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

Forums - Microsoft - Is paying $50 or less year for xbox live really that big of a deal??

JaggedSac on 19 October 2008
Lord N said:
jagenjg said:
Hey, XBL is cheaper than my GamyFly account (2 games out at once), and I bet the infrastructure for XBL is more expensive to run than GameFly. Those servers and bandwidth are not cheap for this stuff.

 

It truly astounds me that people are still under the belief that Microsoft is running a server for all of those games. Most of that stuff is handled through third-parties and P2P.

That $50 is nothing but revenue.

 

 

 

Actually, M$ stores a ton of data for each GamerTag.  All previous purchases, achievement info, friends lists, etc.  It all has to be housed somewhere and there has to be someone there for maintenence and updates.  I am not sure how they are storing downloadale content but I imagine they are doing it in house.  That means they probably have all the content stored in multiple places, so as to keep speeds up in different parts of the world.  Even if they are sing third parties to store their stuff, they have to pay them.



Around the Network
BenKenobi88 on 20 October 2008
JaggedSac said:
Lord N said:
jagenjg said:
Hey, XBL is cheaper than my GamyFly account (2 games out at once), and I bet the infrastructure for XBL is more expensive to run than GameFly. Those servers and bandwidth are not cheap for this stuff.

 

It truly astounds me that people are still under the belief that Microsoft is running a server for all of those games. Most of that stuff is handled through third-parties and P2P.

That $50 is nothing but revenue.

 

 

 

Actually, M$ stores a ton of data for each GamerTag.  All previous purchases, achievement info, friends lists, etc.  It all has to be housed somewhere and there has to be someone there for maintenence and updates.  I am not sure how they are storing downloadale content but I imagine they are doing it in house.  That means they probably have all the content stored in multiple places, so as to keep speeds up in different parts of the world.  Even if they are sing third parties to store their stuff, they have to pay them.

And yet Valve runs a massive digital distribution platform that surely takes up many times the bandwidth that XBL takes up and it's 100% free, run solely from profit from Valve games.

You don't think Microsoft could run XBL with their game profits?  Of course they can, but people call them M$ for a reason.



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

JaggedSac on 20 October 2008
BenKenobi88 said:
JaggedSac said:
Lord N said:
jagenjg said:
Hey, XBL is cheaper than my GamyFly account (2 games out at once), and I bet the infrastructure for XBL is more expensive to run than GameFly. Those servers and bandwidth are not cheap for this stuff.

 

It truly astounds me that people are still under the belief that Microsoft is running a server for all of those games. Most of that stuff is handled through third-parties and P2P.

That $50 is nothing but revenue.

 

 

 

Actually, M$ stores a ton of data for each GamerTag.  All previous purchases, achievement info, friends lists, etc.  It all has to be housed somewhere and there has to be someone there for maintenence and updates.  I am not sure how they are storing downloadale content but I imagine they are doing it in house.  That means they probably have all the content stored in multiple places, so as to keep speeds up in different parts of the world.  Even if they are sing third parties to store their stuff, they have to pay them.

And yet Valve runs a massive digital distribution platform that surely takes up many times the bandwidth that XBL takes up and it's 100% free, run solely from profit from Valve games.

You don't think Microsoft could run XBL with their game profits?  Of course they can, but people call them M$ for a reason.

 

Sure, they are different business models.  Walmart charges a hell of a lot less for blue jeans than J. Crew does, and yet they are made of the same material.



makingmusic476 on 20 October 2008
BenKenobi88 said:
JaggedSac said:
Lord N said:
jagenjg said:
Hey, XBL is cheaper than my GamyFly account (2 games out at once), and I bet the infrastructure for XBL is more expensive to run than GameFly. Those servers and bandwidth are not cheap for this stuff.

 

It truly astounds me that people are still under the belief that Microsoft is running a server for all of those games. Most of that stuff is handled through third-parties and P2P.

That $50 is nothing but revenue.

 

 

 

Actually, M$ stores a ton of data for each GamerTag.  All previous purchases, achievement info, friends lists, etc.  It all has to be housed somewhere and there has to be someone there for maintenence and updates.  I am not sure how they are storing downloadale content but I imagine they are doing it in house.  That means they probably have all the content stored in multiple places, so as to keep speeds up in different parts of the world.  Even if they are sing third parties to store their stuff, they have to pay them.

And yet Valve runs a massive digital distribution platform that surely takes up many times the bandwidth that XBL takes up and it's 100% free, run solely from profit from Valve games.

You don't think Microsoft could run XBL with their game profits?  Of course they can, but people call them M$ for a reason.

 

Same could be applied to the PSN.  What about XBL makes it *cost* more than PSN?  It's use of P2P connections instead of dedicated servers for playing online?



JaggedSac on 20 October 2008
makingmusic476 said:

 

Same could be applied to the PSN.  What about XBL makes it *cost* more than PSN?  It's use of P2P connections instead of dedicated servers playing online?

 

Nope, server usage for online play is solely the developer's choice. 

They are just different business models for online services.  One decides to eat the cost, while another decides not to.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 20 October 2008
Beja-Beja said:
Its ridiculous to pay for online gaming. I mean its like they accidently reversed Gold and Silver subscription. Why would anyone pay to play online in this day and age.

@STAGE
I lol whenever someone compares Qore to XBL just to make paying for subscriptions look less stupid. Qore is a product not a service. Its a magazine in digital form. There are incentives to buy it such as beta access and early demos but all demos eventually get released for free anyway. And the MAG rumors are still uncomfirmed.

 

Dude...um, where did I say the only service would be Qore? It will build up. You'll have to pay for Qore, M.A.G. and soon other things that Sony will concoct.



makingmusic476 on 20 October 2008
JaggedSac said:
makingmusic476 said:

 

Same could be applied to the PSN.  What about XBL makes it *cost* more than PSN?  It's use of P2P connections instead of dedicated servers playing online?

 

Nope, server usage for online play is solely the developer's choice. 

They are just different business models for online services.  One decides to eat the cost, while another decides not to.

Sony pays for the servers of Warhawk, Socom, Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, and every other 1st party title with online.

Hell, even the original Killzone's servers are still up and running.

Halo 3, however, uses P2P.

 



JaggedSac on 20 October 2008
makingmusic476 said:
JaggedSac said:
makingmusic476 said:

 

Same could be applied to the PSN.  What about XBL makes it *cost* more than PSN?  It's use of P2P connections instead of dedicated servers playing online?

 

Nope, server usage for online play is solely the developer's choice. 

They are just different business models for online services.  One decides to eat the cost, while another decides not to.

Sony pays for the servers of Warhawk, Socom, Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, and every other 1st party title with online.

Hell, even the original Killzone's servers are still up and running.

Halo 3, however, uses P2P.

 

 

Bungie isn't first party.  Plus, Bungie stated that they would have had to drop several of Halo 3's features if they were to have used dedicated servers.



makingmusic476 on 20 October 2008
JaggedSac said:
makingmusic476 said:
JaggedSac said:
makingmusic476 said:

 

Same could be applied to the PSN.  What about XBL makes it *cost* more than PSN?  It's use of P2P connections instead of dedicated servers playing online?

 

Nope, server usage for online play is solely the developer's choice. 

They are just different business models for online services.  One decides to eat the cost, while another decides not to.

Sony pays for the servers of Warhawk, Socom, Resistance 1/2, Killzone 2, and every other 1st party title with online.

Hell, even the original Killzone's servers are still up and running.

Halo 3, however, uses P2P.

 

 

Bungie isn't first party.  Plus, Bungie stated that they would have had to drop several of Halo 3's features if they were to have used dedicated servers.

 

They were until like six months ago, so MS would've been the one to foot the bill at the time.

Also, this still doesn't explain what the hell you're paying $50 a year for.  All those awesome XBL-only features that Silver users get for free? 

You're only paying for online play.  P2P online play, that uses nothing more than your own internet connection, which you already paid for, and your own 360 to host matches, which you also already paid for.



JaggedSac on 20 October 2008
makingmusic476 said:
JaggedSac said:

 

Bungie isn't first party.  Plus, Bungie stated that they would have had to drop several of Halo 3's features if they were to have used dedicated servers.

 

They were until like six months ago, so MS would've been the one to foot the bill at the time.

Also, this still doesn't explain what the hell you're paying $50 a year for.  All those awesome XBL-only features that Silver users get for free? 

You're only paying for online play.  P2P online play, that uses nothing more than your own internet connection, which you already paid for, and your own 360 to host matches, which you also already paid for.

Actually, they left at the beginning of Oct. last year.  More than enough time to know who was paying for what.

Like I said, some want to eat the cost, some find ways to offset it.  If millions are willing to pay, why the hell not charge for it?