Why Xbox Live isn't free?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

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.

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?

We're talking about an ability (to play games online for free) though, which has been offered and will continue to be offered for free by other competitors.

This isn't something that HAS to have a charge associated with it - Like say, going out and buying a car. No one is going to give you a car for free.

Being able to play your games online without charge on a platform? People do offer that for free, and have done for many years and will hopefully continue to, which I why I don't support charging in the first place.

Sony don't reap rewards? How about the absolute tank of load of viral marketing that's probably coming our way once in-game XMB is out, and Home.

They offload some "digs" just now when they can by saying we offer free online play, but everyone can grasp until their service is a viable competitor going all out on the marketing will lead to a brick wall when the media start saying "But Sony, Live kicks your arse!". Once that media view changes to "Ok Sony, you're service is actually good/on par/competiting well", then the viral "We do it for free" marketing will no doubt start.

And that DOES reap rewards, especially when people can start playing huge multiplatform games like COD on par functionality wise on both consoles, however one doesn't charge you to play.

It's not just about in-hand cash through subscriptions, growing your install base ultimately makes you the most money, and makes the developers the happiest - Hence the powerload of utter BS developers are throwing at the Wii.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Coldgunner]

I stand by AB and sethos in that we shouldn't be obliged to pay to use a feature of a game we have paid for. I barely play multiplayer and simply cannot justify subscriptions to use a service I'd barely use. I don't think we'll ever need to pay for PSN, but I think sony will make up for PSN running costs with shares of DLC. The infrastructure reall aren't worlds apart, both use P2P hosting for most of their games.

To me MS are essentially charging for simple services like matchmaking, gamertag stuff and other bits like gamerscore. Not really worth the ?40 (I ommited multiplayer as no-one should have to pay for it due to the reasons above).

It seems many here don't understand that MS and sony are going for 2 completely different business models for paying for the upkeep of the infrastructure.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

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?

With what I said above to Nauge, the amount of viral marketing Sony will no doubt offload our way with the whole "We do it for free" campaign - Hell I wouldn't put it past that being the name of the internal plan for Sony PR :pinch: Bunch of primates that they seem to be at times.

If people are paying (even when they are forced) then why not?

?

Ok fair enough, MS will be saying "why not" if it's making them money, but I hope gamers don't have that attitude as well.... Or at least some of them won't, so we can see the media putting pressure on MS if Sony do the bulk of it for free.

sony will find some way to make people pay for Home and not only for premium content.

Sony will make a mint on chairs/couches/bigger Houses and all that guff in Home.

There is no cap to how much an enthusiast can spend. Hell some "idiots" will probably give Sony a whole years live subscription in a month buying premium items and clothing....

Not to mention advertising possibilities and contracts that will be dealt in Home - You'll see adverts in the cinema, and you might even see real world shops selling actual items delivered to your door from the Home mall - Then guess who's paying Sony money for shop space? :pinch:

Edited June 18, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Guest]

This isn't something that HAS to have a charge associated with it - Like say, going out and buying a car. No one is going to give you a car for free.

No one is FORCING you to buy a subscription. If it was such a big issue for someone they would of picked another console in the first place. Lose out on a few exclusives, gain a few at the same time but most online games games are multiplatform anyway.

Sony don't reap rewards? How about the absolute tank of load of viral marketing that's probably coming our way once in-game XMB is out, and Home.

Viral marketing? - Hardly

I dont see Sony advertising in-game XMB... Not exactly their biggest selling point....

Its an annoyance once you have bought the console, but not on someones console checklist when shopping around.

It's not just about in-hand cash through subscriptions, growing your install base ultimately makes you the most money, and makes the developers the happiest - Hence the powerload of utter BS developers are throwing at the Wii.

Subscriptions are dependable and a quick way to make a few bucks...

Sony is still making a loss on every playstation sold... and developers prefer working on the xbox platform. Easier development tools and well documented, integrated online services. Its just a lot more effort getting things working at the moment on the PS3.... and a mixed bag of results.

I would love to see the online matchmaking part moved to xbox silver though. With extra perks given to gold members.

But until they find a way to do that, and make a profit at the same time im happy to pay my few cent a day.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

No one is FORCING you to buy a subscription. If it was such a big issue for someone they would of picked another console in the first place. Lose out on a few exclusives, gain a few at the same time but most online games games are multiplatform anyway.

Viral marketing? - Hardly

I dont see Sony advertising in-game XMB... Not exactly their biggest selling point....

Its an annoyance once you have bought the console, but not on someones console checklist when shopping around.

Subscriptions are dependable and a quick way to make a few bucks...

Sony is still making a loss on every playstation sold... and developers prefer working on the xbox platform. Easier development tools and well documented, integrated online services. Its just a lot more effort getting things working at the moment on the PS3.... and a mixed bag of results.

I would love to see the online matchmaking part moved to xbox silver though. With extra perks given to gold members.

But until they find a way to do that, and make a profit at the same time im happy to pay my few cent a day.

No one is FORCING you to buy a subscription. If it was such a big issue for someone they would of picked another console in the first place. Lose out on a few exclusives, gain a few at the same time but most online games games are multiplatform anyway.

Exclusive are one of the biggest reasons people buy consoles :blink:

Halo the most popular online FPS....

No one forces anyone to do anything, but there is NO middle ground. As I said it's pay to play online, or don't get to play online. In essence that is force to cough up bucks, but I'm not turning this into a word/mind game over the meaning of "forcing"...

Viral marketing? - Hardly

I dont see Sony advertising in-game XMB... Not exactly their biggest selling point....

Its an annoyance once you have bought the console, but not on someones console checklist when shopping around.

In-Game XMB is the largest requested PS3 owners ask for right now, I would've thought you'd have known that. Go check the fever on the official blog.

It will effectively give us some of the most important things the 360 has.

I gave a pretty legimate reason why viral marketing would not work well right now - from my post above,

They offload some "digs" just now when they can by saying we offer free online play, but everyone can grasp until their service is a viable competitor going all out on the marketing will lead to a brick wall when the media start saying "But Sony, Live kicks your arse!". Once that media view changes to "Ok Sony, you're service is actually good/on par/competiting well", then the viral "We do it for free" marketing will no doubt start.

You can't start a viral marketing campaign if your service isn't even on par with your rivals... Well you can, but you'll be met with more negativity than positive comments.

Subscriptions are dependable and a quick way to make a few bucks...

Sony is still making a loss on every playstation sold... and developers prefer working on the xbox platform. Easier development tools and well documented, integrated online services. Its just a lot more effort getting things working at the moment on the PS3.... and a mixed bag of results.

Sony always lose money on their consoles, it's easily made up in other divisions.

If they manage to sell the PS3 for 8-10 years like previous consoles, they'll easily come out in profit.

You can't just generalise "developers prefer working on the xbox" - Yes some do, and maybe even more for Sony comfort, but not everyone.

Anyway this conversation has NOTHING to do with developers and development on the consoles.

I still don't have much faith in a company if the reason they charge is just to "make a quick buck" like you put it. If I ever found out MS justifying paying for online like that, I'd be very disappointed. It might well be the reason, but they'll never say anything like that - Worst PR blunder ever.

Right now im disgustingly "happy" to let the reason of "our service is superior we can charge" stay out there... I don't want to pay, but I see it as a justifiable reason to an extent. However the minute Sony start offering more for free, I'll be in the campaign others will hopefully be to put pressure on MS.

I would love to see the online matchmaking part moved to xbox silver though. With extra perks given to gold members.

But until they find a way to do that, and make a profit at the same time im happy to pay my few cent a day.

Why exactly are you so concerned with them making a profit? :blink:

Why not cheer Sony on to do it all for free to put pressure on MS and hopefully allow you to play online for free at least... Money back in your pocket - Go buy yourself some games off of XBLA and get something in return if you still want to see MS make a profit when online play is free.

ps. I'm delighted and a bit shocked at the same time, the debate in this topic is going cleanly and respectfully. Well done guys (Y) Keep it that way....

Edited June 18, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Skiver Veteran]

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!

Speaking from personal experience, yeah if you look at it i like that fine, but i dont have ?40 up front.

Give me an option to pay ?1 pay as i go untill i have paid the ?40 for a year fine!

no offence mate but i cant stand it when people make statements like that!

If you use that analogy then alotof things would be affordable to most people but the fact is it isnt how much it costs when you split it over the year its still 1 lump sum!

I'm more then happy to pay it, it's killing me at the moment not being able to play online but the simple fact is i dont have ?40 spare to pay for this.

[DigitalE]

I think the only way Xbox Live Gold is going to be free is if Microsoft loses a huge number of their subscribers.

[Elessar]

My biggest gripe with XBL is that, as a Gold member, there are still a **** load of ads appearing the the blades. The $50 just doesn't seem worth it if that's all we're getting out of it.

[randomnut]

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.

Wrong. The whole idea behind steam is to sell games. It provides other features but this is just to get you using the service. Publishers/developers PAY valve to have their content hosted and sold there. Steam is a huge revenue earner therefore can afford to let users on for free. it's a tactcal approach, not "giving and giving".

[Guest]

In-Game XMB is the largest requested PS3 owners ask for right now, I would've thought you'd have known that. Go check the fever on the official blog.

It will effectively give us some of the most important things the 360 has.

I know its a well sought after feature, but nothing worth advertising.

You can't just generalise "developers prefer working on the xbox" - Yes some do, and maybe even more for Sony comfort, but not everyone.

Anyway this conversation has NOTHING to do with developers and development on the consoles.

Come on - Its a well known fact that most developers perfer to work on the xbox. Its only a certain few developers who are not fond of the restrictions imposed by Microsoft that tend to prefer Sony's online approach.

BTW... Your the one who brought the developers into this.:p

Why exactly are you so concerned with them making a profit? :blink:

Why not cheer Sony on to do it all for free to put pressure on MS and hopefully allow you to play online for free at least... Money back in your pocket - Go buy yourself some games off of XBLA and get something in return if you still want to see MS make a profit when online play is free.

You see... i would rather pay a few cent a day and enjoy an amazing online service than close my account altogether.

Im guessing you use Linux rather than Windows, and only use open source software on your machine?

Alternatives are out there for those that want to use them.

Life is too short for these trivial rebellions

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Wrong. The whole idea behind steam is to sell games. It provides other features but this is just to get you using the service. Publishers/developers PAY valve to have their content hosted and sold there. Steam is a huge revenue earner therefore can afford to let users on for free. it's a tactcal approach, not "giving and giving".

And Sony and MS sell games on Live/PSN as well, not to mention have advertising deals.

With the amount of paid DLC Sony/MS are offering they're probably swimming in it as well in comparison to Valve who offer lots of free content for their games.

That makes them money, and you have to remember both of them are dealing with install bases much lower than steam before anyone harps on about "bandwith" expense - Which is next to nothing anyway.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I know its a well sought after feature, but nothing worth advertising.

Come on - Its a well known fact that most developers perfer to work on the xbox. Its only a certain few developers who are not fond of the restrictions imposed by Microsoft that tend to prefer Sony's online approach.

BTW... Your the one who brought the developers into this.:p

You see... i would rather pay a few cent a day and enjoy an amazing online service than close my account altogether.

Im guessing you use Linux rather than Windows, and only use open source software on your machine?

Alternatives are out there for those that want to use them.

Life is too short for these trivial rebellions

I know its a well sought after feature, but nothing worth advertising.

You do realise, like I've said a few times, In-Game XMB effectively gives us the largest part of what most of you guys are happy to pay for in Live? In-Game messaging, invites and trophies (achievements).

How is that NOT worth advertising? :blink:

Come on - Its a well known fact that most developers perfer to work on the xbox. Its only a certain few developers who are not fond of the restrictions imposed by Microsoft that tend to prefer Sony's online approach.

BTW... Your the one who brought the developers into this.:p

Maybe I did but I was talking about online play, not developing games.

I'll let you talk on behalf of "most of the developers" then.

You see... i would rather pay a few cent a day and enjoy an amazing online service than close my account altogether.

Im guessing you use Linux rather than Windows, and only use open source software on your machine?

Alternatives are out there for those that want to use them.

Life is too short for these trivial rebellions

A) It's hardly a "rebellion". If the outcome doesn't go the way I would like it to, big deal, I'll do what I can and move on.

B) Anything that involves my hard earned cash is hardly trivial IMO.

Im guessing you use Linux rather than Windows, and only use open source software on your machine?

Where on earth are you pulling that from? FTR, No, I use Vista x64.

[Guest]

You do realise, like I've said a few times, In-Game XMB effectively gives us the largest part of what most of you guys are happy to pay for in Live? In-Game messaging, invites and trophies (achievements).

How is that NOT worth advertising? :blink:

Thought you could only access trophies through Home - might be wrong on this one...

Where on earth are you pulling that from? FTR, No, I use Vista x64.

Could of said the same about your car analogy a few posts up...

I was just using that as an example. If you feel so strongly about sacrificing features and supporting the underdog then i would have expected you to be using Linux or another open source OS.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Thought you could only access trophies through Home - might be wrong on this one...

Could of said the same about your car analogy a few posts up...

I was just using that as an example. If you feel so strongly about sacrificing features and supporting the underdog then i would have expected you to be using Linux or another open source OS.

There will be 2D and 3D trophies. 2D for XMB, and 3D for Home.

So people who support the underdog with one thing have to do it with EVERYTHING? :p

My analogy with cars wasn't anything about going after the underdog, it was to show that charging for you to play online can coincide with others NOT charging you to play online - A comment directed at those who for some reason think if Sony's services rivals Live, they seemingly have to start charging to play online.

Nowhere can offer you a free car, so you expect to pay something everywhere.

[EnzoFX]

Live's goal is not much different than Steam's.... They are both part of a platform, and they want you playing/buying on their platform. So what?

Live's consistent pricing will be forced to adapt someday, that much is clear. It's a model that has now become grossly outdated. To argue otherwise is just plain backwards thinking...

PSN has always been smooth for me, with great download speeds. Its pretty hard to top dedicated servers. A gamer should not give a crap who's hosting the game, Whats the point in arguing that MS is taking on more of the cost? Well let it, if MS chooses too, who cares... The end result is the same and what the gamer sees is that he's being forced to pay for one service that's free on every other platform. Furthermore, no service is perfect, you want to throw PSN outages into the mix? well the 360 has had just as many.

favorite quote:

With 15 million users, it dwarfs Xbox Live, and with a unified Friends list, superior online store, and chat and community functions all offered at no cost to gamers, it makes a mockery of Microsoft’s Live service on both PC and 360

Edited June 18, 2008 by EnzoFX

[Phantom Limb]

Wrong. The whole idea behind steam is to sell games. It provides other features but this is just to get you using the service. Publishers/developers PAY valve to have their content hosted and sold there. Steam is a huge revenue earner therefore can afford to let users on for free. it's a tactcal approach, not "giving and giving".

The whole idea behind any game company is to sell games?

Steam does give and give, but can also make money while doing so. They're the best thing going in gaming right now.

[Smigit]

My biggest gripe with XBL is that, as a Gold member, there are still a **** load of ads appearing the the blades. The $50 just doesn't seem worth it if that's all we're getting out of it.

Yep, the ads is one issue. The other is the fact that most online games are user hosted anyway. That money to play on hosted servers would be fine, but really your just paying for a server browser, something which the PC has had in most games for free since the mid 90's in some way or another.

In regards to bandwith, again that can be compared to steam which does it without ads. I know Live has more demos but those are just promotional material anyway when all is said and done and pretty much anything else on live is paid for. Messenger ect is utilising the network thats already free on PC's.

I don't think $50 is too much for an online subscription service, but I do think it's too much for what is essentially an online server browser. The fact that games are user hosted is the real kicker. You can claim online play is great under live but the most important aspect of that, the game itself, is user hosted in most cases.

I dont think they *need* to drop the fees, but they should offer something to make it a bit more appealing IMHO.

edit: the one saving factor with the ads is they aren't obtrusive and due to the limited scope of the machine, all ads are pretty focused content wise. Still, I'd rather 1/3 of the screen realestate for the main screen was used for some form of news feed to update on new releases rather than a huge graphic only showing a single game.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I don't have any issues paying for Live (especially cause I kick ass at finding deals online ;)), but I'd be more than happy if the service went free once there is more competiton from Sony.

[wtfdan]

I stopped paying for Live because I believe it's not worth it. I can easily afford it and have never paid the full price since I always tracked down a bargain. Microsoft have fooled many into thinking it costs an arm and a leg to run. They are just a great software company who invested money in this project to get it started and want their money back. The way Xbox Live crumbles with big game releases proves to me that they aren't plundering our sub money into it and are pocketing the profit. The reason Xbox Live is a solid platform is because Microsoft made it, they are experienced. Nothing to do with putting billions into setting it up. They were very smart but as time goes on it's obvious to many, your not getting anything except a well put together system by a software company which is expected anyway.

I believe Microsoft will want to continue with the revenue stream for as long as possible and when they finally make online play free for all they will roll out enticing features to keep as many Gold subs as possible. I think online storage will be one ploy to keep people paying like back ups of your saves, your uploads from games like videos and pictures. Gold is worthless without online play and that's why it's not free for all. Microsoft have been clever and pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes but hopefully the competition opens that up and forces their hand.

[Smigit]

^ I'd love to see online backups for save games that get bound to your LiveID stored on the server. I know Valves doing it and people will call it a ripoff but who cares, would be great to have.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

online gaming on the pc is enough for me, I only use my 360 to play xbox 1 games and the odd exclusive to 360 game. Live doesn't interest me, I rarely use silver any more other than for demos but the week to wait to download new demos put me right off and the stupid unplayable video error that happens randomly on videos is just annoying so I just watch things on my pc.

Personally, in my opinion if you have the internet and play games that way then who needs live.

[Alife]

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.

says the man with an apple and ps3 logo in his sig...SMH

[magik]

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.

Oh please. This has already been discussed by me and many others in several other threads (including this one, apparently). See here, for example.

[Huleboeren]

I have no issue paying a premium fee

But I think its stupid that we are paying 30-50USD/year just to play online

Pretty much everything else like downloading is also in the free silver membership..

Id have no problem paying for priority bandwidth, more exclusive betas, etc

but online play should be free of charge - online play is not what is hitting their servers the hardest, yet that is what they charge for..

[xendrome]

I stopped reading after I figured out if the Post Topic was a statement or a question...