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

The fact that a majority of gamers on the a xbox 360 can afford to get the system and games, I think of any age, a child can finagle 60 bucks a year. That's five bucks a month. Jobs, allowances, and finding quarters in the laundry will suffice to cover the reasonable charge.
 
OP. Please type in paragraphs!

I've used both PSN and Live services and Live is better for online play. There's less service disruptions and connections issues with live. I can't begin to describe how infuriating it is to be killed multiple times on CoD due to lag or be kicked out multiple times because the PSN network is having problems.

However, I find that there's more value with PSN+. Mainly due to the large amount of free games you get as soon as you sign up. The complaint I have is that the games aren't really new (Saints Row, Battlefield 4, Hitman Absolution) and there's no point downloading them if you've already played them. It all depends on what you're after.

If you're more of a casual gamer and play mainly single player, then PS+ is for you.

If you're a hardcore gamer and play a lot of games online then live is for you.
 
I myself have a very big problem with Microsoft charging 60 dollars to play online. I think 60 dollars is a lot of money to pay just to play someone online. That is one of the many factors that always gave Playstation 3 the benefit of the doubt.
 
I think, with Valve's living room venture, people will start to gravitate away from subscription-based gaming services. 60 dollars is a lot, just to play your own games with other people. PSN being free was a great contributor to the success of the PS3, but with their move to subscriptions, the only reasonable option for free online play is now Valve.
 
Well, let me tell you what your $60 a month gets you, besides all the video apps (many of which you don't get on PSN) and free-to-play games like World of Tanks and Ascend (which last I checked were not coming out on PS3), you get things like dedicated servers for Call of Duty Ghosts (which to date is only for the Xbox One version)

http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/microsoft-accelerates-its-data-center-expansion

Microsoft is accelerating a global expansion of its data center infrastructure to support growth in its Azure cloud services and Xbox Live gaming service. At a time when many cloud builders are debating whether to build or buy their data center space, Microsoft is doing both.
Click to expand...

It also gets you things like free Xbox Fitness until January 2015.

In the meantime, the reason Sony has to start charging for PSN if you want to play online is because even their current base service has issues like this:

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/09/sony-promises-to-improve-psn-for-ps4-following-gta-5-woes/

Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto 5 was released last week to insane demand and the PlayStation Network, through which the game was being digitally distributed, had a tough time coping up with it. Multiple reports of download and installation issues come in, the error code 80029563 become the source of great aggravation for many gamers. One can’t fathom how it feels when an 18GB download goes corrupt. When gamers face similar issues with the PlayStation 4 when it is finally released later this year? Sony executive Fergal Gara assures everyone that there are “big innovations in the PS4 to make it more attractive and more easy gamer wise to want to download.”
Click to expand...

And while Microsoft 1st party games and CoD are getting full on dedicated servers, games like Killzone is only getting proxy server capability. Mostly because Sony doesn't have capacity to handle full-on dedicated server game hosts.

Your money you pay for Xbox Live has ALWAYS gone right back into the Xbox Live service and allowed Microsoft to grow the service to what it is today, and what makes it the best overall service of the big three. Again, there is a reason Sony looks at Xbox Live and says "you know, we have to start charging for it too".

It's an easy $5 a month for me to spend.
 
I think for the amount of stuff you get for you $60, it becomes worth it. I mean, two games for free over the course of a month can pretty much add up to $60, so I think it's justified.
 
It depends on what side you're coming from. As someone who plays the majority of my games to play with my friends I look at it as if just buying a game and make that part of my budget. I know that it kind of sucks sometimes though, because the older content that they are putting on Gold is stuff that I already had, but its given some of my friends games that we can play together. In the end, I think that PC gaming is better when it comes to multiplayer experiences right now, but when the One comes out it might be a bit different simply because of the hardware increase.
 
Murray said:
It depends on what side you're coming from. As someone who plays the majority of my games to play with my friends I look at it as if just buying a game and make that part of my budget. I know that it kind of sucks sometimes though, because the older content that they are putting on Gold is stuff that I already had, but its given some of my friends games that we can play together. In the end, I think that PC gaming is better when it comes to multiplayer experiences right now, but when the One comes out it might be a bit different simply because of the hardware increase.
Click to expand...

This is true. I tend to game by myself offline or with my real life friends in person in one of our living rooms. I will play online but not as frequently as most gamers. So, I end up subsidizing the online service for them. I won't get the bang for my buck that they'll get but I am not going to refuse to pay 60 dollars and be stuck with only offline gaming capabilities.
 
I don't own a PS3 so can't say all of this with 100% confidence, but from what I see in the game news and from friends talking about it, Sony's PSN for the PS3 encounters a lot of downtime for maintenance. Not only that, but the maintenance usually lasts a really long time, like 12 hours.

Also, I noticed a trend with Sony gaming products in general, in that almost every single game patch for both PC and PS3 requires a several GB download. If you combine that with the known security breach, stuff like the GTA V download corruption, the recent console update the nearly bricked consoles using 3rd party harddrives, and a host of other issues relating to PSN, NONE of which are occurring on Xbox 360 with Xbox Live, it's even easier to make the decision to pay for XBL Gold each year.
 
Do you have a TL:DR version :D?

Anyways, yes I agree with you - it's really stupid and sometimes unaffordable, especially when children play with the xbox. This is why I sometimes prefer PC over xbox, but only for certain games. :)
 
It seems to me like cutting the cost of Xbox Live in half would benefit them more because:
1. They'd still be making money from Online Play while Sony would not.
2. More people would purchase Xbox products and pay for Xbox Live (more customers, more money)
3. People will be more encouraged to pay for Xbox Live
4. Special perks can be added for Xbox Live for 60 dollars and therefore the profit will be MORE than maintained.

Those 4 steps can bring in much more profit for them and make us, the gamers, way happier!
 
Simple answer here. Just ask any PSN user during the blackout. You get what you pay for and most DLC packs drop first on xbox live.
 
I think they should charge you on what you use. Personally I only use live for party chats and multiplayer. I don't use any apps like Netflix or YouTube. So if I for example just used party chats and regular multiplayer they should charge me $25-40 a year. If I use just apps they should charge me $15-30 a year. If I use all they should charge me the whole $60 a year. But a simple tip I like to use is, "invest and profit". What you could do if you invest $120 to get COD and Live for a year, and then invest $25 for a MLG game. Then you could maybe win a few MLG games to pay off your live membership. I use it time to time if I feel like it.
 
Charge you on what you use? What about someone who is online constantly? How much do you think that would cost? You didn't think that one through, did you,, guys the live service price is right for what you get,,,, This is a stupid topic to be discussing
 
LavenderGoomz said:
Charge you on what you use? What about someone who is online constantly? How much do you think that would cost? You didn't think that one through, did you,, guys the live service price is right for what you get,,,, This is a stupid topic to be discussing
Click to expand...

Exactly. If they charged me based on what my fiancé and I use ( mostly Netflix for her) my xbox live bill would be more than our internet.

They don't charge netflix by the unit and nobody whines. It's the same principle. It's a service. Not a bill.
 
the price per month on xbox live is not expensive.
5x12=60... and they offer sales from time to time to bring it down from that.

heck netflix is 8-10 dollars a month
amazon prime is 90 a year.
hulu plus is 8 dollars a month.

what about games that charge
world of warcraft charges : month-to-month package at $14.99 per month, a three-month plan at $13.99 per month, and a six-month plan at $12.99 per month.
ultima online: $12.99 per month $12.99/mo for 3 months ($38.99 total) $10.00/mo for 6 months ($59.99 total)

forget about free games(thats going away after xbox1 launch) we are getting 1 character on killer instint and project spark. its not much.. but what we do get is a very stable system. very little down time. most of the time its personal internet connection that is the problem not microsoft network.

i get in the same mindset about that 60 bux but if i put a few dollars a month aside when the sale comes or i get within a few weeks of it ending it wouldn't be bad. most of us piss away 60 dollars a month on stuff we dont reamember. i know i do.
 
At the end of the day it is all about the market. If people are willing to pay for online play, then why not. Who cares if it is "right" or not. It certainly isn't wrong or immoral in my opinion. They are running a business and if people don't like it, they can buy a different console or not use Xbox Live.
 
For 60$ per year, I believe that it is worth the price. I wouldn't buy it at 60$ ever again though, because I know Xbox Live yearly subscriptions go on sale for 30-40$ throughout the year. You save so much more money when you buy Xbox Live on sale, and honestly it's not that much of an issue to me whether I have Live or not at this point in time seeing as how I don't really go on at all anymore. As Dame6089 said, it's all about the market. Microsoft tries to do what they can to earn extra money from us, and so they charge for "online access" knowing that everyone wants to play online with friends and access "premium online features", which by premium I mean simple features such as Party Chat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top