless they suck at their job. They will most likely place huge initial orders for PS5 and rather small orders for X1, so a out of stock situation for PS4 and overstocked situation for X1 doesn't happen again.
Last edited:
They need fresh games that are exclusive to the platform and they need to prove that they can deliver constant quality over the years to "win" imo.
I'm sure at E3 this year we will see a blowout of trailers from all their new studios for whatever it is they're working on, but also, we haven't played anything yet and it'll be a long time before we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they can deliver. This gen they lost so much enthesueaum from me it's hard to get hyped until we see what they're working on and if those things are actually good or not.
I'm sure at E3 this year we will see a blowout of trailers from all their new studios for whatever it is they're working on, but also, we haven't played anything yet and it'll be a long time before we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they can deliver. This gen they lost so much enthesueaum from me it's hard to get hyped until we see what they're working on and if those things are actually good or not.
Offering a 'Gamepass + fully featured Gold' bundle and pricing it at $14.99 (in time for the 'full' PC rollout) would effectively add Gold's multiplayer subscription fee to the perks offered by Gamepass without them taking a hit on dropping the other revenue stream -- Microsoft could leave XBL Gold the way it is for the people who still aren't interested in Gamepass.
The truth is, Gamepass still hasn't reached the kind of adoption rate that could hinder the acceptance of something like this (referring to the $5 price hike for adding in Gold privileges). In other words, such a bundle of the two -under one fee- could work without eliminating either subscription... and there wouldn't be too much objection (in my opinion).
The more I've come back to ponder this, the more I see it making sense for them to just merge the two in some manner akin to ^this, as opposed to making online play free on the console side.
Of course it's also possible that they'll do something vastly different based on the data and/or goals they have in mind. I just hope that whatever they do works out well for both them and the fanbase.
The truth is, Gamepass still hasn't reached the kind of adoption rate that could hinder the acceptance of something like this (referring to the $5 price hike for adding in Gold privileges). In other words, such a bundle of the two -under one fee- could work without eliminating either subscription... and there wouldn't be too much objection (in my opinion).
The more I've come back to ponder this, the more I see it making sense for them to just merge the two in some manner akin to ^this, as opposed to making online play free on the console side.
Of course it's also possible that they'll do something vastly different based on the data and/or goals they have in mind. I just hope that whatever they do works out well for both them and the fanbase.
Last edited: