Analyst Says Live Price Increase Won't Hurt Microsoft

[Treblaine]

Sorry, who the hell pays for Twitter or Facebook? they ARE ALREADY FREE! And XBL Gold only gives you ACCESS to Netflix which you have already paid for, setup and organised the queue on your PC...

Face it, people ONLY PAY for Xbox Live for the online, which is free on EVERY OTHER PLATFORM and should be free as it uses peer-to-peer multiplayer, let me break that down for you:
-Your console acts as client or host (you paid for your console)
-communicates via the internet (you and everyone else paid when you paid your ISP for internet access)
-to other Xbox 360 consoles (which other gamers have paid for)

The expenditure for Microsoft here is one cheap-ass match-making service, seriously the computational power and time invested is on par with running an obscure website.

I hope this analyst is wrong, but the only way he could be right is if people really are just complete morons and stooges.

 

[edgeofblade]

* This is really a whole different debate altogether.

* I would hardly call the achievement system a massive organisational undertaking

* 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.

I'll let you have your opinion on Microsoft and the free-market economy (as if I had a choice), but don't brush off the argument and treat "Microsoft = greedy evil corporation" as a given. I refuse to let you treat that point as a solid truth simply because you have a lousy understanding of... well... everything. It's far from a different debate all together, especially if you or anyone else is claiming quite ignorantly that it's "price gouging" (which it's not...what businesses do during a hurricane...THAT is price gouging). Price gouging is illegal. Are you saying what Microsoft did was illegal? See, this ignorant attitude goes to the core of the issue and why people are so self-righteous over a measly $10.

Next, all you've given me is a pile of opinions of what you think Achievements are doing to gaming... which has nothing to do the cost of the system. Again, you are entitled to your opinions... except the one that supposes it wasn't a serious undertaking. Microsoft put out an edict to EVERY developer that EVERY game on 360 has to have Achievements. Judging by your understanding of economics, it's clear you honestly don't see the money and where it went. I know what a crazy project that must have been at the beginning of this generation.

 

[JEBWrench]

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.

Of course you can believe this, Funk. This is the goddamn INTERNET. Whining is like the information superhighway's fossil fuel.

 

[warbaloon]

Sorry, who the hell pays for Twitter or Facebook? they ARE ALREADY FREE! And XBL Gold only gives you ACCESS to Netflix which you have already paid for, setup and organised the queue on your PC...

Face it, people ONLY PAY for Xbox Live for the online, which is free on EVERY OTHER PLATFORM and should be free as it uses peer-to-peer multiplayer, let me break that down for you:
-Your console acts as client or host (you paid for your console)
-communicates via the internet (you and everyone else paid when you paid your ISP for internet access)
-to other Xbox 360 consoles (which other gamers have paid for)

The expenditure for Microsoft here is one cheap-ass match-making service, seriously the computational power and time invested is on par with running an obscure website.

I hope this analyst is wrong, but the only way he could be right is if people really are just complete morons and stooges.

Maybe just $30 dollars for peer-to-peer internet, 20 extra for arcade, and 20 extra for facebook?

 

[SirPumpkinLongshanks]

I don't care about achievements, Netflix, Twitter, or Facebook. I barely care about online; I'd rather see four-player split screen become a standard feature again than get yelled at by a 12-year old I've never met online. Needless to say I've never thought Xbox Live was worth the money; maybe at $30 I'd give it a look but I'd rather buy a brand new single player game than pay for a year of Live.

But then I'm very much an old school gamer. It's things like Live and Twitter which make me feel this new generation isn't meant for me. (That, and I feel the overall quality of games has decreased in step with graphical improvements.) Thank almighty Lucifer for the DS and indie games.

Maybe they should consider a graduated pricing structure? If you just want to play online and use the store you pay one price, if you want Facebook and Twitter you pay a little more, and if you want Netflix you go for the premium package. (With a free month or a recurring discount on your Netflix subscription, you know, something to incentivise the purchase.) I don't feel like I'm getting something valuable if I'm paying more for features I never use but if I can pay less at the cost of said features I'm much happier with my purchase.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

But did they ever think that all that consumer value they go on about is something most people don't particularly care about? And yet they're willing to pay 60$ a year even when they have no intention of using half the content offered? You know, when all we want to do is play some fucking games on a gaming console, yet Facebook, Twitter and Netflix are being shoved into our screaming faces for no adequate reason?

This is half the reason I got a PS3. The other half is the Last Guardian.

Agreed, I am so glad this didn't happen over three years ago when I played Live. I never really used any other feature with the Gold account than online play; everything else I could do as a silver that was all game related: Demos, DLC, free marketplace stuff in general. What about the people who not only do not use these features, but don't want them? Not everyone cares about facebook (on their freaking Xbox no less), ESPN (cable/satellite TV/THE INTERNET?!?!), and general non-game related features.

Spoiler: And Twitter on a vdieo game console? Seriously get a grip on your ego

HEY GUYS!!! I finally got the plastic seal off my game and am taking it out of the circle case holder thingy and I am s-

Sorry, I just don't like Twitter...
Anyway, I'm a simple man I suppose, so outside of having the freedom to play a quick online match in my spare time or something of the likes, I have no interest in the non-online features. From my past experience, the actual game and multiplayer of Live was a good enough service, but my humble needs can be met by PSN or PC games.

 

[Paul The Best]

Xbox Live consumers are price inelastic for this service, in that a price change will not move them against the service they are consuming.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

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.

$10 a year because of the extra value they're giving you by letting you buy more stuff.

Would you go to Starbucks if they charged you $50 a year just to enter the shop?

That said I don't use Live anyway, they just gave terrible, terrible reasons for asking for more money.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I find it hilarious that people are justifying the price increase with the addition of numerous programs and features that are completely fucking free everywhere else you go.

Yes, it does cost MS money to add support for Netflix, Facebook, Hulu, and ESPN - but only because the Xbox Live service shouldn't cost a cent in the first place. These other companies are happy to give their shit away for free (or, more accurately, in exchange for advertising revenue) everywhere else, but they're not going to be a party to Microsoft's cash-grab without proper compensation. This has the quite comical side effect of increasing the cost of what should be a free service as you add more and more otherwise free content.

I felt like a complete dumbass paying for Live before this change. Now it's a complete no-brainer. Subscription canceled. I'm not going to wait around for them to license more free content only to turn around and flip me the bill.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

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.

He's only stating his opinion. A mod like you should know not to be snarky in a discussion or debate. Else you start a huge, pointless fight.

Anyway, I already got the $40 for my next year so I'm good until february 2012.

 

[Sougo]

Seriously, these analysts are paid to state the obvious?

Ofcourse MAKING MORE MONEY won't HURT microsoft.

 

[Devil's Due]

Seriously, these analysts are paid to state the obvious?

Ofcourse MAKING MORE MONEY won't HURT microsoft.

Hehe, and guess where that money to pay them to state the obvious comes from?

As for the thread, I'm taking advantage of the one year deal which will save me ten dollars. However, after that I will not renew again unless they lower the price or actually make it worth my while. I'm considering it my last subscription for Xbox Live until I feel the price is justified.

(PS: John Funk is nearly starting a flame war in here. Woah. Crazy. Let's get rid of those gasoline tanks and matches, people! This is the Escapist after all, we shouldn't be dwindling into pure rage... that's Yatheeze's job!)

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

Can't say I'm to enthusiastic about paying more, for services that either are free.(twitter,facebook) Or already have a separate price tag from xbl.(netflix)
Ill still be paying, just hoping that they will continue to make live better.=/

 

[Jumplion]

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.

(Oh please, you didn't expect this to not get my attention, did you?)

Now that's a tad bit biased for a mod, dontchyathink?

What makes PSN "suck so hard" for you? Personally it's been great for me, rarely logs me out and has been mostly consistent with it's connection, and rarely any screaming at me from 12-year-olds. Just what it is for me.

And I find it odd that people are promoting the fact that they'll have to pay more for a service. I don't care what service it is, you don't greet a price increase with "Yay!"

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.

PSN has been online for 4-5 years (unless you count PS2 online capabilities, also free barring whatever you needed to connect it), has added new feature after new feature without charging a single thing at all.

And PCs have been online even longer.

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?

No, I just don't see a reason to pay for what is free for every other system out there.

Features shmetures, I'll just quote myself here to save the time;

I honestly, personally, don't get what makes LIVE worth the money. I don't care if it's just a cent a year, why would I give them my money if I can get just as good, if debatable better, services for free? I don't care about Facebook, Twitter, or Netflix, and especially not the ESPN thingamajig that they were hyping up at E3. It's something called a computer, I'm using it right now. All I care about is the games, and apparantly I have to pay an extra $5 (now $6 depending on the plan) just to access the online portion of it.

EDIT: Not to mention that most of said services are US Only. Europe, Asia, Australia, they get dick all if anything.

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

I'm detecting some hostility here, which is dangerous for a mod.

 

[Treblaine]

Maybe just $30 dollars for peer-to-peer internet, 20 extra for arcade, and 20 extra for facebook?

Noooo. Zero Dollars for Online, as you have already paid for Peer-to-peer online when you paid for the console and then paid your ISP to allow machines to connect to each other via the internet.

Zero dollars for XBL Arcade, as the games aren't given to you for free, you PAY for each one. What kind of store charges you ANY amount just to come in, look around and just the opportunity to pay?!?

Zero dollars for Facebook and Twitter, as they are not premium services online, they earn their money trough various Byzantine means such as advertising, facebook games and enterprise analysis.

0 + 0 + 0 = $60 (in Microsoft's mind).

I tell you what Microsoft. Why not enable online multiplayer for Silver accounts and put all these great "extras" under your Gold Membership and see how many people JUST WANT THE MULTIPLAYER!

God, Steam is giving away games for Free [http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=851573] and selling AAA games like Left 4 dead 2 on Sale for HALF the price of a typical XBLA game. I got my L4D2 for £6 ($10) and all the DLC has been free as well.

I am an Xbox 360 owner and I am not happy with the situation.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Noooo. Zero Dollars for Online, as you have already paid for Peer-to-peer online when you paid for the console and then paid your ISP to allow machines to connect to each other via the internet.

I'll give them their due, that is one part of the service that would take money to run, the master servers that list every connected and sort out matches.