Should Xbox Live Really Have A Monthly Fee?

Back in those days, Microsoft had a very good reason why they charged for Xbox Live, as it was clearly better than PSN. But now, as the PSN has matured, it has grown closer and closer to Xbox Live quality but managed to stay a free service in spite of its constant upgrades. In fact, it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish which is the better service.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
KionicWarlord2222938d ago

It`s not bothersome...

But that doesn't answer the question .

Bnet3432937d ago

It's funny how we have these once every few months. Here's what I'll say before this gets approved and people go wild. Xbox Live is a great online service for the Xbox 360. It's the Xbox 360's strong point without a doubt. People see it as, hey this service is great, I don't mind paying for it, it's good. As far as Microsoft's rationale, they say it keeps the service up and running and constant new updates that make the service better. In many ways, it has paved the way for online gaming on consoles. Were it not for Microsoft's aggresive online push, we wouldn't have PSN. Think about that for a minute. For all of those who love PSN, it's Microsoft who made Sony get off their butts and work on it's own online service. It's a matter of time before Nintendo gets serious about it. Asking if Xbox Live should be free is the same as, asking should we pay for taxes or should we pay for extra TV channels. It can go both ways.

KionicWarlord2222937d ago

Well i do like how xbox live keeps getting better, But i just feel they will run out of ideas after awhile .

I said same thing last year..


Rockox2937d ago

Kionic said it best: "It's not bothersome."

I just renewed my Xbox Live account yesterday. No big whoop.

chrisnick2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

if its for something that's "premium" then why the hell not? as long as it does what it does and then some (compared to others) then of course ppl would buy it...but im sure if ppl decided not to pay for it in the masses then they would either drop that price heavily or eliminate the fee altogether.

KingME2937d ago

It's really not that big of a deal. Not to mention, Amazon has sells on 12 month live cards all the time. I've see it as low as 34.00.

Beside, I've been a live member for many years now. I'm fine with it. Most of the people writing and crying about it, don't even have an xbox.

HDgamer2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

No dedicated servers for halo 3 and gears isn't that good.

green2937d ago

Renewed mine 3 weeks ago and it did not bother me at all.Really like the service.

ShabzS2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

its actualy just a nuisance... i dont know maybe i'm too lazy ... its definitely not expensive or anything its just something that's there and has to be dealt with ...

but after those 4 mins of purchase and redeem you dont have to look back for a whole year .... speaking of which i think mine will expire this week

but one thing is for sure if you're not signed into xbl weather it be as silver or gold doesnt matter .... the 360's interface just becomes lifeless...

AngelorD2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

Let me just remind you that the Xbox EXISTS to destroy the Playstation. It was made to get Sony out of the living room.
And it's clear that with no proper competition not the PS3 nor the 360 would have been what they are.
@topic: Hell no. I would never ever pay a fee for an online gaming service.

LiquifiedArt2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

No. It should be free. Unless your paying for DEDICATED SERVERS in all the games.. Paying for an interface and server space for your friends list, is hardly worth it.

Doctor_Doom2937d ago

A) Buy Two blu-ray Movies
B) Renew gold membership

Some people will choose (A) the others will choose (B).

Life Goes On :)

joydestroy2937d ago

i don't think there should be a monthly fee. i just canceled my renewal for gold, though so it's whatever.

SaberEdge2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

Xbox Live is just too good to pass up, fee or no fee.

All-32937d ago

Should PSN Qore Really Have a Monthly Fee?

ThatCanadianGuy2937d ago

QORE is completely optional and not required at all to play online.

Lifendz2937d ago

If I could play games online for free on Xbox I'd own a 360 by now. Too many games coming to pay to play online. If MS continues to charge for it's online service then the original xbox may be the last MS console I ever buy.

Jaces2937d ago

What is it exactly that members on LIVE are paying for that's different from PSN.

No fanboyism please, just a straight answer that justifies your purchase.

FamilyGuy2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

"Should PSN really be free?"

That question makes more sense to me as I'm constantly surprised at all the things i get for free simply because i own and ps3 and have an internet connection. The E3 coverage was just the cherry on top. We got HD vids of TONS of games shown at E3 and the ENTIRE Sony press conference also in HD all for FREE (think of sonys bandwidth charges). 360 owners pay for their service yet only got a few free pics/themes and im not sure about videos.

Live could be free but M$ decided to charge for it and their users are fine with it so WHO CARES?

BTW, when saying where would PSN be if not for Live don't forget that the Dreamcast started this on consoles and Sony went after it even then but simply didn't push as hard as M$ (software company) at achieving and surpassing what they saw. Sony released their system later because they wanted ethernet/Lan ports/modem for a faster internet service than what the dreamcast released with (phone jack/dial-up).

Sony was going to have an online service in the PS3 even if the xbox never existed.

KionicWarlord2222937d ago

I believe xbox 360 had the conference on xbox live as well .

Pistolero2937d ago

They did...there was tons of free coverage of E3 on the 360...even if you don't have a gold membership...I guess you wouldn't know that unless you owned the console.

Jaces2937d ago

Wow, 3 disagrees for a simple question.

What's the matter? Disagree phantoms can't come up with one good reason?

CWMR2937d ago

-We have been over it a thousand times already. If you don't know by now what the differences are then you are simply being willfully oblivious to it. There are several posts in this article that list a few of the differences. It's a matter of having a whole bunch of features that individually might only be 3 or 4% better, but together add up to a much smoother, feature packed and enjoyable experience.

Everybody talks about the party system and the cross game voicechat only because those are some of the bigger features the 360 has that the PS3 lacks, but there are a whole slew of lesser features that arguably add up to make even a bigger impact on the overall experience.-

NegativeCreepWA2937d ago

Jaces, its pointless to explain it because people don't want to here why, they just to have something to complain about. I'll give it try though.

What it comes down to is that your paying for the match making servers that connect you to games on Live this includes nearly every game that has ever came out on the XBox and the 360 with the exception of EA games. Because EA wants to control their game market by shutting down servers of older games forcing people to buy a new version if you want to play online.

A good example is COD. On Live MS handles the match making for COD, while on PSN COD match making goes through GameSpy servers that Activision or Infinity Ward pay for.

This allows for smaller companies and Indie developers to add online multi player when normally they couldn't because of the cost of renting servers. Its why nearly every arcade game has online multi player or co-op.

Im going to speculate now that the games on PSN that only have local co-op and multi player like SSD HD, would be online enabled if they were on Live.

This has all been known for years but like I said, no one cares to hear the real reason or they chose to ignore it.

FamilyGuy2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

Well thanks for the clarification, was it in HD as well? I asked this question a few times after E3 and no one answered while Sony E3 press conference released the very next day after it happened along with tons of new HD game trailer that were shown at E3. In the end it was all advertisement and it worked since it sold me on a few games that weren't covered on like G4 or some other sites that only showed the big titles.

Jaces2937d ago

Hmm, that is interesting.

Never heard someone put it that way. I'm not much of an online kind of guy cept to get a good arcade game, I've heard a lot of different things but is Gold membership just for the ability to play online or does it come with other goodies?

Jinxstar2937d ago

"Should Xbox Live Really Have A Monthly Fee?"


potenquatro2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

What kind of sick, twisted and demented fanboy mind you have. Xbox was never meant to "destroy" Playstation and "get sony out of the livingroom". Sony makes TVs, radios, radio recievers and speakers to better enjoy your xbox or ps3. Xbox was meant to put MS more involved with more costumers. Put MS, not just on your PC in your office, but in your TV aswell. MS will never get Sony out of anybody's livingroom. You literaly think MS and Sony are at war?? You don't think MS and Sony do business on a regular basis?? Pathetic.

On topic: MS has been charging for Live and other offerings havn't. Live has been offering the best online service. The way I see it. In Live's case in particular: charging for service = better service. But they should start lowering it even more, because it's not offering as much more as it used to.

el zorro2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

It's by far the best online service available on consoles, so I have no problem paying $40 a year for it.

Why is it that PS3 fans seem to be virtually the only ones that don't understand how good Xbox Live is? The whole rest of the world understands.

For example, I was just reading my current issue of Game Informer (the one with Rage on the cover) and in their E3 coverage on page 32 they said:

"There's no question that Xbox Live is the best online gaming platform in history."

That is why I pay for Xbox Live.

Millah2937d ago

Okay, so the justification is just because they offer a "better" service? Great reason to justify charging for it. Well, I think Facebook offers a much better service than Myspace does, maybe Facebook should start charging too just because you're getting a "premium" social network.

wtf? Plus XBL has ads all over the place. If I'm paying for something, I better not have to see ads as well. Either have it ad-supported, or subscription based, but not both.

shadow27972937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

No. It should be deca-annual.

SH3MRON2937d ago

The bad thing about a free live system is that developers will need to pay for the bandwidth they will use like on the PSN and therefore we will get less demos, clips and even betas.

Maybe not make it free but if they lowered the price to $40 or $35 more people would join but still I'm fine paying for it as it is now.

All-32937d ago

Xbox Live 'Gold' is completely 'optional too' ...

And playing online games is NOT the only feature of Xbox Live Gold.

Xbox Live Gold members have access to features similar to Qore subscribers... so subtract $25 bucks off the $50 dollars to play online fee.

likedamaster2937d ago (Edited 2937d ago )

Its when these blogs speak for everyone when they mess things up.

Just so I can make this clear...


There I said it. And I don't mind paying $40 a year for Xbox Live.