Comments on: The Problem Of Free: Why Charging For Xbox Live Is Good

By: archangel1of7

archangel1of7 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:16:33 +0000

not only is money the root of all evil but it is also a bunch of pieces of paper with an imaginary value based on an imaginary set of rules called the economy

By: Any cost, no matter how low, is a deterrent.

Any cost, no matter how low, is a deterrent. — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:44:16 +0000

While XBL only costs 3.50 a month with a 1 year membership, the cost will always be a deterrent. The difference between even having to pay 1 dollar vs free can cause people to pass on something. The point is that, while I paid for XBL when I owned a 360, none of my friends did, and nothing I said to them could convince them to part with their cash to get an account. So not only did I pay, but I also ended up not getting the entire value of my membership due to the fact that none of my friends would pay for XBL, and none of my friends would buy 360 games if they had the option to buy the same game on PC or PS3 (due to free multiplayer).

I eventually ebay’d my 360 and bought a PS3. I now play online for free with my friends, and the only game I miss is Halo 3. The point is, even if MS made XBL $0.01 for a lifetime gold membership, some people would not pay, because the cost is a deterrent in and of itself. They make money by skimming the top of those XBL mini transactions (DLC, Arcade, Vids, etc), so I think at this point they can drop the fee to play.

By: Bookmarks about Xbox

Bookmarks about Xbox — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:15:18 +0000

[…] – bookmarked by 5 members originally found by helmi on 2008-09-25 The Problem Of Free: Why Charging For Xbox Live Is Good http://pseudosavant.com/blog/2008/08/06/the-problem-of-free-why-charging-for-xbox-live-is-good/ – […]

By: The Problem Of Free: Why Charging For Xbox Live Is Good

The Problem Of Free: Why Charging For Xbox Live Is Good — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:00:00 +0000

[…] A common complaint about Xbox Live is that Microsoft is charging for something that you get for free on any other platform (PC, PS3, Wii). For many people free is their favorite four-letter word, and it is just a price you cannot beat. The inability to charge for online services of any sort (read: not just gaming) is a major problem though. This isn’t just about games, here’s why. continue here http://pseudosavant.com/blog/2008/08/06/the-problem-of-free-why-charging-for-xbox-live-is-good/ […]

By: Hits from the Web - 08.07.08 : Gaming Guru

Hits from the Web - 08.07.08 : Gaming Guru — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:35:47 +0000

[…] Shark, this ones for you. Why paying for LIVE is a good thing. […]

By: Vic B

Vic B — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:48:53 +0000

A previous post estimated that Live would be free in 12 to 18 months. I believe it will be the other away around, Sony will start charging for PSN. Just for the sake of expedience lets say there are 10 million Gold members (I’m sure it’s higher), that have no problem paying and are perfectly happy with the service they get from Live. At $3.45 a month per member, well you get my drift. So Microsoft has already proven that people will pay for this service to the tune of $34.5 million a month (and that’s using my low ball figure). Don’t you think Sony and its shareholders are looking at that. Their predicament is that by hyping their free service over Live they would lose face (Japanese) if they start charging. But that is a revenue stream that can’t be ignored and the shareholders are probably going to force the issue. I think the waters were already being tested when the started up a fee based online magazine. The rabidly loyal Sony fans will see this as another slap in the face but in the end will most likely stand by Sony. They should actually welcome it, because it would be a much needed infusion of cash for Sony that could pay huge dividends in other areas of the gaming division. IMO.

By: Guildy

Guildy — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:51:06 +0000

For the money paid each month i think it’s quite reasonable to ask for dedicated servers. (What i say now is not fanboyism, I have both consoles) PSN has dedicated servers on a number of titles. A free service provides better gameplay than a paid for one. Not on…

By: Sieruken

Sieruken — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:41:45 +0000

You think blizzard needs 160 million a month, which is almost 2 billion a year or half the annual budget for NASA just to maintain their servers for their 10 million players. Take Microsoft live membership fees, multiply by approximated number of members, do the math, compare to competitor offerings and wake up. I own all 3 systems, MS just has us by the balls.

By: John

John — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:06:53 +0000

Who really cares about paying for LIVE? I haven’t heard anyone complain about the few bucks a month. Most of the people playing seem to be 10 yr. olds whose mommy’s and daddy’s pay for everything.
If anything, Microsoft should raise prices, because, nobody is going to quit playing. Hundreds of thousands online gaming at the same time, addicted, little thumbs and fingers moving. If anything microsoft could help out the poor little pudgy kids who aren’t getting as much exercise (read: real sports, outdoor activities).

By: Paul Ellis

Paul Ellis — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:56:24 +0000

Totally agreed. Gold shouldn't have ads. I don't know if there is a perfect example of what I really mean, but Xbox Live is a well known decent example.

By: C-Man

C-Man — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:47:04 +0000

I understand where this article is coming from but there is one big sticking point for me. IF Microsoft is going to charge for the online service, fine. But I don’t want to see any advertisements. I pay for a gold membership
and still have to look at adverts every time I start up my 360. So apparently just getting my money isn’t good enough. I just gets to a point where its greedy. If you’re gonna charge for the service you don’t need adverts.

By: Paul Ellis

Paul Ellis — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:44:44 +0000

I agree that dedicated servers would be nice, but for $3.50 a month I don’t know what I can really expect.

As for Live for Windows, you really can say that it is really anything like Xbox Live. The value of Xbox Live is the integrated seamless way you can perform updates, talk to and invite friends in any game on the whole platform, download demos, XBLA, etc.

You can’t do anything like that on Live for Windows. So far it is just another way to do online gaming on PC and it doesn’t bring anything special to the table. I personally know people who are PC gamers with Live for Windows games that were blown away when they got an Xbox with Live.

By: LordCancer

LordCancer — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:22:40 +0000

you know I find the we voting aspect equating value to a service that is otherwise required, locked down and forced on the user as completely ridiculous.

we pay for peer to peer networking who’s speed is otherwise dependent on your isp, so what exactly are we getting for our $50 bucks? netflix? please, windows live failed because there is an alternative option. If free online play was allowed microsoft would actually have to provide a service worth paying for, which they proved inadequate in doing on the pc. The service is no better on 360, but the system is locked down with only one option, the vote is fixed and the consumer screwed.

By: GoNintendo » Blog Archive » The Problem Of Free: Why Charging For Xbox Live Is Good- What are you waiting for?

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:21:26 +0000

[…] Article here […]

By: jared

jared — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:17:08 +0000

well for me the only problem i have, is that if you pay for the live service why in hell should you have to pay for gamerpics, themes,and extra downloadable content for games that you have already purchased with the price for the points really ridiculous. everything else i would pay for.

By: hardsix

hardsix — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:44:23 +0000

The problem I have is that when I pay $60 for a game, I think I’ve already paid for the right to play the game online. I have no problem is MS wants to charge for advanced online features like unified friends list or voice chat, etc. But it bothers me that they attach basic online multiplayer to those more advanced extras.
So basically, if all you want to do is play online with a friend, you’re forced to pay for all the features of LIVE. I think they should put online multiplayer into the silver featureset. Then you only have to pay if you want things like in game messaging, voice chat etc. This would be more fair than charging you for the game and then charging you again to play it as it was designed to be played, online.

By: helder

helder — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:44:14 +0000

There is no cross game invites on PSN…not yet anyway.
I think Microsoft has started hearing the rumblings of people complaining about them charging and other platforms not…I think that is why they are going to release the “New Xbox Experience” to justify the 50 bucks.

By: Ash

Ash — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:42:20 +0000

You seem to have completely forget that the PC has the best online features and gaming for … free, do you not wonder why microsoft made Live free on the pc ? because it had to compete with other free services like steam, which personally has all the same features but a better price … free… ;)- i totally agree with your last paragraph though. saying that microsoft has its stakes in its hardware business and for that reason should make it free to sell more units, PSN is very close to live in terms of features so in conclusion in my option live will be free in the next 12 to 18 months. but thats just me.

By: oldest gamer

oldest gamer — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:45:52 +0000

I personally would never pay for online play, period. Microsoft can explain it anyway they like but the truth is no one would pay for the Gold service if Silver offered online play against your pals. The PSN offered this from day 1, for free. The PSN offers all the game play experience that XBL offers. No lag, voice chat in game, cross game invites. The same online modes are COD4 for the 360 and PS3 except you pay to use them on XBL.

By: Paul Ellis

Paul Ellis — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:41:33 +0000

Are you mentioning that I have a form of advertising or something? I don’t do this blog to make money, and any ad-type of stuff on the site is only for products or services I personally use and/or endorse. If I was doing this blog to get paid, then all the hours spent writing posts was pretty worthless because it has barely covered the cost of my domain name.