Poll: Is Paying For Online Multiplayer On Xbox Live Fair?

[Tohuvabohu]

The rest of the online multiplayer world plays online for free. I pay to play on games which don't use dedicated servers, and instead often use a P2P player hosting/matchmaking system which, depending on the game, results in occasional to frequent sprouts of lag and abrupt complete stops to migrate hosts which can last between 5 seconds to a minute.

I don't think it's fair I have to pay for that. Don't care about ESPN, or Zune, or any of that. I just want to play online. Yes I pay every year so I can play online with my friends I barely get to see anymore and don't have any other console, but I willingly accept the fact that I'm basically throwing money down a hole just to play with my friends.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Sure, it's fair. If you don't like it, or don't think it's worth the cost, then don't pay for it. At this point, it's not like everyone doesn't know that Gold service costs money and online play is only included in Gold service. Nothing's being hidden from anyone.

That said, I do think MS should definitely offer online play separate from Gold service simply because I'd like to play online with my 360 and don't want to pay for the Gold package. Of course, that's exactly why MS doesn't offer it outside of Gold. If they did, they couldn't charge $15 for just the online play and almost no one would pay for the full Gold slate. They'd essentially be stealing customers from themselves by offering a cheaper option that more Xbox users would be sure to choose if given a choice.

 

[pope_of_larry]

ya it's fair i could charge someone money for every post i made in there forms (if the the escapist allows it) and if they said it was ok with them it's fair.

 

[akfg666]

personally I hate having to dish out money to play online but Microsoft know that as long as people are willing to pay...they will keep charging

 

[loc978]

If the money goes to hardware upgrades and security upgrades for their game servers, sure... but at the rates they charge and the number of customers they have, they should have local servers in every city of over 50,000 people in the western world.

In essence, yes... I do think it's fair to charge for such a service, but no, I don't think the rates Microsoft charge are fair for what they offer their customers.

 

[Lenvoran]

You must also consider the cost of each of these subscription fees (using US dollars for this example, so pardon me if you are within another region, I don't know the respective prices for the equivalent items there.)

Comparing to meals(At Subway, because sandwiches are delicious):
At the highest per month cost, it is as expensive as buying a meal at Subway (Drink, chips, cookie, sandwich) or some other place.

At the lowest per month cost, it costs as much per month as one $5 foot long sandwich.

Is a month (approximately 720 hours of time) of online multiplayer service worth a single meal or sandwich? If yes, pay your $5 or $10 dollars and enjoy your gaming. If no, go buy a sandwich or meal and enjoy your delicious food.

Less money-to-enjoyment ratio-wise:
Every time you transmit data you are utilizing resources. Internet service providers set up the connections and then Microsoft (or whomever) sets up the service that utilizes this connection.

Additionally, there are people who must be paid to look at the complaints and issues filed on Xbox Live as well as update the content and transmit the updates from the game companies to the user.

None of this process is free, and really, trying to pretend that it all should be is selfish. These people work hard to bring this content and should be rewarded for the work they put in. Companies that don't charge for it are getting their money from you in other ways, otherwise they wouldn't be able to maintain it.

 

[icaritos]

Most of the content is hosted by the player (p2p rather than dedicated servers), as such we shouldn't have to pay for the online multiplayer part of the experience.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

You must also consider the cost of each of these subscription fees (using US dollars for this example, so pardon me if you are within another region, I don't know the respective prices for the equivalent items there.)

Comparing to meals(At Subway, because sandwiches are delicious):
At the highest per month cost, it is as expensive as buying a meal at Subway (Drink, chips, cookie, sandwich) or some other place.

At the lowest per month cost, it costs as much per month as one $5 foot long sandwich.

Is a month (approximately 720 hours of time) of online multiplayer service worth a single meal or sandwich? If yes, pay your $5 or $10 dollars and enjoy your gaming. If no, go buy a sandwich or meal and enjoy your delicious food.

Less money-to-enjoyment ratio-wise:
Every time you transmit data you are utilizing resources. Internet service providers set up the connections and then Microsoft (or whomever) sets up the service that utilizes this connection.

Additionally, there are people who must be paid to look at the complaints and issues filed on Xbox Live as well as update the content and transmit the updates from the game companies to the user.

None of this process is free, and really, trying to pretend that it all should be is selfish. These people work hard to bring this content and should be rewarded for the work they put in. Companies that don't charge for it are getting their money from you in other ways, otherwise they wouldn't be able to maintain it.

Hm, very well said.

 

[Gigano]

Yes.

It's simply a service provided at a cost. There is ample opportunity to know in advance that the online service cost money before getting an Xbox 360 and multiplayer games for it, and thus to determine in advance whether or not you want to pay for it.

If you don't want to pay for it, well then it's hardly something essential you just can't live without, and you can still use the Xbox 360 offline. Or if free online gaming is that important, get a competing platform which offers it instead.

 

[Moromillas]

No, because it's the equivalent of paying someone to turn on your machine.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Yup. They don't have to offer you an online service at all. If you don't like it, play another system.

 

[Vykrel]

yes, its fair. it is a service afterall, and it has turned out to be a VERY profitable one.

plus, with all the money MS is getting from XBL Gold subscriptions, they are able to put more and more features on Xbox Live, not to mention consistently updating it and making it better for all of us, not just the Gold members.

i would still like to see some money back or rewards programs or something of the sort for long-time subscribers and customers who have bought many things on the Marketplace.

 

[Thaliur]

I guess it is, as long as the servers do their job properly.

Those playing put a load on the online system, those that just play single-player games don't. It would be unfair to finance online multiplayer through console sales alone, thus making everybody pay for what a few want to do.

Imagine if people who smoke cigarettes would be assigned one pack a day out of tax money, while those that don't smoke get nothing of equal value. Similar situation in my opinion.

 

[Vykrel]

Most of the content is hosted by the player (p2p rather than dedicated servers), as such we shouldn't have to pay for the online multiplayer part of the experience.

that isnt up to Microsoft, its up to the publishers/developers of the games. dedicated servers are very expensive to keep running. just look at EA. although they are generous enough to have dedicated servers for the majority of their games, they have still been forced to shut down the servers for games when they lose popularity. its just too expensive to keep using them.

for example, look at World of Warcraft. it has over 11 million subscribers, at i think an average of $14 or so per month, for each player.

Xbox Live, on the other hand, has around twice as many paying subscribers. imagine what Xbox Live would cost if Microsoft had to earn enough money to keep dedicated servers running for thousands of different games.

but i would have to agree with you if you believe Microsoft-published games should run on dedicated servers, because they absolutely should... to a certain extent, at least. future Halo games should have dedicated servers, but Kinect online mp games shouldnt.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Well, they're providing a service, technicians, maintenance, administrators, you are taking part in it, seems fair to me that they demand compensation.

 

[LetalisK]

If the PS3 had come out before the Xbox 360, I wonder if Xbox Live would be even near as wildly successful as it is today.

 

[Danoloto]

I think it's totally justifiable. They will have costs for keeping the login servers of the game running probably, and more of that stuff. And it's their game. if they ask money, you can choose if you pay or not.
It's just as fair for me to say "go away, I won't buy your game if you charge me extra for that". Your money is your vote in the matter. If you don't want this to happen, don't pay for it.

 

[AmosMoses]

Have to ask yourself how much you earn in comparison to what you will pay for XBL and how often you will use it.

Is it justifiable for me? yes.

 

[Jumplion]

No, you shouldn't need to pay for something as basic as accessing half of the game you payed for.

I never really understood the Gold LIVE subscription thing. You don't get dedicated servers, you have to pay just to access the other half of your game, and everyone else offers practically the same service absolutely free.

Not to mention, almost all of the features that Microsoft keeps shoving in to LIVE are absolutely free everywhere else. Facebook? On your computer, free. Twitter? On your computer, free. YouTube? On your computer, free. ESPN News? On your computer, free. Last. FM? I have no idea, but it's probably on your computer, free. These features are completely superficial, serve nothing to enhance your games and whatnot, and only serve to let Microsoft jack the prices up so they can say "But we're giving you so many cool features!"

On top of that, all these features are completely exclusive to American users. Nobody outside the US gets one iota of these features. Europe, Australia, etc.... get nothing and yet they still need to pay even higher prices that get thrown to them.

If these features and stuff are worth it to you, more power to you. Buy a Gold subscription, whatever, it's your money after all. But I really have to wonder how many people even use the services that Microsoft keep shoving in to the service.

 

[darkhawk1979]

Paying for MP on the 360, I can't remember if I thought it was fair before M$ screwed me with their "Automatic renewal" that can only be canceled with a phone call (expensive if you don't have a land line). I only realised 6 months after my one off purchase of a month subscription ran out.

After that and no compensation from M$ I have decided to just get my MP on PC or PS3 and M$ can shove their 70 ill-gotten dollars up their arses!