Given the number of users and $50-a-year subscription fee, it's hardly a surprise that Microsoft is pulling in a ton of cash from Xbox Live, but it looks like the service has recently crossed a significant milestone: the $1 billion mark. That's what Bloomberg estimates for the past fiscal year, at least, based on the number of paid users (about 12.5 million), and a recent statement from Microsoft's Dennis Durkin, who said that sales of downloadable content had topped subscription revenue for the first time. That translates to about $600 million from subscription revenue, and at least $600 million from other sales, for a grand total somewhere north of $1.2 billion. Can't really blame Sony for following its lead, can you?
40°
30°
30°
20°
Ad 
40°
Edit: @ Patriots
I'm just speaking for myself, I'm sure others think the $60 bucks are worth it.
I use both but spend 80% of my time on Live because I feel like it a more immerse experience - I know cross game chat and inviting people to parties might sound so little but it makes connecting with your friends so easy and feel like they are next to you.
I just posted an article comparing the 2, can you please approve. http://n4g.com/news/1032778...
In the end PSN plus wins.
Been a member since the original Xbox. Nothing against what other consoles offer, but IMO Live is the best console online experience as a whole out there. Playing without Live features IMO feels like going back in time.
Live is the home of the core 360 gaming community and it's those core gamers that arent the ones who spend their time online bashing it.
Micrsoft created a gaming Eco-system in Live and it's anyones guess on how they will proceed next gen, but Live will be one of the main reason millions of gamers will own 720s right out of the gate.
Evil
Then again, facebook was estimated to be worth some insane number and we saw what happened to it when it went public. But at least Live is selling a service... even if most of the features are free elsewhere.
(Please note: not trolling, just making an observation and commenting for the sake of discussion. I think it's a legitimate criticism as a paying gold member).
"Micrsoft created a gaming Eco-system in Live and it's anyones guess on how they will proceed next gen, but Live will be one of the main reason millions of gamers will own 720s right out of the gate."
Are you an MS PR rep or do they send one to your house to write out this stuff.
Seriously. Those 6 bubbles of yours after writing this stuff is proof enough that this site isn't "overrun with Sony fanboys" as many would say.
I really am in shock reading that stuff. I mean wow.
but xbox live is boring. not much to do. it did get a lot better these days though w youtube and crackle type of apps. still boring after a while.
'Are you an MS PR rep or do they send one to your house to write out this stuff.
Seriously. Those 6 bubbles of yours after writing this stuff is proof enough that this site isn't "overrun with Sony fanboys" as many would say'
Awww..is da wittle Dwagon so upset that he has no comeback that he has to resort to the PR rep stuff?
So is THAT why your so offended? You actually get paid to whine so much about MS that you think other need to be as well?
Dont worry your comment in response to what was my personal opinion is LIVING proof of what N4G is 'overrun' by..lol
Evil
So is THAT why your so offended? You actually get paid to whine so much about MS that you think other need to be as well?
Dont worry your comment in response to what was my personal opinion is LIVING proof of what N4G is 'overrun' by..lol"
That was pathetic. I didn't even say anything negative about MS and you have to come to their defence. I think you've proven my point even more. What a sad reply you made. I guess MS doesn't pay people to be witty.
LMAO @ this fankid in complete denial..once again you literally prove what this site is about..
If someone say I don't like Live then you got zero problems, but I give my opinion on why in my personal opinion I feel Live is better..what do you do?
OMG OMG you can't say that. You must work for MS as there in NOBODY on earth that can have that opinion.
'That was pathetic. I didn't even say anything negative about MS and you have to come to their defence. I think you've proven my point even more. What a sad reply you made. I guess MS doesn't pay people to be witty.'
LOL @ the goggles so dark that you can
t read. Who said you attacked MS? Whose coming to their defence?
Here the quote since you could read it the first time..
'Dont worry your comment in response to what was my personal opinion is LIVING proof of what N4G is 'overrun' by..lol'
True then true now..and I love this guy talking about wit when all he can do is run up in MS articles and call people PR reps...oooooh so witty..lol..more like lame
Evil
For me, Xbox Live is the Facebook of online services, its so social and easy to use. It definitely has its own personality and I feel like its safe to use. Consumer confidence is a very important part of business and Microsoft has built that with Xbox Live throughout the years.
All of the millions of people who use it, use it for a very good reason. One billion in Xbox Live revenue is a spicy meatball for sure. Congrats to Microsoft for putting together such a stellar service.
Personally, I would just never pay to play random games online.....not ever.
-my take.
That says a lot about the service. I look at Xbox Live just like any other service really, you get what you pay for and its not like its a huge expense. I honestly pay more for haircuts throughout the year than Xbox Live. I just upped again for $35, that averages out to like $3 a month. My Gamefly, Netflix and Hulu Plus memberships cost far more than my Xbox Live membership does.
I'd also hold off on that "never pay to play online" spiel as well. Nintendo has already come out and said they might not always offer free online, Sony obviously wants a piece of that profit as well.
I wouldn't call being forced a very good reason.
Nobody is forced, if the money was THAT big of a deal, people wouldn't get it. The price only seems to offend people here. I've never complained about it, it'd be like complaining about any other bill, there isn't really a point.
I'm a gamer and since its my hobby, I don't mind paying to have the best experience I can with it. I pay for PSN+ as well, its all about experiences.
*Edit*
@raymantalk1
Microsoft does several sales a year themselves for $35. You can also find deals like that almost all the time on Amazon throughout the year. I usually wait until I see one and than pick it up. Sometimes Microsoft offers free games with it as well.
If you read the article, you'd know the half of the billion is made by sales of various things that are available through Xbox Live, the other half is through actual subscriptions.
I don't care about cutting into their profit, I get my XBL for as cheap as I can, I only said its a great setup and its well worth the money.
*Edit*
@Jadedz
I remember Sega Net, but Microsoft had the idea to include a broadband adapter with every Xbox unit sold. They were the first console maker to do that, it helped pave the way for online services.
Its also very debatable as to what killed off Sega in the console market. Sony might have played partially into it, but Sega kind of lost their edge and lost a lot of consumer confidence by the time the Dreamcast came along.
Therefore they know the other options are free yet choose to use Xbox because they think it is a superior service or has superior games.
Example, people pay a premium for Apple products for its ecosystem and programs even though they know the price is steep that is called options.
If your preference is Halo, Gears and Forza, you are FORCED to pay to play the online parts of the game, and if you are already invested in Xbox, it makes matters worse. That in itself is pretty inexcusable, and I don't see how anyone can defend this. It doesn't cost Microsoft $60 per year for every consumer to simply play their games online. And they increased the point of entry of XBL by $10 a couple years back to justify their strategy of the inclusion of non-gaming features. That's awful! Even if you enjoy the features of XBL Gold it's still pretty awful to charge for basic online play rather than the features that count.
I'm glad those other options exist because they actually give you options.
how is it you can get xbox live Gold subscription for less than what MS themselves sell it ?
ps if like you say you have never paid more than $35 a year for it and if most people do the same would'nt that cut into the 1.2 Billion profits abit ?
The Sega Dreamcast had online play also (which was pretty revolutionary at the time).
Too bad Sony regulated them to a software only company.
They'll say that it's a better service that isn't tacked on and is well integrated. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's good. You can get Aids for free, does that make it good?
XBL pisses on PSN, plain and simple. It's a more reliable service that's actually part of the consoles experience. Sony can't charge for PSN because it's crap, that's why they have plus for you fools that think you're actually getting a good deal. How are they "free games" when you don't get to keep them? Not only that but if you own a PS3 and actually support it, you'll probabaly have most of those games, but as the sales charts show, you guys play CoD just as much. The only reason people cheer for PSN is because it's free, just wait until Sony makes it a pay service for everyone (they love money as well) but don't have the skills and tech to support it.
Fanboys.
How would it be tacked on when PS4 comes out exactly? It's been out for a while on PS3. Surely your common sense can tell you they've been working on improvements for the service, and properly implementing things for the next console. Oh right, because PSN maintenance are for Sony to sit down and read the daily mail? Yeah, XBL is well integrated. They ensure you get your daily dose of Marketing.
PSN does what gamers want it do. They can play online, for free, with their friends. If they wish to get a bit more, the optional paid route is there. I don't see what COD has to do with it. Since Sony have been pushing new IPS for a while now.
I wouldn't even bother to debate about Sony's ability to get skilled individuals. I'm not agreeing with Ryo either, since that has nothing to do with this article.
What's worse than a fanboy? You'll find the answer is closer to home.
I really dont get how anyone can say that for playing games online, that one is better than the other, not even talking about costs here, just the experience. Both platforms are the same.
You go into a game, go on multiplayer mode, and it works, they work just as well as eachother which is basically flawlessly 99% of the time if you have a decent enough internet connection.
Ps3 versions of games also have game invites and stuff now so when your talking about playing games online with your friends, they are THE SAME, both are relatively lag free and Ive never noticed any real difference in lag or the community.
Personally I think the only people who go around saying things as extreme as you are have to be fanboys or something, because when you use and enjoy both services, its plain as day that for gaming, both work as well as eachother.
Only difference for me is that updates on XBL are faster, which admittedly is nice when you just want to get into a game on BF3.
If sony decides to charge next gen, I wont like it, but i'll understand considering how many people have been willing to pay for it (including me) on XBL.
Do i think i should be paying to play P2P games online (as in player hosted, no dedicated servers on most games), no. If it were all dedicated then id understand but its not.
But the price isnt that high and I can live with it, if its that much of an issue for people stop moaning about it online and invest in a gaming pc where the updates are frequent and the online gaming is free.
According to who? you? who just happen to be a fanboy? They're about the same. I have both and they both perform just about the same functionalities. Is live a bit cleaner, but surely if you weren't such a narrow-mindined individual (i.e. fanboy) you can see they're about the same. I play games with my friends with both. I buy content with both. I chat with both.
Granted Live has cross-game chat, but let's be honest here. Does "cross-game chat" really make it the defining feature that sets these two services apart? Hell no.
When PSN first started it was crap. I think I spoke for most users when i said that. But over time, it has improved tremendously; to the point that they're virtually identifical to live. So please, get your fanboy head out your fanboy (insert word here) actually play the service for once you liar.
"that's why they have plus for you fools that think you're actually getting a good deal"
I guess a lot of us are fools then. Sorry to bust your bubble (you should have 0), but you erroneously assume people have most of the games they get for free. Care to provide data on that. I can assure you I don't. I get to play games i would have never gotten a chance to and I got some gems out of it.
"Fanboys."
Yes. Clearly you are one. You even had the confidence to make it your own hancock. Good for you.
Which company is it that has to lump online play in with other services to get people to pay for them?
Funny that you call PSN crap, but MS uses many of the same elements of that "crap" service as the biggest reason to sign up for their supposedly superior service.
If PSN really was as bad as you say it is, those same features would be free on Live, but clearly, even Microsoft isn't confident enough to let that "crappiness" drive sales of their premium service. Even Microsoft knows the truth... they need that "crap" to sell everything else.
So they resort to something far crappier... a "service" that blocks you from using the online features of games you already paid for. They make you pay in order to access the same features a "crap" service provides absolutely free.
Funny how that works.
why did this get approved?
And that's how Microsoft get all their customers from. Because they are being forced to buy Xbox LIVE Gold mermbership to get access to the other part of the game which you just actually just paid to get even more access fore if you only have an Xbox 360.
Cross game chat?
And?
That's all there is to it. End of story: there is no other difference. Hell, don't take my "fanboy" word for it; SpecialK outlines it above.
Yet people keep talking about how much better it is. But the ONLY advantage is the ability to talk across various games due to being in a party and, since that can hinder MOST of the online games which require multiplayer teamwork, it's not even an absolute plus.
So what IS the advantage that's worth $60 a year?
Lies and always will be