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

Forums - Microsoft - 6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Failing 10 Years Later

sales2099 on 23 November 2012
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
Microsoft's goal upon developing Xbox Live was to more or less monopolize the video game industry via online gaming. Despite how many are sticking with Xbox Live, the fact that so many others choose PSN over Xbox Live indicates that Xbox Live is failing to achieve its goal. I own both, and I by far choose to play my games on PSN for free, or watch Netflix without having to pay additional fees.

The title of this article is "6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Failing 10 Years Later", not "6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Going Under 10 Years Later". You wrote it well, spurgeonryan.

Companies strive to lead. With Europe and Japan out of MS full grasp....to say Live was intended to be a monopoly is absurd.

Failing implies a lack of success. Live is the most lucrative console network in the world.

In fact, the guy with the best deals is usually the one who needs a boost or to expand their position. PS Plus is basically a desperation move. Sure, as gamers you won't see it that way and call it fan service, but its only done because PS3 wasn't this generations leader like Sony planned.

Do you even know why MS got into the video game industry?

http://beepdf.com/doc/62901/why_the_xbox_brand_failed_and_continues_to_fail_in_japan.html

As long as Sony is winning in Asia, and Europe for that matter, MS is failing. MS and Sony have two different goals, and MS's is far more complex. It reminds me of how the Confederacy simply needed The Union to back off in order to win the Civil War, but The Union needed the Confederacy to actually surender in order to win. Not only is Sony not surendering--if you will--they are selling more per year than MS, which results in Sony continuing to gain ground over MS (although slowly).

Doesnt change my two points that MS can't have a monopoly on the planet, just strive to be a leader, and that failing implies a lack of success, and Live is anything but that. 

Going by corporate measures, Live generates a ton more money then PSN. So PSN is failing really.

But MS didn't get into the video game industry for direct profit. Video game industry profit is nothing compared to MS Windows software, which is what they've been losing ground on the passed 20 years. Japan is even replacing them. That's why MS got into the video game industry, to gain back ground worldwide in the average home. But not only has MS failed to regain Japan, they even lost more ground in Europe. The money they make from Xbox Live in America is little compared to the losses of Windows software they are suffering in Japan, which was why they got into the video game business in the first place.

You're viewing MS success directly. I'm referring to indirectly. They're winning the battle, but losing the war (as I said earlier, their goal is far more difficult). That doesn't neccessarily mean that Sony is winning, as they could both be failing due to having different goals. As for PSN, I can't say whether they're winning or losing or in a  stalemate, because I don't know what their 10 year plan it. I also don't know if their goal is to become large and profitable, or simply draw people away from Xbox Live. Besides, that's somewhat beside the point. This page isn't claiming that PSN is succeeding, it's simply pointing out that Xbox Live is failing. If console sales are down in Japan and Europe, then Xbox Live subscriptions are as well, meaning their overall goal upon entering the video game industry is still failing. Also, multiplatform owners are deciding to play free on PSN over continuing to pay for Xbox Live.

Above all else, I think you and I are simply basing our points on different definitions of the word "Fail".

1) to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved

2) to dwindle, pass, or die away

MS is certainly nowhere close to 2), but they are currently suffering 1).

MS makes 5 billion in profits every 3 months. Your first paragraph citing doom and gloom is better suited describing a certain other "big 3" company here.

But they have adopted a pay for online model.......the only one in gaming. Yet it thrives. Despite criticism of this model, Live thrives.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
dahuman on 23 November 2012

What a dumb comparison article lol.

BTW, Gold is required if you want to actually play online, it's not like people have a choice if they want to play games online to start with, while PS+ is completely optional. Not to mention PS3 has no cross game chat because it's RAM architecture is a complete fail, not because Sony can't offer the service since they have it on the Vita. 



TC_Squared on 23 November 2012
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
Microsoft's goal upon developing Xbox Live was to more or less monopolize the video game industry via online gaming. Despite how many are sticking with Xbox Live, the fact that so many others choose PSN over Xbox Live indicates that Xbox Live is failing to achieve its goal. I own both, and I by far choose to play my games on PSN for free, or watch Netflix without having to pay additional fees.

The title of this article is "6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Failing 10 Years Later", not "6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Going Under 10 Years Later". You wrote it well, spurgeonryan.

Companies strive to lead. With Europe and Japan out of MS full grasp....to say Live was intended to be a monopoly is absurd.

Failing implies a lack of success. Live is the most lucrative console network in the world.

In fact, the guy with the best deals is usually the one who needs a boost or to expand their position. PS Plus is basically a desperation move. Sure, as gamers you won't see it that way and call it fan service, but its only done because PS3 wasn't this generations leader like Sony planned.

Do you even know why MS got into the video game industry?

http://beepdf.com/doc/62901/why_the_xbox_brand_failed_and_continues_to_fail_in_japan.html

As long as Sony is winning in Asia, and Europe for that matter, MS is failing. MS and Sony have two different goals, and MS's is far more complex. It reminds me of how the Confederacy simply needed The Union to back off in order to win the Civil War, but The Union needed the Confederacy to actually surender in order to win. Not only is Sony not surendering--if you will--they are selling more per year than MS, which results in Sony continuing to gain ground over MS (although slowly).

Doesnt change my two points that MS can't have a monopoly on the planet, just strive to be a leader, and that failing implies a lack of success, and Live is anything but that. 

Going by corporate measures, Live generates a ton more money then PSN. So PSN is failing really.

But MS didn't get into the video game industry for direct profit. Video game industry profit is nothing compared to MS Windows software, which is what they've been losing ground on the passed 20 years. Japan is even replacing them. That's why MS got into the video game industry, to gain back ground worldwide in the average home. But not only has MS failed to regain Japan, they even lost more ground in Europe. The money they make from Xbox Live in America is little compared to the losses of Windows software they are suffering in Japan, which was why they got into the video game business in the first place.

You're viewing MS success directly. I'm referring to indirectly. They're winning the battle, but losing the war (as I said earlier, their goal is far more difficult). That doesn't neccessarily mean that Sony is winning, as they could both be failing due to having different goals. As for PSN, I can't say whether they're winning or losing or in a  stalemate, because I don't know what their 10 year plan it. I also don't know if their goal is to become large and profitable, or simply draw people away from Xbox Live. Besides, that's somewhat beside the point. This page isn't claiming that PSN is succeeding, it's simply pointing out that Xbox Live is failing. If console sales are down in Japan and Europe, then Xbox Live subscriptions are as well, meaning their overall goal upon entering the video game industry is still failing. Also, multiplatform owners are deciding to play free on PSN over continuing to pay for Xbox Live.

Above all else, I think you and I are simply basing our points on different definitions of the word "Fail".

1) to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved

2) to dwindle, pass, or die away

MS is certainly nowhere close to 2), but they are currently suffering 1).

MS makes 5 billion in profits every 3 months. Your first paragraph citing doom and gloom is better suited describing a certain other "big 3" company here.

But they have adopted a pay for online model.......the only one in gaming. Yet it thrives. Despite criticism of this model, Live thrives.

I see our miscommunication. I'm not saying that Xbox Live is doomed. You are correct, it's anything but that. What I'm saying is it's not doing as well as it once was. I used to purchase Xbox Live frequently, because, well, that's all there was. Now I don't need to because I get it free on PSN.

1) to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved

Xbox Live most certainly is not dwindling, passing or dying away. They are now falling short of their original desire because of competition like PSN. They are failing to sell the desired amount of Xbox Live subscriptions.

 

Also, you are failing to look at the big picture, once again. MS is selling great in America. It's Japan and Europe they are [failing] to meet their goal. Which means Xbox Live is not a full-scale success.



J_Allard on 23 November 2012
TC_Squared said:
J_Allard said:

That article and its citations don't paint the same picture you are trying to though. There's a big gap between wanting to slow down Sony's intrusion into the home entertainment market and wanting to monopolize gaming through Xbox Live. They aren't even really the same thing. Hell, the monopolization of gaming through Live doesn't even make any logical sense.

I am sure it was a goal of MS to succeed in every market and sell well. Just like that is the goal of Sony. In that regard they have both failed. But that's not what the thread is about, it's about the supposed failure of Xbox Live. Whether or not it has failed depends on how you want to look at it. From MS's view it has been nothing but a stellar success, something Nintendo and Sony would just LOVE to have in their corner. From a consumer standpoint it depends on whether or not you believe the fee to be worth it. And then it just becomes a matter of opinion that is pointless to debate.

Funny thing is if we pretend your marketing perspective is factual and relevant (it's neither) then it would appear MS succeeded. It said they wanted to prevent Sony from dominating home entertainment and having that success seep over into personal computers and the Xbox has done exactly that.

No it hasn't. MS is now the minority in Japan, both video game consoles and system software. What has greatly happened is the east and west have split, Sony winning the east and MS winning the west. That's not what MS wanted (or Sony for that matter). MS is certainly preventing it from worsening, but they're not regaining ground in the east like they wanted. That's why they're failing. Even more, MS's greatest failure this generation was what no one expected. MS wasn't simply targeting Sony, it was more Japan (because Japan is replacing MS Windows software). MS doesn't care if they buy Sony computers, as long as it runs on MS software. Sony was just the link to Japan. As MS greatly succeeded in bringing down PS sales, what they never expected happened. Nintendo took the lead. Although that is not as bad for MS as Sony holding the lead (because of various Sony products), it is still a Japanese company, which is preventing MS from regaining ground in Japan, both hardware and software.

Monopolizing--if you will--gaming through Xbox Live makes perfect sense. It was originally working. Remember how many games and DLC they used to get exclusively because of XBox Live?

Also, you're taking the word monopoly too literally. If we always did, the word would never apply. Technically, MS never had a monopoly, but they were to some extent close to it. People always referred to them as having a monopoly, even though it was metaphorical. I was speaking metaphorically when I said "more or less monopolize". MS's goal was to bring it back to what it was, which was the closest to monopoly a world company had the 20th century. MS wants people to, by default, choose Xbox Live over PSN (hence, monolopy metaphore). It used to be that way, but not so much any more. That's how Xbox Live is failing.

Failing: to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved

 

Your mistake is assuming the east and west markets are equal in importance. Also, Sony doesn't really rule anything in the east either. Not in the world of video games. Which just makes your assumption that they're trying to dominate Sony with a world wide monopoly all the sillier. In the most important market, Sony has went from just obliterating the competion to being 3rd place. Again, this is strictly the home entertainment/computers we're talking about. If you want to assume MS entered the console world just to stop Sony from stealing PC marketshare from them, as your very own link suggests, then it's clear they succeeded.

And 360 got many "exclusives" this gen because they launched first. LOL @ some timed exclusive DLC or snatching up exclusive rights to a game being trying to "monopolize gaming through Xbox Live". Someone hit the crack pipe hard this morning it seems.



Sevengen on 25 November 2012

alright TC..... since you obviously hate not having the last word (which someday you'll come to understand isn't synonymous with 'winning' a disagreement) I have no problem with letting you have it.
My first post was simply my view with the op's rediculous assertion that xbl is failing. I stated how I admire Sony for giving away bonus titles with PS+ and wished that MS, in comparison, would do more to reward their xblg customers. Having said that, I also wrote that I understand and appreciate that xblg is part of MS's overall business strategy within their entertainment division and have no problem supporting them with my paid subscription.
Your immediate response was to point out that xbox live has been a failure because they've yet to achieve their goal of 'monopolizing the video game industry via online gaming'
Which I and a few other users have called you out on... which is deserved because, to this point, it was a rather silly, uninformed thing to say.
So here's what I'd like you to do. This is how you can win this little disagreement and force me to quit responding, because you certainly can't seem to stop on your own. right or wrong.
Show me where in that 'marketing perspective'... aside from any summation made by the author, or cited opinion by an outside source not involved with the development of xbox live, where an actual member of the development team for live, or any of member of MS for that matter, is quoted as saying;
'our goal for xbox live is to monopolize the video game industry via online gaming'
That's what I want to see. You stated it, so now I'd like you to prove it as fact.
If you can't find it in there, well then, it looks like that statement is simply someone elses opinion.... which you've mistakenly based a continuing argument on.
So.. either find that for me and post it, or accept the fact that you were wrong when saying that and post that instead.
Either way... you get the last word.



Around the Network
thranx on 25 November 2012
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
sales2099 said:
TC_Squared said:
Microsoft's goal upon developing Xbox Live was to more or less monopolize the video game industry via online gaming. Despite how many are sticking with Xbox Live, the fact that so many others choose PSN over Xbox Live indicates that Xbox Live is failing to achieve its goal. I own both, and I by far choose to play my games on PSN for free, or watch Netflix without having to pay additional fees.

The title of this article is "6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Failing 10 Years Later", not "6 Reasons Why Xbox Live is Going Under 10 Years Later". You wrote it well, spurgeonryan.

Companies strive to lead. With Europe and Japan out of MS full grasp....to say Live was intended to be a monopoly is absurd.

Failing implies a lack of success. Live is the most lucrative console network in the world.

In fact, the guy with the best deals is usually the one who needs a boost or to expand their position. PS Plus is basically a desperation move. Sure, as gamers you won't see it that way and call it fan service, but its only done because PS3 wasn't this generations leader like Sony planned.

Do you even know why MS got into the video game industry?

http://beepdf.com/doc/62901/why_the_xbox_brand_failed_and_continues_to_fail_in_japan.html

As long as Sony is winning in Asia, and Europe for that matter, MS is failing. MS and Sony have two different goals, and MS's is far more complex. It reminds me of how the Confederacy simply needed The Union to back off in order to win the Civil War, but The Union needed the Confederacy to actually surender in order to win. Not only is Sony not surendering--if you will--they are selling more per year than MS, which results in Sony continuing to gain ground over MS (although slowly).

Doesnt change my two points that MS can't have a monopoly on the planet, just strive to be a leader, and that failing implies a lack of success, and Live is anything but that. 

Going by corporate measures, Live generates a ton more money then PSN. So PSN is failing really.

But MS didn't get into the video game industry for direct profit. Video game industry profit is nothing compared to MS Windows software, which is what they've been losing ground on the passed 20 years. Japan is even replacing them. That's why MS got into the video game industry, to gain back ground worldwide in the average home. But not only has MS failed to regain Japan, they even lost more ground in Europe. The money they make from Xbox Live in America is little compared to the losses of Windows software they are suffering in Japan, which was why they got into the video game business in the first place.

You're viewing MS success directly. I'm referring to indirectly. They're winning the battle, but losing the war (as I said earlier, their goal is far more difficult). That doesn't neccessarily mean that Sony is winning, as they could both be failing due to having different goals. As for PSN, I can't say whether they're winning or losing or in a  stalemate, because I don't know what their 10 year plan it. I also don't know if their goal is to become large and profitable, or simply draw people away from Xbox Live. Besides, that's somewhat beside the point. This page isn't claiming that PSN is succeeding, it's simply pointing out that Xbox Live is failing. If console sales are down in Japan and Europe, then Xbox Live subscriptions are as well, meaning their overall goal upon entering the video game industry is still failing. Also, multiplatform owners are deciding to play free on PSN over continuing to pay for Xbox Live.

Above all else, I think you and I are simply basing our points on different definitions of the word "Fail".

1) to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved

2) to dwindle, pass, or die away

MS is certainly nowhere close to 2), but they are currently suffering 1).

MS makes 5 billion in profits every 3 months. Your first paragraph citing doom and gloom is better suited describing a certain other "big 3" company here.

But they have adopted a pay for online model.......the only one in gaming. Yet it thrives. Despite criticism of this model, Live thrives.

I see our miscommunication. I'm not saying that Xbox Live is doomed. You are correct, it's anything but that. What I'm saying is it's not doing as well as it once was. I used to purchase Xbox Live frequently, because, well, that's all there was. Now I don't need to because I get it free on PSN.

1) to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved

Xbox Live most certainly is not dwindling, passing or dying away. They are now falling short of their original desire because of competition like PSN. They are failing to sell the desired amount of Xbox Live subscriptions.

 

Also, you are failing to look at the big picture, once again. MS is selling great in America. It's Japan and Europe they are [failing] to meet their goal. Which means Xbox Live is not a full-scale success.

Its not doing as well as it once was because you no longer use it as much? that is not the best criteria. why not find out if its declining in gold subs? If its not than it is in no way declining.xbox live was not meant to be any kind of monopoly. when the first xbox released their goal was to stop playstation from becoming the center of the living room, and a potential threat to their pc os (windows). Looking at this gen they have completly succeded in that. Sony is no longer able to get a monoply in the living room (or any where). On top of that ms is now generating good revenue from a new market they did not have before. In no way is xbox live a failure. To say so is to deny what is before your eyes.