Support NeoGAF

[arstal]

This gen, it doesn't hurt MSFT at all. At this point in the cycle, it's hard to justify the price of switching to avoid XBL fees.

Next gen will depend on a few factors

- backwards compat and how desirable it is. People may not want to give up their PSN/XBLA games. That's going to create some brand loyalty inertia

- cost of service as compared to console. If PSN remains free, and XBL keeps its charge. Sony on price can match MSFT and then say, our console will save you money over time cause our service is free.

- how well Sony improves its service. They'll keep catching up, they've caught up plenty already.

- how much consumers value MSFT's improvements. Eventually they're going to run out of worthwhile new ideas- every new idea does. Then it's about execution, and you can learn execution.

- the economy. People will be more price-conscious in future I believe. This is a scary economic time. This will likely delay next gen to boot though.

Overall, I think the pricepoint issue will remain though. It would be suicidal for Sony to start charging (free online and Blu-Ray are the selling points of PS3) , and MSFT can't afford to not charge this gen.

 

[LosDaddie]

To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen PS3 store credits/vouchers at any sort of discount whlie I constantly see deals or promotions on XBLA points. So if you can "purchase" games for discount, or for free, on XBLA, that might inflate the sales figures some.

Another thing to note is XBL's Deal of the Week for Gold members. I've probably saved $20 this year.

 

[Revengeance]

If it's anything else, it's whatever the system the friends they have use. If all your friends are on PSN, there you go. If all your friends are on 360, well then it's like the Dave & Busters all your friends always want to hang out at even though you think it's too expensive and those cards are clearly just there stimulate the place's economy.

:lol :lol :lol great episode

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that XBL is wildly successful, and not hurting Microsoft at all. That money goes towards expanding XBL's feature set - netflix, meaningful dashboard updates, etc - and maintaining a pretty stable community. Of course I'd rather pay nothing than something, but $30 for 12+1 months (seriously, just keep your eyes open for deals, and you'll never pay full price) isn't even something I think about. Totally worth it.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Dedictaed servers: can be had on LIVE but its up the dev's & publishers to provide them. Why they dont do more games to support them is beyond me. I know Frontlines had them.

I can understand 3rd parties, but it's disappointing to me that Microsoft itself hasn't pushed the large scale angle (large scale then meaning more than 8 players per team), considering how it emphasis parties and other community features. The company has certainly succeeded in the latter, but it feels a bit limited by the actual online enabled games the company has released.

 

[Prine]

As long as PSN and the Wii exist to show gamers what free online gaming looks like, Live Gold will be fine.

Zing!

I know people with 1 xbox but with multiple xbox live accounts for different members of the family. The whole friends list, achievement's and avatar being you identity works. They dont want to share friends list or a achievement list with someone else.

 

[xbhaskarx]

There are not really released sales numbers for comparing both games on both PSN and XBLA but of course that's not gonna stop you from saying XBLA is outselling PSN.

1) Leaderboards
2) Battlefield 1943
3) sales figures for games like Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, Trials HD, etc.

I'm pretty sure anyone who pays attention to sales and isn't an idiot would agree that XBLA sales > PSN sales.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

*at the console level.

Yeah, that's why my post listed the other 2 consoles.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Steam essentially does everything Live! does for free (except free video I suppose).

XBL is outdated.

 

[D4Danger]

I know people with 1 xbox but with multiple xbox live accounts for different members of the family. The whole friends list, achievement's and avatar being you identity works. They dont want to share friends list or a achievement list with someone else.

About that, I'm really surprised Microsoft have done a 'family pack' kinda thing for Xbox Live. It seems so obvious.

Something like $99 but you get 3 tokens you can give to friends and family for X months of Live or something like that.

 

[Phreaker]

When PSN is better?

 

[LosDaddie]

Yeah, that's why my post listed the other 2 consoles.

Isn't it funny how there's always someone to bring up: "Bu...bu...But the PC does all that too!!!" in these threads?

 

[farnham]

Maybe it would be just the opposite and Sony will start charging for online play.

Heck, even Nintendo has that pay&play thing!

thats mostly DLC though

 

[Revolutionary]

When people are smart enough to realize that they shouldn't be paying to play online. I've never, ever had to pay to play online in my 15+ years of gaming and I sure as hell ain't starting now.

 

[soco]

I can understand 3rd parties, but it's disappointing to me that Microsoft itself hasn't pushed the large scale angle (large scale then meaning more than 8 players per team), considering how it emphasis parties and other community features. The company has certainly succeeded in the latter, but it feels a bit limited by the actual online enabled games the company has released.

well aside from PDZ.

 

[K' Dash]

I just want to point out that many people pay for live to play online, but can't use any other gold features because of IP restrictions, so many people paying just to go online and play with their friends and not use anything gold has to offer as a package, that's bullshit.

That's why I think playing online should be free and the other features ahould be gold only, if you ask me it's a scam that MS won't let you buy spacebucks but they receive your money if you're renewing your suscription.[/rant]

Anyway, most people here are from first world countries were live is oficially available, and don't care about this, just wanted to get that off my chest.

 

[Mrbob]

Another thing to note is XBL's Deal of the Week for Gold members. I've probably saved $20 this year.

There have been plenty of sales on PSN.

 

[LosDaddie]

There have been plenty of sales on PSN.

True, but the sales are rare. XBL has a sale every week now.

 

[RedNumberFive]

True, but the sales are rare. XBL has a sale every week now.

Quantity vs quality. Until recently, most of the XBL deals of the week has been for DLC for years old games. This is in addition to the fact that you have to pay for gold to get these discounts.

 

[Major Williams]

Halo is definitely Microsoft's money maker and key to getting into a larger segment of the gaming demographic. Their need to push the online service for free is not an option so long as they have the money to buy exclusive franchises. Perhaps we'll see a discounted rate in the future if the PS3 has comparable titles?

 

[Tenkei]

To address the topic, as many people have already pointed out, paying for Gold will hurt Microsoft when a significant causation (not just anecdotes) can be found between people not paying for Gold and deciding to buy the PS3 version of a multi-platform game because of free multiplayer. I wonder if any company would be willing to share their game statistics for each of their multi-platform, multiplayer games so we can see if the number of 360 sessions is trending down with a corresponding increase in PS3 sessions.

Somewhat off-topic, but I have never paid full price for an XBLA game. The weekly sales for Gold members, the sales you can find on Microsoft Points cards in stores, and the points giveaways have ensured that I can find every game on the service at 30%+ off, no matter when I want to buy it.

 

[Shins]

At the same point that NeoGAF starts hurting video games.

Never, because both are irrelevent to normal people.

 

[suffah]

Also take into account how much money MS has already made from Gold. It's here to stay unless Sony drops some mega PSN bombshells.

 

[Zabka]

I don't mind paying the XBL Gold fee as long as MS keeps putting out deals for MS points. I got over 10k points from the Watchmen movie promotion alone.

 

[CircleOfFire]

It doesn't.

XBL currently functions like a ... pay-to-play MMO.

You've invested so much into XBL, buying the DLC, the Gamerpics, the Themes. You've developed a friends list, you've enjoyed getting demos first hand.

So not paying for Gold is like killing your favourite MMO subscription, you can't. You know you want to play with your friends, you can't stand getting demos 1 week later.

You're hooked on XBL, and its hooked you.

This. Most people I know are effectively locked in for this very reason, which is quite clever as it's self perpetuating.

 

[LosDaddie]

Quantity vs quality. Until recently, most of the XBL deals of the week has been for DLC for years old games. This is in addition to the fact that you have to pay for gold to get these discounts.

Quality is subjective. GTAIV: TLAD was an amazing Deal of the Week that I bought and still enjoy. And I'd say it's been split 50/50. Braid was the first Deal of the Week (I bought). Alien HOminid was a few weeks after that.

And besides, who cares if Deals of the Week were mainly DLC if it's DLC to a game you enjoy? Also, of course DLC would be the focus on an online network's sales.

 

[crazygambit]

Also take into account how much money MS has already made from Gold. It's here to stay unless Sony drops some mega PSN bombshells.

That has nothing to do with a decision to stop charging in the future. It makes no difference how much money certain practices made in the past to assess their future worth.

My phone company used to charge me for calls I received on my cellphone. They no doubt made a lot of money from that, but don't do it anymore because it's no longer profitable.

We are not talking about the past here, I think we can all agree the Live has been tremendously successful and made a lot of money from Microsoft. The question is if and when the profit from the service won't be enough to offset the losses it may create elsewhere.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

That has nothing to do with a decision to stop charging in the future. It makes no difference how much money certain practices made in the past to assess their future worth.

My phone company used to charge me for calls I received on my cellphone. They no doubt made a lot of money from that, but don't do it anymore because it's no longer profitable.

We are not talking about the past here, I think we can all agree the Live has been tremendously successful and made a lot of money from Microsoft. The question is if and when the profit from the service won't be enough to offset the losses it may create elsewhere.

What exactly would make the service no longer profitable though? Nothing at all this generation would make MS suddenly want to offer Live for free, not when so many people have shown a willingness to pay for it. Past success does factor into the future.

There might be a very small amount of people who pass on the 360 versions of multiplatform games and go PS3 because of free online play but I would bet that number pales in comparison to the number of people like myself, who buy the 360 versions simply because of Live support and features.

Maybe next generation they will drop the charge for playing online. Even then, I bet they would at least try offering some sort of "elite" level of Live where you get features not in the free tier, but they would at least open up online play. In fact after seeing how much money MS is raking in with Live, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony offer something similar next gen, if not this gen. They did roll out Qore, after all.

 

[turnbuckle]

It technically started hurting them the minute someone based their decision to not buy hardware/software because of it. The number of people in that category is pretty small though.

For this gen, unless the PS3 is able to overtake the 360 and get at least the same quality 3rd party support and has better first party titles I doubt I'll drop my Gold service. However, if next gen starts and Nintendo/Sony both still have a free service and MS is still charging, it's pretty likely I'll only get a 720(or whatever) after a few price drops and a lot of compelling software is available.

If they all start charging I'll probably only buy one console.

Anywho, it's still worth it to me but I think it's nuts to consider it a bargain. It does what it does better than the other consoles, but I don't agree that it does it $150-$300+ better over the course of a generation.

 

[corrosivefrost]

There are sales on PSN normally at least once a year sometimes multiple times but it's only a couple games normally.

True. I've bought a couple things from the sales... but it's not like some of the promos that ended up with people in the know scoring 1000s of MS points that they could spend on anything. Sales on PSN are probably comparable to things like when Target or some other retailer has a $5 off 1600 points card deal going on... people still have to spend real money. What I'm curious about in this line of thinking is "how much of the purchased content was actually *purchased* by a sponsor, such as Dodge or whomever." I've gotten lucky a couple of times and ended up with extra points which I used to get games I was on the fence about or wouldn't have gone out of my way to buy otherwise (or may have even considered getting on PSN, if available, but got them on 360 instead solely based on the fact that I paid NOTHING for the points.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

this is for those who have a 360 and PS3.
just curious but is there anyone else that agrees with me that the fact that PSN is free actually helps MS keep current subscribers...

I'm sure some would look at it like.....hey its not like I'm paying anything for my PS3...so what ever I'm saving is going to my live subscription.

which brings me to the next question...

Lets say that the PSN is "equal" to what Live's perceived benefits, and Sony started charging.

would you 360&PS3 gamers (and future owners) pay $80 in total for both per year?

I have both systems and no matter who is free or who charges I'm going to play where my friends are playing. Right now, that is the 360. So I can pay $30-$40 bucks a year and play with all my real life friends or I can pay nothing to play online and play alone.

There are sales on PSN normally at least once a year sometimes multiple times but it's only a couple games normally.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the pre-paid PSN cards. Because they are treated like real cash, they never get discounted or if they have I've never seen it but in the last 4 years I can't remember ever paying full price for a Wii/360 point card.

 

[LiquidJin]

I don't see SONY switching up to a premium model or Microsoft giving it up. Sony wants 3rd parties to drive everything and they'll happily collect their fees from them. Microsoft wants to drive everything and collect fees from end users and 3rd parties. That's how they choose to manage their gaming businesses.

The latter has shown to be pretty effective when the generation is in its infancy. Early adopters are starving for content and publishers will welcome any direction that saves them costs and time on the huge investments made to jump to new hardware. However as the generation goes on, I'd argue it has the opposite effect on both consumers and publishers.

Consumers have many options now. They have to make decisions about which is better from a quality and value perspective. Having everything or more doesn't mean as much.

The market has gotten crowded and will only get more crowded. So publishers also feel the pinch because they need to differentiate themselves from the pack and the standardized features. Meanwhile, they are paying their own fees for LIVE and the amount of revenue that it is taking off of their table continues to get larger.

One way to look at it is the precious jewel that is Netflix streaming over Live. Some users feel that this in itself totally justifies the yearly cost. But what about the XBOX live users that don't have Netflix. They are now paying for someone else to enjoy something they can't. And publishers are now competing with an unlimited rental service, unfairly tied to their games' multiplayer access, for $150 of yearly revenue that could've potentially gone to their games.

I also feel that this is one reason why Microsoft needs Natal more than SONY needs the motion controller. Microsoft needs to start a new generation to keep their leverage on the growth of the HD/DD portions of the game industry. Meanwhile SONY has areas where Publishers can easily grow with preferable tax rates (HOME, DLC, Customized Stores, Handheld integrations)

 

[Suburban_Nooblet]

I just want cross game party chat for PSN. I would gladly pay for it.


I don't know what the fuck the hold up is on this.

 

[CadetMahoney]

There are not really released sales numbers for comparing both games on both PSN and XBLA but of course that's not gonna stop you from saying XBLA is outselling PSN.

1) Leaderboards
2) Battlefield 1943
3) sales figures for games like Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, Trials HD, etc.

I'm pretty sure anyone who pays attention to sales and isn't an idiot would agree that XBLA sales > PSN sales.

Live is a proven successful model, and as long as a paid for service keeps beating a free one then ms has nothing to worry about.

Npd wanted to start doing that thing for digital content. If that takes off (unlikely since it needs active participation from ms/3rd parties), hopefully they can incorporate worldwide figures.

 

[arstal]

Personally, I'd rather pay a la carte then have everything bundled.

I don't need cross party chat. All I want is efficient matchmaking and seemless online play.

The one thing I noticed between PSN and XBL is that finding matches takes a good bit longer on PSN then XBL on the one game that I had on both. (HD Remix)

 

[Slavik81]

To address the topic, as many people have already pointed out, paying for Gold will hurt Microsoft when a significant causation (not just anecdotes) can be found between people not paying for Gold and deciding to buy the PS3 version of a multi-platform game because of free multiplayer.

That's never going to hurt Microsoft. There are so few people with both an Xbox 360 and PS3 that the fraction of a fraction of their audience that they'd lose for a few games is not worth it.

What really hurts them is when somebody decides to buy a PS3 instead of an Xbox 360 because of Xbox Live. If Sony is in a more competitive situation next generation, it's much less likely that Xbox Live will remain as a paid service, as Microsoft again starts fighting for marketshare.

 

[SPACECADET]

i just renewed the first this month. so at least not for another year with it being hurt by me.

 

[Vyer]

Steam essentially does everything Live! does for free (except free video I suppose).

XBL is outdated.

if only Microsoft could somehow figure out a way to make money on this 'PC' thing.

All kidding aside though, while Steam is a wonderful thing, I never understand why this comes up in this topic. There are lots of things with PC gaming that are advantages - but the huge number of console masses don't know about it - and more importantly - don't care.

To think that Steam would hurt Live numbers on any meaningful level just doesn't seem very logical IMO.

 

[Slayer-33]

Steam essentially does everything Live! does for free (except free video I suppose).

XBL is outdated.

Steam on a PC is another story.


If valve released a "console" what do you think would happen?

Steam Live service.

 

[expy]

Do we know exactly how many GOLD users there are? Excluding all the 30-day trials and free-24/48 hour trials? Talking about actual 12+ month subscribers.

Really? Nobody can answer this question?

 

[Sean]

Really? Nobody can answer this question?

IIRC there was a leaked internal document from early 2008 and it listed 60% XBL users as paying Gold subscribers.

 

[billy.sea]

They can't make the Gold free now, as there are many people who paid by subscription card and Microsoft will not be able to refund them. The earliest they can do it is for make it free on their next console.

 

[infinityBCRT]

By this logic can we also assume that those who trumpet the merits of Xbox Live are ignorant of online PC gaming?

PC gaming doesn't have a singular online gaming community/friends list nor is there a high percentage of people who have headsets nor is there cross game invites, etc

 

[Sleeker]

i got mad the other day over the prestigious gold 1 week demo exclusive thing.
I also wanted to send a message over xbox.com but was told it was a gold exclusive feature.

such stupid things like that really turn me off xbox live.

if it werent for the few exclusive games MP modes like halo 3 i wouldn't pay for it at all.

 

[ghst]

if only Microsoft could somehow figure out a way to make money on this 'PC' thing.

All kidding aside though, while Steam is a wonderful thing, I never understand why this comes up in this topic. There are lots of things with PC gaming that are advantages - but the huge number of console masses don't know about it - and more importantly - don't care.

it's in peoples nature to occasionally stumble across the line between what is and what should be.

staying true to your 360 is to lie in the lap of the devil. make no mistake.

 

[infinityBCRT]

They can't make the Gold free now, as there are many people who paid by subscription card and Microsoft will not be able to refund them. The earliest they can do it is for make it free on their next console.

I don't think they will make it free. People can be bothered by that or not, but if they did spend a significant amount of money on the dashboard updates then it was well worth it as the experience is a far ahead of the one the 360 launched with. Although, if Sony does catch up with the XBL experience, then perhaps they would be forced to go to a free service.

That being said if I were in their shoes I'd make sure I'd do the following:
- starting with the Natal 360 bundles, include built in wireless N support (so that people unwilling to buy an accessory to get online will now get online)
- bump up the amount of trial months for a new account from 1 to 3 or 4 (so that people get a fair chance to experience XBL and build their friends list and see what XBL does best)
- if someone buys gold with a new account it should add on those additional trial months
- after the launch of Natal give the additional trial months to those who have been signed up for silver but have not used gold outside of the initial trial

Since most of the people who want to be on live probably do have a paying account by now this won't hurt their bottom line very much but it could help convince those that are not convinced that XBL is a must have and add many more subscribers for the future.

 

[billy.sea]

What I hate about Live is Microsoft artificially lock out a lot of features that people take for granted from non-live users, so it makes the Gold users feel it's worth it.

One example would be demo. What is the point of a demo to begin with? Isn't it to make more people know about the game and get access to it so they would buy the full game?

Another one is XBLA deal of the week. Limiting the sale from people is just going to make them benefit less from the sale.

And of coz online play. Users say Gold's worth it because it let them play online, but this 'worth it' is suppose to be free to begin with. They are taking something away from you and asking you to pay for it to get it back. 3rd party are the ones that make the online features to attract people buy their games, but Microsoft rip money out of these features by adding another layer (Live) in-between.

 

[DR2K]

Once consumers get wise.

 

[infinityBCRT]

What I hate about Live is Microsoft artificially lock out a lot of features that people take for granted from non-live users, so it makes the Gold users feel it's worth it.

One example would be demo. What is the point of a demo to begin with? Isn't it to make more people know about the game and get access to it so they would buy the full game?

Another one is XBLA deal of the week. Limiting the sale from people is just going to make them benefit less from the sale.

And of coz online play. Users say Gold's worth it because it let them play online, but this 'worth it' is suppose to be free to begin with. They are taking something away from you and asking you to pay for it to get it back. 3rd party are the ones that make the online features to attract people buy their games, but Microsoft rip money out of these features by adding another layer (Live) in-between.

Its not worth it because you get to play online. Its worth it (if you use your Xbox enough) because all of the infrastructure that MS has built around XBL to make online gaming as painless and social as possible.

 

[billy.sea]

Its not worth it because you get to play online. Its worth it (if you use your Xbox enough) because all of the infrastructure that MS has built around XBL to make online gaming as painless and social as possible.

Then they should only charge these add-on features, and not the stuffs that we are suppose to get for free, for example, to simply play online.

 

[Metal Gear?!]

IIRC there was a leaked internal document from early 2008 and it listed 60% XBL users as paying Gold subscribers.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10054

The XBox Live attach rate is 60% (as in people who have gone online at all), so there's no way all of that is Gold. Perhaps 60% of that 60% is possible.