Augemitbutter
Member
Gaz Pwnage said:somthing needs to be done about this.
yes, just stop paying money for online :lol
what a waste of money.
Gaz Pwnage said:somthing needs to be done about this.
Ploid 3.0 said:If you have Live Gold you get netflix for free?
claviertekky said:Honestly, I think the cynical OP is wrong here.
If anyone's used the ESPN3 app for the XBOX 360, you would know that as how the app works right now as there are zero ads.
ZERO. When commercial breaks occur, ESPN plays a please wait screen until the game comes back on.
That's where I think the $10 goes. How can you offer commercial free sports programming when the PC/Mac counterpart does?
You guys are crazy. If anyone's to blame, it's definitely MS.
luxarific said:No, you have to be a Netflix subscriber. The only benefit 360 Netflix had over PS3 Netflix was that you didn't need a disk, but that advantage is gone now.
That might be true, but it's certainly worth investigating and getting an official confirmation.
Not that it changes much, in the end it's still the question of whether you feel like you're getting your money's worth, but there should really be more transparency about such things
luxarific said:No, you have to be a Netflix subscriber. The only benefit 360 Netflix had over PS3 Netflix was that you didn't need a disk, but that advantage is gone now.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:That might be true, but it's certainly worth investigating and getting an official confirmation.
Not that it changes much, in the end it's still the question of whether you feel like you're getting your money's worth, but there should really be more transparency about such things.
Dunlop said:why?
you can stop trying any time brobutter_stick said:Logical people: Microsoft raised the price because it's been the same for 5 years and they think they can get away with it.
Internet posters: OMG CONSPIRACY
butter_stick said:Logical people: Microsoft raised the price because it's been the same for 5 years and they think they can get away with it.
Internet posters: OMG CONSPIRACY
Yeah the mega corporate big money GAF news team should try harder...quickwhips said:This is a rumor but alot of people are stating that its fact. I mean the title is something you would see on fox fucking news. Question mark and all.
John said:you can stop trying any time bro
REMEMBER CITADEL said:Why is it worth investigating or why should there be more transparency?
Najaf said:Also, with inflation taken into consideration, Microsoft was making a hell of a lot less money off of the $50 a month ago than five years ago.
POWERSPHERE said:Yeah the mega corporate big money GAF news team should try harder...
Durante said:Very interesting. It's hard to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory -- if the Kotick quote from Nov 12 is accurate, it's basically a direct confirmation.
Ah yes industry juggernaut Nicagamerz.com! Success!TheOddOne said:
thank you. at least one person in here isn't a complete lunatic.butter_stick said:Logical people: Microsoft raised the price because it's been the same for 5 years and they think they can get away with it.
Internet posters: OMG CONSPIRACY
Anerythristic said:This is plausible but I have to laugh at all the people thinking Activisons "threat" was PS3 exclusivity if they were not paid.
distrbnce said:Another advantage bought by Microsoft.
Going PS3 only would be ridiculous but changing to advertise COD with PS3 and lack of exclusive dlc priority could hurt MS sales.Anerythristic said:This is plausible but I have to laugh at all the people thinking Activisons "threat" was PS3 exclusivity if they were not paid.
aegies said:Microsoft didn't pay for the Netflix exclusive. Or at least, that's not why it landed on 360 first. There's a great story there that hopefully can be told at some point.
aegies said:Microsoft didn't pay for the Netflix exclusive. Or at least, that's not why it landed on 360 first. There's a great story there that hopefully can be told at some point.
Dunlop said:Both, whether they use the money for money hats to hire interns to wipe their asses, the cost of the service is the same.
claviertekky said:Not that it changes much, in the end it's still the question of whether you feel like you're getting your money's worth, but there should really be more transparency about such things.
butter_stick said:Logical people: Microsoft raised the price because it's been the same for 5 years and they think they can get away with it.
Internet posters: OMG CONSPIRACY
The price went up for me as well and I live in Europe. They now want 60 (more than $80) even though I don't have Last.FM, ESPN, or Netflix.TheNiX said:US and Mexico were the only places to get a 12 month hike. UK and Canada had their monthly prices go up by $1.
Canadians have been paying $59.99 since the start of the service.
List of sub prices increased.
I really, really doubt that. Webspace and server costs were way higher in 2002 than they are now. Inflation would justify the price incease if we weren't talking about technology that gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper every year.Najaf said:Also, with inflation taken into consideration, Microsoft was making a hell of a lot less money off of the $50 a month ago than five years ago.
Reallink said:Wow you a dumbass, their ad and marketplace revenue (which didn't 6 or 7 years ago) offsets inflation and service fees 1000 fold.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:I agree with that, I just said the very same thing a couple of posts ago:
Now, why do I think it's worth investigating. Like the OP's detective work has shown, there have been some really interesting coincidences and strange statements coming from Activision recently. Serious journalists should be able to spot those things and make proper inquiries. Of course, the completely wrong thing to do would be to blow this out of proportion with sensationalistic claims and then ask questions later.
And transparency is always good. People have the right to know what they're paying for with their money. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference to me, but some people, for instance, are opposed to giving any money to Activision. Others only want to pay for things that they're actually using, even though they're probably paying for some services they're not really using even now.
Really, if this theory is proven to be right (I'm not entirely buying it, but like I said, there's no harm in asking), and with all the problems Microsoft has had with MMO makers, maybe it's time to revise Live subscription policies. I'm not at all suggesting dropping paid subscriptions altogether (because, let's face it, that's not going to happen), but maybe they should introduce an option of paying a low fee for the basic service (say, $20 a year) and then various micro-subscriptions on top of that for games and/or services that you actually intend to use.
teruterubozu said:For the umpteenth time, it's easy to investigate. You look at Activision's quarterly financial filings for this supposed "Xbox Live" income. There isn't. So does that mean Activision's hiding income from the SEC and its shareholders? Does that mean Microsoft is in cahoots and also not reporting this deal? I highly fucking doubt it.
teruterubozu said:For the umpteenth time, it's easy to investigate. You look at Activision's quarterly financial filings for this supposed "Xbox Live" income. There isn't. So does that mean Activision's hiding income from the SEC and its shareholders? Does that mean Microsoft is in cahoots and also not reporting this deal? I highly fucking doubt it.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:True, but why wait until the next quarterly report if you can politely ask some questions now? Depending on when this alleged deal came to being, it wouldn't necessarily be included in the last report.
Massa said:There are many ways Microsoft can "pay" Activision: advertising their games, lower licensing fees, etc.
Massa said:There are many ways Microsoft can "pay" Activision: advertising their games, lower licensing fees, etc.
So a direct statement would be better as a thread title? I don't understand.quickwhips said:This is a rumor but alot of people are stating that its fact. I mean the title is something you would see on fox fucking news. Question mark and all.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:But if it's not a direct revenue stream percentage, you could argue that the price hike has nothing to do with Activision. Microsoft simply wants more money and what they do with it afterward is their business.
claviertekky said:Honestly, I think the cynical OP is wrong here.
If anyone's used the ESPN3 app for the XBOX 360, you would know that as how the app works right now as there are zero ads.
ZERO. When commercial breaks occur, ESPN plays a please wait screen until the game comes back on.
That's where I think the $10 goes. How can you offer commercial free sports programming when the PC/Mac counterpart does?