-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Will paying for Live affect your Next gen console purchase(s)?
- Thread starter Bleepey
- Start date
I always buy all systems and keep a medium PC too, so i will definatly buy 720 no matter what
360 is my most played system this generation and i dont even game much online, i mainly play RPGs and adventures
Well, i dont know if they will start at square one if they have full backward compatibility with older games
We don't know what either will offer though. What crazy features will they offer? No one knows.
Maleficence
Member
I find it hard to believe that there are people out there that actually defend the cost of XBL. Biggest mark-up/rip off for the past 2 generations.
Sadly no, what will influence my decision is the games and if my friends buy the xbox 3 as well. I'd take playing Halo and Gears(mostly Gears) multiplayer and paying for it over the entire PS3 exclusive line up any day.
I'm kinda done with Halo though, so it really depends on Gears.
I'm kinda done with Halo though, so it really depends on Gears.
I am almost certain that basic online play will be free on both PS4 and Wii U.
And of course, the best online service will be free on Steambox
SolarPowered
Member
Yes
I won't bother with platforms that make me pay to play(or even talk) online. I already decided that I'm not bothering with Microsoft next time because of that alone. It'll be Nintendo/Sony/PC and I'll ditch Sony in a second if they make me pay too.
I won't bother with platforms that make me pay to play(or even talk) online. I already decided that I'm not bothering with Microsoft next time because of that alone. It'll be Nintendo/Sony/PC and I'll ditch Sony in a second if they make me pay too.
I am almost certain that basic online play will be free on both PS4 and Wii U.
And of course, the best online service will be free on Steambox
Why would Sony leave all that money on the table again? Surely they're kicking themselves for not charging this gen. And they need the cash a lot more than MS does.
GotEmRunnin
Member
live is the sole reason why I'm done with console multiplayer gaming and went back to PC. Case and point MS charging for live on console while the pc version was/is free.
Ardenyal
Member
I need that cash the most :| Free online will definitely be a big plus next gen, at least for me.
BruiserBear
Banned
Based on the Vita OS alone I now feel very confident that the PS4 OS is going to be fantastic. I'm more confident than ever that I could do without Microsoft's next console, and save myself hundreds of dollars over the years of the next generation by not paying for Gold.
No, it wouldn't because I don't play online a lot. I usually play local MP with friends and family and only play online occasionally and with some games only, like MK7 or Fifa. I definitely would not want to pay for something like Live, because I wouldn't use it a lot. I'm most definitely not getting the next XBox, because their exclusive games don't interest me, anyway.
BruiserBear
Banned
I feel nearly certain Sony and Nintendo will not be charging for online play next gen. They've made it a part of their entire brand, and a strategic advantage over Microsoft. They're not going to give that up.
I saw the bullet and dodged it. No way was I getting locked into the Live pay cycle and pay shitloads just to play online.
£40x7 = £280. That's how much each hardcore Live gamer has paid since launch. What a waste of money. That's nearly $599 just on live fees to play multiplayer, get demos a week early (or same time as PSN) and use free services like Netflix. I'm glad I stuck with PS3.
I did pay monthly just to try out Live in 2006 but it just wasn't cost effective for me. I'm sure a lot swear by it, but it's just not value for money when the same shit is free elsewhere.
£40x7 = £280. That's how much each hardcore Live gamer has paid since launch. What a waste of money. That's nearly $599 just on live fees to play multiplayer, get demos a week early (or same time as PSN) and use free services like Netflix. I'm glad I stuck with PS3.
I did pay monthly just to try out Live in 2006 but it just wasn't cost effective for me. I'm sure a lot swear by it, but it's just not value for money when the same shit is free elsewhere.
Fire Walk With Me
Banned
As long as Home continues to be a place of magic and wonder I dont see the point.
RPGCrazied
Member
If Wii U and the PS4 have free online play, there really is NO excuse to have people pay for online on the next xbox.
theDeeDubs
Member
I'm basically paying for cloud saving on either side, so no. I'll get both eventually, but BC will be the driving factor for me to be an early adopter.
I'm not a multiplayer centric person, and I often game on more than 1 platform, but it didn't really affect my purchase this gen, so it probably won't next gen, it really comes down to games, I bought a 360 this gen without paying for live because of the exclusives, I was mainly on ps3 and occasionally PC for games I could run. It was more than enough to fit my needs.
It is also the same with my circle of friends, we're not really a bunch of hardcore gamers that play online games everyday so we'd rather play them free, but it didn't affect our purchases, we all bought a 360 this generation for games we want to play, some uses the free months to coop through the exclusive multiplayer games.
A few was mainly on xblive for fighting games and they too moved to ps3, but I'll probably use the same strategy like I did this generation, unless there are less exclusivity next generation and games run better on multiplatforms.
It is also the same with my circle of friends, we're not really a bunch of hardcore gamers that play online games everyday so we'd rather play them free, but it didn't affect our purchases, we all bought a 360 this generation for games we want to play, some uses the free months to coop through the exclusive multiplayer games.
A few was mainly on xblive for fighting games and they too moved to ps3, but I'll probably use the same strategy like I did this generation, unless there are less exclusivity next generation and games run better on multiplatforms.
Uno Venova
Banned
Yeah it will, Live is the reason I held off on getting a 360 until late in the gen when it was cheap, paying for Live feels like a ripoff.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
A lot of people were nearly certain that Sony had given up on overpriced proprietary memory cards as well. Every new gen is different with different rules. Just because something is one way in a generation doesn't mean it will always be that way.
Conciliator
Banned
I hardly ever play console games online, but there will probably be a few that will make me curious, so it's nice to be able to just jump in. So, yeah, if one console has free online multiplayer and another doesn't, that's a factor.
Garrus Vakarian
Member
It is something that had crossed my mind, yes. If they allow for more flexible subscription brackets (1$ for a week) then it'll dampen the blow of having to pay for it, if the other console is free however then it'll be my choice, all things being equal.
Of course there is nothing to stop the the platform from introducing a paid system somewhere down the line (that I know of) unfortunately.
Of course there is nothing to stop the the platform from introducing a paid system somewhere down the line (that I know of) unfortunately.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Microsoft has already turned my dash into a giant billboard, and THEN they have the gall to lock things like Netflix behind a paywall. I'm pretty burnt out on Halo, so yeah, I don't think I'll be "jumping in" next gen.
Grinchy
Banned
Live is the reason I don't have a 360. So, if they pull the same shit next gen, it'll be the reason I don't have a 720. I loved my first xbox but after paying for a year or 2 of Live I stopped using it. Well, that and the fact that they kicked it to the curb 4 years in so they could rush out their new system.
Guy Legend
Member
Absolutely. Yearly subscriptions for online play are a mark against.
TheBanditKing
Member
Yes, I grew tired of paying for Live last year and thus am a silver member now. As a result the amount of time I play my 360 has dropped considerably while my time on PS3 has increased (along with my PSV, 3DS). Right now I don't have any plans to buy the next xbox. I will admit it may be a bit premature to discuss this topic because we have no idea if online will be free on PS4 or WiiU.
I forgot about that, its been a long time since I turned on my 360. I hate the post Kinect OS, so how the next gen consoles OS/interfaces are setup will also effect what systems I own. Live pissed me off when I started seeing more and more ads; shouldn't a paid subscription cut down on the number of ads I am bombarded with.
I forgot about that, its been a long time since I turned on my 360. I hate the post Kinect OS, so how the next gen consoles OS/interfaces are setup will also effect what systems I own. Live pissed me off when I started seeing more and more ads; shouldn't a paid subscription cut down on the number of ads I am bombarded with.
Yes. In hindsight, owning all three consoles this gen, it's clear to me now that I could easily have saved a fair amount of money if I'd skipped 360/Live and all I would have lost (out of games I wanted to play that were only on 360) was Halo and Gears. Now I like those games - but I'm not sure I like them enough to warrant the cost of the console and 5 plus years of Live on top of the cost of the games.
Forza and Fable aren't favourites and everything else I bought on 360 I could have got later on PS3 or PC or were titles I would get on PC anyway (like Left for Dead or Oblivion or more recently Skyrim).
Unless I feel a lot more sure than I do currently that the next Xbox console will have a lot of exclusives I want and that they will remain exclusives I will seriously consider skipping it and funneling the cost of the console/Live towards other platforms for game purchases.
I should note I have found Kinect a waste of time. Up until now it has had exactly one title that actually felt better on Kinect - Dance Central - than titles available on Wii/PS3 and it looks like it might get another from Tim Schafer but that's a title I'm not interested in. So I see no reason to invest for Kinect 2.0 given for me Kinect 1.0 has been an abject failure from a gaming perspective.
Forza and Fable aren't favourites and everything else I bought on 360 I could have got later on PS3 or PC or were titles I would get on PC anyway (like Left for Dead or Oblivion or more recently Skyrim).
Unless I feel a lot more sure than I do currently that the next Xbox console will have a lot of exclusives I want and that they will remain exclusives I will seriously consider skipping it and funneling the cost of the console/Live towards other platforms for game purchases.
I should note I have found Kinect a waste of time. Up until now it has had exactly one title that actually felt better on Kinect - Dance Central - than titles available on Wii/PS3 and it looks like it might get another from Tim Schafer but that's a title I'm not interested in. So I see no reason to invest for Kinect 2.0 given for me Kinect 1.0 has been an abject failure from a gaming perspective.
WickedCobra03
Member
I totally agree. I mean I play online and such with friends, but if it is once a week or so for an hour or two, that is about all the multiplayer I get it. I don't feel like it is warrenting a $60/year fee. If Playstation stays free, I will definitely go with them again as my multiplayer console. It just sucks because Xbox has Halo, Halo Wars, Forza and Gears which I didn't mind playing online from time to time, but I just don't feel like paying $60/year now basically just to be let into your garden... I am fine standing outside with PC and Playstation3.
No, it wouldn't effect my decision at all.
Then again, I'm not really into multiplayer, and in my region we don't have all this Netflix stuff anyway, so unless I'm planning on a co-op session with someone I'm fine with my gold sub running out.
And it's still only 60 bucks a year. Even for someone that prefers single player, if I calculate how much hours of fun I had for those 60 bucks, it was well worth it.
Just my view though.
Then again, I'm not really into multiplayer, and in my region we don't have all this Netflix stuff anyway, so unless I'm planning on a co-op session with someone I'm fine with my gold sub running out.
And it's still only 60 bucks a year. Even for someone that prefers single player, if I calculate how much hours of fun I had for those 60 bucks, it was well worth it.
Just my view though.
Diddy Kong
Banned
Not bothering with the new Xbox. No need to pay $50 a year when each dash update gets worse.
Jaffaboy
Member
£40 for a year ain't really all that much. I've been happy to pay for gold membership for almost 5 years, and it's a great service with games that have an online community for a lot longer than the free service over at Sony. I'm much more concerned about the hardware being good enough to feel next gen than the amount of money I could easily spend in a night of buying beers.
Heck, I'm paying equivalent to $63.34 a year, so if you can get that for $40 that's a steal!
Heck, I'm paying equivalent to $63.34 a year, so if you can get that for $40 that's a steal!
BradleyLove
Member
I'd rather pay for a subscription to content, rather than for functionality.
I've said this before. Sony is prepping PSN to be a subscription-based content service. One day, you might not even have a Sony console, you might subscribe to PSN content through your Smart TV, PC, iOS device, whatever.
Whilst MS are locking features behind subscriptions, Sony are thinking about content (as we can see by PS+). Content is king - and Sony knows this.
One day you won't be paying to play online, you'll be paying to subscribe to the PSN channel, the EA Channel, the COD channel and so on. Sony are getting a headstart on this and I believe they view cable/satellite TV-style subscriptions as a future business model.
MS = stick. Always will be, always have been. Their whole ethos with XBL is to punish those who don't have Gold, not reward those who do have Gold.
I've said this before. Sony is prepping PSN to be a subscription-based content service. One day, you might not even have a Sony console, you might subscribe to PSN content through your Smart TV, PC, iOS device, whatever.
Whilst MS are locking features behind subscriptions, Sony are thinking about content (as we can see by PS+). Content is king - and Sony knows this.
One day you won't be paying to play online, you'll be paying to subscribe to the PSN channel, the EA Channel, the COD channel and so on. Sony are getting a headstart on this and I believe they view cable/satellite TV-style subscriptions as a future business model.
MS = stick. Always will be, always have been. Their whole ethos with XBL is to punish those who don't have Gold, not reward those who do have Gold.
IsntChrisL
Member
At this point, I really don't see how MS justifies charging at all anymore. There is nothing that Gold offers that PSN/Steam don't at least come close to. Then again, they went and cranked up the fee by $10 during a time when people were speculating they might make it free altogether.
I'm just happy that the competition hasn't followed suit. I strongly believe that online gaming would drop off a lot if everyone charged to play.
I'm just happy that the competition hasn't followed suit. I strongly believe that online gaming would drop off a lot if everyone charged to play.
My Live experience (for gaming) has been mostly positive, so I'll pay for it again.
My PSN experience (for gaming) has been often negative. This makes my Live experience seem to be worth the money. (even if it actually isn't)
Xbox does it right, but charges too much, PSN is a wild mixed bag, but is free. Both are OK in my book.
However... It's starting to really get my goat the MS charges for Gold and thn serves me ads on every page....grrrrr.
My PSN experience (for gaming) has been often negative. This makes my Live experience seem to be worth the money. (even if it actually isn't)
Xbox does it right, but charges too much, PSN is a wild mixed bag, but is free. Both are OK in my book.
However... It's starting to really get my goat the MS charges for Gold and thn serves me ads on every page....grrrrr.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
If PSN stepped it up and all my friends moved over I would stop paying for XBL.
I said it before, but given the rise of social and F2P games I really can't see why anyone's assume that as a given except maybe if they were just really pessimistic about online staying free for those two. Actually, I've noticed the general trend period seems to have been going for free, at least to an extent. The earliest online services all required fees, but those are now long, long dead, many MMOs beyond WoW have dropped the fee and even THAT lets you play for free to a certain level, and we even saw Sony trying their hand at that with Killzone 3's MP, nevermind with SOE's been doing. Most likely Live gets away with it because Microsoft positioned themselves as THE primer online system this generation, and even that could easily crumble away next generation.
Melchiah
Member
I wouldn't pay for Live, as I don't tend to play online, but I do pay for the PS+ service for the free games and discounts, and the game save backups. Quite funny how easily one can fall under the spell of these, as before I was deeply against paying for something like this on monthly basis.
H_Prestige
Banned
If Sony and Nintendo let you play COD online for free next gen, it's going to be tough for MS to charge extra for the same thing.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Will probably not get the Xbox 720 day 1 because of diminished focus on exclusives, paying for online, and RROD issues with new hardware. 360 got a lot of play time for me early on, but I've gravitated towards other platforms now and I hardly play it.
Will play it by ear for a while and if there's a killer app I can't do without I'll pick one up.
I will probably grab a Wii U / PS4 at launch
Will play it by ear for a while and if there's a killer app I can't do without I'll pick one up.
I will probably grab a Wii U / PS4 at launch
I will continue to do all of my online gaming for free on PC. It's that way naturally, as PC exclusive games tend to be the ones that have the style of online multiplayer that appeals to me, stuff from Blizzard, Valve and MMOs. At this point in my life I don't see myself ever, ever playing for Xbox Live, PSN, or something similar.
Not grabbing any next gen consoles for the next few years. Not having access to a TV or a similar device has proven to be a hindrance for console gaming.
Rather, I will get a Vita and add a few more mobile gaming titles as well as Mac games. (Yes, I am one of those... ;-)) Reason one: I can use almost anywhere I want to. Reason two: less costy. Reason three: Less risks for developers => more experimental titles.
Aww, meh, I got the title wrong: XBL's not going to affect me buying a MS console. I'm not an online gamer, at least not to the level where I think paying would be worth it.
Rather, I will get a Vita and add a few more mobile gaming titles as well as Mac games. (Yes, I am one of those... ;-)) Reason one: I can use almost anywhere I want to. Reason two: less costy. Reason three: Less risks for developers => more experimental titles.
Aww, meh, I got the title wrong: XBL's not going to affect me buying a MS console. I'm not an online gamer, at least not to the level where I think paying would be worth it.
InfiniteNine
Rolling Girl
Nope, I'll buy whatever system has the games I want and just continue not paying for Live.
Similar threads
- Poll