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

Forums - Microsoft - The REAL Problem With Xbox Live (OPINION)

S.T.A.G.E. on 28 November 2012
gergroy said:
scat398 said:
I'm still amazed by gamers who believe they should get something for free. Of course if a company is foolish enough to give it to you for free "zynga" they'll pay for it in the end. You could say Sony is starting to see the negative effects for not charging for onlive service, increased debt, inability to compete on price, quality control. Unless you plan on PSN being one giant advertisment like google or facebook you need to charge. In the end MS is looking like the man among boys in this department.


I agree to some extent here.  I pay for live and dont have a problem doing so because it is a superior network.  However, microsoft really does need to up their features to justify the cost if they want to stay competitive going forward.  Microsoft basically already does the giant advertisement thing like facebook, and they are the ones charging for their service.  

Microsoft cant keep withholding features given for free on other services and tout them as a reason for paying.  They need to actually add some more differentiating features to justify the cost going forward...


Microsoft doesn't make you pay for those same services elsewhere (PC) and they couldn't because people wouldn't accept it. They cant because its an open online system. The 360 is perfect because Microsoft owns it, its a closed system and because of that illusion to enjoy the online world of which is free elsewhere you must pay them.



Around the Network
scat398 on 28 November 2012
gergroy said:
scat398 said:
I'm still amazed by gamers who believe they should get something for free. Of course if a company is foolish enough to give it to you for free "zynga" they'll pay for it in the end. You could say Sony is starting to see the negative effects for not charging for onlive service, increased debt, inability to compete on price, quality control. Unless you plan on PSN being one giant advertisment like google or facebook you need to charge. In the end MS is looking like the man among boys in this department.


I agree to some extent here.  I pay for live and dont have a problem doing so because it is a superior network.  However, microsoft really does need to up their features to justify the cost if they want to stay competitive going forward.  Microsoft basically already does the giant advertisement thing like facebook, and they are the ones charging for their service.  

Microsoft cant keep withholding features given for free on other services and tout them as a reason for paying.  They need to actually add some more differentiating features to justify the cost going forward...

I actually think it is other companies that are going to have to start charging for services they currently offer for free.  Let's look at Zynga, Sony, and to a larger extent facebook.  Investors are waking up to the reality that unless you actually charge for your product you're not going to make money.  And I do think MS will and continues to expand it services, smart glass is a pretty big leap and next gen I'm guessing will see some pretty big cloud based services.



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 November 2012
scat398 said:
gergroy said:
scat398 said:
I'm still amazed by gamers who believe they should get something for free. Of course if a company is foolish enough to give it to you for free "zynga" they'll pay for it in the end. You could say Sony is starting to see the negative effects for not charging for onlive service, increased debt, inability to compete on price, quality control. Unless you plan on PSN being one giant advertisment like google or facebook you need to charge. In the end MS is looking like the man among boys in this department.


I agree to some extent here.  I pay for live and dont have a problem doing so because it is a superior network.  However, microsoft really does need to up their features to justify the cost if they want to stay competitive going forward.  Microsoft basically already does the giant advertisement thing like facebook, and they are the ones charging for their service.  

Microsoft cant keep withholding features given for free on other services and tout them as a reason for paying.  They need to actually add some more differentiating features to justify the cost going forward...

I actually think it is other companies that are going to have to start charging for services they currently offer for free.  Let's look at Zynga, Sony, and to a larger extent facebook.  Investors are waking up to the reality that unless you actually charge for your product you're not going to make money.  And I do think MS will and continues to expand it services, smart glass is a pretty big leap and next gen I'm guessing will see some pretty big cloud based services.


Microsoft doesn't need as much money as Xbox Live asks for. They are beyond profit now (Based on sales, cost to run, updates, etc). Everyone wants unbelievable profit as well and yes it does cost quite a bit but it doesn't cost THAT much. Pachter was talking about this on Bonus Round when he was defending Microsoft against Marcus Beer.



Mr Puggsly on 28 November 2012
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Would you prefer if your clothes were free? Don't you wish food was free? But what if the free options don't appeal to me as much as affordable pay options?

We pay because it gives us access to what we prefer. Also, its not a significant amount of money. Especially compared to other entertainment expenses.

This isn't about pride, this is people paying for a service they prefer on hardware they prefer.

If I were an XBL user, I'd simply prefer to receive for free what's free everywhere else (basic multiplayer, etc) and having to pay, if I want, only for the extra features and improvements the others don't offer for free or even haven't available at all. Plain and simple.

Nobody cares what would make the service ideal for you. This is what it is, you need to pay Gold to access ALL streaming and online gaming features. Whether it be exclusive or not.

We get it, you feel entitled to free online services and can get that somewhere else. But since the 360 has exclusive content many of us enjoy, that is valid reason for us to pay the Gold fee.



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)

gergroy on 28 November 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
gergroy said:
scat398 said:
I'm still amazed by gamers who believe they should get something for free. Of course if a company is foolish enough to give it to you for free "zynga" they'll pay for it in the end. You could say Sony is starting to see the negative effects for not charging for onlive service, increased debt, inability to compete on price, quality control. Unless you plan on PSN being one giant advertisment like google or facebook you need to charge. In the end MS is looking like the man among boys in this department.


I agree to some extent here.  I pay for live and dont have a problem doing so because it is a superior network.  However, microsoft really does need to up their features to justify the cost if they want to stay competitive going forward.  Microsoft basically already does the giant advertisement thing like facebook, and they are the ones charging for their service.  

Microsoft cant keep withholding features given for free on other services and tout them as a reason for paying.  They need to actually add some more differentiating features to justify the cost going forward...


Microsoft doesn't make you pay for those same services elsewhere (PC) and they couldn't because people wouldn't accept it. They cant because its an open online system. The 360 is perfect because Microsoft owns it, its a closed system and because of that illusion to enjoy the online world of which is free elsewhere you must pay them.


Thats why I say Microsoft needs to increase their features if they want to stay competitive.  Looking at this from a business perspective, if they can make a profit from service fees, why not do it.  It works as long as the service is competitive with other services.  However, when other services come out with similar features at lower or no cost, then you either have increase the value of your service or reduce the price to compete.

Personally, I see Microsoft upping the value of the service instead of ditching the price.  I think we have already seen rumors and hints at what microsoft could do.  Exclusive media content for subscribers like tv shows or movies (remember conan almost signed up for an xbox show)

they could also do exclusive gold games like they did with 1 vs 100. 

Cloud storage and game streaming is another feature they could implement.

Microsoft has to do stuff like that if they want to keep their hold on the online market and still charge a fee, otherwise they will lose that business to their competitors.  



Around the Network
Chark on 28 November 2012
J_Allard said:

You can't ignore a dilemna that doesn't exist. PSN still has a long ways to go before it approaches XBL in many areas. Furthermore given everything MS has done to improve Live this gen it seems rather silly to speculate that they won't continue improving it.

And I still shake my head at anyone comparing PS+ to Xbox Live. As has been said over and over in this thread, they aren't the same thing, they aren't meant to deliver the same thing. I would hope that a discount service provides "attractive content" and value. Otherwise why does a discount service exist? XBL Gold is not a discount service. MS isn't desperate enough to need a discount service.

I'm just going to assume you pulled the comment about PSN closing the gap with XBL out of your butt now.


Excellent. Do you have anything to support your claim? What areas is PSN behind XBL in? Do you know? Can you measure the differences? What areas has XBL been improving in? Can you measure those improvements? How often are improvements made? Have their been any recently? I'm not talking features or functions but actual service delivery quality. Are third parties not incentivized to provide stable server support for their games on PS3? This is doubtful as their quality of delivery will reflect on their game sales. I'm going to assume then that you have no evidence to back your claims and you only disregard mine as to not look foolish.

PS+ is Sony's premium service whether you like it or not. Here is an experiment. What would PS+ be if the restricted online multiplayer to subscribers? Does that stike any cords with you? Both systems have two tier plans. One free and one paid. It's just PS's free one is more valuable than Xbox's and PS's paid one is pulling its weight against Xbox's paid.

I'm glad you're not involved in Microsoft's business department. They would have far more to worry about than encroaching competition.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

S.T.A.G.E. on 29 November 2012
Mr Puggsly said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Would you prefer if your clothes were free? Don't you wish food was free? But what if the free options don't appeal to me as much as affordable pay options?

We pay because it gives us access to what we prefer. Also, its not a significant amount of money. Especially compared to other entertainment expenses.

This isn't about pride, this is people paying for a service they prefer on hardware they prefer.

If I were an XBL user, I'd simply prefer to receive for free what's free everywhere else (basic multiplayer, etc) and having to pay, if I want, only for the extra features and improvements the others don't offer for free or even haven't available at all. Plain and simple.

Nobody cares what would make the service ideal for you. This is what it is, you need to pay Gold to access ALL streaming and online gaming features. Whether it be exclusive or not.

We get it, you feel entitled to free online services and can get somewhere else. But since the 360 has exclusive content many of us enjoy, that is valid reason for us to pay the Gold fee.


Question, what exclusive content? 



Farsala on 29 November 2012
slowmo said:
Amazing how many people will not be buying a PS4 when Sony start charging a basic fee next gen. Sony cocked up and vastly underestimated the running costs for PSN this gen, hence why their cutting corners on costs lead to the oversight in security last year. PSN+ is just testing the water. Please feel free to save this post as I know I'll be bookmark it to wave in posters faces if I'm right .


I hope you do, because then you convinced me to not buy  MS or Sony next gen. If either charge fee for online then I am buying Wii U no matter what.



Mr Puggsly on 29 November 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Would you prefer if your clothes were free? Don't you wish food was free? But what if the free options don't appeal to me as much as affordable pay options?

We pay because it gives us access to what we prefer. Also, its not a significant amount of money. Especially compared to other entertainment expenses.

This isn't about pride, this is people paying for a service they prefer on hardware they prefer.

If I were an XBL user, I'd simply prefer to receive for free what's free everywhere else (basic multiplayer, etc) and having to pay, if I want, only for the extra features and improvements the others don't offer for free or even haven't available at all. Plain and simple.

Nobody cares what would make the service ideal for you. This is what it is, you need to pay Gold to access ALL streaming and online gaming features. Whether it be exclusive or not.

We get it, you feel entitled to free online services and can get somewhere else. But since the 360 has exclusive content many of us enjoy, that is valid reason for us to pay the Gold fee.


Question, what exclusive content? 

Answer, apps you won't find on other platforms and exclusive games.

An example, Halo 4. A very sexy game that you can't play it online for free anywhere.



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)

J_Allard on 29 November 2012
Chark said:
J_Allard said:

You can't ignore a dilemna that doesn't exist. PSN still has a long ways to go before it approaches XBL in many areas. Furthermore given everything MS has done to improve Live this gen it seems rather silly to speculate that they won't continue improving it.

And I still shake my head at anyone comparing PS+ to Xbox Live. As has been said over and over in this thread, they aren't the same thing, they aren't meant to deliver the same thing. I would hope that a discount service provides "attractive content" and value. Otherwise why does a discount service exist? XBL Gold is not a discount service. MS isn't desperate enough to need a discount service.

I'm just going to assume you pulled the comment about PSN closing the gap with XBL out of your butt now.


Excellent. Do you have anything to support your claim? What areas is PSN behind XBL in? Do you know? Can you measure the differences? What areas has XBL been improving in? Can you measure those improvements? How often are improvements made? Have their been any recently? I'm not talking features or functions but actual service delivery quality. Are third parties not incentivized to provide stable server support for their games on PS3? This is doubtful as their quality of delivery will reflect on their game sales. I'm going to assume then that you have no evidence to back your claims and you only disregard mine as to not look foolish.

PS+ is Sony's premium service whether you like it or not. Here is an experiment. What would PS+ be if the restricted online multiplayer to subscribers? Does that stike any cords with you? Both systems have two tier plans. One free and one paid. It's just PS's free one is more valuable than Xbox's and PS's paid one is pulling its weight against Xbox's paid.

I'm glad you're not involved in Microsoft's business department. They would have far more to worry about than encroaching competition.

What do I have to support my claim that PSN is still lagging behind Live Gold in some areas? I don't know, reality? You can disagree on whether or not the advantages of Live are worth the fees involved but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. The service is far more popular, is much faster, and much more reliable.

You can repeat whatever you want about PS+ until you're blue in the face, it won't make the comparison any more logical. You're still comparing two services aimed at two very different things providing very different services. It's not hard. Do you use both services? I use both and they aren't the same thing. I don't go to XBL looking for some great discounts on games and I don't load up PS+ looking for the best social hub and online gaming network around. XBL is vastly superior than PS+ at doing what XBL is intended to do and PS+ is vastly superior to XBL at doing what it is intended to do. Which is fine, because they are not intended to do the same thing. PS+ is an attempt by Sony to rake in some online revenue while keeping their online play free because they know they cannot compete performance vs performance and feature vs feature with Live. Here's a question.. with MS making so much money on XBL, if Sony were as close to Live parity with PSN as you think, why aren't they charging? What, are people gonna go to Nintendo then? They don't charge because they know the service is not worth it.

You seem upset with that last remark. Go have a Coke and a smile, this can't be the first time you've been wrong on the Internets.