Why do people pay for Xbox Live?

[Sinspiration]

I pay because I own an Xbox 360. It's a logical, straightforward reason. the 360 is my gaming platform of choice, as are the consequences that come with it and I'm comfortable with them.

I'd do the exact same thing if I owned a PS3, but I dont *shrug*

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

-snip-

It's probably pointless to keep trying to explain the problem, but I suppose I'll give it one more go.

I'm not in any way disagreeing that it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to provide access to third-party servers (realistically, it does cost them at least something, but for the sake of argument let's ignore that). What I'm trying to get across to you is that the cost of a product is virtually never just a function of the cost of the resources required to provide it. The only thing that matters is that Microsoft has put itself into a position where it controls something you want. That is far and away the largest determiner of pricing and resource costs have little to nothing to do with it.

And developers don't just run their games through Xbox Live because it's convenient, they do it because Microsoft's license stipulates that they have to, which in turn allows Microsoft to charge for the service. Again, this has nothing to do with hosting resources and everything to do with licensing agreements.

And if maybe you understand what I'm saying but think that things shouldn't be that way:
(1) How do you propose we price things, as a function of resource cost alone? This would mean wholesale rejection of capitalism and abandonment of any notion that businesses should attempt to earn a profit.
(2) You should probably refuse to buy every product and service currently offered by any even moderately large business (honestly, most small business probably qualify too). You're objecting to Microsoft externalising costs and leveraging their properties via licensing agreements, which is just normal business practice.

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

I really like live. It's updated frequently almost never has problems and overall works well
also: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/4/25/

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

I pay for It because it's a quality service, and all my friends play on it. But really I'm guessing that you don't really care and just want to try and tell everyone your opinion and how our's isn't good enough.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.


That is all.

/thread

I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.

The only times i can ever remember live being down is during maintenance during major updates.

Halo 3 brought down live for a day but thats all that I know of. Servers were up next day.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

Overall, most people will pay because microsoft has a more steady service. With less connection issues and a greater sense of security players are more than willing to part with some money in return.
And its hardly expensive, £40 for a whole year compared to other subscription services is very affordable

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It's probably pointless to keep trying to explain the problem, but I suppose I'll give it one more go.

I'm not in any way disagreeing that it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to provide access to third-party servers (realistically, it does cost them at least something, but for the sake of argument let's ignore that). What I'm trying to get across to you is that the cost of a product is virtually never just a function of the cost of the resources required to provide it. The only thing that matters is that Microsoft has put itself into a position where it controls something you want. That is far and away the largest determiner of pricing and resource costs have little to nothing to do with it.

And developers don't just run their games through Xbox Live because it's convenient, they do it because Microsoft's license stipulates that they have to, which in turn allows Microsoft to charge for the service. Again, this has nothing to do with hosting resources and everything to do with licensing agreements.

And if maybe you understand what I'm saying but think that things shouldn't be that way:
(1) How do you propose we price things, as a function of resource cost alone? This would mean wholesale rejection of capitalism and abandonment of any notion that businesses should attempt to earn a profit.
(2) You should probably refuse to buy every product and service currently offered by any even moderately large business (honestly, most small business probably qualify too). You're objecting to Microsoft externalising costs and leveraging their properties via licensing agreements, which is just normal business practice.

Microsoft has no need to even block access to 3rd party servers except to withhold it from you. I understand the costs of a product is a combination of a lot of things from resources to make it, people to run the store, advertising, etc. all the way to the actual profit and also supply and demand. If you have a lot more demand than supply, you can really increase that profit portion. I know Microsoft stipulates game publishers/devs have to use Live for online since if they didn't, Activision or EA could offer free online gaming for their games and bypass Live. I agree that Microsoft wants full control and is controlling what you can access on the 360, which is why there's no web browser. Microsoft is then being a jerk by charging you for stuff it's just "controlling" that it doesn't need to control. It's like a kid buying a bad of candy with his/her own money, then a parent taking the bad of candy (controlling access) and charging the kid a nickle for every piece he/she takes out of the bag. I can see a parent not wanting the kid to eat that bag of candy all in one day but charging the kid money for something he/she already paid for is ridiculous. That's what Microsoft is doing and it's just a huge jerk-ass move on Microsoft's part and nothing else.

I don't have a problem with companies making profit or charging for services as I have a cell phone and Internet service. The cell phone company is providing me cell phone service, not giving me free phone service and making me pay a monthly fee for the phone itself. Nor is the ISP offering free downstream access only to charge for the upstream which is required to use the downstream. If Microsoft wants to charge for Live or Sony for PSN, let them (I'll pay if I like the service and feel the service is fairly priced), but don't charge me for something you are not providing and are just withholding (online gaming, Netflix, etc.) because then you're just a dick.

 

[jakefongloo]

Just look at the PlayStation Network and Live.That money goes places.

What about Steam?

This is like the...7th? time you're trying to argue someone giving you a valid answer. Your opening line

This is not at all a Live sucks, PSN is better thread

More than likely Microsoft is paying Netflix for access to it's servers from their xbox.
Xbox comes out with a hardware update (good ones not pointless ones) every couple of years.
Xbox is cheaper than PS3 and a good PC
Xbox likes $$$

These are all appropriate answers to your question.

The only service Microsoft is providing you for Gold membership is cross-game chat so you are basically paying $60 a year for cross-game chat and that is it.

No, we're paying for all the things you listed, what you mean is we're paying $60 for the upkeep of a single service. Slight difference.

I get what you're saying, we shouldn't have to pay for all that stuff, but we do have to, and that's really all there is to it.

Overall, I pay for it because I have to, and I'm not that bothered by it. I can afford thirty something quid a year.

It costs somewhere between $20-$30 per person to play laser tag with my friends for an hour
They didn't build the guns
They didn't build the battle field (woods)
They bought everything to which they are displacing the charge onto us.
I don't think microsoft went to last fm and asked, "can we use your servers for free?"
costs $10 a month to play cod with my friends however long we want.

 

[Vibhor]

I pay because I have to. Since most games these days are multiplayer experiences, it becomes impossible to fully enjoy your 60$ until you spend more on live for multiplayer.
Why else would anyone pay EXTRA for multiplayer?

 

[Gudrests]

Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.


That is all.

/thread

I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.

It deffinitly can be hacked and taken down......but they have a constant flow of income to support security

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

More than likely Microsoft is paying Netflix for access to it's servers from their xbox.

Netflix pays Microsoft money, not the other way around. Microsoft holds the cards to allow a service access to the 360 user base of millions of people. Netflix will gladly give Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo money for access to their millions of users to increase the amount of Netflix users. More Netflix users = more $$$ for Netflix.

Xbox is cheaper than PS3 and a good PC

Edit: I read that a bit wrong.

LOL, a 360 is $50 less than a PS3, when including 1 year of Live Gold, the 360 is $10 more than a PS3.

A good gaming PC only costs like $100 more than a regular PC as you just need to get a better video card and more RAM usually. Everyone pretty much has PC so it's only going to cost $100 to $200 (at the most) to add to the price of a PC you will already need.

So a PS3 is cheaper in one short year if you online game than a 360 and a gaming PC only costs you $100-$200 on top of the initial PC cost. How are you saving money? A PS3 is $10 less in just one year and a gaming PC is costs less than a 360 because you already need a PC to begin with.

It costs somewhere between $20-$30 per person to play laser tag with my friends for an hour
They didn't build the guns
They didn't build the battle field (woods)
They bought everything to which they are displacing the charge onto us.
I don't think microsoft went to last fm and asked, "can we use your servers for free?"
costs $10 a month to play cod with my friends however long we want.

The laser tag company bought the guns, they bought the other equipment, they probably have to rent the forest/park area from the city, and they have employees working at the site. Plus there's maintenance of the guns and equipment.

Microsoft is not using the last.fm servers, YOU ARE, just as if you were on your computer. last.fm makes money off ad-revenue, selling music, and memberships (which I assume they have, I don't really like last.fm much).

 

[pwned123456]

Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>

<..>

it probably has just not being used they are probably using facebook tactics they hack us we hire them

 

[pwned123456]

Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.


That is all.

/thread

I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.

It deffinitly can be hacked and taken down......but they have a constant flow of income to support security

no they were just smart enough to have a second server so when it happens they just pull it up normaly that is why it is realy slow sometimes when it isnt your network's proble

 

[hydrahh]

I spend more money on the average week at the strippers than I do every year for Xbox live.

If 60 bucks is life and death, I pity you.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

Because it is worth it. Well, that is my reason anyway. Also, Netflix on my Xbox = awesome.

Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>

<..>

Ha! This too.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

A better connection than on the ps3 and cross game chat, as well as the deal of the week and certain demos.

The PSN has sales all week normally, the week before all this it was Assassins Creed for $15AUD.

OT: For me I just didn't want to pay for something that I wasn't garenteed to always be using, I'd hate to pay for a year of online gaming and then only be playing single player games, the PSN for me was the simplest answer to the question of not wasting money; on another note, it was a bit precarious to post this considering what's been going on. However, once all this blows over in a few months and the PS3 is back up and has new security, people will still be paying for live and a few thousand more Xbox consoles will have been jail braked and had their software tampered with, but no one cares about that because it's their owners that are breaking the law there.


ALSO: You do have party chat on PS3, just putting that out there because it seems to be a main point for Xbox.

 

[Nanaki316]

I could quote about 60 posts from this thread.

They charge it, I pay for it. I think it's a pretty damn small price to pay for being able to pay online with friends.
I've only ever noticed downtime when they were doing a massive update. It's stable and safe.

Would also like to add a PSN joke but they've all been done to death in here

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I spend more money on the average week at the strippers than I do every year for Xbox live.

If 60 bucks is life and death, I pity you.

Would you pay the strippers money if they didn't strip?

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Xbox is cheaper than PS3 and a good PC

What's that? The sound of you being wrong?