Supply and demand mate. It's the same reason people pay the state in order to be considered legally married. Sure you can get it for free, but we know you will pay. And frankly their is no such thing as a free lunch.
Why do people pay for Xbox Live?
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs_v1legacy
- Start date
If you don't pay you can't use XBL to play games online. It doesn't matter that it could be done without payment since everything is already in place to provide the service. Entry is £35 a year; if you don't want to pay you don't get it.
Look at it like this, all the rides are already at Disney Land, all the food, drinks, and gifts are already in the stores. They don't have to make you pay to get in then buy their things, they could easily provide it all for free. They won't though, so if you want to use any of it you have to pay their access fee then whatever they ask for extras.
Look at it like this, all the rides are already at Disney Land, all the food, drinks, and gifts are already in the stores. They don't have to make you pay to get in then buy their things, they could easily provide it all for free. They won't though, so if you want to use any of it you have to pay their access fee then whatever they ask for extras.
I only pay for a monthly subscription when I realize I want to play some game online, otherwise I enjoy silver, paying for the extra features is optional, so don't complain about it.
In contrast, PSN, even before the whole fiasco was a mess, I had regular disconnects, all of the extra features weren't available in my country (live does this too but to a lesser extent), the whole thing just felt wrong.
In contrast, PSN, even before the whole fiasco was a mess, I had regular disconnects, all of the extra features weren't available in my country (live does this too but to a lesser extent), the whole thing just felt wrong.
Well i read an article that said that sony where adding cross game chat before they bring psn back upAbandon4093 said:
As if I have to do this:Phoenixmgs said:
I don't want to use Steam or PSN - My friends are on XBL, my favorite games are on XBL. Fact.
I have to pay to go online on XBL - Can't party up, listen to last.fm, or play online on XBL without doing. Fact.
It is possible to have both "don't want to" and "have to" at the same time. Fact.
Dettol Protects. Fact.
Edit: A little bit extra in regards to the original point, I doubt xbox using all these other services is free to them.
Dryaxx said:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Anyway, OT: I don't use either online services, so I don't really have much in the way of a visceral understanding of either system. But I would think that there are some costs that Microsoft have to pay in order to host these games on their system. Games like the popular COD would likely be paid for by Microsoft as it is the intellectual product of multiple studios, and having their game played on any system would require some reimbursement since it is very similar to leasing the product to net the profits that Microsoft would gain from using their property as a means to gain profit.
It's very likely that I'm wrong, I don't really know enough about the economics of the system to say anything for certain. I just assumed it would be a similar agreement that movie studios would have with online streaming sites or something similar.
http://www.vgsynergy.net/2011/05/07/you-will-be-surprised-and-pleased-with-the-new-psn/Joseph375 said:
The only COD I ever bought is COD4 and I payed $10 for the first map pack and $10 is the most I'd spend on a map pack unless you got more than 4 maps. Activision was just slapping every COD player in the face for that MW2 "stimulus" pack that included ONLY 3 NEW MAPS (2 old maps) and charged $15 for it while naming it a "stimulus" pack making it sound like they were selling it for discount and trying to help "stimulate" the economy or something; they were just stimulating more money out of people's wallets for fewer maps.TelHybrid said:
Well it was quoted from a sony representativeAbandon4093 said:
http://www.vgsynergy.net/2011/05/07/you-will-be-surprised-and-pleased-with-the-new-psn/
Microsoft basically sells access to the Xbox. Netflix, last.fm, etc. pay Microsoft for the ability to be on the 360, not the other way around. The more users any service (Netflix, last.fm, etc.) has, the more money the company makes. The more people that watch a TV show, the more the channel can charge for ads. The 360 has a pretty large user base. Speaking of ads, there's more ads on Live (a pay service) than PSN, a free service, how's that make sense. The least Microsoft can do for you for paying for nothing is not put ads on your dashboard.Kaze103 said:
It makes it so microsoft doesn't lose shitloads of money maintaining the systems as a whole; look at how much money sony is losing on the ps3. (even before all of the hack business) Consoles take a lot of money to produce, and the producers often lose money on the sale. The money i pay ensures better and continued service, which I will gladly pay for.
Also, "I'm white enough to afford it." ~Yahtzee (paraphrase)
Also, "I'm white enough to afford it." ~Yahtzee (paraphrase)
Seems to me that the real winner here is Steam. It offers everything PSN and XBL do but for free and you can get almost all the same games plus more for cheap. Sure there are sometimes issues with Steam bugging but it really doesn't make much of a difference.
Am I the only one who honestly likes the PSN interface more then lives?
Captcha: non ckailes
What the bloody fuck dues that mean?
Captcha: non ckailes
What the bloody fuck dues that mean?
Nope, Microsoft has no bandwidth or server costs when you play COD. COD servers are run by Activision and those servers just track stats after the game is over. One of the players in the game is the host (basically the server); every other player uploads what they are doing to the player host, then the player host sends all of the uploaded player data to all the players. The player host plays with a 0 ping (aka host advantage) since he sees where all the players are before anyone else. It's your standard peer-to-peer system. If it wasn't P2P and all games were ran off dedicated servers, you'd have Activision charging a monthly fee for COD like MMOs do (like World of Warcraft).k-ossuburb said:
Well over 90% of Xbox Live's costs deal with Microsoft keeping the store up and running, and Microsoft offers that for free for Silver members. Microsoft isn't going to charge to have the ability to buy stuff from them. But they will charge you for online gaming, Netflix, etc. when they aren't providing those services.ImmortalDrifter said:
Microsoft should charge for access to the store and online gaming for 1st-party games only, that would make actual sense. Multiplatform online gaming should be free, part of your $60 payed for the multiplayer content when you purchased the game. Microsoft is withholding your right to play game content you payed for and then charging more money to "allow" you to access the content you already payed for.
Hahaha, that's such huge grammatical pet peeve of mine. I can't believe I let that through. Thanks for the catch.Sonic Doctor said:
