Do you think Xbox Live Fees should be tiered?

[quote name='Ryuukishi']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]Buy.com via eBay has had two different sales in the last six months for a 12 month XBL card for $29.99 or less, and you could buy up to two of them per sitting.

I'd like to hope that people can afford $2.50 for a month of XBL in that situation. I have no issues with paying for XBL, since it looks like Sony is trending that way anyway, and they're looking to tier it anyway. Not that MS isn't doing it anyway with Gold / Silver, though the tiered proposition in the OP makes little to no sense.
 
[quote name='moojuice']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.[/QUOTE]

You are paying for early access to demos/timed exclusive DLC as well. I have no issue paying $50 for LIVE even though the max I have been paying is $35. I had 3 accounts running at the same time and I don't even have the greatest paying job... I don't care whether anyone else pays $50 or not, anyone that is concerned about the price of LIVE will easily do a search to find it cheaper than the full MSRP.

Hell, my brother has a PS3 and a 360 and still has no issue paying $40-$50 for a year of LIVE and doesn't even play online on the PS3. For shooter fans, the 360 controller is far superior, it is a lot easier to get a group of people together to play a game and even if you have friends on other games you still have the ability to talk to them through the party chat.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']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.[/QUOTE]

Here's what they should do, tie Gold to the console instead of the Gamertag. That way anyone logged into the console has Live access.
 
Absolutely - if we could just pay once for the console I'd certainly feel better about paying for Live. I'd be fine with that. Just not per person/account.
 
[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]
I think it is more people than you think. I see posts about it a lot and I think people even made petitions and such. Clearly many do not feel that they should have to pay. I don't mind paying, but if I don't use all the features I shouldn't have to pay the premium for them.

[quote name='shrike4242']Buy.com via eBay has had two different sales in the last six months for a 12 month XBL card for $29.99 or less, and you could buy up to two of them per sitting.

I'd like to hope that people can afford $2.50 for a month of XBL in that situation. I have no issues with paying for XBL, since it looks like Sony is trending that way anyway, and they're looking to tier it anyway. Not that MS isn't doing it anyway with Gold / Silver, though the tiered proposition in the OP makes little to no sense.[/QUOTE]

Why does it make no sense? It's very similar to what Sony came up with for their tiered plans, or the plans they are considering if they don't go tiered. $30 a year is not much but $30 for 5 years is $150. And years ago the best sales were $40 not $30. So it's like $180. I'd much rather put that to other stuff. I still see no one giving any reasons for why tiered is a bad idea, people are just defending the price point now.
 
Nobody wins in this situation. At all.

Everyone will ALWAYS find something to bitch & moan about.

I just wish that we got more out of it for paying $30-$50 a year.
 
I pay cheap prices for Live, but I don't even think its worth it. The updates that are brought twice a year are nice, but companies should do that stuff regardless if they make a profit off the service. (Yes I know they are in it for the money.) I believe online play should be free, and matchmaking is okay, but its only good enough to get you into a game, but theres multiple times you've been kicked/lagged out/standby'd. There's nothing wrong with the XBL service, but I don't believe its worth paying for.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']Absolutely - if we could just pay once for the console I'd certainly feel better about paying for Live. I'd be fine with that. Just not per person/account.[/QUOTE]

Well, there you go, a tiered system that might make sense... maybe(?) lol

$30 per gamertag for 1 year

or

$50 per console for 1 year

Or something like that.
 
[quote name='J7.']I still see no one giving any reasons for why tiered is a bad idea, people are just defending the price point now.[/QUOTE]
It's a bad idea for Microsoft, because if they introduce a $30 tier or whatever, a lot of current users who pay $50 now will switch to paying $30, whereas I can't imagine a lot of new people joining. It's a nominal fee already; if you're not paying for Live it's because it's not worth it to you at any price, not because $50 is too much but $30 is okay.
 
[quote name='AndrewsAwesome4']They are tiered

Xbox Live - Pay the total of a game to play your game

PSN - Not as good as live but its FREE :D[/QUOTE]

You're forgetting the part about paying for the PS3 and games for it and having a space to put on on your TV rack. But, yeah, there are times I wish I'd not listened to my friend and had gotten a PS3 instead. But XBLA is great as are other things, including Deathsmiles soon!, so I'm not unhappy with my 360 at all, only with paying for Live. Switching to making the Live subscription work for an entire console, including visiting guests with their profiles in tow... that would solve the issue for me. I'd be fine with paying for Live then. Of course I'd still rather it were free, but per-console is better then nothing, and maybe that's something we could hope for Microsoft to actually do.
 
[quote name='Ryuukishi']It's a bad idea for Microsoft, because if they introduce a $30 tier or whatever, a lot of current users who pay $50 now will switch to paying $30, whereas I can't imagine a lot of new people joining. It's a nominal fee already; if you're not paying for Live it's because it's not worth it to you at any price, not because $50 is too much but $30 is okay.[/QUOTE]

This won't affect you. Anyways, even if they get half the amount of people to now join than the amount who downgrade they would still make more money. That is like saying I wouldn't buy video games for $20-30 without access to the DLC that I would've had to pay $50-$60 at retail. Still, thank you for actually posting a reason why you believe it's not a good idea. So far the reasons are consumer confusion and MS making less profit.

[quote name='reddjoey']Like many others have said: If you are paying $50/yr for 1 year of XBL, you're not using CAG right.[/QUOTE]

The question is not how much should Live cost or how much do you pay for it. When I mention $50 in my post or $40 in the OP I am using the MSRP as an example of how much MS would charge for Live at MSRP. Just like if we were talking about the price of video games we would say they're $60. Of course we can get any of this stuff cheaper, but when we're talking about the prices companies set the stuff at we use the MSRP. I used $40 in the OP because that is usually what it is for sale, but I used MSRP after people said that was wrong. So no matter what price I put people are going to claim it's wrong, which is why I went back to MSRP. Or why don't I just say $30 during a great sale, $40 during an okay sale, $50 MSRP...
 
That article has no basis in fact and is pure speculation. I don't see how MS could offer a tier above Gold and be able to justify its existence.

Regardless, E3 would be the place they'd make announcements to changes in XBL, now that they've euthanized the OG Xbox-side of Live, presumably to make new changes to the service.

I don't think XBL could be more than it currently is price-wise, mainly because it's enough of an issue with people being too cheap to pay for XBL Gold.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']That article has no basis in fact and is pure speculation. I don't see how MS could offer a tier above Gold and be able to justify its existence.

Regardless, E3 would be the place they'd make announcements to changes in XBL, now that they've euthanized the OG Xbox-side of Live, presumably to make new changes to the service.

I don't think XBL could be more than it currently is price-wise, mainly because it's enough of an issue with people being too cheap to pay for XBL Gold.[/QUOTE]

hahaha.

Microsoft knows they have these people by the balls. Lets be realistic. All your friends are invested in the xbox platform, have Halo, Gear or MW2 on 360 with headsets and play all the time together. If they raise the price 10-20 bucks a year, do you seriously think they're going to drop their investment so far and go buy a more expensive ps3 + their library of retail/DD games, some that will likely not even be available on PS3, just to save that 10-20 bucks a year?

No, they wont. They will pay because they have no choice but to pay. Microsoft knows this, they aren't stupid, and they will continue to get away with it as long as people out there pay anything more then 1 penny to play games online. Buying cheap cards doesnt help the situation, it just makes it worse.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']hahaha.

Microsoft knows they have these people by the balls. Lets be realistic. All your friends are invested in the xbox platform, have Halo, Gear or MW2 on 360 with headsets and play all the time together. If they raise the price 10-20 bucks a year, do you seriously think they're going to drop their investment so far and go buy a more expensive ps3 + their library of retail/DD games, some that will likely not even be available on PS3, just to save that 10-20 bucks a year?

No, they wont. They will pay because they have no choice but to pay. Microsoft knows this, they aren't stupid, and they will continue to get away with it as long as people out there pay anything more then 1 penny to play games online. Buying cheap cards doesnt help the situation, it just makes it worse.[/QUOTE]I don't think people will drop their 360 and get a PS3 to play the same items on PSN, if they don't already have a PS3. In this economic climate, people will trim off the things that aren't necessities, and they'll either go to cheap cards or drop XBL Gold entirely. An extra $10 or $20 will be enough of a percentage difference that people will think about it.

Though, how exactly do "cheap cards" make it worse? The only time I've paid full price for XBL was when there weren't XBL cards and that was the only option, since then, it's always been $30 or less for all the Live I've had, which is going on six years and more in the bank. Explaining how cheap cards are worse would be helpful.
 
[quote name='J7.']
The question is not how much should Live cost or how much do you pay for it. When I mention $50 in my post or $40 in the OP I am using the MSRP as an example of how much MS would charge for Live at MSRP. Just like if we were talking about the price of video games we would say they're $60. Of course we can get any of this stuff cheaper, but when we're talking about the prices companies set the stuff at we use the MSRP. I used $40 in the OP because that is usually what it is for sale, but I used MSRP after people said that was wrong. So no matter what price I put people are going to claim it's wrong, which is why I went back to MSRP. Or why don't I just say $30 during a great sale, $40 during an okay sale, $50 MSRP...[/QUOTE]

I think the MSRP is a fair price. It's a nice middle of the road; not too much, but still more than convenient or a steal. Slowly over time GOLD has gotten better. At launch the only difference was multiplayer ability and the occasional content. Even then GOLD weekends/promotions were pretty frequent, so being Silver was no biggie. No we are getting "more for our money"

[quote name='blitz6speed']hahaha.
...... [/QUOTE]

You've got a good-point, but it's a wobbly. The last thing MS wants is an unhappy user base. It's not unreasonable to think that the users would load up their 360s and games and sell them if they suddenly don't like the service. How many people ditched the Wii in the first 2 years b/c they didn't like it?

Cheap cards are a loss taken by retailers. I don't think they would be willing to discount them unless they were paying less than MSRP.

I would think MS has padded the cost LIVE to be more profitable than we give them credit.

EDIT: Trimmed down quote from blitz.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']I don't think people will drop their 360 and get a PS3 to play the same items on PSN, if they don't already have a PS3. In this economic climate, people will trim off the things that aren't necessities, and they'll either go to cheap cards or drop XBL Gold entirely. An extra $10 or $20 will be enough of a percentage difference that people will think about it. [/quote]

I think you underestimate online gaming for the Xbox community. What good are games like Halo, Gears and MW2 to xbox owners without online play? They'd be worthless and would defeat the purpose of owning a xbox for 99% of the owners out there. Microsoft has shaped the Xbox experience around being online and playing online, a social network. You drop Xbox Live, you might as well get rid of the 360 itself, as its worth nothing anymore imo.

Though, how exactly do "cheap cards" make it worse? The only time I've paid full price for XBL was when there weren't XBL cards and that was the only option, since then, it's always been $30 or less for all the Live I've had, which is going on six years and more in the bank. Explaining how cheap cards are worse would be helpful.
Click to expand...

By buying cheap cards, you are just adding to the amount of people who pay for live. Just because a INSANELY tiny portion of the community get it cheaper then the rest, doesn't mean the rest arent paying full price for it. You get it for 30 but a lot of your friends dont have time to shop around and just buy it from microsoft directly because their main concern is playing games with their buddies, not saving a few bucks. This happens all the time. So you're buying cheap cards just puts you into the same subsystem that feeds off of each other.

Im not sure if im making proper sense on that one, ill elaborate more if needed.


[quote name='reddjoey']You've got a good-point, but it's a wobbly. The last thing MS wants is an unhappy user base. It's not unreasonable to think that the users would load up their 360s and games and sell them if they suddenly don't like the service. How many people ditched the Wii in the first 2 years b/c they didn't like it? [/QUOTE]

Do you think people are HAPPY to pay to play online or use netflix on xbox? No. They pay for it anyway. So a unhappy userbase is obviously of 0 concern. What their concern is to make sure they keep paying to play, which they do. And the wii comparison is silly at best, sorry. Wii is a garbage gaming system and at best is the monopoly board game for this generation. Its not a gaming system fit for most gamers and never will be.

In the end, Microsoft knows very well they have all these people who pay full price, and a FEW small amount who get it at discount, and those discounted folks help keep the full price people onboard because they all want to play together, and so the circle keeps going. And they'll charge more and get away with it. Seems simple to me.
 
Just make it a straight 30. I would be happy as hell.

Even 40 MSRP would make me buy a card instead of waiting for 25$-35$ range.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']That article has no basis in fact and is pure speculation. I don't see how MS could offer a tier above Gold and be able to justify its existence.

Regardless, E3 would be the place they'd make announcements to changes in XBL, now that they've euthanized the OG Xbox-side of Live, presumably to make new changes to the service.

I don't think XBL could be more than it currently is price-wise, mainly because it's enough of an issue with people being too cheap to pay for XBL Gold.[/QUOTE]

It is quoting Michael Pachter. The article is sound, it is Pachter who is speculating. He said that stuff on Gametrailers. Here is a direct link to the video http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-112-pach-attack/64492

I think people would pay up for a higher tier if it allowed them to replace their cable bill with 1 Xbox Live bill possibly even cheaper than their cable. MS entered the console space to try to make money and their ultimate goal is to own the living room, i.e. be the provider of all media content. This has always been one of their biggest goals.

I can very easily see the price of Live go up or down or tiered. I think MS knows most users who use Live on a consistent basis would not bat an eye at paying a little more only because they have no choice and don't want to lose what they're addicted to doing on 360. More would look for deals on it though.

Since you're in the thread again, here's my previous post:

[quote name='shrike4242']Buy.com via eBay has had two different sales in the last six months for a 12 month XBL card for $29.99 or less, and you could buy up to two of them per sitting.

I'd like to hope that people can afford $2.50 for a month of XBL in that situation. I have no issues with paying for XBL, since it looks like Sony is trending that way anyway, and they're looking to tier it anyway. Not that MS isn't doing it anyway with Gold / Silver, though the tiered proposition in the OP makes little to no sense.[/QUOTE]

Why does it make no sense? It's very similar to what Sony came up with for their tiered plans, or the plans they are considering if they don't go tiered.

The tiers I made in the OP were based off Sony's but I threw them together quickly as an illustration, not as what it should be. Although I would not be surprised if MS did something similar to what I posted. Here is Sony's for comparison http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/psnpremium.jpg

You can see one of their plans has facebook connectivity, some have access to betas, one has extended warranty, early access to content, one has access to discounts on store content. Virtually identical to what I put in the OP tiers.

[quote name='reddjoey']I think the MSRP is a fair price. It's a nice middle of the road; not too much, but still more than convenient or a steal. Slowly over time GOLD has gotten better. At launch the only difference was multiplayer ability and the occasional content. Even then GOLD weekends/promotions were pretty frequent, so being Silver was no biggie. No we are getting "more for our money"
[/QUOTE]
I can see why people think it's a fair price, if I used it for all the things they did and didn't use PS3 instead I would too, as I said that's not the discussion though. It's not what should the price be or do you think the price is good. The discussion is tiers. I agree it's gotten better, it's a good thing too because people expect improvements over time if they're paying for something like that.
 
The idea that Microsoft would raise the price of Gold is absolutely ludicrous IMHO. The PS3 is making ground. Raising the cost of online play on the Xbox is not going to win them many fans. Now, I can see the idea of a Platinum level that offers something akin to cable TV. I wouldn't pay for it, though, because I've been very disappointed in netflix streaming on the 360 (the Wii works much, much, much better for us), which is no doubt due to having a DSL line, and the cheapest DSL service available to us - the Xbox version of Netflix does an extremely poor job of handling lower bandwidth). I'm not sure if I'm willing to upgrade to FioS and pay for TV from anyone (right now we use an antenna and get local channels in perfect HD for free - woohoo!)
 
I would but your pricing is wack. It should be:

$19.99 a year for online play & DLC
$40 a year for all of the above and exclusive access to betas, facebook, Last.fm, netflix

That way, people have access to all multiplayer, arcade and DLC stuff without paying for crap like facebook etc. that they dont use.

So ie., there should be 2 tiers. One for people who just play and download games related stuff and another for people who do everything else like movies etc. (something which I have never done and wont do, yet I find myself paying for it whenever I renew)
 
That's the problem with tiers, though, everyone just wants to make them so it saves them money.

I'm pretty much done with online gaming, so the only gold feature I really use is Netflix as I'm much more into movies than gaming.

I say just leave it as is, make it your way and people like me will grumble out having to pay more to use Netflix etc. Make it the other way (cheap tier for DLC, Netflix etc. but not gaming) and people like you will grumble.

Best to just have one tier and people can decide if they want to pay it or not--and if not go with the PS3 and it's free online.
 
Perhaps, I just threw the list together really fast, especially the pricing. I meant is tiered something you'd consider, not would you want these specific tiers. $5 a year for facebook, last.fm, netflix is questionable. $10 a year for access to sales I think is moderate. And the other two tiers are what you described.

[quote name='dmaul1114']That's the problem with tiers, though, everyone just wants to make them so it saves them money.

I'm pretty much done with online gaming, so the only gold feature I really use is Netflix as I'm much more into movies than gaming.

I say just leave it as is, make it your way and people like me will grumble out having to pay more to use Netflix etc. Make it the other way (cheap tier for DLC, Netflix etc. but not gaming) and people like you will grumble.

Best to just have one tier and people can decide if they want to pay it or not--and if not go with the PS3 and it's free online.[/QUOTE]

You wouldn't be paying more, you'd be paying the same you do now for what you want.
 
My point was it's hard to make tiers everyone will be happy with, as you just can't please everyone. So I think it's better to just have one tier.

I'm getting to the point of just wanting to scrap gold and get a different blu ray player that has Netflix built in since that's all I really use and it's free to use on every other device that has a Netflix app besides the 360.

But at the same time, I do still occasionally play online, and $30-35 a year is pocket change vs. hassling with selling my Sony bluray player and finding one that's as good or better than it with BR playback and has the Netflix software built in.

But in any case, Netflix should be a free feature with Silver accounts. It doesn't use their servers and it's free on the other consoles, the iPad, Blu Ray players etc.

MS just puts Netflix, Facebook etc. on gold to make it look like paying members are getting something more, but it falls flat when stuff like Netflix is free everywhere else--so that's no real added value.
 
J7,

It's a bad idea because it would confuse consumers. Not hardcore gamers like us, but the average consumer would get confused with multiple Live plans.

Microsoft cust support would be fielding calls from angry 360 owners and their moms, complaining that they can't stream Netflix, or they can't play CoD online after signing up for the wrong level of Live.

Consumers like simple. And right now it's simple, you either pay for Gold or you don't. Theres no added value to Microsoft to offer tiered levels of service, and all the headaches that would go along with it.

Microsoft already made the mistake of offering too many consoles choices (too many being more than one). There should have NEVER been a 360 sold without a hard drive.

Because Microsoft wanted to reach a pricepoint, we now all have to suffer as developers cant take true advantage of the HDD, becuase they can't alienate owners who dont have one.

Storageless console = mistake
HD DVD Drive = mistake
Tiered Live Service = mistake
Project Natal = ????
 
[quote name='IronsideGrunt']I would but your pricing is wack. It should be:

$19.99 a year for online play & DLC
$40 a year for all of the above and exclusive access to betas, facebook, Last.fm, netflix

That way, people have access to all multiplayer, arcade and DLC stuff without paying for crap like facebook etc. that they dont use.

So ie., there should be 2 tiers. One for people who just play and download games related stuff and another for people who do everything else like movies etc. (something which I have never done and wont do, yet I find myself paying for it whenever I renew)[/QUOTE]

We paid the same price for the service without them. It wouldn't make much sense, from a Microsoft standpoint, to lower the cost of subscriptions and to keep on adding new services. The tiered system could really be a mess, considering a lot of people will most likely switch between, as really, the payments are long term. The price you pay is what you get, whether you use or not.
 
Before the Netflix promo i was resigned on not renewing my Gold membership simply because the only game I really played online was L4D2 and I could always just stream Netflix through my PS3. If Microsoft wants to raise the price they can, but I'd rather not see them try to justify it through BS explanations like the inclusion of Facebook and Last.fm. I'm curious to see stats on how many people actually use these apps on a regular basis as well as how many people think they're entertaining enough to be worth charging a premium for. As it stands, I would love a cheaper version of LIVE that just allowed online play and Netflix.

Sure, raising the price by $10 or $20 may not force many dissatisfied gamers off the platform and to a new console, but it'd definitely linger in their memory when the next Xbox rolls around. In the end, most games these days are at least PS3-360 multiplatform. With the exception of a few titles there really isn't a huge difference in the library and it'd be easier than it has been previous gens to inevitably switch consoles if a customer's perception of a particular company's business practices seem reprehensible enough. The main reasons I play my 360 more than my PS3 right now is 1)L4D2 2)I have more friends on one over the other. At the end of the day, those two things aren't necessarily enough to make or keep me loyal.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']e.[/QUOTE]
Maybe instead of tiers they should have 1 fee for everything and then also let you just get what you want ala carte (which would cost more if all bundled at the ala carte price). That way if you just want Netflix there you go, if you just want online there you go. The only thing is with tiers you don't have to pay that ala carte price. I agree that stuff is no added value, but some perceive it as such, and it seems like Live is a little improved with anything added to it.

[quote name='Puffa469']J
[/QUOTE]
That is the one main reason people are bringing up, confusion, and I agree it is a valid reason. I don't think it would be as confusing as people make it out to be but okay. If not tiers I'd like to see ala carte menu in addition to the 1 plan they have now. That way the confusion would be little to none. They could only offer ala carte if you pay through the 360 and just keep the 1 Gold plan at retail.

I think the added value is questionable which way it would go for MS, they would get more subscribers but more who downgrade, but even if half as many now subscribe to the lowest tier compared to those who downgrade they'd make more money.

From a consumer standpoint multiple models hurt most 360 owners, but from a financial standpoint MS certainly benefited by selling all those arcades.

[quote name='Ichigo1993']t.[/QUOTE]

There wouldn't be additions to the lower tiers. Only the highest tier would get additions, which would be another thing to keep most people at the highest tier. I agree people might switch between each year, but that's no different from other annual contracts. That is why I won't be paying anymore, if I don't use most of it and have to pay for all of it, I'll just use PS3 instead. I'm not the majority, but there's a lot of people that have or will do what I have.

[quote name='tenma']B.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if they did raise the price of Gold it wouldn't happen until the next Xbox. Still I find that not very likely to happen anytime soon. I think a Platinum tier is very likely though, especially with what Sony is going to do.
 
I like one flat fee [well, with the tiers based on length purchased], but I could see a 'full access' Gold - which would NOT be any more expensive than it currently is, and includes everything gold currently offers - and a 'multimedia' level, which includes Last.fm, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, demos [since they drive sales] and messaging, for a sizable discount. I'd probably get that one, I don't game online much, but I do use Netflx and Last.fm pretty often.
 
[quote name='J7']There wouldn't be additions to the lower tiers. Only the highest tier would get additions, which would be another thing to keep most people at the highest tier. I agree people might switch between each year, but that's no different from other annual contracts. That is why I won't be paying anymore, if I don't use most of it and have to pay for all of it, I'll just use PS3 instead. I'm not the majority, but there's a lot of people that have or will do what I have. [/QUOTE]

It would just be tedious and inconvenient to change a system already working into one that would not only bring confusion among consumers, but doesn't make much sense from Microsoft's standpoint.

If you don't want to use any additional services, don't use it. You were happy with paying the fee earlier. Why are you not willing to now? It doesn't make much sense, as you're, in essence, complaining about how Microsoft has expanded their platform.
 
[quote name='J7.']Maybe instead of tiers they should have 1 fee for everything and then also let you just get what you want ala carte (which would cost more if all bundled at the ala carte price). That way if you just want Netflix there you go, if you just want online there you go. The only thing is with tiers you don't have to pay that ala carte price. I agree that stuff is no added value, but some perceive it as such, and it seems like Live is a little improved with anything added to it.
[/QUOTE]

But why would anyone pay for Netflix ala carte when it's freely available on every other platform then Netflix streaming app is available on?

That's why the tiers don't work beyond gold and silver. There's really nothing here anyone would pay for beyond the ability to play games online.

MS just put stuff like Netflix, Last.fm, Facebook etc. as Gold exclusives to make Gold seem like a better value, not because there's a huge demand for people to pay for those services.
 
Rater than quote I'm just going to do this shotgun style.

First, some most of this debate reeks of fanboyism. (You are in the 360 forum.) I think lots of people who LOVED PS2 saw the PS3's launch price point and bought a 360 and LIVE and are slowly fighting their inner Sony fanboy (which is okay.) Truthfully, I have a special place to hate all three companies, but Sony would come in first. I'll admit to small bit of Xbot-ing, but I'll call out MS on their bull.

With that said, does MS need to reevaluate charging consumers for GOLD and features they: 1) aren't using and 2) can get free elsewhere? Yes. Am I tired of ads on my GOLD dashboard? Yes. Do I understand what MS is doing? A little. Are the PS3 (and lesser extent the Wii) are offering better options everyday to compete with LIVE? Yes and hopefully MS will react to that and announce something big at E3. I'm sure Sony is weighing in on how much free is costing them and why so many people love/use LIVE.

I agree tiers would cause more confusion that MS needs from the "casual" user base. Think about how many channels you have on your Cable/Satelite TV that you are paying for but don't watch. Lower tiers will only cover "basic" items and you will still be shelling out more dough to get the the top tier with content you really want. Looking back at cable: You wanted HD ESPN, but had to buy a whole tier to get it. It probably came with HD Lifetime, and Hallmark Network HD or other channels you aren't interested in.

I think the Wii comparison is solid (at least for the hardcore user base). Your trashing it just adds to the argument. Everyone bought one thinking it that they wanted the type of games the Wii offered. Fast forward a year and it's all shovel-ware and garbage and Wiis are sitting around unused waiting on the big game. Consumers weren't happy and abandoned it.

In the end, I think I get my money's worth out of LIVE. I know a lot of people can't justify spending that money on a yearly basis and that's fine. I just hate how many people make a stink about the price. If it's not worth it, don't buy it. Like I said, consumers will leave if they don't get their perceived value.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But why would anyone pay for Netflix ala carte when it's freely available on every other platform then Netflix streaming app is available on?

That's why the tiers don't work beyond gold and silver. There's really nothing here anyone would pay for beyond the ability to play games online.

MS just put stuff like Netflix, Last.fm, Facebook etc. as Gold exclusives to make Gold seem like a better value, not because there's a huge demand for people to pay for those services.[/QUOTE]

You said yourself you almost scrapped Gold but you like Netflix so much that you keep it instead of buying a different Bluray player. What about all the people who only have 1 Netflix device in their 360? I don't see why you would want to pay more for stuff you don't use.

I know that stuff is just "added value", I stated this.

You don't think people wouldn't pay more a year for access to sales, betas, 3 year extended console warranty for any problem, customer service priority access, cloud storage, television access, music service, loyalty rewards, automatic downloads and updates, free access to arcade, free access to older XBLA games, free access to themes, etc?

[quote name='Ichigo1993']It would just be tedious and inconvenient to change a system already working into one that would not only bring confusion among consumers, but doesn't make much sense from Microsoft's standpoint.

If you don't want to use any additional services, don't use it. You were happy with paying the fee earlier. Why are you not willing to now? It doesn't make much sense, as you're, in essence, complaining about how Microsoft has expanded their platform.[/QUOTE]

It would be very easy to allow the software to determine whether someone was in 1 of 2, 3, or 4 tiers or if they went ala carte, and it would be right on everyone's console to see. Yes it's more confusing but not like you make it out to be. I don't see how it is so tedious.

I wasn't happy with paying the fee earlier, I paid the full amount when I first got Live before CAG, then I got 2 years after that for $20 total by getting regular Xbox live on clearance. Now I got PS3 so if I can do online there for free there is no reason for me to pay for online only on 360 at the price it is. If it was cheap I would still pay for the now insignificant amount of online gaming I do on 360. Most games are on both systems. I'm not complaining about the added services, that's garbage talk. If I was complaining about the added services I would be saying drastically different things like the price isn't worth it, the added services suck, etc.
 
[quote name='reddjoey']Rater than quote I'm just going to do this shotgun style.

First, some most of this debate reeks of fanboyism. (You are in the 360 forum.) I think lots of people who LOVED PS2 saw the PS3's launch price point and bought a 360 and LIVE and are slowly fighting their inner Sony fanboy (which is okay.) Truthfully, I have a special place to hate all three companies, but Sony would come in first. I'll admit to small bit of Xbot-ing, but I'll call out MS on their bull.

With that said, does MS need to reevaluate charging consumers for GOLD and features they: 1) aren't using and 2) can get free elsewhere? Yes. Am I tired of ads on my GOLD dashboard? Yes. Do I understand what MS is doing? A little. Are the PS3 (and lesser extent the Wii) are offering better options everyday to compete with LIVE? Yes and hopefully MS will react to that and announce something big at E3. I'm sure Sony is weighing in on how much free is costing them and why so many people love/use LIVE.

I agree tiers would cause more confusion that MS needs from the "casual" user base. Think about how many channels you have on your Cable/Satelite TV that you are paying for but don't watch. Lower tiers will only cover "basic" items and you will still be shelling out more dough to get the the top tier with content you really want. Looking back at cable: You wanted HD ESPN, but had to buy a whole tier to get it. It probably came with HD Lifetime, and Hallmark Network HD or other channels you aren't interested in.

I think the Wii comparison is solid (at least for the hardcore user base). Your trashing it just adds to the argument. Everyone bought one thinking it that they wanted the type of games the Wii offered. Fast forward a year and it's all shovel-ware and garbage and Wiis are sitting around unused waiting on the big game. Consumers weren't happy and abandoned it.

In the end, I think I get my money's worth out of LIVE. I know a lot of people can't justify spending that money on a yearly basis and that's fine. I just hate how many people make a stink about the price. If it's not worth it, don't buy it. Like I said, consumers will leave if they don't get their perceived value.[/QUOTE]

Yes I prefer PS3 and I used to be a big Sony fanboy, especially after what happened to my 360's, but lately I have been getting into 360 more again and been unhappy with stuff Sony is doing. For the last 4-6 months I haven't really said anything negative about MS or made very defensive statements about Sony.

However, I don't think this is fanboyism at all. If it was fanboyism I would be calling for a price change to Gold or no fee at all. I merely can play most games online on PS3 too and I only use online play infrequently in terms of Gold's offerings. I also did not say any of Live's services suck. The only thing I've said is maybe they should make it so you can for what you want out of what they offer.

The cable example represents why I hate about cable companies plans. Paying for shit I don't use. I think at least people here can relate to that. At least cable companies have tiers though and they don't charge you for the entire package right?

When did I trash Wii? I don't recall saying anything about Wii once. I think you're confusing me with Blitz.

Maybe changing the image that you have to pay for Live, and PS3 improving in online areas, will make MS make changes and will be worth the confusion. Maybe you will see new plans, prices, or tiers. In the meantime they will probably just keep adding services, but with PS3 adding more services over time they will need to keep a step ahead.

I hope at E3 we see the new plan for PS3 and MS counters with additional services. Maybe some services I will want. At this point I don't see anything MS or Sony is offering with their planned priced services that I really want to spend the money on instead of spending that money elsewhere.
 
[quote name='J7.']You said yourself you almost scrapped Gold but you like Netflix so much that you keep it instead of buying a different Bluray player. What about all the people who only have 1 Netflix device in their 360? I don't see why you would want to pay more for stuff you don't use.
[/QUOTE]

I don't feel like I'm paying more for stuff I don't use as it's been the same price since day one. They haven't upped the price when they've added the non-gaming features.

Also, I don't really feel like I'm paying for Netflix because of that. I also kept my live with the intention of getting back into online gaming with MW2--but I put a bit over a day into that and don't really play it anymore.

I don't think I'd keep Live just for the Netflix since I've gotten busy and don't use it much since I have a hard time just keeping up with watching at least 1 disc rental a week. And I certainly wouldn't pay for it ala carte personally.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't feel like I'm paying more for stuff I don't use as it's been the same price since day one. They haven't upped the price when they've added the non-gaming features.

Also, I don't really feel like I'm paying for Netflix because of that. I also kept my live with the intention of getting back into online gaming with MW2--but I put a bit over a day into that and don't really play it anymore.

I don't think I'd keep Live just for the Netflix since I've gotten busy and don't use it much since I have a hard time just keeping up with watching at least 1 disc rental a week. And I certainly wouldn't pay for it ala carte personally.[/QUOTE]
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.

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?
 
I'd just like to pay for rollover minutes, like a phone plan. Sometimes I am on Live day to day, other times it is a bit of a drought.

Paying for a year, and playing through a handfull of nights doesn't work out very well.
 
[quote name='J7.']Y
Maybe changing the image that you have to pay for Live, and PS3 improving in online areas, will make MS make changes and will be worth the confusion. Maybe you will see new plans, prices, or tiers. In the meantime they will probably just keep adding services, but with PS3 adding more services over time they will need to keep a step ahead.

I hope at E3 we see the new plan for PS3 and MS counters with additional services. Maybe some services I will want. At this point I don't see anything MS or Sony is offering with their planned priced services that I really want to spend the money on instead of spending that money elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

One thing you neglected to point out thus far is that until recently, PS3 (and Wii?) owners had to shell out $30 (PlayOn) for Netflix on that system. Something that no one ever brings up. Sure it's a one time fee vs. yearly for Live, but it's still a $30 investment. That's a minor quibble though.

As for the future, I predict Netflix will go Silver at the end of the year when the exclusivity ends. As for Gold, I'm thinking MS has a few tricks up its sleeve to counter that to keep people on Gold. In light of shutting off Live for original Xbox titles, I think that gives them more room to do new things. I bet the 100+ friend list will be Gold exclusive. Also, I bet there will be some kind of Gold feature tied to Natal in the fall to keep casual people subscribing.
 
[quote name='J7.']I never heard of that as I haven't used Netflix. That sucks. Is that for streaming?[/QUOTE]

Yes. PlayOn features. It gets rave reviews from those that buy it, but I never see price mentioned which I find ironic considering how quick PS3 users are to throw that Live fee in Xbox users' faces.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Yes. PlayOn features. It gets rave reviews from those that buy it, but I never see price mentioned which I find ironic considering how quick PS3 users are to throw that Live fee in Xbox users' faces.[/QUOTE]

I bought PlayOn when it was discounted for beta testers and I do not regret the purchase. With the plugins and stuff it makes it worth the buy, it's not the best software but it gets the job done unlike some free alternatives I have tried.
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']I think you underestimate online gaming for the Xbox community. What good are games like Halo, Gears and MW2 to xbox owners without online play? They'd be worthless and would defeat the purpose of owning a xbox for 99% of the owners out there. Microsoft has shaped the Xbox experience around being online and playing online, a social network. You drop Xbox Live, you might as well get rid of the 360 itself, as its worth nothing anymore imo.
[/QUOTE]

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top