Should xbox live be free??

SuB-Zero_Ire

So should xbox live be free??
some of my mates think it should as there're makin enough money out of d sales of the consoles and games that they should make live free.
but if the live was free the quality of servers would drop and the whole service wouldnt b there, its not like it costs that much!

What do you think??

xanthor

My main fear is that it would reduce Xbox live to something equivalent with the Playstation Network.

ShaneU

Yes god forbid the quality of the servers doesn't drop :rolleyes: They don't even have servers, it's all peer-to-peer.

conzy

Of course it should be free, what do they offer that is worth paying for?

keen

I think MS have lost money over all on the sales of consoles due to constantly having to repair faulty ones.

I don't mind paying a year at the moment, but if the PS3 was to take off and the online service was as good as Live I'd start to question paying it.

Benzino

Yes, it should be free. The only game I want to play online is GOW, and they don't even host any servers for it. I'm not gonna pay to play on laggy servers, no chance. As a result, I don't play online on the Xbox. Shame really.

The PSN may not be great, but anytime I want to play Resistance or Warhawk online, I can do so with no problems what so ever, lag-free and no charge.

DarkJager

No I don't think it should be. I'm more than happy to pay the yearly fee for access to a quality service like Xbox Live.

SuB-Zero_Ire

Its there own fault that they've had to repair so many as the used the cheapest part they could get for the spec they wanted. my friend works in a comp shop and over half of the arcade version came back with faults and i no loads of ppl who are on there 4+ xbox over all the faults. I've the pro and luckily had no probs yet.

keen wrote: »

I think MS have lost money over all on the sales of consoles due to constantly having to repair faulty ones.

nevaeh-2die-4

No its shouldn’t be free!!!

Sony are living proof that live for fRee isn’t the way to go.

Ms will get my 60e each year without a problem.

Ms are constantly updating the stores and arcade games videos etc they offer video chat voice chat

Try do that on Sony...

Then you will realize ur 60e is well spent!

FuzzyWuzzyWazza

DarkJager wrote: »

No I don't think it should be. I'm more than happy to pay the yearly fee for access to a quality service like Xbox Live.

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

No its shouldn’t be free!!!

Sony are living proof that live for fRee isn’t the way to go.

Ms will get my 60e each year without a problem.

Ms are constantly updating the stores and arcade games videos etc they offer video chat voice chat

Try do that on Sony...

Then you will realize ur 60e is well spent!

+1

arch_stanton

I think I get good value for my €60. I´ve been on live for 3.5 years and apart from a couple of days last december when there were general problems it`s always worked fine. Demos and DLC download quickly. My friends list, chat etc. works seamlessly across all games.

My only complaint is that in my neck of the woods the video marketplace isn´t available yet :-(

keen

SuB-Zero_Ire wrote: »

Its there own fault that they've had to repair so many as the used the cheapest part they could get for the spec they wanted. my friend works in a comp shop and over half of the arcade version came back with faults and i no loads of ppl who are on there 4+ xbox over all the faults. I've the pro and luckily had no probs yet.

Of course it's their own fault, I wasn't implying it wasn't.

smcelhinney

Conversely, would a paid-for PSN Network be better than XBL (not immediately, per sé, but in the future).

FWIW, I think it would. I think Sony's willingness to embrace standards-based technology such as Bluetooth, Linux etc, will ensure that they are always leading edge. It will also attract more third-party interest, where historically XBL and M$ haven been proprietary.

Thoughts?

Jay P

In fairness you'd pay 60 quid for a game, so I've no qualms about paying 60 for a pretty good online service. It is a bit steep for my liking but look what getting a free service with the PS3 gets you. I'm happy with my Xbox live subscription

mickoneill30

smcelhinney wrote: »

FWIW, I think it would. I think Sony's willingness to embrace standards-based technology such as Bluetooth, Linux etc, will ensure that they are always leading edge. It will also attract more third-party interest, where historically XBL and M$ haven been proprietary.

Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure Sony wouldn't be embracing standards if they were still number 1. When you're the leader you can do what you want. When you're behind, generally you'll see companies being more friendly to customers to try and get more. I'm not saying it's nice, it's just capitalism.

MS can charge for the online product as they're the better product at the moment. If Sony / Nintendo catch up, MS will either drop their prices or the other companies will start charging. I would be pretty sure that Sony want to charge for their online offering. Microsoft are making a fortune off Xbox Live, and why not? People are willing to pay for it.

With that said though what's the big problem? How come Sony are having a hard time catching up with Xbox Live. I'm obviously missing somthing but it doesn't seem that complicated (for a huge company, with piles of resources).

voxpop

The PC world has had online gameplay for free since the beginning and the pc community is the meter by which all console services base themselves - Day of Defeat, WoW, CS, battlefield,etc are all examples of how the FREE pc multiplayer service is miles ahead of anything on consoles. The PC online experience has actual servers, no depending of some fool with a shyty connection. It has millions of users, a decent modding community, team speak way before xbox live.

MS and Sony are just copying a phenomenon that arose from PC gaming and exploiting it.

zAbbo

Meh, costs 30euro a year

armour87

zAbbo wrote: »

Meh, costs 30euro a year

Go on...

Dman001

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

No its shouldn’t be free!!!

Sony are living proof that live for fRee isn’t the way to go.

Ms will get my 60e each year without a problem.

Ms are constantly updating the stores and arcade games videos etc they offer video chat voice chat

Try do that on Sony...

Then you will realize ur 60e is well spent!

But online on the Wii is free and that is turning out okay. Sure it may not be that popular but when Brawl and Mario Kart come out it will become quite popular.

zAbbo

armour87 wrote: »

Go on...

eBay ftw

Fingleberries

Dman001 wrote: »

But online on the Wii is free and that is turning out okay. Sure it may not be that popular but when Brawl and Mario Kart come out it will become quite popular.

On places like Kotaku and Joystiq there are loud rumblings of Brawl not being able to connect properly online, and Mario Kart only has text chat - on the menu screens, not even in-game ()link)

They even joke about how to get in-game chat - all you need is one Xbox 360, start a private chat, then turn on your Wii to play Mario Kart.

I understand both sides of the argument - MS Don't actually have (m)any servers hosting multiplayer games, so the service is essentially peer-to-peer bar a few games that are hosted on servers. Therefore paying for peer-to-peer seems a bit steep.

On the other hand for your cash, they do a number of things that are more in the background and taken for granted - all the matchmaking and that sort of thing. There is loads of stuff that their 'Scary Math Guys' do in the background to try to ensure Also, I presume the cash is subsidising the whole download scene for Demos and the like. MS aren't a charity, so it's not for the warm fuzzy feeling that they do all that.

Personally I don't mind paying for the service - it's generally slick, and hasn't had many hiccups over it's history. It gives a consistent feel across all games, so you'll know what to expect. (Albeit I get a cheaper sub off eBay - I mightn't mind, but I'm not mad. Why pay more than you have to because we're in Ireland )

Of the competition (PSN and Nintendo Wi-Fi) they both seem to be fragmented - you're not guaranteed voice chat, text chat, leaderboards; the matchmaking system is probably different depending on the developer; It's just not a consistent experience.

Microsoft do have a headstart on them, which is probably why they are so far ahead in terms of service. Sony are trying to claw back ground with their 'Home' that they'll launch eventually - I'll hold judgement on that until it's released, maybe I'm the wrong generation but I don't see the point in buying furniture and decorating my 'home' when I should be using the machine to play games, and use my cash to buy games or DLC for a game. We'll have to wait and see.

You can bet that Sony would charge for their online service if they could. They were just sickened that MS beat them to the jump, and then they were forced into the position that the only way they could pitch their PSN Service was that it was free - even with that, I'm sure there are a number of bean counters in Sony still looking at ways to charge for it, with microtransactions and all that, but still call it 'free'.

Whatever happens if PSN and Nintendo Wi-Fi start to become a serious threat to Live, then all the better because the competition will either force more competitive prices or innovation and newer, cooler features. Eventually a win-win situation.

Stephen

Coming from a PC gaming background it absolutely should be free. Most popular PC multiplayer games have been available to play for free on high quality dedicated servers for a long time, not some unreliable p2p ****. This is also useful in the case where you have the likes of EA simply switching off the online services of old games that don't make money for them any more.

Don't get me wrong, the 360 is my favourite console and I like live but it should be free to play the games you paid money for online. They make plenty of money from DLC and arcade games and stuff anyway.

silvine

Not every PC online game is free, WOW requires a subscription fee.

There are a lot less PC games coming out these days than on XBox 360. Developers more money from console games, which ultimately means they are going to develop multi-player on consoles as a priority.

Mutliplayer on the PC might be the benchmark by which consoles judge themselves but big online successes like Halo and Gears of War are coming to the console first and the PC second. Gaming online with your console can easily compete with PC multiplayer these days. T

The only two places where the PC really still is head and shoulders above the competition is MMORPGs and user-generated content.

Xbox live is a good service and really is far ahead of PSN. It's easy to use and geared towards gaming and has a host of regularly updated content. However, Microsoft could do a little more to justify their fee. How about the ability to join clans or even an integration of tournaments into the dashboad? It would be nice if you could win things too, and achievement points could be developed further. Plus, user-generated content or mods could be introduced such as seen in Halo 3's forge.

Anyway it's still cheaper to game on the Xbox than the PC. A PC that can play Gears of War is far more expensive than an Xbox with a subscription fee.

Personally, I'd love if it was free but I'm quite happy with service (for now) so I'll continue to pay the €60.

mickoneill30

One bit of console online playing that really annoys me is that for many games that you have to have Xbox Live to play multiplayer. I've got two 360s. I want to play C&C or Burnout on the two machines with real friends that come over to the house. To do that I've got to have 2 Xbox Live subscriptions. That's a bit crap. I know many games allow you to link consoles on the same LAN so it's not for them all but it's annoying for those that do.

Scruff

would obviously prefer if it was free but seeing as it isnt i'll be going to ebay to get my next 12 months subscription.

Frontlines: Fuel of War is the 1st 360 game i heard of that uses servers and therefore supports games of up to 50 players. Hopefully this will be the way forward for future games.

mickoneill30

Command & Conquer 3 uses servers for something. EAs servers were down one weekend. While I could get onto Live it was popping up a message saying the EA servers were unconnectable.

kaimera

I've only recently ventured into XBL but was really happy with the experience. Right now I'm trying to work out the right time to use my 3 month sub so I can get the best of out it. Work commitments mean I can be gone for a good while so I dont feel like paying for a yearly service that I wont use enough.

Dont mind its not free but would like some dedicated servers. Hell MS could host some in Ireland!

Evolute

kaimera wrote: »

Dont mind its not free but would like some dedicated servers. Hell MS could host some in Ireland!

Microsoft do something for free??? haha Share what ever you have been smoking man I want some:D

It would be nice for it to be free but it will never happen the only way they would make it free would be if everyone stopped paying and that aint gonna happen

Bubs101

I don't have a problem with it not being free but I do have a problem with MS forcing me to pay through my nose for a wireless box. I'd be alot happier if you got a free 6 month membership with that