Xbox Live Gets a Price Hike

[Eclectic Dreck]

So, your argument is, in a nutshell, their argument is irrelevant because they're stupid? If your aim is to convince such people to change, I suggest you refrain from the most insulting of fallacies.

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.

In the case of the PS3 you have a reduced feature set. You also have a service with a better feature set that costs money and even then the enhanced feature set has been strangely unappealing to the masses. On the PC front the service and the expectations vary from game to game. There are plenty of games that require a recurring access fee. There are plenty more that are supported through micro-transactions. Then there are also games that are free. There is no unified platform, no standard for service on offer there.

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.

Since this is a question about Live, we must examine precisely what the service in question gives me. To put it very simply, it allows me to play a game with other people. Given the cost of maintaining several gaming platforms at once, people often choose a single platform for games these days. This means if a game is available on the PC, PS3 and 360, the debated point lies in their online infrastructure.

To put my logic simply, I value playing with friends more highly than I value playing with strangers. This extends so far that I rarely play a game online unless a friend is present. Thus, we find that I have a bias towards purchasing a game on the system where a friend is most likely going to join me in the game. Given that, of my friends, only a portion of us own PS3's or gaming worth 360's, this generally means I will choose to play on the 360 rather than on the other options.

If it is a game that I will not likely play with friends for whatever reason, my next choice would be the PC. My PS3, as a platform, is only a choice in instances where the game is an exclusive to said platform.

So, if my logic relies on using the 360 because of the presence of friends, the pertinent question might be why so many of my peers chose that particular platform. To put it simply, those of us who could afford many platforms have made the purchase. In some cases, it was the simple result of the 360 being available earlier and, once the fantastically expensive PS3 was released, few saw a reason to make the jump. In other cases it was a result of price comparison where few saw any particular reason to spend more money when the difference in quality of product was not obviously apparent. Yes, there have been significant mechanical problems with the 360 that may, in some cases I imagine, result in someone moving to the PS3 but among my circle of peers the relative inconvenience associated with such things was easily dismissible, perhaps in large part due to the fact that we are all adults with responsibilities and other activities available and the onset of a hardware failure becomes an opportunity to do something different. I can only speak for myself with any certainty however. I didn't mind when my 360 died and I had to wait several weeks for a repair because I had a PC that was more than capable of filling the void, and scholastic and athletic activities that benefited from a sudden increase in available free time.

The price is affordable to most, but once again its a pointless fee that went up for really no reason at all.

The fee increased because the company providing the service wanted more revenue. This may have been to increase profits, or it may have been to cover increased cost of operation. In either case, the only relevant result of such a move is simple. If the increase in cost results in an increase in revenue, even if it results in a loss of subscribers, the move was beneficial to the company. If it instead results in a loss in revenue, then the move was harmful.

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.

By the same token, I work for an IT firm that raised the price of our support by nearly 50%. Yes, there were complaints. Yes some customers dropped our service. But the end result was still an increase in revenue from my department. You, of all people, ought to understand the principles at play here. It is in your interest as a company to find that ideal price where you get the most revenue. That the price may alienate some is irrelevant. You charge what the market will bear.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

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.

Yeah I don't really care that much either, but as long as they're dumping millions of dollars on it, it's still something that Microsoft offers over the competition.

Netflix Party? I don't know what the hell that is, but it sounds awesome.

You can basically invite friends to watch movies with you online, and all of your avatars sit together and watch, Mystery Science Theater style. It's cool, though I doubt many people do it very often.

 

[Varun Garuda Maharaj]

Why the hell is microsoft doing this to Xbox fans?

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

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.

Those are all a matter of rumors and opinion. All of the times PSN has been down I had seen prior to the date on the internet that there would be maintenance. Other than that the only time it had unexpectedly f'd up during my 2 year ownership of the ps3 was during the calendar glitch incident. The PSN store interface is well layed out and easy to use. "Kludgey" is not a word that comes to mind when using it. Maybe I haven't used XBL long enough to see al these features that I seemed to miss during my time with the free trails. The only thing PSN currently lacks thats available on XBL is cross game chat and ESPN whereaa PSN offes MLB.tv and HBO. So the difference really is that you pay for one and don't for the other.

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.

I have access to the internet thats why XBL is of no value to me. All the things they offer can be found with a web browser excluding cross game chat (obviously) and the ESPN featue. I'm not saying that it is not a good interface but whether its better than its competition is purely opinion. The reasoning behind Xbox owners having to pay is simply because M$ knows they have no choice unless they own another system or do not want to pay online with friends.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Those are all a matter of rumors and opinion.

I believe that once a service has been announced to the world and is available for purchase it moves beyond the realm of speculation and opinion.

All of the times PSN has been down I had seen prior to the date on the internet that there would be maintenance.

The matter of total uptime is also beyond debate. The 360 leads in this sector as well. That it never impacted you personally is irrelevant to the argumetn.

The PSN store interface is well layed out and easy to use. "Kludgey" is not a word that comes to mind when using it.

The interface, which consists of menus with menus, where an inexperienced user can spend quite a lot of time looking for an object in the wrong place, is what makes it kludgy. It is an effective but inelegant solution.

Maybe I haven't used XBL long enough to see al these features that I seemed to miss during my time with the free trails. The only thing PSN currently lacks thats available on XBL is cross game chatand ESPN whereaa PSN offes MLB.tv and HBO. So the difference really is that you pay for one and don't for the other.

That is your perception of value. I will not stand about and say your evaluation of the situation is wrong.

I have access to the internet thats why XBL is of no value to me.

This statement is nonsense. That means that PSN also has no value. The difference perhaps you were looking for was that the other service that is devoid of value (that is, PSN) is also without a cost passed on to the consumer.

The reasoning behind Xbox owners having to pay is simply because M$ knows they have no choice unless they own another system or do not want to pay online with friends.

The reason behind such a thing is to generate revenue. To assume for even an instant that XBL is a service that has no associated operating cost is patently silly. Bandwidth costs money. Severs cost money. People to run the servers cost money. Electricity costs money. Space costs money. Development of feature sets require people which also cost money. That people will pay is the reason for a charge. That people will pay is the reason for the support.

Companies that operate on a charity don't often make money. Or did you miss the part where Sony's <a href=http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/09q4_sony.pdf>bottom line is doing poorly? That link goes directly to the consolidated financial statement from Sony that included the numbers from FY 09. I considered a newer version but then I realized that someone may cry foul that such numbers cover traditionally slow months. If you don't want to sort through the numbers, this very publication has run articles on the subject as has every other major gaming site.

 

[Chalky991]

I think that Microsoft all ready give people more for their money, if you want to complain about a £1 or $2-3 dollar increase then you need a better job or need to persuade mummy to cough up some more money.

Personally, I am happy with their servers, choices of games on demand and content like Sky player, last.fm, facebook, twitter, Netflix.

If you are not happy enough with this then nothing Microsoft can do will make you happy.

Personally, I think they don't charge enough, might improve the experience of online play some what.

 

[razerdoh]

This probably wont change much. People aren't going to boycott XBL over a $10 rise.

poor people will...

 

[Chalky991]

What did you get before the NXE update? A shitty cluster fuck of a dashboard, some online content. That's it.

Now that Microsoft put up the price, after numerous updates to the Dashboard, NXE, on demand gaming, USB saving capabilities, HD movies from Zune, Live Streaming among other things.

And you think it's wrong that they hike the price a little bit? Really?

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Snip.

1. XBL is peer to peer. They don't use any money to maintain online play.

2. No PSN does have value because it offers many things like MLB. tv etcc.. al in one convient interface for free. . All the fetures on XBL are widely available for free so there is no value in paying for something that you can get access to for free.

3. PSN is hard to navigate? Lolowut? Everything is under a different menu. Its nearly impossible to get lost. Looking for the Bioshock 2 demo. Go to demos, click on ps3 demos go to a-d (or whatever it is) and find the Bioshock demo (which is conbviently in alphabetical order). How hard is that? It seems that you're just nitpicking.

4. Sure they are a business. What I don't appreciate from them is that they value money much more then their actual consumers. they make their system only compatible with thei accessories, they make Kinect for a totally different audience then their current (or the majority of) fanbase and now recently raised the price for XBL... because they can. If you enjoy tat kind of customer support then fine, people have different tastes.

 

[Chalky991]

Personally, I think people go for live for that Elitist feeling of greatness over the other platforms. using the price as an excuse to why everything else is shit.

This is why I spend most of my time on steam, a gaming community that bases its self on one sole platform and who can get to the top of the sudo alpha nerd food chain.

 

[LogicNProportion]

huh and they said espn would come at no extra cost. But please MS tell me why the price is truly raised. Are we getting dlc and arcade games cheeper? Will the connection be evn better. Or is it because after shutting down orignal xbox survers. You have less people paying you?

I honestly hadn't thought of that...

You sir, win 3 intarnets.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

1. XBL is peer to peer. They don't use any money to maintain online play.

No, it isn't. Some games use a p2p system to host games. Others have servers maintained by the publishing houses. The service itself is provided by systems owned and operated by Microsoft. The servers that run the VOIP systems, the messaging systems, the market place and so forth are most certainly not p2p, especially not in the fashion you describe.

2. No PSN does have value because it offers many things like MLB. tv etcc.. al in one convient interface for free. . All the fetures on XBL are widely available for free so there is no value in paying for something that you can get access to for free.

You are having trouble distinguishing the difference between two different words.

Value refers to somethings relative worth, merit or importance.

Cost refers to the price paid to acquire, produce, accomplish, or maintain anything.

PSN has a value because it offers access to many things. XBL has a value for the same reason. Both services have a cost of operation. Only in one of the cases is the cost regularly passed on to the user.

In such a case you make a value judgment where you weigh the relative value in the service as you see it against it's cost.

And, honestly, was this point really necessary? Do we really need to have an argument of definition when one can simply look up a word to see if it is being used correctly?

3. PSN is hard to navigate? Lolowut? Everything is under a different menu. Its nearly impossible to get lost. Looking for the Bioshock 2 demo. Go to demos, click on ps3 demos go to a-d (or whatever it is) and find the Bioshock demo (which is conbviently in alphabetical order). How hard is that? It seems that you're just nitpicking.

Comparatively, yes it is. The entire interface from the store to the online infrastructure to the basic menu operation is far more difficult to navigate than it need be.

4. Sure they are a business. What I don't appreciate from them is that they value money much more then their actual consumers.

Here's a hot tip: a company values customers because customers give them money.

they make their system only compatible with thei accessories,

Because the only option I have for wireless networking comes from microsoft? Because the only option I have for a controller comes from microsoft? Because the only option for storage comes from microsoft? Really? This is a point you want to bring up?

I ask because your assertion is either grossly misinformed or an outright pack of lies. Here is one solution for <a href=http://www.pcworld.com/article/156208/doityourself_free_xbox_360_wireless.html>wireless networking that didn't come from microsoft. Or how about the fact that I can use a <a href=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27828/Xbox_360_Update_Adding_USB_Flash_Drive_Support_In_April.php>storage device not made by microsoft. Or perhaps we ought to consider the extensive number of xbox 360 <a href = http://www.madcatz.com/Default.asp?Page=212>controllers and accessories produced by just one third party manufacturer.

they make Kinect for a totally different audience then their current (or the majority of) fanbase

I find this more amusing than most. I suppose you think that the Move was something other than an attempt to capture that very audience the Kinect is going for? Or perhaps you think that a company that is hemorrhaging cash has no interest in getting all those casual gamers on board?

and now recently raised the price for XBL... because they can. If you enjoy tat kind of customer support then fine, people have different tastes.

It matters little why they raised the price. One need not feed me some line of bullshit regarding the various reasons why it's good for me, the consumer. I understand why. They want to increase revenue. It is as simple as that. It is this very drive that is behind the Move, the Kinect, PSN Plus, the various updates and enhancements the timed exclusives and the rest. Microsoft is a business. So is Sony. They both exist for one reason: to make money.

But as I've said before, I don't care what value judgment someone else reaches. I have made mine and I am satisfied with it. What's more, I care even less to carry on a debate when I am faced with an opponent who doesn't even have the common courtesy to ensure the proper use of words critical to the case much less deal in assertions of fact that can be dismissed as falsehoods after a single google search no more than three terms long. I wish you well in your future judgments of value and hope you rest easy knowing that right next to my 360 is a PS3.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Yeah I don't really care that much either, but as long as they're dumping millions of dollars on it, it's still something that Microsoft offers over the competition.

Netflix Party? I don't know what the hell that is, but it sounds awesome.

You can basically invite friends to watch movies with you online, and all of your avatars sit together and watch, Mystery Science Theater style. It's cool, though I doubt many people do it very often.

Can you talk to each other, too?

 

[Sun Flash]

Being british and using the yearly subscription, I'm more than happy with this because (a) I wont actually be paying anymore than I currently am, and (b)I already pay more (pound to the dollar) than an american buying a yearly subscription, so the price hike for them means that we'd be on a slightly more even keel.

Also, it might push away a couple of 12 year old griefers and leave Live to those who just like playing online with out the drama.

Selfish? yes. Do I really care? probably not.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Can you talk to each other, too?

Sounds really stupid and pointless. Your still watching a movie by yourself it just adds miis to it? If I wanted to watch a movie with friends I would invite them over and watch a movie with them.

Yep, you can talk to each other. Though according to Max here, that's just stupid. Because why do that, when you can do something else?

Sounds like someone's world is too small to include friends from out of town, or (God forbid) other states/countries. I have college friends all over the country, so it's nice to shoot the shit while watching a movie, even if we can't be in the same room.

Again, is that worth it to you? Your choice.

 

[DarthLurtz]

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Just a quick link, shows that, with inflation, we've basically been paying roughly $40 a year for the past several years in 2002 money.

So basically they're just adjusting for inflation, regardless of all the stuff they've been putting out.

So 2002 price = new 2010 price.


If anything, you are getting more for your money now than then, and if you only use the multiplayer, you aren't really paying any more money than you were at the start.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Personally, I think people go for live for that Elitist feeling of greatness over the other platforms. using the price as an excuse to why everything else is shit.

This is why I spend most of my time on steam, a gaming community that bases its self on one sole platform and who can get to the top of the sudo alpha nerd food chain.

Steam is just a digital distribution platform with a friends list. the servers you play on are paid for by the PLAYERS. Clans and other people rent the servers for upwards of 35-60 PER MONTH and allow people to play on them for free. So in essence, you playing on those servers and not donating just makes you a freeloading asshole, not at "the top of the sudo alpha nerd food chain" as you put it.

 

[andrewfox]

I'm not pissed at forking over an extra 10 spot, as much as I understand how big of a money grab this is.

It's all been said in 5+ posts. Yes, the community will continue to pay. Yes, we are getting shafted because of Kinetic (Is that how you spell that stupid thing?).

Just come out and say "We are raising the prices on XBL subscriptions because we can."

 

[Mr Montmorency]

And they wonder why pirates exist.

Charging for connection, DLC, profile pictures, avatar accessories, movies and arcade games.

Then there's shitty, unmoderated chatrooms filled with 12 year olds. I'm cancelling my subscription and getting the games for my PC.

 

[Aphex Demon]

And now we wait for games RRP to go from £40 to £50.. ¬¬