Xbox live Why does it cost money.

[Quoth]

I did just get a few updates for my copy of Forza 3 that I couldn't get without having XBLA. I doubt it was enough to justify the price. I have a PS3 as well, so I'll be getting any MP games for that instead.

 

[Soulkiller3]

Xbox live Why does it cost money.?

becouse people who complain still pay for it.

 

[akmarksman]

No, it really isn't. It might work fine for gaming (in my experience it's been atrocious, however that's not my point) but from a technological standpoint it's very, very dated and poorly implemented. It's simply another avenue where people are willing to pay and microsoft are willing to charge, P2P hosting connections are not smart, they are not new and they most certainly are not complex or costly.

Hooking up new xboxs to the network actually makes microsoft significant amounts of money through advertising long before user fees are accounted for. It gives the system a greater choice of hosts and allows the matchmaking to work better. It's a brilliant bussiness model, but the tech behind it is subpar at best, the only way some in IT would think it's a good system is if they're profiting off it, it's a horrendous system for the user (which is exactly why PC gamers so readily reject it).

I was a PC gamer long before I was a xbox/360/LIVE user and I really like the way MS is doing things. Yes it has ads and even ads in games,but what DOESNT have ads these days?

 

[Chipperz]

Aaaaaaaaaand we have a winner! The 360 is more stable, has more features and uses the money to get more exclusives. Take (just off the top of my head...) Fallout 3. The cash you spent on X-Box Live paid for the DLC for that to come out on the X Box and Games for Windows versions waaay before the PS3.

The DLC which you also had to pay for? Smells like double dipping to me.

They pay to get the licences, it's that simple. Sony didn't offer Bethesda as much money as Microsoft, so Fallout 3's DLC was put on sale on Live first.

Let me put it in a ludicrous example; If Megan Fox, Rose McGowan and Ellen Page were in a three-way lesbian porn movie, adult channels would pay hand over fist (hehehehehe) to get it onto their netowrks first. The Playboy Channel and Television X are subscriber channels, their viewers pay good money to watch their porn, and they get advertising revenue. They can offer the three young (yet over eighteen) ladies lots of money to get their film on pay-per-view first, while The Nuts Channel puts the costs on the film's producers, but airs free. Eventually, when the initial rush to see it dies down, it'll go on the Nuts Channel where cheapskates can see it for free, but the people who were willing to pay good money to see it pay-per-view on the subscription channels get to enjoy it first, because that is how business works.

 

[Fappy]

one word: Microsoft

/thread

 

[Dys]

No, it really isn't. It might work fine for gaming (in my experience it's been atrocious, however that's not my point) but from a technological standpoint it's very, very dated and poorly implemented. It's simply another avenue where people are willing to pay and microsoft are willing to charge, P2P hosting connections are not smart, they are not new and they most certainly are not complex or costly.

Hooking up new xboxs to the network actually makes microsoft significant amounts of money through advertising long before user fees are accounted for. It gives the system a greater choice of hosts and allows the matchmaking to work better. It's a brilliant bussiness model, but the tech behind it is subpar at best, the only way some in IT would think it's a good system is if they're profiting off it, it's a horrendous system for the user (which is exactly why PC gamers so readily reject it).

I was a PC gamer long before I was a xbox/360/LIVE user and I really like the way MS is doing things. Yes it has ads and even ads in games,but what DOESNT have ads these days?

Every other subscription based (so MMOs) gaming? Even PC hosted dedicated servers (which ISPs run at a cost) have minimal ads (they do tend to be named after the service provider, which I suppose counts as advertising). Xbox live is the only paid gaming service I'm aware of that has ads, and it's got far more ads than any other service I'm aware of (yes, even more than steam).

As I said above, it's not a clever or particularly brilliant system, it's functional but I can't see how an IT professional would be impressed with the setup, it's primitive and basic.

 

[Space Spoons]

Of course, that's far too much work for the average 360 gamer.

I lold. Not bad. I mean, if Sony started charging for PSN, all ps3 gamers would get together and start a revolution, most likely overthrowing the communist regime in China and stopping the curroption here while there at it. PS3 gamers, on average, are less lazy and way more intelligent than the average 360 gamer.

/sarcasm

In my experience, gamers are pretty much the same all over. If the situation were reversed, and Sony was charging for online while Microsoft was offering the service for free, I doubt things would be any different. That's just the way many gamers are.

 

[Lord George]

Meh its losing them my money, as if a games available for both the 360 and PC with multi-player I'll go for the PC version simply because its going to be free to play (also the PC games are usually slightly cheaper

 

[Flamezdudes]

You don't need to have Xbox Live Gold to download Demo's (although some do) and you don't need Xbox Live Gold to buy DLC( Downloadable Content.) It's purely for multiplayer, facebook etc..

 

[squid5580]

A game or two? Not even a game.

Games are $60, Xbox is $50 for a year.

I don't know why. I just grin and bear it. I wish it was free, but it likely wouldn't be as good.

Must be nice I'm paying 70 and 60. It used to be the same as a game but developers said no way and boosted the price by 10 bucks.

 

[Darktau]

Microsoft wants money. End of.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Xbox Live costs money because gamers are willing to pay for it. If all the Xbox Live users of the world banded together to stop paying for Live for a year or so, while very publicly praising the free online systems of the Wii and PS3, I'm sure Microsoft would change its tune.

Of course, that's far too much work for the average 360 gamer.

It took a while before I saw this common sense remark. Simple reason they charge: they are able to get enough people to pay. Why did it take them so long to fix the rrod? Because at first when they didn't have to fix all of them, they were just selling more units. Why does gamestop charge only a couple of dollars less than new price for a used game? Why did R* charge $20 for their dlc/mission packs? The answer is all the same, people will pay it.

Even if everybody boycotted xbl, it would take them a few months before we would even see a discount model.

A lot of companies have the idea gamers are a bunch of suckers (and wherever did they get that idea?) with deep pockets and most of them want to tale us for all we got.

 

[Souplex]

Servers cost money to maintain.

 

[Treblaine]

However, Xbox live does generally tend to be much better that the PSN (less lag, better interface etc),

I heard this over and over again and as someone who owns both a PS3 and Xbox 360 I have to say I don't buy it for a second, if you compare the two platforms then 360 is a horrible lag-fest.

PS3 has DEDICATED SERVERS for most of its top titles! Ask any PC COD fan and they'll tell you how important those are and they reduce latency SO much and allow for huge and complex maps with massive player caps, nothing 360 has comes close to Resistance 2's 64 player online maps. Now MAG is coming out I have to admit it is putting the best PC online has to offer to shame. TO SHAME!

I like my 360 for fun games like Dead Rising, Crackdown and Bayonetta (also XBLA titles like shadow complex) but online is a joke, I will NOT be renewing my XBL gold membership (I only got the first 3 months free).

 

[Apackof12Ninjas]

When will people not get it through their thick skulls that XBL servers cost money to maintain. AS do PSN servers. The only difference is that Sony pays their server bill and XBL subscribers pay Microsoft's server bills. In turn XBL offers the exceptional service that millions of XBL players keep coming back for, where as PSN does not, though this may change when they introduce their "premium" service.

 

[Treblaine]

I said to never mind what I just said. I knew my argument was invalid shortly after I wrote it, hence why I put a strike through it.

Well, I can't blame you for trying.

When will people not get it through their thick skulls that XBL servers cost money to maintain.

WTF! There are no dedicated servers for XBL, only a few (literally a couple hundred) listen-only servers which just pass on the heavy lifting to the consoles in peoples homes where the games are hosted.

Who paid for the "servers"? You did, when you bought your Xbox 360!