Why Xbox Live gaming should be free for all

Ntruder · 08-19-2008, 10:50 AM

Good Article on CNet
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10...&tag=cnetfd.mt

Over the weekend, I spent some time playing online. I did so on Xbox Live and through games on both my PS3 and Wii. All the while, 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.

And considering Microsoft keeps losing ground to both Sony and Nintendo, why not find a new way to offer a more compelling alternative out of the company's most popular service?

Sure, it sounds radical and losing $50 per year from the millions of Xbox Live subscribers may be a major sticking point here, but it needs to be done. Microsoft's latest NPD numbers have been less than stellar and the Wii, DS, Playstation 3, and the PSP all sold better than the company's console in July. And if you want to compete in the hardware business, that's simply unacceptable.

To make matters worse, the big lead Microsoft had over Sony in the third-party sphere is practically eliminated and it doesn't look like Nintendo will slow down anytime soon, nor will the Xbox 360 become a force in Asia.

So what does Microsoft need to do to right the ship and really turn things around? Announce that all Xbox Live memberships will be free and all gamers can play online without a hitch. It's radical, for sure, but it's the best move Microsoft can make right now.

It's about the size

Making Xbox Live free to all gamers allows Microsoft to boast that it has the largest network of multi-platform users in the world. Right now, Microsoft is trying to become the world's leader in multi-platform gaming. And although it has done relatively well considering Xbox 360 sales have not matched competitors and Games for Windows Live is shaky, while Zune ownership is suspect, it will immediately put Microsoft into a position where developers can truly create a "Microsoft Experience."

Is there a need to do so?

Invariably, this argument will go to the argument that if people are willing to pay now, why should Microsoft tell them they don't have to? Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?

But that argument is extremely short-sighted and fails to truly address what's going on in the market. Xbox Live is the cornerstone of Microsoft's broader gaming strategy. Without it, the Xbox 360 wouldn't be half as popular as it is today and it's still the only real benefit that still looms over Sony's head.

Realizing that, Sony has consistently said that it plans on rolling out a major online initiative that revolves around its trust in Home and its aims are firmly planted on Microsoft. But in order to compete, Sony will need to pull out all the stops and try to create an experience that either matches or eclipses the ease with which we play games on Xbox Live. And to be honest, I think Sony can do it eventually.

But why should Microsoft let that happen? Why should Microsoft give Sony an advantage or at the very least, let it into the online space? By making Xbox Live free, the company adds every Xbox owner to the list of potential users and immediately puts Sony back on its heels. Sony has invested so much as it is, can it really justify a free online service?

Now I realize the same can be said for Microsoft, but with Xbox Live, the company has an installed base of users and content that could make up for that loss. Sure, Microsoft will lose $50 per year in revenue at first, but how many of those gamers would be willing to throw that back into the service by buying movies, adding online maps to their games, or generally expanding the amount of content on their consoles? I'm willing to bet that the majority would.

Silver membership users can do that now, but many of those individuals have balked at paying the $50 each year for online play and generally don't spend the amount of time you would expect them to on the service. But once online gaming is free and they get into the fold, a whole new group of people will be able to acquire online maps and play with friends, which should help Microsoft recoup some of that lost revenue.

But it can't quite end there. Xbox Live would also need some advertising to make up for the lost revenue. But by being able to boast that Microsoft has hundreds of millions of users, the company can sell advertising to companies at a rate that could even eclipse the amount of revenue it's already incurring with membership.

Hardware sales

But simply offering Xbox Live online play for free won't just have an impact on Xbox Live revenue, it'll also have a major impact on hardware sales.

Let's face it--opening online play to all Xbox 360 owners will see a huge influx in the number of people that will want to play online. And in the process, they'll start talking and make it clear to all those fence-sitters that they can play with them online without a charge on something that's already proven. 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.

Right now, Microsoft needs to increase hardware sales in any way it can. It's not enough anymore to simply wait and hope that Sony won't sell consoles as well as it has or Nintendo will suddenly fold. Instead, it needs to be proactive and try to find ways to stop its competitors in their tracks. And although a price drop was a good place to start, Xbox Live is what Microsoft beats every other vendor on and it needs to make it even more compelling to coax more people to its console.

And if that drop in Xbox Live pricing increases hardware sales--and it should--more developers will jump onboard and exploit Xbox Live as much as possible. And in the process, it'll become a veritable bonanza where you'll be able to buy extra maps, pick up some movies along the way, and enjoy ad-supported online gaming for free.

Making Xbox Live online gaming free is radical, I know. But at this point, Microsoft is starting to look like the also-ran and it's not exploiting the key component in its business model that could separate it from the pack. If Microsoft wants to catch up quickly, making Xbox Live free and changing the way it makes money on the service is the first step.

oleviarules · 08-19-2008, 11:46 AM

IF they would do this, i can't help but question what they would do for all the current Gold subscribers. i currently have gold for about 2 more years, and i'm sure there are massive amounts of others like me. would they repay us with points to use at Marketplace? there is no way Microsoft would be able to get away with not reimbursing their Gold subscribers.

Ntruder · 08-19-2008, 11:47 AM

True. I personally don't think Microsoft has the foresight to do something like this, but it was a good article, and a good point.

Cygnus · 08-19-2008, 11:58 AM

Hopefully Sony matches or exceeds XBL features and that hopefully forces M$ to make XBL free.

II SAL II · 08-19-2008, 11:59 AM

you always.. always.. always.. get what you pay for.. im all for paying for service as long as that service is superior to all others available.

Mase · 08-19-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II SAL II

you always.. always.. always.. get what you pay for.. im all for paying for survice as long as that service is superior to all others available.

QFT

And for the record I belive Live is better than the PSN in all aspects.. I dont like comparing the two because to me they are not really apples to apples but if asked which I prefer I would go with Live hands down.. Higher Quality downloads both HD and SD, faster downloads/play instantly, more variety in arcade games, more themes, gamer pic, more user friendly and coming this fall far more features.. There is a reason why it is better and thats because it cost money, I truly believe Live would not be as good as it is today had it been a free service all along..

Dont get me wrong if they want to start offering it for free I would be all over it, but I will not complain so long as it is as great as it is..

awol · 08-19-2008, 12:11 PM

I don't see how Free Live will lead to increased hardware sales though. Do people honestly pick the PS3 over the 360 simply because they can play online for free? And since when has Sony ever implied that they will charge a premium for Home? This article implies that Sony will be charging for it. I have yet to read anywhere that gave me that impression.

railven · 08-19-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilmase1153

QFT

And for the record I belive Live is better than the PSN in all aspects.. I dont like comparing the two because to me they are not really apples to apples but if asked which I prefer I would go with Live hands down.. Higher Quality downloads both HD and SD, faster downloads/play instantly, more variety in arcade games, more themes, gamer pic, more user friendly and coming this fall far more features.. There is a reason why it is better and thats because it cost money, I truly believe Live would not be as good as it is today had it been a free service all along..

Dont get me wrong if they want to start offering it for free I would be all over it, but I will not complain so long as it is as great as it is..

Woah, I won't bother with the others, but there is no way XBL has those that I bolded in larger quanity.

PS3 has free custom themes, most themes on Xbox cost points, ie money, PS3 themes are free. As for user pics, you can use any picture you want for your avatar now. Since I don't own the Gold account I play online with, not sure if you can use any image for your avatar.

Anyways, back on topic.

I completely agree that XBL should be free. Every other platform under the sun has free online play why does Xbox360 and XBL have to be different?
PSP/DS/Wii/PC/PS3 - all free!

If it were Free, I'd be one of the first to join up on more online gaming on the Xbox. But since I refuse to pay for a service I can get free (and better

, but that is subjective) else where I'm left with a borrowed Gold Account that I can only use on during certain time periods (of which i don't mind, beggers can't be choosers.)

I vote yes for Free XBL!

Razor05 · 08-19-2008, 01:10 PM

I'd like to compare the two when PSN has the same amount of users as XboxLive.

jusHD · 08-19-2008, 01:16 PM

I dont feel like looking it up but i know gamepro and 1up.com recently had articles that said M$ is already thinking about this. I know recently games like shadowrun (not sure if thats the right game) that are cross-platform (360 to PC) have become free and do not require a gold membership. When asked about it thats when they said they may eventually go free.

And yeah it does imply that Sony charges or will charge a fee and that has not been stated anywhere. I bet right before home launches M$ drops this bomb.

Ntruder · 08-19-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II SAL II

you always.. always.. always.. get what you pay for.. im all for paying for service as long as that service is superior to all others available.

I generally agree, HOWEVER, I think that at this point, with the huge install base, they would easily exceed their subscription fees in revenue from advertisements alone.

MikeRox · 08-19-2008, 02:48 PM

If they boost the download speeds etc to match PSN, I'd rate Live over and above PSN full stop. I'd rate it as better anyway, but it's annoying that in the UK PSN downloads are approx double the speed of Live

It's a unified network though, thats where PSN suffers and just cannot compete. Cross game chat etc = win.

Liquidx · 08-19-2008, 02:57 PM

I hope not. It takes a lot of money to keep that service going at the quality we've come to know and very much appreciate. Sure MS has money, tons of it in fact but if making something free means a sacrifice in quality like many companies tend to do, then fuck all that.

And besides, I think we can agree that a paid subscription helps to keep the immature 10 year olds off the service... there is enough already there now but it'd be much worse if it was a free service.

I don't mind paying the $50 yearly if it means top notch quality... not at all. There is a reason why it trumps, spanks the PSN and those reasons go beyond just experience.

Mase · 08-19-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railven

Woah, I won't bother with the others, but there is no way XBL has those that I bolded in larger quanity.

PS3 has free custom themes, most themes on Xbox cost points, ie money, PS3 themes are free. As for user pics, you can use any picture you want for your avatar now. Since I don't own the Gold account I play online with, not sure if you can use any image for your avatar.
Anyways, back on topic.

So you make a statment and dont even know if the 360 can do the same thing, Nice

.. Anyways you can have custom backgrounds, my friends right now under all the blades of his 360 dashboard are of Alicia Keyes. As for the gamer pics, you can use your own pic if you want and if you have the live camera, or whatever you choose to take a picture of.. I do belive Live has more authentic themes and pic from movies and TV shows that can be found on Live and not some website, which is what I was referring to and apologize for not being more specific in the first place.. The list the PSN has is not very big, the PS3 does have a rather large online community where you can go to DL themes pics and than put on the PS3..

Cygnus · 08-19-2008, 03:09 PM

How much does it cost to run Live? From my understanding, it is mostly peer-2-peer gaming with an instant messaging front end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquidx

I hope not. It takes a lot of money to keep that service going at the quality we've come to know and very much appreciate. Sure MS has money, tons of it in fact but if making something free means a sacrifice in quality like many companies tend to do, then fuck all that.

And besides, I think we can agree that a paid subscription helps to keep the immature 10 year olds off the service... there is enough already there now but it'd be much worse if it was a free service.

I don't mind paying the $50 yearly if it means top notch quality... not at all. There is a reason why it trumps, spanks the PSN and those reasons go beyond just experience.

08-19-2008, 10:50 AM	#1
Ntruder Defender of Sanity Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 3,236	Why Xbox Live gaming should be free for all Good Article on CNet http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10...&tag=cnetfd.mt Over the weekend, I spent some time playing online. I did so on Xbox Live and through games on both my PS3 and Wii. All the while, 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. And considering Microsoft keeps losing ground to both Sony and Nintendo, why not find a new way to offer a more compelling alternative out of the company's most popular service? Sure, it sounds radical and losing $50 per year from the millions of Xbox Live subscribers may be a major sticking point here, but it needs to be done. Microsoft's latest NPD numbers have been less than stellar and the Wii, DS, Playstation 3, and the PSP all sold better than the company's console in July. And if you want to compete in the hardware business, that's simply unacceptable. To make matters worse, the big lead Microsoft had over Sony in the third-party sphere is practically eliminated and it doesn't look like Nintendo will slow down anytime soon, nor will the Xbox 360 become a force in Asia. So what does Microsoft need to do to right the ship and really turn things around? Announce that all Xbox Live memberships will be free and all gamers can play online without a hitch. It's radical, for sure, but it's the best move Microsoft can make right now. It's about the size Making Xbox Live free to all gamers allows Microsoft to boast that it has the largest network of multi-platform users in the world. Right now, Microsoft is trying to become the world's leader in multi-platform gaming. And although it has done relatively well considering Xbox 360 sales have not matched competitors and Games for Windows Live is shaky, while Zune ownership is suspect, it will immediately put Microsoft into a position where developers can truly create a "Microsoft Experience." Is there a need to do so? Invariably, this argument will go to the argument that if people are willing to pay now, why should Microsoft tell them they don't have to? Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? But that argument is extremely short-sighted and fails to truly address what's going on in the market. Xbox Live is the cornerstone of Microsoft's broader gaming strategy. Without it, the Xbox 360 wouldn't be half as popular as it is today and it's still the only real benefit that still looms over Sony's head. Realizing that, Sony has consistently said that it plans on rolling out a major online initiative that revolves around its trust in Home and its aims are firmly planted on Microsoft. But in order to compete, Sony will need to pull out all the stops and try to create an experience that either matches or eclipses the ease with which we play games on Xbox Live. And to be honest, I think Sony can do it eventually. But why should Microsoft let that happen? Why should Microsoft give Sony an advantage or at the very least, let it into the online space? By making Xbox Live free, the company adds every Xbox owner to the list of potential users and immediately puts Sony back on its heels. Sony has invested so much as it is, can it really justify a free online service? Now I realize the same can be said for Microsoft, but with Xbox Live, the company has an installed base of users and content that could make up for that loss. Sure, Microsoft will lose $50 per year in revenue at first, but how many of those gamers would be willing to throw that back into the service by buying movies, adding online maps to their games, or generally expanding the amount of content on their consoles? I'm willing to bet that the majority would. Silver membership users can do that now, but many of those individuals have balked at paying the $50 each year for online play and generally don't spend the amount of time you would expect them to on the service. But once online gaming is free and they get into the fold, a whole new group of people will be able to acquire online maps and play with friends, which should help Microsoft recoup some of that lost revenue. But it can't quite end there. Xbox Live would also need some advertising to make up for the lost revenue. But by being able to boast that Microsoft has hundreds of millions of users, the company can sell advertising to companies at a rate that could even eclipse the amount of revenue it's already incurring with membership. Hardware sales But simply offering Xbox Live online play for free won't just have an impact on Xbox Live revenue, it'll also have a major impact on hardware sales. Let's face it--opening online play to all Xbox 360 owners will see a huge influx in the number of people that will want to play online. And in the process, they'll start talking and make it clear to all those fence-sitters that they can play with them online without a charge on something that's already proven. 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. Right now, Microsoft needs to increase hardware sales in any way it can. It's not enough anymore to simply wait and hope that Sony won't sell consoles as well as it has or Nintendo will suddenly fold. Instead, it needs to be proactive and try to find ways to stop its competitors in their tracks. And although a price drop was a good place to start, Xbox Live is what Microsoft beats every other vendor on and it needs to make it even more compelling to coax more people to its console. And if that drop in Xbox Live pricing increases hardware sales--and it should--more developers will jump onboard and exploit Xbox Live as much as possible. And in the process, it'll become a veritable bonanza where you'll be able to buy extra maps, pick up some movies along the way, and enjoy ad-supported online gaming for free. Making Xbox Live online gaming free is radical, I know. But at this point, Microsoft is starting to look like the also-ran and it's not exploiting the key component in its business model that could separate it from the pack. If Microsoft wants to catch up quickly, making Xbox Live free and changing the way it makes money on the service is the first step.

08-19-2008, 11:46 AM	#2
oleviarules High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 655	IF they would do this, i can't help but question what they would do for all the current Gold subscribers. i currently have gold for about 2 more years, and i'm sure there are massive amounts of others like me. would they repay us with points to use at Marketplace? there is no way Microsoft would be able to get away with not reimbursing their Gold subscribers. __________________ Olevia LT26HVX 26" LCD TV Xbox 360 Premium HD DVD add on Logitech Z-5500 5.1 surround Gamecube Currently Playing: Call of Duty 4, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (for the 5th time?). OoT ROM + PJ64 + 360 wired controller + Laptop hooked up to tv/speakers = awesome

08-19-2008, 11:58 AM	#4
Cygnus The Bringer of Balance Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 7,172	Hopefully Sony matches or exceeds XBL features and that hopefully forces M$ to make XBL free. __________________ Toshiba 57H81 Kenwood VR-616 Comcast DCT6412 III XBox 360 GamerTag Sec0nd2N0n3

08-19-2008, 11:59 AM	#5
II SAL II PSN is POO Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Richmond, Va Age: 36 Posts: 2,463	you always.. always.. always.. get what you pay for.. im all for paying for service as long as that service is superior to all others available. Last edited by II SAL II; 08-19-2008 at 12:12 PM.

08-19-2008, 01:10 PM	#9
Razor05 HD = 65 beautiful inches Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 3,456	I'd like to compare the two when PSN has the same amount of users as XboxLive. __________________ Panasonic TH-65PZ850U Sony KDL37XBR6 Panasonic TH-37PX50U Cambridge Audio Azur 640R & 740C Paradigm Studio 60's, 20's, CC-590 & Seismic 12 Panasonic DMP-BD35 Toshiba HD-XA2 & A35 Motorola VIP1200 Monster HTFS1000, PB2100 Audio Authority 1154a MW2 LE & Halo3 LE Xbox 360 + HD-DVD GT: Razor59 Sony PS3 slim GT:Razor_59 Sony PSP

08-19-2008, 11:47 AM	#3
Ntruder Defender of Sanity Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 3,236	True. I personally don't think Microsoft has the foresight to do something like this, but it was a good article, and a good point.

08-19-2008, 12:11 PM	#7
awol I'm Fabulous. Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,025	I don't see how Free Live will lead to increased hardware sales though. Do people honestly pick the PS3 over the 360 simply because they can play online for free? And since when has Sony ever implied that they will charge a premium for Home? This article implies that Sony will be charging for it. I have yet to read anywhere that gave me that impression.

08-19-2008, 01:16 PM	#10
jusHD HD pimp Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Corpus Christi Posts: 1,099	I dont feel like looking it up but i know gamepro and 1up.com recently had articles that said M$ is already thinking about this. I know recently games like shadowrun (not sure if thats the right game) that are cross-platform (360 to PC) have become free and do not require a gold membership. When asked about it thats when they said they may eventually go free. And yeah it does imply that Sony charges or will charge a fee and that has not been stated anywhere. I bet right before home launches M$ drops this bomb.

08-19-2008, 02:48 PM	#12
MikeRox Blu Blu Skies! :D Join Date: May 2007 Location: Huddersfield, United Kingdom Posts: 13,461	If they boost the download speeds etc to match PSN, I'd rate Live over and above PSN full stop. I'd rate it as better anyway, but it's annoying that in the UK PSN downloads are approx double the speed of Live It's a unified network though, thats where PSN suffers and just cannot compete. Cross game chat etc = win. __________________ Latest HD additions - Origin - Watchmen - Chaos - Cinderella Man - Terminator Salvation HD Movies - Um... Lost count >_< bout 250 Latest Gaming Additions - Batman Arkham Asylum - Borderlands - New Super Mario Bros - Spectrobes Origins - Rabbids Go Home -

08-19-2008, 02:57 PM	#13
Liquidx iFanboy Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 1,245	I hope not. It takes a lot of money to keep that service going at the quality we've come to know and very much appreciate. Sure MS has money, tons of it in fact but if making something free means a sacrifice in quality like many companies tend to do, then fuck all that. And besides, I think we can agree that a paid subscription helps to keep the immature 10 year olds off the service... there is enough already there now but it'd be much worse if it was a free service. I don't mind paying the $50 yearly if it means top notch quality... not at all. There is a reason why it trumps, spanks the PSN and those reasons go beyond just experience.

Similar Threads to Why Xbox Live gaming should be free for all
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why should I get a PS3?	PokeFanGw	Blu-Ray Players	15	12-12-2008 04:58 AM
Online Gaming	kamspy	Gaming & Systems	59	01-29-2008 11:29 PM
Thinking of getting an Xbox 360. Now which one?	Gaelinic	Gaming & Systems	19	01-21-2008 07:20 PM
Microsoft Disloyal to consumers.	$haka!	Gaming & Systems	76	01-14-2008 08:13 PM
PS3 or XBOX 360??	pfalvey	Gaming & Systems	63	12-12-2007 04:53 PM
360 vs ps3....for watching movies..and a few games	loki993	Gaming & Systems	46	11-17-2007 07:18 AM
Madden NFL 08 Review (Xbox 360)	Razor05	Gaming & Systems	43	08-28-2007 05:36 AM