Xbox Live Pricing

[bystander]

Do you think that if the PS3's online service is successful will Microsoft change their pricing for Xbox Live?

On one hand it's of course nice to get something for "free", on the flip side, charging people might be more likely to encourage people to play online (as inevitably you'll always want to get maximum value from the service you've paid for) And you could also argue it would to some degree act as a buffer, atrracting the sort of people who will be more interested in having a "proper" game.

Or will Microsoft find some way of adding value to an Xbox Live subscription.

Basically I'd just like to know what everyone's thoughts are.

 

[Bobbler]

I hope they make it free.

After paying for a year of XB Live (figuring I'd be using it; I got a little over excited and went all out), I became quite aware that I really don't care much about online gaming, at all (I've used it maybe twice)... most people are morons and most online games just aren't very fun IMO. But, in the off chance I do want to play online, I don't want to pay for it... because 4-5 times a year doesn't quite justify paying a monthly fee -- when my XB live gold subscription comes up, I highly doubt I'll be keeping it if I have to pay. The cost isn't that much -- I mean, paying $4-5 a month isn't very expensive, but it just isn't worth it for someone like me...

 

[vazel]

Isn't Live Gold a way for Microsoft to make up losses. I don't think the fee is going anywhere. And yes it should be free but I'm a sucker for online gaming.

 

[Geo]

I don't know, it feels to me like building out that infrastructure in the first place is more of a big hit financially than keeping it going. So I tend to think the fee could go away after awhile in favor of bundling. Or maybe the first year is free, and subsequent years are very cheap. By the end of the first year you really ought to know if you're that online gamer guy or not.

 

[TrungGap]

As nice as LIVE is, it isn't worth a $50/year more than PS3/Wii online gaming (which is free). Personally, I think they should make playing free. However charge for ranked games and clans. Because sometimes, I just want to play with friend online without needing it to be ranked.

 

[AzBat]

Personally, I don't see Microsoft ever making Live Gold free. They'll just keep adding more features to the service to give it more value over the free Silver version. Plus, I also don't see Microsoft making any changes until PS3 starts shipping in volume and the 2nd gen titles start shipping. By then Microsoft can definitely react to whatever Sony is doing. Sony would have to offer a hell of a lot for Microsoft to give up a nice money maker.

Tommy McClain

 

[blackmamba]

I voted yes they'll change it but I don't think it will be going down in price rather up in small increments over a long period of time while adding more and more features to boost the value. pretty much like most other service packages you see in cable t.v., cell phones, satallite ect...Also, I do play alot of online games and find it very fun. I have friends as far away as Australia and as close as just down my street on my friends list. I can pretty much find a game anytime with friends. I can chat with my brothers out of state with no long distance charges as well. All in all XBL has been a great value for the money. Too many people want free this and free that, too many people waiting for a handout. I say if the product or service is providing me with what I want at a good value then hell yea I'll pay for it. I think that is only fair.

 

[valioso]

not until they see what Sony is really doing for online.

 

[cthellis42]

If Sony and Nintendo pull it off--and well--they'll really have no choice but to offer Gold membership for free and try to make things up with attaching other services to Live. They could jockey to improve the service--which is always good--but I don't know just what else they would start offering. And there's no saying the others can't roll those offerings in as well. They'd be better off working those cool advantages out, but making them small paid Marketplace extras. I rather expect their partners would put a lot of pressure on to get their multiplayer gaming to everyone to extend the lifespan of their games.

That is, unless MS magically gains a PS2-like marketshare advantage over the others, but I'm not really seeing that this gen.

 

[Brimstone]

Things will evolve.

A new level will be added in time called Platinum. This service level will cost the same money as the Gold level is at today. Tons of new services and features will come with this. You won't be subjected to any online advertising at the Platinum level.

Gold will remain as it is, but will become free. The catch will be online advertising.

Silver will remain as it is.



This set-up allows for a diverse choice of options imho. I feel there are many that just don't want the hassle of being bombarded with online advertising. But also I feel there are just as many that don't want to pay for online gaming and don't mind the sacrifice of seeing online advertising. People will have a choice of what model is right for them.

I do think under this scenario, Platnium will become very robust and sophisticatedly advanced. The hard core technophiles will desire Platinum.

 

[Powderkeg]

I don't think MS wants to go with the "hidden costs" model of the PS3. I just don't picture MS charging for game demos or selling games that don't work online unless you purchase additional content over their marketplace.

 

[Powderkeg]

Gold will remain as it is, but will become free. The catch will be online advertising.

Silver will remain as it is.

If Gold is free then why would they keep Silver at all? So they could have 2 free services, one with more limited features than the other?

 

[quest55720]

If they go the online add route I hope there is an option to pay the 50 a year to get rid of the ads.

 

[Brimstone]

If Gold is free then why would they keep Silver at all? So they could have 2 free services, one with more limited features than the other?

Silver you don't get flooded with online advertising.

Gold you get online play, but get exposed to online advertisting. That is a big cost. My personel time is valuable to me. To be exposed to a 30 second ad is sacrificing 30 seconds of my lifespan, one of my valuable assests.

 

[Brimstone]

If they go the online add route I hope there is an option to pay the 50 a year to get rid of the ads.

Thats what I'm suggesting with a "Platinum" level. You pay money, and you don't get any of the advertising stuff.

 

[hey69]

Yes, they'll change it but in a few years

 

[Shifty Geezer]

By the end of the first year you really ought to know if you're that online gamer guy or not.

The thing with online gaming is there's two very different types. One is meeting and playing with strangers - no thanks! The other is playing with friends you know - yes please! The online PC games I've played have always been to play with real-life mates in a weekday evening when it's too much faff to meet up and play games round someone's house. That's why free online is a great idea. Being able to play CON multiplayer online or offline without having to spend extra money is a big plus. If I had to pay to play these games with friends, I wouldn't bother as it's not that important a thing. And then offering me free online gaming means I'll be dipping my toe into the water every now and then, at which point the sharks of online shopping can pull me in and empty my wallet on stuff I don't want to buy but which was advertised and seemed cheap and good value, and the photos of customers all looked so happy and colourful unlike the grey, drab 'before we bought these products' photos, and before I know it, I'm eating off a PlayStation dinner set wearing PlayStation sweatbands then going to bed under a PlayStation duvet with matching PlayStation curtains!

Hmmm, maybe free online isn't such a good thing after all!

 

[Bad_Boy]

I don't think MS wants to go with the "hidden costs" model of the PS3. I just don't picture MS charging for game demos or selling games that don't work online unless you purchase additional content over their marketplace.

I highly doubt sony will be charging for demos.

 

[cthellis42]

I don't think MS wants to go with the "hidden costs" model of the PS3. I just don't picture MS charging for game demos or selling games that don't work online unless you purchase additional content over their marketplace.

Where does it say Sony will be charging for demos? Demos are game advertisements and enticements and very-much desired by the developers to get out there as easily as possible; charging for them would be retarded.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

Where does it say Sony will be charging for demos? Demos are game advertisements and enticements and very-much desired by the developers to get out there as easily as possible; charging for them would be retarded.

I think it's based off a quote taken out of context. However, Sony did charge for demos during the PS1 gen, at least on the PS Underground seasonal packs. I remember paying like $3-5 for one
about 7 years ago. It seemed like an inconsequential amount of money at the time, and there were a good number of playable demos. I'd never do it again though. PEACE.