Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
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.
|
Microsoft has 50 entertainment partners half of them are which major entertainment companies and the largest cloud storage from the consoles available.... 512mb... It just make sense....
Look, if your looking to argue with some one... treat them as your equal and dont treat them as your inferior....
|
So no links to actual evidence of likely costs or income then?
|
Im sorry, no I dont... Microsoft doesnt exactly release ad revenue....
|
That's my point really. I'm not saying Live can or can't run on advertising alone - I'm seeing people stating categorically it can't and asking how they know I'm discovering they don't - they're guessing. The advertising may well only cover a fraction of the costs, or it might cover over 50% - I don't know, and neither does anyone else really so they shouldn't be claiming knowledge they don't have. One of the things I like on this site is claims must be backed up - I just wanted to see the evidence for claims I was interested in and it turned out there wasn't any.
I love how you imply it's my fault you and others are making claims with no evidence - I didn't force anyone to make any claims. I actually posted originally to note the features of Live I thought made it popular and arguably superior to PSN. I don't pretend Live is miles better than PSN - it's not - but it is better and I believe it's pretty clear in what areas. The whole advertising thing is a side track just because I say a claim. I'm not going to reply anymore because this is sidetracking the thread and I have my answer pretty definatively now - nobody has any figures for Live costs vs Advertising revenue intake.
|
You could have just looked up the fact yourself and avoided wasting people's time...
