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?

o_O.Q on 22 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
o_O.Q said:

well i'd expect that regardless of if its the same ad or not whenever an ad is shown microsoft gets paid for it

"It was repeated probably 4 times on 4 different pages"

taking your example above if my assumption is currect i'd expect that microsoft got paid 4 times for that... on tv when for example an ad gets shown multiple times in a day i'm pretty sure that the network is paid for everytime the ad is shown

if we take your 4 ad example above and multiply it by millions of xbl users you can understand why some people may think that xbl may be supported through the ad revenue but since we don't have the specifics on how it works we can't be sure

No, nobody its paying each time their ad is loaded. Web advertising is generally sold as a package. Basically they pay a certain price to have their ad run for given amount of time.

Xbox Live runs servers for all games (excluding EA), covers all bandwidth cost, and they spend a ton of money acquiring exclusive content. PSN does none of that yet they've been losing money for years. Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it.


"Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it."

thats your conjecture, but beyond that we can't say for certain as we don't know much details about the costs and the ad revenue

all i can say is that i'd think that ms is pulling in millions from ads alone and that should be enough to cover the costs but as i said before i may be wrong



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 22 December 2011
deskpro2k3 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
o_O.Q said:

well i'd expect that regardless of if its the same ad or not whenever an ad is shown microsoft gets paid for it

"It was repeated probably 4 times on 4 different pages"

taking your example above if my assumption is currect i'd expect that microsoft got paid 4 times for that... on tv when for example an ad gets shown multiple times in a day i'm pretty sure that the network is paid for everytime the ad is shown

if we take your 4 ad example above and multiply it by millions of xbl users you can understand why some people may think that xbl may be supported through the ad revenue but since we don't have the specifics on how it works we can't be sure

No, nobody its paying each time their ad is loaded. Web advertising is generally sold as a package. Basically they pay a certain price to have their ad run for given amount of time.

Xbox Live runs servers for all games (excluding EA), covers all bandwidth cost, and they spend a ton of money acquiring exclusive content. PSN does none of that yet they've been losing money for years. Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it.


is this fact or guesses? About those exclusive content, are they games already exclusive to xbox? Don't tell me exclusive halo map packs.

Fact and guess based on how online advertising is generally done.

Xbox Live Arcade gets a lot of exclusives and timed exclusives. Most of which comes from indie developers. Contrary to what publications may lead you to believe, MS is actually a big supporter of indie developers.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/12/05/microsoft-teams-up-with-igf-to-promote-indie-game-development/



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 22 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
o_O.Q said:

well i'd expect that regardless of if its the same ad or not whenever an ad is shown microsoft gets paid for it

"It was repeated probably 4 times on 4 different pages"

taking your example above if my assumption is currect i'd expect that microsoft got paid 4 times for that... on tv when for example an ad gets shown multiple times in a day i'm pretty sure that the network is paid for everytime the ad is shown

if we take your 4 ad example above and multiply it by millions of xbl users you can understand why some people may think that xbl may be supported through the ad revenue but since we don't have the specifics on how it works we can't be sure

No, nobody its paying each time their ad is loaded. Web advertising is generally sold as a package. Basically they pay a certain price to have their ad run for given amount of time.

Xbox Live runs servers for all games (excluding EA), covers all bandwidth cost, and they spend a ton of money acquiring exclusive content. PSN does none of that yet they've been losing money for years. Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it.


is this fact or guesses? About those exclusive content, are they games already exclusive to xbox? Don't tell me exclusive halo map packs.

Fact and guess based on how online advertising is generally done.

Xbox Live Arcade gets a lot of exclusives and timed exclusives. Most of which comes from indie developers. Contrary to what publications may lead you to believe, MS is actually a big supporter of indie developers.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/12/05/microsoft-teams-up-with-igf-to-promote-indie-game-development/


Correct me if im wrong, but I think Xbox Live gets ALL Arcade and Indie games earlier than everyone else. 

MINECRAFT!!! Lol, dont forget that..



Yay!!!

Mr Puggsly on 22 December 2011
o_O.Q said:


"Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it."

thats your conjecture, but beyond that we can't say for certain as we don't know much details about the costs and the ad revenue

all i can say is that i'd think that ms is pulling in millions from ads alone and that should be enough to cover the costs but as i said before i may be wrong

They spend millions of dollars a lone into Xbox Live Arcade. As this articles states... http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/12/05/microsoft-teams-up-with-igf-to-promote-indie-game-development/

Ads probably couldn't support that a lone let a lone everything else Xbox Live offers. People just see Xbox Live as simple peer to peer online gaming, but its much more than that. The only thing people try to compare it to is PSN. Which is basically a store with few features and charges publishers for bandwidth.



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)

o_O.Q on 22 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
o_O.Q said:


"Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it."

thats your conjecture, but beyond that we can't say for certain as we don't know much details about the costs and the ad revenue

all i can say is that i'd think that ms is pulling in millions from ads alone and that should be enough to cover the costs but as i said before i may be wrong

They spend millions of dollars a lone into Xbox Live Arcade. As this articles states... http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/12/05/microsoft-teams-up-with-igf-to-promote-indie-game-development/

Ads probably couldn't support that a lone let a lone everything else Xbox Live offers. People just see Xbox Live as simple peer to peer online gaming, but its much more than that. The only thing people try to compare it to is PSN. Which is basically a store with few features and charges publishers for bandwidth.

" Ads probably couldn't support that a lone let a lone everything else Xbox Live offers"

again... thats your conjecture... how much do they pull in in ad renvenue? ( i can assure you its millions )... the main question here is if the ad revenue and cost to run the service cancel each other out and at present we just don't know

"The only thing people try to compare it to is PSN. Which is basically a store with few features and charges publishers for bandwidth."

i see people throwing this around a lot, refusing to ackowledge exclusive services such as playstation home, free realms and dc universe online, from my perspective i'd say thats not a fair thing to say but whatever

"People just see Xbox Live as simple peer to peer"

its odd that you mention that because one of the things i've seen people discussing is that apparently some of the main xbox exclusives like gears ( apparently this caused problems in gears 2 and caused the push for dedicated servers for gears 3 ) and halo run on p2p servers while most of the main ps3 exclusives run on dedicated servers

i'd have thought that it should be the other way around




Around the Network
Jazz2K on 22 December 2011

Do people really think ads on the dash board could cover Xbox Live fees? LMAO!!!

Have you seen the ads? Most of them are to inform you of what is already available. I swear people heard that there were ads on the dash board and they immediately think it's as much as this site. Buy a 360 people and look for those ads. Then tell me they are really annoying... you might as well stop paying for tv or stop coming on this website as it's full of ads everywhere.

I can't believe some of you lolll.



Reasonable on 22 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.... 

That's my point really.  I'm not saying Live can or can't run on advertising alone - I'm seeing people stating categorically it can't and asking how they know I'm discovering they don't - they're guessing.  The advertising may well only cover a fraction of the costs, or it might cover over 50% - I don't know, and neither does anyone else really so they shouldn't be claiming knowledge they don't have.  One of the things I like on this site is claims must be backed up - I just wanted to see the evidence for claims I was interested in and it turned out there wasn't any.

I love how you imply it's my fault you and others are making claims with no evidence - I didn't force anyone to make any claims.  I actually posted originally to note the features of Live I thought made it popular and arguably superior to PSN.  I don't pretend Live is miles better than PSN - it's not - but it is better and I believe it's pretty clear in what areas.  The whole advertising thing is a side track just because I say a claim.  I'm not going to reply anymore because this is sidetracking the thread and I have my answer pretty definatively now - nobody has any figures for Live costs vs Advertising revenue intake.



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

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 22 December 2011
Reasonable said:
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.... 

That's my point really.  I'm not saying Live can or can't run on advertising alone - I'm seeing people stating categorically it can't and asking how they know I'm discovering they don't - they're guessing.  The advertising may well only cover a fraction of the costs, or it might cover over 50% - I don't know, and neither does anyone else really so they shouldn't be claiming knowledge they don't have.  One of the things I like on this site is claims must be backed up - I just wanted to see the evidence for claims I was interested in and it turned out there wasn't any.

I love how you imply it's my fault you and others are making claims with no evidence - I didn't force anyone to make any claims.  I actually posted originally to note the features of Live I thought made it popular and arguably superior to PSN.  I don't pretend Live is miles better than PSN - it's not - but it is better and I believe it's pretty clear in what areas.  The whole advertising thing is a side track just because I say a claim.  I'm not going to reply anymore because this is sidetracking the thread and I have my answer pretty definatively now - nobody has any figures for Live costs vs Advertising revenue intake.


You could have just looked up the fact yourself and avoided wasting people's time...



Yay!!!

Reasonable on 22 December 2011
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
Reasonable said:
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.... 

That's my point really.  I'm not saying Live can or can't run on advertising alone - I'm seeing people stating categorically it can't and asking how they know I'm discovering they don't - they're guessing.  The advertising may well only cover a fraction of the costs, or it might cover over 50% - I don't know, and neither does anyone else really so they shouldn't be claiming knowledge they don't have.  One of the things I like on this site is claims must be backed up - I just wanted to see the evidence for claims I was interested in and it turned out there wasn't any.

I love how you imply it's my fault you and others are making claims with no evidence - I didn't force anyone to make any claims.  I actually posted originally to note the features of Live I thought made it popular and arguably superior to PSN.  I don't pretend Live is miles better than PSN - it's not - but it is better and I believe it's pretty clear in what areas.  The whole advertising thing is a side track just because I say a claim.  I'm not going to reply anymore because this is sidetracking the thread and I have my answer pretty definatively now - nobody has any figures for Live costs vs Advertising revenue intake.


You could have just looked up the fact yourself and avoided wasting people's time...


Why would I look up something others are claiming to have?  To be honest it seems to me the people claiming the have knowledge they don't are the one's wasting peoples time - particularly on a site specifically dedicated to numbers based on evidence.



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

Jay520 on 22 December 2011
Mr Puggsly said:
o_O.Q said:


"Providing these types of services isn't cheap and a few easily ignored ads can't possibly cover it."

thats your conjecture, but beyond that we can't say for certain as we don't know much details about the costs and the ad revenue

all i can say is that i'd think that ms is pulling in millions from ads alone and that should be enough to cover the costs but as i said before i may be wrong

They spend millions of dollars a lone into Xbox Live Arcade. As this articles states...

Ads probably couldn't support that a lone let a lone everything else Xbox Live offers. People just see Xbox Live as simple peer to peer online gaming, but its much more than that. The only thing people try to compare it to is PSN. Which is basically a store with few features and charges publishers for bandwidth.



sorry to butt in, but the word "alone" is one word.