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

[archvile93]

It really depends on the multiplayer game. An MMO, where you need added content to have players keep playing (I.E. more quests, items, enemies)? Yes. A multiplayer game like COD, Starcraft, where the content is almost entirely based on the players themselves (I.E. skill)? No.

With an MMO you'd be paying the subscription fee as well as the Xbox live fee.

 

[Terminate421]

Yes because I pay to make sure that Microsoft keep their shit up to date. Its funny to see people deny that its not fair to pay for something that is not only not very expensive, but is seen as "A service that should be free". They are using your money to help keep the service up to speed, just pay the few bucks and enjoy a month of XBL.

 

[rmb1983]

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.

The majority of the "content" Microsoft has added over the past couple years have been superfluous fluff. How much use do the majority of those nonsensical apps actually see? Using them cuts into gaming timeI'd suggest movie time, as well, but let's face it, you'd buy a DVD player or BluRay player for a hell of a lot less and not have a monthly fee if you did a significant amount of that., which then makes that "value" dwindle further.

The only thing it actually offers that's notable is cross-game chat. Even then, how much use does that see? Maybe you enjoy talking with your friends while playing a different game. If I want to talk to my friends while playing a game, I will play the game they're playing, or ask them if they want to play the one I'm playing with me.
The service offers nothing reasonable over its various competitors, and yet, they charge what could not only be called an astronomical fee for what you're actually really getting out of it, but pigeon-hole you into paying for it simply because damned near every game will have content locked out unless you're paying for Gold.

Yes, UI updates have development and testing cycles. Some of the things they provide do cost money, but they're making a killing on it. If over the past two years, they had actually integrated something worthwhile into the service, then at least there'd be something there, but as it stands? NetFlix is really the only nice thing that was added, and you get to endure some double-dipping, on that one.

Yes because I pay to make sure that Microsoft keep their shit up to date. Its funny to see people deny that its not fair to pay for something that is not only not very expensive, but is seen as "A service that should be free". They are using your money to help keep the service up to speed, just pay the few bucks and enjoy a month of XBL.

I pay for it, and have no qualms over the price, because it really isn't that much. I, however, take issue with what they're giving you for that price, especially when they're giving you little choice by locking game content depending on your subscription level. This isn't a F2P MMO, here.

In any case, their advertising on the Dashboard alone more than makes back their maintenance, staffing and hardware/software upgrading costs.

 

[Vykrel]

The majority of the "content" Microsoft has added over the past couple years have been superfluous fluff. How much use do the majority of those nonsensical apps actually see? Using them cuts into gaming time

you wouldnt believe how often i see friends online on Netflix... i can only assume Skype will also be incredibly popular on XBL

 

[GonzoGamer]

No, but is anything in life?

Yea sometimes... especially in a consumer business.
I don?t think it?s fair and it?s one of the main reasons I don?t have a 360. I already pay my cable company for my internet service. And MS wants me to pay for theirs as well? Screw them. I can?t imagine how much more I would be out every month if I got a monthly fee to use every internet capable devise I have? It?s a little absurd when you think about it.
But enough people pay it so it?s only going to go up. Hell, they didn?t even wait for this console cycle to end before raising the price already.

 

[bombadilillo]

I only have a ps3, what does xbla do that psn doesnt do to where Id want to spend money on it?

 

[rmb1983]

The majority of the "content" Microsoft has added over the past couple years have been superfluous fluff. How much use do the majority of those nonsensical apps actually see? Using them cuts into gaming time

you wouldnt believe how often i see friends online on Netflix... i can only assume Skype will also be incredibly popular on XBL

And, again, NetFlix has its own subscription fee. I'm not saying the apps aren't used, just that only one of them sees common use and has its own fee, on top of theirs. Given that I use mine on my PS3, several of my friends use it fairly often, and I've seen some of my 360 friends use it quite a bit, as well, yes...I would believe it.

Still not the point, though.
They don't supply dedicated servers, they shouldn't be charging for the multiplayer, which is what the poll is asking after.
You can argue there's more to the service than that, but aside from the option of paying another charge for NetFlix, and being able to access the rest of the content in games you've already paid for, there's not really a whole lot left, is there?

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Not for online multiplayer no, at least for non-Microsoft games. And yes, XBL is better than PSN, but making people pay for all the extra bits, when alot of people merely buy it to play COD and dont really care about anything else they offer (except maybe ridiculously over-priced map packs), is taking the p*ss. Maybe if they made online play free and charged for everything else it would be fair.

Edit: To the people making the MMO argument;
a)Name three Microsoft-made XBL-exclusive MMOs.
b)Out of those how many have subscription charges of their own?

 

[Kinguendo]

NOOOOOO! Dont charge us £40 to buy your fucking game and get nothing for it! I bought your game? Then let me play your fucking game! I bought the TV, I bought the console, I bought the game, I bought the internet service, I bought the console service that allows you to play all games online... and then I need to pay each individual game to play online? Erm, hows about no?

Greedy fucking... no good... See what happens! See what happens when someone charges to play online and a rival DOESNT, see who wins that little contest! Did you see what happened to the number of people playing Black Ops when they made Quick Scoping possible because of all the noobs complaining that they couldnt be as nooby? Oh, it dropped from about 500k players to what it is now, just over 100k on a good day. Its the reason I stopped playing and got rid of the game, well done Activision... you shot yourself in the foot because you didnt realise that small number of people complaining didnt outweight the HUGE majority NOT complaining! And I bet someone thought "Hmm, maybe more people will play if we let them be noobs?"... well just look at Modern Warfare 2, what happened there? Oh, its been hacked to shit and only noobs play now! Hows about producing a quality game Activision? You typical corporation, you! You get big and the quality of your products goes DOWN, you get lots of money and you screw the people giving you that money!

Die Activision, Die! And remember Activision, people hate you... but I hated you first (probably) and I still hate you the most!

 

[crimsontide57]

yes its justifiable because when i play online and pay for it i dont get the living hell robbed out of my credit card. 3.99 a month > having no money at all.

 

[Creator002]

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?

I regularily trade games for others. The (multiplayer) games I currently have are Halo: Reach, CoD Black Ops and GTA IV. I play those online with my friend and, as I said, I trade the games in for others a fair bit, thus saving money on the others. This, is what I think, justifys me paying for LIVE, since I save money on the other games (almost like I don't pay for LIVE if you do the math. Something like $60 a year if some good games come out?).
Also, as mentioned in the quote, I really only buy games that are available for both systems and, since my friends have 360s, there's no point getting a PS3 game since I can't play it with them and no exclusives really grab my attention.

 

[Saelune]

Yes that simple idea is fair. What matters is the price.
Currently, it is very fair. Especcially considering so many people pay significantly more to play JUST WoW.

 

[Wintermoot]

I read that appart from the 360 you don,t use anything by MS so it,s bullcrap to pay for online MP.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I find it more then fair.

I'm not at all bothered by the idea that I should pay to keep the thing running.

 

[Waaghpowa]

For Peer 2 peer multiplayer, specifically consoles i.e. Xbox live, no. You can argue as much as you want about how it's a "service", but aside from banning the knobs, they offer little that you could already get for free somewhere else. I need a live sub to use netflix? yeah bullshit.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Yes, it is a service that costs money to maintain. I swear gamers feel more entitled than any other group I have ever come across.

 

[Katana314]

No.
Many, many other services of similar type survive off their individual purchases, even turning immense profit. Xbox Live should be no exception. This is actually the main reason I leaned to a Playstation 3 instead of an Xbox.

(Similar services: Blizzard store, Minecraft, all of Steam, PSN, pretty much any "central servers" for PC games ever made, others)

This is not a matter of being "entitled". It's simply a question of no-monthly-fee being economically feasible. The answer? It is. End of story.

 

[Littlee300]

No. Because those damn microsoft people stop devs from making DLC free.