Print

[Xbox-Scene]

How long can Microsoft keep charging for Xbox Live? Posted by XanTium | July 23 15:15 EST | News Category: Xbox360

From guardian.co.uk: I'm a big fan of Xbox Live. Friend lists, achievements, ease of use - Live still towers above the Playstation and Wii online services. But then it should. Live costs around 40 quid [GBP] a year, Sony and Nintendo's offerings are free. Sure the service is good but how long can Microsoft get away with charging? The news that Games for Windows Live - essentially a PC version of Xbox Live - will now be available for free makes it increasingly difficult for Microsoft to justify charging a subscription to Xbox Live. Full Story: guardian.co.uk

[Chancer]

As long as millions of people still keep paying.

[Ranger72]

If I did not get my Live subscription for free I would not be getting it.

[PirateElf]

QUOTE(Chancer @ Jul 23 2008, 09:42 PM)

As long as millions of people still keep paying.

Sad but true

[jdsony]

I think there's an article like this every 2 or 3 months. I agree it should be free but I don't really like paying for stuff. The service isn't expensive but at the same time is it worth the price of admission? I'd pay it if I was gonna use it a lot.

[bucko]

£20 a year would be more acceptible..I'm sure theyd make it up with XNA in come now

[Tiuk]

I definitely get my money's worth out of Live. The way I look at it is MMORPG addicts pay $15 a month ($180 a year) to play one game. Paying for Live works out to just over $4 a month. Not too shabby, and I get to play all kinds of games. I realize there are differences, but you see my point. Either way the gamer is paying for entertainment.

Don't get me wrong though, I'd much rather it be free.

[linkinworm]

what would be nice is if they had a system where u actualy got a year out of it, asin, it will tally up a years play, or the 5000 hours or what eva a year is befor its up, because sometimes u cant play because for 2 weeks you might have no internet, or you might have school work, or work, any number of reasons could add up to it, or how about they charge you the 60p a day or what ever it is, on your card for when you actualy press online play in a game? just put your card in and let it do the work for you, that way, u get what you pay for. altho thinking about it a one day pay to play option would be nice because your gold might run out and u cant get it for a couple of days but u really want to play, or then again make it free, or make servers for everygame to stop the lag

[Caddenmods]

I think that this article points out something that MS should evaluate. My argument is that people using xbox live have just paid for a console. Cost varying between £147.97 to £260 if you take into account the price changes of late.

Most PC users are using MS Windows Vista Home Premium. The cost being £50-£70 so why should there service be free.  Some even receive it with the computer from the manufacturer.

Especially when you consider the amount of money most consumers are paying for games it would not seem a bad thing to consider especially when MS want people to make full use of other online services.

Another point would be that without actually going on live, if you already own an Xbox 360 you are not fully utilizing the console and getting the best gaming experience available.

[MrFish]

QUOTE(bucko @ Jul 23 2008, 10:25 PM)

£20 a year would be more acceptible..I'm sure theyd make it up with XNA in come now :lol:

I pay £20 a year. You can too: just buy American scratchcards off the internet. 13-month scratchcard just cost me £22, for a grand total of £20.30 per year.

Thankyou, GWB, for wrecking the US economy. Thankyou, Bill, for per-region pricing. Thankyou, Google, for low commission on foreign transactions.

[CollinstheClown]

Dedicated servers would make it worth the cost. As of right now that $50 a year gets nothing more then online play, which sucks.

QUOTE(MrFish)

I pay £20 a year. You can too: just buy American scratchcards off the internet. 13-month scratchcard just cost me £22, for a grand total of £20.30 per year.

Thankyou, GWB, for wrecking the US economy. Thankyou, Bill, for per-region pricing. Thankyou, Google, for low commission on foreign transactions.

I thought you could only use one card per account.




-CollinstheClown

This post has been edited by CollinstheClown: Jul 23 2008, 11:24 PM

[JuniorFan]

I love how people use Nintendo and Sony as examples MS shouldn't charge.

I admit, I haven't been online with a PS3, so maybe it is as good as Live, but I doubt it.

Have you played PS2 online? It was HORRID, and nothing compared to Xbox Live. How about Wii online? I played on my roommates, and not only does it have stupid friend id's, but I got dropped out of every match I tried to play.

Like I said, I have no experience with the PS3 online, although I know they've made strides (and I believe still lack behind in some things, cross-game invites, etc?) However, in my experience with online console gaming outside of XBL I have NO PROBLEM paying $50 a year. It's worth the money.

[Nunix]

QUOTE(Tiuk @ Jul 23 2008, 10:46 PM)

I definitely get my money's worth out of Live. The way I look at it is MMORPG addicts pay $15 a month ($180 a year) to play one game. Paying for Live works out to just over $4 a month. Not too shabby, and I get to play all kinds of games. I realize there are differences, but you see my point. Either way the gamer is paying for entertainment.

Don't get me wrong though, I'd much rather it be free.

So long as there are people that think like you, Microsoft will keep charging for live. Why do you try to rationalize the cost of xbox live? Consider this: every other platform is free. We are the only ones who pay to play multiplayer games.

It's YOUR money for the console, YOUR money for the game, YOUR internet connection to host/join games. Microsoft is doing nothing more than putting people together in a server.

[JuniorFan]

QUOTE(CollinstheClown @ Jul 23 2008, 11:23 PM)

Dedicated servers would make it worth the cost. As of right now that $50 a year gets nothing more then online play, which sucks.
I thought you could only use one card per account.
-CollinstheClown

I thought Live DID have dedicated servers?

MS keeps servers up for games to be played on, however with PSN when the developers stop supporting the games, the servers go down.

There are SOME developers who have their own servers such as EA Games, but most are MS dedicated servers, no?

[spinr34]

i think the real question is, how long will it be till sony starts to charge for the psn? i think we'll see sony charge before microsoft stops charging. it does suck that games for windows live now offers free matchmaking but, microsoft needs to push it. it is failing, mainly in part because of bad games that support the platform. microsoft wants to expand its userbase. it wants to sell the 360 to pc gamers. if they get pc gamers hooked on what is essentially xbox live, when/if they do buy a console it will more than likely be a microsoft one, whether it be the 360 or whatever their next console is. the reason will be because, they will have a profile built up, etc and won't want to start over. so microsoft sees it as an opportunity to make money later off of pc gamers. but to all of us, it's seen as, 'ok, why do we still have to pay for live?' eventually, everyone will pay on every platform and like it or not, microsoft will probably have the most paying subscribers. it's all part of their evil plot.


also, why does it seem that all of the articles complaining about xbox live pricing are written by people in the UK?

This post has been edited by spinr34: Jul 23 2008, 11:36 PM