Xbox LIVE - Will it ever be free? Should Sony start charging for PSN?

T

tinman_licks

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
So what do you guys think? Will LIVE ever be free? Seems odd why Buy.com, Walmart and Amazon decided to have a sale on 12 month cards at the same time. Could this mean they're trying to clear the inventory before something radical happens over at Microsoft?

Or conversely, will Sony ever charge for PSN? Since MS is making so much money off of it, Sony is losing possible profits.

UPDATE:
[quote name='tinman_licks']msdmoney (page 2) has got a good point about Steam. The real story though is how MS was able to successfully repackage features PC users have traditionally gotten for free and market it as a brand - a premium you have to pay for. It's a testament to their marketing strategy and the legacy of the original Xbox LIVE service, an investment that finally payed off in this generation because it helped initiate and indoctrinate in the public's mind the illusion that it's a premium service you have to pay to get.

But what exactly are you paying for? I can understand paying for cable because you are receiving constant, new content. But what content is MS really selling us? Inside Xbox videos? Community and Developer playdates? Those are just marketing tools. What it boils down to, the only real product they are providing you with is access. Access to play online with other users. Sounds pretty insubstantial. The users themselves host the games. Yeah sure, $50 is a pittance to pay but aren't we already contributing with ad views and purchases on the marketplace. The business model of LIVE reminds me of dating sites that sell you access to a potential mate. After you decide to subscribe, they take down the artificial wall that kept you two from communicating and allow you the chance to get her email.

But PC users are savvy people who've grown up with free multiplayer access. This service was integrated into Steam. When MS tried implementing their LIVE model for the PC realm and branded it Games For Windows Live, it failed to fool PC users into paying for what they know from past experience should be and remain a free service. Xbox LIVE succeeded with the general public because they had no preconceived notions of what should be fair to accept as paid-for premium content and hence absorbed MS' marketing push of the Xbox LIVE brand as a symbol of quality. That in turn created the demand. The value of any product is its demand. Another example is bottled water. How silly would our ancestors view us if they were here now? Paying for water.

Should LIVE be free? Yes. Will it? No, because they've already succeeded in bottling it.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it will ever be free, nor do I think it has to be.

I do think, maybe, that they are dropping the subscription cost to $30 a year.
 
[quote name='tinman_licks']Ok.. so conversely, does this mean PSN won't be free one of these days?[/quote]

PSN will never be free as the PS3 should be by now
 
It probably will be. I could see it being free with the launch of their next console. Doubt it will be free on the 360 though.
 
$4.17 a month is so much! And that's if you're paying $50. $2.50 a month with all of the recent deals. How many other monthly services do you pay for that make that amount seem miniscule? Sure, free would be nice but at these monthly prices I have no complaints.
 
It's worth the money.

I think alot of the content on Live should be cheaper, or free *cough* themes *cough*, but I have no problem paying for Gold Live status.

If you play anything online it's worth it. If all I did was download demos and buy stuff, I dunno if it would be worth it, but online gaming just works soo good on the 360.

And no, it will never be free.
 
The Marketplace should also have sales constantly. All stores have something for sale everyday, so why not their digital marketplace?
 
No... M$ won't end live subscribe. Too many suckers. They are like EA, they'll try to suck as much as they can out of everyone. Sony I don't think will because it would hurt them. If they ever wanted to do a payed subscribe then they should've started out that way. Or they'll wait til the next gen console.
 
MS won't stop charging, Sony will start charging next gen when they can put something cohesive, presentable, and not piece-meal together.
 
Live will never be free, but I think it will get cheaper and I agree if PSN were to partner up with say like yahoo or skype for phone calls and messenger service then they'll charge for it.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']No... M$ won't end live subscribe. Too many suckers. They are like EA, they'll try to suck as much as they can out of everyone. [/QUOTE]

So at your job you do as much work as you can for as little money as possible, right? And I have never heard of EA sucking money out of anyone, last I checked people opened their wallets pretty easily when a new Madden comes out. I don't understand it either, but I don't think EA is evil for making a product people want. Every. Single. Year.
 
I doubt they'd stop charging.

And I'd be pissed of Sony started charging. I don't play online nearly enough to justify paying for it.

Plus, I don't think PSN in it's current form is really worth paying for. It works, but I don't know if I'd pay.
 
With all the cards I've bought on sale, my subscription isn't set to expire until 2016. It better not stop charging or I'll demand a conversion into Microsoft points.
 
So from what everyone seems to be saying is that MS shouldn't stop charging for subscriptions because it takes money to run a quality service, and Sony shouldn't start charging because they don't have a quality service and people will be offended if they do charge. But doesn't that sound like the old chicken and the egg routine. Because if Sony does start charging, maybe then they'll have the budget to hire talented people necessary to build a solid infrastructure.
 
[quote name='tinman_licks']So from what everyone seems to be saying is that MS shouldn't stop charging for subscriptions because it takes money to run a quality service, and Sony shouldn't start charging because they don't have a quality service and people will be offended if they do charge. But doesn't that sound like the old chicken and the egg routine. Because if Sony does start charging, maybe then they'll have the budget to hire talented people necessary to build a solid infrastructure.[/QUOTE]

But if they both charged, I'm sure most people would pick one or the other... :whistle2:k

Seems like Microsoft has the edge because of all the people already paying for their service, as opposed to Sony's.
 
My friend who has a PS3 is always giving me shit over having to pay for live, but I have played on psn and tried to download stuff off it and its the pits. We downloaded an episode of Its always sunny and it took almost double as long to download as it did to watch. Add all the waiting time for the sub-par Home, and Ill side with XBOX everytime.

Tinman has a good point but I'm just not sure that if they started to charge now, they would really make that many improvements. Had they had the plan to charge since the beginning maybe they would have the superior online but who knows now.

Brak said it best though
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The people who are complaining about Xbox Live being to expensive, obviously haven't played MMOs.... 15 bucks a month, and that's just to play one game.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']It's worth the money.

I think alot of the content on Live should be cheaper, or free *cough* themes *cough*, but I have no problem paying for Gold Live status.

If you play anything online it's worth it. If all I did was download demos and buy stuff, I dunno if it would be worth it, but online gaming just works soo good on the 360.

And no, it will never be free.[/QUOTE]

I hope its never free. I figure the price keeps the real trash off the network. I can't imagine how bad the service would be if it was free.

I'll gladly pay 30 (Thanks Amazon) a year* to keep the poor people away from me.

*actually its 13 months.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
$30 a year for Live is pretty fair for what you get.
PSN isn't going to be free forever, especially if Sony plans on making money. Either that or more idiots will buy in game home items to keep it free. I think TMK reported or someone reported that $2,000 of "Home" items were sold in the first three days of launch.
 
[quote name='Brak']You get what you pay for.

And that's why PSN stinks.[/QUOTE]

I don't pay for Steam, and yet it offers what XBOX Live offers and much more.

I think Live should be free, not because I have a hard time paying $50 year, but I think what Live offers isn’t worth $50 a year. I’m just really surprised the other consoles remain so far behind in their online implementation. Steam has already shown that you can centralize the online service, and provide it for free in the PC space, I don’t understand why Sony hasn’t achieved the same level on a closed platform. I think the unified service that XBL offers is mostly just a compilation of features that have been offered free with the game purchase by most companies on the PC. That the xbox online service has been unified is great, but I don’t think it warrants a constant service fee, especially when XBL doesn’t have dedicated servers (users have to host games).

I also don't understand why Microsoft charges for Live, and also charges people for themes which are essentially advertisements you pay for.
 
Paying for it wouldn't be so bad if I liked playing online more, and I do like online. Though actually paying for online and the game seems like enough for me.

Is PSN even that much worse than XBL? I've used both, and while xbl has a few more user-friendly quirks, beyond that I don't really see it as worth paying for....

And then there's PC gaming, which nets you way more perks than xbl and yet it's generally all free. Bottom line, I don't think you should have to pay.

[quote name='KingDox']I hope its never free. I figure the price keeps the real trash off the network. I can't imagine how bad the service would be if it was free. [/quote]

The price keeps off the real trash? You talking about people here...? I've found that people were much more polite on PSN and my PC games, and those are completely free. Though PSN is slowly getting its share of jerks as time passes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't mind paying $30-40 a year for XBox Live because it's a good service. Steam can be free because it's the only way you're going to play a Valve game (Anyone playing a console port of a Valve game isn't really playing the game), and they're making damn good profit on their digital distribution model -- once you've got the initial cost of making the game out of the way, the bandwidth costs of people downloading it are trivial, especially compared to the B&M distribution model.
 
[quote name='Brak']You get what you pay for.

And that's why PSN stinks.[/QUOTE]



I wonder about this, what is it about XBox Live? Unless there's a ton of secret features they only tell members about I've yet to hear anything to make me think XBox Live is worth the $50 a year VS the free PSN.
 
msdmoney has got a good point about Steam. The real story though is how MS was able to successfully repackage features PC users have traditionally gotten for free and market it as a brand - a premium you have to pay for. It's a testament to their marketing strategy and the legacy of the original Xbox LIVE service, an investment that finally payed off in this generation because it helped initiate and indoctrinate in the public's mind the illusion that it's a premium service you have to pay to get.

But what exactly are you paying for? I can understand paying for cable because you are receiving constant, new content. But what content is MS really selling us? Inside Xbox videos? Community and Developer playdates? Those are just marketing tools. What it boils down to, the only real product they are providing you with is access. Access to play online with other users. Sounds pretty insubstantial. The users themselves host the games. Yeah sure, $50 is a pittance to pay but aren't we already contributing with ad views and purchases on the marketplace. The business model of LIVE reminds me of dating sites that sell you access to a potential mate. After you decide to subscribe, they take down the artificial wall that kept you two from communicating and allow you the chance to get her email.

But PC users are savvy people who've grown up with free multiplayer access. This service was integrated into Steam. When MS tried implementing their LIVE model for the PC realm and branded it Games For Windows Live, it failed to fool PC users into paying for what they know from past experience should be and remain a free service. Xbox LIVE succeeded with the general public because they had no preconceived notions of what should be fair to accept as paid-for premium content and hence absorbed MS' marketing push of the Xbox LIVE brand as a symbol of quality. That in turn created the demand. The value of any product is its demand. Another example is bottled water. How silly would our ancestors view us if they were here now? Paying for water.

Should LIVE be free? Yes. Will it? No, because they've already succeeded in bottling it.
 
Nope, it's because we pay for it that Live is as great as it is. All the support and features we get for it wouldn't be possible without our subscription to it. Keep it the way it is, and this way it keeps off spammers and people who just want to ruin the games.
 
[quote name='rainking187']I wonder about this, what is it about XBox Live? Unless there's a ton of secret features they only tell members about I've yet to hear anything to make me think XBox Live is worth the $50 a year VS the free PSN.[/quote]

I have used both PSN and XBL, and I'm wondering this myself. Are people just assuming one is better or worse than the other?

XBL is a little more userfriendly, but I fail to see what it does better that's worth paying for. Especially given the fact that the majority of the community is still full of loud animals, and server failures I've heard about.
 
[quote name='leveskikesko']I have used both PSN and XBL, and I'm wondering this myself. Are people just assuming one is better or worse than the other?

XBL is a little more userfriendly, but I fail to see what it does better that's worth paying for. Especially given the fact that the majority of the community is still full of loud animals, and server failures I've heard about.[/quote]

well i guess it depends. does the PSN function like the PS2 games with online multiplayer? some of those get shut down after people stop playing them.

i know with xbl that even the most retarded games still have online multiplayer for better or worse.
 
[quote name='odintal']well i guess it depends. does the PSN function like the PS2 games with online multiplayer? some of those get shut down after people stop playing them.

i know with xbl that even the most retarded games still have online multiplayer for better or worse.[/quote]

You may be onto something. I don't remember any ps3 games shutting down, but most ps2 games no longer have servers. How's xbl with most xbox games?

I guess that may make xbl better, but still nothing I would personally pay for.
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']um no and no. Not until people stopp paying for it till them no and no[/quote]


agreed. however if ads in games increase then xbox live users should protest since theyre making money off ingame ads then shouldnt the service users either get to pay for add free gaming and free online gaming should be ad heavy?
 
I understand that XBL is a better service than PSN, and Nintendo's online service is mostly a joke, but come on, no one else pays for this kind of service. Not on your computer, not on any other consoles, not on either of the hand helds. I don't get why anyone thinks that XBL is worth it. That being said, MS would apparently be stupid to stop charging, because they have more users than Sony, and their users are happy to pay.
 
I really see no difference in PSN and XBL quality other than the interface. But whatever.

I've had my 360 for over two years and just recently bought my first 12-month subscription. Left 4 Dead and the fact that soon enough a silver membership will be totally useless broke me.
 
I know it won't be free this generation. I doubt for the next one. For one, I really don't care. I bet my Live account up through cheap deals on cards. And it is well worth the money for what you get.
 
[quote name='tinman_licks']So what do you guys think? Will LIVE ever be free? Seems odd why Buy.com, Walmart and Amazon decided to have a sale on 12 month cards at the same time. Could this mean they're trying to clear the inventory before something radical happens over at Microsoft?

Or conversely, will Sony ever charge for PSN? Since MS is making so much money off of it, Sony is losing possible profits.[/quote]

I used to be a solid Sony fan but am shifting to 360 (not necessarily MS, but the 360). I wish Sony would start charging so they can have a better dashboard, etc. The trophies were a late add-on and it shows -- I like free just as much as everyone else, but I'd be more than happy to pay for a subscription if the service was better.
 
I don't have a lot of time for my off-line games; I really can't justify the price for going online.

And no...I don't think MS will stop their practice of charging for Xbox live.
 
As a consumer, I prefer FREE. But how can MS ever justify giving out for free that which people are so willing to pay for? As long as people are willing to pay for live, then let them do so. It's too late for Sony to charge for PSN... PSN is good, I love it, but to pay for it, then they'd have to make a lot of improvements.. download speeds being the first.
 
[quote name='leveskikesko']You may be onto something. I don't remember any ps3 games shutting down, but most ps2 games no longer have servers. How's xbl with most xbox games?

I guess that may make xbl better, but still nothing I would personally pay for.[/quote]

i don't think any PS3 games have shut down yet but i think thats the key word. i guess it doesn't matter if most people aren't playing if they shut it down but i do remember being a tad miffed when RE outbreak went down. i got over it fast though.
 
I just got a 3 month Gold card a few weeks ago, and honestly, Xbox Live needs to be free. It's not that great of an experience at all. After my three months are up, I'll be going back to Silver and not feeling like I'm missing out on much.
 
[quote name='Droenixjpn']The people who are complaining about Xbox Live being to expensive, obviously haven't played MMOs.... 15 bucks a month, and that's just to play one game.[/QUOTE]

This is just retarded. Do you even know why there are $15 monthly fees? They have to host the servers, perform maintenance, make more content and fix game bugs. Just FYI, I've played EQ, EQ2, Vanguard, FFXI and WoW. I have never bought an Xbox Live card.

Now tell me why Xbox Live should cost money? All I want to do is play online games, i don't really care about all the extra features. Why should P2P cost money? Besides MMOs, do you pay to play online with any other PC games? Why are Steam and PSN free yet Xbox Live isn't?
 
Xbox Live really should be free (or offer dedicated servers), but I doubt it would ever happen since Microsoft makes too much money on the service. If the Playstation 3 was actually outselling the 360 and PSN had way more users then XBL it would almost certainly become free, but that isn't going to happen (especially with the economy the way it is, PS3 sales are almost certainly going to drop hard, especially when its competion has consoles for $200 and $250).

Though the Wii is outselling the 360 Nintendo basically doesn't compete with Xbox Live, so they aren't under any pressure from the industry leader.

I would imagine that if they made Live free that people would buy a lot more on the marketplace, especially if the converted all of the unsued months on your subscription into Marketplace Points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top