Now that I think about it, I can't believe that answer wasn't more obvious from the start.Easton Dark said:
And glad you like the Burninator. Otherwise he might have to burninate your village
Why is Microsoft not giving Xbox Live free?
- Thread starter Hellblazer12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And glad you like the Burninator. Otherwise he might have to burninate your village
YesHellblazer12 said:
Yes
No
and No.
To explain:
Yes it is a money-making venture, but you are right in that at least part of that money goes into ensuring it is a better service, runs smoothly, and has good content. In all honesty, having played several MMOs where you are paying a much higher subscription rate just for that one game, paying a yearly fee to play any Xbox Live multiplayer title is, in the grand scheme of things, great value for money.
Yes, having compared PSN to Live on my PS3 and my Xbox I can say that I am happy to pay for the (much better) service. I'm not saying PSN is crappy, and I'm not going to go into the (European) server stability issues on PS3 compared to Xbox versions of games like CoDBlops and B:BC2. The discounted rates for download games, and the content you get as a Gold subscriber I can happily say is 'worth it' in my opinion, especially for something that is cheaper than a years subscription to a games magazine and has articles and features (and videos) that are almost more informative more often and often less biased than many format specific magazines.
However, saying Xbox 'lost customers' to PS3 because PSN doesn't cost is a statement that may hold true for a very tiny minority, but it doesn't hold true for many dedicated gamers, especially online ones. To be honest, given the price-tag differences for the consoles, the added extra of Live doesn't even make the 250GB Xbox more than a 160GB PS3 (at least, in Europe, if they have closer parity in the US, discount this, and yes, that is for a console WITHOUT kinect included in the box), so it doesn't even boil down to cost and being able to afford the service. When a year's subscription costs as much, or sometimes less, than 1 full-price game, most hardcore gamers eat the cost up without blinking.
So maybe a few kids or younger teenagers without jobs or low allowances might miss-out on Live because they can't afford it (I see more than enough in my shop asking for the 3 month pre-pay cards to know this does happen), but you have to realise that the main thing that will make them choose one service over the other is peer pressure. Most younger consumers play what their friends play, so if two or three kids in a school year jump ship to PSN from Live and are up the social ladder enough, then sure, they will influence others to do the same, and they are just as likely to switch back later on too, usually influenced by what games come out on what console.
Saying this though, flying in the face of 'anti-payment' protestors, Xbox has talked and rumoured a few times about reviewing Live and how much it costs the customer. These days it is much cheaper to get online than it was when the console first launched, and with the service well established, Microsoft could possibly turn around and start discounting the Live service subscription as they no longer need as much to keep it running to the same standard. We've already seen many deals and packages for renewing your subscription cheaper, especially aimed at families post Kinect launch, where you get more for your money such as full download games or MS Points, or 20% off a year. Similar in many ways to the kind of deals and offers mobile phone companies advertise for their services.
Lastly, again, I disagree with the 'cost' of Live being a NEGATIVE when discussing console wars, but only because the service is, on the whole, better. Yes, cost is a factor for actually weighing up which one to buy personally, but when comparing the experience of a game, or games machine, as a whole, cost doesn't factor in. World of Warcraft is enjoyed by millions, but in order to play Cataclysm you have to buy ALL the expansions, so do you turn around and say that Cataclysm is bad because it costs the most? Or do you instead take it for its content, leaving individuals to decide if they can afford to buy it and play it? Naturally you look at Cataclysm for what it brings to the world, be you a new player or one well versed with the WoW game world.
Basically, PSN basic is as good a game download platform as Steam, or iTunes App store or Live, but in order to get a lot of what Live offers you have to subscribe to the premium service. Likewise, Steam and App store are little more than catalogues, App store especially. In terms of play-support and communication, and even just the front-end for it, Live trumps PSN and has done for a few years now, based on ease of use and seemlessness. One only needs to listen in to the amount of people talking on a PS3 online game versus the amount of chat on a 360 one on average to know that one system is much more integrated with its online features than the other. From personal experience (i.e, selling them to customers) more people who want good online matches and games go Xbox, while those who want to play 3D and Blu-ray go PS3.
Of course, those peope who can easily afford a 3D TV and the movies and the glasses and the rest, likely have an Xbox on a different telly that they use to massacre their mates on MW2 with!
-Tzatziki: Voice of the Specialist Games Retailer-
Quit XBL in 2009, when I realized Steam was the superior service. I had always known that PC was the better gaming platform, but to be honest, I was always intimidated by it. I only (briefly) went back to console for Red Dead Redemption.
^ThisSparcrypt said:
The overwhelming majority of customers will never, ever read a forum discussion before owning a console. Its not that they don't want to know the fan-boy opinions, necessarily, its more that they don't even know this exists until AFTER they own a console.
Because they like making money, no one seemed to complain with their new OS visuals with ads allover the damn thing and then not only keep charging for it, they jacked up the price.
And even funnier is they make it so hard to cancel your service, you have to call up now. They had it for just a little while that you could do it on the site then they went back to phone service.
Why do they? Because people pay for it and no one stands up to them.
And even funnier is they make it so hard to cancel your service, you have to call up now. They had it for just a little while that you could do it on the site then they went back to phone service.
Why do they? Because people pay for it and no one stands up to them.
The guy has been quoted about 10 times, and hasn't responded. Le Troll. I'll bet he owns a horse and still has to ask how magnets work.doggie015 said:
I like Windows 7. I never had Vista, but my dad did, and he likes 7 far more than Vista. Me? I like how clean it looks, and how much more efficient and less constricting it is that the Mac OS. My Friend has a Mac, and i still don't know why you can't open up a window all of the way. He paid $2000 for his laptop. I just upgraded my PC for about $300 altogether (probably less, I didn't pay for the two $60 1TB Hard drives). My computer still hates my RAID volume, and constantly degrades it, despite everything my dad has tried. If I reference my dad a lot, it's because he's been in IT since the late 70's, and knows far more about computers than I do.
On topic, I paid $40 for my Gold subscription to XBL. Great investment. I now pwn noobs in Halo: Reach while screaming at how much of a failure Noble Six and his team are in pretty much every respect.
Because someone has to pay for Microsoft Office developement.
You may not be able to get XBL for free, but you can always get Word, and isn't that what you really want
You may not be able to get XBL for free, but you can always get Word, and isn't that what you really want
Purchase of the console - yes. Purchase of the GAME - no. When you buy a game, you pay for both the single AND multiplayer experience. I don't see any sane reason, why you should pay extra for something you already paid for. This is not a price to pay for a glass to drink milk in it. This is a price for DRINKING the milk which you already bought. If we're going to compare XBL Gold to a glass you have to buy, then sorry, I prefer to drink the milk from carton.darth gditch said:
Allright, call me a fanboy, because I have PS3 and not X360, but trust me, if I had some additional cash, I would love to have X360 as well (I so want to play Alan Wake). I understand paying for extra goodies and features. This is normal. Free = less stuff. Fee = more stuff. But demanding an extra payment for a multi in a game you already bought? No, this is not a bonus stuff. This is removing stuff from you until you'll pay extra. In other words - a dick move.
ultimately, its because people are dumb enough to believe that its the better service.
I have both and the only real difference is the interface you use when browsing the marketplace.
Also, as many people here have already said, Steam has everything LIVE has and then some and its free. It all just comes down to the stupidity of the consumer, which M$ is more than happy to capitalize on.
I have both and the only real difference is the interface you use when browsing the marketplace.
Also, as many people here have already said, Steam has everything LIVE has and then some and its free. It all just comes down to the stupidity of the consumer, which M$ is more than happy to capitalize on.
All inept metaphors a side; it's a sense of believing you get more for what you pay for. When I have problems playing Uncharted 2, Killzone 3 or Metal Gear Online I'll just play something else. Microsoft are selling a service that PSN offers for free; any complaints about having lag online with a PS3 is a result of your internet being bollocks or having your connection not set optimally.
But I'm sick of threads degrading into XBL vs PSN debates, because the same arguments are repeated page in, page out. XBL always has better service, better community, better stuff. Well can someone please tell me what this stuff is?
Before the comments roll in, I'm not a PS3 fanboy. I am genuinely wondering.
But I'm sick of threads degrading into XBL vs PSN debates, because the same arguments are repeated page in, page out. XBL always has better service, better community, better stuff. Well can someone please tell me what this stuff is?
Before the comments roll in, I'm not a PS3 fanboy. I am genuinely wondering.
Because the monster that is Micro$oft loves to eat your money.
With an actual point in this post, I believe that LIVE is just a rip off. It confuses the hell out of me as to whatever "community" it's talking about and the fact that you have to pay $60 a year just to play ANY GAME is just fucking stupid, especially next to other online services such as steam which just (in my opinion) wreck LIVE in every way, shape, or form.
In short, Microsoft can suck a mean dick. (You can tell how mean a dick is by how many times it slaps you in the face.)
God damn, I love venting... or ranting, whichever way you prefer.
With an actual point in this post, I believe that LIVE is just a rip off. It confuses the hell out of me as to whatever "community" it's talking about and the fact that you have to pay $60 a year just to play ANY GAME is just fucking stupid, especially next to other online services such as steam which just (in my opinion) wreck LIVE in every way, shape, or form.
In short, Microsoft can suck a mean dick. (You can tell how mean a dick is by how many times it slaps you in the face.)
God damn, I love venting... or ranting, whichever way you prefer.
Amazes me to this day people will pay extra to access content that they already payed for. If I get Bf3 when it comes out but then was told it was going to cost me $60 more dollars for the year to access the Coop and MP features I would shit.
I don't own an Xbox and so I can't comment on the XBL system.
However, having used the PSN, I've never thought to myself, "I'd pay money for this service to give me more features". The PSN is perfectly adequate for my needs.
I will say that the PSN far exceeds my Wii's sad excuse for online play via removal of things like friend codes.
However, having used the PSN, I've never thought to myself, "I'd pay money for this service to give me more features". The PSN is perfectly adequate for my needs.
I will say that the PSN far exceeds my Wii's sad excuse for online play via removal of things like friend codes.