Poll: Should Xbox Live Be Free?

[Jamash]

I would like a gold tooth...

Spend all you quids on sweets instead of gamerpics & you too can have a gold crown just like me!

 

[scoobyduped]

Sure, I'd like it if it was free. But at $50 bucks a year (that's 4 bucks a month), if you can't afford it, I'd be wondering how you afforded your Xbox.

 

[merkinater]

i have a couple words for you

-ethernet
-router (if you want to be on live and have someone on the comp at the same time)

from there its like connect the dots except the dots are the router, computer, and 360 while the lines are the ethernet.....

hook the ethernet up to the 360 and have it plugging into your router, and have another ethernet cable going from your router to the computer.....all of this (depending on how good of a router you want and much ethernet you need) can be bought for like under 30 bucks...

 

[Anton P. Nym]

.
Sony's current multiplayer model puts the burden on the developers to support their own multiplayer, the same as the PC market does. That's free to Sony, but it does make it tougher for the developers.

But, leaving it up to the developers also gives them more freedom with how they run the online component of their game. That is why UT3 supports mods and the keyboard and mouse combo on the PS3 but not on the 360. Surely letting the community add things to your game isn't a bad thing.

Well, sometimes it can be *cough*aimbots*cough* but user-generated content is nice to have; I'm hoping that XNA will show MS that they can loosen the restrictions on stuff like mods without jeopardising the network. (Assuming, of course, that it doesn't blow up in their faces with 6000 variants of Attack of the Pedobears.)

But my point was that Live takes the cost of running these servers away from the developers, and makes it easier for developers to make online functionality by letting them use Live's existing network. That means the Xbox will (in theory, anyway) draw more third-party developers and mid- to small-scale developers in and hopefully lead to more variety in games. It's sort-of working that way in the Arcade, though there's a risk the big developers might crowd out the little ones just by porting their old titles over.

-- Steve

 

[TheLoneOne]

I think you forgot to factor in staff. You don't "buy" staff (anymore *cough*) you hire them... and they need salary, benefits, office space, lights, etc. Xbox Live has its own building staffed with people whose only job is to keep Live running. I don't doubt that MS is making a profit on Live, but there is a reason they're charging.

Sony's current multiplayer model puts the burden on the developers to support their own multiplayer, the same as the PC market does. That's free to Sony, but it does make it tougher for the developers.

-- Steve

That would be true if it were on property not owned by Microsoft, which I'm sure it is owned by them. And 250 million could more than fund a company of thousands much less a division of maybe 200, so, regardless of what you may think, Microsoft is making some good money off Live and most of it's profit or at least make up for the operating losses of the 360's prior hardware failures.

And although giving the online gaming responsibilities to the devs might put some strain on them whereas letting Microsoft bare the burdon, it also gives the devs more freedom to work with the online component of the game, like with Unreal Tournament III, which allows users to add mods to the software, much like a lot of the PC games. Whereas with Xbox Live, the devs are at the mercy of Microsoft and whatever restrictions they may have.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Jamash I get what your saying but it's a frikin' Gamerpic, not a custom Helmet for your Halo 3 player, it's just a God damn picture, and you can get a different picture for one extra dollar (or pound..)? What seperates that picture from the other pictures? Seirously, there's like a trillion pictures on the net and I can upload any single one onto my avatar for escapist, but for Motorhead on XBL we gotta pay a buck? I'm sure it's worth it but bear with me I don't have XBL, so I don't know how awesome that motorhead theme is but if a 1 dollar motorhead theme is seen as a "status symbol" then it also sounds like another case of "trying to justify getting ripped off" - I've got tons of themes for my PS3 and online for my PC at like, Stardock or something, or a motorhead wallpaper, honestly I could go on forever but what makes the other picture worth the 1 dollar? I just can't see it, it feels like being nickle and dimed.


EDIT: Err, blarrgles, where did you get all that? I've been hearing (and experiencing) the exact opposite of everything you said, except the number of users for PSN and XBL, and I thought XBL was a lot smaller than that, and PSN wasn't so embarrassingly small but nowhere close to XBL's numbers. As for download speed, are you on Wi-Fi? cuz my PSN downloads are fine, both XBL and PSN feel the same to me, so I guess ISP has a lot to do with it.

Got them from various sources a while ago. Obviously numbers have increased on both systems since then. Over 12 months old infact.

Just trawled around for a bit. Over 12 million regular live users and 9.8 million total PSN users at last count for both. Both a good few months out of date though. PS3 sales have taken off a fair bit more recently though since bluray won the format war. Curious though how many PS3 users are regular users versus how many have just signed up for the odd thing.

And yep on wifi with both consoles. 360 is further away from the router. And my ISP is bethere based in the UK 24 mbit download. So can easily download large amounts of data quite quickly waiting 4 hours for 1gb via the PS3 was somewhat annoying.

Now I don't agree with the pricing of themes and gamerpics etc which is why I wont buy them. The only thing I do tend to buy is game updates expansion packs etc. I think that is a rip off that they charge for small pictures. But actual service MS wins everytime in my experience...bar Christmas but hey I had the PS3 to fall back on.

What I do wish they would do is standardise the price though. I just fail to see how $50us = £40 UK and $80AUS. Where is the fairness in that!?

One more thing about download speeds, and it makes sense that the PS3's is slower because it's wi-fi receptor is terrible, I put a toothpick in the way and it's down to 50% - but when I keep it closer to my router it's no problem, no lag either, some random disconnections but I think that's the player servers fault, but so far my experience has been pretty equal, and another thing, I'm not 100% sure on this so correct me if I'm wrong, but are the PSN files bigger? I thought they were uncompressed and usually had a hefty size so downloading just naturally took longer, I guess Sony just assumed everyone would have the HDD to cover it.

Oh yeah, it's also nice to put the system updates on a flash drive, sometimes it's just a "bad day" for the update.

Also I'm sure you could say the same about all 3, I mean, all it takes is one sign up and you are part of the big count.

 

[SteinFaust]

i'd have to have DSL/CABLE to even begin to care.

 

[shatnershaman]

Well the addition of Netflix that only requires a gold membership will keep it from being free.

How to pay for XBL

Step one. Don't speed->better mileage->buying less gas-> money for XBL

or

Get a hair cut and get a real job. (and the obscuro-meter goes up another notch!)

 

[squid5580]

Where I'd love it to be free (vs the 60 a year cuz I live in Canada) I can't really complain for what I am getting. All online games with full voice chat (ok so that may not be great all the time but...). It has to be easier on devs since they don't need to worry about this server or that which means games come out faster. And for 5 bucks a month this isn't so bad. And if they are making a profit off of it well good for them. Any company making a buck in the industry isn't a bad thing. At least they will be around for a while yet.

 

[buggy65]

i dont really mind spending 50 bucks every 13 months for live... if it keeps the grease in xbox's servers well lubricated, well more power to em!

 

[Eagle Est1986]

How to pay for XBL

Step one. Don't speed->better mileage->buying less gas-> money for XBL

or

Get a hair cut and get a real job. (and the obscuro-meter goes up another notch!)

Well, as ever shatner, you completely miss the point, your predictability almost surprises me sometimes.

 

[Nargleblarg]

I'd say xbox live should be free we already bought the system, the games, and microsoft is one of if not the richest company in the world.

 

[Deadman Walkin]

Xbox Live shouldn't be free because it costs money to run the servers and keep the maintenance. The have a few million customers worldwide and provide an excellent service. A price drop would be nice though.

I would have to with you, Paying for XBL should cost some money, I would say a little less, but it is definitely worth it.
"Eagle Est1986: I can understand the arguement that you're really paying for all of the 'tidbits' surrounding Live, but my arguement is that Microsoft offer all of those things for free, to those with a silver subscription. So effectively, you're just paying to play in online multiplayer."

Very untrue, Silver account is much more limited than you think. You cannot send messages to anyone, although you can read messages/accept friend requests. Also of course, online play, and you are not able to have 1-1 conversations.

I have a xbox and I really enjoy it even though silver account sucks. It is much more fun to play xbox live with friends than say, in my opinion, PC/PS3/Wii games.

 

[MSORPG pl4y3r]

I think it should definitly be free, I wouldent mind paying but its to bloody pricy to do exactly the same as most and less than oh say Steam, I dont care how user freindly Steam is cause its cheap to buy their stuff and its FREE TO PLAY!

Also on a personal note; I'm loath to pay cause of the way most other players on live on live treat me, not XBL's fault I know but they still piss me off to high hell!

 

[Bakery]

Wait wait wait, if PSN can be free why can't LIVE?

How do you think Sony keeps PSN free? If they can make their online service free then why can't MS? I would honestly like to know, because if you break it down PSN offers pretty much exactly what LIVE offers for free with more updates along the way.

It's actually quite funny how many people missed this fact as being the main point the author was trying to make in this thread.

*chuckles*

Let me just say it again for you...

If PSN can be free, why cant LIVE?

 

[xMacx]

When PSN gets 10 million people, what do you think Sony will do? Will they just all of a sudden start charging people or are they going to upgrade their service entierly so people won't have to pay? Since PSN started free it will stay free even when there are 10 million people using it.

So that's what you know or what you think Sony will do? Or are you stating your opinion as fact? I'm confused.

I saw this a while back, which makes sense; as you get more users and server costs go up, I'm not sure how you eat that cost:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=178464

And cut them a piece of a slack, this is Sony's first real attempt at online.

I humbly request you repeat the exact same thing when the 360 tries something new.

And I may be wrong on this or I could completely word it wrong, but isn't LIVE one big server as apposed to PSN which has multiple servers? IF that's the case, wouldn't PSN be the one charging 50 a year?

Not following your logic, but here's a quick post about how Live works: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/xbox-live.htm

 

[Jumplion]

When PSN gets 10 million people, what do you think Sony will do? Will they just all of a sudden start charging people or are they going to upgrade their service entierly so people won't have to pay? Since PSN started free it will stay free even when there are 10 million people using it.

So that's what you know or what you think Sony will do? Or are you stating your opinion as fact? I'm confused.

I saw this a while back, which makes sense; as you get more users and server costs go up, I'm not sure how you eat that cost:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=178464

And cut them a piece of a slack, this is Sony's first real attempt at online.

I humbly request you repeat the exact same thing when the 360 tries something new.

And I may be wrong on this or I could completely word it wrong, but isn't LIVE one big server as apposed to PSN which has multiple servers? IF that's the case, wouldn't PSN be the one charging 50 a year?

Not following your logic, but here's a quick post about how Live works: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/xbox-live.htm

It's called a Premium, something I'm not sure LIVE is familiar with as there is no alternative to my knowledge to gain access to the internet without paying. If LIVE ever did become free, it would be just like what the MMOs do which is give you part of the game for free but give you the choice of a premium for all the good stuff. I don't know the details of Silver and Gold membership, but the focus of them is playing online which Silver doesn't and you have to pay for Gold to get, or atleast that's what I think is the real difference. Though upon reading your link, it says that Silver membership has access to online play but with "usually additional fees", sooooooooo does Silver membership have online play or not? I'm confused now.

And after further reading, it turns out that Gold Membership makes you pay to play against people even more of your skill level, which I find slightly idiotic as why do you need to pay to play against people your same level?

Could someone please clear up what the hell LIVE does and it's subscriptions and stuff? I'm really getting confused as to what the hell LIVE and the Gold and Silver memberships offer.

If PSN ever did get a subscription it would most likely be (IMHO) to get extra content, kindof like what the Qore package on PSN does but more like Gold Membership except even if you don't pay for the subscription you can still play online which would technically be free, you'd just pay for extra content which many people do.
-----------
Okay, as soon as the 360 does something new I will ask people to "cut them a piece of a slack" but until then, ehh. I mean, the online for the PS2 was pretty much slapped on as an after thought, though (this is the part where I try to balance out my argument) they did do some MMOs before like Everquest and another one which escapes me.
-----------
From what I read in the link (didn't read all of it but I'll be sure to read the rest soon) it didn't tell me how LIVE works in the way I wanted it to tell me. It's pretty much talking about all the wonders and magical things that is the LIVE service and how to connect to it. I know from some posts here that LIVE is supposed to be one big server (or I just read them wrong) and because of that it can be extremely laggy while PSN has many different servers which doesn't make it as laggy, in theory at least. Or something similar to that, I'm not to sure about how either one of them works exactly.

@Bakery: Errm...is that supposed to intimidate me or help my argument? But I will say it again, if PSN can be free why can't LIVE? MS is certainly rich enough to support their own servers, and the apparantly robust MarketPlace surely gives them more than enough money to support itself, let alone a few extra bucks at server maitenence.

I honestly don't see why LIVE can't be free as they easily make money from plenty of other things, though I guess you could say the same hting about Nintendo as they're swimming in cash but then again I guess they still have to keep the kids away from pedophilles.

 

[xMacx]

First, re-read the article on live on answers - and focus on the link on the technology used.


http://www.xbox.com/en-US/LIVE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live

http://www.answers.com/topic/xbox-live

If the PSN network ever reaches decent size, expect the maintenance fee to come rumbling.

And there's a great article on Microsoft research about the research program out of Cambridge that developed the algorithms for the TrueSkill skill rating system (which I highly appreciate - after too many years of ending up in matches I was too good or not good enough for on PC's, consistently landing in just right matches without doing anything is truly awesome.) I'd link it, but it doesn't sound like you'd read all of that, either. But I'd imagine that's what part of those funds went to.

And I'm down with funding projects that are specifically designed to make my gaming experience better. That's just me.

I appreciate that you REALLY like one of the consoles. I do. But I think you're going to have to try live out (find a friend or something) before you scream all over the cost. I own both, I use both, and I find the live system much better. Better enough that I'm happy with paying. But you can't argue it until you use both, right? That's why you see a number of people in this thread that are fine with it. Instead of forum-mongering, go try it out for a few games of whatever titles you like, and then come talk about it. You don't have to like paying for it (or use it), but it would probably help to be first hand informed. All this "Someone explain it to me!" should probably be translated to "Someone let me come use theirs!"

 

[Jumplion]

First, re-read the article on live on answers - and focus on the link on the technology used.


http://www.xbox.com/en-US/LIVE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live

http://www.answers.com/topic/xbox-live

If the PSN network ever reaches decent size, expect the maintenance fee to come rumbling.

And there's a great article on Microsoft research about the research program out of Cambridge that developed the algorithms for the TrueSkill skill rating system (which I highly appreciate - after too many years of ending up in matches I was too good or not good enough for on PC's, consistently landing in just right matches without doing anything is truly awesome.) I'd link it, but it doesn't sound like you'd read all of that, either. But I'd imagine that's what part of those funds went to.

And I'm down with funding projects that are specifically designed to make my gaming experience better. That's just me.

I appreciate that you REALLY like one of the consoles. I do. But I think you're going to have to try live out (find a friend or something) before you scream all over the cost. I own both, I use both, and I find the live system much better. Better enough that I'm happy with paying. But you can't argue it until you use both, right? That's why you see a number of people in this thread that are fine with it. Instead of forum-mongering, go try it out for a few games of whatever titles you like, and then come talk about it. You don't have to like paying for it (or use it), but it would probably help to be first hand informed. All this "Someone explain it to me!" should probably be translated to "Someone let me come use theirs!"

I was screaming about the cost? I didn't think that, but sorry if you thought i was being an arrogant twat or something.

I have played on LIVE before though through a very limited experience on Halo 3 and CoD4 and VERY breifly on Gears of War. Other than some bigots here and there, it was basically fine. I didn't see much of a difference between PSN and LIVE during the time I used them as my PSN experience is generally average, sometimes good sometimes bad but average overall.

And go ahead and post the article, I'd be more than happy to read it it's just I basically skimmed through the other link(s) since I a bit tired now but that's no excuse. And from what I read the links you gave me were just telling me about the wonders of LIVE and all that, not neccisarily how it works just how to connect to them and what it offers. I could be wrong as I admitedly havn't read the entire thing, but go ahead and post it I like reading. Why do you think I type up these long posts I'll be sure to re-read the first link you gave me though. Plus it shows how the other consoles work so that would be helpful for future references.

Either way, I still don't see how LIVE can't be free or atleast have a Premium as I've said before. The MarketPlace is (supposedly) bringing in more than enough money for MS to make showers and pools with, not to mention movies and shows and the upcoming Netflix rentals (which Sony is now doing all of those which could be another way they keep PSN free). This is another honest to goodness question, how did MS make Games for Windows online fee free? (I'm going to go out on a limb here) If they did the same thing with the Windows online thing then I'm sure they could atleast If the PSN fees come like you say, then I personally think that it would be Premium-based as it probably the smartest move to do after making PSN free for a couple of years.

EDIT: Ah yes, forgot to mention that if LIVE goes free and the premium and all that, ads would be disabled. I have not had ads shown to me yet but I've heard things that LIVE is full of ads so you're basically paying for ads. If there's a premium for LIVe then it would be with no ads, so that's a plus, and that's what many other websites do.

 

[shadow skill]

Then what about the PC market? Let's also admit that most games on Xbox Live use a player connect protocol to even let players play online. There are plenty of other ways to get the funds needed to maintain the servers. I see ads all over the place when I turn on my 360 so what the hell am I being charged for when I know damn well it really is not for playing the games since it's my own goddamn connection that is doing the real work? What's next charge me for MSN messenger?