Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Reasonable said:
No you're guessing unless you can provide some sort of evidence for a) Live annual operational costs and b) Live annual advertising revenue.
If a) is larger than b) then you're correct - if b) if larger then a) then you're incorrect.
As I said originally I keep seeing people say "Can't" etc. but I've never seen amy actual detail to substantiate the claims. You sounded certain so I thought maybe you had read articles, had some links, etc. but I guess not.
As for the bolded, Live started fee based - why would MS drop the fee if advertising revenue now cover it? I'd expect them to pocket the difference - if that's the case I'm just curious how much they'd be pocketing.
|
I think you're just looking at Live for its online gaming and not Live as whole. Which is why I said Live "AS IS" can't be supported on ads alone. The free "similar services" you mentioned don't take on the same over head cost or offer as much but you ignore that.
But okay, lets say I'm guessing. You're the one guessing they can provide the same service relying just on ads. Even though there is nothing comparable that does.
|
I'm not guessing anything. I haven't said they can or can't. I'd just like to know whether they could or not but we obviously don't know.
EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess. I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.
|
With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...
|
Based on what? Link me one concrete piece of evidence to support that. I suspect you have no idea what the costs of Live are nor it's potential for advertising revenue.
