so why exactly is MS still charging us $50 a year for live? [enough arguing]

Status
Not open for further replies.
if there was no way of getting discounts and microsoft doubled the price, is it still worth it?

everyone keeps mentioning that they can get live for less then $50. the point isn't rather you can get it cheaper and consider it a bargain because there will be a time when there won't be a discount [like the situation where one of the users can't no longer purchase 1 month pass]. the point is the value of having to spend $50 for a subscription.

if there was no discount opportunity for anyone, i don't believe people would pay for it except for the few.

for those who pay the discount price, why don't one day you stop buying the discount live subscription and pay the full $50. see if it was worth the money. i could tell you right now that most will say it wasn't worth the money. this means people are only favoring the system because of the discount, the idea that you paid a cheaper cost then the actual cost.
 
I've only had live for about 3 years now, I paid full price for two of those years and felt it was worth it. But I'm obviously going to take advantage of discounts if they are available when my subscription expires.

It only ends up being around $4 a month full price anyway, again not breaking the bank here.
 
[quote name='pochaccoheaven']if there was no way of getting discounts and microsoft doubled the price, is it still worth it?

everyone keeps mentioning that they can get live for less then $50. the point isn't rather you can get it cheaper and consider it a bargain because there will be a time when there won't be a discount [like the situation where one of the users can't no longer purchase 1 month pass]. the point is the value of having to spend $50 for a subscription.

if there was no discount opportunity for anyone, i don't believe people would pay for it except for the few.

for those who pay the discount price, why don't one day you stop buying the discount live subscription and pay the full $50. see if it was worth the money. i could tell you right now that most will say it wasn't worth the money. this means people are only favoring the system because of the discount, the idea that you paid a cheaper cost then the actual cost.[/QUOTE]

95% of the people out there are idiots. They're paying the $50/year for Live when the smart 5% look for a deal and end up paying $25-$35.

That being said, a lot of people must think $50/year is worth it, as they keep paying it. XBL has so many more features over the PS3/Wii that I'm not even going to bother listing them all.

I don't get what you're saying when people "favor the system" because of the discount, either.
 
Some of you guys seem so hung up on Live being $50 a year--have you actually thought about what that breaks down to be for each month? About $4. We spend as much as $50-$60 or more on new games on a regular basis and yet you bitch about $4 a month?

Lets see here... I don't have to pay for the second-best Live wanna-be that leaves something to be desired, people with headsets. Okay! I don't have to pay for a borked-by-design online service that has a handful of games that are actually worth playing online. That's good, too! I have to pay $4 a month for the best home console online service ever. fuckINGTHINGSUCKS.gif.

Get real, the only thing over-priced is the fucking wireless adapter at $100 and the 120GB HDD. THAT'S IT! Shut up, move on.
 
That's the exact kind of foolish thinking M$ wants their sheep to have. Oh it's just $4, on top of what you paid for the game. Tell you what, just mail me a dollar a day. It's a quarter of the price and since you spend so much on games you won't miss it.

Will you? If not then you finally understand our point that Live is a waste. Better services are free, yet you pay for swearing children and advertisements. Or how about this, that $50 a year adds up to $300+ over the lifespan of the console (we'll say 6 years). So not only did you pay a couple hundred the first time and maybe $200 for the second and third 360 you bought as replacements, you spent hundreds more only to be able to play online. Nevermind the prices of those addons. And you won't spend $400 on a PS3 which comes out several hundred dollars cheaper in the long run, with better games and variety in its library?

This is why 360 owners are all pre-teens. They fail at simple math and common sense.
 
it's not worth it because on pc it's still free and there is no justice over this.
why must one pay for service on the 360 but not on pc.

on live one would say to maintain the service but on pc it's the same thing but you don't pay. on live you get those features and you also get them on pc, so why pay something on one system and not pay on the other.

it's $4 dollars a month, something by the end of the year that adds up to $50. $50 that goes to microsoft for providing service that is free on other consoles and systems. no matter how you look at it or the reasons that you provide, it's not justifiable.

everyone playing fps on pc through the internet are playing for free, yet the ones playing on 360 are being forced to pay. this my good friends means you are being milked. and it is truly sad that there are those who strongly support this reasoning.
 
[quote name='BlueSwim']Some of you guys seem so hung up on Live being $50 a year--have you actually thought about what that breaks down to be for each month? About $4. We spend as much as $50-$60 or more on new games on a regular basis and yet you bitch about $4 a month?

Lets see here... I don't have to pay for the second-best Live wanna-be that leaves something to be desired, people with headsets. Okay! I don't have to pay for a borked-by-design online service that has a handful of games that are actually worth playing online. That's good, too! I have to pay $4 a month for the best home console online service ever. fuckINGTHINGSUCKS.gif.

Get real, the only thing over-priced is the fucking wireless adapter at $100 and the 120GB HDD. THAT'S IT! Shut up, move on. [/QUOTE]


Ahh the car salesman approach, break the price down into the monthly price so it makes the cost seem cheaper.

You've also limited your comparison, PSN isn't the only competitor. Somehow similar online services on the PC are able to offer features comparable to live, for free. Maybe you and many other CAGs close your eyes to the PC market, but it doesn't mean the PC online services aren't a viable comparison to the console online services.

I still think that there is a bigger reason for people to continue paying for live, that everyone justifying the price with feature x or y has neglected to mention. And IMO it's a perfectly reasonable justification. If you've chosen the 360 as your main or only online platform (or even one of many), and all your friends are on xbox live, then it would proably be a bigger investment than $50 a year to switch to another online service or console. Not only would you need to rebuy the games you like (monetary cost), but you would be leaving the community of friends you've built (non-monetary cost). That's why everything on xbox live is so community focused. You might not be loyal to the Live platform, but you'll likely remain loyal to your individual community. And since they were so far in front of the other consoles in the online space, the other consoles still have a huge perception issue to overcome for many gamers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='DPsx7']That's the exact kind of foolish thinking M$ wants their sheep to have. Oh it's just $4, on top of what you paid for the game. Tell you what, just mail me a dollar a day. It's a quarter of the price and since you spend so much on games you won't miss it.

Will you? If not then you finally understand our point that Live is a waste. Better services are free, yet you pay for swearing children and advertisements. Or how about this, that $50 a year adds up to $300+ over the lifespan of the console (we'll say 6 years). So not only did you pay a couple hundred the first time and maybe $200 for the second and third 360 you bought as replacements, you spent hundreds more only to be able to play online. Nevermind the prices of those addons. And you won't spend $400 on a PS3 which comes out several hundred dollars cheaper in the long run, with better games and variety in its library?

This is why 360 owners are all pre-teens. They fail at simple math and common sense.[/QUOTE]

Yes, all 360 owners are pre-teens, how did you ever guess!? $4 a month (which isn't even close to what I have paid for LIVE) to play any game I want is nothing (people drop more on games such as WoW all the time). As for the PS3, that is your personal opinion that it has better games and variety. There are only 3 Sony exclusives total that I have any interest in at all and I don't care about BR. The online isn't the worst on the PS3, but I did notice a difference and would rather pay a couple dollars a month for that little bit better since it is pocket change each day. Oh, but I forgot that I don't have to deal with people hacking my personal favorite game on the 360 (CoD 4), I have still yet to see the "UFO" glitch that has ruined the PS3 version of it and if I saw someone doing it on the 360, at least I could file a complaint on them for cheating.

I have bought 2 360's total (only because I wanted the upgrade) and sold my other 360 which is still working to this day. I have had to send the 2 360's into MS 3 times, but have not had to pay even a penny of my own money to get them fixed. Too bad I keep hearing about these PS3's having issues and Sony charging $150 to fix them. Grow up and let people enjoy what they want, even if you have a differing opinion. Not once did I bash you or any other PS3 person for owning a PS3 in this statement, but again I am only a pre-teen here, so I guess I can't think of anything good.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']Ahh the car salesman approach, break the price down into the monthly price so it makes the cost seem cheaper.

You've also limited your comparison, PSN isn't the only competitor. Somehow similar online services on the PC are able to offer features comparable to live, for free. Maybe you and many other CAGs close your eyes to the PC market, but it doesn't mean the PC online services aren't a viable comparison to the console online services.

I still think that there is a bigger reason for people to continue paying for live, that everyone justifying the price with feature x or y has neglected to mention. And IMO it's a perfectly reasonable justification. If you've chosen the 360 as your main or only online platform (or even one of many), and all your friends are on xbox live, then it would proably be a bigger investment than $50 a year to switch to another online service or console. Not only would you need to rebuy the games you like (monetary cost), but you would be leaving the community of friends you've built (non-monetary cost). That's why everything on xbox live is so community focused. You might not be loyal to the Live platform, but you'll likely remain loyal to your individual community. And since they were so far in front of the other consoles in the online space, the other consoles still have a huge perception issue to overcome for many gamers.[/QUOTE]

I still don't see how Xbox LIVE is being compared to PC gaming, you constantly have to upgrade PC's in order to run the newest games and there are plenty of PC games that have subscription fees as well. Also, I personally don't like using a mouse and using a controller on the PC would likely leave me at a huge disadvantage. I am not trying to bash PC gaming, but it isn't for everyone if you ask me.

Also, I will agree with the majority of your statement with the loyalty to friends being a reason I have stayed with Xbox LIVE. However, the time I spent on the PS3 with no one talking was very unenjoyable as well and even if there are a lot of annoying people on LIVE, it is very simple to mute and avoid them and being able to hear other people than them is a huge bonus to me. There are also more exclusives (at least from early on in the lifespan) that the 360 has that I preferred over exclusives for the PS3 (see my last post) which is another reason the 360 was a better choice at the time.

Before anyone goes calling me a "Xbot" or whatever else they are using, I still have every intention of getting a PS3 sometime in the future when there is more exclusives that I would enjoy on there. Out of the 3 exclusives I have interest in, 2 are out and I hear 1 (SOCOM) has terrible online play which would have been the only reason to get it. I tried the Wii and since I don't care for Nintendo first party titles, that console was a flop to me as well which is why I sold it. Anyways, I guess my point in all this is that everyone has their own reasons for owning the console(s) that they do and bashing them for spending $2.50 to $4 a month for online seems rather childish if you ask me.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']That's the exact kind of foolish thinking M$ wants their sheep to have. Oh it's just $4, on top of what you paid for the game. Tell you what, just mail me a dollar a day. It's a quarter of the price and since you spend so much on games you won't miss it.

Will you? If not then you finally understand our point that Live is a waste. Better services are free, yet you pay for swearing children and advertisements. Or how about this, that $50 a year adds up to $300+ over the lifespan of the console (we'll say 6 years). So not only did you pay a couple hundred the first time and maybe $200 for the second and third 360 you bought as replacements, you spent hundreds more only to be able to play online. Nevermind the prices of those addons. And you won't spend $400 on a PS3 which comes out several hundred dollars cheaper in the long run, with better games and variety in its library?

This is why 360 owners are all pre-teens. They fail at simple math and common sense.[/QUOTE]
So what do I get for that dollar? Besides your charming personality, of course.

I like how you drop some simple facts on us like it's some profound knowledge that we are unaware of, or unable to understand. Yes, the 360 will cost more in the long run. You're not telling us anything we don't already know. It has been said a million times over, but I'll repeat it yet again for you:

We find value in LIVE, therefore we pay for it. It doesn't matter to us that it will cost more in the long run because we feel that we are getting a superior service to what is available for free. It's our own money, not yours, so stop trying to dictate how we should spend it.

Yay! Way to blanket a community that is several million strong because they have differing opinions than you!
 
[quote name='wwe101']as long as you people keep paying for live, it will never be free[/QUOTE]

I don't care if it ever becomes free, as long as it is only at max $4 a month I will never have an issue with paying for LIVE. There are enough features on here that make $4 per month well worth it to many of us. I am sorry if you disagree or feel some sort of an entitlement that MS should allow everyone to play on their service for free when in reality it takes a lot of money for them to run this stuff, but I don't see why everyone keeps attacking gold members in here. The party chat alone to me is worth the $4 a month, if I am in a group playing with friends and don't feel like having to talk over everyone in lobbies it is a great option. Allowing me to talk to multiple friends at the same time even on different games? Again, still worth the $4 to me for just that.
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Netflix may be nice if you've got it for your 360, but it's also the single worst way to justify the cost of Xbox Live. You can do the same on your PC without spending $50 a year for Live.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

But I feel no need to justify it. I'm not a cheap ass and I make decent money so it's pocket change to me.

But why does anyone need to justify how they spend their money? I could care less what any of you guys spend your money on (or don't spend it on).

If live's not worth the money, don't play and stay on the PS3 or PC, no skin off my nose.
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus'] Netflix may be nice if you've got it for your 360, but it's also the single worst way to justify the cost of Xbox Live. You can do the same on your PC without spending $50 a year for Live.[/QUOTE]

How is it the worst way to justify it? Most people have bigger TV's for their consoles than they do for their PC since it is usually a full entertainment center. Also, I think most people would be more comfortable on a sofa or a normal chair over sitting in an office chair while watching movies, but maybe that is just me (I get uncomfortable in any office chair after sitting for 30 or so minutes). Plus there is also watching movies with other people, I know my computer moniter is small enough that it would be an inconvience to have to try to watch a movie on with more than just me watching.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']I still don't see how Xbox LIVE is being compared to PC gaming, you constantly have to upgrade PC's in order to run the newest games and there are plenty of PC games that have subscription fees as well.
[/QUOTE]
1. no you don't
2. those are games that have subscription fees, not gaming services.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']I still don't see how Xbox LIVE is being compared to PC gaming, you constantly have to upgrade PC's in order to run the newest games and there are plenty of PC games that have subscription fees as well. Also, I personally don't like using a mouse and using a controller on the PC would likely leave me at a huge disadvantage. I am not trying to bash PC gaming, but it isn't for everyone if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry about it.

Most people know PC gaming is a joke anyways.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']1. no you don't
2. those are games that have subscription fees, not gaming services.[/QUOTE]

1) If you say so, I know plenty of people that are constantly having to upgrade to get the minimum requirements and then those requirements just get bumped up again for the next thing. Not everyone can drop $600-$700 at once on a PC (I know I wouldn't since I don't PC game), so they are clawing their way through to the next game.

2) How are those subscription fees any different? We are paying a 1 time subscription fee for a year of $50 at most while something like WoW is at least that price in a few months time and we get the option to play more than one game at that price.

[quote name='whoknows']Don't worry about it.

Most people know PC gaming is a joke anyways.[/QUOTE]

I am not even going to argue that since it is a matter of preference. I don't see a reason to hate on any of it since some I know everyone enjoys something that someone else doesn't. I just think it is pointless for everyone to argue how bad of a deal LIVE is when it isn't even that expensive. I know I have wasted more money on games I will never even touch than I have spent on LIVE, so it isn't going to bother me spending a few dollars a month.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']1) If you say so, I know plenty of people that are constantly having to upgrade to get the minimum requirements and then those requirements just get bumped up again for the next thing. Not everyone can drop $600-$700 at once on a PC (I know I wouldn't since I don't PC game), so they are clawing their way through to the next game.

2) How are those subscription fees any different? We are paying a 1 time subscription fee for a year of $50 at most while something like WoW is at least that price in a few months time and we get the option to play more than one game at that price.[/QUOTE]

*jumps in*

1) He's right.

2) We don't have to pay that fee for every game we want to play, we have the option to play something else online for free.
 
[quote name='distgfx']*jumps in*

1) He's right.

2) We don't have to pay that fee for every game we want to play, we have the option to play something else online for free.[/QUOTE]

1) That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that I would have to drop about $700 for a very good gaming computer (That is a 360 with 4 years of full price LIVE).

2) Okay, that is fine as well. Of course if you really want to play the game like a lot of people do, you have to pay. We have the option of not paying for LIVE and just sitting with a silver account, your comparison is pretty weak. How many PC gamers pay for WoW? Oh that is right, it is in the millions, do you all bitch at them for their game of preference simply because they pay a monthly fee? A few months of them paying is the same as us paying for a year at full price and again, we get the option of more than 1 game with that.

Again, I have no problem with you preferring the PC and the choices you get with that, but there are plenty of features that make LIVE worth $50 a year (which I haven't paid that much even once) in my opinion and I just find it in bad taste to tell us that we are basically idiots for having that opinion.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I wouldn't worry about it.

Most people know console gaming is a joke anyways.[/QUOTE]

Keep telling yourself that, whatever makes you sleep better at night. :roll:
 
It's true.

I mean, aside from the inferior online, why would I want to be stuck playing with a clunky controller? They might as well just include a brick with the consoles and say "here, have fun". Mouse and keyboard is a far more precise control method.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']1) That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that I would have to drop about $700 for a very good gaming computer (That is a 360 with 4 years of full price LIVE).

2) Okay, that is fine as well. Of course if you really want to play the game like a lot of people do, you have to pay. We have the option of not paying for LIVE and just sitting with a silver account, your comparison is pretty weak. How many PC gamers pay for WoW? Oh that is right, it is in the millions, do you all bitch at them for their game of preference simply because they pay a monthly fee? A few months of them paying is the same as us paying for a year at full price and again, we get the option of more than 1 game with that.

Again, I have no problem with you preferring the PC and the choices you get with that, but there are plenty of features that make LIVE worth $50 a year (which I haven't paid that much even once) in my opinion and I just find it in bad taste to tell us that we are basically idiots for having that opinion.[/QUOTE]

1) Much better.

2) Silver members can play games online at all. I'm saying PC gamers have the option to play other games online, which in comparison sounds much better. I actually do bitch about WoW players paying god knows how much a month to play a single game. What is it, like $20? That's bullshit too, lol.

I actually have no preference, I like all of them but still bitch about the stuff that sucks about them. PSN's bare bones, Wii's online has friend codes for each game, live costs money and PC gaming can be a pain in the ass for most people. I can name more shit I hate about each, but I don't think I need to.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']That's the exact kind of foolish thinking M$ wants their sheep to have. Oh it's just $4, on top of what you paid for the game. Tell you what, just mail me a dollar a day. It's a quarter of the price and since you spend so much on games you won't miss it.

Will you? If not then you finally understand our point that Live is a waste. Better services are free, yet you pay for swearing children and advertisements. Or how about this, that $50 a year adds up to $300+ over the lifespan of the console (we'll say 6 years). So not only did you pay a couple hundred the first time and maybe $200 for the second and third 360 you bought as replacements, you spent hundreds more only to be able to play online. Nevermind the prices of those addons. And you won't spend $400 on a PS3 which comes out several hundred dollars cheaper in the long run, with better games and variety in its library?

This is why 360 owners are all pre-teens. They fail at simple math and common sense.[/QUOTE]A dollar a day!? You're worse than LIVE. 1 year of you would have bought me a wireless adapter and 5 years of LIVE at the least. Way to trip and fall on your face when trying to make a point.:lol::lol::lol:
 
[quote name='gamenlegend']I thought silver members could be invited by Gold members to play online.[/QUOTE]

No... you can play Shadowrun and Lost Planet Colonies as a silver member though. I think that's only because of Windows Live though.

EDIT: Nvm, I was just informed that this was 'fixed' with NXE and you now can't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='distgfx']1) Much better.

2) Silver members can play games online at all. I'm saying PC gamers have the option to play other games online, which in comparison sounds much better. I actually do bitch about WoW players paying god knows how much a month to play a single game. What is it, like $20? That's bullshit too, lol.

I actually have no preference, I like all of them but still bitch about the stuff that sucks about them. PSN's bare bones, Wii's online has friend codes for each game, live costs money and PC gaming can be a pain in the ass for most people. I can name more shit I hate about each, but I don't think I need to.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea how much WoW is per month, I know it is at least $10 which in 5 months is the same as a year of full price XBL. I don't have an extremely fair judgement on PC gaming I admit, the last one I played online was Diablo II and the cheating was terrible. From what I have seen, a lot of competitive PC games aren't any better unless you pay the subscription fee, but that is only what I have seen from any games I was interested in. The Wii shouldn't even have online, the last time I saw it played online was Smash Brothers and 4 players lagging is not my idea of a good time. Can't comment too much on the PSN as I have very little time playing it from the PS3 other than a few rounds of CoD 4 that did not have the best connections and seeing all this mess about the hacking in the game. Those are the main reasons I have a preference of paying for LIVE as it does handle the majority of those issues pretty well (other than lag), but I also wouldn't mind having a PS3 and playing online if they had more games I was interested in.
 
Some games, like Halo 3, I'm reading, allow Gold members to invite guests. I could've sworn I invited my friend to play when he first got his 360.
 
Well if you take out XBL revenues MS would have lost even more on the XBox. Look at it this way: Dude we lost several billion on the original XBOX so we like need your moneys back. On, and that RROD cost too.

I think MS is going to have less of a excuse next generation if Sony matches MS pound for pound and is still free. Right now I have over 100+ XBox games and I'm not going to jump to a Sony system just because it has free online and the exclusive movie Metal Gear Solid 4. It's gonna take a lot more to get me over then that.

Now with next generation if Sony can afford to lose another 10 billion to make us happy then maybe I'll buy a PS4 at launch.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725'] 1) That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that I would have to drop about $700 for a very good gaming computer (That is a 360 with 4 years of full price LIVE).[/QUOTE]

The cost of the pc hardware is irrelevant, Steam or Impulse doesn't make money on that gaming computer you bought, pc online gaming isn't subsidized by the hardware. We're comparing online platforms and the features that they offer for the price you pay.

[quote name='SlimJim0725'] 2) Okay, that is fine as well. Of course if you really want to play the game like a lot of people do, you have to pay. We have the option of not paying for LIVE and just sitting with a silver account, your comparison is pretty weak. How many PC gamers pay for WoW? Oh that is right, it is in the millions, do you all bitch at them for their game of preference simply because they pay a monthly fee? A few months of them paying is the same as us paying for a year at full price and again, we get the option of more than 1 game with that.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for bringing up the WOW example, it's a great example of paying for content. Your WOW subscription is payment for content, significant additions to the the game that are free with your subscription. If your $50 a year was going to pay for free content for games I could understand your point. WOW is also run on dedicated servers.
 
Hey OP... Microsoft doesn't come slap the dicks out of your mouth while your working, so let them do their job and make their money...
LOL I kid I kid..they can charge whatever they damn well please and we will continue to pay for it...they know their audience is established and the PS3 is extremely overpriced and the online community isn't as flourishing as Xbox live, so if we all wanted "to do something about it" we should buy a PS3...but why would I want to do that?
 
[quote name='msdmoney']The cost of the pc hardware is irrelevant, Steam or Impulse doesn't make money on that gaming computer you bought, pc online gaming isn't subsidized by the hardware. We're comparing online platforms and the features that they offer for the price you pay.



Thanks for bringing up the WOW example, it's a great example of paying for content. Your WOW subscription is payment for content, significant additions to the the game that are free with your subscription. If your $50 a year was going to pay for free content for games I could understand your point. WOW is also run on dedicated servers.[/QUOTE]

1) How is the cost of pc hardware irrelevant? If I am having to spend X amount of dollars every so often in order to meet the requirements when those requirements don't ever change for the 360, that cost should be added in. It doesn't matter if the individual company made any extra money seeing as if they kept the requirements low enough I wouldn't have to pay for more RAM or a new graphics card or something along those lines.

2) Again, you still have to pay for it in order to play, regardless of if you get content and additions. It also pays for those dedicated servers just like the Xbox Live cost go towards keeping open for its users. They keep almost any P2P game open so long as the company will allow them to (EA is an example of one that wont). How many old games still have servers up and running on Xbox Live without anyone playing the game at all? I can promise if MS didn't keep them open than the developers/publishers sure as hell wouldn't keep paying for something someone wasn't using.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']1) How is the cost of pc hardware irrelevant? If I am having to spend X amount of dollars every so often in order to meet the requirements when those requirements don't ever change for the 360, that cost should be added in. It doesn't matter if the individual company made any extra money seeing as if they kept the requirements low enough I wouldn't have to pay for more RAM or a new graphics card or something along those lines. [/QUOTE]

The cost of you swtiching isn't irrelevant, if you read my previous post you'll see that I mention that as one of the reasons that is often understated when people justify the cost with feature x or y. But the cost of the hardware is irrelevant in the discussion of the value Live provides in comparison to other online services. You're argument is that Live provides enough value to justify $50. I just don't see how one company can offer a comparable service for free on the pc, while Microsoft must charge for that service on the console.
 
Interesting, i didn't know that Gold use to be able to invite Silver to play on-line for free... This means, Silver use to get demos same as Gold and Silver was able to play for free when invited by Gold. So, stripping away those goodies from Silver do make Gold look better. Man, it really sucks to be Silver now :(

I believe the timing when you joined the XBL community matters. The earlier XBL gamers have a lot of buddies, so naturally, they're not bothered with the subscription fee. The later gamers (especially those exposed to PSN first), will never accept the idea of paying to play on-line.

As to the argument "you're paying everything else, premium cable, highspeed internet etc. and yet bitching about $4 a month for Live?" If you're fine with that mentality, give me a $1 every month and i'll tell you how great you're as a gamer and a member on CAG :) For $2 a month, i'll praise any shitty posts you posted... For $3, hell, i'll be your fanboy :)
 
[quote name='Serpentor']As to the argument "you're paying everything else, premium cable, highspeed internet etc. and yet bitching about $4 a month for Live?" If you're fine with that mentality, give me a $1 every month and i'll tell you how great you're as a gamer and a member on CAG :) For $2 a month, i'll praise any shitty posts you posted... For $3, hell, i'll be your fanboy :)[/QUOTE]
I really hope you don't think this is a legitimate argument.
 
[quote name='msdmoney'] I just don't see how one company can offer a comparable service for free on the pc, while Microsoft must charge for that service on the console.[/QUOTE]


I think few have said that MS "must" charge for it. Maybe some did.

I think most are more along with my statements that we are simply OK with paying it as we enjoy the service. I think we'd all prefer it to be free, but personally I don't have much issue with the fee and will keep paying it as I enjoy the service.

I'd rather it be free like everyone, but I feel like I get my money's worth out of it since I don't have another console (nor remotely need one), only have my work laptop for my home PC, and like having Netflix on the TV on the 360 vs having to hook up a laptop or by a Netflix box to watch the streaming on my HDTV rather than a small laptop monitor.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']The cost of you swtiching isn't irrelevant, if you read my previous post you'll see that I mention that as one of the reasons that is often understated when people justify the cost with feature x or y. But the cost of the hardware is irrelevant in the discussion of the value Live provides in comparison to other online services. You're argument is that Live provides enough value to justify $50. I just don't see how one company can offer a comparable service for free on the pc, while Microsoft must charge for that service on the console.[/QUOTE]

My arguement is that to play these new release games "free" on the PC, you still have to pay for the upgrades to your PC in order to run them. If I ever had to upgrade the 360 in order to run a new game I wouldn't add in that cost to the PC since it would be something that cost money on both. I also don't feel like MS must charge for LIVE, but we would also lose many of the benefits (I wouldn't be able to play the majority of the games I own online because companies would shut the dead servers down).
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']I also don't feel like MS must charge for LIVE, but we would also lose many of the benefits (I wouldn't be able to play the majority of the games I own online because companies would shut the dead servers down).[/QUOTE]

'Cept companies already shut down dead servers. It was mentioned a page or two ago that Sega's shutting down the Chromehound (a 360 game) servers Jan 2010. Both PSN and XBL use a P2P connection whenever they can, and any game that runs on a dedicated server is at risk of being shut down (for either system).

Fact is, Microsoft charges money because people will pay for it. Let's be honest - if Microsoft offered a free level of membership with the exact same services provided by PSN, how many people would really pony up the money for XBL gold then?
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']Let's be honest - if Microsoft offered a free level of membership with the exact same services provided by PSN, how many people would really pony up the money for XBL gold then?[/QUOTE]

Yep. Like I said, it's probably not worth it for someone who just wants plain online gaming, and doesn't care about invite features, party chat and the non-gaming stuff. Those types who do have it probably just pay as they want to play Halo, Gears etc. and have no choice.

But it's definitely not a good "value" for those people. But it's not bad for those who do use and like the other features IMO--though again everyone would prefer to get it in it's current form for free.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']'Cept companies already shut down dead servers. It was mentioned a page or two ago that Sega's shutting down the Chromehound (a 360 game) servers Jan 2010. Both PSN and XBL use a P2P connection whenever they can, and any game that runs on a dedicated server is at risk of being shut down (for either system).

Fact is, Microsoft charges money because people will pay for it. Let's be honest - if Microsoft offered a free level of membership with the exact same services provided by PSN, how many people would really pony up the money for XBL gold then?[/QUOTE]

That is also one of the servers that was not given to MS to handle. SEGA kept it themselves so MS has no control at that point, however any servers that they run stay open.

edit: I will be a little more clear about it. Sony only runs servers for their first party titles, all other servers and handled by the individual company. Xbox Live runs any server that a P2P connection can handle (if you read the Chromehounds topic, you would see why SEGA had to run it) so that they can stay open.
 
i just dont see why you need to pay an additional $50 over the $60 paid for the game, the $60 should also include the price of online. your basically paying $110 to play a game online
 
[quote name='wwe101']i just dont see why you need to pay an additional $50 over the $60 paid for the game, the $60 should also include the price of online. your basically paying $110 to play a game online[/QUOTE]

You would have to break that cost down into each game played on multiplayer on top of the actual price we pay for the game (there are very few titles I have paid full price for). It isn't $50 per game to play online, so that breakdown is far off.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think few have said that MS "must" charge for it. Maybe some did.

I think most are more along with my statements that we are simply OK with paying it as we enjoy the service. I think we'd all prefer it to be free, but personally I don't have much issue with the fee and will keep paying it as I enjoy the service.

I'd rather it be free like everyone, but I feel like I get my money's worth out of it since I don't have another console (nor remotely need one), only have my work laptop for my home PC, and like having Netflix on the TV on the 360 vs having to hook up a laptop or by a Netflix box to watch the streaming on my HDTV rather than a small laptop monitor.[/QUOTE]

I like that feature too, but it really isn't a service that requires a monthly fee. Microsoft could allow the same functionality by simply including internet explorer on the 360, since Netflix users can already watch movies online on a pc. They provide a nice interface, but the interface is really only worthy of a one time app fee if anything, similar to how you would buy an app for the iphone. The service is provided by Netflix (content) and your ISP (bandwidth).

[quote name='SlimJim0725']My arguement is that to play these new release games "free" on the PC, you still have to pay for the upgrades to your PC in order to run them. If I ever had to upgrade the 360 in order to run a new game I wouldn't add in that cost to the PC since it would be something that cost money on both. I also don't feel like MS must charge for LIVE, but we would also lose many of the benefits (I wouldn't be able to play the majority of the games I own online because companies would shut the dead servers down).[/QUOTE]

But none of that addresses why similar and comparable services to live are offered free on the pc, but Microsoft charges for them. Also, how does Microsoft charging for live keep companies from shutting down servers. If they are peer 2 peer like most games, what would they shut down and/or why charge for that to begin with? And some companies do have dedicated servers on live, and you paying for live doesn't keep them from shutting down (ie. Chromehounds).
 
[quote name='wwe101']i just dont see why you need to pay an additional $50 over the $60 paid for the game, the $60 should also include the price of online. your basically paying $110 to play a game online[/QUOTE]


:rofl:

Oh wait, you really believe that...


Did you get dropped on your head a lot?
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']You would have to break that cost down into each game played on multiplayer on top of the actual price we pay for the game (there are very few titles I have paid full price for). It isn't $50 per game to play online, so that breakdown is far off.[/QUOTE]

The bottom line is that you have to pay to unlock the "online" multiplayer features of your Xbox live games... if you don't pay then the game is pretty much worthless. What's Halo 3, COD4, Street Fighter IV, etc. without the ability to play them online. It doesn't matter how many games you have, or how you breakdown the price to make it worth it. If you DON'T PAY... YOU DON'T PLAY. So you can pay 20 dollars, or a full 60 dollars for a game, but regardless of what you pay, if you haven't paid your Live dues, then you will NOT be able to enjoy your game 100 percent. Its like paying for a continuous unlock code to get to the multiplayer menu of the game. I think that's a true rip off... but hey if the masses like it, then MS can continue charging their 50 per year.... enjoy it.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']The bottom line is that you have to pay to unlock the "online" multiplayer features of your Xbox live games... if you don't pay then the game is pretty much worthless. What's Halo 3, COD4, Street Fighter IV, etc. without the ability to play them online. It doesn't matter how many games you have, or how you breakdown the price to make it worth it. If you DON'T PAY... YOU DON'T PLAY. So you can pay 20 dollars, or a full 60 dollars for a game, but regardless of what you pay, if you haven't paid your Live dues, then you will NOT be able to enjoy your game 100 percent. Its like paying for a continuous unlock code to get to the multiplayer menu of the game. I think that's a true rip off... but hey if the masses like it, then MS can continue charging their 50 per year.... enjoy it.[/QUOTE]

What's Halo 3, COD4, and Street Fighter 4 without the ability to play them online? Three damn decent games that I'm not bothered at paying close to full price for. As far as I'm concerned, I played them strictly offline and felt I got my '100%' of enjoyment out of them.

You can knock Live's cost all you want, I really don't care, but to say that games (especially those 3) are worthless without playing online is just fucking stupid. I mean, do you listen to yourself?

If anything, your statements have just underlined how extremely over-valued online play has become this generation. It's great and all, but what happened to games just being, well, games? Start to finish, tell a story, all that jazz?
 
Guys, calm down a bit here... what's going on here is just nick picking words (the internet, can't be helped).

As for the argument "$60 the cost of a game and on top of it, $50 to play on-line" is not wrong, but just worded in the simplest way.

If you only play one game on-line, then yeah, that's how much you have to pay for XBL, duh! There's nothing wrong with that statement.

If you want to break it down, then it's something like this:
XBL playing on-line for a $60 game is $60 + something
PSN playing on-line for a $60 game is $60 + nothing

As to games with or without on-line capabilities, the value is subjective. That is, to some people, on-line feature is a big bonus, to others, not so much. So, 007, what you said is correct, but you're forgetting that we're talking about why paying to play on-line... So, if a game does not have on-line play, paying XBL is not worth it. Also, for gamers prefer single player mode, paying XBL is pointless (besides the Netflix streaming to TV feature i guess).
 
[quote name='Serpentor']Guys, calm down a bit here... what's going on here is just nick picking words (the internet, can't be helped).

As for the argument "$60 the cost of a game and on top of it, $50 to play on-line" is not wrong, but just worded in the simplest way.
[/QUOTE]

NO it's completely wrong. Your defense of it is more evidence of your bias.
You need to buy a full year of XBL service at full MSRP to play a game online? Really?
And why isn't my ignore working on you?

GTFO and stop posting.
 
Surely the answer to the OP's question is obvious, MS charges because people seem willing to pay for what they consider to be a worthwhile service.

If people are willing to pay what MS currently charges (I know I am) then they'll continue to charge.

It could be said that something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I'm willing to pay $30 a year for what I get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top