Comments on: Why Xbox Live gaming should be free for all

Don Reisinger thinks Microsoft needs to increase hardware sales by offering Xbox Live gaming for free. Should it?

[GeneOdyssey]

And Microsoft should also throw in the wireless nic somehow. Can't beat the PS3 with free online play and free wireless nic - these two items made me pick the PS3 over the xbox.

[RodKruse]

the benefits of XBOX Live are so vast and so much better than PS3 it's is only the fools that choose otherwise, do your home work alittle harder and you will see the ligh t(the Green Light) the fee is nothing to the enormous volume of games, video,s movies, tv shows,that are free on LIVE also the support and interaction are second to none, for the ill informed the PS3 and the Wii are fun but the XBOX LIVE is a MEDIA HOUSE with gameing as part of it, if you are lucky enough to have Vista Ultimate on your PC and XBOX LIVE on your TV with a Elite360 you can do everything that Tivo try's to do you can simplify and reduce your cost needs for all other media, wake up and smell the ROSE's and also remeber Gates is the biggest share holder of Sony staock's

[SupaHype]

I disagree. and i say this as someone who plays and has played on xbox live since the beginning. This comment seems to come from an individual that has not spent very much time with online consoles (not PC's). There are so many features that Xbox Live has over the competition that it makes complete sense. Even speaking to individuals who play games online on both PS3 and Xbox will tell of a much superior experience on the X. Sony is just now (in 2008) beginning to even offer some sort of comperable service. The wii has a light online core but isnt even comparable to XL... You cant watch movies on it.... that alone crosses the wii out of this argument. Microsofts XL network reaches out of just the console. When i can view my friends list from my xbox on my iphone before i get home then its worth 50. When i can download new content and even new levels(Halo 3, Oblivion) and characters (Marvel Alliance) into games, its worth 50. When i see real fresh updated advertising for new movies or products on billboards in the background of the games that i play (crackdown) its worth 50. I know what my friends are playing the minute that i turn my box on. and if i make and acheivement in some games, my gamertag is blasted across the top of the screen of anyone currently playing that same game in xbox live anywhere!!!! (PGR 3). sheesh.... ill pay 50 to get that over not even being able to recognize the differences in voices on a ps3 because the quality is so bad.

With no bias. Sony has acted so arrogantly as a company over the past few years and are really just now waking up due to low hardware sales and software exclusives jumping ship to xbox and the suprising sales of Wii. They EVEN stepped on SQUARE (dropping Hard drive Support after FF11 came out), one of the japaneese companies considerably responsible for their success.

Lets be truthful here. Wii earned its marketshare by offering a different play experience than XB and P3 and they are doing well for that.... But between the two X & PS, can anyone really truthfully say that the only advantage PS has right now isnt a Blu Ray Player. if its ps2 back compatability, i can get an XB and PS2 for the same price as a PS3, then also have XB back compatability. XBL continues to break through in the online department and give gamers more options. if i have to pay 50 for that then so be it... .i can tell you that through my 5 years of being on XL i have not regretted it once....

[RonInCharlotte]

RodKruse,

Sony is a Japanese held Corp and Bill gates is NOT their biggest Stockholder. Idiot.

[Vegaman_Dan]

He's got a point. I called Comcast and asked why they charge for network television when I could get it for free over the air or online and they told me to do that if I wanted to.

I tried using the same argument with my power company. They offered to disconnect my service if I really wanted to.

Strangely enough my cell phone provider also wanted me to keep paying them to use their service even though I could easily go to another commercial provider.

WoW isn't asking for much in a monthly fee, but they still ask for it.

I haven't figured it out. How come the world isn't free? Why should I have to pay for a service?

[Perry_Clease]

Oh my God! I agree with Dan on something. :)

[aztec92154]

T-mobile charges $4.99 for 400 minutes of text messaging (per month), so thats about $60 a year. I think XBOX Live provides MUCH more value than just sending text messages and its actually LESS EXPENSIVE. You get to download demo's (remember you used to have to buy the demo disks or get magazines to get the demo disks?), download movies, play head to head with voice chat, text messages, ect. Its worth the 14 cents a day (that's less than the cost of ONE text message).

[ender21]

The funny thing is the author isn't saying that consumers *deserve* to get something for nothing. He's saying that it would make *good business sense* to do it. I can't say I disagree with him, either. I'd probably pull the trigger on a second console if this were the case so my wife and I (or our friends) could game with each other from different rooms or with the general public on different games without spending $100/year to do what amounts to a rare occurance.

And besides, with hardware costs, ISP costs, software costs, etc., I would hardly feel as if I'm getting away with something for "free." (dastardly snickering)

But, you can be shortsighted if you want to just to stick to the principle that "no one deserves to get a service from a for-profit business for free." I just hope my company doesn't hire you for its business development department!

[Vegaman_Dan]

I do believe that Microsoft could easily afford to eat the costs of Xbox Live and use that to help encourage new customers. I'm not sure that would attract the customers they want though. People who only use free stuff are less likely to pay for other services offered through Live at that point. You might end up with a bunch of mall rats trashing the food court instead of paying shoppers.

[Hanniba_al]

If every other network television service was free would you still be ok giving comcast your money?

If every other house in every other state was getting free power from their power company would you still be fine with paying your power company?

If every other phone service company in the world was free, do you really think your cell phone provider would "still want you to pay them to use their service" even though they get fees after selling cell phones?

[darcydj]

Soon MS will get no longer recieve payment from me. I am looking for a good deal on a PS3 and once I find it I will only use the heade to head features of the PS3 games. Right now I would say with features and costs all being the same the PS3 is SUPERIOR.

[Lerianis]

"You might end up with a bunch of mall rats trashing the food court instead of paying shoppers."

Bad analogy, dude. Those mall rats "trashing the food court" are usually buying food from said food court, so the malls are getting money from them.
That is the main reason why the parents at White Marsh, Maryland threatened to sue White Marsh Mall if their children couldn't be there without parents: because they ARE usually there buying something, though not the 'big ticket' items they buy with their parents with them.

[sanenazok]

It costs them money to run the Online gaming service so I'm not surprised that they charge for it. I think this solution is the fairest. If I don't want to play online I don't pay for it, or I pay a modest fee to do it. If it was "free" MSFT would make us the costs somewhere. I'm sure Nintendo and Sony make up the cost of providing this service for free through indirect means.

[blsith]

"I'm sure Nintendo and Sony make up the cost of providing this service for free through indirect means."

For the PS3 and the Wii, they do not have a centralized hub (that I'm aware of) to do buddy matching and organize the best possible setups. The Wii only lets you talk to your "buddies", so you just have to match within that list. I believe the PS3 makes each vendor make it's own match making part, so it's not really centralized without all the same features across the board.

Microsoft's LIVE service really does a good job, and I think either having other bonuses for being gold (maybe 10% off all live purchases) would be just as inciting as making gold free. Give real value add to being gold instead of just the core functionality.

That plus let silver play in the non-ranked online games, just lock them from the ranked competitions. Give 'em a little something free to see how much fun it is, and then let them move up if they want to.

[joe bandit]

i agree

[lm2nlce]

"Sure, Sony might do the same thing and the Wii is already free, but neither service can contend with Xbox Live in terms of raw users and usability -- so far" ----------This statement is only true in the U.S. If you compared numbers of users the amount worldwide Xbox numbers would not be comparable. And as for usability this is incorrect. There is not one feature Xbox Live has that the FREE PS network has. Not on, im mpositive. In game messaging has been available for over two months now and that was the only thing. So this jounalist needs to get his fatcs 100% correct or i think hes writing articles in the wrong place.

[solcatcher]

I thought PSN lacked in-game friends list. I have not used PSN at all but everyone I know who has used both has said in-game and out-of-game messaging works better over XBL as well as playing with friends and clans. When the fall update to XBL hits, group chatting will return.

[Kwasiowusu]

Im2nlce : "----------This statement is only true in the U.S. If you compared numbers of users the amount worldwide Xbox numbers would not be comparable"

Wrong!
I think its you that had better check your facts. Worldwide, XBOX Live dominates both the Wii and PS3 in shere numbers, number of total downloads, number of games played, number of great games available, quality and quantity of content available(including hidef movies, TV etc), and in every way you care to mention.
The Wii online setup is a compelte joke. it does not even begin to compete. XBOX Live is vastly superior to the pathetic Wii online service. The Ps3 is better, but stil behind Live, which is currently the gold standard in console online, and has been for years.

[ChuckSlayer]

What Microsoft needs to do is build a new box that will last..they have the games and network..

[GeneOdyssey]

There you go, first things first, build a reliable console.

[wonder6oy]

Bingo.

You win.

[sadiesmom0509]

Microsoft should definitely be thanking the gaming gods that people are still willing to use their brick of a console. Show the loyal fans some love!
Our household consists of the 360, Wii, and PS3. Now we are wishing we bought RockBand on PS3 so we can give the 360 the boot!

[Kwasiowusu]

The 360 has a far superior line up of great games, and in greater quantities than the Wii or PS3. And XBOX Live remains far superior to the Wii or PS3 online service. You get what you pay for. I am not worried about paying 40 a year for the best online service in consoles.
When you look at the sheer number of games played on Live in Halo 3, COD 4, GTA IV etc, it totally dwarfs anything that the PS3 has. Live is one of the big resaons why people buy the XBOX 360.

[dmgm]

Losing ground to Sony? That statement needs to be put in context. Look at total units sold and there is no comparison. The PS3 will have to outsell Xbox by a wide margin for a long time to catch up. Nintendo is another matter, but making the games free won't solve that problem, plus the revenue lost is huge.

[t26l]

They are beginning to outsell the 360 by a large margin. Look at the sales by console release date on vgchartz. They were the same sales for a while, but the ps3 is obviously selling more than the 360.

[Grifter02]

+/- 20,000 per month is not a large margin when you're talking about millions of units.

[tracker2208]

I was dead set on getting a 360 shortly after Ninja Gaiden 2 came out. Free wireless was one factor that gave me pause ($100 is ridiculous). Other factors were Microsoft charging $180 for a 120GB hard drive when Sony lets you replace/upgrade with any old 2.5 SATA drive, Wal-Marts $100 gift card at the time, and Metal Gear. What really turn the decision for me was the $50/year for online play. I love online games, but I just don't play enough to justify the extra cost. I probably won't buy another system for 6+ years if ever, and the Xbox would cost me an extra $300+ at that point. Microsoft just loves to nickel and dime it's customers after the initial purchase. Although I think they should, I don't see them changing anytime soon.

[truth_serum]

Yeah, Microsoft should throw away $300 million a year in revenue, GREAT IDEA!

People that are unwilling to pay $40............. A YEAR ( biggest bargain in the business imho) would just be a bunch of bandwidth hogs and leeches dragging down the system.

What they really need is a price drop on the 60GB version, that thing is the killer app in this whole business, I love mine. (Once Netflix comes on line it'll become my favorite home appliance ever)

[initialj]

i don't think making the live membership free will sway enough fence-sitters for it to be a strategic move by microsoft. i agree that microsoft needs to do something aggressive in face of sony console sales gaining ground, but you can't compare them to the wii since their appeal isn't as wide as the wii.

with that said, after several generations of consoles have been cycled through, a lot of gamers have already developed brand loyalty, whether it be to the consoles or the games. ps3 sales taking off was inevitable, as its price was bound to drop. you have the thousands of ps3 advocates who didn't even own the console because it was too expensive, now being able to purchase them as they save up money or just finally caving in to their desires.

what should microsoft do? i don't really know. i do know that if they waived the $50 live fee now, they wouldn't be able to charge an online gaming fee for its future consoles (as easily). but as ps3's online capabilities improve, i wouldn't be surprised if they started to charge a similar fee, and sony will know that they won't turn away that many potential customers if they did so.

[mtherault]

Are you sure that you actually played games on Nintendo's online service? Unless it is past 10 at night it sucks. Most of the time I can't even join a mario Kart game during the day. I have never had that issue with xbox live.

I agree with a previous post you have to pay for what you use. You seem to also be forgetting that Sony, and Nintendo are new at the online gaming thing. Honestly I wouldn't be suprised in a year if you saw both of them actually start charging when they see the true cost of keeping the service alive. Not to mention what you are paying for is not only the online access, but also them making your xbox experience better.

[Hanniba_al]

Sony has had network play since the early days of the PS2. Always free. Don't say they are "new at online gaming". MS just made great. They did not start it on consoles.

[jherdt]

Don,

I really appreciate you bringing this subject up. I am a long time computer gamer rapidly losing my desire to continually upgrade my system/components to play the latest games. As I evaluate the differences between the PS3 and the 360; a free online gaming option on the 360 would probably make the difference for me. Take it for what it is worth Microsoft.

Best Regards, Jim

[Kwasiowusu]

YOu get exactly what you pay for.
Nintendo's online service may be free, but its total rubbish. Its not even on the same planet as XBOX Live which is superior in every way you care to mention. XBOX LIve has been, and remains the gold standard of console online setups.
I'd much rather pay a tiny $40 for the whole year, for the superd XBOX Live service, than waste my time on the pathetic "free" Wii online with stupid games that end in "catz" and "dogz" and other cutsie sounding shovelware.
Plus you can still use Sliver XBOX Live membership for games and video downloads, and pay nothing.
Microsoft has started taking the right steps for the non cote" gamers by bringing in Netflix, Xbox LIVE Primetime, XBOX LIve Party, which are all comming in in a few weeks.
Its much better to charge for XBOX Live Gold membersship, and use that money to slash the prices of the XBOX, than make XBOX Live free and keep charaing high prices for the 360.
After 3 years on the market, $300 for a 360 is simply too high.
After all, the orgiginal XBOX had a price cut from $300 to $200 within 7 months of launching. Today, after 3 years, the 360 Pro is still s selling for higher than the orginal XOX did at launch. hat's just not good enough. Microsoft has been to slow about shrinking chip sizes to 65nm and 45 nm. Last year they shrinked the CPU to 65 nm and still left the GPU at 90 nm. That is just not good enough. The faster you shrink ships, the faster you reduce your costs and the faster you reduce prices. Intel has been making 45 nm chips for over 2 years now, why can't Micrsoft even do a 65 nm chicp for their GPU already?

[Kwasiowusu]

The 360 is not "losing to Sony". Perhaps you'd better check Sony's rapidly falling sales in Japan. Less than 10,000 PS3 units sold a week in Japan, at a time when there has been a surge in 360 Japan sales, is hardly going to help the PS3 catch up worldwide is it?
The PS3 simply doesn't have enough Japanese RPG's, where the 360 currently dominates both the Wii and PS3 in JRP's.

[Don Key]

"I was thinking about the one simple fact that kept sticking out in my head: for now at least, I can play online with my Wii and Playstation 3 and the experience is basically the same."



Seriously, you lost all credibility right there and shows that you are the type of person that plays online once or twice a year so of course you would write this kind of article.

I'm sorry but no one would ever consider the Wii's online "basically the same" to XBL and PSN.

[massdestructer]

Personally, I have no problem with paying for Xbox Live, since in my mind the service is worth the price of a game. Of course it would be a great to have it free, but we are talking about Microsoft; it's not like they are know for giving away free stuff without making a profit. I think it would be a better idea if the cut it the price in half, charging only $25/year. Also remember that unlike Sony you can interact with Live on the Xbox.com and .net Passport. And I believe that they are thinking about adding purchasing Marketplace content online and your Xbox will download it. All this cost money, there are a lot more involved behind the scene, how are they suppose to get payed? Although PSN is getting better it still does not have the content Xbox Live has, and the features work a little better.

[blueteck2003]

I own both 360 and PS3, a number of times I tried to play Grand Theft Auto on the PS3 but I just was not feeling the love. The large majority of my friends have 360s and that is the motivating factor for my dollar votes. I have the original 60 gig backwards compatable PS3 but aside from playing dvds (Not even blueray) kinda seems like just another toy. I keep hearing about all the great games, but as I was born in San Bernardino CA ie American I have very specific games that I will purchase ie: Gears of War, Call of Duty, Yeah I know Killzone is on the way and I plan on buying ASAP but trophies came too late for me. I already am hyped on achievements. Little Big Planet (yawn) Racing Games (Yawn) I live on IGN and nothing in the PS3 inventory gets me off my ass to go and buy Sony And please dont start with those God awful ports, or crash and burn ( HAZE, WarHawk) Honestly we all know those games stank up the place.

[aztec92154]

Engadget just published an article entitiled: "Xbox 360 leaps past PS3 in weekly Japanese console sales" If anything, XBOX is GAINING momentum in Japan. SOURCE: http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/18/xbox-360-leaps-past-ps3-in-weekly-japanese-console-sales/

[Capi502]

The one reason why I prefer the per-year fee is because it prevents people from setting up multiple Xbox Live aliases (Gamertags) and changing identities constantly. People are more likely to pay for one "Gold" account and stick with it. If you automatically made everybody "Gold" by doing away with the monthly fees, the online community would become much more anonymous, and people would be creating more and more Gamertags every day. You would never know who you're playing with...

And honestly, when people pay for something, they're a little more cautious about the way they act online. Microsoft might not do a great job at policing the environment, but they do suspend/ban TOS violators.

And "deals" cost money. MS is constantly announcing new relationships with service providers. Netflix is the biggest, and that relationship probably cost MS a pretty penny. At the very least, we continue to get more and more for the service we pay for...

I say "keep charging".

[joelfranke]

What about the problems that, for example, the US is already experiencing with limited bandwidth across the board? If -- hypothetically and unrealistically -- 95% of 360's become live-boxes, Microsoft's as-of-right-now-quasi-stable network would be close to crippled. In increasing the number of users of a service, Microsoft will incur further costs related to expanding and maintaining their network infrastructure. While not all of the $50/month might go towards this hardware upkeep, at least a portion of it does. And there's little to no chance that the increased spending on features like the Netflix initiative will make up this loss. How is this a good idea? Microsoft looses revenue (read as "ability to expand and fine tune its existing technology/capabilities"), and Users loose functionality.

Even if you only use Live every Saturday for a year, your per day cost is under a dollar a day. My solution: skip the Dunkin' Donuts, pour yourself some cereal, and get your game on.