Xbox division posts $165 million profit in fiscal Q3 on strength of Xbox Live business

Aaaaand here........we.........go.

What about all of the Sony execs that are raising an eyebrow to this report?

Go f**k yourself. I gladly pay for a service that provides me with the content I'm paying for. It's something like 5 bucks a month, if you're not buying it on sale. Whooptief**kingdoo.

You sound like you're bitter cause you can't use Xbox Live on your Walmart-internet.

Yeah, I feel sorry for those that can't afford $4 and some change per month for the premier online gaming and multimedia service.

If Xbox Live offered dedicated servers improving online gameplay like MMO's do, I'd understand paying for it. Since it doesn't, I can't for the life of me understand where my money is going.

To that end lag is ultimately defined by your own ISP, which doesn't seem to care if you're on PSN, Xbox Live, or playing PC games like Starcraft. But of those three only one makes you pay for it....I just don't get it.

Unlike the Sony execs that are crying because they decided not to charge and have been bleeding money since the PS3 launched. The PS3 is an awesome machine but it's the Dreamcast of this generation.

"Dreamcast of this generation."

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. This is easily the most balanced generation ever... Well, except for the Wii. The Dreamcast was a failure, the PS3... not so much.

@MystileArmor, not bitter, I can get Xbox Live for half the price they sell here in Australia. I didn't mean for my comment to be flame bait, just that I've always had that feeling of being cheated since it doesn't offer much else apart from online play here is Oz.

Xbox live is cheap. No biggie. PS3 is free, awesome. Both are great systems. Both have their pros and cons. Let us all accept this fact.

It's alarming that people here don't know how Xbox Live works, yet the hoot and holler like they do and scream "IT SHOULD BE FREE!!".

Not everything in life is free. We should be happy Live is so cheap as it is.

Exactly, Jerry. I'm paying for ads and a P2P network.

It'd be one thing if Microsoft had kept their promise that we could always play older games, but now that that promise has turned out to be an outright lie...

I like PSN, but until they create a seamless experience complete with universal chat, parties, and voice messaging it's doubtful MS will feel any pressure to remove or reduce the Live yearly fee. And it's also doubtful that you'll convince many Live subscribers that their $4/month is being wasted.

I love getting down voted for telling the truth.

I'd say it's more about the universal chat than voice messaging, but both are nice. And parties was a huge addition to Live. The ability to group up, no matter what any of you are doing, and then to be able to send invites to the group is extremely convenient on every level. This way you can be chatting with friends that all playing different games at the time and then invite them to play an MP/co-op game like MW2 or Borderlands. Then each person can take their time getting to a stopping point in their own game or movie and switch over to the other game at their convenience... but can still be talking with the group the whole time. Again, maybe it's not worth it to you, but for most Live subscribers it is.

First off, Xbox LIVE's revenue doesn't come solely from users money that pay for LIVE. It's like magazines or newspapers - do you REALLY think your subscription alone pays for all that? If so, GET EDUCATED.

Second, pointed out in other comments, Xbox LIVE is basically a windows domain with roaming profiles. The infrastructure is very robust and unlike PSN, you can invite people to your game even if they're not playing it.

This is why an overwhelming majority of game comments are brushed to the side - many are just plain wrong and written by ignorant gamers who really don't understand the first thing about how business is run.

Well of course Jerry, but you miss my point.

The point is no amount of paying $50 a year for Xbox Live is going to make a better online gaming experience than the ones that are already free.

"But that is really the only difference between XBL and PSN."

And to address this question... no, voice messaging and universal chat aren't the only differences. I think universal chat and party system is the most important difference, but there are others. For example, a lot of Live functionality is available on the web. I can check and manage my friend list at XBox.com. I can also send messages and queue up downloads. This functionality is also being officially expanded to portable devices, though unofficial apps and web browsers have already enabled much of it anyway.

Then you have other minor differences like the Prime Time Channel with 1 vs 100. Yeah, PSN has Home and it has some games, but in all honestly I would trade the whole of Home for 1 vs 100 any day. Also, while both services allow you to see what games your friends are playing, Live lets me see if they're watching videos. This is a minor difference, but there have been times when I've seen friends online on PSN, but it didn't show them playing any games. So then I'm left wondering if they are busy watching a movie or actually available for gaming. There's a fair number of small differences like this that add up in Live's favor.

I somewhat agree with people speaking about the ads and all. Lately though I have come to like a lot of them. I get to see releases that I didn't see before, some pretty cool interview and game videos. Also there's the msnbc videos are occasionally entertaining. Zune is great getting to see good quality trailers. Lastly Last FM is a great service. I could do without Facebook and Twitter personally. All in all $5 a month is extremely cheap for the services provided on Xbox. I spent more than $5 a week on coffee. And the caffeine in that hardly lasts.

Yeah, that was actually added very recently. No messaging though AFAIK. Sony keeps improving PSN, no doubt, but that's why I think universal chat is key. Until they implement something similar MS won't be under any real pressure to reduce the Live Gold fee.

Yeah, I personally don't see the worth, nor the point, of subscribing to Xbox Live myself. Of course this is all based on personal preference. If the cost of the subscriptions is going towards server upkeep then XBL truly isn't worth it. Think about it. Microsoft pays your way even if you are a Silver member (free). But that isn't the whole story of the subscriptions now is it? Of course not. It's all about bandwidth issues. Who will pay for it and how much?

The difference between the two services, XBL and PSN, is that Sony charges the developers/publishers a bandwidth fee if they want to post anything onto the service. Whereas, Microsoft charges us, the consumer, instead. The solution?

Well, we've already seen what free online gaming can bring to the table and the differences between payed and non-payed services is similar in every way. What I mean is that video games on both of those platforms run just as well, or shitty, with the exclusion of features, but that is for another day - features. So back to the point. Ad revenue would be the way to go, which of course, Microsoft is banking on hand over fist on top of user subscriptions. Now tell me. Is it still worth paying for a service that clearly can be done for free? I don't - but that's just me.

I get your meaning Jerry. Those ads are easy to just scroll over so they don't bother me much. The ones I don't like are the full motion/audio commercials. Those get annoying =\

The web browser, as rough as it is, is probably the one online-related feature that Sony has over MS.

@Traceur_Ryuk

It's comparable to the Dreamcast from a profit perspective. Sega had a very powerful machine but it didn't make them any money and cost them their hardware business. The PS3 will eventually start to make Sony money but how many billions of dollars will they have lost until that point? It's going to be hard for them to recoup their losses. Sony has the advantage over Sega's situation because it has the financial success of the PS2 and Sony as a whole is a powerhouse for electronics to get them through it.

The bottom line is that the PS3 is an expensive machine to make and charging for PSN would have helped them tremendously financially. Xbox Live has more than 20 million members paying around $50 a year...you do the math and tell me that Sony wouldn't like a piece of that cash cow.

Xbox Live needs an option for users who ONLY want to play games online for free. That way anyone who actually wants the voice chat, the party stuff, the netflix, and .... facebook? can have it for their $50 a year, and I can happily play Street Fighter without the annoyance of paying for a P2P service I get on the PSN for free already.

I also find Xbox LIVE marketplace better organized, everywhere you see a game icon, you click Y and you can go to its marketplace page. PSN store is a seperate application and you can't access XMB in it, I think that was a design flaw, I actually was reluctant to browse PSN store because of this.

@Josh

The Dreamcast story is far different than that of the PS3. It's actually not comparable at all. The Dreamcast had several issues facing it upon launch. Firstly, Sega was so in debt and bleeding money that they literally needed the entire gaming community to buy a Dreamcast to break even. Second, the Dreamcast ran on CD's, and gamers and developers knew the future of gaming was DVD's.

The PS3 on the other hand was a gambit from the start as Blu-Ray wasn't previously established like the PS2's DVD's were in a better position before the PS2 came out. PS3 was expensive, very expensive. It came out a year later than the 360 also. At the time, there were no selling points for the PS3 over a 360, literally none other than the gamblers who thought Blu-Ray would win (which it did =) ). Sony also had the funds to support the PS3.

Lastly, they weren't morons like Sega who released a system on the idea that a miracle would occur to keep them financially viable.

My personal excuse: Able to play some genre of games online with a 360 controller: worth $20/yr ;)

@acefondu

"Xbox Live needs an option for users who ONLY want to play games online for free. That way anyone who actually wants the voice chat, the party stuff, the netflix, and .... facebook? can have it for their $50 a year, and I can happily play Street Fighter without the annoyance of paying for a P2P service I get on the PSN for free already."

Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. The last thing we need is a lot more people in online games that can't talk to anyone. That's one of the problems with PSN online games. It's due to a different reason, the fact that PS3's don't come with a free cheap headset, but the end result would be the same.

The Dreamcast did succeed in one area, which was to bring Sega's name out of the toilet after the Saturn.

Of course, after Okawa died the company turned right around and devalued it again, so...

I disagree Vid. More often than not, I would much rather NOT talk to people online. I much prefer peace and quiet than listening to a bunch of 14 year old kids who've just discovered the latest racial slur. If I have my own group of friends to talk with, then that's fine I'll go get a headset.

But hey if you feel voice chat is worth the $50 a year, that's fine too, I just happen to disagree.

...But wait, really? You don't want to play games for free online for fear of "some random people won't be able to say "lol, ggs man" to me" ???? That is so ridiculous to me...

@acefondu

You can disagree on a personal level, but you won't get much agreement overall. If you ask most PSN users what they want most they'll say cross game/universal chat. If you ask them what their biggest problems with playing games online with the PS3, many are going to say that no one talks. Seriously, it cripples games like Warhawk. As fun as the game is at times, most of the matches devolve into a chaotic mess because so few people can talk with one another. Hell, I seen quite a few PSN users state that they party up on Live to play games on PSN! That's just sad really. Besides, you can always mute everyone anyway. Your issue is no issue at all.

"...But wait, really? You don't want to play games for free online for fear of "some random people won't be able to say "lol, ggs man" to me" ???? That is so ridiculous to me..."

Haha... if you actually think that's the reason people like chat in games you clearly don't understand online gaming at all and it isn't really worth anyone's time discussing the issue with you.

I don't see how my issue is any less of an issue than yours. You cite nothing, saying "most PSN users" who are these "most users" you speak of? That is your opinion. I'm a PSN user and I don't care if I can talk to my opponent in Street Fighter or not. I'll happily not want to hear their complaints of "laaaaaag" or "that's bs!" which is often the only speech you hear in that particular game.

But here's the rub, it depends on the game as you have subtly stated. You bring up Warhawk which is a game that benefits greatly from voice chat. The fault is in the gamer who does not get a headset to talk with others online. The PSN DOES have voice chat, it is free, and what's the point of having cross voice chat if the goal is to discuss strategy in the game you're already playing?

This leads me to the conclusion that your issue is also a non-issue, but it's a non-issue to me.

Testing...

Dammit, I typed out a lengthy reply, but for some reason the comment system keep telling me to check my email for an email that never arrives.

@acefondu

I didn't say Sony was this generation's Sega, I said the PS3 was this generation's Dreamcast. The Dreamcast was ahead of its time in technology and ended up costing Sega a lot of money which at this point in time, is comparable to what the PS3 is doing to Sony. That was the only comparison I was trying to make. To add on that, I said that Sony should have charged for PSN from the start so that they could have absorbed some of the cost of the hardware.

I hate when that happens Vid.

And Josh, the Dreamcast was not ahead of its time. It used CD's! Your comparison is a stretch at best. A better comparison would be to call it the Gamecube of this era as it was solidly in third place as is the PS3. Really though, it's very hard to compare any generation of gaming to another.

How many times do I have to try and post this?? FU Joystiq comment system!!

Your issue is no issue because you can mute voice chat. Done. Issue solved.

And if you want to see PSN users asking for cross game chat just check out the comments about the latest firmware update:

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/04/22/ps3-3-30-system-software-update/

That's the EU PS Blog. It doesn't take but until the 3rd comment for the chatter about cross game chat to start.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/04/21/ps3-3-30-system-software-update/

On the US blog they managed to stay discuss the trophy changes for most of the first page, but by the second page you start seeing more and more posts about cross game chat. It's like this every single time a new update is released. It's easily the most desired feature among PSN users that play games online.

I brought up WH because you said online play and voice chat should be offered separately. I can tell you from first hand experience playing online games on both networks that having large groups of people unable to chat degrades the experience for everyone. While a handful like yourself may not care if coop and team games go to hell, those of us actually paying for Gold wouldn't appreciate having our experience degraded.

And I bet if you ask those same people if they would pay $50 a year JUST to have cross game voice chat I bet they'd lose a lot of support for the option. But nice links all the same, it's good to see you weren't just pulling it out of your bum.

"Your issue is no issue because you can mute voice chat. Done. Issue solved."

And to your issue: "If you ask them what their biggest problems with playing games online with the PS3, many are going to say that no one talks."

Buy a headset. Done. Issue solved. Oh, and btw you still don't have to pay $50 a year for voice chat.

Seriously though, if that's the one issue we're honestly arguing about, cross game voice chat, for $50 a year, that is really not something I would ever pay for. Enlighten me, what is the benefit of talking to someone about how their Modern Warfare 2 game is going if I'm in the middle of a Street Fighter match? Honestly I'm curious to know the point of that.

Here's another fix, if the group of friends you honestly want to talk to outside of gaming, talk to them on Skype. That's also free, and you get unlimited voice chat even beyond gaming itself.

"While a handful like yourself may not care if coop and team games go to hell, those of us actually paying for Gold wouldn't appreciate having our experience degraded."

I don't understand....we agreed on this no? What your problem is you don't see who's at fault for this. Is it PSN's fault that people aren't getting headsets for co-op games? Is it the Network's fault? No, it isn't the network's fault....so where's the $50 going?

That's all well and good, but I can't make other people buy a headset. You can make use of mute yourself. Sony should have definitely included a cheap headset with the system. I'm afraid that even implementing universal voice chat won't solve all of PSN's issues, but it is the one major feature people keep asking for above all others.

Would they pay? I don't know, but I bet many of the serious online players would. Maybe not $50 though since the headset issue is still there.

"I don't understand....we agreed on this no? What your problem is you don't see who's at fault for this. Is it PSN's fault that people aren't getting headsets for co-op games? Is it the Network's fault? No, it isn't the network's fault....so where's the $50 going?"

Two different issues, but both of Sony's making. First, they didn't give everyone a headset nor offer any easy way to use cheap wired headsets. Second, no universal chat or party systems. Both cripple large MP games. The headset issue is likely one we'll have to live with the other will hopefully be resolved eventually.

I believe our disagreement is simple. I don't care that not everyone has a headset for PSN and you do care. But does everyone with a headset on the 360 use it? I would imagine some break, get lost, or there's people that simply don't use it. Also, co-op games on the PSN that largely require headsets such as many of MW2's multiplayer games will often kick players that don't have mics thus solving the issue before it becomes one.

Which is why I feel my conclusion was right. Both our issues are non-issues, but they are important to us anyway. lol.

For me though, games I play online I don't need headsets, ie Street Fighter, Blazblue, and when I do play Call of Duty I don't play the heavily involved team modes because, like I agreed with you earlier, those games really do need headsets.

But again I was really curious to know the benefit of cross game voice chat? You said PSN doesn't have a universal "party" option well that' just not true. I used the chat parties for Street Fighter. It's not voice chat admittedly, but it works all the same. It houses up to 16 players and they can be playing any game, or even watching movies. It's not Voice chat admittedly, but since the point isn't to be playing the same game the immediacy of getting and sending information isn't as imminent no?

No, not everyone uses a headset on Live and certainly some people just don't talk, but pretty much anyone that plays like WH on PSN and also plays on Live can tell you the difference is night and day. You may literally only have 2 or 3 people chatting in a 32 player Warhawk match, while in a similar game on Live may have that many not talking. There's just no comparison. Yeah, it means you have to sometimes put up with 12 year olds calling you racial slurs, but you can make use of mute at that point. In the end I think it's better to have more people chatting than not.

Cross game chat just makes everything work so much smoothly. For example. whenever my friends and I plan to meet online for a game of Borderlands we often get on live at different times. One buy might be online playing a different game an hour ahead of time, another 15 minutes, and someone else might show up late. Well, as we all come online we can all join the same chat. In fact, since they are on my friend list they can join the chat without even being invited. Eventually we're all online doing different things but still able to chat. Then one of us can start Borderlands and from either an in-game menu or the Guide button menu send an invite to the entire party at once. Then, at each person's convenience, they can find a stopping point whatever activity they are doing and accept the invite. Plus, other friends can pop into our chat at any time and talk to us, ask if have room for another player, etc...

It's just so utterly seamless. PSN is so disjointed and non-user friendly in comparison. Is it worth $50 to have that plus all he other extras we've talked about above? I guess that's up to you. But until PSN implements something similar I think the price is worth it. Almost all my friends game on Live because it offers a more seamless service and thus that's where I buy all my cross platform games... and I really do love my PS3... but PSN just isn't on par.

What would really bebest for everyone is if Sony could get universal chat implemented either for free or a smaller fee than Live. I think at that point MS would be forced to either reduce their Gold fee or add something else substantial. But until that happens I think Live Gold fee will remain the same. MS knows people love their seamless service and are willing to pay for it.

Anyway, I'm getting ready to leave work. I'll read any replies you write later tonight... if I'm not on Live in a party ;-)

Well put. I see your perspective.

I guess one thing that will continually annoy me about MS though, is that I have Gears of War on PC and can't play online because I don't have a "gold" account. But I can close that game, flick on Team Fortress 2, or Starcraft (soon to be Starcraft 2) with no "gold" account needed and play online. It's so dumb.

Congratulations. You guys hijacked the first page again.