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

Forums - Microsoft - 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
ramses01 on 28 July 2011
Dodece said:
@ramses01

Congratulations you pay good money for a service you don't even use. Seeing as your so proud of your shrewd use of money. Would you be interested in buying some ocean side real estate conveniently located on the moon. Think about it. You could have some land you can't use to go with the service you don't use. How about we start our little negotiation at say a hundred thousand dollars. At that price it is a real steal.

@topic

Content you pay extra for is by default not part of the package you are paying for. In other words having more movies for you to buy is not a justification. Especially considering that you don't have to pay a premium to buy said movies. If your going to make a argument. Make a valid one. I see Xbox Live, and raise you Amazon which provides the exact same service

Also I shouldn't have to say this, but it is obvious now that it needs to be said. Microsoft should be servicing you. It shouldn't be the other way around. You shouldn't be paying to make for a better service. Microsoft should offer up a better service so you will pay. You are a customer you should be treasured, and not exploited.

I am still waiting for a actual counter argument, and all I have read in vague comments. What is Microsoft selling you beyond access to online games. Everything they are selling is something that is already free, or you already have to pay for. Unless you have a argument for this you don't have any argument at all.

Just asking for some honesty, and not propaganda.


LOL, a couple of points here.

First, a three year subscription to live costs less than a decent dinner for 1

Second, Netflix intergration, ESPN3, Last FM, and all of the ongoing improvements (including Arcarde being THE platform of the gen) make live a tremendous value.  Just the time saved by having all of this content consolidated in one spot provides way beyond a 10 fold return on investment.  Of course, if your time isn't very valuable then you might have a different opinion.



Around the Network
d21lewis on 28 July 2011
thranx said:
Michael-5 said:
thranx said:
with out the fee i do not think the original xbox would have had the online capabilities it had and there for would not have been as big of a hit and the online capabilities of this gen would also be less robust as they would not ahve made all of the progress in the previous gen again hurting an advantage that they had at the begining of the gen over their competitors.

The original X-Box had free online...

Yes I think the X-Box brand would be more successful with a much smaller fee. Without a fee I'm not sure. Part of that fee is to help develop arcade games and to improve the network. However the bulk of it is profit.

With a smaller the fee, MS would be less profitable, but since most of the bigger games on the 360 focus on polished well made online multiplayer (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, even Forza), it would help if they cut the fee.

Are you sure it didn't? I could of swore that it had free and gold like now. I wasn't 100% sure though and could not find any info on it. I'll take your word though as i do not remember.

 

I didn't have an original Xbox but I'm 99.9% positive that it had a fee.  Otherwise, the "Xbox Live has been the same price for 10 years so it's not that big of a deal if we add $10 to the price" comment/action wouldn't make any sense.



d21lewis on 28 July 2011
Michael-5 said:
thranx said:
Michael-5 said:
thranx said:
with out the fee i do not think the original xbox would have had the online capabilities it had and there for would not have been as big of a hit and the online capabilities of this gen would also be less robust as they would not ahve made all of the progress in the previous gen again hurting an advantage that they had at the begining of the gen over their competitors.

The original X-Box had free online...

Yes I think the X-Box brand would be more successful with a much smaller fee. Without a fee I'm not sure. Part of that fee is to help develop arcade games and to improve the network. However the bulk of it is profit.

With a smaller the fee, MS would be less profitable, but since most of the bigger games on the 360 focus on polished well made online multiplayer (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, even Forza), it would help if they cut the fee.

Are you sure it didn't? I could of swore that it had free and gold like now. I wasn't 100% sure though and could not find any info on it. I'll take your word though as i do not remember.

It was free, and built into every console.

The difference was mics weren't included with the console, and the marketplace was a lot less developed then it is now. There were also no arcade games, and very few games had DLC, one of them was Halo 2.

$49.99 since 2002.  In your face, Michael-5!!

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/105/1059431p1.html



Michael-5 on 28 July 2011
d21lewis said:
Michael-5 said:
thranx said:
Michael-5 said:
thranx said:
with out the fee i do not think the original xbox would have had the online capabilities it had and there for would not have been as big of a hit and the online capabilities of this gen would also be less robust as they would not ahve made all of the progress in the previous gen again hurting an advantage that they had at the begining of the gen over their competitors.

The original X-Box had free online...

Yes I think the X-Box brand would be more successful with a much smaller fee. Without a fee I'm not sure. Part of that fee is to help develop arcade games and to improve the network. However the bulk of it is profit.

With a smaller the fee, MS would be less profitable, but since most of the bigger games on the 360 focus on polished well made online multiplayer (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, even Forza), it would help if they cut the fee.

Are you sure it didn't? I could of swore that it had free and gold like now. I wasn't 100% sure though and could not find any info on it. I'll take your word though as i do not remember.

It was free, and built into every console.

The difference was mics weren't included with the console, and the marketplace was a lot less developed then it is now. There were also no arcade games, and very few games had DLC, one of them was Halo 2.

$49.99 since 2002.  In your face, Michael-5!!

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/105/1059431p1.html

I was wrong then, maybe my friends just never paid the fee because console online multiplayer was so new then. I was right in saying DLC and Arcade came later.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

o_O.Q on 28 July 2011
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).

yeah because xbl can't be hacked right?



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 28 July 2011
ramses01 said:
Dodece said:
@ramses01

Congratulations you pay good money for a service you don't even use. Seeing as your so proud of your shrewd use of money. Would you be interested in buying some ocean side real estate conveniently located on the moon. Think about it. You could have some land you can't use to go with the service you don't use. How about we start our little negotiation at say a hundred thousand dollars. At that price it is a real steal.

@topic

Content you pay extra for is by default not part of the package you are paying for. In other words having more movies for you to buy is not a justification. Especially considering that you don't have to pay a premium to buy said movies. If your going to make a argument. Make a valid one. I see Xbox Live, and raise you Amazon which provides the exact same service

Also I shouldn't have to say this, but it is obvious now that it needs to be said. Microsoft should be servicing you. It shouldn't be the other way around. You shouldn't be paying to make for a better service. Microsoft should offer up a better service so you will pay. You are a customer you should be treasured, and not exploited.

I am still waiting for a actual counter argument, and all I have read in vague comments. What is Microsoft selling you beyond access to online games. Everything they are selling is something that is already free, or you already have to pay for. Unless you have a argument for this you don't have any argument at all.

Just asking for some honesty, and not propaganda.


LOL, a couple of points here.

First, a three year subscription to live costs less than a decent dinner for 1

Second, Netflix intergration, ESPN3, Last FM, and all of the ongoing improvements (including Arcarde being THE platform of the gen) make live a tremendous value.  Just the time saved by having all of this content consolidated in one spot provides way beyond a 10 fold return on investment.  Of course, if your time isn't very valuable then you might have a different opinion.

you say this as if psn doesn't offer similar services for free :

mlb.tv, nhl gamecenter, netflix, hulu plus, vudu, vidzone, sony's own music and video stores, etc

its amazing to me how people name these services as justifications for the price when some are offered on other platforms for free



MonstaMack on 28 July 2011
o_O.Q 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).

yeah because xbl can't be hacked right?


Microsoft wouldn't let their system be down that long. 3 days tops. I bet my VGChartz career on it.



It's just that simple.

o_O.Q on 28 July 2011
MonstaMack said:
o_O.Q 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).

yeah because xbl can't be hacked right?


Microsoft wouldn't let their system be down that long. 3 days tops. I bet my VGChartz career on it.

that wasn't the question this was "xbl can't be hacked right?"



MonstaMack on 28 July 2011
o_O.Q said:
MonstaMack said:
o_O.Q 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).

yeah because xbl can't be hacked right?


Microsoft wouldn't let their system be down that long. 3 days tops. I bet my VGChartz career on it.

that wasn't the question this was "xbl can't be hacked right?"


Anything can be hacked. The problem is Sony did very little to prevent it and Microsoft wouldn't be down for as long, if it ends up being down more then 2 days then call me out it and I won't show my face around here ever again.



It's just that simple.

d21lewis on 28 July 2011

WTF is going on at VGChartz today? It's totally dead on Firefox and I can't quote using Explorer (so if you think this post is directed at you, it is).

Whether Xbox Live is worth the cost is up to the customer. Many of us who choose to purchase Gold instead of going with the free version are satisfied with the service. Xbox Live cost $50 a year, since 2002. People thought it was worth the money then, too. The service we get now is leaps and bounds above what was available then and the price is pretty close to the same. Xbox Live exists in a vacuum, it seems. They don't care what the competition is doing. PSN being free this gen didn't influence Xbox Live, at all.

As I said earlier in this thread, the reason PSN users don't have to pay a price for what they get and the reason PSN is as good as it is is a direct result of the quality of Xbox Live. Xbox Live is what it is because of the fee. Sure, Microsoft could offer a free online version and cost themselves a ton of profit but it's a business, not a charity. Would Joker kill Batman for free? Not if he takes his own advice. Every feature that Microsoft adds to the service because they want people to pay for Xbox Live, Sony tries to add to the PS3 because they don't want people to choose Live over the PS3. As a result, even while selling more consoles, Sony is still making loing money on the PS3 while Microsoft is making money on the 360. Why don't people want a company to prosper?

The Microsoft way of doing things is the right way. They make a service that's enticing to the customer, they market it well, and people pay for it. Plain and simple. PSN is a viable alternative and its users are happy to bleed Sony's pocketbook. Good for them. As for the question asked by the OP, my answer is no. Without Xbox Live, the Xbox 360 would be dead and thus not popular at all. That money is keeping the system and new services flowing.