Why is Microsoft not giving Xbox Live free?
- Thread starter Hellblazer12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And have indie games, and Cross-game chat, and can update your Facebook, and have clans/groups, and can be used as a match-making service. But Steam also has good deals and sells full-games, so yeah XBL is nothing like Steam.Jonabob87 said:
It's like bottled water. I falls from the sky and you can get it from the tap for less than a few cents a gallon, but someone like microsoft decided to put it in a bottle and sell it for a thousand times what it's worth, and some people still buy it.
The majority has already been said; it's a much better service with more benefits than a free service (hell even the free service is better than Sony's - minus the online gaming aspect of Sony's)
I pay for Live because it's a much better service which enables me to do all sorts of things, while I'm playing one game or not; party chat, game invites - all of which free-flow easily into one another making for a very easy gaming system (not to mention game-specific things like Halo's service record straight from the Blades, or Fifa etc)
I pay for Live because it's a much better service which enables me to do all sorts of things, while I'm playing one game or not; party chat, game invites - all of which free-flow easily into one another making for a very easy gaming system (not to mention game-specific things like Halo's service record straight from the Blades, or Fifa etc)
except most servers aren't provided through microsoft, they're provided through the company that makes the game. if microsoft ran dedicated servers to help reduce lag their service would be way better, and don't tell me that would be too expensive: bill gates is a multibillionaireSouplex said:
It's not much to pay for what you get.
I used to work in an EB - it made little to no difference in peoples choices in what they bought. Basically it went like this:
1. What their friends have (at least 70% of my sales were 'my mate/brother/etc has this one, give me that')
2. Owned an original xbox or a PS2
3. Exclusive games/number of games availible for that system
4. Price
5. The preference of the salesperson
6. Other
'Other' includes all the fan boy arguments that almost NEVER impact actual sales. The things everyone spends hours and hours debating on forums almost never impact sales to a huge degree.
I used to work in an EB - it made little to no difference in peoples choices in what they bought. Basically it went like this:
1. What their friends have (at least 70% of my sales were 'my mate/brother/etc has this one, give me that')
2. Owned an original xbox or a PS2
3. Exclusive games/number of games availible for that system
4. Price
5. The preference of the salesperson
6. Other
'Other' includes all the fan boy arguments that almost NEVER impact actual sales. The things everyone spends hours and hours debating on forums almost never impact sales to a huge degree.
Honestly, I havent a problem paying for XBL, my problem is that I cant use XBL most of the time. For the past 4 years, Ive been going to college. And for at least 2 years, my brother (the 360 owner) has had the 360 and XBL. Because Im home for three months during the summer, I can actually buy a 3 month membership. But im home several weeks during the school year for various holidays, and for a month during Christmas break. But the only membership options are for 12 months or 3 months, and buying a three month membership when im only going to be home for a week is stupid. I wish I could just buy something like a weeks worth of play time, at a time.
So, Ill pay for the service, but I can hardly use it without wasting money most of the time.
So, Ill pay for the service, but I can hardly use it without wasting money most of the time.
Multiplayer?TheKruzdawg said:
Pretty sure that's what he's referring to.
Also: TROGDORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Steam sells indie games, steam has cross-game chat, steam has a web browser so you can update your Facebook, I'm in several steam based clans/groups some across multiple games some for single games. Although it doesn't have matchmaking I can see what my friends are playing and right click -> join game to immediately begin playing with them. I prefer it when there isn't auto matchmaking in games anyway as I find dedicated servers provide a much better community. So yeah they are pretty similar.Ivan Torres said:
EDIT, quoted and replied to the wrong person, completely agree with you who I quoted. Apology
Get a job, you can't pay $60 for a year subscription? I have no issues paying for access. It is relatively cheap considering how often I use it. I have a PS3 as well but rarely do I access their online community and because it is free it doesn't make it any better/worse.
If we're going to list Indie Games as making a service similar to another then why don't we just use "they both use words" as a similarity. You can download Indie Games through Internet Explorer, that doesn't make it any more similar to Steam or Xbox Live. The same can be said of the Facebook comment.Ivan Torres said:
Certain games have support for clans/groups, not Xbox live, and while Xbox live fees go to support game servers those servers are the property of that games dev/pub.
On the basis of Cross-Game chat and selling content/deals I raise my hand and change my statement to:
I'll also say that while Xbox Live Gold memberships cost moneys (£30 for me, roughly translated to 10p a day) an Xbox Live free membership (tellingly) costs nothing. With a free membership you can do everything a gold membership can do except play online games (special events aside) and download certain demos, which generally become available a week or so later.
I use both Steam and Xbox 360 for different types of games (I can't ever imagine playing Total War on an Xbox controller or the rage it would induce). I do wish Xbox Live would come up with more kick-ass deals on full titles, although they do seem to be moving in that direction.
Now that I think about it, I can't believe that answer wasn't more obvious from the start.Easton Dark said:
And glad you like the Burninator. Otherwise he might have to burninate your village
YesHellblazer12 said:
Yes
No
and No.
To explain:
Yes it is a money-making venture, but you are right in that at least part of that money goes into ensuring it is a better service, runs smoothly, and has good content. In all honesty, having played several MMOs where you are paying a much higher subscription rate just for that one game, paying a yearly fee to play any Xbox Live multiplayer title is, in the grand scheme of things, great value for money.
Yes, having compared PSN to Live on my PS3 and my Xbox I can say that I am happy to pay for the (much better) service. I'm not saying PSN is crappy, and I'm not going to go into the (European) server stability issues on PS3 compared to Xbox versions of games like CoDBlops and B:BC2. The discounted rates for download games, and the content you get as a Gold subscriber I can happily say is 'worth it' in my opinion, especially for something that is cheaper than a years subscription to a games magazine and has articles and features (and videos) that are almost more informative more often and often less biased than many format specific magazines.
However, saying Xbox 'lost customers' to PS3 because PSN doesn't cost is a statement that may hold true for a very tiny minority, but it doesn't hold true for many dedicated gamers, especially online ones. To be honest, given the price-tag differences for the consoles, the added extra of Live doesn't even make the 250GB Xbox more than a 160GB PS3 (at least, in Europe, if they have closer parity in the US, discount this, and yes, that is for a console WITHOUT kinect included in the box), so it doesn't even boil down to cost and being able to afford the service. When a year's subscription costs as much, or sometimes less, than 1 full-price game, most hardcore gamers eat the cost up without blinking.
So maybe a few kids or younger teenagers without jobs or low allowances might miss-out on Live because they can't afford it (I see more than enough in my shop asking for the 3 month pre-pay cards to know this does happen), but you have to realise that the main thing that will make them choose one service over the other is peer pressure. Most younger consumers play what their friends play, so if two or three kids in a school year jump ship to PSN from Live and are up the social ladder enough, then sure, they will influence others to do the same, and they are just as likely to switch back later on too, usually influenced by what games come out on what console.
Saying this though, flying in the face of 'anti-payment' protestors, Xbox has talked and rumoured a few times about reviewing Live and how much it costs the customer. These days it is much cheaper to get online than it was when the console first launched, and with the service well established, Microsoft could possibly turn around and start discounting the Live service subscription as they no longer need as much to keep it running to the same standard. We've already seen many deals and packages for renewing your subscription cheaper, especially aimed at families post Kinect launch, where you get more for your money such as full download games or MS Points, or 20% off a year. Similar in many ways to the kind of deals and offers mobile phone companies advertise for their services.
Lastly, again, I disagree with the 'cost' of Live being a NEGATIVE when discussing console wars, but only because the service is, on the whole, better. Yes, cost is a factor for actually weighing up which one to buy personally, but when comparing the experience of a game, or games machine, as a whole, cost doesn't factor in. World of Warcraft is enjoyed by millions, but in order to play Cataclysm you have to buy ALL the expansions, so do you turn around and say that Cataclysm is bad because it costs the most? Or do you instead take it for its content, leaving individuals to decide if they can afford to buy it and play it? Naturally you look at Cataclysm for what it brings to the world, be you a new player or one well versed with the WoW game world.
Basically, PSN basic is as good a game download platform as Steam, or iTunes App store or Live, but in order to get a lot of what Live offers you have to subscribe to the premium service. Likewise, Steam and App store are little more than catalogues, App store especially. In terms of play-support and communication, and even just the front-end for it, Live trumps PSN and has done for a few years now, based on ease of use and seemlessness. One only needs to listen in to the amount of people talking on a PS3 online game versus the amount of chat on a 360 one on average to know that one system is much more integrated with its online features than the other. From personal experience (i.e, selling them to customers) more people who want good online matches and games go Xbox, while those who want to play 3D and Blu-ray go PS3.
Of course, those peope who can easily afford a 3D TV and the movies and the glasses and the rest, likely have an Xbox on a different telly that they use to massacre their mates on MW2 with!
-Tzatziki: Voice of the Specialist Games Retailer-
Quit XBL in 2009, when I realized Steam was the superior service. I had always known that PC was the better gaming platform, but to be honest, I was always intimidated by it. I only (briefly) went back to console for Red Dead Redemption.