Gaming over Xbox Live should be free

The fact that gamers can play online for free on the PlayStation 3 but have to pay $50 per year to play online over Xbox Live has been one of the major detrimental points for the Xbox 360 in this generation's "console war." Why should 360 users have to pay to play online when they could do it for free on a different console?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
josh143993965d ago

microsoft wont make it free because they like to make profit out of everything which you can blame them considering they are a business. i do wish it was free though because i play online rarely and i dont get my moneys worth. i wish you could pay for hours or something £5 for 50 hours would be great because i wouldnt go over that in a year

D4RkNIKON3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

How come when I pay for a $60 game for my PS3 (lets say COD for example), included in that price I can play multiplayer online with friends or single player campaign. The same $60 COD game on 360 requires me to pay even more for the feature built in and on disk. It just doesn't seem right.

There's nothing wrong with MS offering a subscription based service with features that justify the price but online play should be free and that's all there is too it. Especially since all of these other game devs are talking about subscription based services for their games, we shouldn't have to pay several subscription fees every year to play online.

nikkisixx23965d ago

"How come when I pay for a $60 game for my PS3 (lets say COD for example), included in that price I can play multiplayer online with friends or single player campaign. The same $60 COD game on 360 requires me to pay even more for the feature built in and on disk. It just doesn't seem right."

Because Sony appreciates their customers.

OC_MurphysLaw3965d ago

Right...thats why they took away backwards compatability so they could re-sell those new "HD Classics" to you for free right?

Give me a break...

zootang3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )


Try finding ICO on the PS2 for me please

Army_of_Darkness3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

we have ourselves a slow one here folks! took him 4 years to realize it and make an article about it.

@dlacy... huh?! you don't think Sony appreciates their customers with fan service by re-releasing HD remakes of the best PS2 classics?! which is OPTIONAL btw?!
after getting the GOW collection, I'm honestly looking forward to more HD remakes that I didn't get to play/ or complete back then since there were way to many games to play back in those days!!

Motion3965d ago

If Microsoft provided dedicated servers for all LIVE enabled games, then I could perhaps see some reason in charging a fee. But seeing as how the majority of games are P2P, Microsoft is spending absolutely nothing, or providing anything- in terms of just the online multiplayer aspect. Playing games online P2P should absolutely be free, other than the expense of your internet connection.

OC_MurphysLaw3965d ago

Sony doesn't care "more" or "appreciate" their consumers more than any other console company out there. HD Classics is just an example of one way Sony has pulled back something so they could then charge for it. PSN+ is another way they are trying to charge you for things that you dont really need. Xbox Live is MS's way to get at your wallet. And Nintendo...well they print their own money apparently so they dont care.

As for all the "huh, what do you mean..I love the HD classics" comments about... great for you! I am glad you do. Enjoy them. But for those of us who would have rather just been able to play the original and not pay extra ...well that option is gone with the slim thanks to Sony wanting to take that away so they could remaster the "classics" and resell them.

klado3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

Oh you!. Sir you sound like a blind fanboy, using OPTIONAL stuff as a base? just for the sake to say sony doesn't care about consumer? lol, are you joking?, how is psn plus any form of not caring about consumers?

Recaping, you say sony doesn't care, just because their are giving an OPTIONAL SERVICE that add extra content doesn't mean they aren't caring, contrary to you, I see that more of a caring than no, is giving discount and free content plus extras for those who like to buy stuff and so on something that bad? no...

second, taking off the emulation of the ps2 was a matter of cost and not for what you are making it looks like, or may be, but sure you would say the same if these remastered version weren't to come out, they are giving an oportunity for these that didn't have the chance to get a hold of these games...

Btw, that is true, Live should be free.

OSU_Gamer3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

no matter how much you guys b*tch, the fact is XBL has more unique paying subscriptions than PSN has unique subscriptions. Take your complaints elsewhere.

If PSN was the original console MP service then they would be charging as well.

Live cost $50 when it came out 7 years ago. Even though the service has gotten drastically better since then, they have not increased the price once. In fact, you can get XBL cheaper now than you could then. Someone please explain that. MS must not care at all.

darthv723965d ago

I should first point out that there is no ethics code under which when one company does something different than another, that other company should all of a sudden change their business strategy to be the same.

I can actually see MS offering up timed access to silver members. Meaning that those who are not full gold members get a certain amount of online play per month. Be it 24 or 48hrs "non-consecutive". If you choose to play a couple hours one day and a few more the next you can until you have reached the allotted amount of play time. Now this isnt really such a bad idea as some people dont play hardcore online and only play here and there.

Another idea would be a family account with a primary gold member and then any sub accounts on the same machine could play online PROVIDED that the gold account reside on the same system. This way it would give silvers the chance to up their gamerscore and play with friends. This maight actually happen if rumors are true.

As for live being free...not going to happen anytime soon. In fact I can actually see sony taking a queue from live and at some point start restricting online play (match sizes / game types, etc) to members only. This will not impeed their original statement of "ONLINE FREE" if they continue to offer segments of their online gameplay for free.

Both services will come to a balance at some point. MS will have both paid and non paid online gaming. Sony will most likely do the same. People dont seem to understand this business.

Sony started off free because they had to. No one would have been interested in paying for psn at its beginning stages when compared to live. It grew better and better and now they have gotten to a comfortable level where they feel that people will pay. There is just to much $$ to be made from this type of service to keep offering it up for free.

In the end I can guarantee that there will be changes made to the free psn where little by little, certain elements will be changed from free to members only. I also see there will be a similar strategy within home. Making members only spaces. Making such radical changes will see to only entice free users to become paid members if they want to continue using the service.

I will get many disagrees but please see to it to think of it from a business perspective. That may be difficult for the younger crowd who has become accustomed to the free nature of psn. Those of us who are older could almost attribute the future of both psn and live to the packaging changes of our favorite products. We see now they dont give you as much as they used to for the same price and if you want the sizes you used to get, they now cost a little more.

NegativeCreepWA3965d ago

D4RkNIKON that would be because MS handles the matchmaking servers for COD and 90% of the games on the 360, COD matchmaking servers on the PS3 are done through gamespy which IW/Activision pay for.

Most people don't understand MS handles the matchmaking for nearly every game, Sony only handles 1st and 2nd party titles and 3rd parties either host their own or pay someone else for it.

OC_MurphysLaw3965d ago

@klado...think what you want, obviously you see Sony as the Golden Gaming God who cares for and appreciates you more than anyone else.

You are right, all the decision they have made and the "options" they offer are merely out of the generiosity they have for their consumer. They aren't looking to make profit off you, no they merely offer up all these new services/devices at a cost because they have to and have built minimal profit into anything. They only pulled out hardware from new PS3 models to save costs that they 100% passed along to you the consumer. Sony is the best man... they look out for me "joe consumer"...they will never try and [email protected] me over.

N4G Home of the misguided and land of the futile sensible argument.

PS - "lol, are you joking?, how is psn plus any form of not caring about consumers?" Ummm... if they "cared" so much, why not make the games you get available to you for real and not just when you pay them? Why not allow just offer this generous service for free? I mean if they cared so much as you point out, shouldn't they just offer up PSN+ for free?

LOL...and you said I sounded like a fanboy? "Sony cares about me... they really do...they are the best...stop saying they dont are making me mad" Thats about all I got from your resposne. ;)

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3965d ago
ActionBastard3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

No, free online play is so good :) Free Netflix usage with subscription is so good :) Free Twitter access is so good :) Free Facebook photos or Picasa Web Albums access is so good :)

sinclaircrown3965d ago

PSN only had free online play because LIVE came ouyt first. The free online was a way to compete with MS.

Any business is all about making as much money as possible for the share holders. MS has no reason to change it now because the majority of people who complain are PS3 users that wouldn't want an xbox. If Live was free they would find another reason to hate.

MS will likely offer a similar service to PSN vs PSN Plus when the next gen console comes out. Until then they have no reason to change it.

zootang3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )


This is good for you, how?

You can't tell me you don't want free online gaming.

@action barsteward

Wow! how can anyone disagree?

sinclaircrown3965d ago

I never said this was "good for me" before PSN nobody cared enough to complain about paying for live.

My point is Sony and MS make money to please shareholders. That's their first priority. If Sony thought they could compete with Live at the same price, they would have. They just knew people who own both consoles wouldn't really want to pay for two online services. So by making it free, they have a better chance of making more money on software sales from Multiplat games.

Its simple business. Next gen will be better for gamers because both systems will have free online play. At least I hope so.

OSU_Gamer3965d ago

@ zootang

No one is saying that they don't want free online multiplayer. That doesn't mean it isn't worth paying for.

Sinclair you hit the nail on the head. XBL was FAR better than PSN when it came out. With that said, there was absolutely no way that Sony could charge for it. The Sony fanboys here at N4G mistake that for the love that they think Sony has for them.

zootang3965d ago

Boys I must be dumb because what you are saying just doesn't make sense.

I think Sony thought. Why charge for online? Not, we can't charge for online because our competitor does.

Why doesn't Nintendo charge for online?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3965d ago
outrageous3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

It'll never happen for the same reasons pointed out in the article, Money. M$ is making a HUGE profit. They use that stream of money for things like exclusive games and content, and I for one have no problem paying for it. People are always crying about things not being free...NOTHING is free. XBL is the best on line service available....PERIOD. Don't like it, buy a PS3 and see how long before Sony gets rid of any free on line. Nintendo is also planing a pay to play service. I have all 3 consoles, there is no comparing XBL. It's the best, plain and simple for numerous reasons. NOBODY in gaming debates that except the people who have never played all the systems.

What M$ should do is offer free Saturday night gaming for the XBL silver gold members. I guarantee when they get a taste of XBL they will join. Play MW 2, get any good, join a clan and have to join. M$ is missing a " golden " opportunity to convert more of the 40+ million 360 console owners to full time XBL users. I suspect Kinect will help sell more people on XBL. It's all about " KIN-necting " with friends and family.

J-Smith3965d ago

microsoft don't do free

AAACE53965d ago

MS have been having a lot of sales on XBL memberships lately! I don't know if they are just trying to get their numbers up or what.

krisprolls3965d ago

As long as there are idiots who pay for something they can have for free on PS3, they will continue...

Stop accepting that like dumb sheep.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3965d ago
Jack Klugman3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

This horse is paste!

Stop approving these worthless examiner articles..

Live will never be free and you can come up with a million rehashed reasons of why it should be but nothing will change.

Xander7563965d ago

Looks like someone didn't read the article. It never said Xbox Live should be free, it said gaming online over Xbox Live should be. Take the time to read something before commenting on it next time else you embarass yourself again.

3965d ago
Pennywise3965d ago

If Jack Klugman doesn't pay for live, I will quit gaming forever.

Some things are just easy to see if you open your eyes.

And yeah bigwheel, really mature of you to compare a BBQ to eating at McDonalds. Some of us have been gaming online for free for close to 20 years. Please explain to me what your demigod MS has done to innovate online gaming that would justify having to pay for it? You guys are sheep, they are the shepherd, and its just sad that you would follow them anywhere just to be a part of it.

Take time to grow up and mature before you embarRass yourself again.

Why o why3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

It should be free but they wont ever do it or it shouldn't be free because its 50$ better than everything else?? If it wasnt for articles like this MS might not ever believe their customers want it. I mean if it wasnt for the complaints from households who had more than one user who gamed online MS may of never have introduced the family package. MS were already taking the piss charging brothers JUST to have their own stats on the same xbox....attitudes like yours dont help

Pennywise3965d ago

What he is saying is:

"I am bending over MS, can I have another please?".

This attitude will get him no where, just like you said. Instead of having standards, it is just blind support and excuses at this point.

The ONLY games that should have any kind of monthly cost are MMO's. Even MMO $15.00 standard pricing needs to come down.

krisprolls3965d ago

It'll be free the day you stop accepting to pay you know ?

Play on PS3 instead and one day, MS will give you Live for free.

It's as simple as that.

LycanSoldier3965d ago

I think people forget gold members also get quicker access to some content and additional features to the live service.

Personally, I've never been bothered by paying the yearly fee because of the quality of the service provided, but I'd never complain if they made it free.

D4RkNIKON3965d ago

If they made online play free would you still subscribe? Some might because of the features they are accustomed to along with the quality of service but I would venture to say that most would downgrade to silver once their sub is up if it allowed for online multiplayer access.

PS360_373965d ago

and you know this because you are an XBL Gold member right?

DuneBuggy3965d ago (Edited 3965d ago )

I still would yes. It costs me about 3 dollars and change a month to have the service (based off 40 bucks a year which isnt hard to find).I would spend more than that eating solo at Mcdonalds.
The One vs One Hundred game is fun, the wife likes it,we get cross chat going with friends/relatives playing too, and that game alone takes the sting out of 40 bucks annually let alone the other features/benefits.
I agree if online gaming became free tommorow on Live, they would lose some gold members.But how many would depend on what features they wish to "keep".

divideby03965d ago

totally agreed....Gold Live Day one subscriber...MS knows as soon as they make silver be able to play games...bye, bye Gold..even with Party chat and I didnt opt for PSN +

MetalFreakMike3965d ago

Online can not be free on Live because it is the main reason people pay for it. If paying for Live was only for group chat and Netflix then they would lose a great deal of money. Microsoft knows this and it will never happen.