Analyst Says Live Price Increase Won't Hurt Microsoft

[edgeofblade]

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.

Once again, no one wants to recognize that the success of the company means we continue to get what we want. It's always the good consumer and the evil corporation, and the rare occasion where the two can agree on something. It's always adversarial... offense and defense... righteous consumer and greedy corporation.

But when you invest in a company by buying a platform in a platform-mediated market, you should want the platform-holder to succeed. I'm not saying this should change how you buy, but it should change your attitude about whether or not Microsoft can turn a profit... because, no profits no Xbox.

 

[Michael Logan]

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.

I heard the price increase doesnt effect all of europe, might be wrong though.

 

[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.

Once again, no one wants to recognize that the success of the company means we continue to get what we want. It's always the good consumer and the evil corporation, and the rare occasion where the two can agree on something. It's always adversarial... offense and defense... righteous consumer and greedy corporation.

But when you invest in a company by buying a platform in a platform-mediated market, you should want the platform-holder to succeed. I'm not saying this should change how you buy, but it should change your attitude about whether or not Microsoft can turn a profit... because, no profits no Xbox.

You're a fanboy... aren't you?

Well, I'll just leave you with this little tidbit. I own an Xbox 360. I haven't had a single one die on me and knock on wood that I don't. I just know when not to tolerate bullshit from a company and let them get away with it. They screwed up, it's their responsibility and it can never be a valid reason to increase the cost of a service.

Of which was my entire point and you never refuted it. Instead, you assumed that I wanted them dead and gone, apparently, when I never said that or implied it. Why on Earth would I ever want that? Why would I want thousands of people to lose their jobs? I'm not like the people that boycott any gas station that has BP Oil as its gasoline provider because I know it hurts the poor bastard that's running the gas station and won't even make a scratch against the CEOs. Give me some credit.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

It's perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to increase the price in line with inflation, especially considering the many features that they've added since 2002. However, I think they overcharge for the service in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying for a quality service, but I'm sure that MS makes more profit than then need to. Then there's the fact that MS makes so much money already that this price increase seems like it should be negligible to them.

 

[mogamer]

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.

The trouble is what added feature is really worth it? Last.FM, Twitter, Facebook, ESPN3 are all available online without any added charges. Netflix and Hulu Plus are services that already cost extra. And with HDTV prices falling, an ever growing segment of the population can hook up a pc to their tv. So what are the added benefits for the consumer? Mii-like avatars and overpriced map packs?

 

[PapaJupe]

I like the increase. It allowed me to extend my Live service another year for $10 of the current price and $20 of the newly announced price. So in March when my current sub expires, my card will only be charged $40.

Also, you can always find Live sub cards on sale in stores if you look hard enough.

 

[edgeofblade]

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.

Stop me where? How many resources do you think Microsoft expended on getting every 360 game to have achievements? It's a given these days, but does anyone understand what a massive organizational undertaking that was?

I'm making the case that Xbox Live launched in 2002 at $50. A lot has changed since then. For example, Arcade is a full part of the service, instead of this gimmicky idea on a disk like it was on the first Xbox.

See, people have this thing called confirmation bias. If they believe something, like Microsoft = greedy, they tend to oversimplify things.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Of course it's not going to hurt Microsoft. It's going to make them more money! It'll hurt the Live subscribers.

It wont hurt them financially but it will hurt subscribers more than you think.
Practical, budget minded people on a tight budget (usually grownups) are the only people who are going to be unsubscribing because of this. The result: less older people and more screeching kids online.

 

[bojac6]

Are they fucking retarded?
I almost know jack-shit about marketting and I KNOW that if you increase the price of something barely anyone can afford in the first place, all you'll do is get less money, you LOWER the price, that way more people buy it, and it all adds up to a managable price. Increasing it will lower the amount of consumers, meaning less money, meaning they'll grow bankrupt in the Xbox branch. So I GUESS anyone who just read this paragraph could answer it.

People can barely afford live? If you can afford a $60 game, you can afford the $50 year long subscription or however much it is.
I really doubt their main customer base is people barely making ends meet, having to decide between groceries or online gaming. I would guess it's people with jobs and extra money to blow.

Now kids paying for it out of their allowance might have difficulty, but that would be a rather stupid business model. And, frankly, if everyone under 18 were banned from Live, fully half, if not more, of the complaints about live would go away

 

[logiman]

Either this or ppl will sell their 360s after getting bored of Halo: Reach and get a PS3

 

[Antari]

I love number crunchers. They never take reality into account. The XboxLive service can offer more ... but that doesn't mean I'll use those extra features. And therefore I'm not willing to pay for them.

 

[PerfectOutlaw]

I'm sorry, did that guy say that XBox Live will cost more because of additional services that have nothing to do with XBox games? The hell kind of logic is that? "Well your surgery would have cost less but we made your ears glow in the dark while you were under so that adds another grand or so..." And more people play online games on XBox for the same reason people who play MMOs play them so much: You've paid for a service that you intend to get the most out of. Who the hell hired this guy? Anybody can do "analysis" like this. Here's one Microsoft: I predict that your rampant squeezing of your consumer base to drip more nickels out of them will reach a breaking point where we don't take your stupid shit anymore. Want to pay me now?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Stop me where? How many resources do you think Microsoft expended on getting every 360 game to have achievements? It's a given these days, but does anyone understand what a massive organizational undertaking that was?

I'm making the case that Xbox Live launched in 2002 at $50. A lot has changed since then. For example, Arcade is a full part of the service, instead of this gimmicky idea on a disk like it was on the first Xbox.

See, people have this thing called confirmation bias. If they believe something, like Microsoft = greedy, they tend to oversimplify things.

Ok I don't even care about the Arcade or any other features I really just want to focus on Achievements here so lets leave everything else out of it as I am not saying Microsoft hasn't improved other areas.

I want to start with the last point as that is the easiest to deal with. Microsoft is greedy. They are a company based in a country that is the closest to a true Capitalist/Free Market economy system which breeds nothing but greed and back stabbing or whatever means necessary to be more efficient or cut costs. As long as it cuts costs gets more $$$ or £££ the share holders don't give two fucks and that's who companies like this choose to please. This is really a whole different debate altogether.

What is the point in achievements other than to add a silly way of showing how "good" you are at games. The achievement system serves no purpose other than a cheap way to try hook people on games instead of doing something worthwhile like more original content or better game play or better scaled difficulty. I would hardly call the achievement system a massive organisational undertaking. You make it sound like that Microsoft gave us this God crafted thing out of the kindness of their golden hearts. Yes it was big but it was by no means Herculean and it is to no ones benefit really.

I would hardly call Achievements a good inclusion to gaming world by any stretch of the imagination especially with the scores that XBL carries along with it. Steam has achievements yet they don't score you on it nor do have a massive track of your achievements on the front page of your account. All achievements do is help breed an unhealthy attitude to gaming and others online. So no I would say Achievements are an improvement or necessary in anyway shape or form.

 

[AfterAscon]

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.

Except that you can get the X360 slim for $299.99, which has built in 250GB hard drive and wireless...

Now, Sony's PS3 250GB is $349.99. With the xbox live subscription, currently, there is only a $10 difference, the increase in price will only make it $20 difference for essentially the same functionality. This is also ignoring the optional premium Playstation Plus, which would then make the PS3 more expensive.

These prices were gathered from Best Buy's website.

 

[Ken Sapp]

Price increase will have no affect on my decision to continue a subscription.

Alot of people don't seem to realize that it costs a lot of money to run a service like Xbox Live. Compare it to a comparable expense, if you are a monthly subscriber it costs $60/year less than a monthly WoW subscription and yearly subscriptions cost $96 less than a yearly WoW subscription.

 

[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.

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.

The problem with that arguement is that, pretty much every one of the extras (Facebook, Sky Player, Twitter, Netflix, Last.fm, Netflix etc. etc) are complementary if you have a PC. Hell, you can get a Netflix disc for the Wii (presumably for the price of shipping). I'm also not convinced that the extra's cost nessatate an increase in fees. Twitter, Facebook and Last.fm have APIs which anyone could make an app for a phone. I imagine the same principals apply to the 360 apps. Maybe it was ESPN wot done it, since AFAIK there isn't a seperate subscription required for access (assuming you're on a "approved broadband provider") which could explain why the US is suffering the burden of the increase. However, for the UK, Canada and Mexico's monthly increases can't be explained by ESPN: I suspect Halo Reach, to be honest. Hence, I'm going to stand by my previous post.

 

[Delusibeta]

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.

Except that you can get the X360 slim for $299.99, which has built in 250GB hard drive and wireless...

Now, Sony's PS3 250GB is $349.99. With the xbox live subscription, currently, there is only a $10 difference, the increase in price will only make it $20 difference for essentially the same functionality. This is also ignoring the optional premium Playstation Plus, which would then make the PS3 more expensive.

These prices were gathered from Best Buy's website.

The problem with that arguement is that difference only applies in the first year. In the long term, the PS3 is probably cheaper, if you ignore the PSN+.

 

[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.

I heard the price increase doesnt effect all of europe, might be wrong though.

If UK will raise the price then others will too.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

It seems to me, regardless of whether the price increase is justified or not, the incredible backlash against it is evidence that this was one hell of a marketing clusterfuck (man, I love that word). The fact of the matter is that there is no universal answer to whether it is justified; it is directly tied to how much you personally care about all the new features they've been adding since launch. I think this thread alone demonstrates that a significant number of people, who are only interested in playing online, don't care at all and for them Microsoft is suddenly asking them to pay more for exactly the same service. And other people who do enjoy the additional features telling them that the service is getting better is not going to convince anyone. Certainly, Microsoft telling them that is getting better isn't going to mean a damn. What is true for some people is not true for others.

I think it was mentioned in the news thread about the actual price increase announcement, but it seems like a two-tiered system would be really beneficial. A lower price that just provides access to games online and then a higher price that has all the extra features. I doubt that Microsoft will implement that though because they want people to pay for everything and they know that for a lot of people online multiplayer is worth enough to pay for everything.

It still seems like they could have handled the announcement a hell of a lot better though. The best way to impress the idea that Live is worth the extra money would be to announce a new feature alongside the price increase, ideally a new feature that people who just care about multiplayer would also want, such as...

...

...

I have no idea, actually. The ability to punch annoying players through Live, maybe...

Slightly more on topic: I have to agree that this probably won't hurt Microsoft-the loss of revenue from unrenewed subscriptions will be outweighed by the extra money per subscription-and that it definetly won't cause some massive change to the balance of the three consoles. However, I would add the caveat that the statement only holds if you consider publicity to be worth nothing, because, oh boy, has this been worth a ton of bad publicity. Combine this with the direction that Kinect appears to be going in and Microsoft might want to be careful of giving the impression that they're producing a whole load of crap that their core market won't necessarily care about.

Much less on topic: when I saw the title of the thread, I assumed it would be referring to Michael Patcher. I guess the industry grew another analyst.