By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Would The Xbox Brand Be More Successful Without The Live Fee..

 

Would The Xbox Brand Be More Successful Without The Live Fee

Yes 80 42.11%
 
No 83 43.68%
 
See results.. 27 14.21%
 
Total:190
chapset on 27 July 2011
worldlyfall said:
chapset said:
worldlyfall said:
chapset said:
xbox live is p2p I don't get what the fuck people are paying for, if Microsoft could have offered online for free and a good communication system then yes what other feature are so important?? facebook? twitter??



Oh wow, this is ignorance at best. Live is not P2P, there are many games that use dedicated servers on Live i can name a few, EVERY EA & VAVLE game, Forza, Frontlines, Gears, ect. Just because many of the games use p2p that dosn't mean that Live is P2P, its up to the developers to decide if they want to use dedicated servers or not.  The service it self is ran on MS dedicated servers which are much more stable, faster, and secure than Sony's PSN.

I see a lot of comments like and yours with a lot of replies like mine, please can you and everyone else who makes this claim just stop, cause you guys are just randomly pulling this claim that LIVE is P2P out of your asses when there  are facts agianst you.

Most of the games you mentionned are from third parties... Microsft get 100% off xbox live subcription fee yet third parties are the one offering the servers . all Sony's first partie title offer dedicated servers for free Microsoft doesn't this is why you don't see many games on the xbox offering multiplayer games with more then 16 players. can you provide the facts that state live is not p2p please?

 The point you made is that Xbox Live is P2P, I proved you wrong by listing games and two whole developers that make games for Xbox that run on dedicated servers, why your being so childish about this i do not know. Spin it in how many ways you want in your first comment you did not mention anything about first party, third party, who host this who host that, how many people playing, or where the money is going all you said was Live is P2P. So i posted a reply by listing games on Live that run on dedicated servers, both being third party and FIRST party. So it really dosn't matter how you spin it because you would still be wrong.

Also why do i need to proved facts that state Live runs on MS servers? Its common sense, because it is. So your telling me that when i turn on my Xbox and stream a movie, or download a demo all that is being hosted by another kids Xbox? Oh please just stop. You said Live is P2P i proved you wrong, just accept it, there is no shame in manning up and realizing your mistakes the more you continue arguing with me the more of fanboy you will make your self look. And i doubt your really are a fanboy you just seem misinformed and cant accept facts. It dosnt matter where the money goes, how many people are playing, or who host the dedicated servers, the point you made from the very beginning is Live is P2P i proved you wrong, accept it and move on along with everyone else who keeps saying live is P2P.

lol most people use xbox live to play online which for 80% and more of the games is p2p or client server based i don't know what you find so hard to understand, now your saying streaming and downloading movies is why you pay for live as if you can't do that on ps3 or pc for free, if you like paying to play online good for you and good for microsoft I guess,  I'll be doing the same thing for free. good day



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Around the Network
yo_john117 on 27 July 2011
Dragon_Lord said:
MonstaMack said:
No thanks. I don't want my service to be hacked, plus gold subscriptions are a huge revenue for MS to offset hardware costs (Imagine how much longer it would have taken MS to get of the RROD hole without Xbox Live subscriptions, and of course the over priced accessories).

You do know a ton of accounts and pws for xbl and accounts for sites linked and credit cards were comprisoned by a hacker who claimed he hacked live, they were posted on twiter, MS denied the leak was on their but they denied the 360s failrate too so I doubt they are telling the truth and xbl is the only thing everything that was comprimised had in common

Phishing for information is most likely the cause of that.



Dragon_Lord on 27 July 2011
yo_john117 said:
Dragon_Lord said:
MonstaMack said:
No thanks. I don't want my service to be hacked, plus gold subscriptions are a huge revenue for MS to offset hardware costs (Imagine how much longer it would have taken MS to get of the RROD hole without Xbox Live subscriptions, and of course the over priced accessories).

You do know a ton of accounts and pws for xbl and accounts for sites linked and credit cards were comprisoned by a hacker who claimed he hacked live, they were posted on twiter, MS denied the leak was on their but they denied the 360s failrate too so I doubt they are telling the truth and xbl is the only thing everything that was comprimised had in common

Phishing for information is most likely the cause of that.

Then how come no ps3 accounts were effected, surely some people use the same name and password for both accounts and even if they didn't why does phishing only work on xbl and not psn? Not to mention that only and all sites associated with xbl were effected... this isn't simple phishing think things through 



scottie on 27 July 2011

I doubt it. If live were free, then MS would have less money and would have had to do some or all of

Moneyhat less 3rd parties
Build/buy less 1st party studios
Keep hardware prices higher for longer
Have a less comprehensive RRoD return policy
Make a huge loss

None of these are particularly great options imo



Dragon_Lord on 27 July 2011
scottie said:
I doubt it. If live were free, then MS would have less money and would have had to do some or all of

Moneyhat less 3rd parties
Build/buy less 1st party studios
Keep hardware prices higher for longer
Have a less comprehensive RRoD return policy
Make a huge loss

None of these are particularly great options imo

I could live without the moneyhating, we'd still get all the content...



Around the Network
scottie on 27 July 2011
Dragon_Lord said:
scottie said:
I doubt it. If live were free, then MS would have less money and would have had to do some or all of

Moneyhat less 3rd parties
Build/buy less 1st party studios
Keep hardware prices higher for longer
Have a less comprehensive RRoD return policy
Make a huge loss

None of these are particularly great options imo

I could live without the moneyhating, we'd still get all the content...


You certainly wouldn't get all the content. The wave of JRPG releases for the 360 would never have occured if MS didn't moneyhat. The 360 wouldn't have got late versions of those games, it wouldn't have got poor quality versions of those games. It would not have got those games at all.

 

As for the western games that were moneyhatted, you're right that most of them would have come to the 360 in some form anyway. They would have arrived later, there would have been less exclusive content (which means stronger sales for PS3 and weakens the 360 in general), and PS3 would have remained the lead console on multiplats for a longer time - meaning that the 360 versions of games would be worse and the PS3 versions better.



Dragon_Lord on 27 July 2011
scottie said:
Dragon_Lord said:
scottie said:
I doubt it. If live were free, then MS would have less money and would have had to do some or all of

Moneyhat less 3rd parties
Build/buy less 1st party studios
Keep hardware prices higher for longer
Have a less comprehensive RRoD return policy
Make a huge loss

None of these are particularly great options imo

I could live without the moneyhating, we'd still get all the content...


You certainly wouldn't get all the content. The wave of JRPG releases for the 360 would never have occured if MS didn't moneyhat. The 360 wouldn't have got late versions of those games, it wouldn't have got poor quality versions of those games. It would not have got those games at all.

 

As for the western games that were moneyhatted, you're right that most of them would have come to the 360 in some form anyway. They would have arrived later, there would have been less exclusive content (which means stronger sales for PS3 and weakens the 360 in general), and PS3 would have remained the lead console on multiplats for a longer time - meaning that the 360 versions of games would be worse and the PS3 versions better.

Content would of never come later, it would of came at the same time as for the jrpgs none of them that MS money hatted are good anyways and who knows without the money hatting MS might of actaully devoted more to first party



MonstaMack on 27 July 2011
yo_john117 said:
Dragon_Lord said:
MonstaMack said:
No thanks. I don't want my service to be hacked, plus gold subscriptions are a huge revenue for MS to offset hardware costs (Imagine how much longer it would have taken MS to get of the RROD hole without Xbox Live subscriptions, and of course the over priced accessories).

You do know a ton of accounts and pws for xbl and accounts for sites linked and credit cards were comprisoned by a hacker who claimed he hacked live, they were posted on twiter, MS denied the leak was on their but they denied the 360s failrate too so I doubt they are telling the truth and xbl is the only thing everything that was comprimised had in common

Phishing for information is most likely the cause of that.

Yeah those were phishing scams. Let me know when XBL is down for a month lawl.



It's just that simple.

scottie on 27 July 2011

@ dragon lord

Wether or not you like the Japanese games is irrelevant. All that matters to my point is that they came out because of moneyhatting, increased hardware sales (which they did) and made the xbox brand stronger.

As for "Content would of never come later, it would of came at the same time", I'm not entirely sure what you mean, or why you think that.

The way I see it
1) MS moneyhatted timed exclusivity
2) It takes longer to develop 2 versions of a game than 1
3) Consequently, because 1 was done, the 360 versions released earlier and the PS3 versions released later than they would have otherwise.

Which of those 3 do you disagree with?

And you should not underestimate timed exclusivity, it certainly did a lot to strengthen the xbox brand, as OP asked



RCTjunkie on 28 July 2011

If it was the same quality, then yes it would be much more highly respected.



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?