Poll: Always online console - how much would people pay?

[cjspyres]

snip

You're going to have to be WAY more specific here...

Is your idea one where you get unlimited access to games for X amount of money?
Is your idea the current form of XBOX Live where it gives you access to extra stuff but you still buy games?
Is your idea one where you get ONE game for X amount of money (like a MMO subscription) and each game costs this amount?
Is your idea that the system is free but you HAVE to pay for Live to use it?

What exactly is your hypothetical system?

I guess it's the fourth, though it's pretty much the same as the second, but applied to an always online system.

Anyways, feel free to apply it to any possible variation. I personally think that front-loading the price of the games just wouldn't make much sense as it would increase the subscription way too noticeable.

Not a cent. Plain and simple. I wouldn't shell out money to buy a console and games, and then have to pay a subscription just to play something I own. I might take the option of the free console, but still, I hate the idea of paying to play my games that I bought.

A bit off topic, It wasn't until that little d-bag Orth insulted everyone, that I decided I definitely didn't want the system. I could have even dealt with the stupid always on system, but when he insulted everyone who didn't have the luxury of an reliable internet connection, I was done. Microsoft might say the he's not a spokesperson for the company, but really, he is. I mean, he is a Director of Creative Design.

 

[Zombie Sodomy]

I wouldn't get an always online console if they payed me to take it.

 

[Carnagath]

I had already decided not to buy the next Xbox when I first read that it will have a built-in Kinect, and undoubtedly force developers to utilize it to some extent in the Xbox versions of their titles. The always-online thing just adds some more comedic value to the whole thing for me, nothing else. If I had to seriously comment on it though, I happen to live in a country that is not Northern Europe or USA (Fuck me, right?) and my internet is often very spotty. Clearly, in 2013 these are the only areas of the planet that Microsoft wants to sell consoles to, so I'll stay out of their way as intended

 

[King of Asgaard]

I wouldn't pay a goddamn cent, but unfortunately, others would.
If I'm totally honest, I don't see the NextBox failing, because Microsoft has a large enough fanbase for it to shove this new recession of the industry down their throats and not receive too big a backlash for it.

Also, ya know, since the PS4, as far as I know, won't have this malarkey, why not go for that...?
Just saying, PSPlus is amazing value for money, whereas XBL is just a monthly fee for the privilege of having ads.

 

[Dark Knifer]

That would be a pretty huge deal breaker for me. I hardly use steam because how slow my internet is and when the servers die the console does.

If I bother getting a next gen console doesn't sound like it will be the nextbox.

 

[Olas]

20$ a month with mandatory 30 month contract? Let me see if I can math this. (starts counting with fingers)

Ya I can't afford a 600$ console, much less one that I have to rebuy every 2 and a half years.

What happens if my internet connection goes down for a while, do I get refunded that money?

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

I wouldn't pay at all.
My internet connection is shoddy at the best of times so I'd be stuffed if I had to be constantly connected to play my games.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I know it's anecdotal evidence but I've met a very large number of people with consoles and no home internet. A lot of people just use the 3G on their phones, because all they do on the 'net is use Facebook or maybe search for jobs.

Not to mention all the people in areas with shoddy internet.

Does anyone know the ratio of Xbox Live subscribers to units sold? I know units sold =/= number of Xbox owners, but if the disparity proves large enough we probably won't have much to worry about anyway. If the disparity is small, however, then the Nextbox is probably gonna sell regardless.

 

[Requia]

An Xbox live contract and a free console would be an interesting proposition. But I don't play multiplayer, so uh, not for me.

I know it's anecdotal evidence but I've met a very large number of people with consoles and no home internet. A lot of people just use the 3G on their phones, because all they do on the 'net is use Facebook or maybe search for jobs.

Not to mention all the people in areas with shoddy internet.

Does anyone know the ratio of Xbox Live subscribers to units sold? I know units sold =/= number of Xbox owners, but if the disparity proves large enough we probably won't have much to worry about anyway. If the disparity is small, however, then the Nextbox is probably gonna sell regardless.

In another thread somebody said 70 something million 360's in operation and 40 something million active subscribers. Big disparity, but MS makes more money of people with Live subscriptions, so in terms of profit not nearly as a big a deal, unless it drops their sale numbers far enough that developers stop wanting to bother with the nextbox.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I wouldn't pay a goddamn cent, but unfortunately, others would.
If I'm totally honest, I don't see the NextBox failing, because Microsoft has a large enough fanbase for it to shove this new recession of the industry down their throats and not receive too big a backlash for it.

Also, ya know, since the PS4, as far as I know, won't have this malarkey, why not go for that...?
Just saying, PSPlus is amazing value for money, whereas XBL is just a monthly fee for the privilege of having ads.

Mine falls to more or less this category as well. The fan boys that buy it no matter what to get their Halo fix (not saying all Halo fans will, of course.), since it's an exclusive may make it sell enough that it could catch on with the other companies systems after that...

 

[fix-the-spade]

So, assuming a... let's say $20 monthly LIVE subscription, contracted for 30 months, how much would the average gamer be willing to pay for a next-gen machine itself?

If it was $240 per year indefinitely, I wouldn't have it, full stop.

Even if it came with all games for free it would be a shockingly bad deal, but MSoft being who they are you can bet games would still be $60 a pop whatever the hardware was priced at.

 

[gigastar]

I would part with a jar of month-old urine for it. Nothing more.

 

[Ben P]

I wouldn't pay any thing for it being a PC gamer, but I'll go with it being sold for as much as possible with the selling point being the privilege of having a console that is always online.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm in a peso country, so obivously this is out of the question.

 

[redmoretrout]

Nope, I tend stay away from games with online fees. I'm not interested.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I have no use for an always online console. If you gift me one, I'll probably just open it up to see what's inside, take out useful parts and throw away the rest.