First of all, you're using a sale price and not a retail price for XBL which is a bit disingenuous for the discussion at hand. Also, many people may not want to commit to over a year of XBL at one time, especially if there's no multiplayer game worth playing at the time. My XBL account lapsed several times and I actually only had gold for 6 months total out of the entire last generation when there were titles out that I really wanted to play online.
Also, the 360 was a different beast. Using a game console as a media device wasn't nearly as common when 360 established its user base as it is now. We have many other devices now that allow usage of these media apps WITHOUT a paywall, so who in their right mind would pay twice for a service like Netflix? Not to mention less than half of 360 users even subscribe to Gold, I would say that putting these features behind a paywall is indeed a "fail" and likely to be their next 180.
Well, first of all, I never was talking about Live or the price of admission, this is a direction you chose.
Yes, retail is $60, but it's hard for me to create a value proposition using numbers I that do not apply to me. I pay $40, my friends pay $40, my co-workers pay $40, we all are aware of how easy it is to find a sale and get that price. So my value proposition uses the numbers that are accurate for me.
Second, I am aware that you can use Netflix, Hulu, HBOgo on other devices with out a paywall, and I'm aware that others are completely satisfied using said devices.
I apologize though if you think I am out of my 'right mind' for being willing to pay for Live.
I did not say it was great for everyone, I did not say that anybody who doesn't see the value in Live is misguided.
Everyone has opinions. That is cool with me, and since it's a personal choice I can't very well claim that they are 'wrong'.
For me(and the majority of my social circle) my options to watch Netflix, Hulu, or HBOgo are all fragmented.
I have a Wii U, a PS3, a 360, a media/gaming PC, a 3DS, smart phone, and tablet, all of which offer me some level of access to such applications.
Having all that stuff in one place, with no transitional steps for access, is well worth the price of admission for me and my family.
Being able to go from watching DirecTV, to Hulu, to HBOgo, ect in a 'Snap', with out changing my inputs on the receiver, and then navigating the menus for those separate devices, is a benefit with value for how I use my theater system.
IMO plenty of people "in their right minds" would agree in the end.
If not, cool, you deem value with a different subset of rules then me.
Again though, sounds like the PS4 is a perfect fit for you, so why care what the system you are not going to buy is doing with their features?
If the Paywall equates to long term failure, then things will inevitably change, but that has yet to be proven, especially considering the system is not even out yet.
I found value in the 'paywall' of Live long before media became a consideration, I enjoyed (and still do) a multitude of features/aspects/streamlined uses from the service that have absolutely nothing to do with Netflix or Hulu, and for me it was hands down the most cohesive experience in that regard.
I don't expect everyone to feel the same, we are all individuals with separate needs/wants.
If everything is the same between competitors, then the competition doesn't exist, and the innovation stagnates.
1:1 attach ratio is what I believe will help us to determine if Kinect and it's features are the future or not, if we don't have the 1:1 it just makes that determination take longer, and slows progress.
I'm not here to debate PS4 vs XB1 vs WiiU, I love all my systems for their strengths.
I'm here to talk about why I feel it's important for Microsoft to keep Kinect at 1:1 with system sales to further innovation and ideas, and to keep on keeping on towards a future that is beyond my imagination.
What fun is it if every car for sale comes in only black, with the exact same features of every other car? Sound like a boring existence to me.