Why do people pay for Xbox Live?

[k-ossuburb]

Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.


That is all.

/thread

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.

 

[Macrobstar]

Really?

You're going to ask that now????

To answer your question, because people will pay for it.

I do like the way live runs over PSN. It does seem to have fewer connectivity issues, not to mention it seems much more stable as a whole. Not to mention cross game chat... I swear, that's the biggest thing I miss when I'm playing on my PS3. If a mates playing one game and I'm playing another, Sometimes you just want to chat. Kinda silly not to have that really.

I don't particularly think it's worth the money we have to pay for it, but it is good. You certainly get more added features out of PSN+. But I'm not willing to pay for it seeing as I get all I need out of the free service.

Well i read an article that said that sony where adding cross game chat before they bring psn back up

Source?

That would be awesome. Parties in Call of Duty with my friend are always fun, not always because of the game, but because of the chat. Bring on the Cross-game-chat, Sony.

http://www.vgsynergy.net/2011/05/07/you-will-be-surprised-and-pleased-with-the-new-psn/

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

In response to the OP take a look at a lot of the responses defending live, and there you will see the big overall answer. People pay for Live gold because they're morons who like being ripped off and supporting others being ripped off.

They're almost as stupid as the people who think the Call of Duty DLC packs are worth £12.

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.

 

[Macrobstar]

Really?

You're going to ask that now????

To answer your question, because people will pay for it.

I do like the way live runs over PSN. It does seem to have fewer connectivity issues, not to mention it seems much more stable as a whole. Not to mention cross game chat... I swear, that's the biggest thing I miss when I'm playing on my PS3. If a mates playing one game and I'm playing another, Sometimes you just want to chat. Kinda silly not to have that really.

I don't particularly think it's worth the money we have to pay for it, but it is good. You certainly get more added features out of PSN+. But I'm not willing to pay for it seeing as I get all I need out of the free service.

Well i read an article that said that sony where adding cross game chat before they bring psn back up

I think someone from Sony addressed that as a rumour.

Well it was quoted from a sony representative
http://www.vgsynergy.net/2011/05/07/you-will-be-surprised-and-pleased-with-the-new-psn/

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I doubt xbox using all these other services is free to them.

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.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

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)

 

[Sean Waddell]

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.

 

[Veldel]

Am I the only one who honestly likes the PSN interface more then lives?



Captcha: non ckailes

What the bloody fuck dues that mean?

 

[Lord Kloo]

Always wondered why X-boxers get charged for on line play yet Microsoft doesn't make me pay for things like Games For Windows Live or any of the games that Microsoft makes / supports for the PC.. strange..

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

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).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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)

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.

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.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Fixed.

Hahaha, that's such huge grammatical pet peeve of mine. I can't believe I let that through. Thanks for the catch.

 

[Treblaine]

Obviously: to play online multiplayer.

They don't have a choice as online multiplayer is such a huge component of gaming today you can extort quite a bit of money out of people to spite not actually providing something of any inherent value, only INDUCED value by how XBL restricts access to the internet so much.

I do not play for XBL Gold Membership because I find so few games I get for Xbox 360 have worthwhile online multiplayer.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Am I the only one who honestly likes the PSN interface more then lives?

I like the XMB better than the Dashboard. The Dashboard just feels to busy with too much stuff that is really unnecessary. The XMB may not be fancy but it's as simple as you can get; I like stuff simple and I like minimalistic type interfaces and themes. Just give me what I need and nothing else.

This is pretty much what my XP desktop looks like (although my background is different now):
http://th01.deviantart.net/fs17/PRE/i/2007/123/d/5/The_Phoenix_Desktop_by_phoenixmgs.jpg

 

[k-ossuburb]

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).

Yeah, I did kinda just pull that out of my ass.

 

[SQN Leader 095]

We pay for xbox live because yes a silver membership allows you to download stuff but a gold membership allows you to start a private party with you and your friends so you can talk via audio when sitting on the dashboard which from what ive heard PSN does not unless your in a game and a gold membership allows you to play online.

as i said the private party can something up to 8 players in your party so you dont have to listen to the immature tards that seem to dominate the cross game chat that you have specified.

also we in australia do not have netfilx so the netflix stand point is invalid we do however have Zune which is like a video rental place you pay what i have calculated to be $1.50 for a 24 hour rental when you watch it straight away or a 13 day rental until you watch it then 24 hours.

also i may not speak for everyone on Xbox live but i do not use facebook on xbox. i have a computer for that (even then i do not have face book or my space or an iPhone for that matter) and why whould i be dumb enough to pay for radio when i could just listen to the music i like that i have taken the time to rip from purchased cd's onto my xbox or i could just lean over and turn on my radio.

I would further more like to point out that at least i can say that Xbox Live is up and running and i dont have to worry about identity theft. I pay for a properly coded security system unlike PSN which was only hashed. The only times Xbox Live goes down is once every 2 years for maintenance and even then its only for 24 hours and you can still play online.

 

[Treblaine]

Microsoft uses the extra money to actually protect users' data.

It doesn't cost much to protect networks, not even a tiny fraction of $60 per-user per-year.

Sony weren't greedy, they were amateurs. They seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the importance and significance of network security and how important it actually is to keep those networks secure.

Microsoft GET network security, hell the practically DESIGNED most of the networks we use today. Steam too is full of geeks who know networks with a passionate vigour.

 

[TelHybrid]

In response to the OP take a look at a lot of the responses defending live, and there you will see the big overall answer. People pay for Live gold because they're morons who like being ripped off and supporting others being ripped off.

They're almost as stupid as the people who think the Call of Duty DLC packs are worth £12.

This post makes me cry at night, because it's stupid.

Regarding the CoD Packs, I think anyone who buys them at full price is a bit of a numpty.

Yes fair enough if you really like the game then go for it and have a blast I'm not saying you're stupid for buying it, but it's because of the absolute rip-off that they charge for these packs just makes me think you could just wait until it's on a deal and use the points for something else.

What's so stupid about it?

 

[YunikoYokai5]

I don't see why people say cross-game chat is good...you can have MSN or Yahoo or Skype or something on your computer and speak to them through that, AND have a webcam on if you want. That's what me and my friends do when were on PSN, and my friend doesn't need to be on their gaming console either. I don't know exactly how cross-game chat works. I don't own an Xbox (the controller is FAR too chunky for my liking, that and I still have no idea if the Red Ring of Death is still a problem. My cousin went through 6 Xbox 360s before he gave up and got a PS3)

And to those who are rubbing the whole hack in our faces: Names, address, birthdays and the like are already easily obtainable from a phonebook, your Facebook page etc. People have managed to hack into the Cloud (which is run by Microsoft), which far outshines PSN in every way, since that is where some banks/companies store their details, and Sony is making a password change mandatory when PSN comes back on. They are trying to improve their security systems. XBL is not bomb-proof. Everything has weaknesses as internet crime gets more and more sophisticated. Let's just hope it doesn't happen to Xbox Live or they manage to shut the servers down in time.

Besides, changes don't occur until something bad happens. Case and point: transport accidents (plane crashes, train derailments etc), someone has to slip up at some point, and there will always be a next time (may not be the same company)

 

[Calcium]

I have a 360. A PS3 costs about £160 (not sure?) with the controllers / headsets. The free online would only pay for the cost of the console after 4 years, and that's without looking at the cost of any games.

Sure, Gold membership being free would be nice, but I really don't perceive it to be a high cost. I feel more cheated at the cost of a bottle of cola than the cost of using online.