Digitally Downloaded writes: "While Sony hasn't mentioned anything with regards to pricing, if we look closely at modern technology business models, and Sony's own directions in recent years, the idea of selling the PlayStation 4 for free is not one that would surprise me if it eventuates."
40°
30°
30°
30°
Ad 
40°
So, I won't be surprised that it is "free" because I know it won't be free.
"It's a sales model that Sony has already experimented with - I bought my PlayStation Vita that way last year. "
Seriously? I don't remember Sony going this way, I remember there was layaway and such, but nothing from Sony.
This is pretty much using a credit card in a way. There's no way it'll be free, that's just plain dumb. Sony won't be able to keep up with the demand, and no one wants to lock-in a contract for a hardware that isn't specified to a retail. The difference between Phones and this is that i can go to Verizon wireless if I can pay my contract, ect ect.
Lets not forget, Retailers buy these consoles, it's not sony selling them directly to us. When they say "Shipped" sales it means sold to retails.
***The idea here is that, rather than buy the console for an upfront cost, Sony could consider offering a mobile phone-style contract that comes with a monthly bill. So for instance you take the PlayStation 4 home with you for free, and then pay $AU50 a month for the console and a PlayStation Plus subscription over the course of two years. ***
That's an on-going subscription fee for hardware. Meaning a few things:
1. You can't sell it to someone else because it has the contract that is tied to you and your account until you've paid the full subscription period out. It may even restrict account usage on the machine during this period of time.
2. If you decide to get rid of it early, you pay a fee.
3. You are paying for a service that you may not even need and will only increase the cost of the console itself.
4. Overall cost will equal at least 25% more, closer to 50% more, as if you had just paid for the hardware. They will want to make money in interest to make up for not getting the money in one flat sum up front.
5. Gamers are very big on the concept of 'I own it, it's mine to do with as I please' which is not going to be possible with a device like this. As it is covered by a subscription fee, there will be limitations that you will have to agree to during the subscription period that will make it impossible to do things some people normally would.
The people who buy the $99 360 consoles w/XBLive for 24 months (which are not many to say the least) are not 'gamers'. Gamers buy their hardware at a set price and use it from there. They don't like to be tied down with subscription rules and needs based on this hardware.
Don't see what else there is to understand about there not being a 'free' PS3 at release.
Yes, I know I'm generalizing gamers, but I'm doing it in an arena where I'm sure most would agree that they wouldn't want to pay more for a console just to pay it off overtime when they already are invested in a hobby with higher costs than others (and have done so through times when it was even more expensive to afford).
If you want proof of my opinion, check out a few of the response already on here. Specifically #3 and #4.
@Logicwins: It's not going to cost $25/month or anything close to that low. It's going to be priced at least 25% above MFG Retail price with a plan to make the money back within 2 years, if not sooner. Couple that with the 'service' they are providing, which currently is on its own $50/year. If they did this, it will cost upwards of $45/month using this sort of methodology. Sure, it would be neat to pay $350 for a new console on lay-away. But, the PS4 likely isn't going to cost that low to begin with. And they're going to want to make interest on the money that they are not getting up front as well.
eg. https://www.optus.com.au/sh...
Even mobile phones give you the option to buy outright.
Even mobile phones give you the option to buy outright"
MOST people would rather spend $100-$200 for a smartphone and then pay $30 a month. Unless you buy prepaid, EVEN if you buy a smartphone outright($500-$700 for a decent one), you still have to pay that monthly fee for minutes, data, and text.
Two year financing is a great option for people who don't have the money to buy outright. People who usually wait two years for a price drop can buy a console at launch.
And Cgoodno, if Sony does this...it WON'T be $75 a year. Thats ludicrous. I understand how u gt to that number, but Sony would never charge that much. It'll be $200-$250 upfront, then you'll be locked into a $10-$20 a month contract for two years.
and if they can make an interesting gaikai subscription (something like games unlimited) I would subscribe to that to.
I think we've matured past the "oohh, cell phones are hot right now! Let's do everything that the phones do and expect the same success!" fad. Yes, cell phones are successful....as phones/mobile computers.
Then again, lots of publishers are still trying to duplicate COD and its success, so maybe I'm giving too much credit...
I love what you have to say except for one part.
"...they wouldn't want to pay more for a console just to pay it off overtime..."
They have actually done this for millions of consoles already. Remember the argument that the PS3 was too expensive at launch and the Xbox 360 was cheaper? Look now 7 years later how much has been paid for that cheapera ta launch Xbox. Many, many people forked over Xbox Live for 7 years, some paid for Wifi, some paid for a larger, outrageously more expensive HDD, some even paid for a HDD DVD player.
There are plenty of gamers that put over $1000 into their Xbox buying basics such as online MP and a HDD.
Quite a few people are willing to pay a ton of money in the long run for something that appears cheap up front. Places such as Rent America thrive on these types of consumers willing to pay $5000 over time for $600 worth of furniture.
While I do not think this will be Sony's only pricing model at launch I do think it will be available, if not at the premiere of the console then shortly after.
"Gamers are very big on the concept of 'I own it, it's mine to do with as I please' which is not going to be possible with a device like this."
I don't know what "data" you base your findings on, but my personal experience with others, is they just want the latest and greatest now, and they spend gobs of money to get it, even if it is at a loss i.e. early adopters unwilling to wait for a sale.
That is why they rush out to buy games, the first day it is released!
"You can't sell it to someone else because it has the contract that is tied to you and your account until you've paid the full subscription period out."
I have not read the fine print, but I believe with phones you can sell it, anytime you want. As long as the creditor (or the phone company in this case) gets their monthly fee. The creditor at least hasn't had a history of banning sales of contract locked phones sold to consumers.
"Gamers buy their hardware at a set price and use it from there. They don't like to be tied down with subscription rules and needs based on this hardware."
Are you sure, this isn't just you? I meet a lot younger gamers, and they are cash strapped. They want their iphone, and their xboxes, not thinking much about their finances long term.
"Don't see what else there is to understand about there not being a 'free' PS3 at release."
I don't think there will be a "free" Playstation either, as there will be an "good faith" payment of some sort.
"If you want proof of my opinion, check out a few of the response already on here. Specifically #3 and #4."
That's hardly proof of anything, merely a VERY SMALL sample supporting your OPINION. Show me real proof, like a market research study. At least, that is based on something.
I could easily point you the opposite, as indicated by:
a) PSN Plus as you don't own the games, you rent them for the duration of your subscription
b) lots and lots of gamers use their console for netflix viewing, which again you don't own the movies
c) Steam and digital sales in general, where there are far more restrictions and less ownership than retail disc, yet plenty of gamers buying it up!
Sorry, I think you are wrong. Instant gratification is basic human nature, and it applies to gamers too!
It's gonna cost money and be cheap rather than completely free. If they made something free it would be like a sackboy plush doll or something that cost way less if they wanna throw some freebie out there.
That's not a subscription for the hardware, that's a subscription for the service. Two completely different things considering almost 75m 360s sold but ony 40m XBLive accounts. Only half of those estimated to be XBLive Gold memberships. See how the difference here is people can own the hardware, play games, and not have a subscription service?
I'm not sure where you get the $75/year and I think you also aren't understanding that an upfront fee is not "free". That's completely different than what the author is talking about. They're talking about a solely subscription based model of paying off the console, not an upfront fee w/a subscription cost.
***Are you sure, this isn't just you? I meet a lot younger gamers, and they are cash strapped. They want their iphone, and their xboxes, not thinking much about their finances long term. ***
You've met a lot of younger gamers with reasonable credit scores and the ability to sign long-term subscription agreements?
***That's hardly proof of anything, merely a VERY SMALL sample supporting your OPINION. Show me real proof, like a market research study. At least, that is based on something. ***
Wait, you're asking me for proof and not the author? I can provide more proof of the issues people have with subscriptions in general on N4G responses, at the least. At that time, when the article was very early, already two people had said "No" and left it at that. I didn't consider that 'all the proof I needed' but some proof as to how people would respond to a subscription-based console purchase.
Don't go off on me for that if you're not going to recognize that A) there isn't a trend for this sort of thing in video games B) no proof has been provided by the author who shared solely opinion on this matter without any proof, not even equal to what I provided last night.
If you want, you can take in the other responses that have come since then. At least it's a bigger poll of what people think than what the author of this op-ed used for his thoughts on this.
***a) PSN Plus as you don't own the games, you rent them for the duration of your subscription ***
Is not buying hardware with a subscription plan.
***b) lots and lots of gamers use their console for netflix viewing, which again you don't own the movies ***
Is not buying hardware with a subscription plan.
***c) Steam and digital sales in general, where there are far more restrictions and less ownership than retail disc, yet plenty of gamers buying it up!***
Is not buying hardware with a subscription plan.
***Sorry, I think you are wrong. Instant gratification is basic human nature, and it applies to gamers too! ***
We will agree to disagree, but as I ask you to at least understand the basic differences in a subscription model for hardware versus buying/subscribing to digital content. Even Cell phones aren't a subscription model for hardware, you're only paying for the service each month. That's why you can buy a cellphone with that model and sell it if you want. As long as you continue to pay them for the monthly service, they don't care. They will charge you a hefty fee for cancelling early, though.
what if the subscription grants you a free game download a month. yeah you're still paying 1200$ over 2 years, you will have spent less on games
To directly link this with smartphone payments is to totally miss the boat on the modern necessity of smartphones. They're pretty much what a major phone company offers now, and they're a de facto communication method. People gave up their landlines and adopted cellular, and now it's moving on to smartphones. They replaced one payment with another. Consoles would be an entirely new payment if it's that much per month. It's an *extra* monthly payment. Plus, there's hardly any competition in the smartphone biz - data plans are jacked up because big phone companies can do that. There isn't that level of, or potential for, collusion like that in the games industry because of PC's. So far, at least. Heck, maybe the next consoles will be N-Gage taco phones, I don't know.
There's no way they'd start out of the gate with day-one free downloads of good games every month. Not because that wouldn't be fair, or possible, but because of game publishers and the price they put on their IP and titles. It's way easier to have an instant collection of older games - making those deals with third parties is way easier to do. "Want kids to buy Warhammer: Space Marine used, or want *us* to pay you some cash to make it a free Plus download? That's what I thought."
I'd say a $20 per month subscription which includes Plus the way it is (only cloud-enabled with Gaikai) and a smaller ($300 or under at launch) price on the console would remove loss-leader status from the console itself and net Sony a ton in the long run - way after they've paid for the extra cost in making that console, they've got you there for years. Can't make the payments - all your licenses to play games (including physical-media games) goes away. We're already getting there anyway - it's why I'm moving toward the PC Dark Side.
That, of course, assumes they'd cater to only those who have a broadband connection. Which isn't everyone yet.
How many people will play that many games in a year?
What type of games are available? Are they even all available?
Will we get day one releases of games?
Will we be able to always own and play those games or only for as long as we subscribe?
PS+ is an awesome tool for $50/year. You get a ton of games you can play anytime you want, great deals on game sales. But even then, it's not for everyone. People don't like the restricted game model because they don't know if they will like the game or not. The very same issues can arise when you take that subscription model to the next level.
Sony says you can buy the PS4 $150 cheaper if you pay for the quarterly subscription to PS+ for 2 years. The quarterly cost for 2 years of PS+ is $144.
Now for people like me that would be great, because I would have PS+ anyways...and while I'd spend $50 more over 2 years, I'd still save $100 overall. Not too shabby.
But then you get the people who see $18 every three months as a pretty good way to get the system...after all it's only $6 a month. Sony now gets lots of people on board with PS+, and they are drawn to the cheaper system. It's not too much to assume that when the 2 years is up that many people would continue to use the service, thus continue paying for it. Many may never update their payment info, which means they will just continue a constant revenue stream.
In this scenario it gives them a bigger install base, with more games being sold(generating more revenue), and a possibility of a long term revenue stream through subscriptions. The actual amount they'd lose would be higher at the beginning, but they would recoup a lot more over the long term, without as much need to advertise PS+ to get people interested in it.
I agree with most of your comments though, it's unlikely to happen, and if anything they'd make a monthly subscription at $9.99 or something to recoup more money. I find my scenario to be pretty decent though, but business doesn't work like that.:(
One other thing: imagine the absolute crazed insanity at launch if there's a Free-$200 buy in price (plus subscription contract). People will see the low price first and foremost, and the media will eat it all up, putting massive attention onto Sony's PS4, while reversing the idea that the console isn't affordable at launch.
It's risky, it's really risky, but it's a risk that could pay off big time in the long term for Sony.
Sony already sold the PS3 @$600 at a loss this generation. Do you really think with a subscription plan that they are going to start making even more of a loss over a 2-year period?
Sorry, but that logic isn't sound. If it's going to be a subscription plan, they are going to end up charging you more for the hardware over time, not less.
What you describe would make absolutely zero sense as not only would they not be making any money up front, but they would be losing that money over two years now, meaning a slower intake of cash to put towards further development with less to put towards it over the first two years.
No, I don't think Sony would do it, probably not with the example that I used up above at least. They would have to recoup a significant amount of money over 2 years(or whatever) to make it worth the time spent waiting for the money to come in. Same principle with cell phones, and why they lock you into an overpriced data plan to get those expensive smart phones cheap.
What I described was more of a general example, and not meant to be specific. I felt numbers would help elaborate the point better.
There are certain advantages to Sony with a subscription plan, namely in making the system more affordable to more people at launch. It could go a long way in helping them becoming a dominate force in the market like with the PS2. Whether it's widely accepted really depends on the perceived value of the actual plan itself.
Not to take of the argument, but software (games) is something that gamers are able to resell as well.
http://i.minus.com/i1ot2q1b...
is what is going to happen!
Though not free, subsidized PS4 or not, PS+ with Gaikai will be the new Netflix of video gaming content...I promise you.
I'd actually go as far to say that Sony would be stupid not to at the very least give consumers this monthly fee option. Microsoft's already doing it with the 360, so you know they will do it with the 720...the only difference is that Sony subscription fee will likely be the one to offer the most value.
Nice thinking there, Darth. It's hard to think of a way to treat people who wouldn't pay without it being anti-consumer. The best way would be that every time you connect the console it unlocks until the end of the month, but they would have to be pretty confident the PS4 is unhackable. Blocking the whole console for not paying is also a bit harsh...
I'd actually be up for something like that(for $25 or $30) a month.
It all comes down to the cost of the system at the end of the day, before anyone of us can tell if this will work out for Sony. I believe it's working fairly well for Microsoft.
we also have something called (jm3yh). 3 is a letter in arabic, english doesnt have it.
people them selfs do it and sometimes schools do it (teachers not students though).no benefits like the way the company's do :) . lets say 10 persons joined and each pay 10bd for 10 months . so the total will be 100bd each month . this 100bd will go to one person and that will make him pay 9 months without getting anything because he already got the 100bd ..
you see . this way people will get over some bad conditions or to get money faster for something they want or Guarantee they will get 100bd in one of these months ( in other words keeping money for future)
i'd rather just save up and pay for it whole
To the idiots that disagreed with you....
In order to "sell" something, there must be an exchange of either monetary or product/service of equal value (like an Iphone for a Galaxy or hard labor) determined by both parties...buyer and seller.
If something is for free then that product or service is being "given away" and not sold since there is no exchange being made of anything of equal value...
Bottom line is, you can't "sell" something for free since there is no actual sale being made.
BTW, "the idea of selling the PlayStation 4 for free is not one that would surprise me if it eventuates" does not have quotes around free or selling.
If you have that much trouble saving money for a console maybe you shouldn't be buying them in the first place.
Maybe they can come up with something even better than ps+, maybe M$ will give us money for using their service. Lol
sony hasn't mentioned anything with regards to anything related to the next playstation, let alone pricing...
and no, they will not sell it for $0, nor will they implement any kind of rent-to-own/contract system.
Let's just hope PS+ and my PS3 account links to the PS4.
You buy cheap, you buy twice!
These contract commitments typically cost more over the long haul and they force the consumer with a higher responsibility of maintaining ontime payments over years.
It's probably a proper tradeoff of risk for those with no money to pay upfront but I'd rather plan ahead and start saving early on my own terms. Not theirs.
Mobile phone companies are essentially in communication with entertainment as a hook. The devices won't cost all that much (even if they charge a lot for them on pay as you go) and if the network's there there'll always be a way of merging or rebranding. Console manufacturers are in state of the art, or at least not off the peg, tech and serious entertainment. There's a lot of money that could be lost.