Support NeoGAF

[Deputy Moonman]

At the time when xbox live came out it was absolutely the best matchmaking experience around on a console. I still think it is the best today.

MS was charging for the experience from day one and the price has not changed in years. In fact it may still be the exact same price as when it launched, but i cant remember. Regardless, what has changed that everyone else is so up in arms about? Be happy that online is free to play on pc. Dont sulk in misery and complain about xbox live. It has required a fee since its inception and is a different experience provided by MS that pc players dont get. It's so weird to me when people continue to try and equate pc to console. Theyre not the same thing and never will be. The number of players buying xbox games for pc is a tiny fraction of the overall xbox live player base. MS is never going to charge pc users as a result and xbox live is never going to stop costing a fee. Being upset about it is completely pointless.

 

[Arefu]

I said this in post 204: There would also be people who dismiss the MSRP of the service because you can always find 'Steam Connect' (patent pending) cards for less than MSRP.

It's a certainty that people will dismiss the MSRP every time this discussion comes up. I will admit though, the subsidizing the hardware excuse was new to me.

I wasn't using it as an excuse, but more to show that online fees have more value than just being a totally anti-consumer practice.

 

[gioGAF]

That's odd, you can buy the physical games. Game Pass is indeed an option. You're whole speech is unfounded and again just bias. I don't care what you think they will do.

Think what you want, but history speaks for itself. Again, not a bias, what I am saying is based on past history (MS will slowly squeeze out competitors until there are no options). It isn't an overnight process, and if you can't see what is going on then that is another win for them.

 

[WaterAstro]

Don't worry, they'll soon charge it on Windows too.

 

[wipeout364]

Microsoft has been charging for online since Xbox one. They have delivered matchmaking, social services, free games and discounts. If the service was not worth it people would not pay for it. I would ask the original poster to explain why Microsoft should drop the fee? How would he explain it in a business model and how it would improve Microsoft’s bottom line to shareholders?
Does the cost of Xbox live factor into people’s purchasing decisions and would dropping the fee exponentially increase software and console sales? I personally don’t think it would make any difference.

 

[sainraja]

There's no mention of GFW Live in the OP, what he's talking about happened 10 years ago and this thread was probably already made back then.

Why single out MS?

I regularly play PS4 players when I play SFV on PC. SFV online for me is free. PS4 players pay $50/year for the same game. Same servers.

There are Vita games where I can play PS4 players without having to pay an online fee. Same servers.

Yes you can say you're paying for exclusives but as I've pointed out there are still games on Xbox you can't play on PC as well...

I don't think Microsoft is being singled out here; they are the only ones that are pushing their Xbox platform on PC with the play anywhere initiative. The closest thing Sony has to that, is the PS now service which is a separate subscription from Plus anyway and allows you to play on any device PSnow is supported so, if anything, Sony already does let you play their titles anywhere you want (as long as the device supports PSnow and you have a good connection and that the game is available on PSnow.)

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Think what you want, but history speaks for itself. Again, not a bias, what I am saying is based on past history (MS will slowly squeeze out competitors until there are no options). It isn't an overnight process, and if you can't see what is going on then that is another win for them.

Funny how you use the term past history but mentioned RRoD and scratched disks (which was notorious on the PS2). Is that happening now this generation? Just because you're at a standstill and refuse to move on doesn't mean everyone at Microsoft are the same or the products stay the same. Thanks to Playstation Plus Microsoft also now offers games as part of being a Gold member, so enough of the history lesson. You suggest they don't offer options, who is offering backwards compatability, EA Access, Game Pass and a better policy for digital refunds compared to the options on its competitors consoles? It's clear you don't want to talk about today but rather years ago or what may happen in the future because then you might just have to give them a bit of credit of what they are currently doing.

I don't think Microsoft is being singled out here; they are the only ones that are pushing their Xbox platform on PC with the play anywhere initiative. The closest thing Sony has to that, is the PS now service which is a separate subscription from Plus anyway and allows you to play on any device PSnow is supported so, if anything, Sony already does let you play their titles anywhere you want (as long as the device supports PSnow and you have a good connection and that the game is available on PSnow.)

Doesn't Sony also have games that allows Vita and PS4 titles similar to Play Anywhere with Xbox and PC. Vita is free to play online, PS4 is not.

 

[gioGAF]

Funny how you use the term past history but mentioned RRoD and scratched disks (which was notorious on the PS2). Is that happening now this generation? Just because you're at a standstill and refuse to move on doesn't mean everyone at Microsoft stays are the same. Thanks to Playstation Plus Microsoft also now offers games as part of being a Gold member, so enough of the history lesson. You suggest they don't offer options, who is offering backwards compatability, EA Access, Game Pass and a better policy for digital refunds compared to the options on its competitors consoles? It's clear you don't want to talk about today but rather years ago or what may happen in the future because then you might just have to give them a bit of credit of what they are currently doing.



Doesn't Sony also have games that allows Vita and PS4 titles similar to Play Anywhere with Xbox and PC. Vita is free to play online, PS4 is not.

It's obvious you don't get it. MS is offering all of those things because THEY ARE NOT THE MARKET LEADER. They need the goodwill. Ultimately, you should be thanking Nintendo and Sony for being more relevant than the Xbox, it is the only reason you have all your little "perks".

How am I not moving on? We are still in the same generation of the X1 reveal. That is not the past. That IS the MS end-game strategy. The fact it didn't work now doesn't mean it is no longer their goal (the burden of proving they have changed is on them, not me). As long as MS remains out of first place, I don't have a problem with them. They can't dictate where the market goes and you will see them offer a better value.

You are right, I am not interested in talking about now. Now for MS is irrelevant. This is just clawing your way back into relevance time. I don't need to speculate about the future, MS has proven OVER MANY YEARS what their vision is for the consumer and for their competitors. I don't give them credit, they have much further to go for that.

If MS is ever on top of the console space again and behave as well as you say they are doing so now, then we can talk. Their history says otherwise, they will just piss on you and tell you it is raining. Me personally, I don't want to see them on top of the console space (better safe than sorry).

 

[Louis Cyphre]

It's obvious you don't get it. MS is offering all of those things because THEY ARE NOT THE MARKET LEADER. They need the goodwill. Ultimately, you should be thanking Nintendo and Sony for being more relevant than the Xbox, it is the only reason you have all your little "perks".

How am I not moving on? We are still in the same generation of the X1 reveal. That is not the past. That IS the MS end-game strategy. The fact it didn't work now doesn't mean it is no longer their goal (the burden of proving they have changed is on them, not me). As long as MS remains out of first place, I don't have a problem with them. They can't dictate where the market goes and you will see them offer a better value.

You are right, I am not interested in talking about now. Now for MS is irrelevant. This is just clawing your way back into relevance time. I don't need to speculate about the future, MS has proven OVER MANY YEARS what their vision is for the consumer and for their competitors. I don't give them credit, they have much further to go for that.

If MS is ever on top of the console space again and behave as well as you say they are doing so now, then we can talk. Their history says otherwise, they will just piss on you and tell you it is raining. Me personally, I don't want to see them on top of the console space (better safe than sorry).

In a nutshell it's,

Rant...I don't trust Microsoft...more ranting...I am likely never going to trust Microsoft...one last ran...the reason why I'm here is because I just want to be able to keep bitching about them at any opportunity.

Did they kill your dog too?

 

[gioGAF]

In a nutshell it's,

Rant...I don't trust Microsoft...more ranting...I am likely never going to trust Microsoft...one last ran...the reason why I'm here is because I just want to be able to keep bitching about them at any opportunity.

Did they kill your dog too?

Try to discredit me all you want with your poor attempts at comedy. From where I'm standing you are exactly the opposite:

Rant...I trust Microsoft...more ranting...I am likely always going to trust Microsoft...one last ran...the reason why I'm here is because I just want to be able to keep praising them at any opportunity.

Are you on their payroll? You are quite the apologist, smh.

 

[luxsol]

They have delivered matchmaking, social services, free games and discounts. If the service was not worth it people would not pay for it.

You don't know that, unless you count their Games for Windows Live failure where no one paid and they refunded every sucker's money back.

The fact that people pay for XBox Live on their Xboxes is because they have no choice on the matter if they want to play their games online. They block access to these online games unless you pay them a monthly fee, which includes matchmaking (most games already offer this), social services, etc. If you actually gave people a choice (see PSN on the PS3 pre-PS4) there would be VERY few takers, i guarantee. The vast majority of gamers just want to play their games.

Does the cost of Xbox live factor into people’s purchasing decisions and would dropping the fee exponentially increase software and console sales? I personally don’t think it would make any difference.

On even ground, of course it would. It's extra money to be spent by the consumer. It's never been even between the platforms though. Xbox vs PS2 vs GCN vs DC was so unbelievably one sided. PS3 vs Wii vs XBox 360 was a clusterfuck of mistakes and a highly successful gimmick. It's hard to say the PS3's eventual gain was because of its free online play. This gen everyone went with blocking access to the games' servers unless you pay up.

 

[Kvally]

Yes it does. It's Sony who charges a fee for online play on the PS4, not any third parties. It's not hypocritical when Capcom doesn't charge for online play on the PC because they also don't charge for online play on the PS4. How is this so hard to understand?

Not sure who you are talking to, but it's easy for me to understand. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Try to discredit me all you want with your poor attempts at comedy. From where I'm standing you are exactly the opposite:

Rant...I trust Microsoft...more ranting...I am likely always going to trust Microsoft...one last ran...the reason why I'm here is because I just want to be able to keep praising them at any opportunity.

Are you on their payroll? You are quite the apologist, smh.

This is your retort, that I'm some sort of apologist for correcting you and explaining what they are currently doing while you want to release all your baggage about why you don't trust them? I bought a Playstation 3 even though I had problems with my PS2 having disc reading errors, something that also happened on my original Playstation. I never had a problem at all on my PS3 slim but I waited for the price to drop. Do you see me carrying on and on about the history of Sony in other topics like some bitter owner that needs therapy?

I'm no apologist, after my Xbox 360 died that is when I got my PS3 slim and never looked back but why am I going to stink up Xbox One topics about hardware issues that aren't happening on the new platform? This is one of the big problems we see on the forums, haters coming in and going off on tangents because Microsoft ruined your childhood.

I'm not going to bother replying anyone, you just want to vent and change the discussion to suit your needs.

Xbox Live has always had a fee attached because at the time nobody really offered a service that was comparable on consoles. Like anything once they get used to easy money it becomes etremely unlikely they will ever stop charging. The PC comes with too many variables to get away with it as already explained multiple times. I see it as a bonus to PC players that they can access Xbox titles and use some Live features for free. It's a heck of a lot more than Nintendo and Sony are allowing as they are more closed off and don't really have a vested interest like Microsoft does. That's not being an apologist, it's being a realist.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Don't worry, MS definitely shot his dog. They must have also shot the mods.

 

[Hubble]

Um, it's a totally different platform and audience. Pretty simple why MS charges for Live on Xbox and not on PC.

 

[Zog]

Um, it's a totally different platform and audience. Pretty simple why MS charges for Live on Xbox and not on PC.

Why? Give us your simple answer.

 

[Zog]

Not sure who you are talking to, but it's easy for me to understand. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else.

You said it doesn't matter who publishes it. It does matter.

 

[Kvally]

You said it doesn't matter who publishes it. It does matter.

That is exactly what I said. It doesn't matter who publishes the game. I never said a word about whether it was good or bad that Sony or third parties charged or didn't charge to play online.