Analyst Says Live Price Increase Won't Hurt Microsoft

[Mr. Grey]

the massive losses from RROD,

And this makes us sympathetic to their cause... how?

I mean, the Red Ring of Death is their fault and their responsibility. We should never be expected to pick up the tab from such a debacle.

I'm fully aware of the warranty they had, that's nice... it just took them awhile to realise the mass amount of failures before they kicked it up. That's something that should never have happened and we should never - at any time - be expected to pick up the tab. It's not a valid reason.

 

[scrambledeggs]

So I hold back on buying one video game and instead buy Xbox Live for a year. Not that bad, especially since nothing good comes out in August.

a lot of people can only afford to buy one or two games a year

 

[Littaly]

Huh? Let me get this straight...

... They increase the money that we have to pay for our membership, and we're asking ourself how they are gonna take it?

 

[edgeofblade]

Think about Achievements, Indie Games, Arcade and its piles and piles of demos.

and it's not like Playstation is giving them away for fre- .. oh they are?

Free? Everything has a cost. That "free"-nees is subsidized in the cost of the console and in the fact that downloadable games get free demos more infrequently than on XBL.

PSN isn't free... it's just that you've already paid for it, in one way or another.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

HATE HATE HATE ESPN

I don't watch sports yet almost every "content" service out there costs extra because of an ESPN bundle.

 

[Delusibeta]

Frankly, if PSN charged money, maybe it wouldn't suck so hard.

It's goddamn $10 a year. Do you go to Starbucks once in a while? Cut back on two Starbucks trips. There, you're golden. I cannot believe people are whining about this.

I was planning to save my 1337th post for a review or something, but I'm going to say this:

This sort of thing is why PC gamers (in general) look down on console gamers. It's also this sort of attitude that will ensure that Microsoft gets away with it.

Ultimately, Microsoft knows that the people who wouldn't stump up the extra $10 a year is insignificant compared to the people who want to play Halo: Reach or Call of Duty: Black Ops online. Microsoft knows that they can start ratcheting up their prices and people will keep paying them. Microsoft knows that it's big guns are lining up to fire in the next few months, and it's blatantly opportunistic. It's a bit like overpriced DLC: they can get away with it, because the publishers know that people will pay the cash to prevent getting booted from every other online match.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

So I hold back on buying one video game and instead buy Xbox Live for a year. Not that bad, especially since nothing good comes out in August.

a lot of people can only afford to buy one or two games a year

Except I have a job and don't have many things eating away at my budget. On average, I probably buy 5-6 games for the Xbox a year. Heck, I'm not even in College yet, nor do I live on my own.

 

[soapyshooter]

PSN sucks hard? Since when? Its free, that reason alone makes it 10x better than XBL, imo. Most people can only afford 3 or 4 new games, now they have to think about letting one go so they can keep playing XBL. Its all about profits, using features as a reason to increase price is total bullshit. PSN does it, M$ should be able to do it too

 

[John Funk]

Frankly, if PSN charged money, maybe it wouldn't suck so hard.

It's goddamn $10 a year. Do you go to Starbucks once in a while? Cut back on two Starbucks trips. There, you're golden. I cannot believe people are whining about this.

I was planning to save my 1337th post for a review or something, but I'm going to say this:

This sort of thing is why PC gamers (in general) look down on console gamers. It's also this sort of attitude that will ensure that Microsoft gets away with it.

Ultimately, Microsoft knows that the people who wouldn't stump up the extra $10 a year is insignificant compared to the people who want to play Halo: Reach or Call of Duty: Black Ops online. Microsoft knows that they can start ratcheting up their prices and people will keep paying them. Microsoft knows that it's big guns are lining up to fire in the next few months, and it's blatantly opportunistic. It's a bit like overpriced DLC: they can get away with it, because the publishers know that people will pay the cash to prevent getting booted from every other online match.

Sorry, but this is bullcrap and a half.

You're ignoring the fact that XBL has been $50 since its inception in 2002, and has stayed at $50 for almost a decade despite Microsoft adding new feature after new feature without actually charging a thing. Are you (general you) really so spoiled to think that a service that adds features should maintain the same price point at all cost when expenses have increased? Has your cable bill never gone up?

And I say this as someone who is primarily (though by no means exclusively) a PC gamer. Get off your high horse.

 

[tehroc]

Frankly, if PSN charged money, maybe it wouldn't suck so hard.

It's goddamn $10 a year. Do you go to Starbucks once in a while? Cut back on two Starbucks trips. There, you're golden. I cannot believe people are whining about this.

I actually agree with Funk on this. At the very least MS has made an effort to improve XBL over the years. I could understand outrage if it was the same exact service was offered since the start of the program but this isn't the case.

 

[instantbenz]

What a load of shit! This article simply says "IT'S OKAY THAT THEY ARE DOUSING YOU WITH OVERLY EXPENSIVE COSTS (wee)".

I seriously think it's a backlash to PSN+. I was actually starting to mellow out about the whole dispute. This was more fuel.

 

[Colonel Alzheimer's]

Frankly, if PSN charged money, maybe it wouldn't suck so hard.

It's goddamn $10 a year. Do you go to Starbucks once in a while? Cut back on two Starbucks trips. There, you're golden. I cannot believe people are whining about this.

It's not the $10 people are complaining about. Well, maybe some people are complaining about that, but if so they're doing it wrong. The thing to complain about here is that while every other major console (including PC) is allowing you to play online for free, Microsoft is raising prices. All this news is doing is drawing attention to Microsoft's outdated way of charging people. However, I agree with you, the reason Xbox Live is widely considered to be the best online service is because it costs money, money which I am willing to pay in order to play on the best service.

 

[luckshot]

been thinking about picking up a gold sub, this will keep me from waisting my money

 

[KSarty]

Think about Achievements, Indie Games, Arcade and its piles and piles of demos.

and it's not like Playstation is giving them away for fre- .. oh they are?

Free? Everything has a cost. That "free"-nees is subsidized in the cost of the console and in the fact that downloadable games get free demos more infrequently than on XBL.

PSN isn't free... it's just that you've already paid for it, in one way or another.

Buying the base model 360, and adding a hard drive and wireless adapter (which I'm assuming are pretty standard for gamers nowadays) brings the cost of the console to $380. That is not including the $50 Live subscription. Even without the wireless adapter, just adding a hard drive brings it to $280. With the $50, now $60, subscription for full online functionality you are not getting the better deal out of this. Its simple math.

 

[Mcface]

Think about Achievements, Indie Games, Arcade and its piles and piles of demos.

and it's not like Playstation is giving them away for fre- .. oh they are?

I own both consoles and I can safely say XBL is far superior to PSN, though I dont like this price increase. The current price was on the fence for me, I paid the money for a good, clean and fast service. Game updates take less than a minute to download and install, where as on my PS3 it can take 3-5 minutes.

 

[mogamer]

We could talk about inflation, the massive losses from RROD, or the improvements to the service since it was introduced in 2002 at $50. And I'm not talking about the freebies, like Facebook. Think about Achievements, Indie Games, Arcade and its piles and piles of demos.

Raising the price to cover their mistakes (RROD) is pretty sleazy. If the console was designed right, then MS wouldn't have lost so much money. I hope the lead engineers were canned after that.

As far as the freebies (which don't look all that free now) go, who in the hell uses Facebook or Twitter on their Xbox 360? I use Netflix, but I also have another HDTV with my htpc connected and watch Netflix on there (and can always get a Roku box for a one time cost). I can also watch ESPN3 on that same pc. All without a yearly fee.


I admit, I'll probably renew. The reason is I'm not going to buy a PS3 and re-buy my online games and overpriced map packs. And I'm sure this is what MS is counting on. Thanks to Newegg and Amazon, I've never paid full price on a sub. But raising prices during a recession is dumb, especially when there are already plenty of free options out there for those "freebies".

 

[Malyc]

The problem, I think, is that the whole concept of making people pay for playing online is both outdated and sleazy. Couple that with the now proposed cutting of online play in pre-owned games unless an extra price is paid, and the fact that more and more developers are using DLC to release half-finished games and then ask us to dish out more money to actually play what we've already once bought.

Analysts be damned, I'm thinking the majority of the big game companies will have this come back and bite them in their asses any moment now. For me, it's seriously giving pause to think that is there anything online gaming that I really want to pay that much more for.

I have to agree, the only thing online gaming is good for is listening to 4 year olds rage about how they have so much more skill than you, so you must be hacking when you kill them... Although it is sometimes funny to go for only that person, just to make them ragequit.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Think about Achievements

Ok let me stop you there how do achievements really cost Micrsoft fuck all? In fact they gain Microsoft money because people treat their Gamescore like the high score on an Arcade machine and buy games just to boost their score. Not everyone does this but a good chunk does which guarantees people playing online thus guarateeing some sort of Live Sub. Also the devs that make the games make their own Achievements for the games. Microsoft does nothing but offer a cloud service for your profile/gamescore.

 

[destroyer2k]

Frankly, if PSN charged money, maybe it wouldn't suck so hard.

It's goddamn $10 a year. Do you go to Starbucks once in a while? Cut back on two Starbucks trips. There, you're golden. I cannot believe people are whining about this.

I actually agree with Funk on this. At the very least MS has made an effort to improve XBL over the years. I could understand outrage if it was the same exact service was offered since the start of the program but this isn't the case.

What about europe? We pay 50? (63$) now with 10? more it will be 78$. And you know what is the worst part, we get a lot less function (no ESPN, netflix and so on). In some country you can't even buy dlc for some games.