Microsoft to Drop Xbox Live Gold Requirement For Netflix, Hulu - Update
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Gahhhh I recently re-upped to gold just because I wanted to use Netflix and now they come out with this! FUUUUUUUUUUUU!
We're not paying Sony any monthly fee to play Dungeon Defenders on our PS3. I don't know about other games, though.Zac Jovanovic said:
Quite frankly, those are the people we as a sub-culture can afford to lose. Why the hell would you buy a £300-400 box just to watch Netflix? Then pay two monthly fees on top of that for the privilege? It's madness! I'd rather MS weren't making money off these idiots, they make the rest of us look just as stupid. Even the people that buy consoles to "just play FIFA" are better than those morons, because at least they are using the thing for what it was intended. /rantRatherDull said:
OT: I'm not bothered by this, since I can watch Netflix and
Nice to hear that MS might finally be getting the hint, but the fact that they're considering what else they can shove behind the paywall suggest that they're really not.
Well this is good news for sure. I always found it completely retarded that Microsoft was requiring Gold memberships to use the other services that you have to have a subscription for. Meanwhile, all the other devices that offered it would allow you access to the services for free, without the requirements of PS+ or some other services. Good to see Microsoft is actually changing, which I think has more to do with Phil Spencer taking charge, and also by locking Major Nelson in a closet and making sure he didn't make Microsoft look like any more of an ass.
The one thing that really should be made available to everybody, instead of just Gold subscribers, is basic access to multiplayer. I don't get how Microsoft has done so poorly on this front with both their current AND previous console. I still can't believe that people fall for it. It's like if everybody was happy to pay $20 every time they want to play a board game that they've paid full price for years ago.
Wow, you mean I get the privilege of using your computer to do the same thing my computer already does but in a much more confined space without paying you a monthly fee? Heavens be praised, it's a miracle! [/sarcasm]
The fact that they ever had a paywall for this baffles me. If you really wanted to stream things on your TV, get a DVI/HDMI cable and hook up a laptop or tower. Simple.
The fact that they ever had a paywall for this baffles me. If you really wanted to stream things on your TV, get a DVI/HDMI cable and hook up a laptop or tower. Simple.
Whoopie.
Microsoft is now doing what Sony's been doing on PS3 for years now. gg.
Only on PS4. But the thing is, one PS+ subscription works on all current Sony platforms. And a PS+ subscription gets you free games every month, cloud saves, auto-updates for games, and so on. For PS3 this month, we get Skullgirls: Encore and Puppeteer for free thanks to PS+. It's pretty cool.Zac Jovanovic said:
So basically, one year-long subscription for PS+ will get you free games every month on PS3, PS4, and Vita as well as many other benefits. And the only console that really needs PS+ is PS4 but even then you still get free games with it, so it's a win-win.
And it only took them a whole console cycle to do it, too.
If I'm right, Titanfall on ps4 wouldn't have required ps+. (As an example, purely online multiplayer games are rare on console)
I may be wrong about this, but I think Sony doesn't require PS+ for purely online multiplayer games.Zac Jovanovic said:
If I'm right, Titanfall on ps4 wouldn't have required ps+. (As an example, purely online multiplayer games are rare on console)
I don't even know what this article is supposed to gain in terms of discussion, what exactly is there left to discuss here?.
That's a step in the right direction, but are they also removing the paywall for F2P and subscription-based games? If not, they can still go fuck themselves.
To be honest, it's about making sure you're the customer, not the product. Some of us prefer that (although we appear to be in the minority).Scrumpmonkey said:
You see, shit like network maintenance and customer service costs money. So they have to get the money somewhere, and consoles are not particularly profitable (and are often sold at a loss [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader#Video_games]), so that revenue is out the window. So why not charge the customer directly? They use the online service, thereby generating the work, so why not make them pay for the consequences of their use? If not, then you're using them as a product to sell to someone else to make that same money. You know, the same model Facebook and Google use, because people don't complain about that at all.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Online functionality costs money that comes from somewhere. That money needs to come from somewhere and costs are already dropping generally for games (when was the last time you saw games get more expensive?). Better the person receiving the service cover those costs than someone who wants access to me.
Dont blame the companies, blame the customers stupid enough to gobble up the products. Granted, in this case it seems there were not enough stupid customers compared to the bad press.Vivi22 said:
I realize that this argument might be a little off track, but the thing is that a lot of these companies have only themselves to thank for these costs. They want to trap the customer in their own serverpark, so they can collect their own data to analyze and exploit, in addition to being able to close down servers for old games so customers will buy the new ones.The Gentleman said:
Some years ago (on PC at least...) fan maintained servers and mods were the lifeblood of games. Companies didnt have to have costs associated with running their games after launch. They have CHOSEN to trap players on their own servers. So imo, they should take the cost as well.
Good. I never understood why you needed Gold to connect to Netflix, a service you already pay a subscription fee for.