Always On: Microsoft Xbox Live Subscriptions Up to 46M, Will Never Be Free

Forbes - There’s been some debate about whether or not Microsoft will try to compete with Sony on a more direct level by going after one of their competitor’s best features: free online play. PSN has always been free while Xbox Live Gold is a dramatically more pricier option at $60 a year. Might Microsoft do away with that fee for their next-gen console, the mysterious Durango

[Chaostar]

People must see something in it if they're willing to pay.

On the other hand it's still a barrier to some people. Ironically, particularly those that wish to use their Xbox as a media centre first as Netflix and other services require the subscription.

[shivvy24]

no, they have no choice but to pay to play online

[Blackdeath_663]

agreed but i still can't understand how people are paying to be able to play games (which they already paid full price for) online and on the internet connection (that they already pay for) microsoft offers nothing to justify charging you that money. the game servers depend on the game devs not microsoft so you will have the same experience with or without paying microsoft (for example when you disconnect from EA's servers its the same across all platforms). and when compared to ps+ a cheaper service which gives you free games and other features i don't see how anyone can say "you get what you pay for" in defence of the xbox live subscription.

now, lets make the assumption that the next xbox will have always-on. running massive servers that can handle millions of consoles 24/7 everyday of the year will be expensive, so...it is likely you will be charged for it right? but wouldn't that mean that you will be charged JUST to be able to turn on your console and use it?! to make that work people will have to buy the next xbox through a subcription service (you can't expect to charge people £250-£300 and then tell them to pay a subcription fee to be able to even use it) but if it is sold through a subscription service people will get the console and not pay the subcription but use it for spare parts and hacking instead. also how will you supply it to less developed countries? it just doesn't add up.
i therfore have every confidance that the next xbox will not require always on and if it does only some features will require always on not the whole console

[HammadTheBeast]

People lie to themselves. They claim that the network is better online, they say is has less lag, and that Netflix etc work better, but from experience with both, I can easily say that the quality is the same for both .

But that is the standard, what PS+ does is go above and beyond.

[saladthieves]

I completely agree.

People want to play online, and as of right now the only way to do so on Xbox Live is to fork over the cash to Microsoft.

If they decide to make this single aspect free (which will never happen), subscriptions will fall like hell.

It used to be worth its price, but it's astonishing how Microsoft is the only one to charge others for playing online.

It can be argued that their service is worth every penny, but that's an opinionated view that I disagree. The competition has stepped up and brought their best to the table.

In my opinion, I can't see Xbox Live being better than PS+ in terms of value and content. Heck, during them Steam sales and deals, I get my money's worth of content.

[MikeMyers]

HammadTheOne,

Once you're playing online they are almost identical. Where Live has its benefits is how you get there and the social services surrounding it. From simply hitting the button on your controller to mute players (that actually stay muted forever until you unmute them), to playing with friends and staying connected while switching games and being able to voice chat the whole time. I have found it is just easier to set up games and to join games on Xbox Live than it is on PSN. The games have a more unified structure of how to join and how to start matches and how to add fiends and how to communicate with one another. Is that enough to justify the fee? That depends on the individual.

I have to agree with the author, Microsoft touting how Live has grown shows they have no interest in changing things up. Which to me is a shame because the PS4 is only going to get better than the PS3 with its online services and I imagine the basic function of playing with others online will remain free. What Microsoft should do, but likely won't, is have a free option of playing with others online. Then see how much the userbase actually supports a paid model. Give the player that option. Sony gives consumers a better option. The Plus model is separate and offers it's own value. What Microsoft has done is put everything behind a pay wall. That way they can be misleading and suggest people like Netflix better on the Xbox and things of that nature. They can't break it down because they refuse to separate the apps and the media from the online multiplayer.

I think the fee will become a bigger issue for them moving forward. The competition has improved dramatically. Where Microsoft might have an edge is how they handle transferring accounts from the old hardware to the new one and how supportive it is on backwards compatibility. If Sony messes up that transition this could give Live the edge.

However that won't mean much if the new system is also a always on DRM system. That in itself will turn many off. There's also a difference between always on DRM and always on connection. One could mean background updates and such being beneficial while the other may make the machine almost unplayable unless you are connected.

[SDF Repellent]

Just renewed my yearly subscription for $35, which is $3 per month. K...just need to consume 1 less Starbuck coffee a month now if I wanted to play online. /S

[Biggest]

Meanwhile, I can maintain my Starbucks habit AND play online while spending the same amount of money. Methinks that's a win for the home team!

[Godmars290]

MS has always used the reasoning that being connected to XBL was the reason you had to pay for XBL. That you were online, but to get achievement points you had to be on XBL. And you had to pay for XBL.

So basically above all else, first and foremost, you pay for it for achievement points. Your e-peen.

[InMyOpinion]

"agreed but i still can't understand how people are paying to be able to play games (which they already paid full price for) online and on the internet connection (that they already pay for)"

It's not unique to MS though. World of Warcraft and a lot of other MMORPG's do it the same way. And that's per game while XBL is one fee for all games. Not saying it is right though.

[defiance187]

@Blackdeath_663
You do make alot of assmptions without knowing the facts. I'm not saying its always a good thing for gamers,but XBL is a closed system with Microsoft running 90% of the servers. The exception being EA, who had to fight to connect thier own servers and is held to the quality requirements MS sets. This has had a positive effect for PS3 players as well because Sony and others in turn had to try to reach this standard of quality.It has also had some negative effects for XBL users because games like FFXIV was given a no go on connecting their own servers to MS's with XI only getting through because of a loophole @ the time of release. So everything you take for granted while online gaming being standards MS set with sony still a little bit behind in ease of use because of the game by game nature of the system. Sony are catching up fast though and MS has got to step their game up if they want to keep subscribers.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

http://electronics.howstuff...

[WrAiTh Sp3cTr3]

Well, let me approach this and point out the maybe not-so-obvious. People, in the first place, buy a specific console for whatever reasons, but usually for the exclusives. I'm gonna speak of the 360 for now. If those exclusives have a multiplayer component then yeah, you have to pay for Live to enjoy that component. People don't buy a console for Netflix or web-browser or anything like that, for the most part. I find the online exclusives the 360 has better than that of what the PS3 has to offer. The PS3's exclusive online games aren't supported for long, except for the Uncharted series. Look at KZ and Starhawk for example, GG has already moved onto a new game but I haven't heard of support for KZ3 in a long time and didn't the Starhawk team get dismantled? The 360's games continue to get updates, patches and dlc, meaning they're usually supported up until the sequels come come out. Xbox Live has a superior service model for playing online, everything is seamless. You can send voice messages, X-game chat, custom game sound tracks and party chat. That's just the service. What online features does the PS3 offer for being free? The most popular 3rd party games run better and are serviced better through Xbox Live.

All in all, I prefer Live because I play the exclusives of the 360 because they're better supported and the service is seamless.

[amiga-man]

Paying for online a service you pay your internet provider for yet M$ see fit to block then demand payment to get back is a huge scam and the reason I will never own an xbox.

I'll leave the mugs of this world to buy into something that should be free.

[HammadTheBeast]

@Wraith

I'm still able to find a few full servers on KZ2, KZ3 is always populated, hell, even MAG which is years old has servers always going. Starhawk failed as a game, Warhawk, its predecessor still has tons of servers up.

Not to mention that aside from Gears and Halo, there's not a whole lot else for multiplayer.

And you don't see them supporting Halo 3/ODST/Reach, or Gears 2, do you?

Just saying.

[cyberninja]

There's always a choice: buy another product.

[Darrius Cole]

@MikeMeyers - Post 1.1.4

There is no way in hell Microsoft is going to give XBL customers an option to play online for free just to "see how much the userbase supports a paid model", nor will they do it out of a sense of fairness.

We know these answers. Xbox live gold subscribers pay for Xbox Live Gold because they must pay if they want to play online PERIOD.

They are trapped by their investment in their 360 console and their library of games. If they don't pay the subscription fee then that all becomes useless. If they had a free option then their subscription numbers would look more like PS+ vs. PSN; in other words most of their subscribers wouldn't pay a single dime for all those other features combined AND THEY KNOW IT.

Sony allowed this to happen by forcing blu-ray on the market. Blu-ray made the PS3 release a year late (a year and a half late in Europe), and too expensive ($600 US). That allowed MS and XBL gold to get a base of 10 -12 million subscribers invested in XBL-Gold before the PSN ever really got started. The rest is just momentum.

However I do, want to see how much difference it will make that the PS4 is going to be released at about the same time (maybe even earlier) and at about the same price as the Durango. I wonder if, at the point of purchase, a significant number of consumers will consider that one system allows free online play while the other requires yearly payment forever and chose the one that allows for free online play. Or if will they mostly stick to brand loyalty.

[princejb134]

I think it has more to do with their friends
If 2 or 3 if their friends already have Xbox is more difficult to move to another console because not everyone has the money to purchase a new console
And also word of mouth is very powerful
I have a friend who's not a gamer yet he tells me he wants a Xbox
I'm like why if ps3 has better games
He like because that's what all his friends talk about so it must be the better console

[Gazondaily]

N4G simply doesn't get it.

[MikeMyers]

Darrius Cole,
"There is no way in hell Microsoft is going to give XBL customers an option to play online for free just to "see how much the userbase supports a paid model", nor will they do it out of a sense of fairness."

I agree. They should but likely won't.

"We know these answers. Xbox live gold subscribers pay for Xbox Live Gold because they must pay if they want to play online PERIOD."

Most likely.

"They are trapped by their investment in their 360 console and their library of games. If they don't pay the subscription fee then that all becomes useless. If they had a free option then their subscription numbers would look more like PS+ vs. PSN; in other words most of their subscribers wouldn't pay a single dime for all those other features combined AND THEY KNOW IT."

They do know it but won't ever admit it (Microsoft that is)

"Sony allowed this to happen by forcing blu-ray on the market. Blu-ray made the PS3 release a year late (a year and a half late in Europe), and too expensive ($600 US). That allowed MS and XBL gold to get a base of 10 -12 million subscribers invested in XBL-Gold before the PSN ever really got started. The rest is just momentum."

I don't think bluray had anything to do with the ramp up in Live memberships. After all there is just as many PS3's out there as Xbox 360's. Live has always been a strong suit with the Xbox brand until Sony started taking it very seriously after a couple of years after the PS3 came out. This goes back to 2002 when Live came out. It became the leader in console online gaming. This pushed Sony and Nintendo to take it more seriously as years went on. The PS3 made huge strides but in the beginning it wasn't that great. Now the PS4 will be way more competitive to the next Xbox in every way possible, including online. So if Sony does continue to offer free online (which I think they will) then Microsoft will have to push forward in other areas. Most likely cable services which many, including myself, don't care about.

"However I do, want to see how much difference it will make that the PS4 is going to be released at about the same time (maybe even earlier) and at about the same price as the Durango. I wonder if, at the point of purchase, a significant number of consumers will consider that one system allows free online play while the other requires yearly payment forever and chose the one that allows for free online play. Or if will they mostly stick to brand loyalty."

Hard to say. Each has its members embedded with their usernames and have their friends and all of that. This is why I mentioned it will be interesting who does a better job transitioning itself from this generation to next generation. If Sony blunders and doesn't have backwards compatibility and doesn't allow accounts to simply transfer over and Microsoft does people will ignore the fee more so.

Microsoft will have to do a much better job convincing consumers why a paid model is applicable to todays market more than ever. With Sony, Nintendo and even Valve all pushing forward and offering comparable services for free it will ostracize Microsoft now more than ever.

[DOMination-]

Online gaming should be free next gen on xbl for sure. At the start psn was pretty bad but its come a long way and now with ps4 the remaining bad things about psn are looking like they will be sorted.

@godmars: you dont need a gold account for achievements.

[NegativeCreepWA]

Blackdeath

"the game servers depend on the game devs not microsoft so you will have the same experience with or without paying microsoft (for example when you disconnect from EA's servers its the same across all platforms)" This is completely wrong!

MS handles all servers unless the dev chooses otherwise, this is why so many arcade and indie games are able to have online features, when they normally couldn't afford it.

EA handles their own servers and also shuts them down for most games every two years.

[nukeitall]

@Godmars290:
It's amazing to me that a person like Godmars290 has so many bubbles being the obvious fanboy that he is. We know about you and what you used to be, and how you with your n4g.com biased admin friends is ruining this site.

That said, I will expose your freaken lies!

"MS has always used the reasoning that being connected to XBL was the reason you had to pay for XBL. That you were online, but to get achievement points you had to be on XBL. And you had to pay for XBL."

You don't have to be connected to XBL (or even have an XBL account) to get achievements. You can earn achievements offline and it will sync it online.

Also, if you choose to have an XBL account and be connected, it is free.

It is only when you use *certain* features that you are required to pay.

Being connected to XBL for free is how you can download games among other things.

"So basically above all else, first and foremost, you pay for it for achievement points. Your e-peen."

So stop lying, cause you just exposed yourself as not knowing anything about XBL. Most likely you don't even have an Xbox 360, nor know the power connector from the hdmi connector on your Xbox.

Now scurry away and play your Playstation.

[NastyLeftHook0]

yeah, they see less money in there bank accounts.

[Mounce]

Any time a 360 fanboy says in a complimenting way of Xbox Live "We get what we pay for"....everyone laughs at them for a reason.

Because they aren't getting ANYTHING, they're paying annual subscriptions more or less to be using the console as a whole. A 360 without Xbox Live just seems pointless and so it's a huge chunk of the 360 that's missing unless you pay annual subscriptions to play Microsofts' console. It's corporate arrogance at its finest and it amazed me to this day how many bend over and shell out the money submissively whilst many of them are quite the angst and rebellious little shits that they argue about everything outside of it in denial to try to convince themselves that their money-wasting is indeed a valid experience....

[miDnIghtEr20C_SfF]

Really? I'm signed up on Xbox Live Rewards Program.. earn MS points every month for playing games online, watching youtube and other stuff as well. I'm getting free MS points to use every month. And no.. when I stop paying for Live, my MS points don't up and vanish like a PSN+ game would. It's mine to keep.

Also, I can't wait... I CAN'T WAIT for PSN+ next gen to be mandatory on playing the best versions of the PS4 games online. To be able to use all of what PS4 can offer... you too will be paying for online.

I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE LOOKS ON ALL THE SDF FACES WHEN THIS HAPPENS. But you already know when that happens, that of course paying to play online will be ok. You want cross game party chat on PSN? Get ready to pay the price.

[Leviathan]

Funny. +bubble.

[WalterWJR]

I already have cross party chat on the vita oh and I can't wait, I CANT Wait to tell you it's free.

Oh and enjoy collection your pennies with your Microsoft bs scheme.

[Mounce]

Yeaaaa, miDnIghtEr20C....You sound brainwashed, indoctrinated even.

You can't wait for Sony to fuck up in a what-if scenario you pulled out of your ass that ideally was created from an obvious mind of a Microsoft fanboy?

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but PSN+ is Optional and gives you your moneys worth. Gold is Forced and you NEED it to play online, Sony won't change that. PSN+ with games that you 'Lose' is only in the essence that you're being loaned free games to play and complete but you losing it only means don't use it if you are overly-attached to Digital games that literally have no sentimental-value attached due to it not physically existing. It's a Rental service in a manner, however, all the Deals and Discounts that come with anything you buy remains yours forever at cheap prices. Being given free games temporarily or even for a YEAR is great because let's say I get Uncharted on the Vita, I beat it, I get a Platinum trophy, variably, these games then would have no replay value and Owning it further would be simply Hoarding, I don't need to Collect it unless I love the games so much that I want to own the series and would be willing to dish out the cash to then, Physically-own the retail version. Digitally being Lent a game to play, beat and enjoy it is a STEAL for consumers and is what I think beats out your brainwashed ideals. Cheap rental service that hands out free games and discounts that basically competes with Steams' awesome values? It's Win-Win for everyone.

[dedicatedtogamers]

Let's be honest here: if a 360 owner has been willing to pay hundreds of dollars over the last nearly-decade for the privilege to play the multiplayer they bought, the Netflix they subscribe to, etc., then Microsoft can pretty much do anything at this point. With the exception of Valve Corp (who are worshiped despite not having released a new game in a million years), Microsoft has the best PR and marketing department in the industry. It's really that simple.

[Aceman18]

that's why i'm not buying their system this time around. i refuse to pay to play online since i'm already paying my cable subscriber to use my online service.

[wishingW3L]

they are seeing that if they don't pay they can't access the MP of games nor even use Netflix.

[Blaze929]

I'm gonna laugh so hard if Sony adopts this strategy to pay to play online next-gen. If if it is half the cost of Xbox LIVE, sony ignoring the success and revenue Microsoft is bringing in would be idiotic as a business.

You all forget these companies are businesses first and foremost. If Microsoft can manage to convince 46 million people to subscribe to Xbox LIVE at $60/year (and maybe more), obviously Sony might be considering a similar model JUST because Microsoft is showing, it works.

Any big company in this industry does something innovative and others see that it works, what has history showed? Those companies will follow.

Now I'm not saying 100% sony will charge to play online next gen but I don't think everyone should rule that out completely. Especially if you all want that better service people have been waiting for with PSN. You pay, Sony collects revenue, and more money allows them to make more great things for you.

[DragonKnight]

I love the people who think that being a business means not seeing the value in doing good by the consumer base. "They're businesses first." And? The best businesses are the ones that keep the consumers interests first to keep them as loyal costumers forever. It's not always about just profits. If it were, no risks would ever be taken and nothing would improve or progress. Just because Microsoft is heavily anti-consumer doesn't mean Nintendo or Sony have to be.

[JasonXE]

You provide good service to your customers that's how you earn and keep their respect. So long as the service you are trying to charge people for are worth it and you take into account the value of these people's dollar - then you can do whatever you want as a business because people will support you off the great things you've done in the past and seem to do in the future for them.

Now if Sony decides to charge and provides crappy PSN service to back it up, then at that point it's simply about profits.

But if consumers are happy to pay for something because a service is excellent, then it's win win for everyone involved.

I'm amazed how many people talk as if they don't have jobs but can afford these 300+ dollar systems. lol unless it's true the majority of people on this site are dumb kids. In which that would make sense. If you don't have money coming in, $1 seems like $100 to you're broke ass.

OH, and I'm SO sure Nintendo was thinking about its loyal customers and and consumer interests when they came out with the Wii and all this lacking 3rd party support. Because Nintendo loyal customers don't want any of that.

[duli14]

I don't think sony is as greedy as microsoft to make you pay for online and other free services, its probably why they aren't making as much money as M$. Microsoft did't even want to let people have BBC i player for free! Even facebook, twitter, 4OD... all these services are free on ps3 but can only be accessed on xbox if you have a gold membership!

[MikeMyers]

DragonKnight,
"I love the people who think that being a business means not seeing the value in doing good by the consumer base. "They're businesses first." And? The best businesses are the ones that keep the consumers interests first to keep them as loyal costumers forever. It's not always about just profits. If it were, no risks would ever be taken and nothing would improve or progress. Just because Microsoft is heavily anti-consumer doesn't mean Nintendo or Sony have to be."

Then explain the rise in Live memberships since 2002? Obviously they are doing something right because not only are they being profitable they are increasing their userbase. What is so pro-consumer about online passes that Sony has adopted? So don't blame Microsoft for why they put them in there.

[ALLWRONG]

LOL Most of comments above are from the Sony horde.

Say what you want about Live, but people with live aren't forced to "text" when they want to talk to other gamers.

When those servers get shut down on that favorite game. How are you going to play your games? Live supports all the games you own online, even if the publisher shuts the server down, P2P keeps you playing.

Security: Live has never been hacked and shut down for a month.

You can thank Live for 99% of all the features on PSN.

Do you like matchmaking? How about streaming media?

The funny thing is most of you above complaining about the cost Live sure don't mind paying for PSN+

[amiga-man]

I certainly don't mind paying for PS+ as it is a quality service offering excellent value, you on the other hand seem to think that paying your internet provider for you internet access then have it taken away by M$ who then charge you again to access it is acceptable when in reality it is the biggest scam this generation and you fell for it.

Shame on you.

[DigitalRaptor]

Here we go again with consumers lining their asses up for anti-consumer practices. The fact is, there are millions of people that wish playing online was free, because by its very setup, there's nothing to suggest basic online play should have a charge.

And it's irrelevant that you think that the criticism is coming from the Sony crowd when all we're trying to do is do you guys a favor by exposing Microsoft.

"Exposing? why?" you ask, perhaps laughing at the Sony fan telling you this.

Yeah, exactly. Microsoft charge you for P2P access to the games you already own and the service your Internet provider already allows you to do on every single other platform. This is anti-consumer whether you want to ignore it or not.

Advanced features like you mentioned mean nothing when you can't even play games you payed $60 a pop for online. And this isn't the only thing. Explain to me why MS charge you to access FREE apps every year that are free on every single other device and platform and always will be? Nothing could possibly be used as a defense. But you'll bring about the excuses that somehow 'cross game chat' makes all of these issues disappear.

Now i know exactly how you're going to react, in typical fanboy fashion: you're going to disagree, not respond, and think to yourself "pfft,what a Sony fanboy" even though I'm bringing up genuine consumer issues.

It's people like you that complain when companies like Capcom charge for on-disc DLC and if MS does go ahead with the always-on and blocking used games, you'll have zero room to complain.

unsurprising though, people like you are the fools of the industry. You'll make selfish decisions and even when presented with facts about why you're being treated like mugs, you'll brush it off as fanboy nonsense to save face and feed your ego. it's sad, when people actually care about other consumers, try and help, but only get venomous replies.

--

" Security: Live has never been hacked and shut down for a month."

Acting like XBL is impenetrable to hackers when the government servers have been violated. If Anonymous or Lulzsec had a cause to, they could and would take down XBL. and believe me, if MS went ahead with always-on or blocking of used games, they would have all the cause they needed. Only a MS fanboy could think otherwise.

--

"You can thank Live for 99% of all the features on PSN."

How is that relevant to paying to play games online?

--

"The funny thing is most of you above complaining about the cost Live sure don't mind paying for PSN+"

There's nothing funny there, just lack of focus on your part. People are complaining about the required $60 per year to access games you've paid for using P2P technology. This is unreasonable. PS+ is not an unreasonable service.

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

If u spend $400+ on a next gen game machine and can't play online for free then FU!!

If ps4 and 720 are same price then...

ps4 = maybe $400 + $60 = $460.
720 = maybe $400 + $60 game + $60 multiplayer = $520 + yearly payments.

If u been playing on xbl gold since 2005 then $60 x 8 years = $480 = xbox 720 money without xbl gold of course.

God I hate MS. They are pimpin big time. Respect..

Plus the last new AAA Exclusive IP game was alan wake in 2010. They are beast.

[Darrius Cole]

Actually, when talking about pimpin' the phrase in not "beast" but rather "gorilla", as in gorilla pimpin.

[g2gshow]

when all of my friends were on xboxlive i paid for it when they all got ps3 i stopped. people pay to stay conected with the gamers the know an meet online the clan's they join etc. xbox live was the place to be as far as online shooter they had the exclusives content on everything an the shooter sold more on xbox. now that has all changed MS has gotten comfortable an sony has step up. next genration it will be a big shift if sony keep's going in the right direction they will be the place hardcore gamers will go. will make money true but dont think they will be making any more gaming fans unless they do a EA vs 2K

if you cant beat them pay to win

[Why o why]

Its a cash cow. People paying for it will defend it. The pc crowd wasn't so understanding. Ms had to drop the charge.

Us console gamers, in general, are too week willed compared to our pc counterparts.

Some actually defend being nickel and dimed and make excuses for why we should get charged..... shame on us.

I'm also guilty as I've paid for live every year I've owned a 360 but since I've been here on n4g not one person or fanboy could explain why ms hasn't got bbc iplayer. They cant understand or want to admit ms will willingly charge us for free services..... just more excuses and spin

[SilentNegotiator]

....uuhhhhh, or it's because PC gamers actually had ALTERNATIVES in online gaming services and PC sales on LIVE games were tanking.

Console gamers aren't "week" willed, they don't have alternatives once they have the hardware. You're comparing not going to a specific grocery store to whether or not you're going to pay taxes.

[Blaze929]

lol, excellent post.

[Why o why]

Maybe pc gamers had a choice but it didn't stop ms from trying...doesn't that tell you something.

With consoles there is an alternative but that would be almost blasphemous for some to admit that the free psn could cater to your online gaming...better off just saying its crap so it justifies lives slightly hicked price further still. We're trapped in basically

Worst thing is all of us know deep down if online play was free like everywhere else their gold member numbers would drop hard. We're locked out of the online components of the games we've already paid for even if you never touch any of lives extra bells and whistles.

To the other question everybody sidesteps or nobody cares to tackle. ?...

MS dont want to let silver members have bbc iplayer. BBC states that nobody can charge for iplayer and gold is charging so guess what. Microsoft said none of us would have it because they cant charge for it nor will they let silver members have it for free......thats correct, a free service. Another example is when ms released unreal tournament they prohibited epic from allowing user generated content, probably because they couldn't charge for them or want to maintain the upkeep. The ps version included the ugc and allowed mouse and keyboard support..... so lets defend and deflect...its all fun..lol.

As with all major corporations including sony...give em an inch and they'll take a mile.

When I say weak willed compared to the pc crowd I honestly believe that. Say what you want about them but they stick up for their principles BETTER than we do. Look how we get shafted with microtransations to having pay for dlc already on disks and map packs.

[SilentNegotiator]

"Maybe pc gamers had a choice but it didn't stop ms from trying...doesn't that tell you something"

Not really. MS tried something stupid (Trying to get people to pay on an open platform) and failed.

"When I say weak willed compared to the pc crowd I honestly believe that. Say what you want about them but they stick up for their principles BETTER than we do. Look how we get shafted with microtransations to having pay for dlc already on disks and map packs"

....so, what? Those same things are major sellers on Steam, as well as on consoles.

[Why o why]

I just said they are better at standing up for themselves. I also said something about iplayer. . . . .no views on that. . . . .My point is ms will continue to make people pay for basic online functionality whilst padding it with free services.

They're prohibited to let gold members have iplayer if silver members aren't allowed to so ms said no instead of just letting silver members jump in on it too. I don't see too many people taking issue with that. . .

Like I said people have a choice even on a closed platform but some choose not to take it for varying reasons. My worry is the guys who act like apologist and make excuses for any of these companies they have zero stocks and shares in.

[ILive]

If live isn't free for the next Xbox, I won't be buying no matter how powerful or how many compelling games they have on the system. I will be perfectly content with the ps4. There is no reason live shouldn't be free with their next system. Oh right, the money.

[Blaze929]

well, better go pre-order your PS4 then.

[Dan50]

Microsoft KNOWS people will pay and are NEVER going to give up that cash cow. I mean they don't even give netflix or any other streaming service for free since they KNOW people will be FORCED to pay in order to use them.

[medman]

Good for them. As for me, I'm a PS3 and 360 owner who currently pays for live and enjoys Ps online for free. But when my current live subscription runs out, I'm done with Microsoft. It will be PS4 and PS plus for me next gen. Sick of Microsoft's B.S. late this console cycle. Sony seems to be on the ball with the directions of the PS4 and I'm not liking the rumors concerning the Nextbox at all.

[Software_Lover]

............ Console cycle hasn't started. How are they late? Did you like the PS4 rumors before it was revealed, doubt it.

Edit: I could've erased it but I didn't. I read your comment wrong so My first sentence makes no sense. Sorry about that.

[medman]

By the way, do the math on 46 million subscriptions and assume they get about 50 bucks annually on each and ask yourself how greedy are the bastards by additionally charging advertisers and bombarding gamers with ads. Fuck Microsoft.

[Blaze929]

greedy? because a consumer business's first and foremost duty, is not to make money. yeah makes perfect sense. Go start up a company then when you feel you have made enough money, start providing your services and products for free.

...because you have enough. You don't really need that extra revenue for any reason at all.

In fact, makes perfect sense. I should call my cable company up and bash them for giving me commercials when I'm already paying for TV. How DARE they bombard viewers with ads. Fuck cable providers!

[amiga-man]

Blaze929
"Go start up a company then when you feel you have made enough money, start providing your services and products for free."

The thing is Blaze online is not a M$ service, you pay your internet provider for online, M$ just hijack it and hold it to ransom charging you again for something you have already paid for, why xbox owners defend such an obvious scam is beyond me.

Mugs the lot of them.

[medman]

You're being a simplistic tool. Nobody would begrudge a company making money. There is however, an obvious difference between profitability and greed. And if consumers believe a company is gouging them, said company will suffer the ramifications of their policies in the future.

[Supermax]

Woot go Microsoft

[nix]

i subscribed for PSN plus last night because it was giving lot's of games i wanted to buy. Gravity Rush to begin with. Even though i could play online for free the darn Plus offerings were just too good for me to ignore.

[XabiDaChosenOne]

Paying for something that should be free smh imo Xbox gold subscribers are the biggest dunces in the industry.

[Software_Lover]

It's something that started last gen and carried over to this gen. First to do it on consoles, with a unified system for every game. I'm not saying it's right to be charging customers for it, but upon its release there was nothing like it in the console world and it was worth it.

But too many things that they are charging for should work without the gold subscription. Most people only use the gold subscription to video chat and play online multiplayer. Netflix, Hulu, etc can be done for free on other devices including the smart tv.

Microsoft will have to find a way to fix it next gen.

[Blaze929]

honestly, until Sony provides some REAL competition with PSN - Microsoft will continue to treat the online space on consoles as a monopoly that no one can make them change, because NO one is touching them.

I WANT Sony to come ham with PSN next gen because maybe that will make Microsoft lower prices or even consider going free. But until that happens, Microsoft is like, "you cant tell me nothing"

[Why o why]

Microsoft knows attitudes and beliefs similar to yours will always allow them to charge and hike. Its the same ethos apple use to convince the world they're the innovator and the best of the best and everything else is inferior to the point of inadequacy.

They rely on people telling themselves something is so and not giving the alternatives a chance. It works and subsequently, in the case of live, you will ignore that you are paying to play online helped by your acceptance that x game chat, party system and the likes is what you're actually paying for. MS also know the community is one of the biggest customer retainer. Add it all together with the bells and whistles and thats another year willingly paid for.

Kudos to you for the fact you do want psn to push ms's hand and lower or 'consider' a free live WITH online play but I doubt it will happen because of what I stated above. MS just have us by the short and curlys

[rainslacker]

Well you may get your wish. If you had watched the Sony reveal you would have noticed all that social stuff they presented. Kind of hard to miss. If that isn't going to be the backbone of a unified multiplayer/social experience I don't know what is.

Sony's actual service as it stands(ie actually playing games) is already on par with MS, because they both use P2P. The only difference being cross game chat and some socializing functions available in XBL which is handled by the system itself.

MS hasn't had a monopoly on the console online space for a very long time. And it is going to make it hard for them to continue on next gen using the same practices they use now.

If they want to take over the living room, then they better get the idea of charging for content out of their minds. The average consumer isn't going to pay for stuff that is offered free on many devices almost by default nowadays.

[greedybear88]

greedy Microsoft charging you to play online. Sony for the win

[Supermax]

Sony will charge as well for anything multiplayer related next gen

[DragonKnight]

"Sony will charge as well for anything multiplayer related next gen." - Citation needed.

[rainslacker]

The fact you get disagrees asking for verification of this is really sad.

[SCW1982]

Can't wait to prove you wrong.

[BlaqMagiq24]

Show me your nonexistent proof.

[southernbanana]

So tired of articles and comments regarding XBOX Live fees and PSN free. They are both great services and each of them offers some advantages over the other. It's all about choice and I choose both services free or not.

[YodaCracker]

Microsoft charges for Xbox LIVE because they CAN. The service is established and has a far superior user interface that is streamlined and simple to use, as well as countless features and apps missing from PSN. PS+ was Sony experimenting to see if their users would pay for a subscription. Next gen, it's painfully obvious that the Gaikai streaming and other new features Sony is pushing with the PS4 will be hidden behind the PS+ paywall. And of course Xbox LIVE will continue to be a paid service. It was $50/year even back on the original Xbox where you truly were paying just to play online, which is far from the case today.

[wishingW3L]

when you're playing the games online they are the same on both consoles. XBL is just a bridge, the actual service comes from the developers of the games yet MS is charging you for it.

[SCW1982]

I would love to know what all these so called countless other features are you mentioned?

[DigitalRaptor]

I find it appalling that you call Gaikai and its features 'hidden' behind a paywall, when in fact it won't be hidden. Those bandwidth heavy features require a subscription.

What Microsoft does with XBL is charge for P2P connectivity and that is the true hidden part. It costs them nothing yet they force their consumers to pay as if that sort of thing deserves a barrier to entry.

Microsoft are making fools out of their consumers and thus their consumers are making fools out of themselves - it's disgusting. It's quite telling how people are defending this principle of charging for P2P and free apps. You guys are probably the same ones that have complained about online passes, on-disc DLC and will still probably support MS if they went always-online and blocked used games. A blight on this industry, the lot of you.

I'm prepared for the disagrees, because I've seen the excessive ignorance and sweeping under the rug in regards to this genuine issue, but at least I'll still maintain the self-respect of not being penetrated by a company's anti-consumer practices, whilst asking for more.

[rainslacker]

And I'm sure most people won't mind so long as they can still use basic functionality(multiplayer, apps) for free. They probably also won't mind if PS+ still offers the amazing value it already does.

Gaikai is an added service. It can make certain functions of how they want to deliver content better for some consumers, and possibly add features to the system.

That's a whole different scenario than basic console functionality.

[creeping judas]

And do we really believe that when PS4 and Gaikai roll out this year, Sony is going to give it away for free? No, Sony already proved that PS3 owners are willing to pay for a service, although intrinsically different from XBL, but a paid service nevertheless. Gaikai will be a subscription service just like XBL is, there is no way they would be able to provide all of that for free.

[Software_Lover]

That's what I'm not understanding. They are both paid services. The arguments are we get free games. Yeah, but when you stop paying those games are not yours anymore. We get to play online (live). When you stop paying, you cant play online anymore. Both are paying for a service no matter the spin.

Although you dont "need" ps+ at all. You need live to play online, plus I think the value of PS+ is much higher than LIVE.

[DragonKnight]

The difference is that one is optional, the other is not. Not if you want to play online that is.

[FunAndGun]

This is about paying to play online and has nothing to do with Gaikai.

Yes, PS4 will most likely have a charge to use Gaikai.

Yes, PS4 will most likely have a new version of PS+ that will have a charge.

I HIGHLY doubt there will be a charge to JUST play online with PS4 however. We will see, but I don't see it happening.

[olLANDSHARKlo]

$45 a year is breaking your bank? For a superior online service. I have both systems and play both, like most on here claiming to have a 360, you look up their gamertag and boom they have played 2 games.You know whats a ripoff a cell service charging $30 a month for smartphone internet , and they already have internet at home paying for it. hmm $45 a year for xbox live versus 360 a year for internet on a phone, and the internet on the phone is about as slow as PSN.

[Software_Lover]

Yeah, these people buy a $300+ cell phone and pay 30.00 a month for internet access then complain about 35-60 bucks a year, depending on where you bought your live subscription from. Unified system that does the work for the devs.

I dont like the way Microsoft handles Live though. Tying in things like Netflix, Hulu, and Skype into a gold subscription when they are free elsewhere. Also Kinect Video chat should be free to all Kinect owners no matter what live subscription they hold.

Honestly I'm probably not gonna pay for live next gen as I'm becoming more frugal and I do most of my online on the pc. I have OOma (5 years) so I dont have a home phone bill. I use GrooveIP and a 3g mifi card with my GS3 and google voice, so I dont have a cell phone bill. I cut my cable and watch on the internet or netflix/amazon plus when possible.

I'm becoming a cheap bastid, lol. But I will still buy the consoles.

[DragonKnight]

It isn't about breaking the bank. In all honesty, tell me how much you'd want to pay. $0 or $60. And don't bring up this B.S. of features. We're talking basic function here. $0 or $60? If you'd pay $60 to gain access to a basic function that everyone else gets for free (and let's face it, that is the REAL reason people pay for Live, not features), then quite frankly you don't deserve to have money period and your parents should have another talk with you about the value of money.

[Irishguy95]

I'd like Ps+ for free too...can't I have it? Or are Sony too greedy?

[hellvaguy]

" then quite frankly you don't deserve to have money period and your parents should have another talk with you about the value of money"

Very hypocritical. If your really concerned with the value of money, you shouldn't be buying any video games ever. Or at the very most, play the ps1 or ps2 to get games super cheap.

[lodossrage]

Are you seriously trying to compare an optional service to a service MICROSOFT MADE MANDATORY?

Sony isn't being greedy because they didn't TAKE AWAY anything from the original PSN and hide it behind a pay wall just.

Microsoft however literally took online play (something that they once let you do free) and the right to use services you ALREADY pay for and locked them behind a pay wall.

[Mustang300C2012]

The only reason Sony didn't charge for online is because they don't have an infrastructure set up like Live and the cost of the PS3 wouldn't have been a good mix. All this constant talk about paying 35-60 which used to be $50 for 8 years is such a laughing joke with some of you. I mean wow. People spend all this money on alcohol and smokes and somehow try and downplay a service which has been going on for 12 years and you can't see why people continue to pay it. These same people have seen the same commercials and advertisements about the PS3 and PSN. People still bought a PS3(me included) and still PREFER Xbox Live. I CHOOSE to pay for the service and I can stop paying for it anytime I want. I am not forced to pay for anything. No one is forced. It is a choice. You go in knowing you need gold if you want to play online. You have to be an idiot today to buy a 360 and then be surprised you have to have Gold. Why are consumers here in the US still buying a 360 over a PS3? Why are more games played and bought on the 360 over the PS3? People know what they are getting and the only people that are whining over this stuff are the same people that sit on here bitching and moaning and not even playing their own system of choice or even buying the games they brag so much about. Consumers are not on a contract with Gold You can quit anytime. YOu can do month to month or pay a year. Such a joke listening to kids talk about $35-60 being so expensive for a year of service that people prefer and are not forced.

@lodossrage

Took what free? You mean the online games on the PC that are still based on a game to game bases if you pay a subscription? You mean the online gaming that each game requires you to set up an account for each game based on the company that releases that game. Compared to a service that has one login and standard features for all games? Yeah bringing up about online is free is crap. It is what it is. PC gaming is PC gaming. If they had found a way to make a pay wall they would but can't. MS found a way in 2002 and since then SOny has played catch up with their service and again if Sony thought of it first you would be paying for online with their system. That is why Plus exist because Sony couldn't compete with a paywall. And with how that service runs they wouldn't get away with a paywall. PSN is terrible. Online gaming is fine but the store and years of the same crap service is a joke and PS4 is supposed to be better? All talk.

[lodossrage]

All I'm seeing from you is one long opinionated rant and no actual facts so I just skipped ahead to where I saw my name. And for part of that to be meant as a reply to what I said I notice you didn't even attempt to disprove it.

Seriously, "Took what free?", I see you must not have had a 360 at launch like I did. Or for that matter, you must not have had the original Xbox. If you did, do YOU remember paying to play online on the original xbox OR the first year and a half of the 360's existence? I know I don't.

Side note- The least you can do is TRY to break that up into paragraphs lol. Why people think their personal tirades are worth reading without breaking them up into paragraphs is beyond me

[DragonKnight]

"I'd like Ps+ for free too...can't I have it? Or are Sony too greedy?"

Yay, a retarded fanboy comment. I think it's awesome that you think a service that provides games, early access to betas and demos, and subscription based free games while still not charging to access half of any game you already paid for is equivalent to a service that makes you pay to play online, still shoves ads in your face, uses P2P servers, and costs MORE per year than the other service. The land of make believe you live in must be fantastic.

@hellvaguy: Oh yay, more fallacious logic. By your logic, why buy anything. Why not just horde money in its entirety, hunt and gather for food, make our own clothes. That's an awesome train of thought. *thumbs up* :D

@Mustang300C2012: "The only reason Sony didn't charge for online is because they don't have an infrastructure set up like Live and the cost of the PS3 wouldn't have been a good mix."

B.S. They don't have an infrastructure set up like Live? You're talking about features here. Basic online gaming shouldn't be charged for. There is no excuse for it unless you're brainwashed into believing that you should have to pay to access half of the game you just bought.

"All this constant talk about paying 35-60 which used to be $50 for 8 years is such a laughing joke with some of you. I mean wow. People spend all this money on alcohol and smokes and somehow try and downplay a service which has been going on for 12 years and you can't see why people continue to pay it."

Irrelevant. What people spend outside of gaming isn't the point. Those other expenditures are choices and not spending money on alcohol or cigarettes doesn't lock you out on anything you need. Not spending money on Live means not being allowed to access the multiplayer aspect of a game you paid $60 to play in its entirety. $50 over 8 years is $400 you could have used on something that was actually worth it instead of a pay wall locking you out of content you legally bought.

And finally, yeah you are forced to pay for it unless you don't want to play online. Go ahead and try to play online on the 360 without paying for Live. The very second you do that, then you can come here and say you're not forced to.

[Mustang300C2012]

I have been a beta tester since Live started in 2001 before it launched in 2002 so I have been on it since day one with the Xbox. Had both Xbox and 360 at launch as well as PS3.

Again it is a choice and people choose to pay for Live and prefer it over other consoles. Oh and I have a gaming PC as well. I build them so for me I just enjoy games and choose to pay for Live for what it is worth to me. No one here has to justify anything to anyone about anything they buy or spend their time on.

@DragonKnight

Then why are new consumers continuing to buy Live and renew then?

Yeah the store on PSN sucks worse than it did before they did the update.

Again with the forced BS. You are not forced to pay for Live. You choose to pay for Live for the purpose to play ONLINE. How is that a confused concept. You are not forced to buy gas your ass can walk or ride a damn bike. You can still play your games but if you want multiplayer then you either pay to play online. No one forces you to get on Amazon, pull out a credit card and purchase a live card. So yes I can come here and say I am not forced and for the last 12 years I haven't been forced to pay for online, I choose to pay for it. You kids need to grow up. Consumers have choices and they choose to use Live and pay for online either for the first time or continue to use their existing subscription because it goes beyond just simply paying for Live. I prefer the controller and games exclusive and multiplayer. My/our choice

[lodossrage]

If you had been a part of LIVE for as long as you say you have, you shouldn't have asked "Took what free" because you (like me and most others) would KNOW the answer to that already.

For the record though, you should do yourself a favor and stop assuming everyone's "a kid". Because right now, you're the only one here coming off as such with your constant attempts at justification with things like "Oh and I have a gaming PC as well" and " Had both Xbox and 360 at launch as well as PS3" just to try to put your point across to make yourself seem "unified".

Not saying you are a kid, but that's how it comes off when you throw out validating comments like that.

[DragonKnight]

@Mustang: "Then why are new consumers continuing to buy Live and renew then?"

Because they like to throw money away duh.

"Yeah the store on PSN sucks worse than it did before they did the update."

There it is. There's that fanboyism showing. You know it's fanboyism when something completely irrelevant is brought up.

"You are not forced to pay for Live. You choose to pay for Live for the purpose to play ONLINE."

Wrong. You choose whether or not you want to play online. If that choice is "yes, I want to play online" then you are FORCED to pay for Live as you have no other option to play online without paying for Live. That's not a difficult concept to grasp and your examples have nothing to do with it as they offer other options. You choose to drive your car, but if you don't have the money to pay for the gas then you can still get to your destination via other means, there is no other means of gaming online on the Xbox 360 unless someone else is paying for Live and that's still a forced requirement on someone.

So once again, until you can play online without paying for Live, you can't say you're not forced to pay for Live. Show me anyone playing online without paying for Live and then you can say that it isn't a requirement. Because if you want to play online (which is the actual choice) then you have no choice but to pay for Live. And last time I checked, the absence of choice is what "forced" means.

[MadMen]

46m x (mean average 49.99) is about 23 million dollars a Year, that's good money.

Any one know what PlayStation Plus user count is?

[wishingW3L]

Sony said that it was successful but they don't comment on actual numbers.

[fermcr]

46m x 50$ year... is way more then 23 million $ a Year.

[Mustang300C2012]

More like 2.3 billion if we are using the average of $50 a year.

[Riderz1337]

Lol please learn to read before you comment. It's not 46M Xbox GOLD members, it's just people who have signed up for an Xbox live account.
http://www.tgdaily.com/game...

This article is a year old and says 40 million people have simply SIGNED UP for an Xbox account, not 40 million people are paying for for Gold membership.

[MadMen]

Correction, 2.3 billion.

[ghostgaming]

I dont mind paying a yearly subscription price to either MS or PS, I only think for the next gen, MS should offer more value and be in line with PS+

[josephayal]

is the best money I spend each year

[denawayne]

You have two different mindsets arguing here. The one that's willing to pay for Live and the one that is not. Why is one trying to convince the other? Really, think about that one. Do you really think that anyone on the opposite side of your opinion actually cares what you think?

[iistuii]

Exactly, if you don't wanna pay online fees then go to the other consoles. It's simple really. They should just stop coming on crying about other people's choices.

[hellvaguy]

It's like debating religion and politics. Your not going to change anyone's minds from any of these threads. People are really delusional if they think otherwise.

[mydyingparadiselost]

Because when people throw their money at pointless services that can easily be free companies will make more pointless services for people to throw money at.

[ACEMANWISE]

The article stirs up some previously unaware concerns about online in general. So let's recap...

1)It costs an extra 10.00 to play online with a used game.

2)One console prevents the ability to backup saved games without a subscription.

3)The other prevents the ability to play online multiplayer.

4)In both cases none of the digital games, dlc, add-ons, or season passes are considered ownable...just accessible.

5)They are accessed through a console specific service (meaning new consoles won't have the backwards compatible hardware to run the digital games of last gen).

6)The closest known way to play past gen titles is to pay for a streaming service (that will likely be offered once the support is dropped for last gen consoles).

7)Which means there is no longer a server up to activate or authenticate my past gen digital game purchases...thus leaving no choice but to lose access to everything I bought.

8)Which means all the back up data is nothing more than junk information without the activation key from the once operational service.

9)I can fight back by trying to preserve the games from ever having to be activated again. I could buy two new consoles, put the games on them, use up the two console limit, activate them before the service ends, and hope they don't break in the future.

10)Obviously there is no hope to preserve the season passes, map packs, dlc, or add-ons for the multiplayer mode...as there won't be online mode anymore.

11)Therefore, it seems this online "service" is designed to keep everything in the end.

12)Always on, if it comes to exist, will be nothing more than a constant activation check for the games you buy thus adding physical disks to the access control scheme.

13)Which means that physical disks will be as worthless to buy as everything behind their service.

14)Which means it could lead to the denial of used games, the denial of same disk access from other family members of the same household, or lending the disk to the friend down the street.

15)Always on seems to be the final stage these services want...carefully and slowly placing ID enforcing equipment in the household (such as cameras, voice and facial recognition, and soon to be fingerprint recognition). Don't think those touchpads added to the controllers are just their for your convienance. They are their to implement ID access to video games when the time is right. I'm done here.

[ACEMANWISE]

For those that doubt, ask yourself this...

1)If I unplug my internet, do my backups work? Or anything else? (as in the case when PSN was down for over a week?)

2)Have I ever lost any games or content because of an online service in the past (i.e. original Xbox).

3)Have the games I purchased at the beginning of this generation still appear on the store or have they removed them for space of new titles?

4) Is my primary recovery method of digital games the download list on the digital store? Have you ever wondered why you are required to recover purchased games from there?

5)Does any digital content have an expiration date heading attached to it? (Regardless if there's an actual date or not)

6)Have you ever seen the word "activating" when installing a digital video game that is yours?

7)Have you actually ever read the terms and conditions agreement for the online service?

8)Would you still have doubt if those agreements stated you don't own it even if they use the words buy, own, ownership, keep, or forever (they actually state they can mislead you that way, lol).

9)Have you ever had a console break only to have it returned without your harddrive...or receive another console altogether...leading to the service not recognizing your console? At the same time never deactivating the console you turned in?

10)Would you be more open minded if a 5 year old causes you to be banned from your account and all the games you purchased along with it?

11)Do you think it would be easier to quit a service knowing that everything you bought goes with it too?

12)Once you invest tons of money into buying digital games, do you think it would be possible they would leverage access to your games against you in order to get you to agree to less desirable agreements?

13) Ever wonder why the PS3 wipes the harddrive clean everytime you swap out the hardware? Or why Microsoft keeps their harddrives proprietary thus keeping the price extremely high? Ever wonder how that would effect you when there is no online?

14) Ever wonder why the link data transfer between two PS3s are "supposed" to transfer the copyrighted content but doesn't always do so, especially if the models don't match OR because the system versions are different? Ever wonder why the most reliable backup methods still need online to confirm?

15) Ever wondered why Xbox Live is a per user service yet you don't believe these same people aren't licking their chops to require games to be the same way, physical or not...requiring a family of 4 to buy 4 copies? Doesn't seem possible?

[wolokowoh]

7 is wrong. PSP services did not magically go down when Vita launched(of course the Vita is compatible with but we're talking PSP specific services), neither did PS2 game online functionality when PS3 released. I remember playing Ratchet Deadlocked online on PS3 in 2007. Believe it or not those servers were not shut down until 2012 and the game is about to get an HD re-release with new PS3 servers.

It's a little presumptuous that you won't be able to assess on your PS3 the PlayStation Store to download your content and play it online on some server that might still be up if it has that functionality. The PlayStation Store will definite be accessible as it for PSP and games especially those like COD will take a while to go offline. There is only a few games and DLC packs on the PS Store that have ever been taken down and its been for licensing issues and one for an unknown reason. These are rare issues. The one I remember most vividly is Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2's dlc pack. Activision lost the license to Marvel characters and was given a limited time agreement to sell the dlc. Something like this wouldn't happen with original IP.

[ACEMANWISE]

Okay then. Let's focus on situations where it has. Most EA servers have gone done for titles this generation. THIS GENERATION.

Almost every day I see current gen services dropping out within 1-2 years. Now while the argument may be it's low activity it still doesn't justify those that pay for the online service to exist. It also doesn't justify those that purchased the game that still is being sold in stores when the online was already taken down.(i.e. COD4, MAG).

As for presumption, there is little due to the fact that my claims are based on already happening events or happened events of the past. I've already lost Lemmings on the PSN store due to the inability for the demo to convert over to a full game (Something Sony can't explain) and yet the unlock is in my download list.

Companies have been known throughout gaming history to stop making consoles due to it's unprofitable success. Just think if Sega, NEC, Panasonic, and Atari were service based gaming companies. Odds are Microsoft, Sony, or even Nintendo could drop out of the hardware side of the business, leaving gamers with no way to retrieve years of purchase. The only hardware company left from the beginning is Nintendo. Look at them now.

I do agree that Sony is the only company with a long enough history of showing support for their products, successful or not. But that doesn't solidify how PC gaming has been handled, nor does it put Microsoft on a pedestal. And on the console side they haven't shown a hint of trying to keep support for anything yet. The only history they have is dropping the original Xbox and all their buyers to release another console. Then they dropped Xbox Live for that console, gave up on backward compatibility like Sony did, etc.

Now, I'm not slapping a service for ending a service. I'm slapping these services for trying to pretend to today's gamers that the stuff they download is the stuff they keep. It's an illusion of ownership that they designed while in reality people are paying ownership prices for what is really considered rental property.

They expect you to pay 400-600 for a console that essentially isn't going to function without their service yet they give you the illusion that the console is yours. The truth is that the hardware is yours but it is not a functioning console. It is a box that allows you to rent games and they expect you to pay for it.

That's like me having to pay for a store so I can enter it and buy their products. Except when I'm done I have to give it back.

The kicker is that most people still think that because a digital title is downloaded, you received the game. Thus it's worth the purchase price. They are diverting people into a digital vs. physical format comparison when in reality digital isn't even being offered. They are offering a service while providing the illusion that the digital entity you receive is a format to be comparable to physical. The truth is that the disk is the only format not yet tied to the service.

When this generation ends the PS3 and Xbox 360 access will end rather fast. Sony is already lining up their plans and it is plain as day. They want Gakai up and running and they will not compete with themselves by keeping PS3 games available. That is the main reason they dropped backward compatability for the PS2. The reason being that the PS2 was profitable and the PS3 was not. Adding PS2 support was only reducing sales of PS2 consoles. Plus it was better for them to rerelease the PS2 titles on PS3 as HD remakes.

[TXIDarkAvenger]

If you like the service, keep paying. If not, then just move on and stop commenting and making these stupid articles. No shit, MS will always want money for subscriptions because they make money as you can see. If you make money off subscriptions, why would you ever want to stop?

[Knight_Crawler]

Well said, thats like people on here complaining about a yearly Call of Duty game but when its released it sell millions and is the most played game on PSN and Live.

If something still has a demand then companies will continue to provide what people want.

Do I think charging to play online is unfair...yes but when the 360 first launched Live was miles ahead of PSN, sure it almost equal now with some minor things missing live party chat and easy access to everything but you cannot just expect people to switch and leave all the memories and online friends behind after years of using the service.

Now with the PS4 having party chat and some extra stuff over the current Live I expect MS to try to one up Sony and make paying for Live justifiable.

[TXIDarkAvenger]

Very well said.

My friends and I all bought a 360. Not all of us can afford to buy the other system, PS3, so of course were not going to switch.

Party-chat is huge advantage of Xbox Live, many hours were spent having a good time with friends. Don't get me wrong, PSN is a good online service on par with Live but the party-chat feature just wins it for MS. I feel PS3 is the loner system and 360 is the party system. So many memories of my online experience on Xbox Live, I don't have any memories of PSN experiences but that's just me I guess.

I agree. Microsoft will have to step up Xbox Live to make paying justifiable and I bet they will.

[Jek_Porkins]

Did anyone actually think Microsoft will offer a free online service with the next Xbox? Really? Really?

I sure hope not, I mean revenue is up and people that pay for the service enjoy it. No matter what the competition does, a lot of people will look at Microsoft and Xbox Live as the standard for home console online gaming, they are synonymous with a quality online experience. If you don't like it, there are other options and I'd suggest going that route, but at the same time, don't knock people for liking and buying the service, we are all free to spend our own money on what we like.

I personally think Xbox Live Gold Memberships help keep Microsoft out of the Online Pass game, hopefully that is the reason they allow used games, because most people that buy used games will want to play online, so they get their money anyway.

A good example of this is Apple and iPad's and iPhones, we can all get items equal to the Apple products for a cheaper price, but Apple is known for a quality product so despite being able to get similar things cheaper, people opt for the service known for it's quality.

To each their own!

[dcbronco]

Jek,

I think it's possible if they get something else that pulls people in. If they were to get the next big TV series or made the exclusives games available for free to Gold members. Maybe buy Netflix and make it a part of Live.MS is spending millions just getting the executives to run their TV division, they apparently have big plans for it. That they are in negotiations to bring Heroes back shows that they are thinking big.

I believe at some point, MP will be free on Live. Maybe even after E3 with the 720 announcement. They seem to be doing a lot of free weekends now. I believe it's a test to see if there is a significant boost in Live use when free. Also a lot of sales. I think they are comparing the boost in users with free MP with the additional revenue from Gold sales. If Gold sales loosen peoples pockets enough that they substitute MP money with Gold price reductions, they could use lots of sales to to get people to go Gold and lots of sales to re-coup the lost MP money.

They may also move to more tiers in the system. Silver, Gold and Platinum. Silver, MP and some apps. Gold, MP, most apps and some sales. Platinum with MP, all apps, great sales and discounts and original content apps.

[Jek_Porkins]

You think Microsoft will just give up 1 billion in Xbox Live revenue per year?

I think they will add the things you are talking about, which would make the value of XBL even more so. Microsoft has always done free Live weekends from time to time, they draw people in to the service with that.

I think a billion dollars is a lot to give up, and they have set a standard with Gold that people willingly pay, why change it now?

[dcbronco]

First, a comment on the moron Forbes has doing these farticles(accidently hit the link during a search). This dude is a total moron. It's shows how low Forbes has sunk. Not that a financial magazine was ever that high anyway. He makes it clear how stupid he is by saying he always pays full price for Live. I don't believe this fool owns any consoles.

Jek,

It's not giving it up. It's moving the ball. They give up MP, but they use other things to keep people paying for Live. By taking away the pay for MP excuse that sheep go for, you potentially increase your install base. That adds to the number of people willing to pay for Gold. There are ways besides MP to get people to buy Gold. MS has made far more money selling things other than Gold subscription on Live for a few years now.

A couple of years ago, maybe 2010 one of the execs remarked that they made twice in DLC and digital sales what they did in subscriptions. I know most people buy a lot more DLC and digital items when they are on sale. Steam has made this clear. People will buy things they will never play. I've bought clearance games in stores and never opened the package.

Continuous sales for Gold members would keep people buying digital items that cost them no more to sell for less. A digital item can make a lot more revenue selling to many people for less than it can selling to a few for a higher price. So selling Gold with sales instead of MP would work just as well. Costco does very well with the same business model and that place is always packed.

[wolokowoh]

46 million times $60 a year. Wait let's say every subscriber is miraculously getting it on sale Amazon for $45. So 46 million times 45. $2,070,000,000 a year. Yeah ... Microsoft really had to raise the price to $60 every year to maintain to the service "due to inflation" because it costs them so much to maintain the service that is barely has more features and runs slights more efficiently on the whole than Sony's free service. I'm sure the steadily increasing number of subscribers and another billion in advertising that they didn't have before Microsoft had a popular platform doesn't offset inflation in the slightest.

[dcbronco]

Oh my lord! Look! It's a Festivus miracle!

http://www.bing.com/shoppin...

I assume you believe it cost Sony nothing to run servers.

[wolokowoh]

Nothing is free. It costs plenty but not nearly billions. The PlayStation Store revenue and advertising revenue easily covers the cost of the service 100s of times over. The same could said for Xbox Live.

[dcbronco]

Were you able to find your Festivus miracle on that long list of Festivus miracles. Nobody but idiots pay $60 for Live. It doesn't take a miracle. It takes a browser or a newspaper. People should stop pretending it's hard to get live for $35-45. It normal. I've never paid more than $45 and I've been on all but one year since it's been active.

Considering how bad off Sony is financially they can't afford to hand out freebies. They should be charging because the cost of servers and securing servers is expensive.

[PeZuS]

Actually, that's 46m Live users and not nearly all of them subscribe to Gold. Traditionally Gold subscribers have been about half of total users, so the number is closer to 20-25m.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

Never say never.

[ger2396]

Microsoft selling Xbox live to their customers is like selling snow to an Eskimo.

[mydyingparadiselost]

So if you were an early adopter of the 360 over the life of the console you spent over 300 dollars extra for a service that is free for the other consoles? Thats the price of another console or 5 more games that could have been purchased brand new or even a tablet. Sorry 360 users, but you have been ripped off.

[Stefanrules7]

Thats what i always say to my friends who all have a 360 that over the past generation the cost of live and the console itself must mean that they have spent twice as much as me but they disagree like idiots

[DestinyHeroDoomlord]

It's funny how when someone says xbox is better than the PS3 they troll...... but when someone else says ps4 is greater than xbox 3 they get applauded for it... sad really

[Stefanrules7]

If all these rumors are true then it seems like microsoft sat down and said from day one that we will aim to milk as much money with little effort as possible

[wiz7191]

The one thing I don't get is, why is people complaining about the price to go gold on xbox live. You only pay $60 every YEAR its not like you pay $60 every month or it comes out of every paycheck you acquire. Heck it even times when Xbox have promotions and you can get a years subscription for even cheaper (Spent $30 for a year subscription a couple times). I just don't see what the big issue is paying $60 for a YEAR

[ger2396]

I agree , it's not that much when you break it down by month. But when you by an Xbox game, you only buy the single player campaign. You rent the multiplayer, because without gold you're not playing it.

[P_Bomb]

One of my issues is there's still no guarantee that fee will put players in your desired lobbies. You're paying to roll the peer-to-peer dice. The objective based games in Crysis 2 and/or Bioshock 2 DLC were just as dead on paid services as they were on free ones. So what's the edge?

Doesn't help my back catalogue. I bought Prey not too long ago, but the servers are dead. But that's what I was interested in. Why should I have to pay the same MSRP for Gold when I barely use it, compared to someone on their 10th prestige?

Live has its own little "underground", "pro", "casual" matchmaking tiers, why not offer a similar *fee* tier? So that if you don't go online for a couple months, you're not still charged for it. If I spend a month playing Mark of the Ninja, don't ding me a month off my XBL online pass.

[Max-Zorin]

Both sides need to give up hope. It's very pointless trying to convince someone how to spend their money. You won't get anywhere.