ANALYSIS. There have been rumours that Microsoft were going to make Xbox live free for all, instead of the current system where a base service is free and the feature packed Gold service is charged for. But why should Microsoft make it free?
^ because the PSN is free and it isnt far behind XBL's features and eventually that will be a major selling point and an advantage for sony especially with HOME and Playstation Lyfe Style and LBP right around the corner ya know. P.S this was meant for the GamerZone..... o well.... <--------------
so you admit it's still behind Live right? ;P I'm just kidding, and of course anything that's free that would offer more then Live would be more attractive, but I still have doubts that PSN will be free for much longer, anyways, they will probably keep online play free but will find other ways to make money, Qore is a great example of that. In the end, if you got a steady income the reality is that Live is not that much of a hit to your wallet, not mine anyways.
That everyone wants to be free. There's no problem with charging for the community features.
"But why should Microsoft make it free?" Yea why should we? We make a fortune out of these dumb bots.
yeah, that's how you get owned: "jump in, we got the cheapest console, who needs bluray, HDD, wifi??" but after you learn to run an addition, it's more like: "you got owned: 360 $299 + XBL subscription * 10 years = $799" and that's with RROD and w/o bluray, HDD, wifi... OUCH!! my ass hurts, where's the koolaid??
I thought BruceDouche articles were not going to get approved anymore...Him and GameDaily have been struggling for the top spot on the 'internets most retarded websites' for nearly a year now...
I mean come on...just look at that pricture (that is not a typo) of him on his blog...you know he is an instant douche and no matter what that his opinion is extremely incorrect...
The Bots love paying for service ...think am lying just read all previous post .
Why should MS make it free? Simply because everyone else allows online gaming free. If your come back is that Live offers more services than the others that is incorrect, Games for Windows offers the same and that was recently changed to a free service (mainly because PC gamers said no to the subscription).
Also, not everyone requires all of these features, some just want the ability to play their games online with their friends, if that is all you want I dont see how £50 a year is justified (even though I pay it).
From my point of view, I bought the console, bought the game, bought my internet subscription etc this in my eyes should be enough.
i pay it and dont mind. I see it like SkyTV here in the UK. If you want to watch TV you can, 5 analogue channel and many more free ones on freeview. If you want a service above and beyond those then you have to pay for SkyTV or Virgin. As long as XBL keeps getting updated i can see me paying for another year.
Or just buy a PS3 if they don't want to. Live with it.
Then don't. If you don't like the way the system is set up with MS then sell your console. Just stop the whining about the $4 a month for what is arguably the best online console service.
Silver, stop being a drama queen, if you dont want to see people moaning about paying for xbox live dont click on a thread that revolves around the payment of xbox live.
Also, I fail to see how I'm "whining", and here in the UK its £50 a year, or $100 if you'd like, or $8.33 a month.
I don't see people moaning about paying for xbox live, not as many as you may think anyways. Sure, a few dozen might b*tch about it here on N4G, but the reality is that millions pay and play and think it is worth it. Including me. I pay for Live and have PSN (with a Qore subscription for Christ's sake) I enjoy them both and that's that. They both have advantages and disadvantages but they are also worth the price, or lack there off imho. edit: and I forgot to say, they both have good variety as far content goes, and to me, that's just full of win, because variety is the spice of life. ;D
why do you pay £50 when you can get it for under £30 ?
IMO the online multi-player part of xbl should be part of the silver account, and if you want access to the other features like video chat, then you can upgrade to the gold account.
The reason I say this is because if you buy a game (for the xbox 360) that is heavily focused on online multi-player and you don't pay extra for xbl gold, then you just paid full price for half a game. To use the other half of your game you must pay a monthly fee, and that is BS. That is why currently I only buy exclusives for my 360. If the game is multi-platform with online multi-player ,I get it for my PS3
Free will, those that want to pay for it, go ahead.
Personally I want to pay for a console ONLY ONCE and then just worry about games, the wife don't give a damn about if it's 1 cent or 100 EURO per day, it's an unnecessary expense in her eyes.
Thankfully the PS3 exists and I changed to that console, no more play & charge kits, new SKUs that turns my console obsolete nor waiting for the UPC guy like a kid and going late to work...nor paying 50 EURO every year for as long as I own the console...people say the PS3 is expensive, I say the X360 is the most expensive of all, the proof is that people owning a launch console has so far payed 399 + (50 XBL X 4) = 700 USD and keeps adding up...
If you buy one game per month it actually costs USD 59 + 4 you pay for XBL.
Today to play online on the PS3 is as easy as on the X360 but if people/kids can't afford/justify a PS3 of course they have no other option than to pay and that sucks.
Could you explain your point about new SKU.
I never thought about it that way because my Gold subscription lasts until December. +bubbles :)
I wish I had not bought 2 years worth of live. when it runs out i'm done with it. I loved it at first but after awhile I couldn't see what I was paying for. They online games I muted everyone and eventually stopped playing because of all the racist, annoying, rude, and boring people on them. Most of my friends let there subscriptions laps and dot play online with xbox or have jumped over to PS3. And now PS3 has a very good online system. In fact the only thing I wish I could use is the xbox microphone. Not a fan of bluetooth cause I for get to charge it. To me we are not getting much for our money. if xbox would ban the kids playing adult games and acting offensive id be happy to play but all the "updates" play for themselves since you have to buy everything that is of any use.
50 bucks may not seem like a whole lot, but think about it, thats like 5 arcade games, or a retail game in itself
MSFT gets more online support from devs because they pay to run online and devs are more willing to create online function(The unified universal identity and stats/scores/invites/etc features are not offered by MSFT's competition).
It's not just the Multiplayer gameplay, gamers are paying for a XBL account. Either haters don't know about some of the offerings or do not mention them when complaining about something they do not have to worry about.
Devs pay for Sony's online, it is up to a devs to keep old ass games online; if they wan't to or not lol.
XBL is on another level.
"From my point of view, I bought the console, bought the game, bought my internet subscription etc this in my eyes should be enough"
^^^ You're in here deffending your console of choice, making excuses and putting your own flawed logic on others people that are actually fans of the console. This is why you feel this way and posted first in here.
Is it needed? HDMI output introduced during 2007 for the premium, Falcon chipset for the Elite and 120 HD during summer 2007...and now game installs which in order to enjoy you must either "upgrade" to the new 60 GB-HDMI SKU or buy a 120 GB HD that costs (at least) the double of what you pay for a HD of the same storage capacity for the PS3.
But like I wrote, Free will
If 360 owners are happy to pay for an online service, then I say let them. However, the silly charge for playing online certainly puts me off from ever using Live again.
Why pay for something every other company offers for free?
I agree with Fishy Fingers, if you buy the console, game and internet connection, what right do they have to charge you to play online?
They should make it free b/c some people are actually tired of paying just to have some crappy online service when its just not worth it.
Actually, 50 British pounds = 93.33 U.S. dollars :)
Has everyone forgotten about the media? First off, there's droves of free TV shows and videos, most of which can be downloaded in HD. Next, there's the plethora of PPV content, such as movies and more TV shows. All in HD. I downloaded The Orphanage and it was one of the most intense experiences of my life. Never had to leave my couch. Only cost me 5 bucks. Not to mention Battlestar and Lost, should we ever miss an airing. This to me is not something to b*tch about. This is awesomeness that should be celebrated. PSN doesn't do any of this. It's slowly catching up, but so far, Live has been well worth the cost and several leagues ahead of the competition. (I'm not including AppleTV in that.)
PSN does not have the free content(and correct me if i am wrong, but cant you only enjoy the free content if you have a gold subscription? so its not actually free.) However it(PSN) does have all the PPV TV shows and movies.
It kind of funny that the people that complain about the paying for XBL are ps3 fanboys and have never payed for it in the 1st place. Its also a bit funny that over half over all 360 onwers pay for XBL and less the 1/3 of ps3 owner will even log in to the free psn in. So its obvious that more people think XBL is worth paying for then there are that think psn is worth having for free
If you cant afford to pay 2 dollar or less a month for XBL you need a new hobby maybe bird watching its less the 2 dollars a month I'm sure.
It is their single biggest profit area with the 360. They make so much money off XBLM, XBLA, and XBL Gold it's ridiculous. I'd say a price cut is not impossible though. Something that would be nice would be to give free XBL for a month or so with new games that work on XBL. They did this a lot on the original xbox. I actually didn't pay for a full year until this april and I've been using live since launch. I had something like 3 12 month free cards, and a few 1-3 month cards all from games I bought on the original xbox. Going back to something like that would definitely make people a lot more eager to get on XBL. They still get money from all the games they'd sell (I'd probably buy a lot more games if this was the case), they'd increase sales quite a bit with the hardcore, who would probably see it as at least a $4 gift certificate off games if they already bought 10+ games a year. I can honestly see nothing bad about having incentives to buy more games for free XBL.
I pay for live as well! It seems like something small to me because when I renew my subscription, I buy the box with all the extra little things. So in a way it drops the price a little bit, and gives me a few things I can use. But it is time for MS to consider dropping the price or making it free, since the competition is slowly catching up with similar features for free!
it should be free, what does xbl offer that you can't get for free on other platforms?
if all the movie downloads and music video downloads were included it would be good.
but to charge £40 a year and having nothing included for free is a rip off
less than the price of a coffee every day on the way in to work. how can we live with this tyranny?!? sigh
I never liked people saying "oh it's only $1 a day for XBL". To be fair, that's like saying you can buy a PS3, it's not expensive, only $33 a month or a dollar a day for a year.
Live isn't $1 a day... no way. Its about $50 a year and thats the expensive price. If you look online you can find Live for $30 or less. Regardless, Live isn't more then a few bucks a month. Your spending $50 a year not $365 ($1 a day). Big difference. When I purchased my Live subscription I only paid $29 for it, which is like $2.41 a month... or 7 cents a day. Big deal. We're gamers. We spend thousands of dollars to play the latest and greatest games. I have a modest collection of games that I bought for $50. I have over $1000 invested in my 360 for the sole purpose of playing and being entertained. I haven't even had the 360 for 1 year yet. Do you really think that I bellyache about spending 7 cents more a day to get the best experience out of it? When the Graphics Card in your PC costs more then your whole PC... you might be a gamer.
It has never been the amount that MS charge for live that has been the problem with me, it's the principle of charging for something that should be free that I don't agree with! But as long as people keep paying in their masses (and it really is masses), MS just won't drop the charge for a gold subscription. They could probably even get away with increasing the price if the really wanted, I expect a majority would still pay the increased price!
The reason people complain about paying is because they should have to. Thats it. Sure its cheap if you divide the price in to 12 months but we spend so much money on games that every penny counts.
Quote: "It has never been the amount that MS charge for live that has been the problem with me, it's the principle of charging for something that should be free that I don't agree with!" +1 Exactly right. Bubbles for you.
Why would anyone be complaining about £50 a year when you can get it for £25? O_o Anyone that compains about that should really get a headcheck.
You would be surprised at how many more people would be paying the 50 without knowing any better. In many cases, the person funding the LIVE services is a parent, and they may or may not know about alternatives to just entering their credit card. Besides, its convenient and fuss free. With all the things and responsibility a parent has to go through each day, the last thing I'd want to worry about is bargain hunting for recharge cards or whatever they call them.
Good point. Cheers. I also feel that they really need to bring in another level of service - console accounts. Specifically angled for the family. Anyone on that console gets gold, but if they take their profile to another it won't be unless they have a gold account.
£25 is approximately $50 US, so really you're only paying what everyone else is paying by not purchasing it from Microsoft directly. Most people aren't really arguing about the price, they're saying it should be offered for free. If you think about it, it's a little ridiculous to have to pay for a service that has always been free (after paying your internet service provider), until the xbox came along. I'm not arguing that its a better online experience, but when Sony is nipping at Microsoft's heels in the online department, and PC gaming is at least the same if not better, why are they still charging? Maybe next generation they'll offer it for free again (I can see how making it free at this point may be difficult).
I think I've said this many times before. For myself, the cost is not neccessarily the only issue. One of my issues is that they charge similar prices in different regions where the services provided in each region is clearly different. One prime example is the video store. It is not available in all regions, yet I am still expected to pay relatively the same price as our American neighbours. Even if the service is provided, Australia's internet infrastructure is far from great, and I wouldn't be able to download those large files and enjoy those features. Microsoft need to scale their prices for each region based on what services is available, and based on the conversion. 50$ US may seem small, but in many countries it is a big deal. Don't take for granted that there are some families that are able to make 50$ last a month in some countries. Naturally, I am talking about extremes of the spectrum here.
What I DO have a problem with them is,they don't allow Silver Members to play Online.
That's about it from me,charge people for Gold Accounts,give them extra content etc.All I ask is,let me be able to play with my friends Online with a Silver Account.
I don't mind that Microsoft charges, but this guy is a total idiot! Seriously do you think anyone wants to pay even MORE. He is actually suggesting that Microsoft jack up the prices for no reason.
well it is bruceongames, just click his name to review his submissions, he writes total crap stories with no facts or bearing. He uses the word ANALYSIS to make you think its some kind of fact when he has nothing. i'd go as far as to say this guy doesnt own a console from this gen. this guys should be banned from submitting stories with no fact or validity
He should at the very least not be able to contribute from his own website. This is fishing for hits on his website, nothing more, and shouldn't be allowed on N4G.
Because PS3 owners feel ripped off...
What? Another stupid fanboy comment.
This was written by a fanboy. But I don't think you should have to pay for online gaming. Its the one thing thats keeping MS below the competition in my eyes. Sure it has great stuff to download like movies and stuff but as far as gaming online goes it should be free. Maybe they should do something like sony is doing with PSN and Qore.
erm its actually £40 in the UK my friend
Xbox Live is £40 a year but its only that because of when it first come out, it was the best and still is, so its not like thye are going to stop a profitable scheme to make people happy if it is for ever growing and making them more money by the minute.
no the ther hand they may make a few games online for free, but who knows
People seem to have missed my point. I have Live and I enjoy it, but Id still prefer it to be free, wouldnt you? I honestly find it hard to understand why people are happy to pay for something which could easily be free.
Orginally on the xbox I understood the payment, but now, with the Live arcade, DLC, movie and TV downloads MS are making a horde of money they never used to. Surely enough to fund their service.
I honestly believe if MS dropped the fee more people would jump on live (and the 360) and with the money they have saved maybe even buy more games or movies or whatever. Live potentially has plenty of ways to finace itself outside of a simple subscription and like I said in my first post, if playing you game online is ALL that you want I dont think it's fair to charge the same as someone who uses/requires all the features.
Again, this is just my opinion, nothing more.
but isn't your point done with a false price? at least admit it's a few dollars less, no? I agree with you, but I don't agree with the higher prices you use to prove your point, which is opinion. You said "Also, I fail to see how I'm "whining", and here in the UK its £50 a year, or $100 if you'd like, or $8.33 a month. "
i guess if sony started charging for it now i wouldnt care either..but mostly because i totally abused having it for free and if i know sony.....they wouldn't charge too much (not 50) and it would most likely be bcuz they would be adding something soo huge that if they didn't charge the ps3 would eventually cause the whole company to tank...but they won't...it'll be the greates hypocritical move ever. oh....and its nice opening the ps3 store and not seeing mcdonalds/toys r us ads etc. shoved into my damn nasal cavity.
For PC gamers that is.
I don't mind that MS charges for XBL, however, I don't think its justified that they charge you to play online. Online play is a selling point of the software, not the console you play it on. If they want to offer features to that service at a price that's fine, but at least give consumers the choice.
And it's not like they're bending over backwards to support XBL, they use the highly inferior P2P networking. Where does that subscription money go? I hardly see how it is improving XBL. FOR HOW MUCH MONEY XBL BRINGS IN THEY BETTER BE THE BEST SERVICE!!!
I mean, what's next, is MS going to charge us to access the music store to download mp3's on the Zune? If ipod would have chosen this strategy it wouldn't be where it is today.
Once again Bruce trots out his corporate loyalties with another poorly reasoned and hideously one sided piece of prose masquerading as objective opinion!
"Continued investment is needed to keep going with the fantastic rate of enhancements coming from Microsoft. The money has to come from somewhere."
This particular statement is hideously amusing. He seems to ignore the fact that every other company offering an online service is doing it for free! Whilst live is still just about 'best of breed', theres no question that the service with the most significant investment and improvements by far in the last year has been PSN, but they don't try and claim costs from their users. When you add the fact that Microsoft enjoy add revenue from spamming ads at its users, charge gamers for items that devs want to distribute freely, make plenty of money from live arcade titles and movies sold at 'premium' prices, and charge for things like wallpapers and themes, it really is a weak argument to suggest the revenue needs to be raised from subscription charges:
The costs of any distribution system are met by the profit made on the goods that the system distributes - in 'lives' case, games and movies that are bought on the service.
Lets not kid ourselves here. Subscription charges are there purely to make a profit and not any other reason.
So, far from recognizing the lack of justification for the charges they make, Brucey boy goes on to suggest that we should be charged even more - with no logical reasoning other than its a 'great revenue stream'. Can you bend over and invite it any more Brucey?
The fact is, if you have a 360 and want to play games online, Microsoft have a monopoly and they know it. By making it the cost of a game, its easy to write off the cost and be content that at least the service is real good.
But it IS becoming increasingly hard to justify why they are the only company in the world charging for such services, and the fact that Brucey struggled to find any justification at all shows the truth of it.
They are making an absolute killing from it, and only the terminally stupid would not be able to see that.
that microsoft took less royalties from the game if it had an on-line multi-player, hence the charge! i know that was the case from the original xbox anyway.
what the f"*k is brucie on when trying to suggest an increase is needed?? perhaps he's concerened about inflation.
although, i wouldn't say that live "lacks justification" for the money. it's a great service which i've been paying for since 04 and think it's well worth the £3+ a month. plus, the service is growing by the day, microsoft aint gonna shut off that revenue when everything is positive. many people just want to play on-line with their pals, want an easy-to-use experience and dont sit on n4g worrying about something that's unchangeable.
i'm more than certain than sony looks at the revenue generated by live with envious eyes. the question shouldn't be how long can microsoft keep charging for live, it should be how long will sony keep the psn free? perhaps not this gen, but next gen could see sony want some cash for it.
Not pulling any punches there are you bro. Still I totally agree with what your saying.
"Lets not kid ourselves here. Subscription charges are there purely to make a profit and not any other reason."
Ummm....so it doesn't cost say...your favorite magazine, a penny in productions for it's monthly issues?
It doesn't cost MS anything to run, maintain, upgrade, research, and market XBL??? I wonder why it took Sony so long to do PSN? They started online for PS2 back in 2002 - just like MS. I wonder why they CAN'T match XBL, feature-for-feature...if it (in your mind) shouldn't cost users anything.
I see you convieniently ignored:
"The costs of any distribution system are met by the profit made on the goods that the system distributes - in 'lives' case, games and movies that are bought on the service."
Would you pay to access the apples 'istore'?
It costs amazon a ton of money to run and update their site on the net - would you be prepared to pay them for access to it?
Of course not! They pay for it out of the profits they make from selling goods, exactly as Microsoft should.
Nobody can say they don't make a huge profit, even if you removed the subscription charges and purley looked at the sales of goods over live and the ad revenue, they would be clearly making a profit
"It costs amazon a ton of money to run and update their site on the net - would you be prepared to pay them for access to it? Of course not! They pay for it out of the profits they make from selling goods, exactly as Microsoft should. " I very much agree with this concept.
You brought up an excellent point.
Titntin - I agree and disagree all at the same time :)
The analogy to Apple and Amazon is not the same as what MS is providing. Amazon wants you to visit their site for the sole purpose of buying a product from them. Any community features such as forums/comments/book lists, etc are there purely to lure you to their site to buy something.
Live provides products to purchase but that is not the main goal. They also provide free demos/downloads, online play, access to friends and other features that don't require you to spend any additional money.
You could say Amazon is like Best Buy or Barnes and Nobles. Would you pay $5.00 just to go into their store to have the privelege of buying something?
Live is more like a hot spot dance club in your town. You might pay a cover to get in so you can enjoy the women... I mean the amenities they provide. You can buy drinks if you want, but you don't have to.
Overall, I agree with you. I'm not saying MS is justified in charging the fee. I think they should pursue a free service and make their money off advertising and 3rd parties.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
In many ways I agree with what you are saying.
There are features of Live that are not to do with shopping. But as you pointed out, they are not unlike the forums, book lists video and music previews - they features designed to ensure you are in the market place.
If you look at the provision of the service, almost all the expense is in providing the backbone for digital sales and distribution.
Demos and downloads:- Demo's are made available by the developer to advertise and market their game. There is no expense involved for MS except a little Bandwidth for delivery - and as the PC market clearly shows, that expense is negligible. There are few other free downloads. They even charge for some wallpapers!
Chat features:- Wheres the expense? They implemented it back when they developed live and have spent nothing since. When people are on the network its costs MS nothing to let them talk and chat. Would you be happy if they charged for messenger on the PC?
Online play:- the big one! This would be an expense if MS bought and maintained dedicated servers to support online play. But they don't. Rather than invest in any infrastructure of their own, they rely on a simple P2P system to run multiplayer online games. I'm not making a statement on the merits or otherwise of that approach, but I am saying that theres negligible expense involved in providing online games if you do it P2P.
So if there's an element of live's service thats not to do with selling you something thats a SIGNIFICANT expense, I've yet to hear of it. Maybe someone can point to a feature that justifies the money?
I'm not saying people are stupid for paying for live - lets get that straight. If you have a 360 its a necessity and given the capabilities it adds and its low cost, its a no brainier to pay for it, and I did, and enjoyed it for years.
However, I haven't heard anyone mange to justify to me where the expense goes to and how any charge can be justified other than saying they don't mind paying for it. When someone starts telling me I should be paying even more and justifies it with 'MS is making plenty of money', its not unreasonable to ask where the expense is in providing the service?
Right, those are very good thought out points.
It will be interesting to see when Home comes out and Sony continues to up the ante on their service, how MS will react. Either MS winds up dropping or reducing the cost or they keep adding more content/services to justify their expense. In either case it is only good for the consumer.
Bruce on games, the sound and look of complete stupidity. Can we get submissions from this idiot banned, all he does is insight flame wars or just talk general trash. I am glad though that he is obviously in touch with the common man because while the cost of living is going through the roof, Bruce suggests that Microsoft should be increasing the cost of the top XBL subscription by 150% - ever thought of a career with British Gas Bruce because they also deal in pointless unsubstantiated extortion.
"ever thought of a career with British Gas Bruce because they also deal in pointless unsubstantiated extortion."
^ That made me chuckle. Good work, good comment.
PC services comparable to XBL aren't unified (friend's list, IM, voice chat, x-game messaging & invites, etc.) and where's the PC video marketplace? Can you see who's playing what & communicate with them from your cell phone, etc?
Besides, how many people have iPhones, etc. and pay extra to use your cell phone providers' internet? Where's the complaints for that?
there are so many things what people pay for, and dont complain about, why complain so much about this one.
this may actually be one of the cheapest out of some of the things you pay for.
add ons for Mobile Contracts
there just a few, but once people start paying and they see something good coming out of it, they wont really stop it will they. what would be nice is a loyalty scheme, when we the users who are actually paying are rewarded and given something as a little incentive to say thanks for staying with us.