Comments on: Charging for Microsoft Xbox Live

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:07:13 +0000

Tim, I’m not sure Robin is claiming XBL Silver Members play on PSN, merely that the actual numbers of XBL Gold Members is less then the users of PSN. I’m not sure that is the case, but I don’t think it matters.

I choose my PS3 over my Xbox any day for its interface and free messaging/game matching. I’m looking forward to getting home installed as it looks great.

Peter

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:18:58 +0000

#33:

I fail to see how the percentage of Silver accounts among the 12 million magically translates into those Silver subscribers owning PS3s. It’s entirely possible that of the 12 million Live accounts, maybe half are Gold, maybe even less. But that doesn’t mean that the Silver members “play online on PSN”. That claim is ridiculous. I suggest you think more carefully about this.

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:40:30 +0000

#5:

Incorrect. The numbers you cite include Gold (paid and trial) and Silver (free) registrations. Microsoft have never published figures for paying subscribers, and it’s unlikely they ever will (as admitting that more people choose to play online via PSN than Xbox Live Gold would be a huge loss of face). I suggest you read your sources more closely.

By: DevilsApostle

DevilsApostle — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:40:31 +0000

MS Live was the best, but now it is rapidly losing its touch to PSN. I have both and PSN is not far of from kicking XBLA’s backside.

* PSN is free
* You get HOME for free which is far greater then anything on the 360.
* Constant free upgrades allowing extra features for users
* Better online games (less of them but better. Quality definitely wins over quantity in this case).
* Developers prefer it to XMBLA since it has less restrictions.
* Allows developers to give out freebies and upgrades which XBLA doesn’t due to MS not allowing them to.
* Allowing user generated content to be shared. MS doesn’t allow this.
* If the future is online gaming and Sony offer it for free and by the end of this year it WILL be superior to XBLA then why pay for something less superior?! Doesn’t make sense. Are XBOTS telling me they rather pay £1000 for a ford then have a Lamborghini for free? I don’t think so. XBLA can only charge up to the point where their rivals cant offer anythign better and this is all coming to a end soon.

By: Evilredzombie

Evilredzombie — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:27:28 +0000

PSN is no match for live…
I love sony however they need to step up. Id rather pay and get live than have PSN for free…
I agree they could discount it a bit..

By: Darius

Darius — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:20:50 +0000

Microsoft can make it free. All they need to do is rid hosting the servers themselves. If playstation does everything Xbox does but builds upon it. Whilst keeping it free then it’ll be pretty much screwed. Its also a bit much asking for 100 quid a month to pay for a “Platinum” service i mean The system plus games and Dlc its a little much, For even a hardcore gamer not all of them are made of money. If they maybe didnt throw ridicilous amounts of money getting sony exclusives multi platform then they would be able to keep Xbox free no costs. If this happens next gen coupled with Totally free xbox live for all features and no RROD or above 3% Hardware failure, good list of games and good machine Ill buy an Xbox as well as a playstation next round.

By: Raz

Raz — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:03:56 +0000

Yes, well. I feel I must point out that while Sony’s service may not be ‘feature packed’; free firmware updates are continuing to add new features that rival XBOX Live’s. Trophies are the answer to Gamerscore, Home is upcoming later in the fall (which XBOX doesn’t have), we now have in-game XMB…and did I mention: it’s completely free? My only problem is support for some of the game servers, but that’s a third-party issue.

Microtransactions are Sony’s bet for turning a profit, and if the money they’re making off my purchases is any indication, it’s working just fine. Home will provide advertising revenue, as well as another avenue for MTs. So how is XBOX Live better, again? ^_^

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:31:07 +0000

Microsoft should not for any reason introduce a new “Platinum” class. That would give Microsoft a reason to hold stuff from the gold class, that should be available on the gold class…

I don’t know if that made sense, but I tried to warn you.

By: Nak

Nak — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:59:32 +0000

I think that there are many gamers out there like myself who do not play adversarial MP games on the console simply because we are not good enough (I freely admit it). I hate getting wasted every 20 seconds in a deathmatch etc…. I only play coop games. As there aren’t many coop games around compared to the adversarial modes, I suggest one way that MS can entice those people to upgrade from Silver is to perhaps offer an intermediate mode. I currently find myself kicking my heels most of the time because there are so little coop games available. Have not had a coop game to play since R6 Vegas 2. And I find it is not worthwhile to subscribe to Gold. That is one of the large reasons why people do not move from Silver to Gold. The MP hardcore expert players (bless them) simply make the entire environment no fun for casual players like me. the hardcore gamers should bear in mind to increase the amount of gamers like me so that MS and the game devs make much more money so that they can continue to get the hardcore games they are so used to. Bottom line is profit dudes. You hardcore gamers may be willing to pay for the latest and greatest, but there are a sizeable portion of gamers out there who do not and guess what? I think the casual gamers out there outnumber the hardcore. Also not all casual gamers wanna play kiddie games like what is being offered at Wii and what some execs at MS think. All we want to do is to have fun. But to die every 10 secs in adversarial play is not my idea of fun. Coop, however is damned fun.

For example:
Gold – All the features currently available (same price)
Silver – All the features available on Gold except it is for coop play only (no versus online). Have a charge of say USD25.
Bronze – Similar to what is available on Silver now without any sort of online play. (Free)

Implement that and I will betcha that:

a. More people would be willing to make the leap to online gaming and paid subscription. From $0 to $50 is a huge leap. But from $0 to $25 is not such a huge leap.
b. More developers would be paying so much more attention to coop play rather than just an afterthought or last minute addition, if there is time.

By: Stone Bytes

Stone Bytes — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:31:56 +0000

I find it counter productive to charge people for services more than it’s already done.
It reminds me of some manager at a video game company who interviewed me for a job.
At some point, he started arguing, rather firmly, that free services and stuff on the net were absurd and would never work, almost scornful.

That was before Youtube, blogs, pictures hosts, MySpaces and Facebooks, file hosting and sharing, music hosting, etc.

It’s highly ridiculous to tax people from get go. You limit your market.
Once stuff is free, you get the traffic, you get potential customers. It’s only then, when they’re in the net, that you can starting maxing them out, but subtlely.