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
kickazz113 on 26 July 2011
selnor said:
o_O.Q said:
selnor said:
Dodece said:
I actually committed blasphemy, and voted a resounding yes. I will further compound my blasphemy by saying that gold is overpriced crap. This isn't a question of whether there is a place for subscription services. The question is why Microsoft doesn't actually provide content to justify the fee they are charging. Not only does the fee discourage any number of potential customers. They are charging for something that is actually free on any personal computer, or portable internet enabled device. The service is both superfluous, and nothing less then highway robbery. Bottom line it has a negative impact on the image.

I am calling the argument that Live is good to be nothing less then complete bullshit. Microsoft is not providing any content at all. Every service offered through Live is already an existing service that was already free to access elsewhere. Playing online was always free prior to this generation, and it isn't as if Microsoft has dedicated game servers up and running. No it is left up to the players hardware to serve as a host.

Live is just a shiny advertisement for games, and a overpriced portal to services that are free, or you have to pay for already. Don't give me this crap it is worth all they charge. I was intent on not resubscribing early this year. No I was not keen on paying for jack shit. The only way Microsoft got my jaded ass back was to bribe me with a free retail game. Only then did the price become less reprehensible.

That should tell you guys something. Microsoft had to bribe me with a forty dollar game before I would pony up for another year. They wouldn't be doing that if it weren't necessary. More and more people are becoming very jaded about what Microsoft is charging, and are walking away from the service. Which is only a short step form switching brands.

Microsoft better get its head out of its ass, and start to contrive real content. This overpriced portal, and shitty online gaming experience is nowhere near worth what they are charging. When the owners of your console are turning their backs. You can bet your ass they are not going to be advocating your product. Promotional freebies of such high cost cannot be all that practical either. Right now I have my expectations raised. I will expect to get something of equal value early next year, and unless I get that they and I will be right back where we started out this year. Me holding out on them until they bribe me with something I cannot ignore.

Anyway if Microsoft doesn't intend to expand the service with original content then they are probably better off dropping the fee altogether. The fee drives consumers away, and with nothing actually up for sale it isn't bringing consumers onto the platform. Right now it is doing no good, and a lot of harm. All I am saying is be one or the other. Either be worth the price being charged, or abandon the fee altogether. There is nothing worse the being totally overpriced.

You say they are walking away? 

Explain how their Live revenue is up 40% on last year?

And how they have even a bigger active user count now over PS3 than 2 years ago?

And as for original content. MS has and releases more original content than any other console service. Is faster, smoother and doesnt take 2 hours t update. 

"And how they have even a bigger active user count now over PS3 than 2 years ago?"


http://www.fatfoogoo.com/2011/04/new-report-ps3-surpasses-xbox-360-in-global-active-devices/

 

xbox live has around 13 million gold subscribers while all psn users can go online 

http://techgenie.com/latest/12-5-million-subscribers-for-microsoft-xbox-live-gold/

 

as for content i would say psn offers more online content but thats my opinion


Those are not active users.They are accounts that have been activated, no telling if they are still used.

The only way to tell actual activity is per game played numbers, or how many users actually download or stream Films. I could sit here an post figures for any of the top 10 multi and first party game active user list for PS3 and 360, but I dont have the time. Put it tis way, The PS3 has more registered accounts, and the lowest number of regular active users. And in terms of films and music its horrible in comparison. 

360 is hugely more active online in any online game. Aprime example is GTA 4 sold more on PS3 yet 360 GTA4 has more active regular users. 

 

Dont mix acount set up to regular active users.

XBOX LIVE is like a bustling metropolis with many regular vistors. PSN is like a TOWN where people visit in comparison for numbers of regualr active users.

It would appear Sony although offering free to play cannot keep their high account numbers regularly usinng their service like MS can. There has to be a reason. PSN is free,so why dont they use it? They have the account. LIVE is paid.Yet they renew so they can play. And continue to do so with increase in numbrs YOY for MS not decrease.

did you read the arcticle ??



Around the Network
Jay520 on 26 July 2011

An easy way to sort all this out is by looking at software numbers every year. Xbox is more active, not in the same proportion as a town to a city, but yes, it is more active. Each year, the 360 beats out PS3 in SW. Even years where the PS3 sells more, the 360 has more SW, thus, has a higher tie ratio, therefore being more active than the PS3.

OT:
in terms of money: No
in terms of market share: maybe, depends on the drop of quality.



mjk45 on 26 July 2011

From a revenue basis Microsoft would be mad to make live Free , about the only thing they could do and even then it's very risky, is to have no free access at all , instead Silver with say a $10 yearly fee receives some Gold features and Gold is marketed as a world leading premium online service with more and more services added along with content .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Michael-5 on 26 July 2011
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.



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

selnor on 26 July 2011
kickazz113 said:
selnor said:
o_O.Q said:
selnor said:
Dodece said:
I actually committed blasphemy, and voted a resounding yes. I will further compound my blasphemy by saying that gold is overpriced crap. This isn't a question of whether there is a place for subscription services. The question is why Microsoft doesn't actually provide content to justify the fee they are charging. Not only does the fee discourage any number of potential customers. They are charging for something that is actually free on any personal computer, or portable internet enabled device. The service is both superfluous, and nothing less then highway robbery. Bottom line it has a negative impact on the image.

I am calling the argument that Live is good to be nothing less then complete bullshit. Microsoft is not providing any content at all. Every service offered through Live is already an existing service that was already free to access elsewhere. Playing online was always free prior to this generation, and it isn't as if Microsoft has dedicated game servers up and running. No it is left up to the players hardware to serve as a host.

Live is just a shiny advertisement for games, and a overpriced portal to services that are free, or you have to pay for already. Don't give me this crap it is worth all they charge. I was intent on not resubscribing early this year. No I was not keen on paying for jack shit. The only way Microsoft got my jaded ass back was to bribe me with a free retail game. Only then did the price become less reprehensible.

That should tell you guys something. Microsoft had to bribe me with a forty dollar game before I would pony up for another year. They wouldn't be doing that if it weren't necessary. More and more people are becoming very jaded about what Microsoft is charging, and are walking away from the service. Which is only a short step form switching brands.

Microsoft better get its head out of its ass, and start to contrive real content. This overpriced portal, and shitty online gaming experience is nowhere near worth what they are charging. When the owners of your console are turning their backs. You can bet your ass they are not going to be advocating your product. Promotional freebies of such high cost cannot be all that practical either. Right now I have my expectations raised. I will expect to get something of equal value early next year, and unless I get that they and I will be right back where we started out this year. Me holding out on them until they bribe me with something I cannot ignore.

Anyway if Microsoft doesn't intend to expand the service with original content then they are probably better off dropping the fee altogether. The fee drives consumers away, and with nothing actually up for sale it isn't bringing consumers onto the platform. Right now it is doing no good, and a lot of harm. All I am saying is be one or the other. Either be worth the price being charged, or abandon the fee altogether. There is nothing worse the being totally overpriced.

You say they are walking away? 

Explain how their Live revenue is up 40% on last year?

And how they have even a bigger active user count now over PS3 than 2 years ago?

And as for original content. MS has and releases more original content than any other console service. Is faster, smoother and doesnt take 2 hours t update. 

"And how they have even a bigger active user count now over PS3 than 2 years ago?"


http://www.fatfoogoo.com/2011/04/new-report-ps3-surpasses-xbox-360-in-global-active-devices/

 

xbox live has around 13 million gold subscribers while all psn users can go online 

http://techgenie.com/latest/12-5-million-subscribers-for-microsoft-xbox-live-gold/

 

as for content i would say psn offers more online content but thats my opinion


Those are not active users.They are accounts that have been activated, no telling if they are still used.

The only way to tell actual activity is per game played numbers, or how many users actually download or stream Films. I could sit here an post figures for any of the top 10 multi and first party game active user list for PS3 and 360, but I dont have the time. Put it tis way, The PS3 has more registered accounts, and the lowest number of regular active users. And in terms of films and music its horrible in comparison. 

360 is hugely more active online in any online game. Aprime example is GTA 4 sold more on PS3 yet 360 GTA4 has more active regular users. 

 

Dont mix acount set up to regular active users.

XBOX LIVE is like a bustling metropolis with many regular vistors. PSN is like a TOWN where people visit in comparison for numbers of regualr active users.

It would appear Sony although offering free to play cannot keep their high account numbers regularly usinng their service like MS can. There has to be a reason. PSN is free,so why dont they use it? They have the account. LIVE is paid.Yet they renew so they can play. And continue to do so with increase in numbrs YOY for MS not decrease.

did you read the arcticle ??

Ummmm yes. And all the comments from those sites regular users. An article is still writen by people like us. 

Are you going to show me some actual game numbers or film to user download numbers that beat the 360?

The fact that Xbox Live reached 1 billion pieces of downlloaded content in 2008 and PSN stil hasnt done so Kinda tells the whole story of actual regular users. 

An account that is active on PSN is classed as a registerd acount. MS  on he other and have active users and Registered users. 2 very and completely different things. 

Take Killzone 3.It  has 60,000 active players/month. 

Halo  Reach has 78,000 active players/24 hours. 

Black Ops Ps3 : 64,000/24 hours

Black ops 360: 195,000/24 hours.

 

Dare  continue?



Around the Network
Jay520 on 26 July 2011
selnor said:

Ummmm yes. And all the comments from those sites regular users. An article is still writen by people like us. 

Are you going to show me some actual game numbers or film to user download numbers that beat the 360?

The fact that Xbox Live reached 1 billion pieces of downlloaded content in 2008 and PSN stil hasnt done so Kinda tells the whole story of actual regular users. 

An account that is active on PSN is classed as a registerd acount. MS  on he other and have active users and Registered users. 2 very and completely different things. 

Take Killzone 3.It  has 60,000 active players/month. 

Halo  Reach has 78,000 active players/24 hours. 

Black Ops Ps3 : 64,000/24 hours

Black ops 360: 195,000/24 hours.

 

Dare  continue?

The Killzone 3 / Halo Reach comparison doesn't help your argument seing as how they're two different games. The difference in their numbers have more to do with the quality (not saying KZ3 is bad) of the games, sales, release date, etc as opposed to which system is more active. I could say GT5 has more players than Forza 3, but that wouldn't prove PS3 is more active than Xbox. Two different games with their difference in players having to do with the quality of the games (not saying Forza is bad),  release date, sales, etc.

The Black Ops comparison is much better. Same game, same quality, same release date, similar sales, etc. The only difference in numbers should be determined by the more active userbase.



chapset on 26 July 2011

xbox live is p2p I don't get what the fuck people are paying for, if Microsoft could have offered online for free and a good communication system then yes what other feature are so important?? facebook? twitter??



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

selnor on 26 July 2011
Jay520 said:
selnor said:

Ummmm yes. And all the comments from those sites regular users. An article is still writen by people like us. 

Are you going to show me some actual game numbers or film to user download numbers that beat the 360?

The fact that Xbox Live reached 1 billion pieces of downlloaded content in 2008 and PSN stil hasnt done so Kinda tells the whole story of actual regular users. 

An account that is active on PSN is classed as a registerd acount. MS  on he other and have active users and Registered users. 2 very and completely different things. 

Take Killzone 3.It  has 60,000 active players/month. 

Halo  Reach has 78,000 active players/24 hours. 

Black Ops Ps3 : 64,000/24 hours

Black ops 360: 195,000/24 hours.

 

Dare  continue?

The Killzone 3 / Halo Reach comparison doesn't help your argument seing as how they're two different games. The difference in their numbers have more to do with the quality (not saying KZ3 is bad) of the games, sales, release date, etc as opposed to which system is more active. I could say GT5 has more players than Forza 3, but that wouldn't prove PS3 is more active than Xbox. Two different games with their difference in players having to do with the quality of the games (not saying Forza is bad),  release date, sales, etc.

The Black Ops comparison is much better. Same game, same quality, same release date, similar sales, etc. The only difference in numbers should be determined by the more active userbase.


I am just pointing out how active Live players are online. As I though the thread was about the online services.

Live hs always had more active regular users. 

And the Pieces of downloaded content numbers is just crazy in Lives favour.



yo_john117 on 26 July 2011
Jay520 said:
selnor said:

Ummmm yes. And all the comments from those sites regular users. An article is still writen by people like us. 

Are you going to show me some actual game numbers or film to user download numbers that beat the 360?

The fact that Xbox Live reached 1 billion pieces of downlloaded content in 2008 and PSN stil hasnt done so Kinda tells the whole story of actual regular users. 

An account that is active on PSN is classed as a registerd acount. MS  on he other and have active users and Registered users. 2 very and completely different things. 

Take Killzone 3.It  has 60,000 active players/month. 

Halo  Reach has 78,000 active players/24 hours. 

Black Ops Ps3 : 64,000/24 hours

Black ops 360: 195,000/24 hours.

 

Dare  continue?

The Killzone 3 / Halo Reach comparison doesn't help your argument seing as how they're two different games. The difference in their numbers have more to do with the quality (not saying KZ3 is bad) of the games, sales, release date, etc as opposed to which system is more active. I could say GT5 has more players than Forza 3, but that wouldn't prove PS3 is more active than Xbox. Two different games with their difference in players having to do with the quality of the games (not saying Forza is bad),  release date, sales, etc.

The Black Ops comparison is much better. Same game, same quality, same release date, similar sales, etc. The only difference in numbers should be determined by the more active userbase.

I don't know what data Selnor is looking at but I know Halo Reach has around 130k people on at one time and Black Ops (360) has around 500k at one time.



kickazz113 on 26 July 2011
selnor said:
kickazz113 said:
selnor said:
o_O.Q said:
selnor said:
Dodece said:
I actually committed blasphemy, and voted a resounding yes. I will further compound my blasphemy by saying that gold is overpriced crap. This isn't a question of whether there is a place for subscription services. The question is why Microsoft doesn't actually provide content to justify the fee they are charging. Not only does the fee discourage any number of potential customers. They are charging for something that is actually free on any personal computer, or portable internet enabled device. The service is both superfluous, and nothing less then highway robbery. Bottom line it has a negative impact on the image.

I am calling the argument that Live is good to be nothing less then complete bullshit. Microsoft is not providing any content at all. Every service offered through Live is already an existing service that was already free to access elsewhere. Playing online was always free prior to this generation, and it isn't as if Microsoft has dedicated game servers up and running. No it is left up to the players hardware to serve as a host.

Live is just a shiny advertisement for games, and a overpriced portal to services that are free, or you have to pay for already. Don't give me this crap it is worth all they charge. I was intent on not resubscribing early this year. No I was not keen on paying for jack shit. The only way Microsoft got my jaded ass back was to bribe me with a free retail game. Only then did the price become less reprehensible.

That should tell you guys something. Microsoft had to bribe me with a forty dollar game before I would pony up for another year. They wouldn't be doing that if it weren't necessary. More and more people are becoming very jaded about what Microsoft is charging, and are walking away from the service. Which is only a short step form switching brands.

Microsoft better get its head out of its ass, and start to contrive real content. This overpriced portal, and shitty online gaming experience is nowhere near worth what they are charging. When the owners of your console are turning their backs. You can bet your ass they are not going to be advocating your product. Promotional freebies of such high cost cannot be all that practical either. Right now I have my expectations raised. I will expect to get something of equal value early next year, and unless I get that they and I will be right back where we started out this year. Me holding out on them until they bribe me with something I cannot ignore.

Anyway if Microsoft doesn't intend to expand the service with original content then they are probably better off dropping the fee altogether. The fee drives consumers away, and with nothing actually up for sale it isn't bringing consumers onto the platform. Right now it is doing no good, and a lot of harm. All I am saying is be one or the other. Either be worth the price being charged, or abandon the fee altogether. There is nothing worse the being totally overpriced.

You say they are walking away? 

Explain how their Live revenue is up 40% on last year?

And how they have even a bigger active user count now over PS3 than 2 years ago?

And as for original content. MS has and releases more original content than any other console service. Is faster, smoother and doesnt take 2 hours t update. 

"And how they have even a bigger active user count now over PS3 than 2 years ago?"


http://www.fatfoogoo.com/2011/04/new-report-ps3-surpasses-xbox-360-in-global-active-devices/

 

xbox live has around 13 million gold subscribers while all psn users can go online 

http://techgenie.com/latest/12-5-million-subscribers-for-microsoft-xbox-live-gold/

 

as for content i would say psn offers more online content but thats my opinion


Those are not active users.They are accounts that have been activated, no telling if they are still used.

The only way to tell actual activity is per game played numbers, or how many users actually download or stream Films. I could sit here an post figures for any of the top 10 multi and first party game active user list for PS3 and 360, but I dont have the time. Put it tis way, The PS3 has more registered accounts, and the lowest number of regular active users. And in terms of films and music its horrible in comparison. 

360 is hugely more active online in any online game. Aprime example is GTA 4 sold more on PS3 yet 360 GTA4 has more active regular users. 

 

Dont mix acount set up to regular active users.

XBOX LIVE is like a bustling metropolis with many regular vistors. PSN is like a TOWN where people visit in comparison for numbers of regualr active users.

It would appear Sony although offering free to play cannot keep their high account numbers regularly usinng their service like MS can. There has to be a reason. PSN is free,so why dont they use it? They have the account. LIVE is paid.Yet they renew so they can play. And continue to do so with increase in numbrs YOY for MS not decrease.

did you read the arcticle ??

Ummmm yes. And all the comments from those sites regular users. An article is still writen by people like us. 

Are you going to show me some actual game numbers or film to user download numbers that beat the 360?

The fact that Xbox Live reached 1 billion pieces of downlloaded content in 2008 and PSN stil hasnt done so Kinda tells the whole story of actual regular users. 

An account that is active on PSN is classed as a registerd acount. MS  on he other and have active users and Registered users. 2 very and completely different things. 

Take Killzone 3.It  has 60,000 active players/month. 

Halo  Reach has 78,000 active players/24 hours. 

Black Ops Ps3 : 64,000/24 hours

Black ops 360: 195,000/24 hours.

 

Dare  continue?

dude the article said activied user not activied accounts. and online use doesnt mean just for gaming......