Do you think Xbox Live Fees should be tiered?

J7.

J7.

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
Would you be happier with Xbox Live Fees being tiered. Something like:

$19.99 a year for online play only.
$24.99 a year for online play, facebook, Last.fm, netflix.
$30 a year for all of the above and access to sales on XBL games/dlc.
$40 a year for all of the above and exclusive access to betas, extended warranty.
 
I agree with the op because even though you're paying for xbl, you still see an occasional ad on the dashboard and other features I do not care for like twitter, facebook, last fm for example so I wouldn't mind the plans the op brought up.
 
i havent used twitter, facebook or last fm since they came out ;\

but, the service was $50 before all that, and I paid it back then, so... free bonuses are welcomed.
 
The fee is fine like it is. You can get a sub card for cheap anyway if you put even a trivial amount of effort into looking around for one.
 
I like it the way it is. Hell, I'd love to see it be even cheaper.

In particular, Microsoft charging extra for Netflix would be really lame. I already pay $15 a month separately for my Netflix membership.
 
Maybe one more tier would be ok for online play only without any of the extra bells and whistles (Facebook, last.fm, 1 vs 100, etc). But there's no way it would be $20...try $40 MSRP - ie 10 dollars less than full Gold), but dividing it up as much as you outlined in the OP would be excessive.

Of course, I think it would confuse your average consumer too much if they added any tiers at all, so it's probably not a good idea. It's pretty much fine as it is anyway. Well, aside from having to pay ~$50 bucks in the first place.
 
you pay retail $50 a year, $30-40 if you look around. Hell that about 2/3 my monthly phone bill. Stop complaining and be thankful it isn't higher.
 
This is how I think it should be:

FREE: online play with chat and messaging, Netflix, Last.Fm, etc.
$19.99 per year: access to sales on XBLA/GoD/whatever games, early demo access, hole in head.
 
They already have a tiered system. People who don't know any better and will pay $50, pay $50. And I'm sure some people pay >$50 a year, if they buy multiple 1 month or 3 month memberships.

People who want a deal pay $30-40. Basic price discrimination.

This also works for MS points. Don't like paying $15 or $10 for an XBLA game, don't. Everything I buy with MS points is on sale everyday.
 
[quote name='l2yanS']you pay retail $50 a year, $30-40 if you look around. Hell that about 2/3 my monthly phone bill. Stop complaining and be thankful it isn't higher.[/QUOTE]

Yes, thankful is the term i'd best describe the situation.
 
It's mostly fine the way it is, though I'd like it to be cheaper since I don't do much online gaming and mainly keep it for Netflix streaming.

But that said, that's more than worth the $30-35 a year I (and most cags) pay for live through regular deals on cards from Amazon and other stores.
 
If I had to pay extra to be in a tier that has access to purchase XBLA games, I would not be happy at all.

Everything is fine the way it is.
 
No, not at all. It's fine the way it is. People clearly have no problem paying $50 (cheaper if you look for deals, of course).
 
[quote name='bringerofdeath']netflix, last fm and facebook should not warrant another 5 bucks.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Especially since the netflix users already pay for netflix.
 
[quote name='bringerofdeath']netflix, last fm and facebook should not warrant another 5 bucks.[/QUOTE]
If Netflix is free on other console's no, there would be riots. Plus navigating through Facebook with a 360 controller is not the most fun thing to do ever.
 
[quote name='Superstar']Yep. Especially since the netflix users already pay for netflix.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Though to be fair they pay for the disc rentals, as there's been no fee increase (other than for Bluray access anyway) since the streaming came out.

But still, it's free on PCs, iPads, the other consoles etc. so there would be major backlash if MS charged more for it. Already requiring a Gold account for it is kind of lame since it uses Netflix servers and not live servers (other than the now playing status updates etc. I suppose).
 
Any price towards Xbox Live will keep me from getting a 360. But if they don't charge my a dime, I'll pick one up that day.
 
Here's the question, is there a significant audience that would play online that doesnt *solely* because of the price? My guess is no. With the way that they pass out 48hr codes like water and all the deals that can be had with very little effort, I think the $50 price tag is a misnomer. It's kinda like going to an amusement park. Sure they have a listed gate price, but all the coupons you could get from a Coke can or a Burger King bag, who is actually paying that gate price?
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Here's the question, is there a significant audience that would play online that doesnt *solely* because of the price? My guess is no. With the way that they pass out 48hr codes like water and all the deals that can be had with very little effort, I think the $50 price tag is a misnomer. It's kinda like going to an amusement park. Sure they have a listed gate price, but all the coupons you could get from a Coke can or a Burger King bag, who is actually paying that gate price?[/QUOTE]

The 360, which I like quite a bit, is the only platform on which you have to pay to play online, chat, watch netflix, etc, which I don't like quite a bit, and they appear to be losing ground on the PS3 (and certainly the Wii) going on Amazon's numbers for Q1 2010. The 360 doesn't even have a single game in the top 10. Then again, they do have something in the top 10: Live Gold subscriptions. But if the games aren't in the top 10 and only Live is, I can't see that being sustainable. If people aren't buying the games they aren't going to need Live.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']The 360, which I like quite a bit, is the only platform on which you have to pay to play online, chat, watch netflix, etc, which I don't like quite a bit, and they appear to be losing ground on the PS3 (and certainly the Wii) going on Amazon's numbers for Q1 2010. The 360 doesn't even have a single game in the top 10. Then again, they do have something in the top 10: Live Gold subscriptions. But if the games aren't in the top 10 and only Live is, I can't see that being sustainable. If people aren't buying the games they aren't going to need Live.[/QUOTE]

people buy games, amazon isnt really a good indicator of the market. Xbox owners also have the hive mentality for online gaming, something comes out that might interest them, but their friends have it, they buy it to play with their friends. Borderlands is a great example of this. Plus, most of the xbox user base is into FPS games and those have a long shelf life.
 
[quote name='tholly']Fine how it is, although cheaper would be nice (although I'm set until 2013 so it doesn't really matter.)[/QUOTE]

when the ps3 came out at $600, their slogan should have been "wait a couples years and get ps3 for 300 and pay $600 "total" for a 360"

yea i was trying to make a joke here about the ps3 being $600 and people being shocked or mad, when in reality millions are PAYing just that for the Full 360 experience and the ps3 is now only 300

but this is the 360 forum so lets ignore my pitiful execution of a joke and continue to hate the monthly fee
 
For me personally I have had Live for 3 years and since getting PS3 with free online I won't be renewing Live once my sub runs out. Now if they offered a reduced rate just for online play, which is all I use, I would be all over it. I'm sure there are other people who would be too, especially dual platform owners. And it would help 360's reputation. No longer could people say PS3 is so much cheaper because it has free online, paying for Live is ridiculous, etc. I don't see what the harm is in offering online play only for $25 and everything else for $50, or any other tier variations. The only harm I see is consumer confusion, but with only 2 tiers it wouldn't be that confusing.

[quote name='KaneRobot']
Of course, I think it would confuse your average consumer too much if they added any tiers at all, so it's probably not a good idea. It's pretty much fine as it is anyway. Well, aside from having to pay ~$50 bucks in the first place.[/QUOTE]

This is the only reason I've seen anyone give for why they don't want it. Everyone is saying NO! but no one is giving any reason why they don't want it tiered.

[quote name='flameofdoom666']If I had to pay extra to be in a tier that has access to purchase XBLA games, I would not be happy at all.

Everything is fine the way it is.[/QUOTE]

That was never mentioned.

[quote name='bringerofdeath']netflix, last fm and facebook should not warrant another 5 bucks.[/QUOTE]

It was just an example I threw together.
 
[quote name='J7.']it would help 360's reputation. No longer could people say PS3 is so much cheaper because it has free online, paying for Live is ridiculous, etc. [/QUOTE]

Problem with that argument is that the only people that really complain are PS3 owners. Paying for Live, in no way, taints the 360's reputation. The people you are referring to are a vocal minority on message boards around the net. It's rare that you see Live subscribers complaining.

As it stands, Live is still a premium service* compared to Sony's and Nintendo's offerings. $2.50 a month($30/yr), isn't going to break the bank. And really, if anyone is paying $50 a year, they're doing it wrong.


*or at the very least, perceived as a premium service
 
[quote name='Corvin']Problem with that argument is that the only people that really complain are PS3 owners. Paying for Live, in no way, taints the 360's reputation. The people you are referring to are a vocal minority on message boards around the net. It's rare that you see Live subscribers complaining.

As it stands, Live is still a premium service* compared to Sony's and Nintendo's offerings. $2.50 a month($30/yr), isn't going to break the bank. And really, if anyone is paying $50 a year, they're doing it wrong.


*or at the very least, perceived as a premium service[/QUOTE]

People like us pay "only" $30 a year, but most people pay $50 a year or more, and that gets old. Also, it's not just $30 a year for me. It's $90 because I've got two kids who would like to play online games with their friends. Of course I don't have Live for them because even if I gave them a Live Gold subscription they'd still have no one to play online with, because their friends who have 360's do not have Live Gold subscriptions because it costs more the $0! So it's doubly pointless and annoying. Paid online has to go.
 
I have two kids myself, neither old enough to worry about online gaming yet, but how old are we talking? Old enough to earn an allowance? I think if they are old enough to want to play online with friends then they are old enough to purchase said Gold subscription themselves.

If not, make it a gift for b-day, holiday, or special occasion. Again, $2.50 a month is peanuts.
 
LOL. 7 and 9. They don't get an allowance. They do get money sometimes for the birthdays/xmas, but they'd rather spend it on games. And, hey, if they are Wii games they can play them with their friends. Howzabout that! EDIT: note that they don't play games online often, but they would like the option on occasion. Games like Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing. I wish we'd gotten for the Wii. They insisted on the 360 version, though, so that ones their fault. :) Still, they ought to be able to play it online.
 
Personally I would welcome a tiered system, because based on the Live features I use I'd probably be perfectly happy in the lowest-priced tier. And people like me are why MS won't do this. :)

That said, $35-40 a year is a completely reasonable price for what Live offers and I have no problem paying it. That's like one fast food meal every two months. I know we all love free things here but I just have to shake my head when people make a big stink about paying for Live.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']And, hey, if they are Wii games they can play them with their friends. Howzabout that! [/QUOTE]

All 3 of them? ;)
 
[quote name='crunchewy']Paid online has to go.[/QUOTE]

^ this.

look, you bought the game. you may have bought some DLC with it as well. now you gotta pay again to play it online? wtf!!

next thing you know, you gotta pay to 'pause' the game online so you can go take a piss?! we consumers are suckered into this behavior to milk us.

com'on, publishers are already removing game content to sell it back to us as DLC. time to wise up, people.
 
[quote name='Mospeada_21']^ this.

look, you bought the game. you may have bought some DLC with it as well. now you gotta pay again to play it online? wtf!!

next thing you know, you gotta pay to 'pause' the game online so you can go take a piss?! we consumers are suckered into this behavior to milk us.

com'on, publishers are already removing game content to sell it back to us as DLC. time to wise up, people.[/QUOTE]

How will we play HALO online if we stop paying?!
 
I'm just going to preface my post by saying I have no problem/difficulty paying for live, as evidenced by my 5 year long member status.

The thing I don't get is WHAT the $50 subscription gets me other than the ability to play online. Games are generally hosted Peer to Peer, so it's not like I am paying for game servers. Every console has friend messaging. Every console has friend invites. Every console allows users to download games/DLC. PS3 has downloadable demos free to all users (not sure about Wii). What exactly am I paying for?

Sure, we get Facebook, Last.FM, etc., but are those thing didn't exist for the first few years of Live. In the end, it is possible to access those things with the help of developers of the respective sites/services using web browsers. Really, the only thing I personally am getting from Live that I can't from other systems is Party Chat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top