Top
50°

Why the Xbox Live $60 Price Increase is More Than Justified

AC: Microsoft recently announced that they'd be increasing the price of their beloved Xbox Live Gold service for the Xbox 360 to $60 a year as opposed to $50 a year as of November 2010. The Xbox Live Gold price hike has lots of Xbox fans crying foul, but is an additional $10 a year too much to ask?

Read Full Story >>
associatedcontent.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Gamer Muzz2940d ago

I can see the need for it to stay at $50. But when it's all said and done, I'm going to pay the $60 because I just love the service.
I have the PS3 and Have tried PSN. I just don't like it nearly as much. so rather than Pay $50 each for PSN and XBL. I'm just gonna use XBL only and consider myself saving $40. That way I wont feel so bad about it. LOL

I will say that the writer here had a good point. The price has been $50 for the last 8 years and MS hasn't asked for more even though they've improved the service a hundred fold. I guess I can accept that as fair reasoning.

and in the end, Am I really going to bitch about 10 bucks a year? ($0.83 a month?) no, I'm really not.

TotalPS3Fanboy2940d ago

Luckily, I am on the PSN, so I don't have to take up with that kind of bullsh*t.

Megaton2940d ago

The original price isn't even justified. Yeah, it's only $50/year, and that's $50/year you shouldn't need to pay. Selling access to free things as "premium features".

Gamer Muzz2940d ago

Why would I even respond to someone with "fanboy" in their name?? LOL

So comics should only cost $0.12 each like they did in the 1960's...cause no price hike is EVER justifiable?

The price on everything increases eventually. Just like the price of games went up $10 each this gen.
The average (Not all, but the average) MSRP of a game in the mid to late 80's was $50 and this gen, it went up. It was expected to happen eventually. many say it should have happened much sooner than it did.

There's virtually nothing that was sold a decade ago that's cheaper now than it was then.
It's Finance 101. Inflation, the upward price movement of goods and services. Prices go up. Cost of living goes up, Minimum wage goes up, ETC.

I'm not saying (nor did I ever say) that XBL is in NEED of a price hike. But I NEVER expected it to drop in price. (like some of you.)
When it comes right down to it. I don't have much of a problem picking what I feel to be the superior service (IMO) and paying $5 a month for it. which is only $0.83 a month more than I'd pay for PSN Plus. (which I would do if I liked PSN better. because I want everything the service has to offer.)

Sony went from Free to $50 a year (for the premium service) Did everyone expect all that extra content for free? Apparently so.

I'll get flamed and a bunch of disagrees for saying all that, but it is what it is. Logical.

boodybandit2940d ago (Edited 2940d ago )

how can anyone not be flat out frustrated that a service that is not only free on every other format, but the fact that there is nothing being added to "justify" this increase. Seriously. WTF is with all of these articles saying this is a warranted or justified increase? Meh no big deal. It's only a few more pennies per day, week, month, etc...

I am not hurting for money but I watch out for deals. I am always looking to save money on insurances, cable/satellite, cell, food, electric (energy efficient devices and appliances), fuel and energy, etc... Any money conscious person with mortgage, kids, your and their futures, etc, should! Why would anyone want to pay more for something that is free on other formats? Okay you love Halo, Gears, etc.. you prefer the 360 for what ever reason. That is great. But why are not more people frustrated that MS is doing this when there is no costly upgrades on their end coming out to warrant this increase?

darthv722940d ago

Let me see if this raises an eyebrow or two. "free on every other format"...there is the PC/Mac, Wii and PS3 as the "other" formats.

PC/Mac have premium services you can sign up for but they are not required for online play. UNLESS there is a specific type of game (ex.MMO) that requires the membership to enjoy. (WOW comes to mind).

The Wii is really the only one that is actually free in the sense that there are no premium services to sign up for (yet). You get free access to the store and demos and can watch youtube and game online.....etc

Currently there are no games on PSN that require the paid membership but I believe that will change VERY soon. Think about this for a moment. Sony has said the basic online gaming would be free but they never said they couldnt make some special game modes that would be "members only". For example, the game GT5 is a very high profile game with all manner of content available right out of the box. Sony 'could' leverage the popularity of that game to garner more paid members. This could be done via exclusive dlc that the free members would NOT be able to purchase thus creating the need to become a "pay to play" member of PS+.

While not exactly the same as pay to play online...it still would fall in to that trap of no longer being able to differentiate yourself as being a free member because you now pay for their service to take advantage of the exclusive content.

For PS+ to evolve, it will need to grow out of the simple discount store that it currently is. If two people are able to buy the same content and play the same levels of a game then why would one want to be a paid member in the first place? Forget the early demo access and betas. Forget the discounted prices on content. You can even forget the free stuff because it really isnt free.

What makes someone want to be a paid member of something is to separate them from others who dont. You become a paid member and you feel higher than the freebies. So why not be able to really flaunt that membership in the face of the freebies with exclusive content in games no free member could ever get. Exclusive "members only" clubs in home and clans that only allow paid members to play.

People want to criticize live for being a pay to play online service. Sony is not that much further away from going the same route. They know they cant just 'boom' all of a sudden start charging for gaming on their network. They have to lure people...slowly. A little bit at a time. Eventually, if you no longer have the dominance of free to paid percentage then they can close that up with a few tweaks. Thus creating some anoying restrictions and limitations to the free members. But oh yeah...online play is still free. Just not as enticing as it once was.

One thing is for certain. Once you are a member and are using the benefits of being a member. It becomes difficult to just let that go.

*I will get many disagrees from the above statements. I urge people to think rationally in how a company can justify charging for their services. The following was purely speculation and is not reflective of the actual business practices of the companies mentioned....yet.

Myst2940d ago

This or rather these articles over the past few days of defending and bashing the price hike is just interesting. It's like back when people were doing the same thing for PSN Plus, not to mention the earlier years of PSN vs. Live. Honestly the best reason I can personally think of to justify this is that if later updates are going to be spectacular. Such as more service features added that will make the service even more than the 10.00 price raise but still retaining the 60.00 tag.

Obviously on nelson's blog to which someone linked to in an article or another stating to read the comment for laughs. I read what Nelson stated himself saying that the ESPN and[something else which I have forgotten] where the reasons for the price hike. In all honesty if you have a love for sports I guess the ESPN will be okay, but to most that do not watch ESPN religiously [like myself] it isn't justifiable. Coming from a silver who was going to go gold for a while to play Reach I just don't know.

Though the author makes a good point at the end: "I know that more money will just mean more money to some people, but after 8 years, you'd expect a raise as well." 'Tis true, it's like back in the day we all probably thought PSN would never have a subscription based service, but now it does even though it doesn't necessarily correlate to what Live is as we none plus members can still play online. Either way, I hope [like the author] there will be more justification for it, though with Reach coming out I'm sure people will continue to pay for the longest of time mainly because it's Halo related. Though it couldn't hurt Microsoft to throw something else into the mix to help justify other than the ESPN thing.

Myst2940d ago

Hmm I should have know that the community of N4G is not up for rich discussion. Five disagree with not a single reply, rebuttal or comment as to my own original post? Saddening to say the least. Well I guess I'll simply utilize the disagrees as my bases for this post. To think that people feel the 60.00 price hike is in fact justified by what is currently in store for xbox live at the moment; and that they certainly don't need to add anything else to the value because it's already fair trade for the online play.

Once again I obviously left this open ended, to as gain some sort of debate started on it. Now if it's the first two paragraphs that people are disagreeing with I'd still ask why. This is pretty much exactly the same debate that happened before but this time only a few differences. Some of which many could argue that they are almost minor or insignificant to the discussion...I'm sorry I mean fight of the consoles as a whole.

Once again let's see...

ingiomar2940d ago

Ok it is justified but im still not happy with the line-up they got for TGS

jmare2940d ago

Wow! Somebody has drunk a lot of the MS koolaid. You can argue the value of Live. You can argue the level of service you get from Live is worth more than $50. Hell, you can argue that Live is worth any amount you think is right. But to seriously justify a rate hike, in the middle of a recession, when there is no real way to quantify how valuable Live's features are because the one feature that "justifies" paying for Live is the ability to play online. If you could play online on a Silver account, we would see how valuable Live's other features really are. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would still pay for Gold, but there would be a lot that wouldn't. And unless MS makes the ability to play online free, we'll never know how valuable all the other features of Live really are. My guess is that it wouldn't be $60.

This article is funny because the author actually appears to believe that increasing the price of a service during tough economic times, especially when there are comparable services for free, is a good idea. That's just funny.

Canas20102940d ago

I could of swore they said ESPN and all of those extra features were to be added at no additional cost. Shame Shame MS.

Show all comments (14)