Xbox VP predicts 50% of Xbox 360 users will go Live
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Sep 29th 2005 at 5:15PM }
Speaking with Famitsu, Xbox senior
vice president Robbie Bach expressed his hopes for expanding the number of Xbox Live users with the launch of the Xbox
360. Currently, only 10% of Xbox owners are Live subscribers (we're not sure if this number includes users with trial
subscriptions). While that's still 2 million people, Bach believes that with the addition of the Xbox 360's "Silver"
package, Microsoft can get 50% of the next-gen consoles' owners online.
It probably won't be difficult for Microsoft to gain this level of support since broadband is becoming more popular for household users. This doesn't mean that half of all Xbox 360 owners will be battling it out across the Live network, but at least the "free" Silver package gives users access to the Xbox Live Marketplace…
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Patrick @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I have no interest in playing offline at all. If a game doesn't have Live support then it's not even an option for me. Hopefully the Silver package will allow people to see the beauty of Xbox Live. *a tear*
Mark B @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
50%? LMFAO!!
I'll believe it when and IF it ever happens!
50% my ass! :-D
shawn @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
That seems like wishful thinking to me. Maybe by the end of the 360's life in 2012, but there's no way there getting they're going to pull 50% anytime soon. The interest in online gaming is still very niche.
Tushar Dayal @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Doesn't it suck to have to pay a fee to play online?
MILES! @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I love XBL, I coulden't imagine console gaming without an Online service as good as XBL.
charles @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
ok think about it this way ps2's online network sucks ass right now xbox is already leading the way for online gaming and will continue to do so building an even better online network leading the way of next gen consoles for online gaming especially with halo3 right around the corner and microsoft is doing an excellent job providing the consumer with silver membership to broden there horizons remember 360 is all about choice thats the whole reason for the 2 versions of the 360
Andrew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I think if MS really wants people to purchase an XB free live is really what they're going to need.
That's all I'm going to say.
OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Doesn't it suck to have to pay a fee to play online?"
No,not really once you see how their service is.
The PS2 online and XBox online services are like resteraunts.
PS2 = Burgerking.
Xbox = Fancy resteraunt.
You get your "fill" from both places but for a little extra money you can see which one is better.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"If a game doesn't have Live support then it's not even an option for me"
Then I guess you barely became a gamer since LIVE doesn't exist since 2002.
"Maybe by the end of the 360's life in 2012"
Poor Suckers the one's that think that 360 will actually last 7 years. I'll give it 5 years, tops. I wouldn't doubt it will have a 4 year lifespan, considering the first xbox had 4 years and they have to keep up with the Playstation, since they are a generation behind it, otherwise they'll have to name the third Xbox "Xbox 4000" and the fourth "V-box". Unless they quickly keep up, that way the Xbox 4 will be able to launch roughly a year after PS4.
"Doesn't it suck to have to pay a fee to play online?"
I absolutely agree. I'm already paying 60 bucks for a game, there's no way I should pay more. Long live Nintendo AND Sony for that.
"I love XBL, I coulden't imagine console gaming without an Online service as good as XBL."
It's not worth 60 dollars a year vs. free. Wait until every single level costs 5 dollars, and microsoft squeezes every penny out of your bleeding ass.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
OTAM, I remember you saying that anyone that pays 500 more for any console is an idiot.
You're paying 400 dollars for the premium bundle, plus 60 dollars for live (otherwise you wouldn't be enjoying your 360 would you?).
Watch out for the next year though, you may reach the 500 dollars "idiotline" as you said.
Maybe you'll be lucky if it becomes your last year playing live, when it goes down to $39.99
Andrew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Doesn't it suck to have to pay a fee to play online?"
No,not really once you see how their service is.
The PS2 online and XBox online services are like resteraunts.
PS2 = Burgerking.
Xbox = Fancy resteraunt.
Ironically, you still get as much lag on Xbox Live as you would with free online services, like say.. Steam or so forth.
Or how about that reputable "Blue Screen of Death" in Halo 2 matches? OoOooH! Wonderful service. Or how about the occasional lag? Or how about the many difficulties I've had hooking my Xbox up to my network.
It's scarcely a "fancy restaurant".
Jeramy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
i doubt that microsoft will release 2 consecutive consoles within a generation (no, the two SKUs is not what i'm talking about). no one would really want to buy a console that would openly last only 2 years. they might not even have to name a "xbox 420" or whatever they might chose since there may not be a playstation 4 because 4 sounds similar to death in the japanese language, and sony has skipped the number 4 for device models (network walkman). although i really haven't read this in stone, so don't quote me.
and the paying for xbox live thing isn't really much of a big deal to me. no, i'm definitely not rich. but really once you pay $50 (its cheaper anually), you don't really remember your "lost money". microsoft isn't going to start charging money for being able to finish a game. yes, they're a money hungry company, but they're not stupid. if they did that, no one would give in and money wouldn't be made. xbox live is a fine service; from what i've heard, ps2's online service sucks (cliche, i know). and nintendo doesn't really have much of one.
Jeramy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
i actually hardly get lag at all on xbox live. call me a liar, but it's true. and that's just with basic dsl. it's not really the service's fault, it's the isp's fault
OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Oooh guys. I think b has a crush on me! He follows me around and complains about every post I make. I think I have a secret admirer (not so secret anymore LOL!) Someone tell him I think I think I have chemistry 4th period with him! It's so cute how he chews him gum and makes litle paper airplanes out of the notes our teacher gives us! I th1nk I am in love!
I said anyone who spends $500 on a console is an idiot,last time I checked the Xbox360 was $399. I said the console,not the games and accesories included.The last generation cost me more than $500 after the system and games so right there would make what I said pointless.I already have a Live account so I don't need to fork anymore money out.So that comes to about $415 after tax. Not $500 now is it?
Why not get your information straight before you follow me around whining about every post I make,idiot.
anthony @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I never get lag, and I only see a blue screen for a few seconds once every 2-4 hours of playing. Live has changed the way I play games, added new depths, new joys. I love Xbox Live and $60 (including a game too)has given me more pleasure than any single player games.
Note the only games that have lag are EA games because of their servers, even that is better than playing SOCOM, I love that game but PS2 online is to painfula nd frstrating. i have cable dsl.
Dan @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
nice analogy OTAM
"Ironically, you still get as much lag on Xbox Live as you would with free online services, like say.. Steam or so forth."
- i think its wrong to compare a pc service with a console service. its a whole different ball game for the developers and service providers.
"Or how about that reputable "Blue Screen of Death" in Halo 2 matches? OoOooH! Wonderful service. Or how about the occasional lag? Or how about the many difficulties I've had hooking my Xbox up to my network."
- no one said it was perfect or meant for everyone. just that it was better than ps2 online.
i only play xbox live casually, but i hardly ever get any lag. i think that with a way to connect to the service, set up a profile, and use some of its features for free, 50% is a reasonable goal for the 360.
I hate PS Fanboys @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Stupid PlayStation Fanboys... Really, you're complaining about Xbox Live when GayStation doesn't even have online...
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
It is free on the weekends, so they'll easily beat the 50% mark. That is when the bulk of gamers play nowadays. Especially now they have the option for wireless connection that kept folks like me from getting into Live.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"I said anyone who spends $500 on a console is an idiot,last time I checked the Xbox360 was $399."
Seems like you need to learn something about reading comprehension. Look what I wrote:
You're paying 400 dollars for the premium bundle, plus 60 dollars for live (otherwise you wouldn't be enjoying your 360 would you?). I guess 400 is very different from $399.99, how careless of me to add a cent.
Then you say:
"Why not get your information straight before you follow me around whining about every post I make,idiot."
You still have to pay 60 dollars each year, dipshit, opposite to other consoles, so you could still add that up to the cost of having a 360, as opposed to having a Revolution or PS3.
640 dollars + Tax = Xbox 360 Premium bundle plus 4 years live (considering you have a one year account already (which could still add up to the cost), and that a 360 has a supposed 5 year lifespan, yeah right). And I'm not counting the extra levels Microsoft might sell you, plus the fact that you need LIVE (i.e. pay) for backwards compatibility, and as you can see, our friend Andrew already told us how fancy of a restaurant that piece of shit service. Where do I sign for a blue screen, people? I guess you yet have to see for yourself what a good restaurant is (as opposed to the resteraunts you know).
600 dollars + Tax = PS3 (and that's a generously expensive model I'm giving), and free online service. There is no need to add "Extra levels" online, since Blu-ray has plenty of space for Extra Levels. 54 GB compared to only 8.5 GB. (And native backwards compatibility)
480 dollars + Tax = Revolution plus peripherals and Nintendo Wi-Fi for free, plus say, 10 classic yet graphically improved games, and native backwards compatibility with GC. (Again, a generous model).
(I'm assuming controllers, batteries, and games will cost similar for each system, which is likely if systems are supposed to stay competitive... PS3 might cost a little more in the beginning, like Xbox 1, but they'll stabilize)
You see, in the end, the 360 is more expensive (from the accountancy and also from the financial standpoint), hypocrite.
Dan @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
is that confirmed? like 2/7 days of the week? has that been in any press releases or anything?
i thought that by "free xbox live weekends" that there would be some weekends when xbox live was free... but not every weekend
but that would indeed make me very happy
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"16. Posted Sep 29, 2005, 7:17 PM ET by I hate PS Fanboys
Stupid PlayStation Fanboys... Really, you're complaining about Xbox Live when GayStation doesn't even have online..."
I guess you've never heard about one of the greatest online games for PlayStation 2 and later for PC only... Oh wait, 360 will get it too, three years after it came out. Oh well. It's called "Final Fantasy Eleven". Are you twelve?
Jeramy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
no dude, it's not free on the weekends. there will be occasional free days, but they will be spaced out a lot more than every other weekend. if microsoft let everyone have a free gold account (essentially) on the weekends, there wouldn't be much of an argument to get gold, since a lot of the time spent online is on the weekends
Jeramy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
geez b, you're so not close-minded
Dan @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
ah ha, good point Jeramy. i didn't think of that.
another good/bad thing about the free silver package that it gives everyone access to the microsoft beloved marketplace. to make people pay for the whole service just to buy a 5$ rpg item set, or special weapon bundle would turn away the many people who just want to play their single player games to the fullest.
I like videogames who cares what console @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
You are all idiots buy what you want!!
Catch you all on xbox live later!
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Less than 35M individuals have broaband in the US. At most, 10M of those play video games.
If all 10M subscribe to Xbox 360 Live, 50% = 10M and 100% = 20M.
So, Microsoft does not plan to sell more than 20M Xbox 360 units in the US.
Patrick @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I think b is mildly retarted. Close your mouth, you're drooling on yourself.
"9. Posted Sep 29, 2005, 6:01 PM ET by b
"If a game doesn't have Live support then it's not even an option for me"
Then I guess you barely became a gamer since LIVE doesn't exist since 2002."
What the hell does what I wrote have to do with gaming prior to 2002? I am talking about right now, not three years ago. Even if I didn't start until 2002, what f'n difference would that make? I think you need to get out and make some friends, you're sad. While you're at it get a job so you can stop bitching about money you cheap bastard.
! @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Just something for the readers here to know, the Xbox 360 DVD9 disc does not hold 8.5GB. Only 7GB of the disc can be used for the game data. The rest of the disc is reserved for other purposes such as security features.
http://www.gamersreports.com/index.php?sid=3138
BlackYoshi @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
B, enjoy Sony's shitty online service then. All because its free. Xbox Live is one of the cheaper pay to play online game services around. A flat 5.99 fee a month really isn't that much. I mean, WoW, one single game, is like 15 bucks a month. Thats insanity. Live is going to be the best service as long as its pay and the others are free, simply because there is more money coming to put into it. Nintendos will probably be 2nd because of sky-high profits off of game downloads, which if they were smart will be directed into server maitenence and such. Sony's online will probably continue to be crappy unless they want to spend money on it.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Posted Sep 29, 2005, 9:23 PM ET by Patrick
I think b is mildly retarted. Close your mouth, you're drooling on yourself."
Great way to make a point, Pat. What does retarted mean anyway, retard?
"What the hell does what I wrote have to do with gaming prior to 2002? I am talking about right now, not three years ago. Even if I didn't start until 2002, what f'n difference would that make? "
Disregarding the fact that most actual gamers didn't know LIVE until 2002-2003, why would anyone NEED to go "LIVE" to play a game? Anyone that "needs" LIVE for games obviously has too much free time, and needs to get friends, let alone a girlfriend.
"I think you need to get out and make some friends, you're sad. While you're at it get a job so you can stop bitching about money you cheap bastard. "
If you read the whole thread, you'd realize I was responding to someone that actually gives too much of a shit to just call names instead of actually give rational criticism too, solely based on what and how much others spend the money.
"Cheap bastard"? Don't make me laugh, I'm getting a PS3 and a Revolution, but i'm not as stupid to spend 400 plus 300 on LIVE for five years plus tax plus extras on something that isn't worth it and that I can have cheaper and better on a PC or any other console, and I still need a PC to work anyways.
It's called "smart consumerism", as opposed to "compulsive consumerism" which is represented by the ones that literally buy virtual bullshit like guns and magic, and mostly the ones that will not wait for the 360 to become cheaper when the PS3 comes out, which shouldn't take long. But I guess you already knew that, right dipshit?
In fact, you can even play PC games on your PS3, no need for you to spend on a high-end PC (unless you work on graphic or gaming design, which I highly doubt), since the PS3 has Linux and it can emulate most if not all PC games, and since it has more power than a 360, it will surely be able to emulate the games that were on 360 but that later came out for PC. I'm sure most of the exclusives, if not all, will be available sooner or later (you know, like Halo, or Doom 3).
Now, go spend 10 dollars on the new weapons for Halo 2 and jack off.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"B, enjoy Sony's shitty online service then. All because its free. Xbox Live is one of the cheaper pay to play online game services around. A flat 5.99 fee a month really isn't that much. I mean, WoW, one single game, is like 15 bucks a month. Thats insanity. Live is going to be the best service as long as its pay and the others are free, simply because there is more money coming to put into it. Nintendos will probably be 2nd because of sky-high profits off of game downloads, which if they were smart will be directed into server maitenence and such. Sony's online will probably continue to be crappy unless they want to spend money on it."
I never said Sony's is better because it's free. I'm saying it isn't worth it to pay 60 dollar fees. If anything Nintendos online service will be the best because it will have no fees and youll only have to pay for actual games, not for multiplayer gaming or extra guns and magic. You think I was talking about PS2's service? I know it's a piece of shit because every game costs separately, that's why I DO NOT USE IT.
Yet, I was talking about the PS3, which will be another story. They already said it will be free, like Nintendos. You can be sure it will be a better service. That is, if they want to stay competitive, it WILL be better and free. Otherwise I don't give a damn, but LIVE is still not worth it, and there is still Nintendo for online games, better budget AND better games.
Also, I can still emulate the 360 games that are made for PC too on the PS3 and play with a 360 controller made for PC on the PS3 (Linux can do marvelous things for emulating games that are for windows, and we all know that PS3 is more powerful than a 360, so it should run smoothly with the right emulator, and there are several of those). Then, I can enjoy a decent Hi-def movie on the PS3, something I won't be able to on a 360, at least for now (All these features besides enjoying any game of my PS1 or PS2 library, or a PS3 exclusive).
Enjoy your shitty Rare/Bungie rushed, half-assed, half-finished (as opposed to being delayed) games like PDZ/Halo 2 while enjoying a nice "half-definition" blue screen, as opposed to a nice hi-definition Blu-ray. (Not to mention the short lifespan of an Xbox)
P.S.: Apostrophes do help on being coherent, and its maintenance, not maitenence
BlackYoshi @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Wow, you must be playing a different version of Halo 2, when did they charge people for new weapons? New maps when they were brand new maybe, but they aren't anymore...
OTAM @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Wow,apparently you STILL arent getting the point b.
The Xbox360's console is $399 ($299 for the core),which is STILL not $500.I'm talking about,
-No Games
-No extra accessories
-No Live account
Anyone who buys a CONSOLE for $500 is an idiot,and it's still standing that way,regardless of what company makes it.If you count games and other shit then that would mean I never gamed at all because every generation I spend more than $500 when you add the console price,games,and other shit together.
See,
$399.99 + tax = Not $500 + tax.
Finally catch on?
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
"Anyone who buys a CONSOLE for $500 is an idiot."
I got your quasi-rational point perfectly, but maybe you didn't get that you need to compare the consoles and what you get from each buying the same amount of games and services, to actually judge on which console gives you more for less. Judging the console (let alone the buyer) only by its price, disregarding what it comes with and the extra costs you'll have to make (or NOT make), would be more correlated (negatively) with IQ than JUST the price of the device itself, don't you think?
If I had your mental power (or lack of it), or let's say, I thought the way you thought, Id say that anyone spending ABOVE 200 is a fucking idiot. I've never spent more than 200 on a console (i.e., all of Nintendos consoles, the PS1 and PS2). In fact, you'd be an idiot if you don't use everything the Xbox 360 offers, because you seem to just want a console and not all the bullshit the 360 offers, like media player and things of the sort. And youre going to spend twice, let alone the extras. I mean, 4 fucking hundred bucks, plus 240 for four years of live, plus tax, opposed to Nintendos free multiplayer service, for a console that will cost close to 300 dollars tops, including what the 360 includes already. Give it a little more if you want. Not even the PS3, which offers a ton more, not just online-wise, will surpass the amount of spending to fully enjoy the system.
Also, I'm very interested in your "Correlation" between IQ (or idiocy as you name it) and the price someone pays for a "console" not regarding what it gives you. I guess that more than 60% of the Japs must be retards, disregarding the evidence that they are more advanced than Americans, culturally, and mentally. Just read "IQ and the wealth of nations". I'm not surprised they beat Americans by a 6 point difference. Not like you would know about that, since your 'studies' contradict this evidence.
Bo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
To B - You're a antagonist fanboy retard.
Here is a perspective from someone that is neutral to the gaming world.
I have every current and previous generation videogame consoles and have more than enough disposable income to afford every future consoles...which I do intend to purchase, just because I can. So I'm not biased in any way.
In regards to the article, XBOX Live is more than a service to connect games together, but provide premium tools for gamers to use features such as IM and voice messaging to communicate to a closed group of friends as well as the public and other features beyond the scope I'm trying to convey. This is akin to my recollection of AOL's remark regarding their service as a luxury cruise ship compared mom & pop's dial-up service fishing boat cruise. Or of course the previous analogy of a fancy restaurant to a Burger King -- you get what you pay for.
To 'dis' XBOX Live about costing money is to not understand what type of service you get from your hard earned money (or perhaps B, from your parents). Now if you want to go the 'free' route, you can always connect with a "virtual LAN" that will emulate LAN games over the internet from third party softwares, but if you can afford $400 for a video game, why be cheap on premium services?
I cannot comment on the PS3's internet gaming plan yet, but if Sony can match or exceed the type of service LIVE provide for free, that will definitely give them the upper hand in user base.
B, don't get your panties up your ass if XBOX fanboys/enthusiasts like what LIVE has to offer and willing to pay for it. You may feel empower when someone argue with your idiocy, but let me tell you from an 'average joe' gamer that got sick of reading your petty antagonizing arguments, get out of your parents basement and be a politician.
49ers Fan @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
good points b I know what you mean it must suck to be around xbots all the time in this kind of forums specially idiots like Bo I love how people try to get someone by saying you live in your parents basement, because they surely know about your live LOL, without instead bringing good arguements LOL hey bo why would somone care for spending money if they lived with their parents ? LOL
one last question
if do you not live wit your parents and you also work why do you post at 400 in the morning? LOL
p.s: sorry for my not-perfect english, im not american and not english
Paul @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I've never met anyone on Xbox Live that didn't think it was well worth it.
Here come the anti-MS fanboys pretending to have a Live account just so they can prove me wrong :)
Tellute @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Well I'm still playing Halo 2 on Live 10 months after it was released. Even taking into account the Live fees and extra maps, it's still the best value for money I've had out of a console game.
Clearly b hasn't tried XBL, so just ignore the little troll. "PSP3 will play PC games" I'll stop laughing in a few hours...
Slashbunny @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
The online service has to be free- then maybe 50% will use it.
The online service needs to "just work" for absolute newbies out of the box. I don't mean they even need their own ISP with a modem/router. It needs to be easier than that. No fees, no configuration, no account setup, no needing your own ISP to configure- you don't even need a PC. If you can accomplish this, the majority of console users will play online.
That being said, the Nintendo Revolution (with free nation-wide WiFi) will be the first home console in which the majority of the customers play online. More than 50%. They made it beyond brain-dead easy. It "just works" without doing ANYTHING. You turn the Revolution on (and assuming you don't live in the middle of nowhere), you can play online. Period. That's how it has to be on the console. As broadband penetration widens (still only ~50% in the USA), then maybe you can assume the users have internet and they just need to plug it in, but fees are always going to turn people off. They are already paying for internet, why pay for more? The service must be offered for free if you want anywhere close to 50%.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Hi "49ers fan", are you Asian? Your English isn't that bad compared to other Asians I've met.
Anyway, you know that the internet is full of preconceiving dipshits that like to act like professional psychologists. If that guy was as 'unbiased' as he said he is, he wouldn't have been so pissed off about my opinions that he had the need to project himself in here and call me a retard. Oh well.
""PSP3 will play PC games" I'll stop laughing in a few hours..."
It's PS3 dumbass. It has Linux on its hard drive, and you can emulate most if not all with "Wine". You can do the same thing on Xbox if you install Linux.
Enjoy your blue screens on LIVE while M$FT squeezes every last penny out of you so you can fully enjoy Halo 3 and another 2000 FPS games, which are basically the only games worth online for Xbox, while I enjoy better, complete games online (let alone several genres, not just FPS) for free on Revolution, PC or PS3.
MARIO @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
50% OF PS2 USER DONT EVEN USE ONLINE,SO TO SAY IT HAS TO BE FREE TO GET 50% YOU ARE A IDIOT.PS3 IS PVERHYPED SO MUCH IT A JOKE.TO BELIEVE I HAVE BEEN A SONY FAN ALL THESE YEARS.AT THE E3 SHOW I FINALLY SAW HOW EVERYONE ALWAYS SAYS SONY LIES.KILLZONE FOR EXAMPLE YOU SONY FANBOYS PROBABLLY STILL THINK THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE GAME.LOL WELL ILL TELL YOU ONE THING THIS SONY FAN HAS JUST BEEN CONVERTED.I WORK FOR EB I WAS AT THE EB SHOW LAST WEEK SONY WAS THERE JUST WITH VIDEO AGAIN.WE WERE LIKE GIVE ME A BREAK SAME OLD LIES.
OH YEAH IVE PLAYED ON LIVE ALOT AT MY LITTLE BRO HOUSE WE NEVER HAVE LAG PROBLEM.SO YOU CAN WAIT TILL NEXT SUMMER TO FALL FOR THE PS3 TO LAUNCH IN THE STATES ALL YOU WANT.REMEBER I USE TO BE IN DENIAL LIKE YOU SOINY FANS