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

Forums - Sales - What if LIVE was totally free?

yo_john117 on 06 August 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
If Xbox Live Gold Package was free it would be an inferior product. Without money coming in we wouldn't have all of the great features we have today. The sales of games would also go down because people would take the product for granted (IE: Arcade and Avatar sales would be at an all-time low). Any update would come slower than usual and we wouldn't have several updates in a year. It's a proven fact that Xbox Live sells more, because they have more motivated buyers in their installed base than PSN. It has sold over a billion dollars in products.

This!  I would much rather pay the small yearly fee for a better service (near perfection) than not have to pay and get an inferior experience.



Around the Network
ameratsu on 06 August 2009

Just because you don't pay doesn't mean you get an inferior service. Steam has most everything you'd need directly involving gaming, while xbox live has more multimedia features and a more streamlined setup. The fact that it's free, there's free user created content, and dedicated servers make it a great service.

Remember that Microsoft tried the Pay model with Games for Windows live. Granted it was a pretty much just a hollow shell of Xbox Live, the complete rejection of a pay to play model for regular (non-mmo) games is still interesting.

PSN has some issues compared to Live, especially related to the social/communication aspect. Short of making XBL Gold free, Microsoft could still make all their features (crossgame voicechat, crossgame invites, netflix, whatever) a paid service but online multiplayer free. I just don't see a good reason why microsoft has to charge someone to use their own internet connection to connect to another user when both users have paid for their games.



Demon's Souls Official Thread  | Currently playing: Left 4 Dead 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Magicka

Seraphic_Sixaxis on 06 August 2009

If LIve was free i'd play my Xbox 360 alot more, to be honest i'd play it as much as my PSP and PS3.



S.T.A.G.E. on 06 August 2009
ameratsu said:
Just because you don't pay doesn't mean you get an inferior service. Steam has most everything you'd need directly involving gaming, while xbox live has more multimedia features and a more streamlined setup. The fact that it's free, there's free user created content, and dedicated servers make it a great service.

Remember that Microsoft tried the Pay model with Games for Windows live. Granted it was a pretty much just a hollow shell of Xbox Live, the complete rejection of a pay to play model for regular (non-mmo) games is still interesting.

PSN has some issues compared to Live, especially related to the social/communication aspect. Short of making XBL Gold free, Microsoft could still make all their features (crossgame voicechat, crossgame invites, netflix, whatever) a paid service but online multiplayer free. I just don't see a good reason why microsoft has to charge someone to use their own internet connection to connect to another user when both users have paid for their games.


Why must people interject and then talk about steam?



slowmo on 06 August 2009

Highly unlikely to happen anyway imo



Around the Network
N.Genckel on 06 August 2009

Then I'd use it.



Check out my DS site.

Aion on 06 August 2009

No it won't make much of a difference, people love Xbox lives amazing service.



 

   PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB

 

Xoj on 06 August 2009

i don't know what you people are against it
would be the same for free =).



ameratsu on 06 August 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
ameratsu said:
Just because you don't pay doesn't mean you get an inferior service. Steam has most everything you'd need directly involving gaming, while xbox live has more multimedia features and a more streamlined setup. The fact that it's free, there's free user created content, and dedicated servers make it a great service.

Remember that Microsoft tried the Pay model with Games for Windows live. Granted it was a pretty much just a hollow shell of Xbox Live, the complete rejection of a pay to play model for regular (non-mmo) games is still interesting.

PSN has some issues compared to Live, especially related to the social/communication aspect. Short of making XBL Gold free, Microsoft could still make all their features (crossgame voicechat, crossgame invites, netflix, whatever) a paid service but online multiplayer free. I just don't see a good reason why microsoft has to charge someone to use their own internet connection to connect to another user when both users have paid for their games.


Why must people interject and then talk about steam?

 

Because it's a legitimate platform like PSN or XBL. I don't artificially seperate consoles and PCs like some people. Steam is a free service after all, and since it exceeds a paid service in several ways directly related to gaming it's a legitimate thing to bring up. I see the favorite passtime for some xbox fans is pretending the only way to play games online is with a console.



Demon's Souls Official Thread  | Currently playing: Left 4 Dead 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Magicka

Tallgeese101 on 06 August 2009

on steam normal people are paying at least £15 a month to host private servers for COD, BF, CS(S) TF2 and all the rest.

No one ever mentions that cost when comparing to PSN or Live.