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

Forums - Microsoft - What are XBLG subscribers paying $50 a year for?

Skeeuk on 19 May 2010

the sole and only reason is because there is no other choice simple!

if you have a 360 and want to play a game online you HAVE to pay, even if you casually only play on weekends you still have to pull up the full charge.

i can guarantee you, if online play was free on 360 (which it should be), and the charge was just for the extras you would harldy have anyone forking out for gold membership apart from a few.

so to sum up, the only reason 360 owners are paying for XBLG is because they have no choice but to do so, otherwise they cant play online.



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Around the Network
twesterm on 19 May 2010
A Bad Clown said:
First off, at the cheapest it's 35$ for a year. Also, subscribers get alot of stuff early. Netflix and Cross- Game chat for example. And Halo, lest we forget Halo. I'm waiting for Sony's priced service where you have to pay for Cross-game chat and early acess.

At its cheapest?  I got my last subscrition for about $27 for 13 months.

* zero effort - Live is $50
* Mild effort - Live is $30-40
* some effort - Live is less than $30



 

nightsurge on 19 May 2010
Nitrous_18 said:
nightsurge said:
Nitrous_18 said:
nightsurge said:
C_Hollomon said:
They say the XBL fees is for cross game chat and better match making I guess. To me XBL fees is use to make up for the money lost to RROD. I don't see any difference between XBL and PSN. They both have movies, demos, and online gaming is the same to me. But hey MS don't like giving things away for free so it is what it is.

PSN has yet to make any profit at all.  So I guess Free isn't always the best option.  Contrary to what people may think, it does cost an extremely large amount of money to run these services.

What do you mean 'Free isn't the best option'? Yes I agree it does cost a lot of money to keep the service free but at the same time Sony are aware of this and have their premium service which can cover that. Also how do we the gamers suffer if the Psn service if Free? Because remember its not about how much the Brands gains or loses in money, its about how much we the consumers are paying for there services.

Because the free PSN is not as good as the for pay XBL and because of the losses they are adding the premium services.

Whether or not Live is better than Psn is opinion related as far as I am concerned.

I agree that Sony are putting forward the premium service due to their losses in profit over the years. But I personally think they hit the nail on the head with this idea. This is because Sony if they wanted could have charged for online services like Microsoft. But they didn't which is a smart choice since the cost of the ps3 is quite large as it is. By doing this people who buy a ps3 can still experience the full potential of the system right out of the box. Then for the extra's this is where premium service comes in.

Personally I think the only reason they didn't have a "for pay" service from the start was because their initial console cost of entry was so high as you mentioned.  Next generation I expect all consoles' online offerings to be "for pay" right off the bat and initial pricing to be no higher than $300-350 for any console.



nightsurge on 19 May 2010
Skeeuk said:
the sole and only reason is because there is no other choice simple!

if you have a 360 and want to play a game online you HAVE to pay, even if you casually only play on weekends you still have to pull up the full charge.

i can guarantee you, if online play was free on 360 (which it should be), and the charge was just for the extras you would harldy have anyone forking out for gold membership apart from a few.

so to sum up, the only reason 360 owners are paying for XBLG is because they have no choice but to do so, otherwise they cant play online.

I can guarantee you would be wrong.  Especially if Party Chat, private chat, Netflix Streaming, etc. were only accessible via the Gold portion.



Xmanny2009X on 19 May 2010
yo_john117 said:
Xmanny2009X said:
yo_john117 said:

Because of Halo basically, its worth every penny to play one of the best multiplayer experiences ever!  I would probably pay even more just to play Halo, it really is that good of a game (of course MW2 isn't that bad either, but when Reach comes out, thats it!)

Oh lord not again.

No no, that statement should be used for this overtalked about topic.

Or for the over hyped and overtalked video game version of the Power Rangers.



Currently playing

MLB 09: The Show(PS3)

Around the Network
Mistershine on 19 May 2010
NiKKoM said:
badgenome said:
Slimebeast said:
To avoid people with aimbots and map hacks.

Also, to avoid shio.

I would pay $100 a year for that.. ;)


VGChartz Gold - with 100% less Shio than the free silver version. Sign me up!



De85 on 19 May 2010
nightsurge said:
I think it's safe to say that when an OP makes a thread and isn't seen in it again for near 50 posts that this was flame bait, no? I mean it's filled with misinformation and arguments we've seen 50,000,000,000,000x before.

QFT.  When I saw a thread title about XBL, with shio as the OP I knew exactly what would be going down...



Strategyking92 on 19 May 2010

Currently I don't have gold

But why I prefer XBL over steam and PSN is that xbl achievements are ze best, only cool people play xbox live, and we get Valve games anyway.

Yeah the price sucks, but when you pay, you get 100% of your xbox. If people are willing to pay, they ain't gonna stop charging. I would rather not pay, but getting full access to a giant service providing a unique experience is worth it. And besides, it's not really that much considering everybody you know plays that, and steam, while having a great selection of titles isn't all that intuitive.



And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.

Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive

Notorius.A.i.G on 19 May 2010

To play online ? Lol.



Who's the best Pac, Nas, and Big. Just leave it to that.

PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Slaughterhouse Is The Sh*t  .... NOW ........ B_E_L_I_E_V_E

twesterm on 19 May 2010

We can joke all we want about whatever and throw opinions around until we're all blue in face, but I know there's one thing true for me: whenever there's a multiplayer multiplatform game out, everyone I know that has a PS3 and 360 gets it for the 360.

In games that are virtually identical or even in cases with something like Red Dead Redemption where the PS3 version is better (free DLC) and people consistently pick the 360 version there has to be a reason for that.

Lets look at Red Dead-- the PS3 version may be technically inferior but it's something that is completely insignificant. You may be able to tell 640p vs 720p when side by side, but people don't play the game side by side so it doesn't matter. They're essentially the same there. The PS3 version does have free DLC though.

So we must assume the PS3 version is better.

I happen to have a pretty big sample of hardcore gamers who are all big into multiplayer and who all own a PS3 and 360. Knowing the PS3 version is better, they should all get the PS3 version, right?

I know a good twenty people that bought Red Dead and I don't know anyone that got the PS3 version.

Again, there has to be a reason for that. Every single one of those people decided that $30-50 a year is worth it because every single one of them consistently buy the multiplayer games for the 360 over the PS3.  This example is not limited to only Red Dead, the same (or really close to it) rings true for every major multiplayer multiplatform game.

That reason can be a number of things. I don't know exactly what it is and I don't know if it's the same for everyone but I know it must be significant. That's what matters.