Xbox Live Exec speaks on Live fee

For me personally the $50.00 a year for Live is peanuts and i have no problem paying it. I actually get my subs for $20 - $30 on eBay. Interesting article

Greenberg was speaking in an interview with GameTrailers.com, during which he was asked about the fact that PSN is free while Xbox Live users must pay USD 50 for an annual Gold subscription in order to compete online.

"I don't think price is a big issue," Greenberg said. "Almost everything we offer on Live is available for free, your friends list, messaging, [marketplace content]... When you get a good 80 per cent of the Live experience for free... We feel our multiplayer offering is good value."

According to Greenberg more than half of Live's 6 million users have purchased Gold subscriptions, which he said indicates they are willing to pay for a high level of service.

"I think you get what you pay for. With the managed service, there's no hacking, cheating, grieving," he said.

"The other thing is people want a consistent experience across all their games; you don't want the way you integrate friends lists to be different game to game, you want voice in every single game..."

Greenberg went on to highlight what he sees as the biggest issue with PlayStation Network, stating, "It's not a unified service." For example, he said, when playing Resistance: Fall of Man users can't invite friends straight into a game from the dashboard.

"It's not that consistent experience - it's not built into the core platform, which for us is really important."

"We feel like if online matters to you, you're going to go with our console because we have the best offering, but I would say their commitment is probably the most important thing."

Link

eh, they could at least lower the price. bring in some more cheapos who have a prob paying 50 bucks a year.Kook18

Get them on eBay. $20.00 - $30.00 for 13 months.

[QUOTE="Kook18"]eh, they could at least lower the price. bring in some more cheapos who have a prob paying 50 bucks a year.Deihmos

Get them on eBay. $20.00 - $30.00 for 13 months.

rereading the article; it said a little over 1/2 of 3mil users have gold. lets assume they all purchased the 1-year subscription. thats $50 x 1,500,000. that would equal out to $75,000,000 profits for MS. i'm sure they lose some in maintenance, fees, paying workers, but i doubt it costs 75mil to keep XBL running...

I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.hongkingkong

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

[QUOTE="Kook18"]eh, they could at least lower the price. bring in some more cheapos who have a prob paying 50 bucks a year.Deihmos

Get them on eBay. $20.00 - $30.00 for 13 months.

exactly, u can buy the codes and they email them to u,i bought 3 and they cost me $70 total...less than 25 a year. if 50 is too mch do some research and get them cheaper. doesnt take a rocket scientist to go on Ebay

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="Kook18"]eh, they could at least lower the price. bring in some more cheapos who have a prob paying 50 bucks a year.ApocalypseXIVV

Get them on eBay. $20.00 - $30.00 for 13 months.

exactly, u can buy the codes and they email them to u,i bought 3 and they cost me $70 total...less than 25 a year. if 50 is too mch do some research and get them cheaper. doesnt take a rocket scientist to go on Ebay

This information was sappose to be top secret.

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.Deihmos

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

I don't mean anything that would disrupt gameplay, just a few DC thingys that are already on marketplace, the money from that should pay for live not the gamer who loyaly forks out so much on games and peripheras to get the most of their gaming experience. But no, Bill Gates needs another diamond encrusted diamond to through at poor people, so we must pay in blood.

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.Deihmos

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

In-game ads........... Watch XBL will be plaster with them if the service is free.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.hongkingkong

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

I don't mean anything that would disrupt gameplay, just a few DC thingys that are already on marketplace, the money from that should pay for live not the gamer who loyaly forks out so much on games and peripheras to get the most of their gaming experience. But no, Bill Gates needs another diamond encrusted diamond to through at poor people, so we must pay in blood.

wow....

you do realize the infrasture cost money...the people manning the phones cost money.... etc...

but you blame it on bill gates... WHO WAS NOT EVEN IN THE CONCEPTION OF XBOX OR XBOX LIVE...

noobs...:roll:

Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Zhengi

and every PS3 online gamer should have voicecom standard...

but they dont'...

and it IS the "better online service"... ;)

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.SpecialForcesOp

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

In-game ads........... Watch XBL will be plaster with them if the service is free.

you do realize sony is planning on funding PSN with "ecommerce and advertising"...right? ;)

[QUOTE="SpecialForcesOp"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.tango90101

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

In-game ads........... Watch XBL will be plaster with them if the service is free.

you do realize sony is planning on funding PSN with "ecommerce and advertising"...right? ;)

I think many people misunderstand what this Home actually is. it's just a social lounge and nothing else. it really doesn't have anything to do with online gaming.

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.tango90101

and every PS3 online gamer should have voicecom standard...

but they dont'...

and it IS the "better online service"... ;)

[QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="SpecialForcesOp"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.Deihmos

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

In-game ads........... Watch XBL will be plaster with them if the service is free.

you do realize sony is planning on funding PSN with "ecommerce and advertising"...right? ;)

I think many people misunderstand what this Home actually is. it's just a social lounge and nothing else. it really doesn't have anything to do with online gaming.

sony did not state HOME...they stated PSN...

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Zhengi

and every PS3 online gamer should have voicecom standard...

but they dont'...

and it IS the "better online service"... ;)

why not... it's just as good as any server based games i've played...

i don't think paying $600 for a toy with no games is worth paying for, so i guess that makes us even..

sony did not state HOME...they stated PSN...

tango90101

Funding PSN with Ads? What does PSN actually do since it isn't integrated into these games? Once you play online you are connecting to the game developers servers not the PSn.

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.tango90101

and every PS3 online gamer should have voicecom standard...

but they dont'...

and it IS the "better online service"... ;)

At the min yes.....;)

Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Zhengi

[QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="SpecialForcesOp"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.Deihmos

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

In-game ads........... Watch XBL will be plaster with them if the service is free.

you do realize sony is planning on funding PSN with "ecommerce and advertising"...right? ;)

I think many people misunderstand what this Home actually is. it's just a social lounge and nothing else. it really doesn't have anything to do with online gaming.

sony did not state HOME...they stated PSN...

Funding PSN with Ads? What does PSN actually do since it isn't integrated into these games? Once you play online you are connecting to the game developers servers not the PSn.

you'll have to ask sony...they're the ones who stated it...

i wish i had more information to offer, but i'm not dumb enough to pay $600 to play silent games online...

ps...how are the developers supposed to pay for the servers and how long will they remain dedicated? it's really not good to put the brunt of the online features on the developers who are ALREADY taking a HUGE risk even releasing a game for the ps3.

the cool thing about peer to peer, you'll NEVER have to worry about "the server is down" or "it's been discontinued to make room for the next game"...

[QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.tango90101

and every PS3 online gamer should have voicecom standard...

but they dont'...

and it IS the "better online service"... ;)

why not... it's just as good as any server based games i've played...

i don't think paying $600 for a toy with no games is worth paying for, so i guess that makes us even..

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Dire_Weasel

this coming fro the guy who spent $600 to watch movies on a game machine...

there isn't $200 worth of ps3 games to buy...;)

[QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Zhengi

and every PS3 online gamer should have voicecom standard...

but they dont'...

and it IS the "better online service"... ;)

why not... it's just as good as any server based games i've played...

i don't think paying $600 for a toy with no games is worth paying for, so i guess that makes us even..

no they dont'..... :lol:

and the reason the ps3 online doesn't lag is becuase there is noone talking that eating up bandwidth.... ;0

what's the point of playing another person if you can't communicate....

wow..."free online"... watta bargain...:lol:

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.tango90101

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

I don't mean anything that would disrupt gameplay, just a few DC thingys that are already on marketplace, the money from that should pay for live not the gamer who loyaly forks out so much on games and peripheras to get the most of their gaming experience. But no, Bill Gates needs another diamond encrusted diamond to through at poor people, so we must pay in blood.

wow....

you do realize the infrasture cost money...the people manning the phones cost money.... etc...

but you blame it on bill gates... WHO WAS NOT EVEN IN THE CONCEPTION OF XBOX OR XBOX LIVE...

noobs...:roll:

If there are enough users, then companies will want their products metioned on live. Money from advertising could drastically decrease the price that MS can put out for xbl while still making profit. I think you are under the impression advertising is free, its not just to make things clear. I couldn't give 2 ticks if Bill Gates either came up with the idea of paying £35 for xbl or if he would get a diamond encrusted diamond when he has six already; the point is someone other than the gamer is profiting from the hefty sum we shouldn't have to pay. PSN is free. Live could certainly be less expensive, athough more devoted a network it could make up for that through other sources than the large price.

sony...they're the ones who stated it...

i wish i had more information to offer, but i'm not dumb enough to pay $600 to play silent games online...

ps...how are the developers supposed to pay for the servers and how long will they remain dedicated? it's really not good to put the brunt of the online features on the developers who are ALREADY taking a HUGE risk even releasing a game for the ps3.

the cool thing about peer to peer, you'll NEVER have to worry about "the server is down" or "it's been discontinued to make oom for the next game"...

tango90101

i remember the Dreamcast was the first console with online play and the fee was over $20.00 a month but people paid it.

They actually shut down the MGS2 servers so no more online play with that game. That is the problem with leaving the developers to provide servers.

[QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.hongkingkong

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

I don't mean anything that would disrupt gameplay, just a few DC thingys that are already on marketplace, the money from that should pay for live not the gamer who loyaly forks out so much on games and peripheras to get the most of their gaming experience. But no, Bill Gates needs another diamond encrusted diamond to through at poor people, so we must pay in blood.

wow....

you do realize the infrasture cost money...the people manning the phones cost money.... etc...

but you blame it on bill gates... WHO WAS NOT EVEN IN THE CONCEPTION OF XBOX OR XBOX LIVE...

noobs...:roll:

If there are enough users, then companies will want their products metioned on live. Money from advertising could drastically decrease the price that MS can put out for xbl while still making profit. I think you are under the impression advertising is free, its not just to make things clear. I couldn't give 2 ticks if Bill Gates either came up with the idea of paying £35 for xbl or if he would get a diamond encrusted diamond when he has six already; the point is someone other than the gamer is profiting from the hefty sum we shouldn't have to pay. PSN is free. Live could certainly be less expensive, athough more devoted a network it could make up for that through other sources than the large price.

1. You have no margins to base a judgemnet from as far as how much money advertising can make to offset expenses.

2. you blames bill gates for something he had nothing to do with... nice...

3. yes PSN is free... and hacked... to the point sony is now threatening hackers with legal suits.... not so with xbox live... and it will only get worse on PSN.

4. it looks like you're hating on 'live w/o ever having played it...;)

no they dont'..... :lol:

and the reason the ps3 online doesn't lag is becuase there is noone talking that eating up bandwidth.... ;0

what's the point of playing another person if you can't communicate....

wow..."free online"... watta bargain...:lol:

tango90101

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"][QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.tango90101

this coming fro the guy who spent $600 to watch movies on a game machine...

there isn't $200 worth of ps3 games to buy...;)

[QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

no they dont'..... :lol:

and the reason the ps3 online doesn't lag is becuase there is noone talking that eating up bandwidth.... ;0

tango90101

You pay 50 bucks to get to experience microtransactions at its finest.

"Lololol here's Gears of War online! Now you have to pay 10 bucks for new maps because no one plays the old maps. Then when those maps are done, we'll send new maps again and againnnnxboxlive costs OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAANDDD!!"

[QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

no they dont'..... :lol:

and the reason the ps3 online doesn't lag is becuase there is noone talking that eating up bandwidth.... ;0

Dire_Weasel

riiiiight...:roll:

it's funny how EVERYTHING is better on the ps3 according to you..

face it; your fanboyism blinds...

which games EXACTLY have better network progamming and how can one prove it?

thanks

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"][QUOTE="Zhengi"]Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Dire_Weasel

this coming fro the guy who spent $600 to watch movies on a game machine...

there isn't $200 worth of ps3 games to buy...;)

so you paid $600 to play a demo...? smart...:lol:

many, many ps2 and ps1 games don't work on the ps3, so you must have a small list...congrats... you could play those games on a console priced $400 less than the ps3..

riiiiight..."repairs"... okey doke...:roll:

congrats using your 2005 "teh cell" technology into 2013 when the rest of the world has moved on...

i'm really starting to question your financial decisions....

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

no they dont'..... :lol:

and the reason the ps3 online doesn't lag is becuase there is noone talking that eating up bandwidth.... ;0

what's the point of playing another person if you can't communicate....

wow..."free online"... watta bargain...:lol:

Zhengi

but it's better to use a server based game with a limited life....?

not hardly...

For me personally the $50.00 a year for Live is peanuts and i have no problem paying it. I actually get my subs for $20 - $30 on eBay. Interesting article

Greenberg was speaking in an interview with GameTrailers.com, during which he was asked about the fact that PSN is free while Xbox Live users must pay USD 50 for an annual Gold subscription in order to compete online.

"I don't think price is a big issue," Greenberg said. "Almost everything we offer on Live is available for free, your friends list, messaging, [marketplace content]... When you get a good 80 per cent of the Live experience for free... We feel our multiplayer offering is good value."

According to Greenberg more than half of Live's 3 million users have purchased Gold subscriptions, which he said indicates they are willing to pay for a high level of service.

"I think you get what you pay for. With the managed service, there's no hacking, cheating, grieving," he said.

"The other thing is people want a consistent experience across all their games; you don't want the way you integrate friends lists to be different game to game, you want voice in every single game..."

Greenberg went on to highlight what he sees as the biggest issue with PlayStation Network, stating, "It's not a unified service." For example, he said, when playing Resistance: Fall of Man users can't invite friends straight into a game from the dashboard.

"It's not that consistent experience - it's not built into the core platform, which for us is really important."

"We feel like if online matters to you, you're going to go with our console because we have the best offering, but I would say their commitment is probably the most important thing."

Link

Deihmos

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="tango90101"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"]I'd say around £20 would be reasonsble for a whole year. £35 or $50 is bloomin' expensive and just to play people online it is not worth the total price. It is better than PSN but like a lot of the things with the PS3 it comes free (wifi, HD movies). I am sick of the price and i'd like a cut atleast if not make it free by putting a few ads on the marketplace, they do that now but at no gain to the consumer.tango90101

Ads will never work on a console. Imagine playign Gears of War and something bounce across the screen. I use to see those on this site before I went All Access

I don't mean anything that would disrupt gameplay, just a few DC thingys that are already on marketplace, the money from that should pay for live not the gamer who loyaly forks out so much on games and peripheras to get the most of their gaming experience. But no, Bill Gates needs another diamond encrusted diamond to through at poor people, so we must pay in blood.

wow....

you do realize the infrasture cost money...the people manning the phones cost money.... etc...

but you blame it on bill gates... WHO WAS NOT EVEN IN THE CONCEPTION OF XBOX OR XBOX LIVE...

noobs...:roll:

If there are enough users, then companies will want their products metioned on live. Money from advertising could drastically decrease the price that MS can put out for xbl while still making profit. I think you are under the impression advertising is free, its not just to make things clear. I couldn't give 2 ticks if Bill Gates either came up with the idea of paying £35 for xbl or if he would get a diamond encrusted diamond when he has six already; the point is someone other than the gamer is profiting from the hefty sum we shouldn't have to pay. PSN is free. Live could certainly be less expensive, athough more devoted a network it could make up for that through other sources than the large price.

1. You have no margins to base a judgemnet from as far as how much money advertising can make to offset expenses.

2. you blames bill gates for something he had nothing to do with... nice...

3. yes PSN is free... and hacked... to the point sony is now threatening hackers with legal suits.... not so with xbox live... and it will only get worse on PSN.

4. it looks like you're hating on 'live w/o ever having played it...;)

Lol you silly person you, I have live my GT is below this response (and I do like live). I said I don't care if Bill Gates came up with it or whatever it was just a little joke. Hacking doesn't cost $50 from 2 million+ gold users per year. I left the book open on other means of revenue to fund live, I believe this should not entirely rely on us the gamer.

Unfortunately for stores, but beneficial for us, people throw 5-10 13-month subscription cards into their pockets and sell them on eBay for $25, my friend got his there. I think any online gamer with the PS3 would glady pay $5 or less a month for all the advantages of Xbox Live intergrated into their system...

I don't see the big deal with $50 a year. 50/12 = $4.25ish a month, or so.

A meal deal at Taco Bell costs more than that, and haters are complaining? Let em' complain.

I don't see the big deal with $50 a year. 50/12 = $4.25ish a month, or so.

A meal deal at Taco Bell costs more than that, and haters are complaining? Let em' complain.

Michael85

50$/year is a lot , no matter how u look at it.

Hell, how many games u buy every year? you could buy one or two more with that money! -.-

Well, he really expects me to pay for themes and gamerpictures? Come on Microsoft, get out of your ass.Mudig

bump

"I actually get my subs for $20 - $30 on eBay."

I get my Subs for $4.99 at Quiznos.

Meh, paying money for a peer to peer service is too much. Microsoft should at least have servers to provide a better online service.Zhengi