Why Xbox Live isn't free?

[BajiRav]

This article pretty much sums up everything that we have discussed in the forums and makes a few good points.

Why Xbox Live isn't free

We take a closer look at Live and ask: what is it we're paying for?

Until recently, Microsoft could brag about how Live was by far the most feature-complete online service on any platform, with a unified Friends list, the best online shop, voice and video chat as standard and a consistent and stable online experience. But in recent months there's been a shift in the market, and even bigger changes are coming. Microsoft is the only player to charge for online play, and their policy has landed some of the best online games on the 360... but as PC and PlayStation developers offer comparable features at no extra cost, the Gold subscription starts to lose its shine. The launch of the PC's Steam Community late last year and promises made by Sony at January's Consumer Electronics Show have placed Microsoft on the back foot, and has all of us asking: what does your annual subscription pay for?

Live's best asset is that it allows even small developers to support online play - the value of which can't possibly be denied. Without it, we'd never see online play in small-budget XBLA titles or even marginalised full-price games. The question to ask is whether or not that's worth the precious money from your pocket, on rotation, every 12 months. From the player's end experience, Live is the leader, but it's hardly a full fifty bucks/forty-quid ahead of its competition. The market has changed since 2002 and so long as the PlayStation Network and Steam Community threaten to match Live feature-for-feature, Live needs to be obviously better in some other way, especially in the UK where it costs a full fifteen quid more for a yearly subscription than the $50 (?25) cost over in the U.S.

At some point in the coming months, PSN will rob Live's Friends List, completing its mimicry of Microsoft's system. It's at that point where questions must start to be asked of Live. It's certainly easier for developers, but as gamers, perhaps we should rightly expect just a little more from our Gold subscription.

Source

[randomnut]

The simple fact of the matter is MS invest in Live. They operate a walled garden system, operating their own download servers and providing their own bandwidth. . Compare this to PSN, who outsource almost every part of their network, the service just isn't comparible. Worse download speeds and connection reliability because a lot of it goes to GameSpy. Granted there had been issues during peak times, but they invested a lot of cash and it has paid off immensley (see the period GTA4 was released, Live was fully operational where as PSN was a non runner)

Look at it from a logistical point of view. If you have to set up a new online network for millions of client machines, you have to seriously sit there and look at what you have to play with. First of all, cash flow. If you are charging for a service, it stands to reason you can invest properly in your network. First of all, there's the design. If you charge, you can go for a walled-garden model where you host your own servers, have your own high spec infrastructure, decent switches, and most of all, bandwidth. When you design a network, what you try and do is standardize across the board. Say for example, you set one up with entirely high spec Cisco switches. There are a lot of tweaks and things you can enable to get maximum performance that would be impossible mixing hardware/vendors/networks and performance wouldn't be half as good.

If you want to go for the free model, you have to outsource as much as you can to save cost. This goes from hosting files on other servers, renting infrastructure from elsewhere to save on the maintenance, etc. It's more peer to peer and decentralised.

You can really tell this is the approach they've taken, because take for example downloading a 100MB file. On PSN, this can take hours (depending of course where you're downloading from), XBL minutes as their content is hosted on dedicated servers. Performance is never as good on PSN as it is XBL or just downloading from the internet ordinarily.

A large proportion of PSN is outsourced to the guys at GameSpy. As a service though i've got to say I like what PSN is trying to do. Giving people free online play offsets the cost of the console but unfortunatly they cannot have it both ways, it would just haemorrhage money. Trying to enhance the experience with things like Home is quite a novel and interesting idea, and done right I can see it being a big hit and am quite keen to play. From a network point of view they've taken a totally different route to achieve a totally different goal.

I own both consoles, and i'm more than happy to pay for the better service that I receive from Live. It's nice to know that when a new demo comes out, it gets added to live pretty swiftly, compared to PSNs extreme lack of content. Also, that if a demo is 1.5gigs, I can download at pretty much my full speed, again soemthing I can't get on PSN.

[Vortex566]

I always find that things download quicker on PSN then live. However that might just be my connection who knows.

[BajiRav]

I don't have any experience with PSN to compare it with XBL. But just going by features I know, XBL sound smuch better, mostly because of unified friends list which is not limited to Gold but then it is sort of useless in Silver anyway.

If I had to pay on PSN and if the cost+service was comparable to Gold, I woud pay without complaining.

Sure anything Free is always better but as they say "You get what you paid for" fits perfectly in this case. PSN may finally catch up with unified friends list and then MS might be forced to level the field by removing XBL fee OR one up PSN with something.

I do have the feeling that whenever Home ships, Sony will reconsider the Free model. For the record, it doesn't matter what they've said so far about it, they will go pay if it makes business sense.

I always find that things download quicker on PSN then live. However that might just be my connection who knows.

Try setting OpenDNS servers

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

PC gaming in this sense makes the consoles look ridiculous. Steam just keeps giving and giving and giving, and they don't take one penny from you if you don't want to give them it.

I'm just happier Sony are moving closer to the PC approach than MS.

However you pay for the better service so it's justifiable as long as there is a noticeable gap between Sony and MS. I want Sony to close that gap though to put pressure on MS charging for something I disagree with - The ability to actually play online.

Charge for your premium stuff if you want, but charging to play online is rather harsh IMO. Never been done before outside of MMOs and I do not want the future to be doing it more widespread (as in, not just MS).

I buy the game to take advantage of it's features, SP/MP, and I don't expect to have to pay more to enable a portion of something I've already paid for. A MMO is different due to the amount of content that is added for free.

[Unimatrix Xero]

im happy to pay ?40 a year, for people who moan about this are just tight, for god sake if you only play 40 times in a year thats ?1 a go!

[Rudy]

My gold subscription runs out in August.....and I really doubt I'll renew it since I havn't turned on my 360 since September (well I might have but I haven't played a game for more than an hour or so since then)

[Richard Hammond]

im happy to pay ?40 a year, for people who moan about this are just tight, for god sake if you only play 40 times in a year thats ?1 a go!

Its not being tight its just the principal, why should i pay for something on the 360 that i can get for free on the PC and PS3.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

im happy to pay ?40 a year, for people who moan about this are just tight, for god sake if you only play 40 times in a year thats ?1 a go!

What about those who can easily afford it, but choose not to as they don't like the moral of charging to play online, not the cost... I don't want a console future where every console charges me to play online.

THAT is when it might become an expense issue. MS/Sony/Nintendo all charging roughly ?30-?40 a ye:/? :/

I don't think it's expensive by any means just now, I just don't agree with charging to play online if it's not an MMO.

It's purely a dislike of the business practice in place, not the service. I wish PSN was on par with Live right now... I'm saying that before people bend me over with the "Live is better than PSN" comments - I know it is on a functional side. Not on a business side though IMO for the reasons above.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Smigit]

Live's best asset is that it allows even small developers to support online play - the value of which can't possibly be denied. Without it, we'd never see online play in small-budget XBLA titles or even marginalised full-price games.

Doesn't seem like much a reason to me to be honest, especially when 99.9% of the traffic related to online play is hosted by users anyway besides the match making which I'm sure MS or someone could throw up and provide as a part of the services offered to developers when they pay MS their share of the takings.

Anyway, I don't think the cost is wrong, it's not too bad but I'm not convinced that XBox live is providing a better service than I have seen for free on the PC for years. Haven't used PSN so I can't comment there and the Wii's system is abysmal partly due to their privacy policies (and thus stupid wii codes for everything). So yeah, I'm happy to pay it, but I don't think that by doing so I am being given a service that couldnt otherwise be supplied for free. Access to demos in advance of silver users ect to me is simply access to promotional material anyway so thats not a selling point either. I just pay the cost since theres not really any other way to go.

Honestly, I'd like to see the service down the road becoming free and hopefully Sony and PC developers can force MS to go that way. By then I'd like to think MS will have more revenue avenues within market place to help compensate for the lack of subscription be it more games, movies/music stores or whatever.

[Sethos]

Currently the gap between Xbox Live and Playstation Network is pretty big, specially when looking at features, so at the moment I don't have a problem with paying a mere 50$ a year ( Cheaper, if you know where to look ).

But as I've said before, when Sony adds proper social integration, more frequent updates on the Store ( So you don't have to wait an extra week for new demos ) and up the speed for downloads ( Really slow around here ) and still manage to stay free, Microsoft have no excuse and has to either lower the price or completely remove it.

Also, due to the price of the 360 I have no problem paying a bit extra to use some features of the console, pretty much the only reason I don't mind the price-tag. If the Playstation 3 charged for online play it would be quite different, considering my Premium and Elite + 1 year of Gold member cost me LESS than a PS3 at launch, plus I need to invest in a Bluetooth headset as well.

But no matter how cheap / expensive it is, I'd still like to see Microsoft at least remove the price for playing online and add some 'VIP' features you can pay for, playing online should be free under any circumstances.

Specially when hosting is done by the players in every damn game, dedicated servers Microsoft, dedicated servers (N)

Edited June 18, 2008 by Sethos

[.KICK]

Its not being tight its just the principal, why should i pay for something on the 360 that i can get for free on the PC and PS3.

No offence but honestly comparing the PSN and Xbox Live is stupid because obviously Xbox Live wins over it.

In this sense, you get what you paid for and that is quality online play.

I don't know why people are complaining, ?40 isn't much for the whole year and you can get it for ?25 like I did which is nothing!

[Xero]

Why would it be free? I mean its not like they abuse your dashboard to place product ads. Oh wait...

Well at least if you pay for the service, they won't clutter it up with stupid ads. Oh wait...

Leave it to Microsoft to make the service your paying for look like a shareware application. Just another reason why I like my PS3 so much. Once you buy the console thats it, shame for 360 users thats not enough, Microsoft wants more of your money. But with Windows failing at the rate it is, I can't blame them. The 360 is their life preserver at this point.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

No offence but honestly comparing the PSN and Xbox Live is stupid because obviously Xbox Live wins over it.

In this sense, you get what you paid for and that is quality online play.

I don't know why people are complaining, ?40 isn't much for the whole year and you can get it for ?25 like I did which is nothing!

If he's coming from my approach, yes, we'll openly admit the functionality is currently better, but free online play is free online play.

That is what you get elsewhere for free. The core ability to buy a game and access it's online portion.

I agree with what Sethos said.

Currently the gap between Xbox Live and Playstation Network is pretty big, specially when looking at features, so at the moment I don't have a problem with paying a mere 50$ a year ( Cheaper, if you know where to look ).

But as I've said before, when Sony adds proper social integration, more frequent updates on the Store ( So you don't have to wait an extra week for new demos ) and up the speed for downloads ( Really slow around here ) and still manage to stay free, Microsoft have no excuse and has to either lower the price or completely remove it.

Also, due to the price of the 360 I have no problem paying a bit extra to use some features of the console, pretty much the only reason I don't mind the price-tag. If the Playstation 3 charged for online play it would be quite different, considering my Premium and Elite + 1 year of Gold member cost me LESS than a PS3 at launch, plus I need to invest in a Bluetooth headset as well.

But no matter how cheap / expensive it is, I'd still like to see Microsoft at least remove the price for playing online and add some 'VIP' features you can pay for, playing online should be free under any circumstances.

Specially not when hosting is done by the players in every damn game, dedicated servers Microsoft, dedicated server(N)N)

[Argi]

I don't care if they charge for a premium service but only if they allow others to host their own games/servers; which they don't so I refuse to pay for features that should be in the game by default.

[chrisj1968]

The simple fact of the matter is MS invest in Live. They operate a walled garden system, operating their own download servers and providing their own bandwidth. . Compare this to PSN, who outsource almost every part of their network, the service just isn't comparible. Worse download speeds and connection reliability because a lot of it goes to GameSpy. Granted there had been issues during peak times, but they invested a lot of cash and it has paid off immensley (see the period GTA4 was released, Live was fully operational where as PSN was a non runner)

Look at it from a logistical point of view. If you have to set up a new online network for millions of client machines, you have to seriously sit there and look at what you have to play with. First of all, cash flow. If you are charging for a service, it stands to reason you can invest properly in your network. First of all, there's the design. If you charge, you can go for a walled-garden model where you host your own servers, have your own high spec infrastructure, decent switches, and most of all, bandwidth. When you design a network, what you try and do is standardize across the board. Say for example, you set one up with entirely high spec Cisco switches. There are a lot of tweaks and things you can enable to get maximum performance that would be impossible mixing hardware/vendors/networks and performance wouldn't be half as good.

If you want to go for the free model, you have to outsource as much as you can to save cost. This goes from hosting files on other servers, renting infrastructure from elsewhere to save on the maintenance, etc. It's more peer to peer and decentralised.

You can really tell this is the approach they've taken, because take for example downloading a 100MB file. On PSN, this can take hours (depending of course where you're downloading from), XBL minutes as their content is hosted on dedicated servers. Performance is never as good on PSN as it is XBL or just downloading from the internet ordinarily.

A large proportion of PSN is outsourced to the guys at GameSpy. As a service though i've got to say I like what PSN is trying to do. Giving people free online play offsets the cost of the console but unfortunatly they cannot have it both ways, it would just haemorrhage money. Trying to enhance the experience with things like Home is quite a novel and interesting idea, and done right I can see it being a big hit and am quite keen to play. From a network point of view they've taken a totally different route to achieve a totally different goal.

I own both consoles, and i'm more than happy to pay for the better service that I receive from Live. It's nice to know that when a new demo comes out, it gets added to live pretty swiftly, compared to PSNs extreme lack of content. Also, that if a demo is 1.5gigs, I can download at pretty much my full speed, again soemthing I can't get on PSN.

I took notice of how you mention "companies out sourcing" infrastructure. this would include "cloud" computing. this is gaining steam at an exponential rate and looks to continue to grow as time goes on. only time will improve online gameplay. just give it time.

[magik]

Currently the gap between Xbox Live and Playstation Network is pretty big, specially when looking at features, so at the moment I don't have a problem with paying a mere 50$ a year ( Cheaper, if you know where to look ).

But as I've said before, when Sony adds proper social integration, more frequent updates on the Store ( So you don't have to wait an extra week for new demos ) and up the speed for downloads ( Really slow around here ) and still manage to stay free, Microsoft have no excuse and has to either lower the price or completely remove it.

I think it's the opposite. When Sony closes the gap with Live, then you will start to see Sony charging for PSN; not the other way around. ;)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I think it's the opposite. When Sony closes the gap with Live, then you will start to see Sony charging for PSN; not the other way around. ;)

Please tell me for what reason, as it certainly isn't due to financial restraints/recovery just because In-Game XMB is added (the big update that will close the gap a fair chunk).

When MS pioneered a new service for consoles, they also pioneered charging to play your games online. Nowhere else has taken that up yet, so I don't see why Sony would.

Charging people to play online is old hat, we live in a generation where that is becoming an eye-brow raiser rather than an understandable decision. Well to me it was always an eye-brow raiser, but you know what I mean...

I've seen you say this multiple times now, but I've yet to see you backup the statement with some well written points that lead you to your belief.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Audioboxer

[spenser.d]

Please tell me for what reason, as it certainly isn't due to financial restraints/recovery just because In-Game XMB is added (the big update that will close the gap a fair chunk).

When MS pioneered a new service for consoles, they also pioneered charging to play your games online. Nowhere else has taken that up yet, so I don't see why Sony would.

Charging people to play online is old hat, we live in a generation where that is becoming an eye-brow raiser rather than an understandable decision. Well to me it was always an eye-brow raiser, but you know what I mean...

How about because people are obviously okay with paying $50/year for an online service, as witnessed by Xbox Live, which happens to still be much more popular than PSN, despite PSN being free. It makes money (a lot of money), which is what Sony (and everyone else) is after. Once PSN has the same features, Sony will have a strategy to justify making people pay.

-Spenser

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

How about because people are obviously okay with paying $50/year for an online service, as witnessed by Xbox Live, which happens to still be much more popular than PSN, despite PSN being free. It makes money (a lot of money), which is what Sony (and everyone else) is after. Once PSN has the same features, Sony will have a strategy to justify making people pay.

-Spenser

So basically charging for the sake of it then as it makes money?

People who own a 360 have no choice but to pay if they want to play their games online, it's a given the service will be popular in a world where FPS titles like COD4 and Halo exist - Massively popular online games. You're friends play Halo and ask you to play, what the heck are you suppose to do? There is no middle ground, its pay or be left out of online.

MS have a stranglehold on the console market as no other service really rivals theirs right now, so they can slap justification left right and center on making you pay to play online, and people will buy into it, or HAVE to literally buy into it, to make good use of their MP enabled games.

If Steam was a service on say, a console Valve made, I'm pretty sure XBL Gold would struggle/fail to charge people - I'm hoping that happens when Sony get their asses in gear and finally give us a service rivalling Live. And it completely perplexes me that more people aren't wanting that, instead of sitting back and saying "meh ill happily keep paying". Competition in the market leads to us, the end user benefiting which = in this case, hopefully free online play for 360 owners.

So we'll see if Sony stoop that low then when PSN is more of a challenge - My prediction, of course they won't charge you to play online. There will be premium services/items left right and centre in Home/PSN, but everyone who owns a PS3 will be able to play their games online for free.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Audioboxer

[KXH]

My Opinion: :p

LIVE is the best all around service. I don't mind paying for it, but I also have a regular job. In terms of playing on LIVE i have only ever encountered a problem once in the last 5 years. The dowloads are fast and getting faster for games and for the dashboard. I like the integrated friends list via a GamerTag. its easy and spans across all games.

PSN is ehh. Maybe its my connection but it takes forever to download firmware updates and I am hardlined in. The internet is slow on PSN as well, not that I use it but just to try it...its frustrating. The online game play is 50/50. Its either on and great or it won't seem to connect. I am not sure why and I really just use the PS3 as a blueray player.

The Wii is by far the worst. The damn 16 digitcodes for each games friendlist is dumb. There is no voice chat. I mean how the hell am i supposed to talk smack to my friends over Mario Kart now?! :D And It is always telling me that someone has disconnected from WFC. Then i have to exit it and come back in to see them. Nintendo Wii WFC needs some serious work.

[_dandy_]

Microsoft wants more of your money. But with Windows failing at the rate it is, I can't blame them. The 360 is their life preserver at this point.

Now that's funny.

[Guest]

So basically charging for the sake of it then as it makes money?

People who own a 360 have no choice but to pay if they want to play their games online, it's a given the service will be popular in a world where FPS titles like COD4 and Halo exist - Massively popular online games. You're friends play Halo and ask you to play, what the heck are you suppose to do? There is no middle ground, its pay or be left out of online.

MS have a stranglehold on the console market as no other service really rivals theirs right now, so they can slap justification left right and center on making you pay to play online, and people will buy into it, or HAVE to literally buy into it, to make good use of their MP enabled games.

If Steam was a service on say, a console Valve made, I'm pretty sure XBL Gold would struggle/fail to charge people - I'm hoping that happens when Sony get their asses in gear and finally give us a service rivalling Live. And it completely perplexes me that more people are wanting that. Competition in the market leads to us, the end user benefiting which = in this case, hopefully free online play for 360 owners.

So we'll see if Sony stoop that low then when PSN is more of a challenge - My prediction, of course they won't charge you to play online. There will be premium services/items left right and centre in Home/PSN, but every who owns a PS3 will be able to play their games online for free.

Microsoft are making a good profit off live and provide an excellent service at the same time.

Its not perfect but the competition will continue to force improvements.

Sure... I would prefer if it was free but I dont see that happening anytime soon.

Price reduction within the next few years perhaps.

Sony knew at the launch of their online service that it wasn't up to scratch. They are catching up slowly but still have lots more to improve on. It would be difficult for them to start charging now.

In the end of the day Microsoft and Sony are in this business to make a profit... They are not out friends.

Microsoft are making a good profit and the number of subscribers is increasing every year... Why drop the fee?

Sony are getting more and more members every day but dont reep any rewards for their efforts. They will need to change their business practice soon... more ads, higher prices... who knows?

[BajiRav]

Why would it be free? I mean its not like they abuse your dashboard to place product ads. Oh wait...

Well at least if you pay for the service, they won't clutter it up with stupid ads. Oh wait...

Leave it to Microsoft to make the service your paying for look like a shareware application. Just another reason why I like my PS3 so much. Once you buy the console thats it, shame for 360 users thats not enough, Microsoft wants more of your money. But with Windows failing at the rate it is, I can't blame them. The 360 is their life preserver at this point.

Hate Microsoft much? How does this even relate to Windows? And Windows failing? In your dreams. :rolleyes:

So basically charging for the sake of it then as it makes money?

People who own a 360 have no choice but to pay if they want to play their games online, it's a given the service will be popular in a world where FPS titles like COD4 and Halo exist - Massively popular online games. You're friends play Halo and ask you to play, what the heck are you suppose to do? There is no middle ground, its pay or be left out of online.

MS have a stranglehold on the console market as no other service really rivals theirs right now, so they can slap justification left right and center on making you pay to play online, and people will buy into it, or HAVE to literally buy into it, to make good use of their MP enabled games.

If Steam was a service on say, a console Valve made, I'm pretty sure XBL Gold would struggle/fail to charge people - I'm hoping that happens when Sony get their asses in gear and finally give us a service rivalling Live. And it completely perplexes me that more people aren't wanting that, instead of sitting back and saying "meh ill happily keep paying". Competition in the market leads to us, the end user benefiting which = in this case, hopefully free online play for 360 owners.

So we'll see if Sony stoop that low then when PSN is more of a challenge - My prediction, of course they won't charge you to play online. There will be premium services/items left right and centre in Home/PSN, but every who owns a PS3 will be able to play their games online for free.

They are in this for making money after all? If people are paying (even when they are forced) then why not? I wouldn't say they have stranglehold on the console market :/ but they are in a solid position with Sony busy making up for the lost ground. I am siding with magik on this - sony will find some way to make people pay for Home and not only for premium content. I don't have a source for it, but just a feeling.

/Offtopic when in-game XMB is out - how will XMB-unaware games behave/benefit from it?

[yardmanflex]

Man there are a lot of cheap ass gamers in this room..Live is the best all round online experience, you pay $50.00 a year...and you complain....$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

$50.00 per year

less than .14 cents per day

less than .14 cents per day

less than .14 cents per day

less than .14 cents per day

PSN i have never used is..but from what i heard it's a pile of ****.