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

[Bob_F_It]

It all costs money to run, so it's fair that they charge something to keep the lights on. However it's certainly overpriced. £40 per annum for peer-to-peer multiplayer from just a master server? Considering the scale of Live, it's hard to see where they put all of that money. Possibly on tighter security since we haven't heard of Microsoft being hacked like Sony and Nintendo have.

And it certainly isn't competitive when PSN is free and supplies a similar service, and PC gaming can just about match free from a consumer perspective.

 

[captaincabbage]

I'd say only in the case of an MMO, where you're essentially paying for future updates, patches, balances and new features.

Other than that I'd say no, since you're already paying for the internet one time over, why pay for it twice?

 

[Stebas]

I gotta say i'm unsure, ye i'd love free xbox live but i think payin for it stops some D**ks playin the games online you still get some but i think it does filter out some, i av to vote maybe . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Zeema]

No, but is anything in life?

PSN

just saying [inserting random line so i don't get banned]

but i don't think you should have to pay for it

 

[JimmyC99]

For FPS or games like Red Dead Redemption no especially because these don't even use dedicated servers.
A MMO yes, these games have staggering overheads, from servers to people to keep them running GM's and content creators.

 

[DoctorPhil]

I said maybe, as in, not for making profit. They should only ask enough to cover all the costs, and then some to improve the service (that's kind of profit, but you get the idea).

 

[XT inc]

I made a poor assumption, I thought this was about xbox gold, oh well No I think online multiplayer should be free on xbox they charge the same for pc prices.

However If I recall correctly those games dont require gold to play just sub time.

 

[Jfswift]

I'm still confused on this. PS3 has free servers and the quality feels about the same, although I've rented a server before and even if I owned my own I'd still have to pay for the fast internet connection to sustain so many players, so I'm not sure how Sony pulls that off without losing money. I think Microsoft charges a fair rate, considering the higher amount of traffic they have. It is expensive to sustain that kind of infrastructure, they can't possibly be making that much money off of it. (I could be wrong but that's my opinion).

 

[Zantos]

Yes. All the services cost money, and I'd prefer to pay something towards it than have it come out a budget Sony could be using to do better things with.

 

[thetruefallen]

I can't imagine how much i cost to maintain those servers. In my time as an IT guy at a local High School, server upkeep is fairly full on and that's just for a a few hundred people in a local area. They had to pay me and an other guy $25+ per hour for 8 hours per day 5 days a week 49 weeks a year. That shit adds up. Then there is paying for it to be there, power consumption, bandwidth, installation and upgrades etc.
Xbox Live has millions of users and multiple server banks around the world with connections to tons of different companies and services. It would feel like piracy if i didn't pay for it. XBL is a solid service and if payment is required to maintain it and improve upon it then I will pay it.
I don't want to beat this dead horse for long so: PSN doesn't make you pay for there core multilayer experience and look where it got them. Maybe if they had been charging a service fee they could have stemmed some of their recent embarrassment. At least the hackers might have admitted to it being difficult. Also, i hate daily firmware updates.

 

[Snowalker]

In my situation, yes. The Playstation 3 has little to no games I want to play, online or not, and those I do want to play are also on the Xbox 360.
The PSN being free allows me to play online with the few exclusives I may want to get without the hassle of paying a subscription to play the one game online.
On the Xbox 360, I play online a fair bit and, since all my friends have 360s, most of the games I get I will play online with them.
$70 AUS a year is a pretty fair trade off, I think.

Voted "maybe" as this post is all about my personal situation, which I think would be pretty rare for other people.

It blows my mind when people say the PS3 has little no games, whether their interested or not. They have all multiplatfrom games, and the only thing I can think of that xbox has in its edge is Halo, Gears, and possibly L4D, but the next one will probably come to PS3. And judging from your gamer card, you like halo and gears, but paying $70 AUS for 2 games that cost like what? $100 AUS (I'm US, so not sure on prices)is justifiable in your eyes? Do you like getting ripped off?

OT: I'm against it.

 

[rmb1983]

I'd have to say that while I don't mind paying for it (and I barely even fire up my 360, so the sum largely goes to "waste") because it's a pretty minimal fee, I'd have to agree with the fact that they're essentially charging us for nothing. The service offers nothing (substantial) that similar services without a paid subscription do not, so there's really no reason for them to be charging for it.

Oh, let me correct that. They're charging us for less than nothing, because many games take advantage of the Live system and lock out specific disc-based content unless you have a Gold subscription. So there is that.
I pay for it, anyway: That doesn't mean I have to like it none.
So, yes. They're charging you for a service that several competitors offer for free, and they're locking you out of content on games you've already paid for unless you have that subscription.

NOTE: Security does not factor in to the issue, regardless of how much you want to make a stink about "I pay to not get hacked!". Nothing is unhackable, and they've been a few times in the past five years. You can lie to yourself about buying peace of mind all you like; it doesn't change the fact that if a hacker really wants to hack the Live network, they will.

 

[Vykrel]

Yeah but WoW actually you know updates things, adds new content, has a massive support team in and out of game. And is constantly tweaking the game every patch. As well as having a bazillion servers (ok not a bazillion but more than m$). I honestly think blizzard give you a lot for your money compared to m$.

and Microsoft doesnt update XBL and add new content? they have added tons of features over the years, not to mention they update the service semi-frequently to improve on a variety of things.

in addition to the many features that have already been released onto the service, they currently plan on adding Youtube, Skype, Bing, and cloud storage to Xbox Live. as for updating, they are also updating the dashboard with a whole new look and improved user interface, which they seem to do at least once a year.

considering Blizzard is charging MORE for the ability to play ONE game on ONE platform, and Microsoft is charging LESS for the ability to play ALL available games on BOTH Xbox 360 AND Windows PC, i think you would be getting more of your money's worth with what Microsoft is offering.

 

[Amondren]

I'm ok with paying for XBLA but I'm not ok with paying for it two times like with EA games. LOOKING AT YOU EA