New Xbox Live prices: $59.99 and $69.99
- Thread starter _leech_
- Start date
MechanizedDeath
Regular
I still don't get why I can play a game like BF2 for free, yet have to pay for Live. It's been a petpeeve of mine about Seganet and Live in that as someone who only plays online with PC games, I've been weened on free gaming. I mean, from Doom it's been this way. Anyone can setup a server and you go nuts.
The interface shouldn't be a huge deal. Couldn't it be like IRC chat servers with a standardized GUI running on the client side? Selecting games and servers via hotlink portals? What sort of services are offered that would incur a large enough infrastructure cost that they need to charge for it? I mean, the marketplace is just another way to sell us stuff, so should fund itself. $50-70 a year is easily within my means, but I am almost morally-opposed to PPV services.
And before someone chimes in the predictable, "if you don't like it, don't pay for it" response, I fully understand that, and that's why I've refused to partake in any of it to date. I mean, I don't play MMO games for this specific reason. But I'm more looking for some insight from the people who do use Live, as you what sets it apart and makes it a justifiable expense. OTOH, if MMO games are guaranteed to be free, then I agree, this is a great price, and I'd definitely subscribe, b/c that would make the cost of MMO gaming extremely attractive. PEACE.
The interface shouldn't be a huge deal. Couldn't it be like IRC chat servers with a standardized GUI running on the client side? Selecting games and servers via hotlink portals? What sort of services are offered that would incur a large enough infrastructure cost that they need to charge for it? I mean, the marketplace is just another way to sell us stuff, so should fund itself. $50-70 a year is easily within my means, but I am almost morally-opposed to PPV services.
And before someone chimes in the predictable, "if you don't like it, don't pay for it" response, I fully understand that, and that's why I've refused to partake in any of it to date. I mean, I don't play MMO games for this specific reason. But I'm more looking for some insight from the people who do use Live, as you what sets it apart and makes it a justifiable expense. OTOH, if MMO games are guaranteed to be free, then I agree, this is a great price, and I'd definitely subscribe, b/c that would make the cost of MMO gaming extremely attractive. PEACE.
The new 360 Live will have ZONES that will allow a much more customized experience as to the type of gamer that you are apt to encounter based on those zones. Also a visible feedback system for gamer tags.
Also the fully featured chat and video functions that allow you to interact with a base of online "Friends" across all games, inviting them to join you if you are online regardless of what either of you are doing at the moment so long as the machine is on.
Also the block feature allowing you to blacklist someone with whom you have a bad experience to prevent you from being matched up with them again in future games.
these are some of the many features that I look forward to and in which I see value.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6124293/p-5.html
Also the fully featured chat and video functions that allow you to interact with a base of online "Friends" across all games, inviting them to join you if you are online regardless of what either of you are doing at the moment so long as the machine is on.
Also the block feature allowing you to blacklist someone with whom you have a bad experience to prevent you from being matched up with them again in future games.
these are some of the many features that I look forward to and in which I see value.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6124293/p-5.html
You're obviously quite insane, though, and should not be used as a barometer for the average gamer.flf said:
I'm a bit spoiled, being a PC gamer: I expect that, when I buy UT2007, I'll be able to install it and play it any time I want without any hidden fees. I understand mothly fees for things like MMOs, where new content is being added constantly and such, but it just feels a bit like gouging to charge for anything else.
The online fee should be part of the game's pricetag - especially since X360 games are being hiked to $60 a pop. Could you imagine paying $60 for the console version of UT2007 (or Unreal Champsionship 3, whichever) and not being able to play it unless you paid a subscription fee on top of that?
It doesn't help that I've seen countless videos of 12 year olds swearing at their mothers over XBox Live! or spewing nonsense racial epithets.
$5/month isn't outrageous, but it's something I can do without, especially since I have no intention of giving up PC gaming any time soon.seismologist
Regular
Yeah It's a rip off but if they weren't making money off it, there'd be no reason for them to offer a service at all.
At least they do give you some nice features in exchange for your $5 a month for those who are willing to pay.
At least they do give you some nice features in exchange for your $5 a month for those who are willing to pay.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Don't forget there are alternatives to XBOXLive, you CAN play for free if you use programs like XB Connect.
http://www.xbconnect.com/
XBConnect registerd 500 new accounts today alone, has nearly 800,000 user accounts and has hosted over 12 million games. As of right now it has ~5500 players online.
I think most people just play on live because it's so much easier, hassle free, and has alot of handy features.
http://www.xbconnect.com/
XBConnect registerd 500 new accounts today alone, has nearly 800,000 user accounts and has hosted over 12 million games. As of right now it has ~5500 players online.
I think most people just play on live because it's so much easier, hassle free, and has alot of handy features.
scooby_dooby said:
While it's awesome to have alternatives, like xbconnect and xlink kai (http://www.teamxlink.co.uk/index.php). However, it requires you to be nearby a pc. Now, if they can emulate live server, that's the real deal...even without cheat detectors and whatnot.
It's really hard to justify $50/year...but then I'm one of those cheap bastards who depends on free antivirus software to keep my computer safe.
I don't want to have to pay perpetually for that! I paid for the unified interface when I bought the console, there's no logical reason I should have to keep forking out more money every month for something that stays the same, not changing.Acert93 said:
I don't think so. All the games I've played online have had decent online interfaces, and all shooter games I've played have had favorites and such. On the original xbox, virtually all if not REALLY all games were hosted on one of the players' machines, and my guess is that's set to continue now. Why should I have to pay for playing games hosted on somebody else's system? That's nuts. Favorites, ignore lists etc, all that shit can be stored locally on a person's HDD or memory card. Doesn't need no fancy god damn live subscription.
No, but why would you need that when there's countless apps that can do it for free anyway? MSNM, Yahoo, IRQ, AOL chatters (and others, including google etc) have it. You got rogerwilco, skype, a host of other tools that do chatting. Pretty much with completely negligible performance impact too I might add, I chat using MSNM with a buddy of mine using USB mic and speakers and echo cancellation with no noticeable decrease in FPS, nor any noticeable increase in ping.
...Which is making it a moneyscam ripoff IMO. They're preying on the less savvy making them pay for stuff that is free on more complicated platforms without MS actually really having to do any more work!
I already have WoW subscription and a gymcard, rent and other expenses. Add those $5, plus any other MMO subs for the 360... It's gonna add up.
MechanizedDeath said:
It ain't free.
Most of the servers are run by the community. We pay good money every month so pubbies can have a place to play. So that is one difference. With consoles, if they are using servers, they are adding additional costs that the PC does not have.
And hate to break this to people... no easy way... it has been reported EA is examining going toward a "pay to play" route for future BF releases. The first step in this process was solidifying features (like stats, ranks, unlocks) ALL within their server network. If you want to have those features you need to play on THEIR servers. The next step is pretty obvious
I think it comes down to business. EA sees WOW with 4M paying customers. 4M * $15/mo is $60M a month, $720M a year. EA is footing the cost for a hundred or so servers (the community provides thousands) and is thinking, "We would like a residual income as well!" BF2 has 1.2M sales @ $50--which part goes to retailers, shipping, advertising, etc... But for the sake of the arguement, lets say they make $60M off that. That is nothing compared to WOW's income. 1.2M customers paying $15/mo is $216M a year in profits.
Basically I see the days of free online gaming coming to end to many popular franchises. Which means I will be looking elsewhere.
So within that framework I don't mind paying $5/mo. I was paying $10/mo for BF1942 and BF2 (SOMEONE has to pay for those server slots!). So "free" is a relative term. Without us who paid for servers you would have to pay. In the case of the PC others, more hardcore gamers, are footing the bill for everyone else. With Live the cost is spread around.
The other side to that is you pay $5 for all games (less MMOs).
Me either.
Like I said before (and Guden will disagree) is that the PC is a mess. I specifically noted BF2. No favorite lists, no buddy list, the HORRID server listing tool is slow and sucks (go read the reviews) etc. Every online game has a different interface and the fact is many stink. Not all, but far too many.
Another plus is content uniformity. Live keeps everyone on the same page--similar to Steam. That may sound minor, but a lot of online games see large defactions of players with new content/patch releases because it divides the community.
The next big perk is that you get a suite of features (like in game chat and messenging) in one standard package. Everyone knows what they are, where they are, and no game has an excuse NOT to use them. It is built right into the system. Using third party server finders, chat programs, buddy finders, etc... is *very* confusing to many gamers. I know this first hand from dealing with a lot of gamers on the PC side.
Streamlining the service to include a suite of excellent features that are supported in every game makes the experience better. I am sick and tired of people online without ingame chat for team based games, or not being able to find a good server or my friends unless they subscribe to the same services as I do.
It is a really big mess on the PC side. Yeah, those of us who hang out HERE on B3D have no issues. But we are not the mainstream audiance who is going to pick up a console either.
Unfortunately MS has already officially stated MMO additional fees may apply... which means, of course, they will have fees like their PC counterparts.
Overall I can see the hesitation to pay. I wont pay for MMOs. But $5/mo for all non-MMO games? I can deal with that if that means making the experience better (which it does). I have a fine PC online experience, but that is not shared amongst most of those I play with. It is *not* pick up and go out of the box either--which is important.
The only difference I see with Xbox Live is that instead of relying on a segment of the community (like clans) paying for servers, that burden is taken in house and paid by all customers evenly.
Because honestly no online game is free. It just happens that on the PC there is enough of us paying that others do not.
Well, the subscription fees aren't *all* profits; or rather there are high fixed costs to account for. A lot of MMO's fail to ever break even, and the field is actually littered with the carcasses of several. Granted something like WoW is obviously a total cash-cow.
scooby_dooby
Legend
TrungGap said:
Could you elaborate? All I know is these systems are available, I don't know how they work, or what setup entails....
Aren't most setups near(or at least wired to) a PC simply due to the fact they need to share an internet connnection?
Since this is mainly PC users bitching that they have to pay for online play, I was simply letting these same PC guys know that with a little effort they STILL can play for free.
seismologist
Regular
It's definitely better to have the hardcore community subsidizing the online fees. Because as a casual gamer I know that there's no way I'm signing up for $60 a year subscription to play online. Especially when online play is currently free (for me) on the PC.
I have a hard enough time bringing myself to renew my IGN subscription and that's only $20 a year.
It's like I'm sure someone is paying for this sever at B3D which I'm grateful for but if tomorrow they turn around and tell us that we have to pay for it ourselves...call me cheap, but I'm not so sure how much longer I'd be around
I have a hard enough time bringing myself to renew my IGN subscription and that's only $20 a year.
It's like I'm sure someone is paying for this sever at B3D which I'm grateful for but if tomorrow they turn around and tell us that we have to pay for it ourselves...call me cheap, but I'm not so sure how much longer I'd be around
seismologist said:
And on the reverse those of us paying more than $5/mo are glad that we wont be subsidizing everyone else on the Xbox 360!
I guess the options are
1. Everyone pays (like Live)
2. Hardcore gamers pay (like many PC titles)
3. Companies pay (like PS2)
There are benefits to each, and drawbacks to each. The nice thing is there are options for each preference. If you are willing to live with the tradeoffs (and developers are as well... some hate offering it for free, others hate being told to do it the Live way, etc) then it is all good.
seismologist
Regular
I haven't been on live before but from what I understand there are no dedicated game servers?
So it's still a bit curious as to what exactly you're paying for.
Has this changed with Live 360?
So it's still a bit curious as to what exactly you're paying for.
Has this changed with Live 360?
scooby_dooby said:
Sure, xbconnect and xlink is pretty much a tunneling software. So, it only works with games that support system link, not Live. And as you know, system link doesn't provide you with a lot of functionality. Simply because it assumes you're connected via LAN in the same subnet. So there's no server browser or stuff like that.
The good part is because it doesn't do these sort of stuff...xbconnect/xlink developers intergated a lot of cool stuff into their softwares, to make gamers' life easier. So to use these features (chating, game management, friends list, etc), you need to access to your computer. Lot a lot of people use a laptop, because it allows them mobile.
Unfortunately, this setup isn't ideal for a lot of non-techie users. However, gamers with a little PC knowledge and hardware can make great use of setup. Imagine, being able to kick a player off, because he's acting like a jerk.
scooby_dooby said:
The only thing we know is all x360 games will support Live. Hopefully, future game will support system link, because without system link...it's not going work.
I'll quote the enitre post for both point and counterpoint to Xbox Live fees. A free service (XBconnect) is not as easy to use. The fee-based service has more bells and whistles, kind of, but primarily it's focused on plug and pay, er, play.scooby_dooby said:
The idea being that you get what you pay for. One of the biggest mistakes Xbox made, I believe, is allowing EA control of their own services, since the experience is notably different on EA games (ie, it's horrible to the point of making me not want to play online games).
Anyway, long winded way of saying, "The service is fee-based because it offers a service." We'll find out soon enough if it's priced outside of what consumers are willing to pay. Personally, I'd be shocked to hear that Xbox Live actually turns a profit. Their customer add's probably eat away at any yearly fees...
.Sis
Another top post Acert.
One thing which you haven't taken into account, though, is Xbox Live uses P2P to host servers. MS don't wear server costs other than for the "pluses" such as user messaging, friends lists, etc.
I'd rather not have these things and be able to directly connect to a friend's Xbox to play Halo3/PGR3 for free. Simple reason is, I want to play games. The rest is fluff, though the option is great for those who use it.
One thing which you haven't taken into account, though, is Xbox Live uses P2P to host servers. MS don't wear server costs other than for the "pluses" such as user messaging, friends lists, etc.
I'd rather not have these things and be able to directly connect to a friend's Xbox to play Halo3/PGR3 for free. Simple reason is, I want to play games. The rest is fluff, though the option is great for those who use it.
Thanks for the correction. I do not have Xbox Live, I am only vaguely familiar with the service and how it functions. I had thought some games used servers, but I guess I was wrong!
I wonder though: Will PDZ have servers with 50+ players? I don't believe most cable accounts have enough bandwidth to serve that number of players. In a game like BF2 I top out at about 12 (but I have only 384Kb upstream... 5Mb down though!)
I wonder though: Will PDZ have servers with 50+ players? I don't believe most cable accounts have enough bandwidth to serve that number of players. In a game like BF2 I top out at about 12 (but I have only 384Kb upstream... 5Mb down though!)
Live can have dedicated servers IIRC, but apparently no one has paid MS to make that happen.
Similar threads
