Xbox live Why does it cost money.

[SilentVirus]

Microsoft just really, and truly loves the greens. Instead of putting all the things inside the console and features, they tore them apart and basically said "If you want to see how fun this thing can get, you better have another $150 on your hands buddy. We know campaign will get boring at some point."

 

[SageRuffin]

You pay $50 for a fucking full year's subscription. You can't even get magazines or internet porn for that little. A game or 2 for a full year, 365 fucking days?!

Really, you're just being silly.

Never mind this. No comment.

 

[Treblaine]

Quite simply: because they CAN!

PC gamers and the few console gamers (dreamcast) that were familiar with online in the 90's have learned all these lesson already:

-You NEED dedicated servers
-it can and SHOULD be free

But when Microsoft came along in 2001 (that's how old XBox Live is) they saw a new and naive audience entering the online space and seized them and have been exploiting their ignorance for almost a decade now. This audience had never even HEARD of Quake LAN parties or lag or anything like that, but the place microsoft succeeded was just collecting all these free elements into one SIMPLE package.

XBL is not confusing, just pay your money and it works. Doesn't work very well, costs a disproportionate amount, but idiots will pay through the nose for ease of access.

See Microsoft's entire foray into console gaming would likely have been a complete bust had they not been able to nickel and dime BILLIONS of dollars out of their consumers. I mean what microsoft are doing is as underhanded as building a tavern over a public well and charging you to use said well.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Microsoft is a Multinational multitrillion Company, it existence is to make money, so isn't there a better way to gain money by selling fantasies aka games?

 

[smudgey]

I'm currently on my one month Gold trial, and from the view of an Australian resident, can definitely say i have not been impressed with the service. Lag is horrible thanks to the lack of regional matchmaking in games such as MW2 (at least 9/10 games i try to play put me up against US hosts). And yes, there are apparently some services that can be used on live (ie facebook) but why should i have to pay for something i don't want to use, and if i did, could just use on my computer for free? If they had a Gold service just for online gaming at a cheaper price, and then a Platinum service with all the extra crap at full price it would be much more appealing.

 

[Cmwissy]

Because keeping up the servers, keeping all the kids safe; and filming/cutting/editing/interviewing the inside Xbox archive costs money.

It's £4.99 - It's not that much, World of Warcraft is twice as much and It's just one game (granted, a really good game)

 

[Treblaine]

You pay $50 for a fucking full year's subscription. You can't even get magazines or internet porn for that little. A game or 2 for a full year, 365 fucking days?!

Really, you're just being silly.

OK, will You pay ME $50 per year? It's not much, just hand over the money you cheapskate.

What will I give you in return? oh, i'll give you... err... I'll install a web browser on your computer... sure the browser isn't very good and there are many MANY free alternatives which are much better but how about you just forget about that and just hand over the $50 every year, kay?

I mean think about all the websites you can visit! (even though you don't have to pa my $50 to get to them you CAN et to them via paying me).

You should know by now there isn't anything in this world for free. Just like most websites, free for you but not for the owners and need ads on them to pay for it. Don't you think Sony works the same way!

actually the exact opposite is true, of all the many ways you can play multiplayer games online, Microsoft is the ONLY company that charges. Sony does not charge, Valve does not charge, no PC developer charges, Nintendo has never charged and never plan to, Sega did not charge. Hell Sony has free online across THREE platforms (PSP, PS2, PS3) and they advertise it in extensively and proudly that their online is free and will STAY free.

And a matter of fact, console-hosting online IS FREE!!! Microsoft aren't paying for any servers and the cost to them is minuscule yet the free PSN has loads of dedicated servers, like 64 player online for Resistance 2.

The only place where it is CLOSE to justified is MMORPGs where VAST numbers of people play for extremely long periods in massive worlds which is an incredible strain on the system, so much processing power and technical expertise is needed.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Because Microsoft likes money... a lot and then have a monopoly on the online service on the X-box. If there was a different service that was free like steam, or PSN then everybody would save "fuck X-box live" and switch.

 

[Nomanslander]

To make you think you're getting a better product.

It's like buying that 800 dollar suit you could have gotten for 80 at JCpennies...lol

For some reason spending a lot of money on something makes you think it's better...;P

 

[OdinSeraph]

First off I only own a 360, but am trying to save the money to buy a PS3 by the end of 2010.

Ok, here is something for the PS3 fan-boys (I refuse to state gender beyond it, if your female and a fan-boy, your a fan-boy) first.

BOTH X box 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles LOSE money for the company. (Not sure on the exact amount lost, Google it if your interested.) The companies have to recoup those losses. A company is out to make money. Microsoft has done this by selling Xbox Live Gold Subscriptions, which is pure profit to them, along with Microsoft points.

PlayStation 3 has the "Point" system but without charging for a service they are still losing money. They can conceivably be getting their money from their movie company, TVs or any number of other ways. The real thing you should be asking yourself is "How long until Sony decides to start charging so they can break even?"

Now, for you PC fan-boys.

Let me put this is a simple sentence "How much money does it take for you to keep a computer UP TO DATE to play the newest games?" Computer technology moves way too fast on the whole for it to be a fair bit. Most people who use consoles (Myself included, though I do game on my PC a lot) would rather put their money to games/accessories instead of upgrading parts that go obsolete in a month.

A fairly good graphics card alone will run you from 100-300 dollars American, plus RAM, Hard Drives if yours is running out, a new processor and a better Motherboard. Plus a Windows system. (Sorry, Linux does NOT have the full capabilities for gaming that Windows has, or the game library available.) Your now looking at between 400-800 dollars, hm.... at about $50 a game your talking at between 8-16 console games.

I own both an X-box 360, a PS2, a SNES, a Sega Genesis,an N64, a PC and an old Mac. So my opinions are not changed by only the console I am currently on but the simple idea that I want to play a fun game. If you don't like the price of XBL, don't pay for it, no one is threatening you or anything you own to have it. So quit bitching about it.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Compare it to the PSN or wii online, or even the free online services for PC games.

That's why.

Though if I where to take a guess I would probably say that more of your money goes into microsoft's back pocket than it does into providing and improving the service, but it's still there to some extent.

 

[Apackof12Ninjas]

The idea that it costs money because "its Microsoft" is simplistic. What you are paying for is:
- The service and mantainance.
- The servers, both for MP and for content (demos, movies, etc).
- The bandwidth to download games/demos/movies.

I know its not perfect, but XBox Live is a service with a significant cost, and the consumers pay for it.

The alternative is PSN, where the users don't pay for the service... The publishers does. The cost of mantaining PSN is transfered to the producers of content, not the consumers. In other words, the publishers have to pay to put demos or videos there, and have to pay for each MB of transfer that users get from these content (the bigger the demo, the more they pay). They also pay different rates on the first weeks than the followings.

That is why many publishers care so little about the quality of the games on PSN, they prefer to create demos only for XBox live, or not at all.

This /thread. Well said sir.

 

[The Eupho Guy_v1legacy]

That's not really trolling at all. Unless they're all lying about liking PC gaming.

Anyway,

Hip hip, horay!
Hip hip, horay!
Hip hip, horay!

You see, trolling has never been truely defined to me, at least i've haven't met enough people to actively state one opinion. But say i'm wrong about the term, what would you call what your doing?

To me it seems like your gloating, being smug, acting superior and this makes me feel that you are being unkind to users who don't game on the PC. Now if thats not trolling, what is the correct term i should use.

Are you Cruel?
Are you elitist?
Are you fanboys?

Whatever you are, i think you know full well your not being very nice to other members of this community, make a statement about why the PC is better and i'd be fine, just don't swoop in and make a thoughtless comment just to smear in others faces.

Okay, I previously owned an Xbox360, but sold it due to the lack of features. I prefer PC gaming by far. One thing that really got to me was paying for Xbox Live. Paying to use an internet connection you already have? Yeah, I'll pass.

Dude I love using my xbox to stream tv shows/movies from my file server. It's the perfect media box. Plus it does netflix. Rock Band is pretty much the only reason I bought a 360 since it's the perfect party game.

I'm mainly a PC gamer but there is the occasional title I'll pick up for the 360. Bayonetta is tons of fun. But Batman Arkham Asylum, Fallout 3, COD MW2, GTA IV, Borderlands I bought all on the PC.

Also if you play any "Games for Windows" it requires a live subscription as well.

Except, you know, Games for Windows Live is free.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

Three cheers for PC!

Hip hip, horay!
Hip hip, horay!
Hip hip, horay!

Hip hip, horay!
Hip hip, horay!
Hip hip, horay!!!!!!!!!!

its just a scam. like with phantasy star online. u pay for the game ($60 if u bought it when it came out), then u pay for xbox live($50 for the year or 7 per month), and theeeeeen you pay phantasys stars subscription($10-$15 per month i dunno which since i dont play it)....oh and wait then you have to pay ur internet($30-70 per month or higher) and if u reeeeally want to include the electricity then whoooo it costs alot to play that game in particular or any game for the 360 for that matter just minus the subscriptions...for now.

i love the pc so much and am thinking about getting a ps3 but for now microsoft will keep getting money from my xbox live sub... at least until i pass and sell all my 360 games. then ill sell everything n get a ps3 ^_^ i like free stuff

 

[Master_Fubar23]

oh i totally forgot about netflix. u have to pay for both netflix and a gold sub in order to use ur alrdy paid for netflix on the 360 when u can save money n just use a dvd player when the dvd comes in or use the comp. lol hell use the 360's dvd player since no need for a sub for that. really can anyone justify the xbox monthly subs cuz really if somecan that person is awsome and will reverse my thinking about the sub

 

[Jubbsy]

PSN does very nicely. I don't think you need all that messenger and stuff. As long as you can play your games online, that's all I need.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

server funding and maintenace among whatever else microsoft chooses

 

[robrob]

I have to second this. Microsoft is known for forcing people to pay for DLC against the will of the developers. Or that's how the Team Fortress 2 story goes. Sure, the charge for XBL is small. It has to be to ensure people will pay for it. BUT...do the math. Log onto CoD4 and look at how many people are online, then do the math for the minimum amount they are making on that group of people alone. Then make an estimate for every other game. Yeah, people say "Only 50$ a year? What a steal!" so they pay for it without question. But the quantity of paying subscribers multiplies to HUGE amounts of money. It's basically perfect equilibrium (if you've ever studied Economics, you know what that means). So yes, Microsoft is greedy. This might be pure greed, or it might be worry. Windows is quickly being made obsolete. So it might be semi-justified. SEMI justified. They could sidestep this worry by not sucking (but we all know that isn't going to happen, no Portal reference intended). So yes, charging such a small amount for such a basic service is a brilliant little scam. I'm taking to the PSN myself. I just got my PS3 and I love it a lot. If Microsoft were to die...meh. No real loss, I can live without it. *hugs my Mac*

I have actually studied economics, it's the price point at which demand and supply is equal. Which only sort of works, there are externalities involved.

But basically, you are someone who apparently who demands the product at a lower price than Microsoft wants to supply it at. If you'd studied economics, then you'd realise that this happens at every essentially every price above zero with a "perfect equilibrium" system. However, Microsoft wouldn't be willing to supply a quality service for free, most likely it would come in the form of a higher cost to the xbox itself. As such, we don't have a "greedy" situation, we have a normal market situation where Microsoft is happy to supply at $50 a year.

But the system isn't in equilibrium, it's not a perfect supply/demand graph. It's nowhere near a centre point, Microsoft could jack up the prices and still have a significant user base and make a greater profit. The problem is that the userbase itself is one of the desirable parts. If it's more expensive not only will some people be unwilling to pay that amount for the service, the ones who remain will be paying for a worse service. Instead they've priced it at a point where it gathers most of the users while covering the costs to provide a good service.

At the end of the day though, Microsoft provides a service that people desire and they pay for it. Most people seem to pay for it and are quite happy with it. Unsurprisingly, some people want it at a lower cost/free. Some people (namely me) want a $300 Ferrari. Microsoft's gaming and entertainment division is hardly rolling in the money, they've made significant losses for a lot of it's life and is only starting to do well now. It faces heavy competition on all fronts. If you want to talk about a product that should be free, I'd move onto Windows and Office, those are the cash cows that are milking us all.

 

[akmarksman]

Lets break it down..
I have bought 34 games for the 360 and those were full price $59.99 games =$2006 over 4 years

LIVE $50 for 1 yearx4 =$200

Being able to play those games with everyone from Auz to the UK,to Russia and when I first started playing MP games(co-op and adversarial) I had a 300k DSL download speed and I was doing just fine up to 8 players.When more people started joining LIVE and the Ubisoft servers were taxed,I'd lag out of a Ghost Recon Summit Strike map..but I'd be able to connect again.

I had the choice of PS2 vs.Xbox and I went with the xbox because I like the graphics and gameplay. then the 360 came out and that was it. I was hooked. I have bought 2 360s,probably 4 controllers,a couple of MS points cards,a lot of DLC and even a couple of TV episodes(the cable co.wont run cable down my street).

Overall the experience on LIVE is for me,a good one. Sure every adversarial game there are going to be campers,but when faced with certain situations..you find out how people react(good or bad) and I've encountered people as old as their 60s and they are competent gamers and ran into screeching 10 year olds and even they are useful.

The platform MS built is a good one. From a gaming standpoint and from a viewpoint of someone who works in IT.