Do you think Xbox Live Fees should be tiered?

That's why I said shotgun blast. I'm not going to over quote and direct the fire at individuals (plus that could lead to uncivil conversation). Also, I'm claiming fanboyism coming from on both sides. The no reason to defend your place so hard. You had a 360 and you are moving on to a PS3. No biggie.



Figured I'd throw this out there

http://kotaku.com/5520985/xbox-live-getting-a-tv-channel
According to sources speaking with Bloomberg, Microsoft is in talks with former News Corp. President Peter Chernin (who's currently got a gig at Fox) over bringing a TV channel to its Xbox 360 console. Beginning earlier this month, the discussions revolve around bringing a full channel of programming to the 360, which would include both new shows and re-runs, all aimed at a "young, male target audience".
The channel would be a joint venture (and would be co-owned) between Chernin and Microsoft. That's all the...news. Now the bad news: it seems that in order to foot the bill for this, Chernin has suggested raising the price of an Xbox Live Gold subscription by a dollar or two a month.
Seems a bit steep for something many people wouldn't be terribly interested in, what with the fact their TV sets already have TV channels on them that bring them TV shows. But that's one of the key drawbacks of Microsoft's all-encompassing subscription model, I guess.
If you think this is all crazy talk, at least it's consistent crazy talk, as Bloomberg's sources say Chernin was also the one floating the idea of bringing Conan O'Brien to Xbox Live a few weeks back.
Chernin Said to Discuss Creating Xbox TV Channel With Microsoft [Bloomberg]

Send an email to the author of this post at [email protected].
Click to expand...
Add that to the talks about an ESPN channel and we have another bullet point. Those together would certainly raise the yearly cost of LIVE $10. I'm o the fence about a "show" on LIVE. A big name like Conan would be nice, but would drive up costs. A TechTV/G4/AOTS/XPLAY clone isn't appealing. I'm not sure I want my 360 to provide that kind of content. I'd also hate to pay for some D list hosted show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='J7.']So you're not using the stuff yet you don't think you're paying more than if you were only charged for the stuff you use because they added more things that you don't use.
[/quote]

I paid $30-35 a year for live before they added these features. I've paid $30-35 a year since. So no, I haven't been charged more.

And you don't think you're paying for Netflix even though that's all you really use. And now you wouldn't keep it only for Netflix even though you were just saying that's why you've kept Gold. So are you now saying you're not going to renew Live? I don't mean to be in your face, but you seem to be doing some serious flip flopping between each post, which are against what I had to say. If you don't renew are you going to get another Netflix device like the Bluray player you mentioned?
Click to expand...

Last fall I decided to renew mainly for Netflix, but also for Modern Warfare 2--which I didn't end up playing as much as I thought. In the past I had it solely for gaming as I was playing more online with CoD4, Halo 3, Gears 1 etc.

I'm undecided on whether to renew next year or not. If I don't I probably wouldn't rush into getting another Netflix enabled machine as I haven't been watching much streaming content the past 6 months or so as free time has dried up since finishing grad school and starting my career.

I could always stream on my laptop etc. if I got the urge--or just up my disc plan back to two out at a time if I find one disc plan isn't enough without streaming.

In any case, I definitely wouldn't pay just for Netflix streaming on the X-box. I view it as paying for the gaming which I used before and don't now--the Netflix is just a freebie.

But I wouldn't pay anything for Netflix by itself since I already pay Netflix and I can stream for free on my computers etc.
 
[quote name='animalspinners']Unless you have real life friends to play games with, and can play all your other online games free on the PS3.

Halo and Gears have offline co-op / multiplayer modes that are a lot of fun and I don't have to deal with the horrible "community". I guess I'm in that 1% who doesn't find it worthless and consider myself lucky, but it's going a bit far to declare that if you don't have Xbox Live the 360 isn't worth it. I don't really use the friends list or any of those features, even when I had Gold, so I guess I'm in the minority.

I agree with what was said earlier too about paying per console (but they probably couldn't do this since when your console breaks, they don't send yours back)... I have multiple people in my house, and we would have to shell out $30 - $50 per year for each person. Yet we can just buy DLC once and everyone can use it?[/QUOTE]

They should be able to do it per console even if it broke, it would just be like transferring licenses, which they do when you get a repair. I agree 360 is worth it without Live (of course I would ;) ) but I also agree with Blitz that many 360 owners would not be playing without Live, at least nowhere near what they do with it now.

[quote name='reddjoey']That's why I said shotgun blast. I'm not going to over quote and direct the fire at individuals (plus that could lead to uncivil conversation). Also, I'm claiming fanboyism coming from on both sides. The no reason to defend your place so hard. You had a 360 and you are moving on to a PS3. No biggie.



Figured I'd throw this out there

http://kotaku.com/5520985/xbox-live-getting-a-tv-channel
Add that to the talks about an ESPN channel and we have another bullet point. Those together would certainly raise the yearly cost of LIVE $10. I'm o the fence about a "show" on LIVE. A big name like Conan would be nice, but would drive up costs. A TechTV/G4/AOTS/XPLAY clone isn't appealing. I'm not sure I want my 360 to provide that kind of content. I'd also hate to pay for some D list hosted show.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I mistook shotgun style as shooting out a number of different points, I didn't know you meant to different users. First I've heard that lingo. Point noted.

I'm not moving onto a PS3. I'm actually playing my 360 more lately. I'm only moving my online play to PS3. Again I don't see any fanboyism in wanting to only pay for what you use on Live or any system for that matter. I haven't said anything other than that. I defend that hard because I feel this is not fanboyism at all from me.

If these tv shows are added to Gold and the price goes up, you find yourself in the same position as I am now. If it's something you won't use you don't want to pay for it. Wouldn't you prefer these tv shows be optional? This gives more significance to Pachter's prediction - not saying he has the best track record.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I paid $30-35 a year for live before they added these features. I've paid $30-35 a year since. So no, I haven't been charged more.



Last fall I decided to renew mainly for Netflix, but also for Modern Warfare 2--which I didn't end up playing as much as I thought. In the past I had it solely for gaming as I was playing more online with CoD4, Halo 3, Gears 1 etc.

I'm undecided on whether to renew next year or not. If I don't I probably wouldn't rush into getting another Netflix enabled machine as I haven't been watching much streaming content the past 6 months or so as free time has dried up since finishing grad school and starting my career.

I could always stream on my laptop etc. if I got the urge--or just up my disc plan back to two out at a time if I find one disc plan isn't enough without streaming.

In any case, I definitely wouldn't pay just for Netflix streaming on the X-box. I view it as paying for the gaming which I used before and don't now--the Netflix is just a freebie.

But I wouldn't pay anything for Netflix by itself since I already pay Netflix and I can stream for free on my computers etc.[/QUOTE]
You're not charged more than what you used to be. You are charged more than what you're using. You used to use Live for online, now you only use it for Netflix. You're not just paying for Netflix. So you're not going to renew unless you start playing online again.
 
[quote name='J7.']
You're not charged more than what you used to be. You are charged more than what you're using. You used to use Live for online, now you only use it for Netflix. You're not just paying for Netflix. So you're not going to renew unless you start playing online again.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, most likely I'll let it lapse--though mine runs out right around Gears 3 coming out, so I'll probably renew to play that in online co-op with my friend that I played the first 2 in local co-op with who now lives 11 hours away since I moved.

The fees annoy me as I'm paying for stuff I could do free on other platforms. But at the end of the day, $30-35 a year is pocket change so it's not a big deal to keep it around even if I'm not using it heavily. But yeah, if I'm not playing online and still not doing a lot of Netflix streaming I may let is lapse this time.
 
[quote name='J7.']
Sorry I mistook shotgun style as shooting out a number of different points, I didn't know you meant to different users. First I've heard that lingo. Point noted.

I'm not moving onto a PS3. I'm actually playing my 360 more lately. I'm only moving my online play to PS3. Again I don't see any fanboyism in wanting to only pay for what you use on Live or any system for that matter. I haven't said anything other than that. I defend that hard because I feel this is not fanboyism at all from me.

If these tv shows are added to Gold and the price goes up, you find yourself in the same position as I am now. If it's something you won't use you don't want to pay for it. Wouldn't you prefer these tv shows be optional? This gives more significance to Pachter's prediction - not saying he has the best track record.
[/QUOTE]

I might have used shotgun incorrectly.

I agree with wanting to pay for what you use, especially with content/apps/services I don't feel are worth paying for. For me (and some other OG Xbots) GOLD was bare-bones and we were paying for multiplayer, so anything that is added is a bonus to what we were used to paying.

I don't think Facebook/Twitter/Last.fm/Netflix are justified as reasons alone to go GOLD since you can buy PlayOn and stream Netflix and internet radio with a silver account.

I do see your position. That's the reason I posted about the shows. The shows would add a new dynamic that could justify a tier, but I only see the prices going up, not down. Any lower tier would certainly be pointless as MS won't put multiplayer in a lower tier.
 
[quote name='J7']You're not charged more than what you used to be. You are charged more than what you're using. You used to use Live for online, now you only use it for Netflix. You're not just paying for Netflix. So you're not going to renew unless you start playing online again.[/QUOTE]

That's really his decision to make whether he wants to use Netflix or not. He could just as easily let the subscription go if he doesn't really want to pay the $30 up front for it. He isn't being charged more. Although, I understand your viewpoint on paying for online service. However, for many of us who can afford internet, games, and a system, putting down another $30 a year isn't a large investment. I just think you're being a little nit-picky on the subject, as I'm sure many Xbox users are happier with the sheer presence of new services. I'm sure many users beforehand (2005), paid the $30 up front simply for the multiplayer experience. Many of those same people look at these extra services as bonuses or an expansion of current software.

Would you be complaining about this if Microsoft didn't add these extra incentives?

Microsoft has made the service better for those who had a gold membership previously. It might be logical to lower the price of service over the years, but Microsoft have done some promotions, and as mentioned in the previous posts, you could just as easily get a 12 month card for $30.
 
[quote name='Ichigo1993']Many of those same people look at these extra services as bonuses or an expansion of current software.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It was $30-35 a more, and I was teetering on ditching it as I was playing online all that often.

But the added features--especially netflix--made it more worth my while. Now i can pay $30-35 a year and have the ability to game online when I want, and also have a convenient way to stream netflix on the TV, listen to Last.fm through my home theater etc. If they hadn't added Netflix etc., I probably wouldn't have renewed this year.

So that was a big part of renewing last fall, and if I decide to renew again that will be a big part of it--I get not just the ability to play games online and not just the ability to do netflix etc.--I get all of it to have to use if I have time and interest. Where as I'd personally be pretty unlikely to sign up for any single part of the service ala carte, bundled together it seems like a better deal to me. So it's a good marketing strategy I guess!

Next year will be evaluating how much I've been using Netflix, how much I want to play Gears 3 online etc. when it runs out in Feb or whenever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='reddjoey'] For me (and some other OG Xbots) GOLD was bare-bones and we were paying for multiplayer, so anything that is added is a bonus to what we were used to paying.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Think of Live as a loaded SE DVD or BD. You buy the DVD(Live) for the movie(online play), and everything else is just bonus features. You may not watch or use them all, but they are there if you want to check them out every once in a while.
 
i think we should get a free download every month -.- its rediculous that we buy a game then have to spend $10 to get more of it which should have been on the game in the first place! we're already paying just to use their service, but thats just me wishing that would happen, it never will lol :p
 
[quote name='reddjoey']I might have used shotgun incorrectly.

I agree with wanting to pay for what you use, especially with content/apps/services I don't feel are worth paying for. For me (and some other OG Xbots) GOLD was bare-bones and we were paying for multiplayer, so anything that is added is a bonus to what we were used to paying.

[/QUOTE]

I agree completely.

I don't know why some people think I don't (not you) because I stated I agree on this earlier.

[quote name='Ichigo1993']That's really his decision to make whether he wants to use Netflix or not. He could just as easily let the subscription go if he doesn't really want to pay the $30 up front for it. He isn't being charged more. Although, I understand your viewpoint on paying for online service. However, for many of us who can afford internet, games, and a system, putting down another $30 a year isn't a large investment. I just think you're being a little nit-picky on the subject, as I'm sure many Xbox users are happier with the sheer presence of new services. I'm sure many users beforehand (2005), paid the $30 up front simply for the multiplayer experience. Many of those same people look at these extra services as bonuses or an expansion of current software.

Would you be complaining about this if Microsoft didn't add these extra incentives?

Microsoft has made the service better for those who had a gold membership previously. It might be logical to lower the price of service over the years, but Microsoft have done some promotions, and as mentioned in the previous posts, you could just as easily get a 12 month card for $30.[/QUOTE]

I did not say he shouldn't pay for Netflix, he's free to do whatever he wants. I was just pointing out that he is paying for stuff he does not use because he was acting like he wasn't. See our older posts.

I'm happier to see new services too. I've owned 360 since day 1 and used Live since day 1 of owning 360. I was happy when movies/tv shows came, when indie games came, when the new dashboard came, and when I saw Netflix and the other stuff even though I currently do not use it, I am glad it's there.

I stated people see the new services as a bonus. At the same time I know they're trying to justify the price of Live in comparison to competitors who are increasing their online features without cost, by adding extra services each year. If they did not add these extra services I would not want a lower tier. I don't know if I would just want a lower price or be okay with paying for only what I use. I don't think they would keep charging what they are without adding stuff.

If they had tiers, they'd also have deals on the tiers from time to time. So if it was $20 for online only I could probably pick that up for $15 at some point.

[quote name='jab1235']i think we should get a free download every month -.- its rediculous that we buy a game then have to spend $10 to get more of it which should have been on the game in the first place! we're already paying just to use their service, but thats just me wishing that would happen, it never will lol :p[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately there are too many people willing to spend $70-$100+ on each game they own, if the stuff did not sell very well it would be free or included on the disc. Publishers will do anything they can to increase their bottom line. We live in the age of milking.
 
[quote name='J7.']If they did not add these extra services I would not want a lower tier. I don't know if I would just want a lower price or be okay with paying for only what I use. I don't think they would keep charging what they are without adding stuff.
[/QUOTE]

See that's what was throwing me off with your argument before, but now I get it though I disagree.

I do think they'd keep charging what they are even if they hadn't added stuff. Live has always has the MSRP of $50 a year even when it was just online gaming. PSN has always been free.

MS will either eventually go free or they'll always charge $50 MSRP IMO regardless of what features they add. For me, the added features have kept me paying up through this year, when I would have dropped it otherwise. So they have a good thing going business wise by putting more features than just gaming on the Gold tier. It keeps some like me that don't game much paying the fee, and for those that only game they're still paying the same they always were so it's no different to them.

So in short, they have no business reason to go to tiers--I'm sure all their marketing research has shown them that they make more with just having one paid tier. If it was clear they could make more money having multiple tiers, they'd have done so. But studies probably showed that the majority would go with the cheaper gaming only tier and they'd thus make less money. Again, a lot of people wouldn't pay for a more expensive tier for Netflix, Facebook, Last.fm etc. when that's all stuff they can do for free on their PC and other platform. Most just sign up to game, and some use some of those other parts of a Gold account as well, but most wouldn't pay more to have access to them.
 
My only issue with the tiers is that, if they did it, any online gaming would be in the highest tier. So, things like deals/netflix would be in the lowest tier (for those wanting to use a 360 for something other than games), but games will always be the highest.

I do find it funny how MS basically pushed that less than $5 a month is nothing to game online, and now probably half the people really believe it. It's a fact, and I pay it every year (usually find a deal to pay around $35 for a card), but I'm not thrilled by it.
 
No one's thrilled about paying for an online service, but for $35 a year, it's not a bad deal. MMOs cost $15+ a month and there are CAGs here who pay that fee religiously. That makes $35 /year seem like nothing. Now, the thing I don't get are those people who always buy 1 month cards... Every month the same kid comes into my job and buys a xbox live 1 month card. He's paying $96 /year for live, when he could just save up his money for 2 months and get it for a whole year.
 
This is only my opinion and its based on how often I play online. The only thing I think would be great is if they only ding you for days you are actually playing on Live, but only because I'm not on Live 365 days in a year, I play maybe two or three times a week online max. Just a thought.
 
[quote name='J7.']
Unfortunately there are too many people willing to spend $70-$100+ on each game they own, if the stuff did not sell very well it would be free or included on the disc. Publishers will do anything they can to increase their bottom line. We live in the age of milking.[/QUOTE]
i hate that but your totaly right, i've only bought addons for fallout 3 when it was half off but for other games i've been almost totaly against it. although some games have weekly free items or stuff like that now which i think is great! i also heard that microsoft was thinking of adding tv shows for xbox live or something like that which would increase the caust of live by $1-$2 a month or $12-$24 a year -.- not confirmed though.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']See that's what was throwing me off with your argument before, but now I get it though I disagree.

I do think they'd keep charging what they are even if they hadn't added stuff. Live has always has the MSRP of $50 a year even when it was just online gaming. PSN has always been free.

MS will either eventually go free or they'll always charge $50 MSRP IMO regardless of what features they add. For me, the added features have kept me paying up through this year, when I would have dropped it otherwise. So they have a good thing going business wise by putting more features than just gaming on the Gold tier. It keeps some like me that don't game much paying the fee, and for those that only game they're still paying the same they always were so it's no different to them.

So in short, they have no business reason to go to tiers--I'm sure all their marketing research has shown them that they make more with just having one paid tier. If it was clear they could make more money having multiple tiers, they'd have done so. But studies probably showed that the majority would go with the cheaper gaming only tier and they'd thus make less money. Again, a lot of people wouldn't pay for a more expensive tier for Netflix, Facebook, Last.fm etc. when that's all stuff they can do for free on their PC and other platform. Most just sign up to game, and some use some of those other parts of a Gold account as well, but most wouldn't pay more to have access to them.[/QUOTE]
Live has always gained more features once PSN came along. I think MS realized they would keep more subscribers by adding more features each year or lowering the price a little. They've done more promos and kept the price the same by going mostly with the new feature option, knowing the profit margin is higher.

I concede that they've always made more money by having 1 paid option. I think as time goes on and more people use other free services that tiers may make more financial sense, but yes they should definitely add more services if they go tiered like some I mentioned in recent posts that I didn't mention in the OP.

[quote name='sykotek']This is only my opinion and its based on how often I play online. The only thing I think would be great is if they only ding you for days you are actually playing on Live, but only because I'm not on Live 365 days in a year, I play maybe two or three times a week online max. Just a thought.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a cell phone type plan. Minutes Hours Days vs unlimited.

[quote name='jab1235']i hate that but your totaly right, i've only bought addons for fallout 3 when it was half off but for other games i've been almost totaly against it. although some games have weekly free items or stuff like that now which i think is great! i also heard that microsoft was thinking of adding tv shows for xbox live or something like that which would increase the caust of live by $1-$2 a month or $12-$24 a year -.- not confirmed though.[/QUOTE]

I never buy dlc, I think it's a rip off and I won't support that business model at least as little as possible. I do admit that I'd probably buy some dlc, like a few games each generation that are my absolute favorites. So far this gen I haven't bought any.
 
Pricing is fine the way it is - don't think I've ever paid more than $35 + tax for a year, and to me the price is well worth it.

More importantly, it's not like the price has ever gone up when they've added features - don't give them any ideas. =P
 
i do however like how they have started giving us weekly sales, prices for the oldern xbla games seem to high, tbh i really don't like xbox live store, points are stuipid and confusing and the prices of stuff seem to high. i like the ps3's store alot better.
 
Heres the real gist of it: As far as lowering their price or reorganizing their live system into tiers as a matter of competition = I dont see that happening.

Consider the fact that weve all already voted (with our wallets) long before they began to offer more content and new features. I dont think that a single person here would disagree with me if I said that XBox as a brand has never been the "model".

Not saying that all of these are bad ideas. Just that I dont believe they view it in the light that we do.

Also it needs to be said that all these new features like LastFM ,Facebook Netflix ,. coupled with hardware updates like Natal and FlashDrive compatibility ,. on top of NOW they want to start streaming Live events and producing their own shows... All of that is an effort to squeeze another four or five years out of this gens console.

The basis of which is their pre established Silver/Gold system.
 
I really wish it was tiered. I never use the service to play multiplayer (can't stand playing with no point to it, and that's what multiplayer, to me, is), and I never use twitter/facebook/netflix, so if it was cheaper I'd really be happy about it.
 
[quote name='J7.']Live has always gained more features once PSN came along. [/QUOTE]

Live was around 6 years before PSN and in that time they updated the service on the original Xbox and totally revamped the service with the launch of the 360 and had at least one major update before the PS3 even launched. Updating the service had nothing to do with what Sony was doing. Hell, even thinking back, PSN was archaic that first year.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Live was around 6 years before PSN and in that time they updated the service on the original Xbox and totally revamped the service with the launch of the 360 and had at least one major update before the PS3 even launched. Updating the service had nothing to do with what Sony was doing. Hell, even thinking back, PSN was archaic that first year.[/QUOTE]

Live was around 4 years before PSN. Yup they also added arcade games before 360. I would hope any company would revamp their services with a new console. My point was not that Live was updated only because of PSN. I was just saying that they've added more and more features to combat PSN. I'm sorry if it came off as if I was stating they did it only since PSN, that would be incredibly stupid for anyone to think that.
 
Do people still feel that Live should not be tiered? How about further down the road, when they continue to add more features over the years and continue to raise the price higher and higher, where the chances are you'll use a smaller and smaller percentage of the new features than you do now as their scope broadens and they target more user groups. It will be like Cable TV...
 
[quote name='J7.']Do people still feel that Live should not be tiered? How about further down the road, when they continue to add more features over the years and continue to raise the price higher and higher, where the chances are you'll use a smaller and smaller percentage of the new features than you do now as their scope broadens and they target more user groups. It will be like Cable TV...[/QUOTE]

Not sure how it could be tiered and STILL have the option to NOT give my CC number to MS/Sony...

Frankly, I would rather have the retail code option we have now over a tiered system... I've never paid 50 dollars a year for live and I won't be paying 60 either.

Note: Live user since I've had broadband. (2 plus years) Just a normal user on PSN.
 
[quote name='INMATEofARKHAM']Not sure how it could be tiered and STILL have the option to NOT give my CC number to MS/Sony...

Frankly, I would rather have the retail code option we have now over a tiered system... I've never paid 50 dollars a year for live and I won't be paying 60 either.

Note: Live user since I've had broadband. (2 plus years) Just a normal user on PSN.[/QUOTE]

They could just make cards at retail for each tier with the unique key codes. Since the cheapest tier could be like $19.99, they could then eliminate the 1 month and 3 month cards if people think there would be too many cards. If there was any money lost on going tiered it could be made back by the fact that people wouldn't be able to buy cheaper 1 month/3 month cards.

You've never paid $50 and you won't pay $60, but you will pay $10 more now, and $10 more in another 3-5 years as they have much more users now so they can make price increases faster in the future.
 
[quote name='J7.']They could just make cards at retail for each tier with the unique key codes. Since the cheapest tier could be like $19.99, they could then eliminate the 1 month and 3 month cards if people think there would be too many cards.[/quote]

I think it would end up being far too many cards this way. Even if MS doesn't care retailers might. And what happens when someone with a 1 year for blah blah decides half way through the year he wants blah blah blah?

Honestly, just keep it simple...

[quote name='J7.']You've never paid $50 and you won't pay $60, but you will pay $10 more now, and $10 more in another 3-5 years as they have much more users now so they can make price increases faster in the future.[/QUOTE]

I've yet to have to pay 10 dollars more... We will see how retailers respond. I suspect I'll end up paying more but I doubt it will be the full 10 dollars. (and if it is that less than a dollar a month. I cannot even buy a double cheeseburger for that.)

As for what 3-5 years bring who knows... but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. You're talking about another console generation by then and Sony will likely be paying for online gaming by then. ;)
 
yeah, extra crap wich means extra price hike... even though i dont want it in the first place..... and now we get extra extra crap
 
I honestly think if you are silly enough to pay for p2p online gaming, you 100% deserved to be abused. Like a lot of things in real life, it takes serious abuse before someone learns their lesson. I hope they raise rates yearly and all you suckers keep paying.

After you've spent a small fortune just for the privilege of playing the games you purchased online, maybe then you'll wake up and see what was actually going on.
 
I really REALLY wish they had a tiered system. It is pretty frustrating that the price hike e-mail bragged about adding ESPN and Kinect, two things that I will never ever use. I pay for cable so I can watch ESPN/NESN/etc and I have less than zero interest in Kinect.
 
Well ESPN3 is still useful even if you have cable--it gives you pretty much all the college football and basketball they have on their pay per view packages for instance.

That said, I could definitely support a tiered system if it had a lot of options.

I wouldn't like it if it was gaming for one price, and then gaming plus all these other features for a higher price. I don't really game online and mainly keep Gold for Netflix etc. currently, so I'd only benefit from tiers if they had a gaming only tier, and media only tier and then a highest price tier that had both.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well ESPN3 is still useful even if you have cable--it gives you pretty much all the college football and basketball they have on their pay per view packages for instance.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that exactly what www.espn360.com has for free for all cable subscribers?
 
[quote name='prence']Isn't that exactly what www.espn360.com has for free for all cable subscribers?[/QUOTE]

Same thing. ESPN 360 just changed it's name to ESPN 3. I was just saying that ESPN 3 isn't redundant with having ESPN 1 and 2 on your cable as it has tons of stuff not shown on the TV networks.

And it's not on all ISPs--most major ones have it for free but not all. I don't get it at my current place where DirecPath is my ISP.

But in any case, it's not a benefit of Live anyway since it won't work if your ISP doesn't support it. Only benefit is being an easy way to get it on the TV for those of us who don't have a PC hooked up to a TV. So it' doesn't in anyway justify the price increase for Live. Same with Hulu plus as you'll still have to pay monthly for the Hulu plus account for it to work.
 
I'm not a huge sports fanatic, so ESPN means little to me. It's also not supported by my ISP. I don't use twitter, netflix, facebook, last.fm. so if these services are costing live much more, i'm all for a tiered approach. I just want online play and that's pretty much it.
 
I'm angry about paying for online multiplayer when developers like EA can take online gameplay down and make it impossible to get online achievements. That to me is the biggest injustice with the way MS handles xbox live and its pricing.

I'd rather keep Xbox memberships simple and not create multiple tiered membership types. Gold and Silver (or PSN+/Regular PSN) is good enough, its just a question as to whether what you get is worth the expense or not. And I really think XBL is becoming less of a good value. Twitter on the xbox is worthless; facebook is only slightly better. I never use Last.fm because it won't run in the background. I would use the netflix streaming but I have it on my tivo and just use that instead. I won't bother with ESPN- I think I already have ESPN3 and rarely watch it, why would I care about it on the 360?
 
I think it's a bunch of crap that they have the balls to brag about all of the content they've put up, and that we should somehow be thankful for it. Sorry, but I don't use ANY of the extra garbage they've added. All I do is is play online, that's it!

What really pisses me off is that it continues to be a P2P service, so I always experience lag and crap.

I'll definitely think twice before renewing my subscription when the time comes around next year, and I'll definitely remember this when the new Xbox is released.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well ESPN3 is still useful even if you have cable--it gives you pretty much all the college football and basketball they have on their pay per view packages for instance.

That said, I could definitely support a tiered system if it had a lot of options.

I wouldn't like it if it was gaming for one price, and then gaming plus all these other features for a higher price. I don't really game online and mainly keep Gold for Netflix etc. currently, so I'd only benefit from tiers if they had a gaming only tier, and media only tier and then a highest price tier that had both.[/QUOTE]

But if thats what you need why not just get a cheap THPC? That way you can get Netflix and you will get ESPN3 right now if your ISP supports it. Seems to me that would make more sense than keep paying for live.
 
[quote name='62t']But if thats what you need why not just get a cheap THPC? That way you can get Netflix and you will get ESPN3 right now if your ISP supports it. Seems to me that would make more sense than keep paying for live.[/QUOTE]

It's an option, but I'm not much into tinkering with PCs and don't really want a PC sitting next to my TV stand. Plus the hassle of needing a wireless keyboard and mouse etc. TV inputs is an issue as well. Both HDMI ports are in use (my receiver is old and doesn't have HDMI) and the TV has no RGB computer input.

And I do game online some--not enough that I'd keep Live just for that though. But I do at least get some use out of it.

Ideally my ISP will eventually add ESPN3 and I can get a new Blu Ray player down the road with Netflix and ESPN 3 built in (it's bound to go to other hard ware sooner or later).

But in the mean time I'll just pay for live as it's not much money at the end of the day and is the most convenient option for me currently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the main reason that we are getting charged this extra $10 is b/c of stupid service name ESPN3 and kinect Video chat

I dont know why i have to be charged extra for things I never use anyway. same with XBLA they overprice everthing nowadays 1200 points for almost everthing on the arcade of summer. and overpriced DLC like the Cerberus Network 1200 for that crappy little DLC.

My question Why do i have to pay extra to use features i can get free on my PC
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's an option, but I'm not much into tinkering with PCs and don't really want a PC sitting next to my TV stand. Plus the hassle of needing a wireless keyboard and mouse etc. TV inputs is an issue as well. Both HDMI ports are in use (my receiver is old and doesn't have HDMI) and the TV has no RGB computer input.

And I do game online some--not enough that I'd keep Live just for that though. But I do at least get some use out of it.

Ideally my ISP will eventually add ESPN3 and I can get a new Blu Ray player down the road with Netflix and ESPN 3 built in (it's bound to go to other hard ware sooner or later).

But in the mean time I'll just pay for live as it's not much money at the end of the day and is the most convenient option for me currently.[/QUOTE]
Thats true too but you can get HTPC that are smaller than a VCR, and some can control entirely with a remote. Whatever works for you I guess.
 
[quote name='62t']Thats true too but you can get HTPC that are smaller than a VCR, and some can control entirely with a remote. Whatever works for you I guess.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm more attached to my patience and convenience than my money!

It's also that I'm a neat freak and my tv stand only has 3 shelves that are already full, so adding another box means something has to move to the floor beside it which I hate doing!

So I'll deal with Live for at least another year and maybe pick up a new BR player with the streaming stuff built in. Or maybe upgrade my TV and get one of the TVs that has that stuff built in. The less boxes and wires in the home theater the better!
 
[quote name='INMATEofARKHAM']I think it would end up being far too many cards this way. Even if MS doesn't care retailers might. And what happens when someone with a 1 year for blah blah decides half way through the year he wants blah blah blah?

Honestly, just keep it simple...

I've yet to have to pay 10 dollars more... We will see how retailers respond. I suspect I'll end up paying more but I doubt it will be the full 10 dollars. (and if it is that less than a dollar a month. I cannot even buy a double cheeseburger for that.)

As for what 3-5 years bring who knows... but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. You're talking about another console generation by then and Sony will likely be paying for online gaming by then. ;)[/QUOTE]

I just illustrated how there could not be many cards... If there was 2 tiers there would only be 2 cards (LESS than the 3 cards they have now). If someone wants to change tiers he can buy another card, wait, or pay the difference through a feature on their marketplace using their points or credit card.

Of course you have yet to pay $10 more. The price increase isn't happening until Nov. If a price goes up you will likely pay that difference. Companies limit how much retailers can lower the price for their products, especially when they're also selling the item themselves.

Why justify paying more simply because it's not a huge increase... do you think that way about everything you pay for? How about your phone, cable, utilities, taxes, etc. If they only raise their prices by 20% do you justify paying them more because it's less than a completely unrelated item you could buy?

[quote name='h0mi']I'm angry about paying for online multiplayer when developers like EA can take online gameplay down and make it impossible to get online achievements. That to me is the biggest injustice with the way MS handles xbox live and its pricing.

I'd rather keep Xbox memberships simple and not create multiple tiered membership types. Gold and Silver (or PSN+/Regular PSN) is good enough, its just a question as to whether what you get is worth the expense or not. And I really think XBL is becoming less of a good value. Twitter on the xbox is worthless; facebook is only slightly better. I never use Last.fm because it won't run in the background. I would use the netflix streaming but I have it on my tivo and just use that instead. I won't bother with ESPN- I think I already have ESPN3 and rarely watch it, why would I care about it on the 360?[/QUOTE]

I agree with everything you say pretty much, except when you say just keep gold and silver and decided whether it's worth your expense or not. Why limit your options of getting only what you want and pay extra for stuff you don't use or don't get anything at all.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
That said, I could definitely support a tiered system if it had a lot of options.
[/QUOTE]

I'm happy you've changed your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top