-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
At what point does Xbox Live Gold start hurting Microsoft?
- Thread starter Tiktaalik
- Start date
RedNumberFive
Banned
McLovin said:
I don't understand it either. It's nice that it's there on the 360, but really, when I get home from work and relax with a game, the last thing I want to do is talk to half a dozen people playing OTHER games.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
RedNumberFive said:
Oh, word? I thought they were doing a Party Down type thing. Please retract!
H_Prestige
Banned
Probably never.
All I would really want to see is giving basic online play (around psn level) to Silver users for free. Those who want the extra jazz can keep paying for Gold. But MS will never do that either.
All I would really want to see is giving basic online play (around psn level) to Silver users for free. Those who want the extra jazz can keep paying for Gold. But MS will never do that either.
RedNumberFive
Banned
BenjaminBirdie said:
Yeah, as a big Dexter fan, I was disappointed as well.
Zombie James
Banned
The problem i've always had with Live charging for a basic feature that's free everywhere else. The ability to hop online and play games with other people should be an essential part of any modern console and not be treated like a premium you have to pay extra for. Live offers plenty of fluff they could charge people for, online gaming (mostly peer-to-peer, even) shouldn't be one of them.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
As soon as PSN is anywhere close to comparable, then it could hurt MS. But PSN is far from comparable imho.
ITT: gullible fools trying to justify why Microsoft are still on the correct course, and why Sony will be following suit at the next generation transition.
Unless a company was providing an insane amount of service towards a game/structure (such as you would see in an MMO of high calibre) then I see no reason why I should be parting with my money for something that is freely available elsewhere. The truth is Microsoft are greedy and consumers are stupid enough to swallow it down that they begin looking for excuses to justify the reason why they still pay for services that have been generally free for over a decade. This is somewhat related to the DLC craze that people will slobber over themselves for; a company says jump and you idiots say "how high?"
Another fact of the matter is if I can freely consort with a few mates online to get together and play a few rounds of whatever game we have disposable then I'm happy. I was doing this shit through IRC to play 3v3 matches on Starcraft with my crew almost a decade ago - on a free service provided by Blizzard to play the game with, might I add. I can still do the same shit if I want to organise a quick game of TF2 these days through Steam, another free program provided by Valve, let alone the immense joy of playing on a vast variety of local low ping servers.
Unless a company was providing an insane amount of service towards a game/structure (such as you would see in an MMO of high calibre) then I see no reason why I should be parting with my money for something that is freely available elsewhere. The truth is Microsoft are greedy and consumers are stupid enough to swallow it down that they begin looking for excuses to justify the reason why they still pay for services that have been generally free for over a decade. This is somewhat related to the DLC craze that people will slobber over themselves for; a company says jump and you idiots say "how high?"
Another fact of the matter is if I can freely consort with a few mates online to get together and play a few rounds of whatever game we have disposable then I'm happy. I was doing this shit through IRC to play 3v3 matches on Starcraft with my crew almost a decade ago - on a free service provided by Blizzard to play the game with, might I add. I can still do the same shit if I want to organise a quick game of TF2 these days through Steam, another free program provided by Valve, let alone the immense joy of playing on a vast variety of local low ping servers.
RedNumberFive
Banned
_leech_ said:
Yeah. I knew it was all over when they started charging for "buddy icons" and "wallpaper". Not to say that PSN is any better with that these days.
McLovin said:
Yes. I have no idea why you'd say PSN is close in any way to Live even at this point. Live offers tons of features I use regularly (Netflix, XBL Parties, XBLA multi), plus the included headset and unified experience means I know exactly what to expect from every game I play online on a 360. With PS3 you're still dealing with a userbase mostly lacking headsets (and many who have them who don't understand how to set the sensitivity so they can be heard easily and/or aren't broadcasting room tone at all times) and an interface that has barely hit the "competent" stage. Just sending messages to people on the PSN friends list is a chore still.
PSN will not be comparable to XBL until Sony implements a group party system that is game agnostic and forces developers to adhere to a standard interface for all online PS3 games. Until then, "you get what you pay for" will remain the defining factor between the two services.
Never, probably. Look at all the updates and additional features MS has been able to add with the profits of GOLD. NXE was a massive update that we probably would have never seen without GOLD.
The only time it would ever hurt MS is if PSN just became dramatically better(while staying completely free), which probably wont be soon.
The only time it would ever hurt MS is if PSN just became dramatically better(while staying completely free), which probably wont be soon.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Beezy said:
All I was trying to say is that I don't feel right buying a game that will become useless the second I quit paying for Gold. I don't like my purchases having strings attached. For the record, I have quite a few XBLA games, but besides maybe Uno, they can all be played single or local multiplayer.
MattKeil said:
You are correct on these points, and besides the unified service I believe a comfortable headset in the box would go a long way to helping them as well (I've been saying this for awhile though).
SnakeXs said:
Well for one people continue to ask the question year after year.
the same question could be asked of their pricing on the wireless adapter. how many people aren't even connecting their 360, because they don't want to pay 100$ for the adapter (most people can't even change their SSID much less set up a bridge).
how much potential ad and XBLM money are they losing because people can't get this working?
i think so long as they're generating enough money from it, they won't care.
how much potential ad and XBLM money are they losing because people can't get this working?
i think so long as they're generating enough money from it, they won't care.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
I think some people might be misunderstanding the OP. This KIND of links back to the thread I made a while back about people not having much reason to by a 360 over a PS3.
Gold will start to hurt them once Sony really starts to kick their ass globally in sales, but that has to include the US.
I guess the option to make Live free is a kind of ace up Microsofts sleeve? Don't know if they'd ever do it, but it IS an option to really kick start sales, and still make money on DLC. I mean, as it is right now, most of us pay for Gold, and STILL buy useless DLC on top of that. It can only be assumed that if 360 owners DIDN'T have to pay for gold anymore, we'd buy MORE DLC than we would have.
You'd think more peoplw would jump in, and maybe even more multiplat owners would start to buy multiplat games on 360 BECAUSE of Live.
It's a flow on effect that you'd think MS would want to take advantage of.
But as I stated at the start of my post, Sony would have to start REALLY kicking their ass in sales. Remember, I think MS are going to bunker down until Natal arrives. They're going to take the hit for the next year, and hope Natal will be enough to deliver the knockout blow to Sony (which I don't think it will, but anyway).
Gold will start to hurt them once Sony really starts to kick their ass globally in sales, but that has to include the US.
I guess the option to make Live free is a kind of ace up Microsofts sleeve? Don't know if they'd ever do it, but it IS an option to really kick start sales, and still make money on DLC. I mean, as it is right now, most of us pay for Gold, and STILL buy useless DLC on top of that. It can only be assumed that if 360 owners DIDN'T have to pay for gold anymore, we'd buy MORE DLC than we would have.
You'd think more peoplw would jump in, and maybe even more multiplat owners would start to buy multiplat games on 360 BECAUSE of Live.
It's a flow on effect that you'd think MS would want to take advantage of.
But as I stated at the start of my post, Sony would have to start REALLY kicking their ass in sales. Remember, I think MS are going to bunker down until Natal arrives. They're going to take the hit for the next year, and hope Natal will be enough to deliver the knockout blow to Sony (which I don't think it will, but anyway).
crazygambit
Member
Returners said:
I agree with this. But what about new users? I think MS can continue to get away with charging to the hardcore heavy online user. But the point of the thread is at what point it starts to hurt them. Now that consoles are coming down in price, less heavy users are entering the market. For those users, paying a subscription for the few times they try online play is not a good alternative. Especially for families where you're expected to pay for each person that wants to play.
For those people PSN is a perfectly valid alternative in order to get some online gaming once in a while.
So right now it may not be a problem, but once more of those people enter the market and buy multiplatform games on the PS3 (or buy only a PS3 instead of a 360), there might come a point when the profit from fees becomes less than the royalties for games.
So I find it extremely disingenious to just say never. It's always affected them to a point, it's just been too small to matter, but that could easily change in the future.
tl;dr: For the harcore GAFFER Live is a must, but as prices come down, more casuals enter the market that just want to play online and don't need all the features of live. Thus they choose a PS3, especially large families.
Metalic Sand
who is Emo-Beas?
RedNumberFive said:
There is this feature called multiplayer.
H_Prestige said:
Because if they did that, about 80% of the gold subscribers would switch off and kill the golden goose.
Also MSFT makes it REALLY hard to cancel XBL once you get your credit card info on there- I didn't appreciate that one bit. I wanted to switch to cards, they cancelled my account instead.
In the end, what Nintendo does doesn't really affect MSFT right now- as quite simply, the Wii and the PS360 are two mostly dissimilar markets to me.
I think eventually, all these bells and whistles MSFT is putting on XBL will have less and less value, and PSN will start to catch up. The issue is that late in the cycle, the cost of changing becomes too great to change.
So my answer would be: next gen, which is why I think either MSFT will phase out charging, or PSN will start charging (most likely MSFT will phase it out- Sony knows keeping PSN free is a big selling point)
I figure XBL will continue the trend onto the next MS console and quite frankly, with all of the features that XBL has innovated over this gen, I can't see them dropping the price tag anytime soon.
The only thing that would be bad is if they took the micro-transactions to demos or wallpaper/pictures/gamertags/themes... oh wait...
The only thing that would be bad is if they took the micro-transactions to demos or wallpaper/pictures/gamertags/themes... oh wait...
crazygambit
Member
Ardorx said:
I completely disagree with the bolded. PSN doesn't need to become better, the users need to become more sensitive to price and less sensitive to features. The definition of a casual.
I own both consoles, but play mostly single player so I could never justify paying for online, no matter what features it offers. I just want a quick game of killzone once in a while and a lot of the people that are entering the market right now feel the same.
Remember, GAF is by no means an accurate reflection of the market as a whole. I thought we'd have learned that by now, especially after the success of the Wii.
jim-jam bongs
Member
The game that I play the most costs me up to $15 a month to continue playing. I pay it because nobody else offers anything that appeals to me as much for free.
These threads are silly.
These threads are silly.
Think about the couple of million that jumped on board when XBL launched. All we got was online gaming and a friends list. £40
Now look what we get, netflix/sky streaming, party, video downloads, XBLA arcade, game downloads, seamless system. £40
Now think of what's headed our way in the future. £40
Its very cheap to be honest.
Now look what we get, netflix/sky streaming, party, video downloads, XBLA arcade, game downloads, seamless system. £40
Now think of what's headed our way in the future. £40
Its very cheap to be honest.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
Xbox Live Gold isn't going to hurt Microsoft until Sony or Nintendo make serious strides to draw attention to some of the less-savory elements of the service. Microsoft can basically do whatever they want right now because nobody wants to call them out.
Given that Sony is struggling to catch up and Nintendo flat out doesn't care, I don't think either of them will be in a position to do anything about it for some time. Maybe in the next generation.
Given that Sony is struggling to catch up and Nintendo flat out doesn't care, I don't think either of them will be in a position to do anything about it for some time. Maybe in the next generation.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
The longer people keep disregarding the obvious; online-centric exclusives, the longer this will keep going around in circles. It's no surprise that games like Gears and Halo are always in the top five XBL played games. That means as popular as CoD gets, those two games, exclusives both, can alone justify the cost of Live Gold to millions.
Millions.
Millions.
bluescreenoflife
Banned
GAF = People bitter over 14¢ a day for a service that is run by people with salariesAndronicus said:
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Xbox Live Gold will never hurt Microsoft. It's their cash cow and they are rather relentless about increasing it's value, even at the detriment of the non-gold experience.
What can concievably hurt is Silver compared to other services. For all the huge feature set MS boasts with Gold, Silver is extremely limited. They don't get same date access to DLC or demos, no parties, no sale prices, no PC integration, and obviously no multiplayer. It's pretty obvious that they are positioning Gold to be worth the cost based solely on the feature set and not just a mandate for multiplayer. When they eventually bite the bullet and let Silver play online, I don't know.
I would expect feature paring though of online modes whenever it happens too. Something like Ranked/TruSkill rating requiring Gold or something. And hell, online achievements are already restricted to Gold, they might go the full tilt and just require Gold for achievements.
What can concievably hurt is Silver compared to other services. For all the huge feature set MS boasts with Gold, Silver is extremely limited. They don't get same date access to DLC or demos, no parties, no sale prices, no PC integration, and obviously no multiplayer. It's pretty obvious that they are positioning Gold to be worth the cost based solely on the feature set and not just a mandate for multiplayer. When they eventually bite the bullet and let Silver play online, I don't know.
I would expect feature paring though of online modes whenever it happens too. Something like Ranked/TruSkill rating requiring Gold or something. And hell, online achievements are already restricted to Gold, they might go the full tilt and just require Gold for achievements.
crazygambit
Member
Jtyettis said:
Maybe you should have read the entire post. It hurts them if even 1 person buys a PS3 instead of a 360 because PSN is free. Or if 1 person buys that multiplatform game on PS3 instead of 360 for the same reason.
It's another story whether the revenue from subcriptions is enough to offset those costs, which is what the post asked. At this point I think it's enough, though I don't know for how much longer. Also if they take too long to make it free, it may be too late to reverse the effects. It's not like everyone that chose a PS3 because of free online is gonna sell it and get a 360 the minute Live goes free. Which is something I'm sure Microsoft is more than aware of.
crazygambit said:
This is what the rest of his post says and no his post says nothing of the sort;
theBishop said:
But to the point since we have yearly SW sales numbers for both that still does not make a lick sense. Now if this equation were to turn around then maybe I might see the point, but that hasn't happened and the base continues to grow. Also since we have US numbers MS has taken third party sales every month this year. Now if Sony were to somehow take over this as well then MS might have something to worry about. It's a fairly large gap every month the last time I saw them as well, but not so much for Nintendo. However that is a different beast entirely.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
poppabk said:
That's because the 8 person party system hasn't been online for a year. It was included with the NXE.
Thats the thing though. They can charge for all those good features, but just basic online should be free. Silvers should get bare bones online with /no party options and maybe a friends list cap and I would be happy. Everything else goes to the gold. I think that would be fair. More people would buy 360s and the gold subscribers keep their elite service.MattKeil said:
The way things are now Wii owners have a better online experience then silvers do. Do you really think thats right?