Yeah, Live was more worth it when there were ads, but no apps at all.I am much less willing to pay for Xbox Live than I was at the beginning of the generation. Ads and locking apps behind Gold is bullshit.
Yeah, Live was more worth it when there were ads, but no apps at all.I am much less willing to pay for Xbox Live than I was at the beginning of the generation. Ads and locking apps behind Gold is bullshit.
If you're watching a cable channel, definitely. Cable TV prices are ridiculous.
You're supposed to be outraged enough that you'll sell your 360, buy a PS3, play worse versions of games on an online system that sucks balls, but then tell anyone that doesn't do that that they're a corporate shill. How long have you been here man? There's a thread like this every other week. You should know this by now!
maybe a kickstarter along with live subs can make the dashboard ad free for a year...
It made sense to charge for Gold early on, before they added a ton more revenue streams. Now? Not so much.Yeah, Live was more worth it when there were ads, but no apps at all.
Timed Exclusive DLC isn't something of value? Your money along with the money from ads is used for that exact purpose, to secure timed exclusive or exclusive DLC.
That money is also spent on funding new XBLA titles like Deadlight. Seems silly to ask for more added value at this point. Giving away games or offering a rental service is detrimental to the long term viability of their online marketplace.
Massive patches, no cross-game chat, no party mode, no mandatory demos for downloadable PSN games and minis, no private voice chat, having to manually sync trophies, devs having to implement shit like cross-game invites, join session, and even being able to mute other players (so not all games have 1 or more of those things). It's fucking shite in comparison to Live unless you're just jumping online for a session with randoms and you're not wearing a headset.Out of academic interest, and because nobody who claims this ever like to actually answer it, what is the problem with PSN compared to XBL outside of the oh-so-important party chat 'feature'?
Yeah, they should cut off revenue streams that earn them millions. THAT makes sense right?NullPointer said:It made sense to charge for Gold early on, before they added a ton more revenue streams. Now? Not so much.
350k a day not counting the millions of subs and the money they make from avatar shite. O_O
The search bar is nice finding exactly what you're looking for but obviously it doesn't help people discover new games. What a bullshit answer.
Out of academic interest, and because nobody who claims this ever like to actually answer it, what is the problem with PSN compared to XBL outside of the oh-so-important party chat 'feature'?
Do you think this is a good thing?
How in the world are timed exclusives valuable to a customer? The thought of paying a fee for the privilege is stunning.
Yes. Times change. The model behind Gold should change. And yes, they should allow paying members to opt out of some of their ads at the very minimum.Yeah, they should cut off revenue streams that earn them millions. THAT makes sense right?
Out of academic interest, and because nobody who claims this ever like to actually answer it, what is the problem with PSN compared to XBL outside of the oh-so-important party chat 'feature'?
Massive patches, no cross-game chat, no party mode, no mandatory demos for downloadable PSN games and minis, no private voice chat, having to manually sync trophies, devs having to implement shit like cross-game invites, join session, and even being able to mute other players (so not all games have 1 or more of those things). It's fucking shite in comparison to Live unless you're just jumping online for a session with randoms and you're not wearing a headset.
Honestly there's already two or three threads comparing the two. Can we avoid that shit in this thread?
People need to stop criticizing Microsoft for not making Live free or putting ads on the service, and start criticizing the people who continue to pay for it.
Microsoft literally has a duty to do this if people are willing to pay the money for it and it makes the company profit. The moment a MS exec decides "Aww we are already making so much money on these ads, let's make XBL gold free" is the moment that exec will be asked to pack his belongings into a box.
Platform exclusives and timed exclusives are entirely different things. So yes, MS paying for exclusive content is a benefit. MS paying for COD maps and SKyrim DLC to be exclusive provides no acvtual value to even a single customer, in any way. All it does is exclude the content from their competitors.They are valuable in that your primary platform offers you content that isn't available anywhere else. And you're not directly paying for the privilege.
Think of it this way, you pay MS X, you can then be happy in the knowledge that the platform provider is and will continue to use your sub money (however much it may be) to secure rights to content that won't be available anywhere else for a month, possibly more.
Would R* have worked on those episodes if it wasn't for MS paying all that money up front? Money, that was directly pumped into the service by everyone who bought a gold sub.
The answer is no, MS enticed them to get to work on that content and we, as the consumer benefited enormously.
No. As a ps3 owner as well, I just feel manipulated by MS with all that stuff, so I don't feel it's added value. TBH if they are confident in their platform then it wouldn't matter if DLC came out at the same time as other platforms. I'd rather my money stayed in my pocket so I can decide what games to buy with it, not MS
That's just the cost of one ad tile too.
The default "Home" section has nine ads - a big box in the center that scrolls between five different ads and then four smaller square tiles on the right. "Video" and "Music" sections have the same setup. "TV" section has two square ad tiles on the right, the "Apps" section has one in the bottom right, and there's at least one ad tile on every section of the games marketplace.
Someone can do the math if they want, but that's a shitload of money they're earning each day.
How do you know how satisfied their customers are?Yes. Times change. The model behind Gold should change. And yes, they should allow paying members to opt out of some of their ads at the very minimum.
They can still sell their service, but the way they're handling it right now is cynical and exploitative. You can make a buck and truly satisfy your customer base at the same time.
No. As a ps3 owner as well, I just feel manipulated by MS with all that stuff, so I don't feel it's added value. TBH if they are confident in their platform then it wouldn't matter if DLC came out at the same time as other platforms. I'd rather my money stayed in my pocket so I can decide what games to buy with it, not MS
Believe it or not, there are corporations out there that are not generally regarded as money grubbing cunts that would sell out their own mother for a marginal profit.
Microsoft isn't one of them, surprisingly. Their reputation is well known in most spheres that they do business.
Yes.The ads are to offset the cost of running the service.
Businesses are there to make money is the weirdest argument ever. If microsoft could get away with asking 100$, does that mean that they should?
Platform exclusives and timed exclusives are entirely different things. So yes, MS paying for exclusive content is a benefit. MS paying for COD maps and SKyrim DLC to be exclusive provides no acvtual value to even a single customer, in any way. All it does is exclude the content from their competitors.
Oh I hope GAF never becomes like this
That's one way to look at it. What I see is content delayed a month for everyone else. And no, I don't see any positive value in that.That's where the value comes in. If you're only a 360 gamer, you'll feel your service is more valuable as a result of receiving content a month before everyone else.
I can only speak for myself, although in these kinds of threads its rare to find someone who finds positive value in Gold as opposed to being fully willing to pay the price. There is a difference. But yeah, its not my intent to derail this thread, but when the article is specifically about dashboard ads and their divergence from gaming (and harm to XBLA and indie games), the actual value of the service to gamers is bound to come up.How do you know how satisfied their customers are?
Live has always had ads. Live now has more features and apps than it ever has, yet it's somehow worse than it used to be? No. It's the same old faces on here saying the same old shit is what it is.
Sony already tried that this gen when they sold State Farm insurance ads on loading screens.
MS isn't the only company that pays for timed exclusivity on games. I expect this practice to continue from both Sony and MS next gen.
That's where the value comes in. If you're only a 360 gamer, you'll feel your service is more valuable as a result of receiving content a month before everyone else. Remember, a month in gaming terms is a long time, sites will have stopped reporting in the content, they will have already reviewed it, all the fanfare surrounding the content will be over. That's where the value comes into play, you're showing both your userbase and potential consumers that your platform is the only one that has this content.
Even if it's only for a month, they won't care. They'll see that one platform has it and others don't, that adds value for potential consumers and adds value for everyday users through just having it before everyone else.
Guys, I can see it now.
The 720 will offer online play for silver users, but they will be prompted to watch an ad in-between matches/loading screens.
That's one way to look at it. What I see is content delayed a month for everyone else.
Believe it or not, there are corporations out there that are not generally regarded as money grubbing cunts that would sell out their own mother for a marginal profit.
Microsoft isn't one of them, surprisingly. Their reputation is well known in most spheres that they do business.
As a consumer, would you rather money was spent on things to benefit you, or to temporarily deprive someone else? I am genuinely surprised that you think the second is better.
That's one way to look at it. What I see is content delayed a month for everyone else. And no, I don't see any positive value in that.
That's where the value comes in. If you're only a 360 gamer, you'll feel your service is more valuable as a result of receiving content a month before everyone else. Remember, a month in gaming terms is a long time, sites will have stopped reporting in the content, they will have already reviewed it, all the fanfare surrounding the content will be over. That's where the value comes into play, you're showing both your userbase and potential consumers that your platform is the only one that has this content.
Even if it's only for a month, they won't care. They'll see that one platform has it and others don't, that adds value for potential consumers and adds value for everyday users through just having it before everyone else.
As a consumer, would you rather money was spent on things to benefit you, or to temporarily deprive someone else? I am genuinely surprised that you think the second is better.
Don't bother man, MS is the only company that does evil things. If Sony does it, its for the good of every gamer everywhere!
Wonder how much stuff like this boils Sony exec's blood. Their system is free to play online, doesn't fuck customers eyes full of ads at every given second, and yet for their own misdemeanours most of the internet refuses to forgive them, villifies them at every turn, and they experience lower sales on their hardware.
But if they dared add ads, or went subscription for online, the internet shitfit would be legendary. Real catch 22 shit because Microsoft took their 'community' as hostages fast and early.
Just curious, what publically traded corporation isn't a money grubbing cunt?
You know what's even worse than his example? Sony releasing Journey to PlayStation+ members before the peasants were allowed to play it. That's a company withholding content from its own customers.
How is this worse? If you own a PS3 you can buy Playstation Plus. If I want to play Dawnguard I have to repurchase Skyrim on another platform. Also Journey was exclusive for 1/3 of the time Microsoft's deals are.You know what's even worse than his example? Sony releasing Journey to PlayStation+ members before the peasants were allowed to play it. That's a company withholding content from its own customers.
Even if you think Microsoft are shit (and there are about plenty of stuff), it's not like the competition is any better.
I wonder where Sony got that idea.You know what's even worse than his example? Sony releasing Journey to PlayStation+ members before the peasants were allowed to play it. That's a company withholding content from its own customers.
Even if you think Microsoft are shit (and there are about plenty of stuff), it's not like the competition is any better.
The second it isn't a paid service, service turns bad.
All publicly traded corporations exist to make money, but not all corporations do so to the lengths that MS do, and have an absolute rock bottom public perception as a result. The Xbox brand is one of the few things that isn't held in general contempt by the majority of its users.
I wonder where Sony got that idea.
Even if you think Microsoft are shit (and they are about plenty of stuff), it's not like the competition is any better.
You know what's even worse than his example? Sony releasing Journey to PlayStation+ members before the peasants were allowed to play it. That's a company withholding content from its own customers.
Even if you think Microsoft are shit (and there are about plenty of stuff), it's not like the competition is any better.
As a consumer, would you rather money was spent on things to benefit you, or to temporarily deprive someone else? I am genuinely surprised that you think the second is better.
I wonder where Sony got that idea.
You know what's even worse than his example? Sony releasing Journey to PlayStation+ members before the peasants were allowed to play it. That's a company withholding content from its own customers.
Even if you think Microsoft are shit (and there are about plenty of stuff), it's not like the competition is any better.
True that. I was referring to what Gold does with demos, but you're right and thanks for clarifying. PSN+ and PSN+ timed exclusivity is an extension of that. And yes, MS certainly didn't come up with the concept out of the void, but their history with Gold made it a more appetizing scenario for others to emulate and extend.No game is delayed for gold members over silver. Each game can be purchased on launch day regardless if you pay or not.
Two wrongs don't make a right, baby