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 21 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.



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

Around the Network
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 21 December 2011
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.


With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...



Yay!!!

Reasonable on 21 December 2011
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.


With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...


Based on what?  Link me one concrete piece of evidence to support that.  I suspect you have no idea what the costs of Live are nor it's potential for advertising revenue.



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

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 21 December 2011
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.


With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...


Based on what?  Link me one concrete piece of evidence to support that.  I suspect you have no idea what the costs of Live are nor it's potential for advertising revenue.

Microsoft has 50 entertainment partners half of them are which major entertainment companies and the largest cloud storage from the consoles available.... 512mb... It just make sense....

 

Look, if your looking to argue with some one... treat them as your equal and dont treat them as your inferior....



Yay!!!

magnific00 on 21 December 2011
kowenicki said:
its the 360's best exclusive... and for less than the price of a game.


Odd comparison, I don't pay the full price of a game each year I've owned it...



Around the Network
Reasonable on 21 December 2011
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.


With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...


Based on what?  Link me one concrete piece of evidence to support that.  I suspect you have no idea what the costs of Live are nor it's potential for advertising revenue.

Microsoft has 50 entertainment partners half of them are which major entertainment companies and the largest cloud storage from the consoles available.... 512mb... It just make sense....

 

Look, if your looking to argue with some one... treat them as your equal and dont treat them as your inferior....

So no links to actual evidence of likely costs or income then?



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

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 21 December 2011
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.


With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...


Based on what?  Link me one concrete piece of evidence to support that.  I suspect you have no idea what the costs of Live are nor it's potential for advertising revenue.

Microsoft has 50 entertainment partners half of them are which major entertainment companies and the largest cloud storage from the consoles available.... 512mb... It just make sense....

 

Look, if your looking to argue with some one... treat them as your equal and dont treat them as your inferior....

So no links to actual evidence of likely costs or income then?


Im sorry, no I dont... Microsoft doesnt exactly release ad revenue.... 



Yay!!!

Player1x3 on 21 December 2011
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
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. 


unmatched is a huuge overstatement...



Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 21 December 2011
Player1x3 said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
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. 


unmatched is a huuge overstatement...


People often differ in opinions... Im okay if you think like that..



Yay!!!

deskpro2k3 on 21 December 2011
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
Mr Puggsly said:
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.


I'm not guessing anything.  I haven't said they can or can't.  I'd just like to know whether they could or not  but we obviously don't know.

EDIT: BTW not having a go at you - I know you're making an intelligent guess.  I just would like to see if there was any concrete data on how much revenue advertising in Live brings in for MS.


With all the partnerships and employees that goes towards Xbox Live... a normal person would know that Xbox Live cant be handled by ads alone...


Based on what?  Link me one concrete piece of evidence to support that.  I suspect you have no idea what the costs of Live are nor it's potential for advertising revenue.

Microsoft has 50 entertainment partners half of them are which major entertainment companies and the largest cloud storage from the consoles available.... 512mb... It just make sense....

 

Look, if your looking to argue with some one... treat them as your equal and dont treat them as your inferior....

So no links to actual evidence of likely costs or income then?


Im sorry, no I dont... Microsoft doesnt exactly release ad revenue.... 

If somebody can make an extra $50+ a month on youtube ads, and some youtube stars make 100k per year. I can imagine how much microsoft makes. then they top that off with sub fees.

 

 I hear advertising is coming to facebook. be on the lookout