Why Xbox Live isn't free Options

[Xbox-Scene]

Why Xbox Live isn't free Posted by XanTium | June 17 22:58 EST | News Category: Xbox360

From gamesradar.com: [QUOTE] Until recently, Microsoft could brag about how Live was by far the most feature-complete online service on any platform, with a unified Friends list, the best online shop, voice and video chat as standard and a consistent and stable online experience. But in recent months there's been a shift in the market, and even bigger changes are coming. Microsoft is the only player to charge for online play, and their policy has landed some of the best online games on the 360... but as PC and PlayStation developers offer comparable features at no extra cost, the Gold subscription starts to lose its shine. The launch of the PC's Steam Community late last year and promises made by Sony at January's Consumer Electronics Show have placed Microsoft on the back foot, and has all of us asking: what does your annual subscription pay for? Live's best asset is that it allows even small developers to support online play - the value of which can't possibly be denied. Without it, we'd never see online play in small-budget XBLA titles or even marginalised full-price games. The question to ask is whether or not that's worth the precious money from your pocket, on rotation, every 12 months. From the player's end experience, Live is the leader, but it's hardly a full fifty bucks/forty-quid ahead of its competition. The market has changed since 2002 and so long as the PlayStation Network and Steam Community threaten to match Live feature-for-feature, Live needs to be obviously better in some other way, especially in the UK where it costs a full fifteen quid more for a yearly subscription than the $50 (£25) cost over in the U.S. At some point in the coming months, PSN will rob Live's Friends List, completing its mimicry of Microsoft's system. It's at that point where questions must start to be asked of Live. It's certainly easier for developers, but as gamers, perhaps we should rightly expect just a little more from our Gold subscription. [/QUOTE] Full Story: gamesradar.com (3 pages)

[kowrip]

MS should make the gold subscription free and drop the silver. I'm sure they'll make their money back in downloaded games and other content. They don't need to charge the $50 a year.

[highbomber]

Best service I have used.

I play on PSN and Steam and they are uncomparable.

And PSN "months away" from having the friends list similiar to Live? Sony has a record of over promising and under delivering. I don't believe they will have a comparable online experience until its next generation.

[crazy asylum]

M$ should really consider a price cut but not remove the price completely. I don't really care about paying 50$ a year for the best online service offered, but if it was like 25-30$ i think it would be a lot more appealing to more gamers.

This post has been edited by crazy asylum: Jun 18 2008, 05:20 AM

[upsetspy]

I personally don't have a problem paying 50 USD annually for the XBL Gold service, I'm sure I'm not alone in that boat but there are a lot of people that want it to be free. If you pay annually its only a little more than 4 USD a month. I would boast about the extra money being put toward Up time for the servers but with the hiccups a few months back I don't know if that would be valid.

XBL to me as more friendly than the PSN, the message system, the chatting, the friends..just everything seems easier to navigate and more in depth to use, PSN kinda reminds me of the old Xbox dash and online capabilities as for Steam..I wouldn't know

[GamerBR]

I have no problem of paying $50 per year for the live,the only thing I strongly disagree is that they allow certain games to charge extra for online play,Final Fantasy is something like $12 per month($144 per year!!!!)and Phantasy Star $9 per month($108 per year),that's just fucking ridiculous.

[ILLusions0fGrander]

I dont mind paying for live, but I do mind the excessive advertising done on my dashboard.

And a lot of people aren't paying 50 for subs... deals are usually able to be found where you can get a 12 + 1 for 35-40 bucks, you just gotta look around.

A nice perk would be 1200 MS points as a thank you from Microsoft for every years membership you purchase, enough for a free XBLA game!!!

[Trevante]

I have no problem of paying $50 per year for the live,the only thing I strongly disagree is that they allow certain games to charge extra for online play,Final Fantasy is something like $12 per month($144 per year!!!!)and Phantasy Star $9 per month($108 per year),that's just fucking ridiculous.

You pay for those games because they're MMO's. Most MMO's have a fee associated with them, it's not Microsoft's doing at all. Square is the one charging your for FFXI, not MS. And I don't know about Phantasy Star, but I'm pretty sure you only need a silver account for Final Fantasy XI. FFXI uses Square's FFXI servers, not MS's XBL live servers, so there'd be no reason for you to pay MS to pay FFXI when you're not even using their services.

The reason you pay for MMO's is because it costs a lot of money to host, manage, and maintain the servers needed for an MMO, not to mention that most MMO's are constantly being updated (not just bugfixes, but additions to the content and story).

And a lot of people aren't paying 50 for subs... deals are usually able to be found where you can get a 12 + 1 for 35-40 bucks, you just gotta look around.

Exactly. I paid $30 for a 13 month subscription card, on top of the 1 month I already had free w/ GOW for Windows. Having to pay for Live shouldn't hinder people from getting it unless thye're that cheap.

This post has been edited by Trevante: Jun 18 2008, 06:29 AM

[Roupus]

I love M$ online service, I dont mind paying $60 can a year for great service, content, and online gameplay. Its well worth it to me. Who cares about paying $5 a month for something good, thats nothing really.

[axess68]

Didn't they just say recently that they are going to increase the amount of advertising on Live now?

If they're going to subject us to more advertising (which brings them a LOT of revenue), shouldn't Live be cheaper? I could go for something like $20 a year-- or even $30.

(I also got a subscription card on a deal. So, I paid $40 for my year of Live)


This post has been edited by axess68: Jun 18 2008, 06:59 AM

[Wilhelm_I]

$50 sounds alright to me.
I pay 59.99€ for 12 months which is 93,58$.
Pretty ridiculous isnt it, are you willed to pay almost a 100$ for 12 months?
They defnitely have to cut the price over here in Europe since the Dollar is worth a shit.

This post has been edited by Wilhelm_I: Jun 18 2008, 06:59 AM

[Lordscr]

MS won't drop the charge for Xbox Live with over 6 million users paying $50 a year for it. The numbers speak for them self.

[StrictPuppet]

MS has always had a "If you dont like the product/price/service, then f***-off" attitude. If you dont like Windows, switch to Mac or Linux, they dont care. The numbers speak for themselves by the number of windows users and paid LIVE subs. Whether its by choice or not on the consumers end, it doesnt really matter. If you hold the majority of market share you can do/charge whatever you want. Until that balance shifts significantly away from MS, they have no reason to make a change.

Microsoft gives big to many charities, Xbox LIVE users aren't one of them.

[indigocc]

Here in Europe the price for Xbox Live Gold is way out of line.

The price for 3 12 months gold cards is the same as a new xbox360.

*Not* worth it.

Or drop the Gold access for another year and buy a PS3.

What are Microsoft thinking?

[ca102455]

I cant see why we still have to pay for XBL, i use Steam through the PC & feel its a near equal match for XBL plus Steam is free.

Come on M$ stop being so greedy your competetors are hot on your heels.... You know you'll have to go free soemday soon or lose your gamers once others wake up to freedom of choice..