Top
220°

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

The story is too old to be commented.
Chaostar1194d ago

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.

shivvy241194d ago

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

Blackdeath_6631194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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

HammadTheBeast1194d ago

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.

egidem1194d ago

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.

MikeMyers1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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 Repellent1194d ago

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

Biggest1194d ago

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!

Godmars2901194d ago

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.

The_Infected1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

@shivvy24

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

They could jump ship to PS4. My Live subscription comes May 2nd and that's when I'm done. I'm not paying to play anymore because its stupid. I'll get a PS3 for The Last of Us and a PS4 day one.

Edit: Xbox guys disagree? You'd rather pay to play games you done bought? Lol have fun:)

InMyOpinion1194d ago

"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.

defiance1871194d ago

@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 Sp3cTr31194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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-man1194d ago

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.

HammadTheBeast1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

@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.

cyberninja1194d ago

There's always a choice: buy another product.

Darrius Cole1194d ago

@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.

princejb1341194d ago

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

Septic1194d ago

N4G simply doesn't get it.

MikeMyers1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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-1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

NegativeCreepWA1194d ago

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.

nukeitall1194d ago

@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.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 1194d ago
NastyLeftHook01194d ago

yeah, they see less money in there bank accounts.

Mounce1194d ago

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_SfF1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

WalterWJR1194d ago

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.

Mounce1194d ago

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1194d ago
dedicatedtogamers1194d ago

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.

Aceman181194d ago

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.

wishingW3L1194d ago

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

Blaze9291194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

DragonKnight1194d ago

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.

JasonXE1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

duli141194d ago

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!

MikeMyers1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1194d ago
ALLWRONG1194d ago

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-man1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

DigitalRaptor1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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 Cole1193d ago

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

g2gshow1194d ago

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

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1193d ago
Why o why1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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

SilentNegotiator1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

....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.

Why o why1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

SilentNegotiator1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

"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 why1193d ago

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1193d ago
ILive1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

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.

Blaze9291194d ago

well, better go pre-order your PS4 then.

Dan501194d ago

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.

medman1194d ago

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_Lover1194d ago (Edited 1194d ago )

............ 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.