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

Forums - Gaming - What makes it special? What makes Xbox Live worth it?

Reasonable on 19 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Jexy said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Live should be free. To play online should be free. Gaming is not suppose to be an expensive hobby. (IMO)

Lots of things in life should be free.  But they aren't.  Especially when it's good enough that people will pay for it.  To call a dime a day expensive though... the economy in your area must be rough. 

 

Hey i chose not to use LIVE, I'm like the OP, is $60 a year good enough to play online?

 

edit: It is my firm belief that MS makes enough to support LIVE with the use of ads.

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone.

What do you judge that on?  I'm curious as I've heard this stated before but never seen any proof one way or the other.  I'm not saying it couldn't - but I don't see why it couldn't either, if you see what I mean.  What makes you so sure Live doesn't bring in enough advertising (because it has a lot of it, more than PSN or other similar services so far as I can tell as a 360,PS3,Wii,PC gamer) and what do you think the gap is - i.e. what percentage of costs do you think Ads cover?

I ask because I'm feeling, particularly with the new UI, that I'm seeing more adverts than ever which does cause me to wonder whether the additional fee to the user is really required or not.  It's not very much money as you note, and often you can get it for less - which immediately makes me suspicious as to what the real cost is if the RRP can be so often and easily dropped or wonder whether the increase in ads is to offset the number of people paying less than RRP.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 19 December 2011
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone.

What do you judge that on?  I'm curious as I've heard this stated before but never seen any proof one way or the other.  I'm not saying it couldn't - but I don't see why it couldn't either, if you see what I mean.  What makes you so sure Live doesn't bring in enough advertising (because it has a lot of it, more than PSN or other similar services so far as I can tell as a 360,PS3,Wii,PC gamer) and what do you think the gap is - i.e. what percentage of costs do you think Ads cover?

I ask because I'm feeling, particularly with the new UI, that I'm seeing more adverts than ever which does cause me to wonder whether the additional fee to the user is really required or not.  It's not very much money as you note, and often you can get it for less - which immediately makes me suspicious as to what the real cost is if the RRP can be so often and easily dropped or wonder whether the increase in ads is to offset the number of people paying less than RRP.

The ads on the 360 dashboard are greatly exagerated. I barely even notice them. What ever revenue they generate, its gotta be a drop in the bucket compared to what the subscriptions bring in.

You're ignoring Xbox Live takes on more than other "similar services." MS operates all the servers and covers all bandwidth fees.
Nintendo doesn't operate all servers and has small download size restrictions.
Sony as well doesn't operate servers and charges publishers bandwidth fees.

MS essentially takes away some of the financial burdens from publishers. I can't imagine they could do that on ad revenue a lone. It would have to be advertisment rape!



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 19 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Jexy said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Live should be free. To play online should be free. Gaming is not suppose to be an expensive hobby. (IMO)

Lots of things in life should be free.  But they aren't.  Especially when it's good enough that people will pay for it.  To call a dime a day expensive though... the economy in your area must be rough. 

 

Hey i chose not to use LIVE, I'm like the OP, is $60 a year good enough to play online?

 

edit: It is my firm belief that MS makes enough to support LIVE with the use of ads.

I choose not to pay $60 dollars a year either. Its not unusual to see a discount on the web or at stores. Recently I paid $40 for a bundle package that included a year Gold subscription, head set, and keypad.

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone. Perhaps if they ran commercials before an online game began, but that would be a nuisance people would pay not to have.

Last I heard PSN was still running in the red, not sure if PSN Plus changed that. Either way, on the PS3 publishers on have operate their own servers which cost a lot of money (Demon's Souls was on the verge of having its servers shut down). On top of that Sony forces publishers to pay bandwidth fees to put stuff on the PSN Store. Which is why there is much less free content on PSN.

To the contrary, Xbox Live operates all the servers (except for EA). They also cover all the bandwidth fees for publishers which leads to more content on Live. Ultimately, we're paying for a service that cuts cost for publishers, offers more content, and allows Xbox 360 to actually thrive financially. Its really the opposite of PS3 and PSN.

If you pay $60 a year, that's only $5 a month. I paid $40 so its more like $3 a month for me. Xbox Live is my cheapest and most enjoyable entertainment expense.


I think Psn online pass is introduced to all Ps3 exclusives...



Yay!!!

Jexy on 19 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone.

What do you judge that on?  I'm curious as I've heard this stated before but never seen any proof one way or the other.  I'm not saying it couldn't - but I don't see why it couldn't either, if you see what I mean.  What makes you so sure Live doesn't bring in enough advertising (because it has a lot of it, more than PSN or other similar services so far as I can tell as a 360,PS3,Wii,PC gamer) and what do you think the gap is - i.e. what percentage of costs do you think Ads cover?

I ask because I'm feeling, particularly with the new UI, that I'm seeing more adverts than ever which does cause me to wonder whether the additional fee to the user is really required or not.  It's not very much money as you note, and often you can get it for less - which immediately makes me suspicious as to what the real cost is if the RRP can be so often and easily dropped or wonder whether the increase in ads is to offset the number of people paying less than RRP.

The ads on the 360 dashboard are greatly exagerated. I barely even notice them. What ever revenue they generate, its gotta be a drop in the bucket compared to what the subscriptions bring in.

You're ignoring Xbox Live takes on more than other "similar services." MS operates all the servers and covers all bandwidth fees.
Nintendo doesn't operate all servers and has small download size restrictions.
Sony as well doesn't operate servers and charges publishers bandwidth fees.

MS essentially takes away some of the financial burdens from publishers. I can't imagine they could do that on ad revenue a lone. It would have to be advertisment rape!

You're right.  Ads can support websites, like this one, which has ads all over the place and before you even get to the front page.  An infrastructure like Live though... no, it could not be supported by Ads alone at all.  A website has very few costs associated with it, so the overhead is low.  But an entire thing like Xbox Live?  No chance.  And like you said, the Ads are a fairly new thing, and compared to surfing the web, I don't even notice them.  I don't like some of the things with the new update, but that isn't one of them. 



BOOM!  FACE KICK!

Persistantthug on 20 December 2011
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Persistantthug said:
thx1139 said:
It is a very well integrated community and something that Microsoft is constantly investing in. Apps are tailored to the TV experience and generally nicer to use from a family room environment. And for $99.99 per year for myself and 3 sons it is a good deal even before I get discounted cards like the 2 I picked up for $40 each at Walmart this week.


You just described a big fat rip off, my friend.

 

 

Even AOL back when they were ripping people off in the 90's...even they allowed you to have several profiles per paid account.

 

I can't believe that people get ripped like this and then grin and smile, and pretend getting ripped off is a great deal.   Unbelievable.


I think I said NO TROLLS... Learn to read...


What I said may have sounded like I was trolling because I'm very unapologetic,

 

But I promise you, I meant every word.

 

Them, Microsoft, charging you for each and every single account for XBOX LIVE, even when on the same machine....that is a damn rip off....period.



Around the Network
Reasonable on 20 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone.

What do you judge that on?  I'm curious as I've heard this stated before but never seen any proof one way or the other.  I'm not saying it couldn't - but I don't see why it couldn't either, if you see what I mean.  What makes you so sure Live doesn't bring in enough advertising (because it has a lot of it, more than PSN or other similar services so far as I can tell as a 360,PS3,Wii,PC gamer) and what do you think the gap is - i.e. what percentage of costs do you think Ads cover?

I ask because I'm feeling, particularly with the new UI, that I'm seeing more adverts than ever which does cause me to wonder whether the additional fee to the user is really required or not.  It's not very much money as you note, and often you can get it for less - which immediately makes me suspicious as to what the real cost is if the RRP can be so often and easily dropped or wonder whether the increase in ads is to offset the number of people paying less than RRP.

The ads on the 360 dashboard are greatly exagerated. I barely even notice them. What ever revenue they generate, its gotta be a drop in the bucket compared to what the subscriptions bring in.

You're ignoring Xbox Live takes on more than other "similar services." MS operates all the servers and covers all bandwidth fees.
Nintendo doesn't operate all servers and has small download size restrictions.
Sony as well doesn't operate servers and charges publishers bandwidth fees.

MS essentially takes away some of the financial burdens from publishers. I can't imagine they could do that on ad revenue a lone. It would have to be advertisment rape!


So you're guessing?



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 20 December 2011
Persistantthug said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Persistantthug said:
thx1139 said:
It is a very well integrated community and something that Microsoft is constantly investing in. Apps are tailored to the TV experience and generally nicer to use from a family room environment. And for $99.99 per year for myself and 3 sons it is a good deal even before I get discounted cards like the 2 I picked up for $40 each at Walmart this week.


You just described a big fat rip off, my friend.

 

 

Even AOL back when they were ripping people off in the 90's...even they allowed you to have several profiles per paid account.

 

I can't believe that people get ripped like this and then grin and smile, and pretend getting ripped off is a great deal.   Unbelievable.


I think I said NO TROLLS... Learn to read...


What I said may have sounded like I was trolling because I'm very unapologetic,

 

But I promise you, I meant every word.

 

Them, Microsoft, charging you for each and every single account for XBOX LIVE, even when on the same machine....that is a damn rip off....period.


If you cant pay for a dime a day to access unmatched features and reliability... then its your choice....

 

Good day sir. 



Yay!!!

Mr Puggsly on 20 December 2011
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone.

What do you judge that on?  I'm curious as I've heard this stated before but never seen any proof one way or the other.  I'm not saying it couldn't - but I don't see why it couldn't either, if you see what I mean.  What makes you so sure Live doesn't bring in enough advertising (because it has a lot of it, more than PSN or other similar services so far as I can tell as a 360,PS3,Wii,PC gamer) and what do you think the gap is - i.e. what percentage of costs do you think Ads cover?

I ask because I'm feeling, particularly with the new UI, that I'm seeing more adverts than ever which does cause me to wonder whether the additional fee to the user is really required or not.  It's not very much money as you note, and often you can get it for less - which immediately makes me suspicious as to what the real cost is if the RRP can be so often and easily dropped or wonder whether the increase in ads is to offset the number of people paying less than RRP.

The ads on the 360 dashboard are greatly exagerated. I barely even notice them. What ever revenue they generate, its gotta be a drop in the bucket compared to what the subscriptions bring in.

You're ignoring Xbox Live takes on more than other "similar services." MS operates all the servers and covers all bandwidth fees.
Nintendo doesn't operate all servers and has small download size restrictions.
Sony as well doesn't operate servers and charges publishers bandwidth fees.

MS essentially takes away some of the financial burdens from publishers. I can't imagine they could do that on ad revenue a lone. It would have to be advertisment rape!


So you're guessing?

No, Xbox Live as is couldn't be profitable on ad revenue a lone.

I was explaining some of the reasons why Xbox Live has more over head cost than "similar services."

Most free games tend to profit off micro transactions. If it could be done ad revenue, why aren't we seeing it?



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Reasonable on 20 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An infrastructure like Xbox Live can't be supported on ads a lone.

What do you judge that on?  I'm curious as I've heard this stated before but never seen any proof one way or the other.  I'm not saying it couldn't - but I don't see why it couldn't either, if you see what I mean.  What makes you so sure Live doesn't bring in enough advertising (because it has a lot of it, more than PSN or other similar services so far as I can tell as a 360,PS3,Wii,PC gamer) and what do you think the gap is - i.e. what percentage of costs do you think Ads cover?

I ask because I'm feeling, particularly with the new UI, that I'm seeing more adverts than ever which does cause me to wonder whether the additional fee to the user is really required or not.  It's not very much money as you note, and often you can get it for less - which immediately makes me suspicious as to what the real cost is if the RRP can be so often and easily dropped or wonder whether the increase in ads is to offset the number of people paying less than RRP.

The ads on the 360 dashboard are greatly exagerated. I barely even notice them. What ever revenue they generate, its gotta be a drop in the bucket compared to what the subscriptions bring in.

You're ignoring Xbox Live takes on more than other "similar services." MS operates all the servers and covers all bandwidth fees.
Nintendo doesn't operate all servers and has small download size restrictions.
Sony as well doesn't operate servers and charges publishers bandwidth fees.

MS essentially takes away some of the financial burdens from publishers. I can't imagine they could do that on ad revenue a lone. It would have to be advertisment rape!


So you're guessing?

No, Xbox Live as is couldn't be profitable on ad revenue a lone.

I was explaining some of the reasons why Xbox Live has more over head cost than "similar services."

Most free games tend to profit off micro transactions. If it could be done ad revenue, why aren't we seeing it?

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.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Mr Puggsly on 20 December 2011
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.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)