Microsoft - Only half of XBOX Live users on Gold

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GFugue"]

Fantastic job! Cars last longer than a generation of consoles, as well, but entering that merit is unecessary given how low you went with a metaphor.

I never discussed which console was doing better financially. I know the Wii is, and the PS3 has been "catching up" for the past three years. And, honestly? Why the **** would I give a **** as to whether the console I own is doing well financially or not? I don't have a part in their company's profits, so I couldn't care less.

You didn't blow it off proportion enough, try again.

Yes, because the Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony consoles are running serious financial risks, to the point that game developers are pondering not to develop games for them anymore.

It doesn't matter if the PS3 outsells Microsoft by a million consoles, that's just a fraction of their income and won't affect the overall status of games and 3rd party support.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GFugue"]

Fantastic job! Cars last longer than a generation of consoles, as well, but entering that merit is unecessary given how low you went with a metaphor.

I never discussed which console was doing better financially. I know the Wii is, and the PS3 has been "catching up" for the past three years. And, honestly? Why the **** would I give a **** as to whether the console I own is doing well financially or not? I don't have a part in their company's profits, so I couldn't care less.

GFugue

You didn't blow it off proportion enough, try again.

Yes, because the Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony consoles are running serious financial risks, to the point that game developers are pondering not to develop games for them anymore.

It doesn't matter if the PS3 outsells Microsoft by a million consoles, that's just a fraction of their income and won't affect the overall status of games and 3rd party support.

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"] Well the Financial state of your console should be somewhat of a concern for multiple reasons. One being if it is not doing well fiancially then the chances of it being supported and having a good supply of games could be at risk. Two if it doesn't do well at all in sales there is a good chance that there will not be new one replacing it the following generation. Thirdly there could be a chance of less 3rd party support. So when people say sales don't matter. They do to an extent.HuusAsking

You didn't blow it off proportion enough, try again.

Yes, because the Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony consoles are running serious financial risks, to the point that game developers are pondering not to develop games for them anymore.

It doesn't matter if the PS3 outsells Microsoft by a million consoles, that's just a fraction of their income and won't affect the overall status of games and 3rd party support.

You. Are. Mental.

Just so you know, I'll spend the next ten hours facepalming.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="agentfred"]

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

tormentos

No they have created a service where customers pay. Hence why they charge, so no they should not have to make it available for free just because their competition does not. I'll say again and again. Consumers make Xbox Live $60 a year not MS.xscrapzx

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"] No they have created a service where customers pay. Hence why they charge, so no they should not have to make it available for free just because their competition does not. I'll say again and again. Consumers make Xbox Live $60 a year not MS.agentfred

[QUOTE="agentfred"]

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"] No they have created a service where customers pay. Hence why they charge, so no they should not have to make it available for free just because their competition does not. I'll say again and again. Consumers make Xbox Live $60 a year not MS.xscrapzx

Are you serious? People aren't stuck with anything. Sony provides essentially a similar service for free. As a consumer your are the market. If you buy something whether it is a service and or product that means you have now created a market for those items. MS isn't sticking a gun to our heads saying you must pay! xscrapzx

I wasn't saying that at all.

No we chose Xbox Live because we enjoy the games that 360 has on it and unfortunately if we want to play those games online we have to pay simple as that. xscrapzx

Precisely. This is what I was saying.

If we felt that it was not worth it then we would not pay. If that was the case then they would have no choice but to make it free as their console wouldn't be selling. I mean I dont understand what is so hard to understand.xscrapzx

Except a lot goes into a console purchase other than the online component. If the 360 was identical to the ps3 in every regard other than the online pricing scheme, microsoft would not have sold a single unit. The 360 has a stellar line up, and a lot of advantages over the ps3. So we buy it, and we get stuck with a terrible monthly fee. You're trying to justify that fee by saying the 360 is popular, and thats just absurd. Do you understand a little better now?

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

You didn't blow it off proportion enough, try again.

Yes, because the Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony consoles are running serious financial risks, to the point that game developers are pondering not to develop games for them anymore.

It doesn't matter if the PS3 outsells Microsoft by a million consoles, that's just a fraction of their income and won't affect the overall status of games and 3rd party support.

GFugue

You. Are. Mental.

Just so you know, I'll spend the next ten hours facepalming.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"] Ugh... What? I guess what you're trying to say is that they charge because people are willing to pay. Sure. But this only works because it's a closed system. If people actually had the option to chose between a pay model, or a free one that their competitors offer, it's pretty clear that Microsoft would not be able to charge what they do. Bottom line, people don't like this pricing scheme, but they're more or less stuck with it.

agentfred

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Nintendo? Financial risks? They always sell at profit. Heck, they've only dropped the price of the Wii once in its entire life to date, and it's sold at profit from day one. And they don't run gaming servers. So where's the risk? And who's said they don't plan to develop for consoles anymore? And if not the consoles, then where?

HuusAsking

You. Are. Mental.

Just so you know, I'll spend the next ten hours facepalming.

Sarcasm. It's a useful skill to have.

[QUOTE="agentfred"]

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"] Are you serious? People aren't stuck with anything. Sony provides essentially a similar service for free. As a consumer your are the market. If you buy something whether it is a service and or product that means you have now created a market for those items. MS isn't sticking a gun to our heads saying you must pay! No we chose Xbox Live because we enjoy the games that 360 has on it and unfortunately if we want to play those games online we have to pay simple as that. If we felt that it was not worth it then we would not pay. If that was the case then they would have no choice but to make it free as their console wouldn't be selling. I mean I dont understand what is so hard to understand.xscrapzx

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="agentfred"]Guess you've never heard of the term "captive market". Like how theaters charge an arm and a leg for popcorn because you can't bring in your own food. Or how you can't play the PS3 version of a game because your buddies all have the 360 version, and your game can't talk to theirs.HuusAsking

LOL, thats just sad.

Can you imagine 25 million people buying the same game every year for the last 10 years from the same company? In essence that is what Live has done. Think about that for a moment.

kuu2

The other half are just buying the ability to play the online multiplayer of actual games they've bought every year.

It largely has nothing to do with brand loyalty, despite the level of Stockholm Syndrome on display, and everything to do with what's tantamount to ransom.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] No they have created a service where customers pay. Hence why they charge, so no they should not have to make it available for free just because their competition does not. I'll say again and again. Consumers make Xbox Live $60 a year not MS.xscrapzx

[QUOTE="kuu2"]

Can you imagine 25 million people buying the same game every year for the last 10 years from the same company? In essence that is what Live has done. Think about that for a moment.

shinrabanshou

The other half are just buying the ability to play the online multiplayer of actual games they've bought every year.

It largely has nothing to do with brand loyalty, despite the level of Stockholm Syndrome on display, and everything to do with what's tantamount to ransom.

You really have no clue as to what Stockholm Syndrome is, right? I mean, the least you could is wikipedia it before you use it on an argument. We don't actively support Microsoft for charging for their online service* -- if anything, we're passively against it -- and would gladly have it for free, if the company who hosts the service did it so. But they charge a small fee, which, being willing to pay, we don't complaint about.

*Fanboys are an exception to the rule, and can't be considered.

You really have no clue as to what Stockholm Syndrome is, right? I mean, the least you could is wikipedia it before you use it on an argument. We don't actively support Microsoft for charging for their online service* -- if anything, we're passively against it -- and would gladly have it for free, if the company who hosts the service did it so. But they charge a small fee, which, being willing to pay, we don't complaint about. *Fanboys are an exception to the rule, and can't be considered.GFugue

Whenever these rehashed threads about LIVE come up there are the same rehashed arguments about whether MS should be charging, and spattered among them are always comments like this:

bigboss5ak wrote: I just renewed my year subscription a month ago and couldnt be happier.

Or "I'm glad they charge because they must be using that money to give me a better service." Or other such.

Of our 25 million members, about half of them are subscribers to the business and pay us about $60 a year for that

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GulliversTravel

Fixed. That's what actually happened

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="tormentos"] Really go to the major site and see how many people actally like the price raise,almost everyone was against it,and those were not sony fans on,that page it was all gamercard all the way.tormentos

xbox live should you allow u to play online free, with limited features some **** damn, acouple months ago i bought xbox live 3 month gold card and i didnt even really play 360 lol after i got 3 month goldcard.

xbox live should you allow u to play online free, with limited features some **** damn, acouple months ago i bought xbox live 3 month gold card and i didnt even really play 360 lol after i got 3 month goldcard.

yodogpollywog

mainly because lack of exclusive good online games on xbox360.

i mean why play 360 when 90% of it's games are better played on my pc?

[QUOTE="yodogpollywog"]

xbox live should you allow u to play online free, with limited features some **** damn, acouple months ago i bought xbox live 3 month gold card and i didnt even really play 360 lol after i got 3 month goldcard.

yodogpollywog

mainly because lack of exclusive good online games on xbox360.

i mean why play 360 when 90% of it's games are better played on my pc?

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

You really have no clue as to what Stockholm Syndrome is, right? I mean, the least you could is wikipedia it before you use it on an argument. We don't actively support Microsoft for charging for their online service* -- if anything, we're passively against it -- and would gladly have it for free, if the company who hosts the service did it so. But they charge a small fee, which, being willing to pay, we don't complaint about. *Fanboys are an exception to the rule, and can't be considered.shinrabanshou

Whenever these rehashed threads about LIVE come up there are the same rehashed arguments about whether MS should be charging, and spattered among them are always comments like this:

bigboss5ak wrote: I just renewed my year subscription a month ago and couldnt be happier.

Or "I'm glad they charge because they must be using that money to give me a better service." Or other such.

How many 360 owners do you think have posted here? Out of all these, only... three? are actual fanboys. It's the same thing as saying that every Muslim is a terrorist, every American is stupid, every Mexican is a drug dealer, etc.

The fact that they're an exception to the rule is why they can't be considered -- you don't take the smaller part of a population and declare their characteristics as the ones of the general populace.

I don't mind you criticizing them, but don't make it sound as if we're all the same, that we're putting on a "display of Stockholm Syndrome".

i dont buy 1 year memberships anymore because microsoft shows no effort to release true xbox360 exclusive games, that i cant play on my computer.

See i have a gaming pc, xbox360 and ps3.

I bought call of duty black op's on my pc.

Xbox360 need's some shooters truly built only for xbox360 can only be played on xbox360, .... halo doesnt do it for me.

i paid 250$ for my pc prebult emachines athlon dualcore and 250$ for my graphics card 8800 gt 512 mb christmas 2007

500$

xbox360 with hdd 299$

xbox live 1 year 50$=now 350$

how about paying for xbox live 3 years more years and u will have payed off my whole computer.

plus ur getting inferior texture quality in call of duty black ops and display resolution and have to play with aim assist on a controller unlike pc which doesnt have aim assist when using 360 controller on pc.

im still using stock powersupply that came with my 250$ emachines prebuilt pc it powers my 8800 GT fine.

MICROSOFT NEED'S SOME REAL GODDAMN XBOX360 EXCLUSIVE SHOOTERS NOT AVALIBLE ANYWHERE ELSE EXCEPT XBOX360.

That's still raking in a lot of money. I'm one of those in the half that doesn't have Gold :P

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] Regardless if you against or not the bottom line is there are 12.5 million people that pay for the service. My point wasn't as to whether people enjoy paying for it or not. My point was as a consumer if you are paying the $60 then you have created a market just like the other 12,499,000 million have. Until everyone of those 12.5 million stop paying they will continue to charge. Its simple ecnomics my friend, if people are willing to pay a company is willing to charge.xscrapzx

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

You really have no clue as to what Stockholm Syndrome is, right? I mean, the least you could is wikipedia it before you use it on an argument. We don't actively support Microsoft for charging for their online service* -- if anything, we're passively against it -- and would gladly have it for free, if the company who hosts the service did it so. But they charge a small fee, which, being willing to pay, we don't complaint about. *Fanboys are an exception to the rule, and can't be considered.GFugue

Whenever these rehashed threads about LIVE come up there are the same rehashed arguments about whether MS should be charging, and spattered among them are always comments like this:

bigboss5ak wrote: I just renewed my year subscription a month ago and couldnt be happier.

Or "I'm glad they charge because they must be using that money to give me a better service." Or other such.

How many 360 owners do you think have posted here? Out of all these, only... three? are actual fanboys. It's the same thing as saying that every Muslim is a terrorist, every American is stupid, every Mexican is a drug dealer, etc.

The fact that they're an exception to the rule is why they can't be considered -- you don't take the smaller part of a population and declare their characteristics as the ones of the general populace.

I don't mind you criticizing them, but don't make it sound as if we're all the same, that we're putting on a "display of Stockholm Syndrome".

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]I'm completely aware of what Stockholm Syndrome is. Why wouldn't they be considered? Whom exactly do you think I was referring to? I wasn't referring to this thread in particular either.

Whenever these rehashed threads about LIVE come up there are the same rehashed arguments about whether MS should be charging, and spattered among them are always comments like this:

bigboss5ak wrote: I just renewed my year subscription a month ago and couldnt be happier.

Or "I'm glad they charge because they must be using that money to give me a better service." Or other such.

Makari

How many 360 owners do you think have posted here? Out of all these, only... three? are actual fanboys. It's the same thing as saying that every Muslim is a terrorist, every American is stupid, every Mexican is a drug dealer, etc.

The fact that they're an exception to the rule is why they can't be considered -- you don't take the smaller part of a population and declare their characteristics as the ones of the general populace.

I don't mind you criticizing them, but don't make it sound as if we're all the same, that we're putting on a "display of Stockholm Syndrome".