Microsoft defending Xbox Live price
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jun 26th 2007 at 3:25PM }
In their latest podcast, Microsoft's Gamerscore crew defended the annual price of $50 for Xbox Live. They spoke of bandwidth costs, tech costs, all different kinds of cost, and that the service is good for the annual fee -- and given the lack of options in the market, they are absolutely right. This is just the tip of the iceberg in an escalating situation that is sure to play out in a myriad of ways, two of them being: Either Sony and Nintendo get on board with the pay concept of Xbox Live, or consumers will no longer pay for the service once they have free online alternatives. With Sony's PlayStation Network being free and growing, the day of reckoning for how online console gaming will work in the future is coming. This same issue came up when Microsoft introduced Live on PC, the notion of PC gamers paying for services they received for free before seemed absurd. When Sony gets their online act together, if it ends up remaining free (and if they sell enough PS3s to put a dent in the market), then we'll get an idea of what the future will hold for console gaming online. Notice there's a lot of "if" and "when" in there though. We still have no clue what Nintendo is doing in the online space. Although the Xbox team is already in defense mode, it's certainly going to be a while before they actually need to worry, unless Nintendo springs some über online system out instantly and PS3s start selling like mad.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Phranctoast @ Jun 26th 2007 3:34PM
its not too expensive, but free is definately at a better price point.
Game Artist @ Jun 26th 2007 3:37PM
Now that MS is making all sorts of money of the marketplace, I dont really know how they can defend the cost of live.
thispaceforsale @ Jun 26th 2007 3:43PM
It is unfortunate Nintendo appears so reluctant to embrace online play. I think this, more then nextgen graphics will haunt them down the line.
As for MS, they should bundle marketplace points in with Live, say $10 worth. It will incite more people to go Live and also increase marketplace use. The last time I paid for live was when they offered 2k5 free with it.
Jason B @ Jun 26th 2007 3:40PM
I second that Phranctoast.
bearattack79 @ Jun 26th 2007 3:41PM
You get what you pay for. Free = No quality control.
Louis S. @ Jun 26th 2007 3:42PM
$50 a year. That less then buying a new 360 or PS3 game.
WoW will cost you $180/year at $15/month, in comparison.
jason @ Jun 26th 2007 3:41PM
@2
Because it is still far better then what anyone else has released. If there is nothing to compete that is free...why give it away.
deaftly @ Jun 26th 2007 3:42PM
you cant beat the service, and for the amount of content you get for around $4 a month, what exactly is there to complain about? look at what the competition offers for free, 1 or 2 demos a month and movie trailers, xblive gets you demos of just about every game, access to the video marketplace (sorry europe), and fantastic online gaming for 4 bucks a month, get a job whiners
vidGuy @ Jun 26th 2007 3:42PM
I definitely think Live will outpace both consoles in features, ease of use, and quality of service this generation. Those are things that you can afford to put more effort into when you are getting paid for it. I think that Sony and Nintendo will both attempt to eat away some of Live's dominance in online console gaming - Sony by getting a marketplace and lounge together, Nintendo by featuring classic games, new content, and simple online gaming. Neither will match Live with their features.
By next generation, though, we will either see MS lower the price, Live being offered for free, or Sony and Nintendo charging for online features. I hope it is one of the two options.
$50 is reasonable for a year's worth of online goodies if you utilize it. But when you look at it as another game you could be purchasing each year, it hurts. $12-$24 ($1 or $2 per month) seems like it would be a no-brainer. And here's the key: finding a price point that does not deterb any new users from joining. At $2/month, the service would be cheaper than your typical magazine subscription and would be an automatic buy for a lot more people.
Mr Khan @ Jun 26th 2007 3:49PM
It certainly isn't a disagreeable price,
serotoninzero @ Jun 26th 2007 3:56PM
I have no issue with paying the $50 a year. It's worth it to me. It also puts up a barrier from stopping a lot of unwanted players from messing up my atmosphere online.
baby sea tuna @ Jun 26th 2007 3:54PM
Dunno about Live for Windows but I'm on my 5th year of XBL and it's consistantly been worth every penny.
Josh @ Jun 26th 2007 3:54PM
You can frequently find discounts on 13 month Live cards. I've seen them offered for $40 at Circuit City quite often. That makes it $3 per month. I can spend more money on breakfast.
Mr Khan @ Jun 26th 2007 3:54PM
Wow it really cut off my post...
But anyway, it isn't a disagreeable price, you get compatibility with a great many games for less than $5 a month. That is insanely more value than subscription fees for the MMOs
My guess is they only defend it because they see Nintendo WiFi Connection catching up to them in number of unique users (its about 7 million WFC, 10 million LIVE). Despite how much better LIVE is, they feel threatened by the network service that is the laughingstock of online multiplayer services...
synce @ Jun 26th 2007 3:55PM
Sony's and Nintendo's online services are free because they don't offer even half the great features of Xbox Live. And people forget that there are two tiers of service (Silver and Gold). The free Silver version offers everything the Gold has except online play. But here's the kicker: with Xbox Live the servers will be up as long as MS is in business. With Sony's online network, the servers are up as long as the developer can afford it. So with Xbox Live in 10 years I could be playing the same game I'm playing today online, as long as I have friends to play with. I'm no fanboy, I'm just stating the facts.
Theta @ Jun 26th 2007 3:56PM
Never did understand why people bitch so much about the Live price point. As pointed out, it really is less than a game. The price is fine.
Coming from a PC gamer's perspective, the fact that it costs money at all is a bit of a turn off. However, objectively speaking 13 cents a day is just not that much money for a regularly used service.
Tim @ Jun 26th 2007 3:58PM
It's a wonderful service. I played around on PSN a few times now and it can't compare.
Why does everyone still make a big deal out of 50 bucks a year? Geez, people bought Spiderman 3 for 60! SPIDERMAN 3!!!
unoefe @ Jun 26th 2007 3:57PM
I have no problem with the yearly membership but I hate the way they're handling DLC. If a publisher wants to give away content, for God's sake, let them. It's called "building a fan base".
DBX00 @ Jun 26th 2007 4:05PM
I prefer free over $50/year. The majority of the features that people tote on Live are simply a result of having a more establish online network and not because of the subscription fee. I'm not sure what Nintendo has planned but Sony's offering will have comparable features over time for free. They'll make up the difference in other ways through licensing fees or profits from first party titles. People seem to forget that Sony and Nintendo are both software developers to a greater extent than Microsoft console department. Sony has proven that they can make a substantial profit by distributing first party content through their network and I think this will increase as they bring movies and music to the store. The infrastructure will pay for itself by simply selling your own content on the network. Regardless, I've used Live and the service definitely has features that are not on the PSN, but nothing in my opinion that's a deal breaker. We'll see where these consoles are in a year or two because I have a feeling that the current gap will become nonexistent.
mike @ Jun 26th 2007 4:05PM
I dont mind paying for my live subscription. Most of the time I find deals online or ebay or promotions and end up paying $20 or less for a years subscription.
Not bad compared to systems like the Wii, which are just now coming out with a shitty version of online play. no achievments, no friends lists, cant even paly with people again after you palyed one game. Each game has its own codes and stuff you need to enter. Thats not online gaming, thats more like doom online gaming back when nothing was uniform. Nintendo really needs to get its act together and make their system appeal to the older gamers with online play. PSN seems to be on the right track but its nowhere near xbox live standards. Perhaps in the future if PSN can match what xbox live has to offer, then M$ will be forced to make their service free.
Oh and MS trying to bring pay stuff into the pc realm is dumb at best. Why would pc gamers pay for anything like online play or even DLC when its always been free for them. Why buy horse armour for oblivion on the pc when you can download it free from site B.
Petrie @ Jun 26th 2007 4:05PM
I'm glad they charge, makes it less likely that asshats will hop online with 20 different accounts just to annoy other users. Yes it will happen, but it's much less likely.
And shop around a bit, I currently have my account ready to go for the next year and a half, and in total it cost me under $15.
sheppy @ Jun 26th 2007 4:05PM
I don't mind spending for Live... frankly speaking. However, as a multiconsole gamer, I fear when all three start charging. Then it won't be $50 a year, it'll be $150 a year.
Also, majority of the time, when they shut servers down on PS2, it's due to a large amount of inactivity. Seriously, everytime I went on TMB:O, there was always one game running, never full. Had issues finding games for Amplitude towards the end. Even RE:Outbreak, after hosting a game and waiting an hour for people to join, only one guy logged in. Whether I could still play Tetris Worlds on XBL is irrelevant to the idea of CAN I play?
Brian Spence @ Jun 27th 2007 7:50AM
I will never pay to play a game online. Ever.
alu @ Jun 26th 2007 4:10PM
$50 is really not that bad for the service they provide. in addition, you can easily find people re-selling 1yr Gold cards for under $50. I got mine for $32 for an email code that I purchased from a guy in anandtech's For Sale forum.
The real issue is the price of marketplace content, arcade games, game addon's, etc.
Rick Taylor @ Jun 26th 2007 4:19PM
$50 is a retarded price. Hell, I own more than 40 XBOX 360 games and I have only played one game one time online. Yet I'm paying for the other 364 days that I have not played a game online.
And there is NO WAY I'm going to pay $50 to play a game online that I already bought for my PC. And I'm CERTAINLY not going to pay $100 so I can play my $50 game on both PC and XBOX 360.
It's a scam and a joke. Nobody uses $50 worth of bandwidth per year for xbox. Not at the prices Microsoft's data centers pay for bandwidth.
Derek @ Jun 26th 2007 4:14PM
The biggest difference here is the infrastructure that MS has put in place for Live. Remember that MS controls and owns all the servers. If Live were to be free, then it would be up to the studios whether or not they will provide an online space for you to play. We'd also then have to find hosts and all that other stuff. It can become quite difficult. PC gamers have a bit different because there are people out there running servers for this kind of stuff. Will people be able to run Xbox 360 servers out there? I'm not sure about that.
Let's look at another game where the developers control the server - World of Warcraft. Last I heard, that wasn't free to play online. In fact, it ends up costing a whole lot more than Live would cost since you can only play a single game for that fee.
And don't forget about the Xbox Live Diamond program. www.xboxlivediamond.com
There's enough discounts there that you'll quickly make that $50 back in no time. Rent one (Game or movie) get one free from Hollywood Video, free sub with the purchase of another from Quiznos, etc...
And this program is free. It's totally worth it.
Digi Smalls @ Jun 26th 2007 4:14PM
the $50/ year did pay for all the early R&D that got us these features in 2005 that PSN still can't do in 2007.
that said, the time has come where we see ads everywhere on XBL and pay for tons of content, its self-sufficient now, and MS needs to finally drop that line.
.
Negativecool @ Jun 26th 2007 4:15PM
I can't understand ANYONE that defends the price. It is not an IMPOSSIBLE task to allow Live for free. Microsoft just doesn't see the need. And why don't they? Because of the dumbasses that are actually ARGUING TO PAY for it!
That's just business folks. It is not free because consumers allow it.
"Buh gee golly itsh jusht fifty bucksh!" That's great, as “cheap” as it is per year, if I have my 360's Live as long as I've had my PS2 that adds up to about $300...and if the 360 has as long a life cycle as the PS3 is claiming, that’s $500 before it's all said and done..."cheap" per year, but in the end that's $500 I would still have.
-Braveheart dub edition.-
“The prisoner wishes to say a word”….
“FREEEEEEEEEELIIIIIIIIIIVE!!!”
Jake @ Jun 26th 2007 4:18PM
It is worth it. The service is very nice and the competition doesn't quite compare.
At the sime time, I wish it were a little different the way you pay. Live Silver offers everything but online play and delays your access to some demos and free dlc. You have to pay for gold basically just to get online play, which is by far the most important component.
My problem is this. Most of Live's improvements over PSN are those found free in Silver. Where they are more similar, in playing an actual game online, the PSN is free while Live costs money.
Basically, the parts of Live that pwn PSN are free, yet you pay for the part that you get on PSN. On the other hand, all parts of Live are a bit better. But is that because Live costs so much more to run or because MS has just had longer to perfect their system?
In the end, the whole discussion of the cost of Live to MS and what the proper selling price should be is completely pointless. Companies want to make the most money possible. Live doesn't "cost" MS a penny. Hell, without Live a nice chunk of their userbase would be gone. If giving Live away for free could add 10 million users, it would "cost" them to charge for it.
Basically, MS feels their sweet spot is to charge the hardcores that care about online gaming a little tax, with the justification being that you can't get that quality of online gaming anywhere else. It makes sense from a business perspective. You just have to understand that this isn't a simple "well, it costs us $2 a month per user to support Live Gold, so we apply a standard margin and will charge $4.
Sony chooses not to charge for online because they feel they will make more total money that way in the long run. It is an easy way to claim superiority, "heck, we're free afterall. Why pay?" without actually being better. And they feel more people will buy more systems and give them more money if they have free online than if they charge.
I just get so annoyed when people come here and try to say "MS is greedy so they do this." You can claim something is a better value than something else, but don't ever call a company greedy. They are all greedy, so save your breath.
ANt @ Jun 26th 2007 4:21PM
$50 is very reasonable for what Live is....worth every cent in my book.
MegaMan @ Jun 26th 2007 4:27PM
I would pay double, even triple the price, it's so worth having. Microfost Vile is so arsome.
Shoot, I would pay $50 extra per game. I'm already paying $10 extra/per game for this generation of gaming.
And I think the Premium pack is well worth $399, shoot for 2005 DVD based technology? Microfost should be getting $599 easily. It's well worth it.
What 30% defect rate? It's about the customer service. Don't you know that?
Ocho @ Jun 26th 2007 4:32PM
@Rick
If you're not playing any games online, you may not be Xbox Live's target audience. $50 would, in fact, be too much in your case.
I play most of my games online and have friends that are also subscribed to Live, and $50 to ensure uptime and quality control seem to pay off in my experience.
David @ Jun 26th 2007 4:29PM
Why is the news picture that of an toll booth on the Mass Pike.
Retrofied @ Jun 26th 2007 4:29PM
#28 Then why the hell did you even get it? You didn't have to get a 1 year sub if you're only goign to be playing 1 day. And what about the 48-hour codes that some of your games should've came with, if you're the choosy?
Konny @ Jun 26th 2007 4:34PM
Xbox 360 users can seem to justify paying for anything:
$180 120gb HDD
$100 wifi
$50 multiplayer access
$200 hd-dvd dongle
$50 64mb memory card
$?? extended warranties
$140 for off warranty repairs (refurb units)
... anything i missed?
Ska Oreo @ Jun 26th 2007 4:34PM
like everyone said before me, XBL is worth every penny. And besides compared to paying $600 for a free online service, I think more people would rather pay $50 a year for XBL.
Ska Oreo @ Jun 26th 2007 4:35PM
@34
But the thing is, you don't have buy those things. Unlike Sony, Microsoft doesn't force all those things down your throat.
deaftly @ Jun 26th 2007 4:36PM
@30 , if you're going to post something sarcastic, at least make it interesting and/or funny
Josh @ Jun 26th 2007 4:36PM
"DBX00: Sony has proven that they can make a substantial profit by distributing first party content through their network and I think this will increase as they bring movies and music to the store."
Wait, Sony is making a profit off of PSN? Where did you see this? Link please. I'd be very surprised if this was the case.
Jason B @ Jun 26th 2007 4:38PM
@Konny...you forgot GAMES. Another 'OPTION' that you don't get with the PS3.
rfom @ Jun 26th 2007 4:45PM
Fact: For all the talk about "Live does better" - the PSN is fabulous at what gamers want - lag-free multiplayer.
Fact: there are 25 million XBOX1 and 8-9 million 360s out there
Fact: 6 million Live accounts
Fact: Obviously less than half of them are Gold (though MS hasnt revealed the number, just like they havent revealed the 360 defect rates - MS doesnt lie like Sony does, they simply refuse to reveal the truth)
Conclusion: 80-90% of XBOX1/ 360 owners have chosen not to pay for Gold, which shows how badly overpriced it is.
Cost of Live multiplayer (which is free with EVERY other gaming machine) for the short 4-year lifetime of an XBOX console = USD200
Thus cost of 360 multiplayer
= cost of bigger hard drive, blu-ray, backward compatibility, wi-fi, HDMI and far superior reliability AND equally good lag-free multiplayer on PS3
Who wants all that, we wanna pay USD200 for multiplayer so that we can contribute some more to MS for warranties, ovrpriced hard discs, etc, etc!
Josh @ Jun 26th 2007 4:44PM
Rick: "And there is NO WAY I'm going to pay $50 to play a game online that I already bought for my PC. And I'm CERTAINLY not going to pay $100 so I can play my $50 game on both PC and XBOX 360."
An XBox Live account is the same as a Games for Windows Live account. So if you have gold for XBox, you have Gold for Windows. You don't need to spend a dime to get Gold for Windows if you already have Gold for XBox!
As well, you can play online versus other PC owners if you have Live Silver. The only thing that Gold buys you on the PC is cross platform play with XBox 360 owners and matchmaking. That's it.
How many times does this need to be said before people get it?
Matt B @ Jun 26th 2007 4:45PM
SKA Oreo,
No one forced us to pay for a PS3. How is Sony forcing us to do anything? The PS3 has all the amenities of a suped up 360 FOR LESS. if you don't want to get the most out of your system, that is your call.
Digi Smalls @ Jun 26th 2007 4:46PM
gotta love it. xbox buyers are 'too broke' to buy an unproven $600 PS3, but 'crazy' for paying $50/year on the best proven online service in the industry.
hey at least PSN makes you use a bluetooth headset. that way you can call your friends playing another PS3 game at the same time and see if they want to join your game....
.
Digi Smalls @ Jun 26th 2007 4:50PM
should we be adding long distance rates from your phone bill for PSN?
Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 4:53PM
Wow! I haven't seen so many paid viral people post in one place at one time. Since when did posts have proper spelling, sentance structure, etc? This just goes to show that 60% of the comments that are tied DIRECTLY to one system are paid for. You know it to be true.
Lets look at Xbox Live Gold for a minute. $50 a year for online multiplayer, and a gamer score (points). Xbox Live Silver gives you access to all the same content, most of which costs $$ reguardless of your subscription. Gold should at least have discounts to the pay items. I had Gold for 13 months, it expired, don't miss it.
Jake @ Jun 26th 2007 4:53PM
negativecool,
People who pay for Live are not dumbasses. People who buy 360s are not dumbasses. I would not trade my last 1.5 years of 360 gaming for 6 months of PS3 or Wii gaming, despite having to pay for online. wtf do I care about $4 a month anyways?
It is like the saying goes, if you can afford the car, you can afford the gas. I afforded a $400 console, $400 worth in games a year or more, a $1700 HDTV, $30 a month to add HD programming, $20 Gamefly subscription, $15 batter kit, $30 extra controller (corded), $100 surround headphones so I can game when my gf is sleeping or studying, (Not mentioning what I've spent on the Wii), and you want me to give a crap about paying $4 a month for Live, when it is a better service than others offer.
I'd rather pay that than have to suffer through the PS3's lame gaming so far, despite its free barebones online. If you want a premium experience, you pay a premium price. Right PS3 owners?
For the record, I will own a PS3 eventually. I can afford it today, and want it, just don't want it enough to pay $600 to play Resistance and wait for Lair, Heavenly, Drake's, and other games that interest me to come down the road, especially considering the fact that Mass Effect, Bioshock, Halo3, and Too Human each look more interesting to me than any of PS3's exclusives.
Chainblast @ Jun 26th 2007 4:54PM
MS can achieve the XBL status quo without charging the users monthly/yearly fees to do so. They profit from content sales where developers would have you see it for free (Epic Games anyone?). These profits should more than cover XBL operating costs.
On the PS3 versus X360 note, people need to formulate their own opinions instead of just going on what they hear in pop-culture.
Evan @ Jun 26th 2007 4:55PM
"...the notion of PC gamers paying for services they received for free..."
Those services are never "free"! Servers and bandwidth are expensive, and the cost usually comes out of the price of the games. A separate fee keeps the cost of the system and games down, and more of a game's price goes to towards actually developing the game.
And, with a separate fee, I don't have to pay for services I don't use! I'm not interested in playing against a bunch of annoying puberty-boys who swear and screw up the game, so I don't pay for XBox Live Gold. I'm also not interested in arranging furniture in Sony's Home, but (if I bought a PS3) a part of every game I bought would go towards paying for other people's Home services.
JesseJames @ Jun 26th 2007 4:57PM
Japanese, UK, North America Brothers. Do not go near the Xbox 360.
Microsoft now receiving 2,500 broken 360s per day in UK alone:
Weblink to this headline = http://www.360-gamer.com/news.asp?id=1143
Furthermore.............
Massive Failure Rate For Xbox 360 Exposed
By David Richards | Thursday | 21/06/2007
Retailers are claiming that Microsoft has had to handle a failure rate of over 30% with their Xbox 360 console.
The Link:
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Home/D3Q7G8S2?page=1
Dudes; Beware!!!!