Will Xbox Live be free in the near future?

[Anthony1]

I listen to an awful lot of gaming podcasts while I'm at work. It makes the time fly by really fast. Listening to various podcasts by IGN, GameSpot and 1up and places like that, there seems to be this general consensus that if Sony's online service is truly free, and if Nintendo's service is truly free, that Microsoft will have no choice but to match prices with the other two, and they will be forced to offer Xbox Live gold service for free.


The questions that I have on this are:


1. Do you think Microsoft will be forced to offer Xbox Live Gold service for free in the near future (next 8 months or so)?

2. What will happen to the people that happen to have already paid for a year of service in advance, when Microsoft announces that they are giving away Xbox Live for free? Will they be refunded? Will they be given Microsoft points in exchange?

3. Do these rumors make you think twice about renewing for a year of service in advance, when they could end up offering it for free in the very near future?

4. Do you think that Sony or Nintendo will start off with a free service, but then realize that they actually need to start charging for it, because the cost of maintenance and upkeep will be too great?

5. Do you feel that Sony will have a free online service, but that you will have to deal with lots of advertisments and sponsorships, to essentially pay the piper?

6. If Microsoft does go with a free service, will they go the heavy advertisment route to help subsidize their costs?




Many of these Editors that are on these podcasts think the scenario is going to break down like this:

1. Microsoft will continue to charge for their service for now

2. Sony's service will indeed be free, but will come with a cost, the cost will be relatively bare bones service, and lots of advertisments and sponsorships that you will be forced to view, while waiting to connect to the server, etc, etc

3. Both Sony and Nintendo, will constantly remind gamers in their advertising, that you don't have to pay anything for their online service.

4. Microsoft will start to feel pressure, from being the only company of the big 3 to be charging money for their online service.

5. Microsoft will look into the idea of advertisments and sponsorships, to allow Silver members to game online for "free".

6. Microsoft will continue the Gold service, virtually unchanged, with the idea that if you don't want to be bothered by lots of advertisements and sponsorships, you can continue to pay for the Gold service. The Gold service could also offer extra bonuses like certain Xbox Live Arcade games for free, and certain deals and special offers for Gold Members.

7. Sony will realize just how daunting a proposition it is to run a serious online service, and they will eventually break their service into two segments, the free segment with advertising and sponsorships, and the premium service that costs $$ but has no advertising.

8. Some editiors think that logistically, the companies won't be able to offer to different kinds of service, free with ads or $$$ for no ads. That from a technical standpoint this won't be possible, so it's either all or nothing proposition.


What say you?

[Neo Rasa]

This is a no brainer. Microsoft has operated XBox Live at a HUGE loss until about six months ago. Sony has made it clear that their service will basically be a glorified friends list, with the actual gamePLAY structure still being in the hands of the publishers.

[Joker T]

If they do make it free I'd be VERY happy and would feel alot better about buying items and such on Marketplace.

[Neil Koch]

I can probably see them doing some sort of ad-based service, kind of like the free verion of Netzero.

I'd still pay the $50/year for ad-free/higher priority serivce, tho - and I expect many people would feel the same. The couple of times I've tried playing online with the PS2 were just horrible.

[studvicious]

IMO it's worth the money. No questions asked.

[PapaStu]

I prefer the pay ways of XBL. Have you really played alot of whats on the PS2 online? Lots of inconsistancy when it comes to online connectability because there is money in it for the publishers, and they then just do the minimum to keep it up. When you pay for it, servers get more maintanence and all that fun stuff. (Not to mention the HD in the XBox also allows for legimate fixes when ones needed, where they really can't happen with the PS2 due to a lack of way to save the updates for the games).

[SkiDragon]

How come practically all PC online games are free (except RPGs), yet people think that console online games should cost money. It's the same internet...

[nik]

if anything I think a small reduction in price will happen, heck maybe 29.99, that would be cool, or 49.99 and you get 1600 points or something.

[slip81]

I don't mind paying because it usually means that the quality of the experience is much better.

My experience with free online gaming on both the PS2 and PC has never been as enjoyable as XBL because I was usually forced to deal with long waits for servers, slow servers, lag etc.

[playgeneration]

I have always thought xbox live should be free, you buy the console and the games, why should you have to pay more to fully use them?

I think if they made it free then a lot more people would buy the 360 and games, and thus microsoft makes their money that way instead. If it was free then i would be a lot more keen to buy a 360, at the moment having to pay more for its biggest feature is a big turn off for me. People assume that the quality would go down if it was free, but that doesnt have to be the case, microsoft have the funds to cover it, and if it helped them get to be the number 1 console, it would be worth it for them in the long run.

[s1lence]

I guess the truth will be shown in a few months when the PS3 and Wii's networks go live.

Live offers consistant game play connection options regardless of which game you play, it keeps it simple. Sure, PC gaming is free for the most part online, but to be honest PC gaming kind of needs that to keep people gaming on the PC.

Now we have all seen the free ps2 network, its hit or miss depending on which game you play. Is that really what you want with your 600 dollar UBERstation?

On the Nintendo side they are consistant but the friend codes, bad idea, unless they are the same code on everygame.

Now I'm not saying that Live is the best thing running, but it does work pretty damn well. The 360 seems to be selling pretty well and alot of people have GOLD memberships on live, which seems to put it as a sucessful business venture in my opinion. Look at it this way, is it really that expensive to have a live account when you spread the cost over a year? Honestly now, not the OMG thats 3 bucks I could spend on a game, its really not.

I dont see Gold Live accounts being free though, thats why MS made the silver live accounts which are already free.

[Anthony1]

One of the main reasons I brought this topic up, is because Micrsoft has a Camera bundle for $79.99 that includes a year of live service. My Live service is going to expire in late November, and I figured, if I'm going to buy another year of service anyways, then maybe I should get this $79.99 bundle. But all these podcasts are saying that Microsoft is going to have no choice but to offer Gold for free to match Sony and Nintendo, and I'm thinking, "What's going to happen to all the people that just paid X dollars for future live service?"


I suppose they would have to be refunded, or given Microsoft points or something, to make things right, but you never know.


If you buy the Xbox Live Vision Gold Pack, then you get everything that you normally get with the camera, but you also get:

free download for Robotron: 2084
Another 11 months of Xbox Live Gold service
200 Microsoft points


it's an extra $40 over the regular price of the camera package, but if you are going to buy a years of live service anyways, then it might be the better deal.

[DreamTR]

It's $50 a year. Why is this even being discussed?

[Richter Belmount]

Maybe it could be 20 an year? Who couldnt afford the price of an magazine subcription?

[Neo Rasa]

all these podcasts are saying that Microsoft is going to have no choice but to offer Gold for free to match Sony and Nintendo,

Again, this is just plain silly. Nintendo is still going to use FRIEND CODES for playing Wii games online. Sony is offering a friends list and downloadable content, only covering actual gameplay with Untold Legends. There is no comparison here, you get what you pay for.

[Half Japanese]

It's $50 a year. Why is this even being discussed?

Because people love to have something to bitch about. It's less than $5 a month for (mostly) ad-free service that has very little downtime. Not having publishers responsible for servers is a great thing. Anyone remember having fun with the online games on the ps2? No? That's because it was fucking impossible.

The Wii's online service will likely be a joke just like the DS' is (outside of course for repaying for the privilege of downloading the same handful of games Nintendo keeps riding to the bank). Sony has foolishly opted to let the publishers upkeep their own servers, which means that once certain games become unpopular on a mainstream scale, you probably won't be playing them online anymore, and you can forget the frills and the pressure to quickly patch problems. People love to talk about how many ideas get stolen from company to company, but you would have to be a pants-shitting retard NOT to copy or improve upon the model that Xbox Live has in place.