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

[Waaghpowa]

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.

I acknowledge that Warcraft costs more to play, but the difference is that the game gets additional content and fixes all the time without additional charge. Then take into consideration the amount of money it takes to maintain all of the servers, and there have got to be close to 300 of them about now. This gives some numbers as to the costs

Before you say "Microsoft has to maintain their servers too", though that may be true, a large portion of online play is Peer to peer, hosted by another players console. Halo and CoD are entirely peer based last I checked. Dedicated servers for consoles exist, but are not common and maintained by the publisher's/developer's such as EA.

Blizzard profits from all this, yes. The difference being that Blizzard isn't charging you for their console, accessories, other games etc in addition to their server maintenance. After purchasing the game once and getting your sub, all you need is a viable computer, which most people had before, and an internet connection, which most people are already getting.

 

[darkcommanderq]

Servers cost money my friend. If you want to be able to play online with the HUGE selection of games that xbox live supports a small fee is not that big of a deal.

The alternative is that the studio has to shoulder the server expenses and when they cant afford it that games multiplayer goes bye bye. Besides gold is only 60 bucks A YEAR. That is cheap compared to every other online service.

Keep in mind that while the games may be peer to peer, the infrastructure that connects players is not. Sure when your game goes into a session its between the players currently in the game, its far more efficient that way and allows for FPSs to be played online with low lag. Matchmaking is NOT peer to peer, and that DOES require a lot of maintenance.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Well MS has cornered the Xbox live market, so no one else can set up their own Xbox internet service. There's not much to do about it. I normally figure that I pay the same amount for one year subscription as I do for one game. So I use it as much as I would if I had boughten a game instead. It ballances out I think

 

[Waaghpowa]

I say no, why?

Because you aren't paying JUST for the online multiplayer. You're also stuck paying for the right to be able to watch Netflix, you're paying to get ESPN and Last.FM and Facebook as well, and to people who have no interest in paying for those services, I don't think its fair to make them pay for them anyways.

What should of been done, was a basic subscription that got you the basics, the stuff you got with the original Xbox live. Online play, party chat, that stuff which costs... I don't know, maybe $30 a year?
Then have a premium "Diamond" or "Platinum" service that costs the $60 a year and nabs you all the above, plus the Facebook/Last.FM/Netflix integration.

Really, the other problem is for something people keep calling a "Service" it's really Microsoft denying you one of the key features of their product that they frequently advertise under the condition you pay for it. I wouldn't have a problem with Gold sub if online play was free, then use the sub for the extra features. Basically along the lines of PS+. It's totally optional, but you get extra perks for doing it.

 

[KefkaCultist]

No, I shouldn't have to pay about $60 a year to play the main portion of a game I've already bought for about $60.

 

[Vykrel]

Ok so their adding things that the pc already has? clapclapclap, thats basic level stuff.
And secondly you dont need live to play any games on the pc so thats also wrong.

AND HOW IS F*CKING BING A FEATURE. Its just google ffs.

Only two things you have listed are real updates and thats skype (kinda not necessary but w,e) and the cloud storage (something steam also does for free.)

Playing catch-up =/= new features.

im not going to argue with you anymore because you clearly dont seem to realize that PC and consoles are not the same thing.

but i will tell you one thing i was trying to mention is that Xbox Live is cross-platform for Xbox 360 and Windows PC. you dont NEED XBL to play games on PC, but you can use the same account as you do on your 360 to play Windows games.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Is it fair and/or justifiable? Yes, sort of, because neither concept really applies to the situation.

'Fair' depends on the consumers' feelings as to whether they feel they are getting value for money. Seeing as that's a widely varying personal opinion it's not relevent.

'Justifiable' is kind of silly. Microsoft are a business so the only 'justification' they need is whether it's economically viable and sustainable. So far it would seem that it is. If enough gamers are willing to pay for the service to make charging for it worthwhile then that's all the justification they need.

Moreover, we're talking about a service locked to a luxury consumer product in a competative market. If the consumer feels they're being treated unfairly or unjustly they're free to instead go with a competing product or just not get involved at all. No one is having a gun held to their head and forced to take up this service... or, if they are, that's a matter for law enforcement not Microsoft.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

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.

Hit the nail on the head.

Xbox Live is a service that is provided at a cost. If one doesn't wish to use it, they can choose not to. The justification is inherent to it being nonessential and costly to operate.

 

[Iconsting]

It's their service. Who are we to impose what's fair and what's unfair about the service they provide? If they want to charge us, they have that right. If we don't want to pay, then we can join another online network.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Really, the other problem is for something people keep calling a "Service" it's really Microsoft denying you one of the key features of their product that they frequently advertise under the condition you pay for it.

That's an interesting angle on it.

Not the service part... anything that isn't a physical product is a service.

Interesting if they advertise online play as... well, let's call it standard unit functionality (or just a standard function of the console) rather than a capability. You know, the difference between Will Do and Can Do.

 

[mjc0961]

Live Gold shouldn't exist; not the least while PSN & Steam are completely free, and just as competent.

PSN isn't as competent though, and no I don't mean "it got hacked lol". I mean that there's no unified friend system like on Xbox Live. You have to navigate whatever menus the game developers set up to invite or join a game with friends, rather than on the 360 where you just go in the dashboard and find the invite option so that it's the same for every last game available.
I mean that there's no parties or cross game voice chat for those who want it (Vita is getting it though?! The fuck, Sony?! Show PS3 some love!). People do say "just use skype on your PC," and sure, that's a workaround. But the fact remains that PS3 needs a workaround and 360 doesn't.
I mean that I can't report players who are cheating or otherwise ruining online games from the console on PS3, I have to navigate the bowels of the Playstation Support site to find an online report form.
I mean that I can't go into my list of players and say "This guy is being a dick with his team killing or cussing over the headset, I'm going to mark him as avoided so I don't play against him anymore." on PS3 like I can on 360 (and believe me, I have needed this on PS3. God damn RDR co-op griefers).
I mean that PS3 doesn't do a damn thing to punish people who use gamesaves or other cheats to unlock trophies. Maybe if they had more money to pay more people to check this stuff, they could start handing out punishment like Microsoft does. And yeah, I know that MS has automated scripts that look for it, but I'm pretty sure they said that they have live people review results before enacting any GamerScore resets.
I mean that the Xbox Live Marketplace usually updates on Tuesday 5 AM EST (or EDT as it currently is) for DLC and Wednesdsay at the same hour for games, and rarely do they deviate from that. On the other hand, the Playstation Store updates on Tuesdays... whenever the fuck Sony gets around to getting the new content up that week. Sometimes they pull a trollface and upload it Mondays. Point is, it's never consistent. I know this one is kind of minor to most people, but it personally drives me bat-shit crazy every week I want some of the new content that's coming to the Playstation Store.

PSN does indeed provide online play for free, but as far as features that enhance the online playing experience, it pretty much says "Hey, you can play online. What more do you want from me?" whereas Xbox Live goes further to add features that make the experience more enjoyable. And for that reason, I'm happy to keep paying the less than $60 a year fee for Xbox Live Gold (seriously, 1 year subscriptions are on sale all the time. who pays full price for it?!).

If PSN caught up and stayed free, then I'd be leaning towards the "Okay, why am I still paying money for Gold?" camp. But for now, nope. I don't mind it at all.

 

[Marudas]

Fairness is a funny thing to dictate in this case.

So far as I am aware, Microsoft is not hosting any of the servers you are playing your multi-player games on. You're basically paying them for the right to use the internet (that you're paying for). So yeah, XBL is pretty silly. Its like if Ford asked you to pay them to drive the car you bought for them on roads that they don't own, while you continue to pay taxes to pay for those roads to other people. It just doesn't make sense.

But here's the thing about "Fairness". People have shown they're willing to pay for it. Many people feel they have no choice (and in many circumstances, for them, that's the truth) if they want to play with their friends and enjoy their games. You vote with your dollar. I don't think calling it fair or not fair is really the right thing.

Though...Its certainly greedy. But look who we're talking about. This is the company that just recently seems to be planning to place advertisements in their games.

(http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110987-Microsoft-Planning-Interactive-In-Game-Ads-for-Kinect if you haven't seen it).

There are parts of Xbox live that could be considered a service- Updates to the hardware and handling communication between your friends and such (though thats still really just a "using your internet" sort of thing). However, the question stated in the poll is whether the online multiplayer portion of it needs to be paid for. And since Microsoft isn't hosting the servers, patching those games or being involved with it really at all, no, I don't agree.

 

[mjc0961]

cloud storage (something steam also does for free.)

Don't forget to point that out to Sony as well; only PS+ members get cloud storage for their PS3s. Regular PSN users get to keep dealing with the extremely obnoxious back-up utility and still lose all their copy protected saves if they get a big fat YLOD.

Although honestly, it's probably more of a surprise that Valve offers cloud saves for free than that Sony, and in the future Microsoft, charge for it.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Really, the other problem is for something people keep calling a "Service" it's really Microsoft denying you one of the key features of their product that they frequently advertise under the condition you pay for it.

That's an interesting angle on it.

Not the service part... anything that isn't a physical product is a service.

Interesting if they advertise online play as... well, let's call it standard unit functionality (or just a standard function of the console) rather than a capability. You know, the difference between Will Do and Can Do.

That's kinda what I'm getting at, every unit is online functional except online play is restricted by the network. You get just about everything for free except the multi player which is built into every game. So on top of paying full price for a game, which include multi player, you have to pay for the right to play it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to charge people money for a service.

That said, it's not a service I would be willing to pay for. I mean, you buy the console, buy the game(s), pay for an internet connection... and then pay for XBL on top of that? No thanks.

But Microsoft is charging for services that they aren't providing, which is complete bullshit. I wonder if you can take them to court about Xbox Live and win.

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

Microsoft has no part in you playing a game online. What technicians? What maintenance? What administrators? All the maintenance and technicians are to keep the store up and running.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Although honestly, it's probably more of a surprise that Valve offers cloud saves for free

Not really... If there's one thing Valve knows it's that utility and convenience of their service keeps it popular and that popularity is what brings in the publishers to deal with them, meaning more titles to offer, resulting in more titles to offer and take a cut from.

Or, if you want to look at it the paranoid cynic way, it's another way to tie their customers even more firmly to their service.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think if they're going to offer an online service, they should host the games on this service as well, rather than using peer-to-peer connections.

 

[Aerograt]

Once XBL inevitably gets hacked, obviously not. I don't really use any of its features besides online multiplayer (free on other platforms...) and they don't even have dedicated servers. Really, the only reason I'm keeping my XBOX around and paying for gold still is because I try out used game with almost dead multiplayer and the chance that I'll finally be able to have customized loadouts in a Halo game with its fourth installment.

 

[Imat]

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.

And how do the players find the servers? How do you know if your friend is currently hosting a server? How does the information get from your machine to your friend's machine?

XBox Live. You may think everything is happening on your end, but there is a huge amount of information passing though Microsoft's systems. How do you think they keeps those systems up and running? How is it that you are able to enjoy a lag-free game of Halo? Clearly Microsoft wishes to recoup losses in a direct way. PSN and Steam can do what they want, 's long as you continue to pay for you XBL subscription.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Once XBL inevitably gets hacked, obviously not.

Whether it's likely to happen or not, it could happen if someone wanted to. There just needs to be a reason. People shouldn't get the idea a network is impenetrable.