What makes it special? What makes Xbox Live worth it?

[Reasonable]

Jazz2K said:

Reasonable said:

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.

I'm sorry to butt in your conversation but this site relies mostly on educated guesses. Just because someone doesn't take the time to explain exactly how things work doesn't mean they have no clues how said thing work. Some people like myself have jobs that are related to advertizing (maybe not the same as those found on the Xbox dashboard but still) and taking the time to explain how it works to someone that doesn't work may take too much time.

You keep saying people make false claims with no evidence but should I remind you that a lot of people like you immediately jump on the idea that since there are ads on the dashboard then they should get enough money to run the service. This way of thinking makes others cringe since when you look at the ads you quickly realise that it's impossible. Ads on tv generate way more revenue than other ads and they pay way more than the others. But just because I will not give you a link with numbers you'll still keep saying it should be enough, this is an uneducated guess but you seem to like this idea better.

Show me where I said the ads could cover it or even anything about it.  I saw someone post that something empatically - as in factually in context - and asked for what was behind their claim.  Turned out to be guesses.  Also, the site functions on extrapolation from real numbers polled from retailers so far as I know, not pure estimates based on guesswork.

Your post is simply the kind of thing I was looking for - either example data to support the estimate or some idea why you would think so.  Check the post trail again.  The people I queried simply said "it's this" and then had no real reason to have said so nor any kind of annecdotal evidence or experience.

To make any kind of informed guess here - which is what you're talking about - you would need two pieces of information.  An estimate of Live costs - doesn't have to be the real figures but just something sensible based on some extrapolation of the service infrastructure.  Second, an estimate, based on the kind of knowlege you mention, of probable income of advertising on Live.

I've seen no-one - until you at least mentioned advertising - come up with anything satisfcatory here.

finally, the burden of proof in this site is on the person making the claim.  If you post here claiming X then you better be ready with something behind the claim.  Doesn't have to be facts, but it does at least have to be "I believe based on X that Live probable costs Y and that advertising is probably only W based on Z".  Anything else is simply an internet fact - i.e. a guess.

When I make claims, which I sometimes do, I'm always prepared to back them up with some knowledge if its an informed guess or links if I think it's more than an informed guess.