Poll: Should Xbox Live Be Free?
- Thread starter Eagle Est1986
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Im sure i sound like a fanboy, but i speak truthfully...Microsoft go for instant cash, making you PAY for your online because online is what people want.
Sony on the other hand make you pay for the package, and that includes free internet of course, its one of the three main reasons i don't own a 360 any more, I'm not forking out £60 for a wireless adapter, paying for games and the console, THEN have to pay for going online.
Sony on the other hand make you pay for the package, and that includes free internet of course, its one of the three main reasons i don't own a 360 any more, I'm not forking out £60 for a wireless adapter, paying for games and the console, THEN have to pay for going online.
I think it's wierd for a console to boast player connecitivity and online play... and then to mumble "for a nominal fee". In my eyes, it's just one more reason why PC is better. I shouldn't have to pay for something I can get for free on a gaming system with more games.
Microsoft is a company, a companies base goal is to make money.
If they feel they can charge you for something and you will pay for it, they will. It would take a huge drop of profits and user-base to make them alter their decision about charging for their service.
If they feel they can charge you for something and you will pay for it, they will. It would take a huge drop of profits and user-base to make them alter their decision about charging for their service.
If they could make it free, and eliminate one of the largest reasons people get a PS3 instead of a 360, they would. So apparently, they can't do it. Congrats to Sony for makeing there online free, good luck to Microsoft in improving Live, and we consumers will try to pick through all of this to find out what's best for us.
The thing is that Microsoft has SO many other sources of income that making Xbox Live free should be no hassle at all. Like someone else pointed out, you still have to pay for Microsoft Points and other stuff like that, so even if they're not cashing in on subscriptions, they're cashing in on downloads. That, combined with the HUMONGOUS amount of advertising on Live, should more than cover the cost of server maintenance while feeding the entire continent of Africa for seventy years.
No, because we pay for xbl, we get a better online service for it. PSN is decent, because it's free. But xbl is far more fleshed out, and better maintained, because we pay them to keep it so.
Yes, it should then I might use it. It's bad enough having to pay for broadband and the stupidly overpriced network adaptor to then have to pay for Live too.
Although I hate the necroing of this thread, I'll join in on the discussion
See thing is, Live has advertisements already. They're on the dashboard when you log in. There's no real reason it shouldn't be free.phar said:
I have been playing xbox live for about 3 years now and i have enjoyed every second i have played it! and i have tryed PS3 online and it is always lagging and neally all content cost!
You know the old saying "You get what you pay for?" It certainly applies here.
PSN is terrible compared to XBL. Poor Customer Support, spotty patching, poor content features, and overall poorer online service than XBL. But hey, its free, right?
Wii Online doesn't charge anything because there really isn't anything to charge for - there are no leaderboards, stat tracking, dedicated servers or anything like that. Its all P2P, and all relavant information is stored on the Wii itself. Wii Online functionally is also basic enough where there would be no sense in charging for it.
There are very few online games or systems out there that go into as much detail and depth as the XBL system that are free, if any.
And besides, for everything you get, you can't say XBL isn't worth at least $40 a year. You get unlimited online play, fast and free patching, movies, music,TV, well-intergrated and useful community features, reliable, if annoying at times, customer service, game content, free community events, and lots of special offers.
PSN is terrible compared to XBL. Poor Customer Support, spotty patching, poor content features, and overall poorer online service than XBL. But hey, its free, right?
Wii Online doesn't charge anything because there really isn't anything to charge for - there are no leaderboards, stat tracking, dedicated servers or anything like that. Its all P2P, and all relavant information is stored on the Wii itself. Wii Online functionally is also basic enough where there would be no sense in charging for it.
There are very few online games or systems out there that go into as much detail and depth as the XBL system that are free, if any.
And besides, for everything you get, you can't say XBL isn't worth at least $40 a year. You get unlimited online play, fast and free patching, movies, music,TV, well-intergrated and useful community features, reliable, if annoying at times, customer service, game content, free community events, and lots of special offers.
The only thing I can think of on your list that PSN doesn't have is the community features, is that really worth £40 a year? I really don't think it is but then I don't like people. Actually, thinking about it, PSN now has Home which as a community feature, beats the crap out of Live's party chat.Paragon Fury said:
Also, PSN now lets you stream music videos to your PS3 for free, they're pretty good quality, even on a 40" tv, and they've got thousands of videos to choose from. I'm pretty sure you have to pay for the on the 360 don't you?
I think a lot of you have a very negative view of PSN, it's changed a lot since the PS3 first came in, it's really not as bad as so many of you seem to think it is. In fact, it's great for a free service.xXGeckoXx said:
Btw, I know I'm sounding like a Sony fanboy right now and I apologise but it's only because most of the posts seem to be weighted in Live's favour, I'm just trying to give Sony's side a bit of weight.