Why is Microsoft not giving Xbox Live free?

[GonzoGamer]

Because people will pay for it.

You can harp on the PSN all you like, but Steam does everything Xbox live does and costs $0/ever.

Why was the comment above this one moderated? It basically said the same thing.

This was my answer too.

If nobody paid for xblgold when the 360 launched, you would've eventually seen it go for free.

But so many people were willing to pay for it for so long that MS raised the price of it without even waiting for the next generation... and people kept paying.

The fact of the matter is that if you're a game company (platform developer, software developer, or even a retail chain) that has enough fanboys on your side you can get them to pay anything and offer very little in return. Look at how well gamestop does and they're probably the biggest drain of funds for both gamers and publishers.

 

[Dragunai]

I got the £25 for a year deal on the Xmas just gone.
SO if the online service is better than the PSN which is free, then paying £25 for a year of improve service which I use a lot of just seems like a pretty reasonable arguement.

Of course Microsoft are one of those borderline bankrupt companies than need to charge for their online services. I mean its not like they average a few billion a year and are just being greedy at all.

... Hang on a second...

 

[aba1]

I've never understood how XBL is a good service. There's no community unless you already know people or randomly friend people in games, there's no dedicated servers, the content they put out is godawful (in the UK at least) and it doesn't offer anything you can't get from a dozen other sources on the PC.

I can only assume the people who extol the virtues of XBL have never used a PC.

the real reason is it isnt free is because we will pay for it

sorry but Mr gates loves him some money

Bill Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for a few years. That explains how something as wretched as 7 could slip out.

You don't like Win7? Why?

I'd have to ask the same, Win 7 converted me back to Windows from Linux. Seems brilliant to me.

win 7 is just a mac rip off thats not as user friendly and im saying this a person who runs both os's

 

[Kadoodle]

having to pay for something free on other consoles is a waste but xbox live has just too many features from better multiplayer to nice social networking options

Excuse me? Multiplayer is in no way better. Also, the social experience is shit due to the fact that 50% of the community is comprised of pre-teen boys screaming "******," among other things.

The PSN is like omegle, occasional trolls, but an overall clean and a decent experience. Xbox Live is like Chatroulette, you may be more "social", but half of the time you stare at some asshole's dick.



Answer to OP: Because they [Microsoft] can, and because people are too dumb to say "To hell with this shit."

i think your confusing your self psn remember psn is the one which sucks remember

You didn't provide any logical argument there; you just dismissed mine and responded with "Nuh-uh, PSN sucks.'

 

[RA92]

the real reason is it isnt free is because we will pay for it

sorry but Mr gates loves him some money

Bill Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for a few years. That explains how something as wretched as 7 could slip out.

are you trolling?
because i can't tell.
Really if you aren't trolling then your missing a few upstairs. It was a vast improvement over vista (adoy since vista was the horribly buggy grandaddy of 7) and pushes 64 processing, which is the way of the future, add in higher RAM allowances and a few nifty things like the slice tool and rotating background selection and you have a fairly good OS. There is debatabley some bloat in the form of processes, but nothing which can't be stripped down with a bit of technical knowledge or flat out ignored due to the power jump.

You have puzzled me good sir.

Don't forget that Win7 is <url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html>more secure than a Mac.

Halvar Flake, head of research and CEO of Zynamics: "General state of affairs: Vista/Win7 has more extensive countermeasures against attacks and a codebase with presumably fewer security issues.

Rich Mogull, CEO, Securosis: Microsoft has done more in terms of its inherent security features than Apple has in the operating system.

Charlie Miller, a principal analyst at consultancy Independent Security Evaluators: Technologically speaking, PCs are a little more secure than Macs. Macs have a larger attack surface out of the box (Flash, Java, support for a million file formats, etc.) and lack some anti-exploitation technologies found in PCs like full ASLR [Address Space Layout Randomization]. This means Macs have more vulnerabilities and it's easier to turn a vulnerability into an exploit on the platform.

Tyler Reguly, senior security research engineer, nCircle: If you believe the hype and the flashy commercials the answer would be Mac. But if you take a look at the two platforms, and the mindsets of the companies behind them then the PC wins hands down. If you compare Windows 7 to Snow Leopard, then the simple winner is Windows 7. Microsoft brought in teams of security professionals to look at their code and find problems leading to a more secure product while Apple is often criticized for ignoring issues.

 

[RA92]

 

[aba1]

fact is I would have to try to download a virus on my mac but on my pc I have to be careful

 

[Kermi]

I pay a subscription to XBL for the same reason people pay ten bucks to register at Something Awful. It keeps out the majority of the riffraff. And yet, people still troll, harass, swear, abuse, mod, hack, sell services, and treat Uno like their personal chatroulette jerk-off room.

I can't imagine how bad the PSN would be if it was as popular as Xbox Live.

 

[kimba_lion]

they are just money hungry

 

[Fwee]

Because they can, and it's boatloads of overcharge for almost no work.

 

[Smagmuck_]

It's called business, they need to make money. Sony has made enough money to where they don't need to charge for Online services because they've made enough from their computer industry to do so, and those said computers usually *GASP* Windows. Microsoft likes to keep a good amount of cushion money so if the economy takes a really bad tumble, they'll still be afloat. And for the idiots who go "Hurr Durr $50 too expensive." It's fifty dollars a YEAR. And they have a choice of payment options, ranging from a monthly fee, to a three month fee, to yearly. Yearly is the cheapest because saving $5 a month isn't too bad...

The sooner some people get over the fact Microsoft wants to keep itself alive so they charge a measly yearly fee, and just accept it, the sooner we can move on as a gaming culture...

 

[Paragon Fury]

Because you get what you pay for.

Xbox Live is arguably the best entertainment network right now. It has many features other networks don't, much of its content is easily accessed and usable, it gets many exclusives and early content, and has an extensive, efficient and often very effective tech/customer support network.

Compare this with the PS3, the Wii or even the PC, and its only 16 cents a day.

Its a damn good deal.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

This is funny if you ask me. I got a 360 for my 13th birthday. I enjoyed it untill I discovered live. Then I lost interest. I got a ps3 the next christmas. I can't put it down. Why pay for something you can get for free? Sure my ps3 freezes from time to time but it didn't produce the red ring like my 360. I say that ps3 has better quality, better power, and all around better design. Haters gonna hate but that's my opinion.

 

[gigastrike]

Because people pay for it. People always say "stuff should be free!", but why would Microsoft pay any attention if the same people are shelling out for it on a regular basis?

 

[DanteVX]

The fact I have to pay for the Live service was the reason I stopped playing on Xbox really. It's very rare that I actually want to play online, but when I did for a few games with friends a couple of years back it meant we had to go out and spend £60 on a subscription. Which I stopped using after 3 months.

I just feel that if I have bought a game with online multiplayer, then I should be able to use the feature without hindrance from those who make my system. I agree with the PSN way of doing things, with their recently released subscription service. You can, if you want, pay for extra content, exclusive games, earlier release times etc, but you don't have to pay just to play the games you have already bought.

For me, what the gold membership should be if you want the extra's like facebook, netflix, pointless avatars etc. These are not what I bought the system for. I bought it to play games, and after paying for the system, the game and hell even the internet itself, I then have to subscribe to play my game.

In summary: On a game system, games should come first. Social networking and interconnectivity come second.

 

[Hellblazer12]

I own a Xbox 360 and repeatedly having to pay for a Xbox Live Gold Membership is quite annoying. After a while i started thinking about why Microsoft isn't giving Xbox Live free. Surely its to make more money and the Xbox Live service and benefits is quite worth it but surely they must realize that they lost many costumers to Sony's PS3 due to this and that this is always a major disadvantageous point when used in console wars. I am open to all views and opinions.

Cause servers, bandwith, updates, and the staff to take care of it all costs money? And Microsoft is not going to do something that actively loses money. Especially when there is a large fanbase willing to pay for it.


Companies exist to sell people a product, in this case entertainment is the product, and make a profit. Sony loses money on PSN; they only made PSN free to try to take some of Live's consumer base. Sony would charge if they could. Blizzard charges for WoW for the same reason: there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If no one would pay for it and the service drained more money that it brought in, why in the world would Microsoft offer Live? That would be stupid. The gerbils in accounting at Microsoft probably have done a lot of analysis, balancing the cost of Live and the profit it brings. They probably determined that charging for live brought in more money than offering Live for free would generate in increased 360 sales.

Does that sum my opinion up for you, OP?

To pose my own question to this forum, why do people feel that they are entitled to services they did not pay for? I mean, I can't go to the supermarket and say "I bought your milk, now give me a free glass and free cookies to go with it." I don't think anyone would.

Online multiplayer is a service above and beyond the primary purchase price of a console. Companies are well within their rights to charge consumers for it.

Hey,Thanks for your post,actually,I'm not saying that I'm opposed to it (although it says that in my previous post). XBL is much worth the money and effort spent on it.I just created that post so that I could have other people's opinions and views on the topic in addition to mine.I am aware that Sony loses money by offering PSN free.Your post(essay) is quite a convincing argument and it would do well to put things in perspective for other people too.So Thanks for replying

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I guess because the Live online service as a whole is slightly better than the PSN, but perhaps not enough to warrant that much of a yearly fee...

 

[Hellblazer12]

The fact I have to pay for the Live service was the reason I stopped playing on Xbox really. It's very rare that I actually want to play online, but when I did for a few games with friends a couple of years back it meant we had to go out and spend £60 on a subscription. Which I stopped using after 3 months.

I just feel that if I have bought a game with online multiplayer, then I should be able to use the feature without hindrance from those who make my system. I agree with the PSN way of doing things, with their recently released subscription service. You can, if you want, pay for extra content, exclusive games, earlier release times etc, but you don't have to pay just to play the games you have already bought.

For me, what the gold membership should be if you want the extra's like facebook, netflix, pointless avatars etc. These are not what I bought the system for. I bought it to play games, and after paying for the system, the game and hell even the internet itself, I then have to subscribe to play my game.

In summary: On a game system, games should come first. Social networking and interconnectivity come second.

Thats a good point of perspective,Thanks for replying

 

[DarthFennec]

Because people are willing to pay for it. If you provide a service, why not make some money from it? Also, most people subconsciously believe that free services are generally not as high quality as paid services, so the fact that XBL costs money makes it seem better than PSN to a lot of people.

Not that I agree with any of this, I think Microsoft is scamming us to charge us for XBL. But as long as people are willing to pay for XBL, Microsoft will continue to charge for it.

 

[Hellblazer12]

This is funny if you ask me. I got a 360 for my 13th birthday. I enjoyed it untill I discovered live. Then I lost interest. I got a ps3 the next christmas. I can't put it down. Why pay for something you can get for free? Sure my ps3 freezes from time to time but it didn't produce the red ring like my 360. I say that ps3 has better quality, better power, and all around better design. Haters gonna hate but that's my opinion.

Thanks for sharing and NOT being a sony fanboy (no offence)