60GB PS3 being discontinued after July (in US only)

[DuckRacer]

Duck, you aren't thinking of the big picture.

Lower priced 60GB = at least another million sales. People will run to buy it (sort of) because $500 is better than $600.

Also, if you think the 80GB will be $600 this fall, you're lying to yourself. It'll be $499.

This is not a screw up, once again, the overractions and sensational opinions never fail. This is actually a really smart business choice to build a user base very fast.

You make some good, valid points... I guess the million unit question (har har har) is if/when the 80GB gets to $499. I think we all know it'll get to that point, but would it happen mere months after the bundle?

And just to clarify, I stated that the 80GB standalone (if/when it comes) would be $549, not $599. Not that it really matters.

 

[YSSMAN]

My point has been proven

Well, that largely depends on how you look at it. Guys like my friend Max have been waiting and waiting for the price drop, but if the sales are as good as Sony (and some of us) are saying, there isn't any chance they will be able to get these $500 60 GB models. As Kaz says in the video, when they're gone, they're gone, and they're back at $600. When that becomes a reality to those who were trying to get the $500 models, there are going to be a lot of pissed-off people (I think).

So yes, while they are pretty much dumping off several thousand models, they're still going back to the same price. Quite frankly, that may end up hurting them in the end.

 

[red70mach1]

I would rather take the newer version at its original release price than regretting to buy the 60GB at cut.

 

[Blackbird.]

When do you think this console will ever drop to $400? (serious question)

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

When do you think this console will ever drop to $400? (serious question)

When the people at Sony finally find pry bars strong enough to pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[Jedi2016]

Unless you know something I don't.

Other way 'round. The news I heard was in between. After the debunking, but before Kaz's statement made the rounds.

Personally, I don't care. I already own one. A price reduction means nothing to me. My favorite games are coming to the console regardless of how well it sells, and I've still got a Blu-ray player.

 

[TopHat]

I just noticed that Best Buy updated the prices!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site//olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat104100050000&type=category

 

[JohnBM01]

So let me get this straight... the $499 60GB PS3 will be discontinued after this year. But then, there's this new 80GB deal in the works which costs about $599 plus an extra game? It is a pretty ludicrous move. This $499 price deal lasts until the end of July. This low-priced HP computer I'm using costs about as much as the high-end PS3. I'm puzzled. Will I have to wait until 2008 to get a PS3?

I'm upset, but also confused. WHY would they do this? Is this leading up to the downfall of Sony in the gaming market if they can't come up with a decently-priced system that's going to sell regardless? Remember the last time a system was priced so high with very people actually owning one- the Neo-Geo. About $630 USD in 1990. Very few had the money then. Hell, I could remember Street Fighter 2 for the SNES costing $70. I think the Super Nintendo costed around $150 to $200 then. Fast forward to 2007, and we have this mega-machine known as the PlayStation 3. Priced a lot. The 80GB deal is good enough, but... I don't know. Is Sony a bit confused? I'm real confused as well. Can someone straighten me out here?

 

[Solid Lifters]

I think Sony is getting rid of the 60GB HDD version because of one factor. It doesn't have the media TV connectivity the 80GB version will have. Or, something like that. I read that someplace weeks ago, but cannot remember where.

 

[Robin]

Oh well europe gets screwed over yet again, they were talking about this on the news, how can Sony drop the price everywhere but the most expensive place to buy it, you can pick 60GB ones for as little as £240 abroad but oh know its still £400 here! I dont want an extra controller, or motorstorm! People like to see a cheaper price tag, not what they get for that over the top price, No one is going to buy one for thier kid for example at that price! I am so glad im getting one abroad because this really is the final straw, may even get one of those tasty 80GB ones... which I cant understand why wont come here, probably because the price will give people heart attacks!

Robin

 

[DuckRacer]

So let me get this straight... the $499 60GB PS3 will be discontinued after this year. But then, there's this new 80GB deal in the works which costs about $599 plus an extra game? It is a pretty ludicrous move. This $499 price deal lasts until the end of July. This low-priced HP computer I'm using costs about as much as the high-end PS3. I'm puzzled. Will I have to wait until 2008 to get a PS3?

...

Can someone straighten me out here?

1. The $499 60GB is going to be discontinued in a few weeks, the end of July, not after this year.
2. The $499 60GB deal lasts as long as the 60GBs are available. Could be the end of August, the end of September, etc.
3. The $599 80GB bundle starts August 1st.
4. Will you have to wait? Depends on your breaking point. $500? Get one now. $400? You'll be waiting a long time, well into '08. $300? Say hello to 2009. You could always buy a PS3 from eBay and try to get $100 off unofficially, though.

I think Sony is getting rid of the 60GB HDD version because of one factor. It doesn't have the media TV connectivity the 80GB version will have. Or, something like that. I read that someplace weeks ago, but cannot remember where.

What you're thinking of was the launch of the 80GB with IPTV in Korea a while ago. The 80GB might have IPTV, but I doubt it as Sony would have mentioned such a feature to begin with. I'm guessing the 20GB bump-up is to help justify the $599.

 

[Mx²]

There's not a whole lot of difference between the 60GB and the upcoming 80GB.

I'd still buy the 60GB now for the $100 less if you really wanted it.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

^^ Which is what Sony is banking on. It'll increase their user base, and since they pay less to make the 80GB vs the 60GB, they can drop the Motorstorm game and then drop the price of the 80GB from $599 to $499 in the fall.

It's a business move to increase their userbase and generate revenue via their incredible fall lineup.

 

[TopHat]

If the 80Gig is 500 US DOLLARS by the fall, I'll be good.

 

[DuckRacer]

One thing I've been wondering is how and when they drop the price on the 80GB to $500. I doubt every single 60GB out there is going to go to a home within a few months. When it gets to the point of the 60GB becoming like the 20GB, some stores having a few with others not having any at all, how would they drop the price of the 80GB in time for the holiday season when it will insure not all the 60GBs will be cleared out as intended?

 

[YSSMAN]

As far as I know, they aren't dropping the price on the 80 GB system at any point in the near future. They're getting rid of leftover stock that apparently nobody wants (not true), and instead giving American gamers the single $600 option of selling only the 80 GB model. Kaz made it sound like they managed to screw themselves out of a lot of sales by offering two models, but I think its more or less that he (and much of Sony) is overlooking the fact that most people (those being ones who do not have an HDTV, or an HDTV and other electronic equipment not capable of taking full-use of the PS3) don't want to spend $600 on the system.

Given that Sony seems to be confused about the issue themselves doesn't help any of us. While Jeremy has a point that cutting the price will open up a user base for them in North America (it is questionable just how many units there are that will go for $500), one cannot ignore the fact that once they're gone, they're gone, and we're back to $600 and no 20 GB models.

We'll have to see how it plays out to see how Sony decides to address the issue. I think that if sales numbers are as they say, Sony will likely attempt to find a way by which to sell the 80 GB model for the $500 sometime in the near-ish future. If not, its surely a bad-deal for Sony to be luring folks in only to pocket an extra $100 because they didn't make it in time to get an "old" model. Furthermore, given the life of the X360 thus far, it really is only a matter of time before prices begin to slide on that console as well. I wouldn't see that happening any earlier than the fall, but that being said, quality issues may prevent a price drop a while longer.

All of this being said, it is just one more hurdle for Sony to jump over before the presumably inevitable run to the front, pushing Microsoft and Nintendo out of their current dueling position. Pricing continues to be at the forefront of Sony's issues with sales (IMO), and dinking around like this isn't helping much at all. If they were smart (which I assume someone still is at Sony), they will have to eventually lower the price of the 80 GB model to the $500 neighborhood to better compete with the $479 X360 Elite (I don't care to debate specs, just prices), and maybe kick the 60 BG model down to a solid $400 to bring the pain on the X360 Premium.

We'll see, hopefully.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

When do you think this console will ever drop to $400? (serious question)

Now.

I just bought my parents the 60GB PS3 off Amazon for $500, no tax and free shipping. In addition, they throw in for free the PS3 remote and a Blu-ray movie, and you also get five free Blu-ray movies of your choice through the BDA promotion. You can easily sell all those freebies on Amazon Marketplace, eBay, or better yet Craig's List for at least $100, even as much as $140 seeing as they are all new and sealed.

That would give you the same 60GB PS3 that was selling a week ago for $600 for only $360-$400. 👍

It was for this reason I bought them the PS3 as a Blu-ray player instead of the $600 Panasonic BD10 player, despite Panasonic dropping the price of their Blu-ray player down from $1,200. Besides, after doing side by side comparrisons, the PS3 Blu-ray player was not only equal in performance, but actually better than the Panasonic in several ways. 👍👍

Speaking as someone who generally sides with Microsoft, a $500 PS3 seems like a much better deal than a $600, given that I'm getting the Blu-Ray player added in (compared to a similar-spec 360 which would cost $679, but you get extra HDD memory).

If you are going to say they are "similar-spec", but then point out the extra HDD memory, then you also have to point out things missing from the X360 Elite and the other X360 models as well, that the PS3 comes with.

For starters, look at the ones that MS makes you pay extra for like a $90 WiFi Adapter, a $20 Play & Charge Kit, and one could argue that the $20 Intercooler fan is a must own accessory. Adding that to the $680 Elite, now it's already up to $810.

However, how about all the things the PS3 has that are not available with any Xbox 360 and that you can't even get if you wanted them like:

• 1080p upscaling DVD player (the X360 has even gotten poor reviews for standard playback of DVDs)
• SACD player
• Games on Blu-ray w/support for 7.1 HD Lossless Audio (PS3 49GB VS Xbox 7GB game discs)
• Advanced Video Codec High Definition (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) Support (although I believe MS may have recently added a form of H.264 support, but at lower bit rates and limited use)
• HDMI 1.3 w/Deep Color
• Cross Color Reduction Filter
• RGB Full Range
• Y Pb/Cb Pr/Cr Super-White
• xvYCC Color Space
• 7.1 Channel 'Lossless' HD Digital Audio, LPCM & Dolby TrueHD, ATRAC Advanced
• 1000 BASE-T Ethernet
• Bluetooth 2.0
• Flash Memory Card Reader (SD/MultiMedia Card, CompactFlash, Memory Stick)
• Support for 3rd party HDDs
• LINUX Support
• Macromedia Flash & Java enabled, AOTK IME,
• Audio/Video Conferencing Support
• eZiText Predictive Text
• Multi Media Networking Support (play videos, music and look at photos off the PCs on your network)
• PSP Media Sharing Support & Control
• PS3 Cluster Support
• Folding@Home Support
• Webrowser (still amazes me MS of all companies wouldn't even have their own browser for their next gen console!)

So no... even adding the $330 worth of add-ons to the $480 Elite, it still falls well short of being similarly speced as the 60GB PS3... despite costing a total of $810 to the PS3's current price tag of $500.

Then one could also add in the $50 a year in online membership fees for Xbox Live and the possible cost and down time should you be unfortunate enough to have one of the many problematic X360's.

The reason Microsoft focuses almost entirely on price point is because once you really take the time to compare the differences between the two systems, the X360 no longer looks like a bargain, and in fact by comparison actually offers a much lower value.

Where the X360 has real value is in the fact that it had a full year head start, and thus has a lot more games out for it (although in fairness, many of those games do not even take advantage of next-gen hardware and are no more impressive than your average PS2 game… and so if you consider the fact that the PS3 not only plays PS2 games, but in many cases plays them better than a PS2 can, then the PS3 actually has a huge library of games already out there for it to play).

However, and much more importantly, Microsoft had established an excellent online community long before the X360 was even released. This is, IMO, where Sony completely dropped the ball five years ago by neglecting the importance of having a strong online community service. Microsoft created a much needed value to their console with the addition of Xbox Live. Without that and its lead in the market, I seriously doubt X360 would have even survived this long.

Judging by the quality of many of the games already out on the PS3 (like; RFOM, F1CE, MS, etc), and those to come as shown at E3 (like; Lair, Heavenly Sword, Folklore, Uncharted Drake's Fortune, Unreal Tournament 3, Haze, GT5 Prologue, MGS4, Killzone 2, etc), in addition to the impressive PSN games (like; Gran Turismo HD, Calling All Cars, flOw, Super Stardust HD, etc), and those coming up (like; Little Big Planet, Warhawk, Echochrome, etc), and the upcoming PS Home... these advantages that Xbox has been enjoying may very well quickly be surpassed unless Microsoft makes some big changes in their hardware and networking support.

From a hardware standpoint though, even the Elite has done very little to make any serious inroads into competing, performance wise with the PS3. Yes, they now have a larger HDD (although with the ease at which one can replace the PS3 HDD, this is hardly any advantage at all), and while it looked promising that MS added HDMI, they went cheap on that as well by not using HDMI 1.3, which means the Elite doesn't support Deep Color and wont have the ability to pass any HD Audio codecs to an external processor... and because it also doesn't have any built-in HD Audio processor, the X360 still can't support these higher quality advanced audio signals. However, these are but a few of the many things missing from all X360 models that the PS3 comes standard with.

So no, even the $810 X360 Elite with the HD DVD, Wi-Fi, charge kit, and fan add-ons still falls well short of being similarly speced to a $500 60GB PS3.

 

[DuckRacer]

If you are going to say they are "similar-spec", but then point out the extra HDD memory, then you also have to point out things missing from the X360 Elite and the other X360 models as well, that the PS3 comes with.

For starters, look at the ones that MS makes you pay extra for like a $90 WiFi Adapter, a $20 Play & Charge Kit, and one could argue that the $20 Intercooler fan is a must own accessory. Adding that to the $680 Elite, now it's already up to $810.

...

So no, even the $810 X360 Elite with the HD DVD, Wi-Fi, charge kit, and fan add-ons still falls well short of being similarly speced to a $500 60GB PS3.

To be fair though, you need to factor in component/HDMI cables and a headset to the PS3s price as well... both the 360 Premium and Elite come with those, and the PS3 does not. And you don't need the Intercooler fan at all, those things kill 360s. And you have to factor in bumping up the PS3's HDD to 120GB, which will cost you another $80...

And to fix the price comparisons:

$480 Elite + $100 Wi-fi + $200 HD-DVD + $20 Play and Charge = $800.

$500 PS3 + $80 120GB HDD + $20 HD cable + $30 headset = $630.

Nonetheless, it still proves that the PS3 is a much better value. 👍

1080p upscaling DVD player (the X360 has even gotten poor reviews for standard playback of DVDs)
SACD player
Games on Blu-ray w/support for 7.1 HD Lossless Audio (PS3 49GB VS Xbox 7GB game discs)
Advanced Video Codec High Definition (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) Support (although I believe MS may have recently added a form of H.264 support, but at lower bit rates and limited use)
HDMI 1.3 w/Deep Color
Cross Color Reduction Filter
RGB Full Range
Y Pb/Cb Pr/Cr Super-White
xvYCC Color Space
7.1 Channel 'Lossless' HD Digital Audio, LPCM & Dolby TrueHD, ATRAC Advanced
1000 BASE-T Ethernet
Bluetooth 2.0
Flash Memory Card Reader (SD/MultiMedia Card, CompactFlash, Memory Stick)
Support for 3rd party HDDs
LINUX Support
Macromedia Flash & Java enabled, AOTK IME,
Audio/Video Conferencing Support
eZiText Predictive Text
Multi Media Networking Support (play videos, music and look at photos off the PCs on your network)
PSP Media Sharing Support & Control
PS3 Cluster Support
Folding@Home Support
Webrowser (still amazes me MS of all companies wouldn't even have their own browser for their next gen console!)

Honestly, I don't know why you would list all those things... some of them are extremely minor (predictive text), some of them are lame (web browser, network disconnections and javascript errors galore! I'd rather use a real, stable, full featured web browser on my PC/Mac instead), some of them the 360 already has (network streaming, DVD upscaling), etc etc.

So, if those are the things that doesn't make the 360 "similarly specced" with the PS3... I just don't see it. Maybe if I had the latest and greatest TV displays and audio systems and all that jazz, I'd agree with you (in terms of the HDMI 1.3, 7.1 sound, etc), but for the average gamer, I don't think those things are all that important.

Where the X360 has real value is in the fact that it had a full year head start, and thus has a lot more games out for it (although in fairness, many of those games do not even take advantage of next-gen hardware and are no more impressive than your average PS2 game… and so if you consider the fact that the PS3 not only plays PS2 games, but in many cases plays them better than a PS2 can, then the PS3 actually has a huge library of games already out there for it to play).

The thing is, the 360 can also play more than 300 original Xbox games. And unless you've been introduced into gaming and bought a PS3 as your first console (which at the price, I don't think many people have done so), you've probably already played many of the PS2 titles you've wanted to play.

And you also have to remember that from your "40 games you can get for your PS3" list, the majority of those games are 360 ports, which are in turn rezzed-up PS2 games.

Games-wise, I think the thing Sony has against Microsoft is the first party. MS' first party (Rare, Lionhead, Bungie) compared to Sony's just doesn't make games that make you go "OMG!". Even Halo 3, which I thought would be a graphical showcase because of the E3 '06 trailer, just looks like crap. Blu-ray helps, but the PS3 first party developers just make games that simply look next-gen. And for any system, that's a big thing.

 

[YSSMAN]

And to fix the price comparisons:

$480 Elite + $100 Wi-fi + $200 HD-DVD + $20 Play and Charge = $800.

$500 PS3 + $80 120GB HDD + $20 HD cable + $30 headset = $630.

Nonetheless, it still proves that the PS3 is a much better value. 👍

I agree with both you and Di-Ni on the fact that you are getting more money's worth with the PS3 by comparison, however, most people continue to go for the X360 because of the lower base price to start. Furthermore, Microsoft says (who knows if its true or not?) that people don't care about Wi-Fi with the system, so I generally don't consider it a part of the deal (I too choose not to use Wi-Fi).

All of this being said, $600 is still a rather steep price for most people to grab onto, no matter which console you decide to choose. Much of that likely depends on what you're looking for in a console, and as we have discussed many times before, those of us who are into gaming are more willing to spend the money and get the good stuff than say more "casual" gamers, or furthermore the parents and grandparents who are buying these systems for their kids.

...Part of the reason, I assume, why the Wii has done so well at $250.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

All excellent points.

As for Wi-Fi, I used to agree with those that believe most gamers are not going to be interested in WiFi... mostly because many were not even using the online service, and those that did probably balked at the high cost of wireless routers and adapters. These days however, online gaming is growing rapidly in popularity, much of that has been thanks to Microsoft's ever improving Xbox Live network, and online networking in general. with the cost of Wi-Fi routers below the $50 range, and ever increasingly powerful laptops, more people are choosing to go wireless. I also suspect most parents/wives would much prefer not to see any chunky Ethernet cable running through their home... which would mean for some, restricting where they would be able to put their console.

However, I think in today's gaming market, Wi-Fi is defintely growing rapidly in popularity, and I even suspect if it was built-in to the x360, many people would use it. I just think most people instead balk at the ridiculous mark-up that MS charges for the Wi-Fi add-on and refuse to buy it.

The point you and others make though about the $600 price tag as being too high regardless of what all you get with it is an excellent and very valid point. There are certain price barriers that exist among your average consumers' minds for specific types of products, and I suspect paying over $500 for a console is one such barrier. That said, at least Sony is offering some really nice things for that extra cost, and as mentioned already, with the recent series of promotions and price drops, it is possible to get a 60GB PS3 for $400 or less... which is likely why retailers have been selling out lately of the 60Gb PS3 since the price drop went into effect and the additional promotions I'm sure didn't hurt either.

However, if the 60GB sells out quickly, and the promotions end, and Sony discontinues the $500 60GB PS3 in favor of having only one PS3 on the market, the newly announced $600 80GB model, then I think Sony is really going to screw up a great opportunity.

For the time being though, even with the $600 80GB PS3, currently you could still get as much as $150 for selling all the free Blu-ray movies and MotorStorm (assuming you don't want to own the game, and if you want to own the game then you have to take that off the $600 price anyway as you would have spent the $60 on it in the first place ), thus as long as the Blu-ray promotion lasts, you can still end up only having to spend $450 for the 80GB PS3.

To put in perspective, without the promotion, if you had bought a 60GB PS3 for $600, like those of us did over the last six months, and then bought MotorStorm new, and five Blu-ray movies new, it would have/did cost $785. Now you get the same package but with an 80GB HDD for $185 less. If you don't want the game and movies, you can easily sell them and subtract that from the cost of the console. Either way I think Sony is at least moving in the right direction by making it so that it is possible to pay as little as $360 for the 60GB PS3 and $450 for the 80GB PS3. It is really up to each consumer whether they want to keep the freebies or sell them. If they sell them they get the PS3 for a good deal less, and if they keep them, had they bought them new in the first place, then they actually get an even better deal, as the cost of buying them new would have been higher then selling them new.

If it were me, I'd go for the 60GB with the current freebie promotions, as it costs a good deal less, and if HDD space is important you can always get a 120GB HDD for less than $100 and you'll still have the 60GB drive as well.




BTW: Just want to acknowledge everyone for participating in an insightful discussion when it could just as well turned into one of those unfortunate, yet all too common bitter format war disputes and Sony/Microsoft bash fests.

+REP Duck
+REP YSSMAN

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Im surprised to find that none of you mentioned the fact that you have to pay to play games online with the 360, whereas, the Playstation Network is free. (even though, it is not quite as good as Xbox live- that is, in most gamers' perspectives).

 

[Blackbird.]

I've thought of that too but it really hasn't hurt Microsoft, as far as I can tell.

 

[DuckRacer]

Im surprised to find that none of you mentioned the fact that you have to pay to play games online with the 360, whereas, the Playstation Network is free. (even though, it is not quite as good as Xbox live- that is, in most gamers' perspectives).

I thought about mentioning that, but IMO it's worth it. You have a unified friends list you can access at any time in any game, and invite or join your friends in online sessions at any given moment. And Marketplace-wise, it got 6 demos in 3 days this past week where it took 6 months on PSN to get 6 demos.

...Then again, I don't play with people on my friends list all that often, all the Marketplace content is available to Silver users, most PS3 games I've seen use the PS3's built-in friends list, there's ads (T-mobile, Axe, etc) on the MP where there aren't any on the PS Store, you get raped by microtransactions (themes, gamerpics, even some DLC), etc.

Bah!

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Sounds like a pretty equal situation in either case. And notice that i did say that most gamers think that Xbox live is better than the PSN.

Not to mention, I still cant get my internet to work reliably on my PS3. Im getting very frustrated, as I cant download E3 trailors, demos, or SSDHD. And now with RSV, I want to play online more than ever. If anyone wants to help a poor soul out, and exchange a few pm's, I would extremely appreciate it.

 

[icelt]

Pretty interesting. I live in downtown Dallas and Best Buy's internet site now indicates that of the 6 stores nearest to me 4 are sold out of the PS3. Also I've been checking Amazon's top sellers for the past few weeks and it seems that the 360 has increased in sales along with the PS3. Prior to last week it was usually ranked in the mid to low 20's but it has now steadily ascended up to 11. Maybe it has more to do with recent game releases, but it still seems kinda odd that right at the moment the PS3 gets a shot in the arm price wise the 360 starts to sell a little better. Makes me wonder if a gaming version of politics "right vs left" dynamic is revealing itself.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I've thought of that too but it really hasn't hurt Microsoft, as far as I can tell.

As a matter of fact it has helped them, financially that is.

Often you hear XBL Gold members saying its not big deal by showing how "little" it cost's per day, but the reality is you are not paying one day and then not the next... and they avoid mentioning just how many "days" they have already spent on XBL already. I suspect most will be using XBL at the minimum of four years which for the US is about $200 and in the UK its over $320! Of course for many, they likely have been paying this for several years and will continue to pay for years to come unless MS stops charging for it.

If on one hand the same people who refuse to buy a PS3 because it's $100 more than the X360, then go and spend more than twice that amount on XBL that's where it gets odd... but also shows the brilliant marketing of Microsoft in terms of using ala carte pricing techniques for both the X360 and XBL marketplace - thus masking many of the expenses that their customers will end up having to spend more of their money on.

The whole "micro-transactions" system on XBL rather than simply letting you know how much something costs in real dollars, where you have to use a converter to know how much you are really spending is yet another very clever way of disguising the costs of buying things of XBL, and increasing revenue for Microsoft without causing much outcry from their customers.

However, I think people, even diehard XBL users are beginning to get wise to what's going on, and seeing what PSN offers for free, many are starting to cry fowl.

For instance, even Team Xbox is starting to put pressure on Microsoft to make XBL free of charge. Team Xbox's own Cesar Berardini wrote an editorial a while back on the subject:

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
By: César A. Berardini, April 19th, 2007

Xbox Live Gold is overpriced.

I said it.

Back in the Xbox days, online multiplayer on a console could be considered a value-added proposition—but in this generation, it is just a commodity. The PlayStation Network is vivid proof of that.

It is also worth highlighting that, with this new incarnation of the service, Microsoft is getting lot of money from Xbox Live, thanks to its Marketplace. The success of TV shows, films and other downloads have exceeded Microsoft’s expectations, so it’s not like Uncle Bill is losing money this time around.

But it is easy to criticize without proposing solutions and alternate options.

To prove I’m not the typical make-it-free whiner who is demanding Microsoft to make Xbox Live completely gratis, I’m instead proposing that the two-level memberships should exist as it does now, but with online multiplayer gameplay (as we know it) being free for everyone, while a paid membership incorporates new features. What features, you ask?


Server-Based Online Multiplayer

Xbox Live online gameplay sucks. A weapon like Halo 2’s energy sword or Gears of War’s shotgun offer strong evidence that the user hosting a match—which translates into having no lag at all—has a terrible advantage over the other players.

Paying for peer-to-peer online gameplay is a scam. If we are paying to play online, the least we deserve is a server-based system where matches are hosted on a server provided by Microsoft.



Clan and Party System

Everyone cheered when Microsoft announced that on the Xbox 360 you’d be able to listen to music while playing games without developers having to program such a feature (as they had to with Xbox games). It was a feature that became universal when it was incorporated into the Xbox 360 dashboard.

So, how about also throwing in there a Clan and Party system that lets you play every Xbox 360 game on Xbox Live like in Halo 2? Bungie (which is owned by Microsoft) has already developed the technology, so it shouldn’t be a big issue for Microsoft's Xbox division to implement this technology across the entire platform.

What benefit should Xbox Live Gold subscribers get over Silver users? Well, Silver users should only be able to join one clan, yet have no option to create one, while Gold subscribers should have the ability to create their own clans and be a member of as many clans they want.



Dedicated Download Servers

Have you tried to download a big file from Xbox Live? You can leave the Xbox 360 on, go to have breakfast, lunch and dinner, then read “War and Peace” and maybe the download will be completed. Granted, Microsoft is saying that the soon-to-arrive Spring Dashboard Update will help this process in a couple of ways, but…

If we are paying a monthly fee for Xbox Live, the least we deserve is to have dedicated download servers similar to those offered by FilePlanet (which, by the way, is a sister service of TeamXbox).

Furthermore, even if you are an Xbox Live Silver user, paid content should always be pulled off from a dedicated download server differently from those hosting free content. If you’re paying for the content, you deserve a better bandwidth!



Microsoft Points Program

Another thing that is totally unfair for paid subscribers is that paid content costs the same for Silver and Gold users. There should be some advantage for those who are paid subscribers and there should also be some benefit for those who buy more content.

I think Xbox Live needs a “Microsoft Points Program,” something similar to credit-card services or airline-mileage programs, in which loyalty to a service rewards you for buying content. Obviously, only Gold subscribers should be eligible to enter the program—and it could be an addition to the Xbox Live Diamond Card.

That way, even if you pay the same as a Silver user for a TV show, a film or game content, you will get some Microsoft points in reward.



No Ads

If you are paying for your online-game service, why do you have to see ads on those Xbox 360 blades? Furthermore, if you are paying for a game, why you have to see ads in games? I’m cool with ads making content free, but, conversely, paying for content should remove any ad.

It’d be great if Microsoft could a develop a technology that enables game publishers and developers to know if the user playing the game is a paid subscriber. That way, the game will automatically know if it should display an ad (or not) in its single-player campaign or online multiplayer modes.

Microsoft has already acquired Massive Inc., which (along with the other big in-game advertising companies, Double Fusion and the recently-acquired-by-Google AdScape) already has deals in place with most major game publishers. You’d think if they wanted to remove ads for a specific group of players, they could easily do so by signing an agreement and developing the necessary technology to identify Gold subscribers from Silver users.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Very well made points, but in comparison to the free PSN, many people would still rather pay for Xbox live, just because it has some features that better suit most gamers.

 

[Kent]

Makes me wonder if a gaming version of politics "right vs left" dynamic is revealing itself.

Although I wouldn't equate the situation to right vs left, I would certainly say there are politics involved in thsi industry.
Fact: MS is an American company.
Fact: Sony Japanese.



Beyond that, my personal experience is that there is an over-zealousness on the behalf of minor players. When I approached my EB games salesman about the 360 and PS3, the first response was "get a Wii-60 and forget the PS3."

That shocked me since I would like to think the sales-people would rather you get what you want than what they want.

More over, I've been amazed by the blatent biases that are presented in the media by TV channels like G4.
I couldn't believe how the tone of their broadcast changed through the week of E3. Before E3 it was a never ending bash-fest against the PS3 with constant worship of Halo 3. By the end of the week "the red ring of death" was commonly refferenced and the "shut up and accept that it was real" attitude regarding Killzone2 became more and more well known.

Overall I'd be inclined not only to say there are politics in the industry, but also to say the soldiers of this political war are mostly mercs with unknown goals and hidden agendas.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Overall I'd be inclined not only to say there are politics in the industry, but also to say the soldiers of this political war are mostly mercs with unknown goals and hidden agendas.

So true!

I had a similar experience that you shared about EG Games, only it was at a Game Stop store. I over heard a female sales clerk telling this person who was asking specifically to buy a PS3 that he shouldn't because the PS3s are terribly unreliable and that nearly every PS3 they have sold had to be returned to Sony.

It's one thing to maybe slightly mislead a customer into buying something you want them to buy (something that is unfortunately all to common among retailers), but that was ridiculous! It also made me wonder why? It was obviously clear she had a very specific agenda to make sure no one buys a PS3, but why? I can't imagine MS offering payola to salespeople, nor am I convinced they would risk doing that at a corporate level.

 

[Kent]

Well, I can say this much with certainty...

Right now Blockbuster (and in my area) all of the smaller video rental stores have announced they will not buy HD DVDs. Rather, they will only be purchasing Blu-ray.
With that being the case, you might find that the PS3 is being pushed to the side so it can be sold as a second system down the road.

Personally, I doubt that is the case and more than likely I think much of the bias from sales-people is a personal bias based on their own history.
Fact is, there was definitely a huge jump in the number of gamers after the Halo 2 online phenomena.

The 16-18 year old sales clerk I dealt with was surely one of the kids and I imagine he's someone who only considers himself a valid source of opinion, surely has no intention of "helping the competition."
(He was surely an xbox fanboy with a "play it safe and suggest the Wii as well" attitude)