[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point

people need to read better. 3 million are set to annual meaning they are set to pay $50 a year.. another 3 million pay monthly, with a card, or the every 3 month setting..... making it 6 million... and as the article says OVER HALF of the xbox360s out have a form of gold on it.. here is from the article. More than 3 million Xbox Live subscribers pay a $50 annual fee that allows them to play games online against one another. About 3 million more use the service without an annual subscription, taking the total to more than half Xbox users.

You need to read more carefully and stop spinning:

"More than 3 million Xbox Live subscribers pay a $50 annual fee that allows them to play games online against one another. About 3 million more use the service without an annual subscription, taking the total to more than half Xbox users."

They never said that the other 3 million were paying monthly. Read on.

 

 

No annual subscription sounds like Silver to me. MS has never admitted out of half the users what the percentage was of Gold vs. Silver. There are not 6 million GOLD subs. They admitted that in the recent GFW Magazine when they were talking about Live for Windows. Even if they are at 50% Gold, which they are not, it's still not good enough. Like people are saying, we can like the 360 all we want, but MS needs to change their pricing model to allow ALL 360 users an online experience.

bloodyclot

So you are saying live is too expensive? wow....

No, MS is splintering the Live community by charging for it, it doesn't matter if it's a dollar. Less than half of 360 owners have live, while the others are left out. If MS cared about gamers, they would offer the service to everyone, since it's so superior, thus making money through advertsing, like they are doing right now, DL content, and Movies.

do you even have a 360? Live Silver is free so they CAN get the DL content, and movies still.. basically all they can't do is play multiplayer.

Yes. Like I said, MP is the key feature, and should be free and part of the experience of Live.  

not to mention the STEAM service that is being implied that microsoft needs to learn from only has 3million unique users(Average unique players per month: 2,998,791 to be exact).. Lets take that out of the PC base......... link = STEAM STATS FROM STEAM SITEbloodyclot

Steam has 13 million ACTIVE users, not everyone plays Multiplayer.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2136598,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"]yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point?chaos-SD

MS should offer Gold for free. It's clearly not working, with only 33% of users paying for Gold. How people can support one of the richest corporations in the world, all the while they are taking people to the cleaners, is beyond most people. Heck, even the majority of 360 owners. MS needs to take a page out of Valve's book, and fast.

You couldn't have said it any better. It's not like Gamespot where an add pops up if you are not a paid subscriber.

Go turn on your 360 and look at the Marketplace blade.

What's on the blade? I never pay attention to it but i do understand that the service is not cheap to operate. Like i said Gs is not free for All Access either. You want more features you have to pay. is $50.00 for 13 months really that expensive?

There is also Ebay where you can get it for $20 - $30

Refers to previous statement: Yes the blade is advertisement on XBL however it makes nowhere near what would be needed to run XBL for free...

Did yo read the original article? MS makes 30% on all content delivered. MS has a business model with or without 50 bucks a year.

"Xbox 360 game prices jump with add-ons"

"Story Highlights

$10 Xbox 360 add-ons are driving up the price of games
More than 3 million Xbox Live subscribers pay a $50 fee
Downloadable game content market valued at $200 million
Xbox Live is a key feature distinguishing Xbox 360 from rivals

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- New charges for online extras are sharply raising the price serious video gamers pay for Xbox 360 games, a profitable move by Microsoft Corp. , but one that could alienate some fans.

With more than 6 million users, Microsoft's Xbox Live online network has become the key feature distinguishing the Xbox 360 from rival Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Co. Ltd.'s Wii.

More than 3 million Xbox Live subscribers pay a $50 annual fee that allows them to play games online against one another. About 3 million more use the service without an annual subscription, taking the total to more than half Xbox users.

Through Xbox Live, players can buy maps for fighting terrains and other add-ons that are indispensable to serious gamers, usually at a cost of $10 each. Such add-ons used to be free most of the time and the additions can raise a game's cost to $80 or even $100 over its life span .

"The (downloadable maps) are very profitable for us," said Tony Key, vice president of marketing for UbiSoft Entertainment SA, whose Tom Clancy-themed shooters such as "Rainbow Six" and "GRAW 2" are among the most popular games on Xbox Live.

"If you're a 'Rainbow' guy and you don't have the maps, then you can't play a match," said Key, referring to online competitions. "I doubt there will ever be a Clancy game without the Xbox Live component any more. It's now a key part of the game's DNA."

Games such as UbiSoft's "Rainbow Six Vegas" and Activision Inc.'s "Call of Duty 3" can cost as much as $25 million to make, but extra game levels and maps are extremely cheap to produce, by comparison. Key said they required only about 10 percent of a game's development staff.

Maps and other content are also profitable for Microsoft.

Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter estimates Microsoft charges a royalty rate of 30 percent for most downloads. That means that, for a $10 download, Microsoft gets $3, while the publisher pockets $7.

Pachter estimates the entire downloadable game content market is currently valued at $200 million, compared with $19 billion for overall game software sales last year, but he points out the additional sales have much higher profit margins.

"It's like building an extra room in a house," Pachter said. "It's nowhere near the cost of building the house."

But pricing the downloads is a tricky science that many game publishers, including Microsoft, are still figuring out as they try to balance profit with the risk of alienating gamers who might feel they are being taken advantage of.

Microsoft was criticized by many gamers after the May 3 release of a map download to its popular alien-blasting game, "Gears of War," which has sold more than 3.7 million copies worldwide since its November release.

The first map pack was released for free months earlier and generated more than 1.5 million downloads. The new download included several new battlegrounds online users could fight on during multiplayer matches, but this time they cost $10.

Mark Rein, vice president of "Gears" developer Epic Games, said in an interview on video game Web site 1up.com that the studio would have preferred to give away the maps, but Microsoft, which published the game, decided to charge for it.

This set off angry complaints from fans who felt Microsoft was taking advantage of them. Epic declined to comment for this article.

Microsoft Xbox Live group product manager Aaron Greenberg said few gamers complained about the add-on features and that the charge helped Microsoft recoup the cost of developing games and running the expensive online service.

"We are like the complaint department. We hear from the small minority that are not happy," he said.

Third-quarter revenue at the entertainment and devices division dropped 18.7 percent to $947 million, with an operating loss of $330 million, compared with a loss of $438 million a year earlier. Microsoft shipped 500,000 Xbox 360 consoles during the quarter."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/fun.games/05/24/xbox.360.price.reut/index.html

mismajor99

To let you know you can get banned for posting articles.

i think we all get it. you don't like Live and the fee. The solution is to not subscribe just like every subscription service that exists. Funny that the ones complaining are the ones that don't have it.

AFAIK they never released how many had Gold and Silver so this article was simply speculating.

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"]yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point?mismajor99

MS should offer Gold for free. It's clearly not working, with only 33% of users paying for Gold. How people can support one of the richest corporations in the world, all the while they are taking people to the cleaners, is beyond most people. Heck, even the majority of 360 owners. MS needs to take a page out of Valve's book, and fast.

You couldn't have said it any better. It's not like Gamespot where an add pops up if you are not a paid subscriber.

Go turn on your 360 and look at the Marketplace blade.

What's on the blade? I never pay attention to it but i do understand that the service is not cheap to operate. Like i said Gs is not free for All Access either. You want more features you have to pay. is $50.00 for 13 months really that expensive?

There is also Ebay where you can get it for $20 - $30

Refers to previous statement: Yes the blade is advertisement on XBL however it makes nowhere near what would be needed to run XBL for free...

Did yo read the original article? MS makes 30% on all content delivered. MS has a business model with or without 50 bucks a year.

Did you read the original article? did you read what I already replied to you about what your restating?!
REFERS TO ENTIRE PREVIOUS STATMENT: The 30% is on sales on the market place that is NOT advertisement, those are simply sales.  An advertising campaign is accepting cash from other businesses like pepsi or Disney to have a banner or something to advertise.  Yes Live may advertise but it does not make enough profit to support XBL.

i think we all get it. you don't like Live and the fee. The solution is to not subscribe just like every subscription service that exists. Funny that the ones complaining are the ones that don't have it.

AFAIK they never released how many had Gold and Silver so this article was simply speculating.

Deihmos

I like Live, but I strongly disagree with them as far as charging people for P2P. There is no justification for it.

I keep reading the topic title and thinking how the hell did they sell 3 million gold subs?

Who would eat a sub made of gold?

[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"]yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point?chaos-SD

MS should offer Gold for free. It's clearly not working, with only 33% of users paying for Gold. How people can support one of the richest corporations in the world, all the while they are taking people to the cleaners, is beyond most people. Heck, even the majority of 360 owners. MS needs to take a page out of Valve's book, and fast.

You couldn't have said it any better. It's not like Gamespot where an add pops up if you are not a paid subscriber.

Go turn on your 360 and look at the Marketplace blade.

What's on the blade? I never pay attention to it but i do understand that the service is not cheap to operate. Like i said Gs is not free for All Access either. You want more features you have to pay. is $50.00 for 13 months really that expensive?

There is also Ebay where you can get it for $20 - $30

Refers to previous statement: Yes the blade is advertisement on XBL however it makes nowhere near what would be needed to run XBL for free...

Did yo read the original article? MS makes 30% on all content delivered. MS has a business model with or without 50 bucks a year.

Did you read the original article? did you read what I already replied to you about what your restating?!
REFERS TO ENTIRE PREVIOUS STATMENT: The 30% is on sales on the market place that is NOT advertisement, those are simply sales. An advertising campaign is accepting cash from other businesses like pepsi or Disney to have a banner or something to advertise. Yes Live may advertise but it does not make enough profit to support XBL.

Please substantiate you claim with a link to back this up, or stop pulling things out of thin air. What is the cost to MS? Do you know? They not only get revenue from advertising, but DL content, and movies/tv shows. MS is a public company that thrives to please their shareholders, just like everyone else. If you think the 50 bucks is justified, good for you. I don't.   

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

i think we all get it. you don't like Live and the fee. The solution is to not subscribe just like every subscription service that exists. Funny that the ones complaining are the ones that don't have it.

AFAIK they never released how many had Gold and Silver so this article was simply speculating.

mismajor99

I like Live, but I strongly disagree with them as far as charging people for P2P. There is no justification for it.

You think Live is all about the online gaming and it's not. Too maintain all those tracking servers etc cannot be cheap....

Een though the player hosts the game they are all still played on the Live server.

[QUOTE="bloodyclot"]not to mention the STEAM service that is being implied that microsoft needs to learn from only has 3million unique users(Average unique players per month: 2,998,791 to be exact).. Lets take that out of the PC base......... link = STEAM STATS FROM STEAM SITEmismajor99

Steam has 13 million ACTIVE users, not everyone plays Multiplayer.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2136598,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

but..but.. you just said MP is where its at in a previous post.. make up your mind.. is it active users that matter (which then silver would count) or is it multiplayer??  

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="bloodyclot"]not to mention the STEAM service that is being implied that microsoft needs to learn from only has 3million unique users(Average unique players per month: 2,998,791 to be exact).. Lets take that out of the PC base......... link = STEAM STATS FROM STEAM SITEbloodyclot

Steam has 13 million ACTIVE users, not everyone plays Multiplayer.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2136598,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

but..but.. you just said MP is where its at in a previous post.. make up your mind.. is it active users that matter (which then silver would count) or is it multiplayer??

You tried to gimp the STEAM numbers when it has over twice the community size of MS Live. The point is, and you missed it, STEAM doesn't charge a penny to use the serice or any of the games that you purchase through their service. The make their money through selling games. MS should take a hard look at STEAM, and how it is revolutionizing online services. That's all.

[QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

Same thing, coming to a Playstation 3 near you.

 

Moral of the story is. The PC wins.

HarlockJC

I am also sure that sooner or later it will come to a Wii near you to...This may become common place

[QUOTE="bloodyclot"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="bloodyclot"]not to mention the STEAM service that is being implied that microsoft needs to learn from only has 3million unique users(Average unique players per month: 2,998,791 to be exact).. Lets take that out of the PC base......... link = STEAM STATS FROM STEAM SITEmismajor99

Steam has 13 million ACTIVE users, not everyone plays Multiplayer.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2136598,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

but..but.. you just said MP is where its at in a previous post.. make up your mind.. is it active users that matter (which then silver would count) or is it multiplayer??

You tried to gimp the STEAM numbers when it has over twice the community size of MS Live. The point is, and you missed it, STEAM doesn't charge a penny to use the serice or any of the games that you purchase through their service. The make their money through selling games. MS should take a hard look at STEAM, and how it is revolutionizing online services. That's all.

You cannot comapre Steam to live because players host their own servers and i assure you they are paying over $1000 a year to do so. They ask for donations but i doubt anyone sends them any money.

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="chaos-SD"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"]yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point?mismajor99

MS should offer Gold for free. It's clearly not working, with only 33% of users paying for Gold. How people can support one of the richest corporations in the world, all the while they are taking people to the cleaners, is beyond most people. Heck, even the majority of 360 owners. MS needs to take a page out of Valve's book, and fast.

You couldn't have said it any better. It's not like Gamespot where an add pops up if you are not a paid subscriber.

Go turn on your 360 and look at the Marketplace blade.

What's on the blade? I never pay attention to it but i do understand that the service is not cheap to operate. Like i said Gs is not free for All Access either. You want more features you have to pay. is $50.00 for 13 months really that expensive?

There is also Ebay where you can get it for $20 - $30

Refers to previous statement: Yes the blade is advertisement on XBL however it makes nowhere near what would be needed to run XBL for free...

Did yo read the original article? MS makes 30% on all content delivered. MS has a business model with or without 50 bucks a year.

Did you read the original article? did you read what I already replied to you about what your restating?!
REFERS TO ENTIRE PREVIOUS STATMENT: The 30% is on sales on the market place that is NOT advertisement, those are simply sales. An advertising campaign is accepting cash from other businesses like pepsi or Disney to have a banner or something to advertise. Yes Live may advertise but it does not make enough profit to support XBL.

Please substantiate you claim with a link to back this up, or stop pulling things out of thin air. What is the cost to MS? Do you know? They not only get revenue from advertising, but DL content, and movies/tv shows. MS is a public company that thrives to please their shareholders, just like everyone else. If you think the 50 bucks is justified, good for you. I don't.   

[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

i think we all get it. you don't like Live and the fee. The solution is to not subscribe just like every subscription service that exists. Funny that the ones complaining are the ones that don't have it.

AFAIK they never released how many had Gold and Silver so this article was simply speculating.

Deihmos

I like Live, but I strongly disagree with them as far as charging people for P2P. There is no justification for it.

You think Live is all about the online gaming and it's not. Too maintain all those tracking servers etc cannot be cheap....

Een though the player hosts the game they are all still played on the Live server.

No. What I think is that MS shouldn't be charging for P2P play. Simple. Please substantiate your claim that MS's tracking servers cost too much. How does 2142 or BF2 handle all those players stats without charging? huh? Players use their own bandwidth, not MS

Also, Steam is garnering an update soon that will track all STEAM users stats and add a kinds of features to the service, soon to be announced, and free.  

[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="bloodyclot"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="bloodyclot"]not to mention the STEAM service that is being implied that microsoft needs to learn from only has 3million unique users(Average unique players per month: 2,998,791 to be exact).. Lets take that out of the PC base......... link = STEAM STATS FROM STEAM SITEDeihmos

Steam has 13 million ACTIVE users, not everyone plays Multiplayer.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2136598,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

but..but.. you just said MP is where its at in a previous post.. make up your mind.. is it active users that matter (which then silver would count) or is it multiplayer??

You tried to gimp the STEAM numbers when it has over twice the community size of MS Live. The point is, and you missed it, STEAM doesn't charge a penny to use the serice or any of the games that you purchase through their service. The make their money through selling games. MS should take a hard look at STEAM, and how it is revolutionizing online services. That's all.

You cannot comapre Steam to live because players host their own servers and i assure you they are paying over $1000 a year to do so. They ask for donations but i doubt anyone sends them any money.

Wrong, it doesn't cost close to that. Besides, their are a ton of Valve server to play on. Hosting your own is just an added option of being a PC Gamer for you and your clan. Everyday, I doubt more and more that you are a PC Gamer. 

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

i think we all get it. you don't like Live and the fee. The solution is to not subscribe just like every subscription service that exists. Funny that the ones complaining are the ones that don't have it.

AFAIK they never released how many had Gold and Silver so this article was simply speculating.

mismajor99

I like Live, but I strongly disagree with them as far as charging people for P2P. There is no justification for it.

You think Live is all about the online gaming and it's not. Too maintain all those tracking servers etc cannot be cheap....

Een though the player hosts the game they are all still played on the Live server.

No. What I think is that MS shouldn't be charging for P2P play. Simple. Please substantiate your claim that MS's tracking servers cost too much. How does 2142 or BF2 handle all those players stats without charging? huh? Players use their own bandwidth, not MS

Also, Steam is garnering an update soon that will track all STEAM users stats and add a kinds of features to the service, soon to be announced, and free.  

Look up the cost of a Battlefield ranked server and tell me what you find. It's over $150 a month and EA is not hosting the games, players are the ones paying and they ask for donations. furthermore to pretect BF stats you can only get servers from EA approved companies so no one can run a server in their basement.

please substantiate your claim that 30% in SALES is enough to support XBL! In fact don't bother! Fact is there is no way to prove it! WHY?! because I know this! I've done the research and no one has done all the math there is behind running XBL! It's common economic understanding that proves XBL does not have a large enough advertising campaign to make it free. It's economic knowledge that allows one to understand 30% in sales is not enough to make Live a free service. It's obvious that you don't understand that since you confuse sales with advertisment. If you knew your economics you would also understand that MS does NOT thrive to please their customers, thy thrive to make a profit. That's why $50 for an online service is known as a RIP-OFF. Come back when you understand your economics, until then peace out, I'm goin to bed.

chaos-SD

Thank you. MS is charging for the bottom line with no justification. Steam and Sony are two good examples of services running completely as non-subscription basesd. Please advise as to what MS is doing that costs 50 bucks per year per person? What is so much more expensive that justifies the cost? Anyone?

[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

i think we all get it. you don't like Live and the fee. The solution is to not subscribe just like every subscription service that exists. Funny that the ones complaining are the ones that don't have it.

AFAIK they never released how many had Gold and Silver so this article was simply speculating.

Deihmos

I like Live, but I strongly disagree with them as far as charging people for P2P. There is no justification for it.

You think Live is all about the online gaming and it's not. Too maintain all those tracking servers etc cannot be cheap....

Een though the player hosts the game they are all still played on the Live server.

No. What I think is that MS shouldn't be charging for P2P play. Simple. Please substantiate your claim that MS's tracking servers cost too much. How does 2142 or BF2 handle all those players stats without charging? huh? Players use their own bandwidth, not MS

Also, Steam is garnering an update soon that will track all STEAM users stats and add a kinds of features to the service, soon to be announced, and free.

Look up the cost of a Battlefield ranked server and tell me what you find. It's over $150 a month and EA is not hosting the games, players are the ones paying and they ask for donations. furthermore to pretect Bf stats you can only get servers from EA approved servers so no one can run a server in their basement.

EA hosts hundreds of servers. You don't have to host your own server if you don't want. Clans are made up of several people that split the cost, as it's worth it to have you very own server. Clans make their servers public when not being used out of decency. Some ask for donations, and there is nothing wrong with that. Besides, I would rather support a clan than a greedy corporation like MS. 

Wrong, it doesn't cost close to that. Besides, their are a ton of Valve server to play on. Hosting your own is just an added option of being a PC Gamer for you and your clan. Everyday, I doubt more and more that you are a PC Gamer. 

mismajor99

I play PC games and but have no problem with paying $50.00 for 13 months which is around $4.00 a month. And that all depends if you pay the retail price. Anyone would swear we were talking about $50.00 a month here

If as many people got mad about the cost of oil in this country or global warming instead of video game add ons maybe we could do something that mattered in this world. If you want to spend $10 to get some new maps go for it, no one is hurt except the guy who spent $10.

I think the other 3 million people who use the service that they are talking about are Silver members. 

Still, in time, I think that this approach that MS is using ($50 for Live, milk you for DLC, etc.) could be the death of them.  It is going to divide the community (and has).  It has lead to developers getting greedy and withholding content from retail release with the sole purpose of charging extra for it later.  It has lead to overcharging for content (GH2). 

When people get taken advantage of, it only lasts for so long before they finally say "the heck with this" and go somewhere else. 

[QUOTE="nnavidson"]Three million gold users... that's pretty small isn't it?zombiepigeon

No. Not considering it costs money, it's actually impressive.

Than what is WOW?  

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"]yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point?mismajor99

MS should offer Gold for free. It's clearly not working, with only 33% of users paying for Gold. How people can support one of the richest corporations in the world, all the while they are taking people to the cleaners, is beyond most people. Heck, even the majority of 360 owners. MS needs to take a page out of Valve's book, and fast.

6+ mill gold members is pretty darn good!!

Remember that not everyone who buys a 360 has high speed connections. Ive been a gold subscriber for 2 years now and love every aspect of it. Those of you who say it should be free don't get it. Thanks to XBL there are dedicated servers and therefore less cheating with mods. Live also offers so much more than just games.

As far as charging for Dl-able content for games, How do you think developers get paid? It also keeps games from getting stale. Gone are the days of beating a game and feening for the next installment which will probably be years off.for the devs  It also keeps the attention of gamers on their game so when the next game comes out it sells better.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]

[QUOTE="chaos-SD"]yes that's very true, good facts right there. My question is: are you trying to make some sort of point?subrosian

MS should offer Gold for free. It's clearly not working, with only 33% of users paying for Gold. How people can support one of the richest corporations in the world, all the while they are taking people to the cleaners, is beyond most people. Heck, even the majority of 360 owners. MS needs to take a page out of Valve's book, and fast.

That has to be the most sensible post I have read on this board.

[QUOTE="nnavidson"]Three million gold users... that's pretty small isn't it?zombiepigeon

No. Not considering it costs money, it's actually impressive.

Ummm, no. :lol:

You people are cheap and dumb, its 50 bucks a year. thats like $4.17 a month. Really you act like the worlds coming to a end. We get great online and its cheap. dudy80

they can afford free, though. 

You people are cheap and dumb, its 50 bucks a year. thats like $4.17 a month. Really you act like the worlds coming to a end. We get great online and its cheap. dudy80

No, sometimes plp are'nt even in the 360 servers which sucks. Why, cause plp move on. On PC, it's much better, and it's free with a better communitiy. M$ should should make this free, com'on, they made Pc online free, why not 360. It's kinda dumb if you ask me. M$ is rich anyways, why charge more??

[QUOTE="zombiepigeon"]

[QUOTE="nnavidson"]Three million gold users... that's pretty small isn't it?projectpat2007

No. Not considering it costs money, it's actually impressive.

Than what is WOW?

even less impressive. keep in mind how many PCs there are that can run Wow and how many copies were sold. I can guarantee it is a lower percentage then XBL. 

I think XBOXLIVE should work a lot better and there should be a lot less lag. Its ridiculous. I have a broadband cable connection and sometimes the games on Live work worse than they did on the Dreamcast 56K. Its bogus. When I played R:FOM online even in 20vs20 matches there was no lag. So its not my connection that's the problem. Its Microsoft's broken system. I didn't know you were banned from playing ranked matches if you didn't buy the DLC content for those games. That's frigging absurd. I actually hope HOME is a huge success and Sony can exceed what MS has done with Live through advertising. I prefer the dedicated server thing over P2P. I guess the first test for Sony's plan is coming soon with new stuff for R:FOM. Any word on if its free or not?

I think XBOXLIVE should work a lot better and there should be a lot less lag. Its ridiculous. I have a broadband cable connection and sometimes the games on Live work worse than they did on the Dreamcast 56K. Its bogus. When I played R:FOM online even in 20vs20 matches there was no lag. So its not my connection that's the problem. Its Microsoft's broken system. I didn't know you were banned from playing ranked matches if you didn't buy the DLC content for those games. That's frigging absurd. I actually hope HOME is a huge success and Sony can exceed what MS has done with Live through advertising. I prefer the dedicated server thing over P2P. I guess the first test for Sony's plan is coming soon with new stuff for R:FOM. Any word on if its free or not?

JiveT

You aren't banned if you don't buy the DLC, you just will be "locked out" of a lot of rooms where the host does have the DLC, thus you can't play the maps he has if you don't have them.  You can still play in matches where the host isn't using (or doesn't have) the DLC maps.

Only 3 million?JLuke360

6 mill. 3+ mill who pay for the whole year at once, another 3 who have smaller,renewable subscriptions 

[QUOTE="dudy80"]You people are cheap and dumb, its 50 bucks a year. thats like $4.17 a month. Really you act like the worlds coming to a end. We get great online and its cheap. GatoFeo

No, sometimes plp are'nt even in the 360 servers which sucks. Why, cause plp move on. On PC, it's much better, and it's free with a better communitiy. M$ should should make this free, com'on, they made Pc online free, why not 360. It's kinda dumb if you ask me. M$ is rich anyways, why charge more??

If a game sucks people move on with Pc games also. Anyone that wants to play online will subscribe to Live simple. It's like $20.00 on eBay.

[QUOTE="JiveT"]

I think XBOXLIVE should work a lot better and there should be a lot less lag. Its ridiculous. I have a broadband cable connection and sometimes the games on Live work worse than they did on the Dreamcast 56K. Its bogus. When I played R:FOM online even in 20vs20 matches there was no lag. So its not my connection that's the problem. Its Microsoft's broken system. I didn't know you were banned from playing ranked matches if you didn't buy the DLC content for those games. That's frigging absurd. I actually hope HOME is a huge success and Sony can exceed what MS has done with Live through advertising. I prefer the dedicated server thing over P2P. I guess the first test for Sony's plan is coming soon with new stuff for R:FOM. Any word on if its free or not?

REVENGEotSITH

You aren't banned if you don't buy the DLC, you just will be "locked out" of a lot of rooms where the host does have the DLC, thus you can't play the maps he has if you don't have them.  You can still play in matches where the host isn't using (or doesn't have) the DLC maps.

Still, being omitted from lots of rooms is a pain. Sure you can make your own room, but waiting for several people especially when they see you don't have the DLC becomes a pain.

[QUOTE="REVENGEotSITH"][QUOTE="JiveT"]

I think XBOXLIVE should work a lot better and there should be a lot less lag. Its ridiculous. I have a broadband cable connection and sometimes the games on Live work worse than they did on the Dreamcast 56K. Its bogus. When I played R:FOM online even in 20vs20 matches there was no lag. So its not my connection that's the problem. Its Microsoft's broken system. I didn't know you were banned from playing ranked matches if you didn't buy the DLC content for those games. That's frigging absurd. I actually hope HOME is a huge success and Sony can exceed what MS has done with Live through advertising. I prefer the dedicated server thing over P2P. I guess the first test for Sony's plan is coming soon with new stuff for R:FOM. Any word on if its free or not?

CJL13

You aren't banned if you don't buy the DLC, you just will be "locked out" of a lot of rooms where the host does have the DLC, thus you can't play the maps he has if you don't have them.  You can still play in matches where the host isn't using (or doesn't have) the DLC maps.

Still, being omitted from lots of rooms is a pain. Sure you can make your own room, but waiting for several people especially when they see you don't have the DLC becomes a pain.

It totally separates the community and puts pressure on those that didn't buy the DLC to think about doing so. 

Micro-transactions are getting out of hand, that's for sure. New content is great and all, and hell sometimes it's worth it... but every single stupid little thing these developers come out with shouldn't cost money. We already payed over $65 for the damn game in the first place.

And PS3 owners, don't think this won't happen to you as well: it will. As long as people continue buying these stupid things, we'll all be charged. 

The problem I have with downloaded content is I don't think M$ should force developers to charge a fee for the content if they don't want to. In the case of GoW, M$ owns the right, so I can understand them doing that, but if other publishers don't want to charge gamers for some of their downloadable content M$ shouldn't be able to overrule them and put a fee on the content. Most of the content, I don't even bother downloading. Some of the content gets download for free. I tried Test Drive Unlimited and got extra online racing content free. Didn't even know what it was until I started playing the game. 

They need to put a rule in place that says companies can only provide 2 different downloadable content for a fee. Everything after that should be free. This way they aren't milking the gamers with unnecessary content.

The problem I have with downloaded content is I don't think M$ should force developers to charge a fee for the content if they don't want to. In the case of GoW, M$ owns the right, so I can understand them doing that, but if other publishers don't want to charge gamers for some of their downloadable content M$ shouldn't be able to overrule them and put a fee on the content. Most of the content, I don't even bother downloading. Some of the content gets download for free. I tried Test Drive Unlimited and got extra online racing content free. Didn't even know what it was until I started playing the game.

They need to put a rule in place that says companies can only provide 2 different downloadable content for a fee. Everything after that should be free. This way they aren't milking the gamers with unnecessary content.

blackace

I agree with this, no companies should be forced to charge. I'm not shelling out another $10 per game for downloadable packs, for God's sake. And to make it worse, many games REQUIRE you to have the latest content in order to play! Give me a break. 

[QUOTE="JLuke360"]Only 3 million?Jackasssiegel

6 mill. 3+ mill who pay for the whole year at once, another 3 who have smaller,renewable subscriptions

How are they "taking people to the cleaners" - they've be *losing* money on the gaming division for the past seven years. If Microsoft Gaming had to stand as its own corporation, without the support of Microsoft, it would be bankrupt. Microsoft has taken a net loss to bring us the Xbox and Xbox 360 - and even the sales of games, accessories, and LIVE fees have not been enough to put them in the black. subrosian

So by your logic, if a company is loosing money, it is justified to charge their customers for anything they please? They automatically get a free pass? Milking people and the color of bottom line are mutually exclusive. I doubt Live fees were ever a plan to put their gaming division in the black. MS, like all console makers, takes a risk when they purposely sell a product for a loss. That is the reason they are loosing money.

People look at Nintendo's absolutely huge profits on the Wii and DS and say "hah! they're so successful" - but they look at Microsoft taking a *loss* on the 360 and go "they're such greedy people, charging for LIVE" - what on earth are you talking about? Greedy? They're throwing their money away!subrosian

MS has been notoriously greedy in other aspects of their conglomerate, long before they started failing in the console business. Google "Antitrust" + "Microsoft" for more information.

What it really comes down to is the anti-capitalist attitude that giant corporations are inheriently *evil* or that somehow all of the billions of dollars in Microsoft are Bill Gates' pocket change, and you're somehow entitled to that money. Here's a reality check - Microsoft is a publicly traded corporation - it's owned by regular people. All that money in Microsoft? That money comes from working people, be it directly by them buying shares, or indirectly through retirement funds, mutual funds, banks they invest with, et cetera putting their money into Microsoft. subrosian

I have to admit that this one sounds a bit "Rush Limbaugh" to me. Not everything is absolutes in this world, this isn't right wing talk radio. Disagreeing MS and their actions does not constitute anti-capitalist behavior. That couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, and in all reality, MS bullies other companies, whether it's through software patents or anti trust issues, which they are guilty of. Monopolistic behavior is NOT capitalism, not at all. Asking for a reason as to why MS charges for P2P does not constitute socialism.

MS's revenue is NOT the people's. Individuals can invest in MS all they want, it still doesn't justify MS's behavior or have anything to do with what I'm talking about. No one is asking for a piece of MS's revenues. MS cares about a select few, the major shareholders, and that's it. Let's be real here.

That money is some poor little old ladies money - Microsoft would be *criminal* to just hand you that money. Anti-capitalist / anti-business arguements just make me sick - it's stealing from the poor to give to the lazy.
And what's wrong with greed anyway? It's a virtue for a business to be greedy. If my money is in your business, I want to know that your employees are busting their rear ends trying to make a profit. I don't want to trust a company with my money, only to have them say "well, we lost money, but we didn't want to seem greedy".
subrosian

There is a fine distinction between greed and profit. Have you ever heard of a Regulatory Commission?

Again, since you have your shorts in a bunch, questioning MS's actions in no way constitutes anti-capitalism or anti-business. Monopolistic behavior is NOT capitalism. Big business doesn't always do the right thing, as a small business owner I can attest to that. People are allowed to discuss justifications for pricing. If you walk into a store, and they are selling milk for $10 a gallon, wouldn't you question as to why? What's the difference if it's P2P?

I asked for a justification as to why MS charges for P2P and no one gave me an answer. There is no cost associated with P2P play. Period. It's just a selling point to rake in $50 dollars per person. Plain and simple. Tell me, if MS allowed for P2P play for free, how many individuals would pay for Gold? Also, how come they allow it for the PC and not the 360 if there are costs involved?

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

How are they "taking people to the cleaners" - they've be *losing* money on the gaming division for the past seven years. If Microsoft Gaming had to stand as its own corporation, without the support of Microsoft, it would be bankrupt. Microsoft has taken a net loss to bring us the Xbox and Xbox 360 - and even the sales of games, accessories, and LIVE fees have not been enough to put them in the black. mismajor99

So by your logic, if a company is loosing money, it is justified to charge their customers for anything they please? They automatically get a free pass? Milking people and the color of bottom line are mutually exclusive. I doubt Live fees were ever a plan to put their gaming division in the black. MS, like all console makers, takes a risk when they purposely sell a product for a loss. That is the reason they are loosing money.

People look at Nintendo's absolutely huge profits on the Wii and DS and say "hah! they're so successful" - but they look at Microsoft taking a *loss* on the 360 and go "they're such greedy people, charging for LIVE" - what on earth are you talking about? Greedy? They're throwing their money away!subrosian

MS has been notoriously greedy in other aspects of their conglomerate, long before they started failing in the console business. Google "Antitrust" + "Microsoft" for more information.

What it really comes down to is the anti-capitalist attitude that giant corporations are inheriently *evil* or that somehow all of the billions of dollars in Microsoft are Bill Gates' pocket change, and you're somehow entitled to that money. Here's a reality check - Microsoft is a publicly traded corporation - it's owned by regular people. All that money in Microsoft? That money comes from working people, be it directly by them buying shares, or indirectly through retirement funds, mutual funds, banks they invest with, et cetera putting their money into Microsoft. subrosian

I have to admit that this one sounds a bit "Rush Limbaugh" to me. Not everything is absolutes in this world, this isn't right wing talk radio. Disagreeing MS and their actions does not constitute anti-capitalist behavior. That couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, and in all reality, MS bullies other companies, whether it's through software patents or anti trust issues, which they are guilty of. Monopolistic behavior is NOT capitalism, not at all. Asking for a reason as to why MS charges for P2P does not constitute socialism.

MS's revenue is NOT the people's. Individuals can invest in MS all they want, it still doesn't justify MS's behavior or have anything to do with what I'm talking about. No one is asking for a piece of MS's revenues. MS cares about a select few, the major shareholders, and that's it. Let's be real here.

That money is some poor little old ladies money - Microsoft would be *criminal* to just hand you that money. Anti-capitalist / anti-business arguements just make me sick - it's stealing from the poor to give to the lazy.
And what's wrong with greed anyway? It's a virtue for a business to be greedy. If my money is in your business, I want to know that your employees are busting their rear ends trying to make a profit. I don't want to trust a company with my money, only to have them say "well, we lost money, but we didn't want to seem greedy".
subrosian

There is a fine distinction between greed and profit. Have you ever heard of a Regulatory Commission?

Again, since you have your shorts in a bunch, questioning MS's actions in no way constitutes anti-capitalism or anti-business. Monopolistic behavior is NOT capitalism. Big business doesn't always do the right thing, as a small business owner I can attest to that. People are allowed to discuss justifications for pricing. If you walk into a store, and they are selling milk for $10 a gallon, wouldn't you question as to why? What's the difference if it's P2P?

I asked for a justification as to why MS charges for P2P and no one gave me an answer. There is no cost associated with P2P play. Period. It's just a selling point to rake in $50 dollars per person. Plain and simple. Tell me, if MS allowed for P2P play for free, how many individuals would pay for Gold? Also, how come they allow it for the PC and not the 360 if there are costs involved?

Because they can.  It is called Capitalism.  The price of goods and services in Capitalism is not determined by their costs.  It is determined by the market...specifically what people are willing to pay.  I suggest you brush up on Capitalism.

Last I checked MS is not a games monopoly.  More importantly, games aren't exactly an essential service.  Thus your points on regulated business are irrelevant.  MS is NOT impedeing the free market in games....it is defining the free market.

Your opinion is that Live is not worth it.  Millions of subscribers say otherwise, since they are paying for it.  Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant.  If the price went up and people did not subscribe...well then MS would have to adjust.  This is not the case where millions believe $4.17 or whatever a month is insignificant.  If you disagree don't buy...no one is forcing you.

MS is perfectly correct in charging for DLC.  Try going into a Walmart store, setting up your booth and selling your lemonade.  How long before you get thrown out? Do you think that MS should just let developers use their (MS's) Live service to distribute their wares (the devlopers wares) for free?  Exactly why do you think this is a God given roight for developers?  If they want to distribute it for free then go ahead...on their servers, on their sites.

Sony has chosen a different route.  They are desperate to distinguish themselves, somehow, anyhow.  Howver, it is inevitable that this too will change.

If you don't want to pay for the DLC...then don't.  Vote with your wallet.  But don't cry if you are "overruled" in the marketplace.

Or move to China or Cuba.  I am sure they have great games there.

Capitalism>Communism