Why is Microsoft not giving Xbox Live free?

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Having owned a 360 with LIVE in the past, I can safely say that the only difference I noticed between PSN and LIVE is that I now have an extra $60 in my wallet. I've noticed no difference between the two connectivity wise. None, nada, zero, zilch. I view LIVE as you're really just paying for the content they have, virtually the same content that PC's and PS3's get for free and you're just being suckered into a P2P system.

As many others have said and will continue to say, they know people will buy it, thus they sell it.

Having the friendship of not one but three different PS3 owners who use PSN and having each of them have different internet systems alike, I can tell you that I notice MASSIVE differences.

Playing Halo: Reach; Big Team battle (8v8) and having virtually no lag but a slight delay and a jump now and again, then playing MAG or even Black Ops and having at least 2 seconds of delay at best, and a large skips which result in me walking into a wall for about 10 seconds before I can actually turn around, I'm going with the 360 network being worth the 40-50 dollars I pay a year. I mean, not if one is gonna complain about 4 dollars a month for leagues of quality, then that's their own choice. Making a smarter decision is mine as well.

Black Ops lags like hell on XBL also. MAG is a 100+ player game, comparing it to an 16 player Halo game is pretty bad. A better comparison would be KZ games which from my hundreds of hours played online, have no lag also. (They run on servers, Halo is P2P)

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

I really don't see the problem with paying for it. 50 dollars a year comes out to 5 dollars a month. If you have any sort of steady income, it shouldn't be a problem in any capacity.

 

[tthor]

The reason why Xbox Live arguably a better online service than PSN is because we pay for it. Our money lets Microsoft make improvements to XBL.

That's why even though it costs money, more people are on XBL than PSN. It's an all round better service.

what improvements? you're still paying $10 a month to be called a noob-****** every 30 seconds and get t-bagged every time you die. I haven't had much of that problem on PSN; but then again, i don't play a huge amount of multiplayer games

 

[TiefBlau]

Why is Microsoft not giving Xbox Live free?

Because people are willing to pay for it.

Just that simple.

I really don't see the problem with paying for it. 50 dollars a year comes out to 5 dollars a month. If you have any sort of steady income, it shouldn't be a problem in any capacity.

I'm also willing to accept donations of 50 dollars a year.

Shouldn't be too big a problem.

 

[tthor]

EDIT: doublepost

 

[Ice Car]

Micro$oft.

They did it for the money. They know people will pay for it, so they keep charging us. While they're swimming in a sea of money, really.

 

[Ghengis John]

I own a Xbox 360 and repeatedly having to pay for a Xbox Live Gold Membership is quite annoying. After a while i started thinking about why Microsoft isn't giving Xbox Live free. Surely its to make more money and the Xbox Live service and benefits is quite worth it but surely they must realize that they lost many costumers to Sony's PS3 due to this and that this is always a major disadvantageous point when used in console wars. I am open to all views and opinions.

If you want to compare Sony and Microsoft's online offerings it's no contest. As an example, nothing on the playstation store has a demo, everything on the LIVE store does. That's because demos would cost the companies selling their games online money to host, microsoft handles those fees, thanks to you on live. More over you have incidents like in Super Street Fighter IV where capcom just couldn't afford to distribute costume data to all customers on Playstation network but could on live. Your money has a real, palpable outlet on live. This isn't to say there's no value in playstation plus either though, the "Free" games they have available make it pretty tempting. Ultimately, whether you're willing to pay for a service or not is related to how much value you derive from it.

I really don't see the problem with paying for it. 50 dollars a year comes out to 5 dollars a month. If you have any sort of steady income, it shouldn't be a problem in any capacity.

I'm willing to accept donations of 50 dollars a year as well.

Shouldn't be too big a problem.

But I derive no value from you.

 

[tthor]

the real reason is it isnt free is because we will pay for it

sorry but Mr gates loves him some money

Bill Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for a few years. That explains how something as wretched as 7 could slip out.

i'm not sure what you're talking about, i love windows 7 compared to XP and VISTA. Are you just trolling, or do you have an honest problem with 7?

 

[Mute52]

Because people buy it, and they make Loadsa Moneh (Killing floor style)

 

[TiefBlau]

What's that? You have to pay for servers? And they don't let you make your own? Is it, like, an MMO? *pctrollface*

 

[masher]

Service.
It's better than PSN, which is why PSN is free. Kind of a, "You get what you pay for," type of thing.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Because server upkeep costs money, and more money means better upkeep. We pay so there is more money, therefore better servers.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

I own a Xbox 360 and repeatedly having to pay for a Xbox Live Gold Membership is quite annoying. After a while i started thinking about why Microsoft isn't giving Xbox Live free. Surely its to make more money and the Xbox Live service and benefits is quite worth it but surely they must realize that they lost many costumers to Sony's PS3 due to this and that this is always a major disadvantageous point when used in console wars. I am open to all views and opinions.

If you want to compare Sony and Microsoft's online offerings it's no contest. As an example, nothing on the playstation store has a demo, everything on the LIVE store does. That's because demos would cost the companies selling their games online money to host, microsoft handles those fees, thanks to you on live. More over you have incidents like in Super Street Fighter IV where capcom just couldn't afford to distribute costume data to all customers on Playstation network but could on live. Your money has a real, palpable outlet on live. This isn't to say there's no value in playstation plus either though, the "Free" games they have available make it pretty tempting. Ultimately, whether you're willing to pay for a service or not is related to how much value you derive from it.

Bolded part is wrong. Some(but very few) PSN games have demos. Your other point is not really of much value. You mention that but didn't the Mortal Kombat demo come first to PSN? Didn't Batman Arkham Asylum get free content only on the PS3. Getting demos for $3 games isn't much of an incentive to get $60 XBL.

Because server upkeep costs money, and more money means better upkeep. We pay so there is more money, therefore better servers.

There aren't any servers for XBL. Halo uses P2P. I think Gears 3 is going to be the first exclusive from MS to use servers. Sony's AAA games all use servers. KZ2 has server lists (KZ3 doesn't but they still use servers), Metal Gear Online has server lists, Resistance 2 has servers list, SOCOM uses servers. The difference is that we pay nothing for it.

 

[Coldster]

You realize that silver membership is free right? You can interact with your friends and you can play most of the online games except Halo and Quantum of Solace and a few others. I only pay gold because I want to be able to use the party feature, to play all the online games, and cause you get a bunch of extras. It's only $60 a year and that's really not that much compared to WoW or other things like internet service and cable. Plus Microsoft knows they can make some money with this idea...as long as Xbox LIVE remains better then PSN (I've played the PS3 online and as my subjective opinion, I do believe it is slightly worse overall).

Also, do people really buy a PS3 rather than an Xbox 360 just because of the free online? That sounds contridictory to me because I'm pretty sure the PS3 is $100 more expensive to buy.
Correct me if necessary.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

Because money, derp.

 

[kyoodle]

Aside from the cost I've never noticed a difference between the two services, they both work fine.

The reason why Xbox Live arguably a better online service than PSN is because we pay for it. Our money lets Microsoft make improvements to XBL.

That's why even though it costs money, more people are on XBL than PSN. It's an all round better service.

There are twice as many people on PSN, although that does include people with PSP's.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/282338/news/xbl-hits-30-million-accounts-psn-60-million/

 

[lacktheknack]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/profit-from-climate-change_1.jpg

They're relying on their customers being short-sighted and only accounting for the cheaper price of the console. It's a good strategy, actually.

 

[SimpleJack]

No matter what happens, there will always be at least one greedy son of a ***** in the world.
Some of them are microsoft employees I guess.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

News Just In: Company charging money for goods and services!

Basically they feel they can make more money and provide a better service by charging customers to use XBL. It's the reason WoW isn't free to play. Because they're doing perfectly fine as they are, and there are plenty of people willing to pay a small fee for the extra content.

 

[Jamous]

Is it really worth the money? I never really realised PSN was all that bad. :/