Four dollars a month. Gamers cannot keep crying poor just to suit their argument. We have hundreds of people in the Wii U thread talking about their brand new 300 dollar system plus games but four dollars a month (possibly less) is a deal breaker? Enough with this argument. People seem to play the 99% card when it comes to xbox live all the time. It's not an entitlement, it's a service and MS is charging to use it. Four bucks a month too steep, hit the bricks and pound sand and complain to someone at Starbucks while you sip your 5 dollar venti peppermint mocha.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Will MS have to alter silver memberships next gen?
- Thread starter Nealand Liquor
- Start date
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
How many people do you think own more than one console?
It really is a pitiful amount that I don't see anything changing in terms of pricing model. Until the competition bring out a superior service nothing will change but MS will continue to add more value to their pay wall. People forget that XBL was the first service to unify everything on consoles, the game tag concept is being used by the completion, achievements again being re imagined by the competition, beacons, cloud storage all being pushed on xbl first. Completion needs to step up , or things will not be changing and people will continue to flock to xbl
GenericUser
Member
its 4 dollars every month a whole console lifecycle long. Lets say this is 5 years that would be 240$. Just to be able to play your already bought games online, where everywhere else you can, without any additional costs!
Microsoft hast to change that, or a still free PSN on the PS4 with a proper cross game chat and a proper party system will break their neck. Its not 2001 anymore.
Freezie KO
Banned
The $300 system that gives me free online mulitplayer for the life of the system? At a 6 year lifespan, $50/year is doubling the cost. So yeah, that's a lot of money.
It isn't a matter of how much it costs. It's an issue of the value of the service. Just because something is inexpensive does not mean it's worth paying for. And in no way is Xbox Live worth paying for.
this
it was probably 'worth' when the generation started as it had a clear advantage considering what psn offered, But not anymore, and has been like that for a while. They should follow PSN+ way , and offer real content which is what a premium service should do.
But they probably won't, because many people justify paying for nothing, so it is the best thing to have, customers who do not ask themselves why they pay , even if it is a small amount monthly (that becomes not so small after a generation subscribed) , for something that is free elsewhere
$300-480 a generation just to play online. That's like an extra console or two. Fuck that I am one of many who don't even bother turning my Xbox on cos of the paywalls and won't be buying their next console cos of it. A paywall for YouTube and Netflix? Get the fuck outta here.
To clarify: What I mean by Sony getting their “shit together” is not to match Xbox Live Gold in Features. I have absolutely no doubt that they’ll be able to check the boxes in regards to features but the actual delivery of those things just lacks. This generation, Sony just didn’t get it right.
The PS3 is an amazing piece of hardware, I use it way more than my Xbox 360, but using it to me is like using Linux. Yes, I personally know how things work, what doesn’t work and where things Sony has done are better than Microsoft’s. Playing online on the Xbox 360 is more like iOS. You can actually feel that smart people thought about things. They thought about where they should put stuff like Party Chat, how it should work, how invites should work and all that. Sony has invites as well and in some games they’re just like they are on the Xbox (meaning that it’ll open the game, put you in the same lobby, etc). However, pressing X to invite someone on the Xbox is way more convenient than inviting someone on the PS3, where you sometimes have to go to invite someone, then it opens the messages-app to then have you confirm that before the message is actually being sent. I can invite 8 people into a party in the same time it takes me to send out a single game invite on the PS3.
To me personally, this is Sony’s main problem right now. Most things are kind of there but they’re also all kind of broken. After launching “incomplete”, they were never quite able to improve (enough). At first, I thought it maybe was the PS3’s ram that was limiting how much they can do, but now I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s something fundamentally wrong with Sony’s way of doing things and I’m losing hope that they’ll be able to fix this.
The reason for this is the Vita. When Sony was developing the Vita, they must have known what users want. Sony must know that consumers like consistency and a seamless experience and yet they launched another piece of hardware/software that lacks exactly that. Let’s just look at Cross-Game-Chat. Sony still doesn’t get it. How can they not make one of the most requested features simply work. There really aren’t a lot of requirements and yet the whole app is a failure / no consistent experience. Yes, the app is available but it doesn’t work with all games. It didn’t even work with all the launch games, for Christ’s sake. From the beginning, Sony was failing to send the message “Hey, this is a basic feature”. Now people have to ask whether it works or not, if a game disables it, etc. It’s bad. Same goes for the screenshot feature (though not as important to me personally). Introducing a feature that somewhat works but then failing to have it “just work”. Again, instead of introducing screenshots as a basic feature that the hardware “just does”, it’s a feature people have to think about.
Sony hasn’t learned a damn thing when it comes to what users expect. They made mistakes when it came to the PS3 and shockingly made similar mistakes again with the Vita. Sony could have sent the message “Guys, we actually do get it now” but they didn’t.
Sorry for the long rant, but since Microsoft and Sony are going for the same money, I think it’s important to be reminded why Microsoft can charge (so much) for Xbox Live. It’s not like Xbox Live Gold is such a great offering, it definitely isn’t. The sales are ridiculously bad, actually playing online it pretty much the same as on PS3 and I personally don’t see any real reason why they would have to charge for this.
The thing is: People own the console and to get the most out of it, they have to pay. The kid who got his Xbox for his 13th birthday is an adult now and is used to paying money to play online. All his friends have an Xbox and they’re gladly paying as well. These people have been using their system for many years and when they now start to use the free service on the other consoles, they notice that they’re not getting the same thing. Sony is trying something different with PS+ (a service I absolutely love, though there are also some things wrong with it) but the fundamental problems with Sony’s gaming hardware and the software implementation still exist. They’re used to paying, they’re used to doing things a certain way so why would they now adapt to something else that’s arguably worse?
Microsoft will have to act when Sony does, but Sony won’t so they’re in a pretty safe spot right now.
However, what surprises me is that the various services like Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, and so on have absolutely no problem with being hidden behind a paywall. It’s baffling to me that Netflix is okay to have an arbitrary hoop that their potential customers would have to jump through. I expect changes in this space in the future.
The PS3 is an amazing piece of hardware, I use it way more than my Xbox 360, but using it to me is like using Linux. Yes, I personally know how things work, what doesn’t work and where things Sony has done are better than Microsoft’s. Playing online on the Xbox 360 is more like iOS. You can actually feel that smart people thought about things. They thought about where they should put stuff like Party Chat, how it should work, how invites should work and all that. Sony has invites as well and in some games they’re just like they are on the Xbox (meaning that it’ll open the game, put you in the same lobby, etc). However, pressing X to invite someone on the Xbox is way more convenient than inviting someone on the PS3, where you sometimes have to go to invite someone, then it opens the messages-app to then have you confirm that before the message is actually being sent. I can invite 8 people into a party in the same time it takes me to send out a single game invite on the PS3.
To me personally, this is Sony’s main problem right now. Most things are kind of there but they’re also all kind of broken. After launching “incomplete”, they were never quite able to improve (enough). At first, I thought it maybe was the PS3’s ram that was limiting how much they can do, but now I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s something fundamentally wrong with Sony’s way of doing things and I’m losing hope that they’ll be able to fix this.
The reason for this is the Vita. When Sony was developing the Vita, they must have known what users want. Sony must know that consumers like consistency and a seamless experience and yet they launched another piece of hardware/software that lacks exactly that. Let’s just look at Cross-Game-Chat. Sony still doesn’t get it. How can they not make one of the most requested features simply work. There really aren’t a lot of requirements and yet the whole app is a failure / no consistent experience. Yes, the app is available but it doesn’t work with all games. It didn’t even work with all the launch games, for Christ’s sake. From the beginning, Sony was failing to send the message “Hey, this is a basic feature”. Now people have to ask whether it works or not, if a game disables it, etc. It’s bad. Same goes for the screenshot feature (though not as important to me personally). Introducing a feature that somewhat works but then failing to have it “just work”. Again, instead of introducing screenshots as a basic feature that the hardware “just does”, it’s a feature people have to think about.
Sony hasn’t learned a damn thing when it comes to what users expect. They made mistakes when it came to the PS3 and shockingly made similar mistakes again with the Vita. Sony could have sent the message “Guys, we actually do get it now” but they didn’t.
Sorry for the long rant, but since Microsoft and Sony are going for the same money, I think it’s important to be reminded why Microsoft can charge (so much) for Xbox Live. It’s not like Xbox Live Gold is such a great offering, it definitely isn’t. The sales are ridiculously bad, actually playing online it pretty much the same as on PS3 and I personally don’t see any real reason why they would have to charge for this.
The thing is: People own the console and to get the most out of it, they have to pay. The kid who got his Xbox for his 13th birthday is an adult now and is used to paying money to play online. All his friends have an Xbox and they’re gladly paying as well. These people have been using their system for many years and when they now start to use the free service on the other consoles, they notice that they’re not getting the same thing. Sony is trying something different with PS+ (a service I absolutely love, though there are also some things wrong with it) but the fundamental problems with Sony’s gaming hardware and the software implementation still exist. They’re used to paying, they’re used to doing things a certain way so why would they now adapt to something else that’s arguably worse?
Microsoft will have to act when Sony does, but Sony won’t so they’re in a pretty safe spot right now.
However, what surprises me is that the various services like Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, and so on have absolutely no problem with being hidden behind a paywall. It’s baffling to me that Netflix is okay to have an arbitrary hoop that their potential customers would have to jump through. I expect changes in this space in the future.
Does PS3 or WiiU offer free Netflix ?
HeÂ’s talking about access to the services, obviously. Microsoft doesnÂ’t offer access to any third party services to users who donÂ’t pay for Xbox Live unless theyÂ’re required to do so by law. Sony and Nintendo both donÂ’t charge users for the access of any services theyÂ’re having on their service.
It's free in the same sense as playing your bought games on an Xbox 360 is free. You still have to pay for electricity, you're still required to have a TV, a place to set up all of that and everything. The last hoop you have to jump through doesn't require you do pay additional money to Microsoft, though.
Maybe its the PC gamer in me, but when it comes to PSN, party chat and friends, is it really that big a deal to load up Vent on a pc and go? Probably not ideal for everyone, but if its a big issue for someone, it seems like an easy enough work around instead of a brick wall.
I wouldn't be bothered by gold so much if it still didn't have fucking ads. I can't wrap my head around that one. Yeah, cable tv, but fuck that.
I wouldn't be bothered by gold so much if it still didn't have fucking ads. I can't wrap my head around that one. Yeah, cable tv, but fuck that.
I see free Netflix for WiiU/PS3 and the argument that MS does not offer the same
So no, it is not obvious, how is it free when you have to pay for it ? What difference does it make who you pay the money to ?
Paying the money to Netflix is called free ? Then why not call paying the money to MS free too ?
Plus why would paying for Netflix as standalone is better than paying for it through Live ? Is Live price so much bigger than Netflix standalone ? Even if we forget that Live Gold has all the other perks too
I think MS does not charge you extra for Netflix after paying for Live Gold, does it ?
You dont pay additional money to MS, you only pay once, as with PS3/WiiU etc cases
To use Netflix on the 360 you have to pay a monthly fee for both Live and the service while on the other consoles you just have to pay for the service. The people in this thread are saying that you shouldn't be forced to pay for Live as well since Microsoft since everyone else is doing it for free and you there's no perk for owning Live when it comes to media services.
I understand paying for Live when it comes to gaming but why should people pay extra to use Netflix?
So, on 360 you have to pay for Live Gold and extra for Netflix ?
That is indeed stupid from MS part, did not know it
, i thought Netflix came as a perk with buying Live Gold membership It never even crossed my mind they would charge extra for Netflix
This post hits the nail on the head. The "PSN is the same as Live but free" crowd really do not get it at all, probably because they don't even own a 360 and never have. I have no faith in Sony when it comes to system software/firmware cos they are absolutely horrible at it, so I don't see why people are expecting them to knock it out of the park with the PS4. They haven't with the Vita. I don't expect PSN on the PS4 to match up with what Xbox Live does now, never mind what it might do on the next machine.
So, on 360 you have to pay for Live Gold and extra for Netflix ?
That is indeed stupid from MS part, did not know it
It never even crossed my mind they would charge extra for Netflix
Nope, it's "Pay your netflix subscription and also pay your Gold subscription."
To rub salt in the wound, the 360 Netflix app is easily the worst Netflix app on any major device.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
I'm not interested in a gold service, everything the add to that subscription is mostly free on the same internet connection I'm paying for anyway. In Microsofts world they seem to think that the Xbox is the only internet enabled device you have at home.
many people own both consoles and think that PSN is the way to go and not live. We, at least most i know, do know XBL is slightly easier or 'transparent for the end user, and besides cross game chat, that is all. Yeah, sometimes it is a bit annoying to wait longer for an update or things like that, but it is no big deal, especially for people like us that are in gaming forums and such.
And while vita ain't perfect, it is a portable and has some limitations regarding 3g/wifi usage , the OS has evolved and is quite convenient, so yeah, sony is going the right way, and i'd rather use those monthly '4€' that i would pay for years to buy games or another console.
But if Gold went the PSN+ way, that would be awesome, as would mean real content.
They might think PSN+ is the way to go, but PSN is just a shitter version of Live with fewer features and some features implemented inconsistently. I'd rather use that ÂŁ2 a month to pay for the the best service, rather than use one that is terrible for my needs. Downloadable games and DLC are regularly priced higher on PSN here in the UK anyway, so that ÂŁ2 a month is insignificant. I already own all of the consoles and all the games I want, so an extra 50p in my wallet per week isn't making any difference whatsoever - and Live Gold offers discounts on content that save me money anyway.
I'm really not bothered if Gold goes the PSN+ way. PSN+ is paying to rent games from a small selection - games I already have or games I don't want. If you're a casual gamer that isn't bothered about playing games when they come out, fine, but I'm not. I don't want to wait 6 months to see if game X will come to PSN+ when there's no guarantee it will. If I was going to rent games, I'd use a disc by mail service where I could rent any games I like including all the new releases. If there's a Live Platinum where you can rent any GoD or XBLA title you like, then yeah - count me in - otherwise I'm not interested.
lol.
Live ain't ÂŁ2 a month
PSN has much steeper discounts without PlayStation plus
It offers all the tv services for free without having to be forced to
I'd rather rent games on PSN than together same price get nothing.
You say small selection, I say at least 8 games a month.
Objectively speaking PS+ is better and XBL is shit value for money. I really don't know what tor.
We will see but I fully expect sony to catch xbox live next gen.... the issue is they will only catch the 360 version of live and ms has been sitting there the past 7 years with all kinds of new ideas on how to "change the game again" when it comes to online gameplay and will blow right by everybody else again and everybody will continue to play.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
I found the biggest complaints in these threads come from European GAF'ers who only occasionally play online. Makes since because the 360 offers the least services over there and with the language barrier most don't care about stuff like cross game chat. If I didn't live in the US then XBL wouldn't be worth it to me.
But in the US it still offers the best online experience so people will keep paying for it until another company can compete and surpass them. We'll see next gen if Sony can do that and keep the service for free cause it won't be cheap on their side to do it.
But in the US it still offers the best online experience so people will keep paying for it until another company can compete and surpass them. We'll see next gen if Sony can do that and keep the service for free cause it won't be cheap on their side to do it.
For now, I feel forced to have a gold account, and moreover, I have I feel like paying for a rather bad service.
Chat is crap, online games aren't better than on any others platforms, advantages in Europe are minimal. I pay because I must. If you don't pay you don't have access to a very basic feature, online play. This is ridiculous in 2012, and I'm surprised MS can get away with it so easily.
My hope is MS targeting a PS+ model. But i'm not confident about it.
Chat is crap, online games aren't better than on any others platforms, advantages in Europe are minimal. I pay because I must. If you don't pay you don't have access to a very basic feature, online play. This is ridiculous in 2012, and I'm surprised MS can get away with it so easily.
My hope is MS targeting a PS+ model. But i'm not confident about it.
Metalmurphy
Member
Steam still offers the best experience World Wide, not XBL, and it's free. And it manages to be free without ads.
It also has the best solutions for developers.
I agree with this.
One thing that many, many many, people forget is that there are countries that your LIVE is only used to play online Games. There's not even 20% of content that people in the US have access. The problem is, someone says that is totally worth it but that person have lot's of content where there are places that you have to pay to play online with the game you already bought!
Whatever MS do next Gen they should think more about other countries/Europe. However I don't see that happening...
FatalMuzza
Banned
Depends if Sony is still around to make the party.....
Bending_Unit_22
Member
I don't think MS will have to alter the online gaming portion of XBL, gamers are more than willing to pay for something if it is a worthwhile service to their hobby. The bigger issue to me are the media applications for casuals. MS managed a good deal of success this gen with the casual media market, but as we're seeing throughout the gaming/entertainment industry casuals aren't so big about paying for entertainment anymore.
I could see MS trying to bifurcate the gamer and casual market with the Xbox media box thing, depending on what exactly it is. It would still mean gamers would pay to continue on the 720, casual media would not. I don't see how it would make any sense otherwise, casuals are not going to pay to use programs they can use on every other device in their house. MS may not end up being succcessful retaining the gamers either, but that could be fixed later with a massive "Live Ambassador" program. No reason to kill the golden goose before it dies in this case.
I could see MS trying to bifurcate the gamer and casual market with the Xbox media box thing, depending on what exactly it is. It would still mean gamers would pay to continue on the 720, casual media would not. I don't see how it would make any sense otherwise, casuals are not going to pay to use programs they can use on every other device in their house. MS may not end up being succcessful retaining the gamers either, but that could be fixed later with a massive "Live Ambassador" program. No reason to kill the golden goose before it dies in this case.
Metalmurphy
Member
Yes but you're just some European who rarely plays online.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Steam is great as long as you always and forever agree to all future TOS regardless of what they are or how they change.
sixteen-bit
Member
old habits die hard, just vestiges of the old name stay in peoples memory
Metalmurphy
Member
Just like any other service, yes.
IsntChrisL
Member
Several.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
No other service does this actually. Steam holds your games hostage unless you agree to their future TOS. I can point you to the huge thread about it if you like.
Metalmurphy
Member
PSN does it so already you are wrong.
And what happens when XBL changes the TOS and you not agree to it? Can you still login, download your games, etc etc?
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
There's nothing expensive about cross-game chat. It's free on Vita. Sony isn't going to charge and there's been no precedent set for them charging.
The reason why it's not on PS3 is due to technical limitations and not having it set-up from the get-go.
And even if Sony surpasses Microsoft (or gets to par), next-gen, people will still pay for Xbox Live. There's a huge Halo fanbase that isn't going away, and some people will want to keep their achievements and friends list. Switching becomes a bitch and some people will gladly keep paying, sadly.
I just hope that Microsoft starts adding content to Xbox Live like Playstation Plus. They just don't have as much to offer.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
I didn't accept the most current PS3 TOS and was just playing Uncharted 3 last night. Every single game you ever bought EVER is gone on Steam if you don't agree to all future TOS.
If I don't agree to the 360 TOS all my old games still work. Please tell me you are just arguing to argue at this point and you aren't this misinformed.
Don't agree with the trolls, but I do agree they should change their tiered services next gen to be more competitive. Also I've made the point before that with f2p possibly becoming a large business pillar next gen, locking games or game options behind a pay wall can hinder adoption and their success.
They should make online gaming free, and add value elsewhere to Live to make it worth the cost for those who wish to pay it.
They should make online gaming free, and add value elsewhere to Live to make it worth the cost for those who wish to pay it.
Metalmurphy
Member
You didn't answer my question. You are discussion 2 different situations, games not bought on the service that don't use the online service to play still working means nothing to this. Can you still download the games you bought on XBL/PSN or not? Can you even login?
OldJadedGamer
Banned
On Steam boxed copies of single player games stop working. Because of that fact it is not a better service in general before you even think about online games. I refuse to support a service that holds my games hostage. Sorry.
Metalmurphy
Member
Still not answering my question. A boxed copy of a steam game is still a steam game, you need a steam account and therefore at the moment of the installation you either agree with the current TOS/SSA, or you return it.
That's on the cover.
After that point you can stay in offline mode if you choose to refuse future changes and the game will work.
The reason you haven't answered my question is because YES, you do get locked out of your own purchases and can't login without agreeing to TOS changes, "Just like any other service."
*edit*
Also I find it funny you accuse me of "arguing to argue" when you're the one that brought this silly point to try and prove that XBL has the better service, because you know... it's still Steam.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
If you download a game to XBL or PSN and don't agree to the new terms you still have access to your older games unless they are multiplayer only. Outside of two Capcom games for PSN you don't need access to play them.
All other off topic questions can be answered in this thread.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=485408
Btw MetalMurphy do you even own a 360??
It's really not just the party chat. It's the fact that the entire library operates with invites integrated into the OS. The fact that they've had completely portable gamer tags and saves since day one also really helped it become the system for enthusiast press. I don't expect this to change next gen, which sucks because I would rather not pay. You keep saying party chat like it means something but the way Sony implemented online for the vita is shockingly bad.
I actually find steam to be pretty awesome when devs use steamworks. I don't see any reason you wouldn't elect to accept tos or update.