Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: pokepal148 on February 17, 2013, 04:18:15 PM
Title: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: pokepal148 on February 17, 2013, 04:18:15 PM
[I have decided to bump this thread to provide some previous discussion we can use to address the larger topic of if Xbox Live is worth paying 60$ a month for, the original 'XBL vs on disc dlc' debate remains intact]
all i want for online services is online play, a store, and maybe voice chat.. i dont really care about the extras and i already have internet. what makes the xbox so special that i should have to pay a seperate fee just so somebody at microsoft can flip a switch and let me do things i can already do(and paid for) on the PS3 or Wii U(including online services like netflix that i'm also already paying for)
[here i pose the original topic discussion comparing Xbox Live to on disc DLC...]
Now to address the clickbait title... people complain about on disc dlc and that's exactly what xbox live charges for... locked features in your 200$ game system... at least on disc DLC has the DECENCY to be a one time fee
So i ask... WHAT MAKES THE XBOX SO SPECIAL THAT I SHOULD PAY 60 BUCKS A YEAR TO DO WHAT CAN BE ALREADY DONE ON PSN AND NINTENDO NETWORK....
Lets try to keep this civilized
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: ShyGuy on February 17, 2013, 04:28:59 PM
Nothing for me.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: NWR_insanolord on February 17, 2013, 04:32:19 PM
Xbox Live costing money is a relic of the way the market was 10 years ago. Back then Nintendo had no online presence, and Sony had barely any. Xbox Live was far and away the best console online service, and people were willing to pay for that. Over time Sony and Nintendo have largely caught up with Microsoft's service, but Microsoft has retained the fee because they can, because people are still willing to pay for it. It'll only become free if people start to jump ship to other platforms and stop paying for it.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: TrueNerd on February 17, 2013, 04:49:30 PM
Live is a joke. Especially in comparison to Playstation Plus.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: Morari on February 18, 2013, 10:15:30 AM
Xbox Live costing money is a relic of the way the market was 10 years ago.
Pretty much this. Console gamers never really seemed to understand the internet. Probably just another reason that something as great as the Dreamcast was largely ignored by the public. It was too far ahead of its time in many things, and coming with a built-in modem and decent online support was just one.
If your average Joe had his way, we'd all be using AOL again. Most people never leave their glorified portals, whether it be YouTube, Facebook, Xbox Live, etc. The world wide web may be more popular than ever, but the breadth of unique content has shrunk dramatically.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: ShyGuy on February 18, 2013, 02:07:51 PM
Xbox Live costing money is a relic of the way the market was 10 years ago.
Pretty much this. Console gamers never really seemed to understand the internet. Probably just another reason that something as great as the Dreamcast was largely ignored by the public. It was too far ahead of its time in many things, and coming with a built-in modem and decent online support was just one.
If your average Joe had his way, we'd all be using AOL again. Most people never leave their glorified portals, whether it be YouTube, Facebook, Xbox Live, etc. The world wide web may be more popular than ever, but the breadth of unique content has shrunk dramatically.
I remember when you could find all these unique pages out there like on geocities and what-not. I like cryptozoology, and you could find some unique stuff. The pages usually had ugly wallpaper, animated gifs, and no menu system. Used just clicked on the next page link on the bottom of the text. And USENet! There was all kinds of stuff on USENet...
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: broodwars on February 18, 2013, 02:51:34 PM
Pretty much this. Console gamers never really seemed to understand the internet....If your average Joe had his way, we'd all be using AOL again. Most people never leave their glorified portals, whether it be YouTube, Facebook, Xbox Live, etc. The world wide web may be more popular than ever, but the breadth of unique content has shrunk dramatically.
Ah...good ol' PC gamer condescension: making me glad to not be a PC gamer since the 1990s.
As for the topic at hand, I really don't see much difference between the two, either, and it's part of the reason I rarely use my 360 (that and not having a WiFi adapter). I'd actually argue that on-disc DLC is better than Xbox Live simply because gamers can choose to pay a small fee to unlock the content they want. It's still not a great practice, but at least the gamer can only pay for what they want on a case by case basis.
With Xbox Live, though, you're paying that $60 regardless of whether you want Netflix, Hulu, etc. or the vast majority of Xbox Live online play experiences. I can't just pay say...$5 to experience Halo 4 online for a year. No, I have to pay for content I don't want just to access the content I do want. It'll be interesting to see if Microsoft will still be able to charge a subscription fee for online play when they transition to the their next console, as services like PlayStation Plus give you so much more return on your investment without making you feel like you're locked out of content.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: TJ Spyke on February 18, 2013, 02:57:01 PM
At best, it's foolish to think on-disc DLC is the same or better than Xbox Live. At worst, it's moronic. On-disc DLC is content that is part of the game and locked away on purpose. Xbox Live is just optional multiplayer. And the service on Xbox Live is superior to PlayStation Network in terms of service and value (no, I don't consider being able to rent games a great value). You also don't need to worry about non-EA servers on Xbox 360 being taken down. No one is making you play online, nor is it part of the actual game (minus the few MMO's on the system like Final Fantasy XI, although you can play that without a Xbox Live Gold subscription). It's no different than MMOs that charge you a monthly fee to play the game even though you already bought it.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: NWR_insanolord on February 18, 2013, 03:57:35 PM
I don't think it's that crazy to compare Xbox Live to on-disc DLC. Making you pay a monthly fee to use services like Netflix that you're already paying a separate monthly fee for and that cost Microsoft nothing for you to use is a pretty lousy business practice.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: pokepal148 on February 18, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
At best, it's foolish to think on-disc DLC is the same or better than Xbox Live. At worst, it's moronic. On-disc DLC is content that is part of the game and locked away on purpose. Xbox Live is just optional multiplayer. And the service on Xbox Live is superior to PlayStation Network in terms of service and value (no, I don't consider being able to rent games a great value). You also don't need to worry about non-EA servers on Xbox 360 being taken down. No one is making you play online, nor is it part of the actual game (minus the few MMO's on the system like Final Fantasy XI, although you can play that without a Xbox Live Gold subscription). It's no different than MMOs that charge you a monthly fee to play the game even though you already bought it.
HOW IS IT BETTER... the server thing is the only decent argument i've heard (and correct me if im wrong dont pc gamers have a way to set up their own private servers anyway)
also if multiplayer is so optional friend codes wouldn't be a problem
and like i said. im paying for internet, i bought my xbox, i am subscribed to netflix
why do i have to pay to let a guy at microsoft basically flip a switch
but im happy we have a debate now
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: Morari on February 18, 2013, 10:02:21 PM
And to think, these big companies keep paying off their political-critters to trick you into thinking that net neutrality is bad. You already pay your ISP, you already pay a subscription to Netflix, but now you're expected to also pay Microsoft for the privilege of using your ISP to access Netflix? No thanks.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: NWR_insanolord on February 19, 2013, 12:34:04 AM
I don't think net neutrality would apply in this particular instance.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: TrueNerd on February 19, 2013, 06:13:35 PM
At best, it's foolish to think on-disc DLC is the same or better than Xbox Live. At worst, it's moronic. On-disc DLC is content that is part of the game and locked away on purpose. Xbox Live is just optional multiplayer. And the service on Xbox Live is superior to PlayStation Network in terms of service and value (no, I don't consider being able to rent games a great value). You also don't need to worry about non-EA servers on Xbox 360 being taken down. No one is making you play online, nor is it part of the actual game (minus the few MMO's on the system like Final Fantasy XI, although you can play that without a Xbox Live Gold subscription). It's no different than MMOs that charge you a monthly fee to play the game even though you already bought it.
Xbox Live - Pay to use services that are free literally everywhere else.
Playstation Plus - Pay to rent A LOT of games and the opportunity to buy A LOT of highly discounted games.
One of those things only looks like it's a service and value if it existed in a vacuum. The other one is an actual value.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 20, 2013, 05:25:08 AM
I happily pay for XBL because the quality of online play is noticably better than PSN. I also buy a lot of XBLA games when they go on sale, so I get those discounts.
Also realistically, it's always been $30-35 a year when you snag your cards off Amazon or whoever happens to be having a sale.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: pokepal148 on February 20, 2013, 07:39:57 AM
I happily pay for XBL because the quality of online play is noticably better than PSN. I also buy a lot of XBLA games when they go on sale, so I get those discounts.
Also realistically, it's always been $30-35 a year when you snag your cards off Amazon or whoever happens to be having a sale.
it makes since that xbl is faster because it uses a more unified server system then psn(or whats on the wii u to my knowledge) but it should still be 0$ a year. and why does a 'paid' or 'premium' service need ads
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: Louieturkey on February 20, 2013, 01:02:21 PM
and why does a 'paid' or 'premium' service need ads
Because they can. You look at shingi and he is praising their ads and I'm guessing he's not the only one.
I will say that I wouldn't be surprised if Sony followed suit with the ads on the PS4's UI. They do it because people keep buying it and playing it with or without the ads. So why not make a little more money?
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: TJ Spyke on February 20, 2013, 03:20:41 PM
I happily pay for XBL because the quality of online play is noticably better than PSN. I also buy a lot of XBLA games when they go on sale, so I get those discounts.
Also realistically, it's always been $30-35 a year when you snag your cards off Amazon or whoever happens to be having a sale.
it makes since that xbl is faster because it uses a more unified server system then psn(or whats on the wii u to my knowledge) but it should still be 0$ a year. and why does a 'paid' or 'premium' service need ads
Why "should" it be free? They are providing you a very good service, it's not wrong of them to have you pay to support it. I don't think it should be $60, but it's fine that they charge for it (and no, it is wrong to say charging for Xbox Live is worse than on-disc DLC or just as bad). And unlike on PS3, Xbo 360 lets you play even 5 year old games online (unless its a EA game).
Also, Xbox Live has very ads (like 1 or 2). And you still get ads on cable TV (despite paying for it), Hulu Plus (despite paying for it), magazines (despite paying for it). So you can't bitch about that because it's standard for things you pay for to still have ads.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: NWR_insanolord on February 20, 2013, 05:33:51 PM
What service does Xbox Live provide that isn't provided for free on other platforms?
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 20, 2013, 05:38:01 PM
Forming voice chat parties is one thing I think?
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: pokepal148 on February 20, 2013, 07:38:56 PM
lets take a basic look at the definition of on disc DLC... apparently nobody sees my logic in that comparison locked content on a video game that requires a seperate purchased to unlock
the xbox 360 features locked features on the system itself that require the use of a $60/year subscription to use
and thats on top of what you pay for the internet each month of that year(dunno about the net alone but a cable bundle type thing would cost around 720$ a year)
and netflix also(but i can use that on more then one device)
now considering that i have that to deal with that 60 dollars just because this one device sitting by your tv thinks its special lost it's welcome a while ago. and the dlc like i said has the decency to be a one time deal (dont get any ideas capcom)
At best, it's foolish to think on-disc DLC is the same or better than Xbox Live. At worst, it's moronic. On-disc DLC is content that is part of the game and locked away on purpose. Xbox Live is just optional multiplayer. And the service on Xbox Live is superior to PlayStation Network in terms of service and value (no, I don't consider being able to rent games a great value). You also don't need to worry about non-EA servers on Xbox 360 being taken down. No one is making you play online, nor is it part of the actual game (minus the few MMO's on the system like Final Fantasy XI, although you can play that without a Xbox Live Gold subscription). It's no different than MMOs that charge you a monthly fee to play the game even though you already bought it.
that part of the game is hopefully optional also nobody is making you buy the dlc the dlc is not part of the actual game
and online play is locked away on purpose to make you go gold..
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: TJ Spyke on February 20, 2013, 07:53:59 PM
Except online is not part of the game itself. On-disc DLC is done and complete, so you are not paying to download anything, you are paying to unlock something already on there. And if you play games online, Xbox Live is worth it
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: nickmitch on February 20, 2013, 09:00:08 PM
If they never told you about the on disc DLC, you never bought it.
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: pokepal148 on February 20, 2013, 10:18:28 PM
Except online is not part of the game itself. On-disc DLC is done and complete, so you are not paying to download anything, you are paying to unlock something already on there. And if you play games online, Xbox Live is worth it
im saying the ability to use xbox live is a part of the 360(and the ability to play online is a part of current and next gen systems in general) is locked unless you pay the monthly fee. you are paying in essence, to unlock the capability to play online that the system already has
xbox live takes the idea of 'on disc dlc' to a system level even capcom at least has the decency to make it a one time fee
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 20, 2013, 11:07:16 PM
Services are different from goods!
Title: Re: on disc DLC vs XBOX live fee: What's the difference? **DEBATE**
Post by: pokepal148 on February 21, 2013, 07:18:51 AM
and this particular service has similarity with whats on other platforms just because its a service automatically makes it different from od-dlc?
the issue is microsoft is the only one charging for what is pretty much an industry standard
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: pokepal148 on April 07, 2013, 09:13:40 PM
[this ends the original thread, now i can save nwr server space but we will begin the broad argument]
back in 2005 when live launched paying (then) 40$ for the only firmly established online gaming service around was a pretty good deal, Sony and Nintendo both had barely begun to dip their toes in that regard and microsoft was undeniably ahead of the game... the thing is that now both sony and even nintendo have their act together and offer their services for free, since 2005, the gap between the 3 services has gotten smaller(and Lives price point has gotten larger)
I have already paid for the TV and I could pay for cable, internet, Hulu Plus, Netflix etc. back when Live first offered them, there weren't many ways to get these things on a tv. now i can get a dvd player at bestbuy that can access these services and frankly, I dont like having to sign onto a subscription service to use a subscription service i already have...
times have changed and Xbox live is no longer worth it, and now tj spyke is going to be used as a counter argument
the service on Xbox Live is superior to PlayStation Network in terms of service and value (no, I don't consider being able to rent games a great value). You also don't need to worry about non-EA servers on Xbox 360 being taken down. No one is making you play online, nor is it part of the actual game (minus the few MMO's on the system like Final Fantasy XI, although you can play that without a Xbox Live Gold subscription). It's no different than MMOs that charge you a monthly fee to play the game even though you already bought it. Why "should" it be free? They are providing you a very good service, it's not wrong of them to have you pay to support it. I don't think it should be $60, but it's fine that they charge for it (and no, it is wrong to say charging for Xbox Live is worse than on-disc DLC or just as bad). And unlike on PS3, Xbo 360 lets you play even 5 year old games online (unless its a EA game).
thank you pal
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: nickmitch on April 07, 2013, 09:50:11 PM
They could stand to lower the price to be more competitive. But Sony still has a lot to prove after that big ass outage they had.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: pokepal148 on April 07, 2013, 10:20:44 PM
Individual accounts being comprimised is different from having their databases pillaged!
idk I think identity theft is a big deal, a premium service should have a premium security, and you are missing the big picture, this is what most malicous hacking looks like, a little thing here to get somebodys personal information and make a bit of cash...
the PSN hack was to attract attention on the whole geohot thing, anonymous gained nothing but that in the whole thing
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: BranDonk Kong on April 07, 2013, 11:34:01 PM
Is Xbox Live a ripoff? Yes. It is absolutely ridiculous to have to pay an extra $60 (their asking price, at least) in order to be able to use services like Netflix and HBO Go, that have absolutely nothing to do with Xbox Live itself.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 08, 2013, 03:05:49 AM
I actually just canceled my Xbox Live Gold subscription (or rather, turned of auto-renew) the other day. I only lasted as long as I did because of the small but very important online functionality I use in sports games, and now that I have a PS3 controller that doesn't suck like the standard ones do I'll just buy those games there. I have a Roku box I got for about the same price as a year of XBL which streams almost all the same stuff.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: BranDonk Kong on April 08, 2013, 08:33:29 AM
Wii U and PS3 for streaming here. Just found out a couple of weeks ago you can block the PSN server websites from your router and watch Netflix etc on a custom firmware PS3. You don't even need to be signed in on a regular PS3 technically.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 08, 2013, 09:15:02 AM
Not surprising, i was able to watch Netflix on mine during the great PSN outage.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: Louieturkey on April 08, 2013, 05:37:21 PM
Didn't Live actually start in 2002? Unfortunately, until people start talking with their wallets, Microsoft will continue to require this service. They made $1billion in 2010 on it alone. So why stop when you make so much money?
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: Mop it up on April 08, 2013, 07:00:20 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: pokepal148 on April 08, 2013, 07:38:08 PM
i'm not arguing that i'm saying why pay for what you can get for free on another system
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: SixthAngel on April 10, 2013, 01:25:36 AM
As someone who gladly paid for Live for the original Xbox, it is a huge ripoff. At the time it was the only way I could play with my roommates together online, and on the same tv was a huge bonus. My pc was crap and the market wasn't flooded with low spec games like it is today either. Even then I didn't like paying but I did.
Now paying for live is the mark of the gullible. PS3 has no charge, Wii gave free online play with fc and WiiU and PS4 will have the same services for free. At least the original Xbox had unique games like crimson skies and mech assault, even halo was still something special at the time. Now fps with halo mechanics are a dime a dozen and ms doesn't make the more unique games anymore that they can lock you out of.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 10, 2013, 01:43:32 AM
Sixth, I think it's a little naive to think PS4 wont charge for at least some of the services PS3 has for free. Sony is losing money badly, and their investors see how much money Xbox Live makes (while PSN has been a bust in terms of making them money),
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 10, 2013, 05:55:21 AM
That's why they started PlayStation Plus. I haven't seen any numbers on how well it's doing for them, but it's a way of generating money for mostly extra bonus things like automatic updates and cloud saves.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 10, 2013, 12:03:58 PM
I've seen this mentioned on NFR and other podcasts, but I think it's very likely Sony will start charging for stuff like streaming games. Maybe stop leasing so many free games. PS+ can only do so much for them when a lot of people spend less money thanks to it. I can't count how many times I've seen people avoid buying a game because they wait for it to be given out for free on PS+. Add in the various discounts on games, and the fact the Sony only makes about $5 a month per subscriber means its probably not a big money maker for them (especially compared to Xbox Live Gold).
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: shingi_70 on April 10, 2013, 12:54:27 PM
I've seen this mentioned on NFR and other podcasts, but I think it's very likely Sony will start charging for stuff like streaming games. Maybe stop leasing so many free games. PS+ can only do so much for them when a lot of people spend less money thanks to it. I can't count how many times I've seen people avoid buying a game because they wait for it to be given out for free on PS+. Add in the various discounts on games, and the fact the Sony only makes about $5 a month per subscriber means its probably not a big money maker for them (especially compared to Xbox Live Gold).
Its what I expect to happen as well. Sony looks at all of the free revenue that Microsoft gets from live subs and salivates at it. But I would consider Xbox Live to be a rip off. Though most people can find it for half aoff and If you use bing a lot you could easily live for free every month.
Still Microsoft is going t have to go hard on Next gen live and i'm expecting. -All of the social style features shown for the PS4 with some miiverse style component. -something similar to PS+ -Xbox Music Pass and Xbox Video subs added into it.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 10, 2013, 01:32:35 PM
I think people waiting to buy games because of PS+ is like people waiting to buy games because of Steam sales; it happens, but it's not widespread or a big enough deal for Sony/Valve to base policy on it. I think the service is right where it should be right now, and while it may not be a huge moneymaker for them, it is making them money. The important thing is people rave about PS+ and complain about Xbox Live, and that positive comparison is worth more to Sony than the money it brings in.
Title: Re: Is Xbox Live a Ripoff
Post by: Louieturkey on April 10, 2013, 03:41:38 PM
As a PS+ owner, I consider live a ripoff. I will also say that while I get a lot of free games, about 90% of them are ones I would have never bought otherwise and they turned out to be pretty good games.
