Do you think it is right for Microsoft to charge 60 dollars for online play?

Jameson

Jameson

New Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
100
Karma
0
Ive never really had a problem with Xbox Live costing money and it kind of made sense to me at the time, but at this point doesnt it almost seem like theyre just trying to milk more money out of us? Me (and im sure many other people) are having really bad money problems and cant really afford throwing 60 bucks just for online play even though its extremely fun. Like i said though, ive never really had a problem with them charging money for it considering it makes sense to help keep servers up for games and it helps them produce their expensive new hardware and such and ESPECIALLY because of the fact that PSN was hacked into and Xbox Live wasnt. Maybe it was just PSN being targeted, but it also could have been the extra money that Xbox Live charges that saved them from hacking attacks considering PSN has free online. But from another point of view it feels really bad. Games are always very expensive even if theyre old most of the time and in order to get the new games that youve been looking forward to, but then adding the extra 60 dollar fee every year just kind of sucks. I mean 60 dollars is an entire game and even though it doesnt seem like a big deal, you could actually be getting a game every year with that money AND play online with your friends if they made it free. It sucks even more for people who only like to use their Xbox as a media player because you require Xbox Gold to even be able to play Netflix or any other media apps. Thats just my thoughts on it, but to finish it off id just like to say that the economy isnt what it used to be and not everyone can afford the 60 dollars a year, no matter how stupid that sounds and i feel that at this point Microsoft would have enough money to complete their endeavors and they could either lower the cost or make it free.
 
A few spaces between sentences would have helped reading that.

Everyone complains that PSN was hacked, but the only thing i got out of it was free games. And for a slash of the price of gold membership i get free games every month on ps3 and psvita, so i really can't complain.

But opinions, if you like to pay for quality online, that is your choice.
 
$60 is no big deal. You get free games every month now just like playstation has been doing for a quite a while now. Plus they have party chat and all kinds of other excellent xbox live additions that PSN does not have. I think it is a great deal to only have to pay $5 a month for an entire year to get Xbox Live. Yeah that's right, it's only $5. So no one should complain in my opinion.
 
I think 60 dollars for a year subscription is not bad at all. Giving that it provides free games every month is a good perk. It has appeared from what I seen that even on Xbox live they provide good games people actually want. Where on psn is games that are less popular.
 
BlackSolaris said:
A few spaces between sentences would have helped reading that.

Everyone complains that PSN was hacked, but the only thing i got out of it was free games.
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry i could have spaced that for an easier read. As for the PSN being hacked thing, getting free games out of it is cool and all but im sure it wasnt that way for the people who had their personal information hacked into.

I guess im just being a cheapskate for online, but i still do feel as if it is just another way to make money and there isnt a huge point to it.
 
I think I will forever be in awe of any gamer that is online to read reviews, websites and post on forums and still pays $60 for Live. How do you miss all of the sales? I've bought memberships for $20 because of the grapevine.
 
I think they should offer a package that only allows online play and the ability to join parties for a reduced price. If they want to charge extra just so we get the full potential out of our games, fine, but those who aren't using the other features are paying for things that they aren't using. I actually do use my Xbox for multimedia, but I think this proposal would be good for a lot of people.
 
BitesizeCrayons said:
I think they should offer a package that only allows online play and the ability to join parties for a reduced price. If they want to charge extra just so we get the full potential out of our games, fine, but those who aren't using the other features are paying for things that they aren't using.
Click to expand...

You know, ive never even thought of it that way but thats a really good idea!

And Sugarhill ive actually never seen a deal for Xbox Live other than the 1 dollar for 1 month thing they do. Its probably just because i dont read a ton of reviews and such though
 
For the service they offer, compared to other service fees, Xbox live for $60 is an incredible deal. That being said, I think that fee should cover more things such as all of their apps or at least most of them. What bugs me is to pay for the service which then mostly just gives me access to pay for more things such as DLC and apps. But overall it is a great deal since the primary thing people want out of it is just to play online which is what the service provides.
 
Well it's their company meaning their decision. They make the rules and we have to follow. For some people they don't see it as much, but for us stingy people it's quite a hefty fee once it's all added up. I personally don't have a job yet, so it's a hassle trying to shell out $10 a month.
 
It doesn't bother me that much. I mean, if you think about it, that's only $5 a month. And, as Sugarhill pointed out, you can find deals on the subscription costs, so it could be less than that if you do your research. I think that it is a fair price, considering what you get for it.
 
For online play? I guess it's an acceptable fee. To watch Netflix? Yeah, Microsoft is beyond retarded on that aspect.
 
I do not think that it is right to charge 60 dollars per year. But when has there ever been morality in a capitalist economy? We live by the golden rule. He who has the most gold makes the rules. I wouldn't be against something low like $9.99 per year. I really enjoy playing PC games for free online. Come to think of it, how many competitors charge for online play?
 
I can deal with the 60 dollars a year, that's pretty awesome actually, it's just the annoying fact of having to actually have that to watch netflix, as an above poster said that I always thought was silly. BUT, I guess it is what it is :)
 
I like to look at it from a financial perspective. I highly doubt the average paid price for XBL Gold is $60 (I don't know anybody who actually pays full price). Let's say it's closer to $50. There are over 40 million Xbox Live Gold subscribers. 40,000,000 x $50 = $200,000,000 (200 Million USD) per year in revenue.

That's a pretty decent chunk of profits that Sony has been missing out on. Remember too that between Sony and MS, Microsoft is the only console company to make a profit. Now having worked at Xbox Live (I worked there for 2 years), I can tell you that the money they make in profits is well spent on infrastructure and security, other services, etc. My job at the time worked with the infrastructure and services/application/deployments (basically anything that touches Xbox Live).

I really wish I could find out more about the PSN Ops Center, but I can almost guarantee it's not as robust or built out as Xbox Live is. For me, I'm completely happy supporting the company that's making smart business decisions and not afraid to spend that profit on offering bigger and better (and more!) services. A really good example of this is Microsoft's 300,000 Xbox Live servers for next gen, including all of the custom tech that went into designing and building the Xbox One. These kind of profits also allow a company (like Microsoft) to explore new territory such as making The Cloud a forefront decision (not an afterthought-tacked on a year later...PS4) and Kinect 2.0 using technology never done before. That kind of innovation and advancement only happens when you've got money to spend. In contrast, Sony had to sell property/assets in order to make money to spend on next gen products (They sold their U.S. Headquarters for about $1 Billion USD - the only reason they were able to make a 'profit' for a single quarter).


So, to conclude: $60 is a very fair price for what is being offered. I consider it an investment in my entertainment for both today and the future.

Although, there's no need to pay the full $60. I've been paying about $22 per year for the past several years. :) With next gen only needing a single XBL Gold subscription per Xbox One, I'll be paying even less.
 
Landshark said:
I like to look at it from a financial perspective. I highly doubt the average paid price for XBL Gold is $60 (I don't know anybody who actually pays full price). Let's say it's closer to $50. There are over 40 million Xbox Live Gold subscribers. 40,000,000 x $50 = $200,000,000 (200 Million USD) per year in revenue.

That's a pretty decent chunk of profits that Sony has been missing out on. Remember too that between Sony and MS, Microsoft is the only console company to make a profit. Now having worked at Xbox Live (I worked there for 2 years), I can tell you that the money they make in profits is well spent on infrastructure and security, other services, etc. My job at the time worked with the infrastructure and services/application/deployments (basically anything that touches Xbox Live).

I really wish I could find out more about the PSN Ops Center, but I can almost guarantee it's not as robust or built out as Xbox Live is. For me, I'm completely happy supporting the company that's making smart business decisions and not afraid to spend that profit on offering bigger and better (and more!) services. A really good example of this is Microsoft's 300,000 Xbox Live servers for next gen, including all of the custom tech that went into designing and building the Xbox One. These kind of profits also allow a company (like Microsoft) to explore new territory such as making The Cloud a forefront decision (not an afterthought-tacked on a year later...PS4) and Kinect 2.0 using technology never done before. That kind of innovation and advancement only happens when you've got money to spend. In contrast, Sony had to sell property/assets in order to make money to spend on next gen products (They sold their U.S. Headquarters for about $1 Billion USD - the only reason they were able to make a 'profit' for a single quarter).


So, to conclude: $60 is a very fair price for what is being offered. I consider it an investment in my entertainment for both today and the future.

Although, there's no need to pay the full $60. I've been paying about $22 per year for the past several years. :) With next gen only needing a single XBL Gold subscription per Xbox One, I'll be paying even less.
Click to expand...

Man that sure is in depth! Thanks for taking the time to write all that and clear it up! I guess its just hard for me to think 60 a year in this economy per person is justified but i probably got so obsessed over that, that i forgot even companies have financial problems no matter how big they are. Its also very good to hear that they spend a lot of the money on securing their servers and such :)
 
a good point is made above by landshark and someone else regarding all the money that sony left on the table by not charging for online play. the first console online gaming service, xband, charged $15-$20 minimum per month to play online with snes and sega games. you paid even more in terms of long distance charges if you played gamers outside of your area code. so it isn't a big surprise. i guess the surprise is that sony offered free online gaming for so long.
 
Landshark said:
I like to look at it from a financial perspective. I highly doubt the average paid price for XBL Gold is $60 (I don't know anybody who actually pays full price). Let's say it's closer to $50. There are over 40 million Xbox Live Gold subscribers. 40,000,000 x $50 = $200,000,000 (200 Million USD) per year in revenue.

That's a pretty decent chunk of profits that Sony has been missing out on. Remember too that between Sony and MS, Microsoft is the only console company to make a profit. Now having worked at Xbox Live (I worked there for 2 years), I can tell you that the money they make in profits is well spent on infrastructure and security, other services, etc. My job at the time worked with the infrastructure and services/application/deployments (basically anything that touches Xbox Live).

I really wish I could find out more about the PSN Ops Center, but I can almost guarantee it's not as robust or built out as Xbox Live is. For me, I'm completely happy supporting the company that's making smart business decisions and not afraid to spend that profit on offering bigger and better (and more!) services. A really good example of this is Microsoft's 300,000 Xbox Live servers for next gen, including all of the custom tech that went into designing and building the Xbox One. These kind of profits also allow a company (like Microsoft) to explore new territory such as making The Cloud a forefront decision (not an afterthought-tacked on a year later...PS4) and Kinect 2.0 using technology never done before. That kind of innovation and advancement only happens when you've got money to spend. In contrast, Sony had to sell property/assets in order to make money to spend on next gen products (They sold their U.S. Headquarters for about $1 Billion USD - the only reason they were able to make a 'profit' for a single quarter).


So, to conclude: $60 is a very fair price for what is being offered. I consider it an investment in my entertainment for both today and the future.

Although, there's no need to pay the full $60. I've been paying about $22 per year for the past several years. :) With next gen only needing a single XBL Gold subscription per Xbox One, I'll be paying even less.
Click to expand...


All of this and more! There is a reason as to why Sony has had to and will continue to play catch up when it comes to online gaming and programming. They haven't been successful because of their infrastructure, they have been successful because they couldn't charge you for their lack of infrastructure. They are the anti-Xbox and at first glance, it looks good, because it's "free," but with closer inspection, you see very clearly as to why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top