Xbox Live Gets a Price Hike
- Thread starter Korten12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's how much the price hike is going to be? Hell, that's..almost nothing. That's less than a dollar increase per month, if my math is right.
Cross-game party chatIronic Pirate said:
Streaming Netflix sans disk
Netflix parties
Streaming ESPN (soon)
Last.fm
DLC exclusivity (if only for a while, it some cases a LONG while, like GTA IV or Fallout)
I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head. Basically if you have friends and prefer to keep in touch with them, XBL is miles ahead of PSN. Is the above worth $5 a month though? That's up to you.
Yeah I only got 3 months subscription to play Borderlands and maybe again when Halo Reach comes out
It's the same price as a game for a year. I've got muc better value just playing COD4 on my pc which I paid £40 and have been playing for 2 years and had a lot more use out of it then live
People will be unhappy with this Microsoft, you fuck people over and people will probably take it, you do it any harder and people will react. Like I am, I am not paying for Gold membership
It's the same price as a game for a year. I've got muc better value just playing COD4 on my pc which I paid £40 and have been playing for 2 years and had a lot more use out of it then live
People will be unhappy with this Microsoft, you fuck people over and people will probably take it, you do it any harder and people will react. Like I am, I am not paying for Gold membership
This. There's plenty of features on XBL that I could go without if I had to pay less. All I really need is multiplayer, party chat, and a friends list.dbmountain said:
I would rather have no exclusivity and have the DLC released for all platforms at the same time. I don't feel special for having some exclusive games or content.Thunderhorse31 said:
It seems to me you hate all great games. Also the guy you're arguing with forgot InFamous, Killzone, Resistance, Sly Cooper etc.. but still, what game is actually great to you if classics like MGS4, Heavy Rain and Halo are shit?Grant Hobba said:
Thats a terrible comparison. If you didn't pay for those things then you would not get those services because no service provider offers them for free.Eclectic Dreck said:
In XBL's case it is a premium service in a market where everyone else provides similar if not better service, FOR FREE.
You might say well the service is worth the money and $60 isn't much" but thats if you get he most out of the service. What if you are a busy person that doesn't find time to play alot/ Paying $60 for someting you don't regularly use is a waste. Especially if you could get a new game with that money. What if you are unemployed and barely have the money to afford to new games? Guess you better leave Fable 3 till next year and be content with Halo.
I myself can afford Live but when at a local game store I'd rather use that money towards a game. I didn't use most of the service they provided when I had the free trials simply because I turn on my 360/ps3 only to play hames. So for me its not really paying for a service, its paying just t play games online.
Obviously, 10 million people did want to play a game like that. Just like 10 million people played Half Life 2 with no cutscenes at all. You simply press buttons in order to be able to press more buttons, and that game is loved by many including myself. Tell me, are there any games that you like? Or are you just trolling?Grant Hobba said:
It really is just a stupid joke.
Virtually everything on Xbox Live is something you have to pay for anyway. Pay for a Gold membership just so I can pay to download DLC for a game I already paid for, on top of already buying the console, on top of already being subscribed to an internet service?
F-ing Microsuck.
No, it's not a "big price issue", it's a common sense "go stuff it" issue.
It would be virtually identical to say.. an Internet browser subscription. Having to pay $5 a month to use Chrome/Internet Explorer/Opera/Insert any browser, on top of your internet fees, just so you can get online to buy more things.
Oh.. wait.. We're already going in that direction!! Oh man I am so psyched!! I would so let Microsoft stomp on my consumerist balls if it pleased them!! Aw yeah man!
Virtually everything on Xbox Live is something you have to pay for anyway. Pay for a Gold membership just so I can pay to download DLC for a game I already paid for, on top of already buying the console, on top of already being subscribed to an internet service?
F-ing Microsuck.
No, it's not a "big price issue", it's a common sense "go stuff it" issue.
It would be virtually identical to say.. an Internet browser subscription. Having to pay $5 a month to use Chrome/Internet Explorer/Opera/Insert any browser, on top of your internet fees, just so you can get online to buy more things.
Oh.. wait.. We're already going in that direction!! Oh man I am so psyched!! I would so let Microsoft stomp on my consumerist balls if it pleased them!! Aw yeah man!
I called the people who say its no big deal/like the price hike fools. They are when they are the only ones paying for the ability to play a game online where PC and/or PS3 people pay nothing. There are very few true 360 exclusives (meaning no PC too)so the reason why you pay for it really gets pricey when you look at it that way.Eclectic Dreck said:
The price is affordable to most, but once again its a pointless fee that went up for really no reason at all.
I own a small service business and have monthly customers.. you should see shit hit the fan when I try to raise my monthly service fee $2-5 a month after 7 years of same priced service. Even with the cost of chemicals I use doubling in that time AND the gas price hike, people do not like having anything raised on them and in the real world most will fire me over a price hike.
You got it right. I really don't get why they would raise the price without at least announcing some staggering new features. This seems such a greedy dickish move and in the end it will only hurt their public image.SyphonX said:
I can not fathom Microsoft sometimes. It's like they like jerking people around because they enjoy being yelled at, not because they actually have anything to gain. Oh well, it probably won't affect me because:
A) I probably won't be paying for Xbox Live after this year.
B) If I read correctly, the USA is the only area getting the annual price hike and therefore this might not make a difference to annual payments in the UK.
A) I probably won't be paying for Xbox Live after this year.
B) If I read correctly, the USA is the only area getting the annual price hike and therefore this might not make a difference to annual payments in the UK.
People not reading articles correctly is always a larger concern to me than the articles themselves. Half the back lash is incorrect, the other half is just stupid... I'll fork out an extra couple of hundred on a PS3 and ditch my Xbox because the extra $1 on XBL is a rip off. Riiiiight, cause that'll work out cost effective.
Anyway, my PS3 owning colleague at work says the PS3 home network is rubbish compared to live.
PCs all the way in my opinion, you still pay (service provider charge) but it's a much more flexible service to get stuff off the Internet.
Anyway, my PS3 owning colleague at work says the PS3 home network is rubbish compared to live.
PCs all the way in my opinion, you still pay (service provider charge) but it's a much more flexible service to get stuff off the Internet.
I'm not worried about them losing money. I'm worried about the xbl population. The annoying thing about this is that the little screechers will still get the expendable income to carry on while most of the people who need a tighter budget (grownups, usually) will be the ones getting rid of it.Geekosaurus said:
The thing is that it really is a better service than psn but not so much better it's worth money on top of what I already pay for my internet utility.
What's surprising is that with all the advertising they do on it, they can't provide it for free.
I can get internet for free if I choose to simply access hotspots or other public resources. I can legally make phone calls for free through any number of mechanisms. The alternatives exist but they are, almost without a doubt, inferior solutions. Thus the example holds true.IamSofaKingRaw said:
In a direct comparison, I suppose we ought to look at the three current generation consoles. I can play for free on the Wii certainly but the experience is, to put it kindly, terrible. Sharing friend codes, lack of a universal support for communication and indeed a simple lack of games that support online functionality all contribute to ensure that the online package is of lower value and quality. The PS3 does better, certainly but the frequency of network outages is increased, the interface is kludgey, the VOIP system has less functionality and the user experience varies from game to game. That latter point can of course be a boon as easily as a flaw. Burnout Paradise's multiplayer experience was generally better on the PS3 version because of this in my opinion. Of course, in the case of the PS3, there is also a major initiative at Sony to figure out how to make money out of the deal.IamSofaKingRaw said:
On the PC front, the situation is literally the wild west. There may be no inherent online infrastructure beyond that which the players provide. There may be an extensive infrastructure that is supported for free. There may be an extensive infrastructure that requires a recurring fee to access.
That these experiences are better or worse is of course a matter of perspective. The question of value is much the same. I value a coherent user experience. I value functional, flexible communication options. I value predictable network functionality. That I might be asked to pay for these things when the operation, maintenance and development of said features certainly has an associated cost is neither a surprise nor a point I feel is worthy of contention.
Let me introduce you to a concept known as a rhetorical fallacy. You are constructing a straw man here by introducing a new element into the value equation. This is not a debate regarding a potential future course of my life circumstances. This is a question of perceived value, something that is inherently variable. I see a value in the service. I have finite resources to expend on things in my life. The value I currently see in the service is great. The resources I have to expend are sufficient that the asking price is inconsequential. You might as well ask "What if I was a trust fund supported lay about" for all the use such a point has in this argument.IamSofaKingRaw said:
That is a choice you are free to make.IamSofaKingRaw said:
Again, your perception of the value of the service is the problem. You have the resources but your interpretation of the value on offer is lower than mine. If you have no access to internet for example, there is no value in the Live service. If you have resolved to never play an online game there is no value in the service. I will not tell you your perspective on the value of a service is incorrect even if it differs from my own.IamSofaKingRaw said: