Xbox Live charges consumers and develope ...

This is a pretty damn clear point. I'm not asking you to assess the value of Xbox Live in your own, personal opinion. What I will ask you to do is evaluate this and determine whether or not Microsoft even has a remotely good reason to charge for Gold subscriptions.Take a look at this:http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/report-nintendo-luring-away-xbl-psn-devs-to-wiiware/?biz=1''Develop said that Microsoft recently halved the royalties paid for first-party Xbox Live Arcade from 70 percent to 35 percent for games that generate less than $4 million in revenues; that rate reportedly approaches 50 percent, however, when sales figures go over the magic $4 million.'' Now, that's a pretty astonishing rate of royalties. I'm sure you're all aware there's a good amount of content on XBLA and that sales are more than acceptable. 70 percent royalties since inception, recently cut to 35-50% (only reaching 50% on blockbuster titles).Hey, guess what: that's what I call revenue. A hell of a lot of it. They provide infrastructure, and yet, for over two years, they've obtained 70% royalties on every game purchased over XBLA. Actually, holy ****, that's what I'd call profit!http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1967/AN-INCONVENIENT-TRUTH/p1This one is an editorial. Yes, the opinions are funny. No, you don't have to agree with them. I hope you find them ironic. Anyway, it's testament to the reality of the service....fact-mine with me, would you?''Xbox Live online gameplay sucks. A weapon like Halo 2's energy sword or Gears of War's shotgun offer strong evidence that the user hosting a match%26mdash;which translates into having no lag at all%26mdash;has a terrible advantage over the other players.

Paying for peer-to-peer online gameplay is a scam. If we are paying to play online, the least we deserve is a server-based system where matches are hosted on a server provided by Microsoft.'' Testament to the lag and P2P-based performance difficulties....very serious stuff for competitive online gaming. Don't try to deny it. I've seen enough Xbox fanboys complaining about ''host advantage'' and ''bullet lag'' and ''GeoW shotguns'' to know that P2P is NOT an airtight way to play a game online with zero performance hiccups (understatement).Also, Live is lacking dedicated download servers, according to this article. If this is not the case, I'll gladly rescind this statement, since I'm not sure it's the case anymore anyway:''If we are paying a monthly fee for Xbox Live, the least we deserve is to have dedicated download servers similar to those offered by FilePlanet (which, by the way, is a sister service of TeamXbox).

Furthermore, even if you are an Xbox Live Silver user, paid content should always be pulled off from a dedicated download server differently from those hosting free content. If you're paying for the content, you deserve a better bandwidth!''Same download speeds, same servers as Xbox Live Silver on a Gold account. Hell, you even get a better downloading bandwidth from Fileplanet, Gamespot, etc, and better file quality too. We don't need to complain and say ''Microsoft needs to give me dedicated download servers!'' like they do in these article, we just need to recognize that Microsoft is skimping pretty hardcore on some serious financial elements.''If you are paying for your online-game service, why do you have to see ads on those Xbox 360 blades? Furthermore, if you are paying for a game, why you have to see ads in games? I'm cool with ads making content free, but, conversely, paying for content should remove any ad. Microsoft has already acquired Massive Inc., which (along with the other big in-game advertising companies, Double Fusion and the recently-acquired-by-Google AdScape) already has deals in place with most major game publishers. You'd think if they wanted to remove ads for a specific group of players, they could easily do so by signing an agreement and developing the necessary technology to identify Gold subscribers from Silver users.''Same ads as Silver users....moreover, there is a significant chunk of revenue coming from advertisements on XBL. Now here's a good point: even the much maligned PSN doesn't have ads...as in none. No first party ads, no third party ads. They have a feature section that shows the new content, and that's literally all.So, let's tally here: Microsoft is NOT paying for dedicated gaming servers.Microsoft is NOT paying for dedicated download servers.Microsoft is getting ad revenues.Microsoft is getting obscene revenues that were even HIGHER prior to early March or whenever the royalty rate was cut.Microsoft is getting a whole hell of a lot of revenue from their other services....VOD, TV shows, other downloads, etc....Microsoft is charging you, the consumer....$50 annually.None of this is necessary. Let me give you can example: PSN. They probably get royalties, but they're probably significantly more scant. They also don't have much of the pay-to-view and VOD content that Live does...yet. They're also ushering in a new service called Home, which will be 100% free. They probably don't have dedicated download servers, but then again, they don't have a pay-to-play subscription process and nearly as much revenue as Xbox Live does.Also, it's used commonly as a criticism against PSN, or rather as a qualifier to PS3 fanboys making the statement that PSN has dedicated servers, that most games do not. This primarily includes third-party titles...the only exception of which I'm aware, and I'm being honest, feel free to add any games you know of, is UT3 (I've played it myself...it has dedicated servers).Also, maybe Kane %26 Lynch did, but I'm not sure (probably not). They did have server lists, which is extremely unusual for P2P....usually there's a matchmaking process and some other junk, like a waiting room, in P2P games. I'm sure it's neither sufficient nor necessary, but it's a frequent addition.But the big thing about PSN is that every single first party online game has dedicated servers provided on Sony's own dime. Look at the Warhawk server list, count all the Sony-provided dedicated servers. They're in blue. There's a hell of a lot of them, and they're VERY low-ping and stable. If you've never seen them before, they're actually provided by server racks of PS3's...they showed pictures on the official Sony blog. Sure, qualify PSN by saying that most games don't have dedicated server support, but don't blame Sony for that when it's on their dime!Moreover, I want to make the point that Microsoft IS providing infrastructure. They're giving developers basic code and enforcing a rigid standard which is actually having benefits to each of them....they don't have to write code...the MS code is very stable and easy on system resources...and every game on Xbox 360 has rudimentary Live support at the very least. They also have very effective account security and cheating prevention along with a very solid feature set for a closed service.There's drawbacks, to be sure...no UCC is a HUGE bonus for Sony and a HUGE drawback for XBL (don't try and say it isn't....I ravish UCC and my favorite games of all time are those that have HUGE modding potential, such as CSS and WC3).But my question is....is the cost of maintaining Xbox Live's rudimentary infrastructure offset by enough of a significant margin to justify cutting back on even SOME of the obscenities of Live listed above?Common sense tells me HELL NO, but let's see some charts and graphs.Xbox Live charges consumers and develope ...
I wonder do you know that by reducing royalties they helped developers with charges in other areas which actually allows them to make more money. They didn't just cut royalties to be greedy. It was something both sides could benefit.Xbox Live charges consumers and develope ...
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''too_much_eslim'']I wonder do you know that by reducing royalties they helped developers with charges in other areas which actually allows them to make more money. They didn't just cut royalties to be greedy. It was something both sides could benefit.[/QUOTE]I didn't say it was greedy, I said they were making a hell of a lot of revenue, which hasn't changed. They're making less, and, um, hell yes the developers are benefitting. That's my point.
also what is this pay to view content you speak of? Are you talking about gamer pics and themes?
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
So many things false in your post. XBL does have dedicated servers in some games, It does have dedicated download servers for game demos, content, and video content. XBL is vastly better over PSN right now. You pay $50 a year for a lot of things in a closed system.
[QUOTE=''PS3_3DO'']So many things false in your post. XBL does have dedicated servers in some games, It does have dedicated download servers for game demos, content, and video content. XBL is vastly better over PSN right now. You pay $50 a year for a lot of things in a closed system. [/QUOTE]I want a link for your claims, I want an example of games with dedicated servers, I want you to acknowledge that even the games that HAVE dedicated servers are not hosted or provided by Microsoft, but by the third party, thus totally passing my point without contact....And I want you to qualify your ''XBL is vastly better than....I'm a fanboy, endgame.'' statement with something a little less in the freaking clouds.Also, apologize for being such a raging fanboy. It's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=''BobHipJames''] [QUOTE=''too_much_eslim'']I wonder do you know that by reducing royalties they helped developers with charges in other areas which actually allows them to make more money. They didn't just cut royalties to be greedy. It was something both sides could benefit.[/QUOTE]I didn't say it was greedy, I said they were making a hell of a lot of revenue, which hasn't changed. They're making less, and, um, hell yes the developers are benefitting. That's my point.[/QUOTE] I am saying the developers benefit from the cut royalties because now they don't have to for a lot of the fees to actually put there game on the market. In theory the developers gain more profit this way. Also why do you think MS is all of sudden is not going to charge judt because the competition is free. PSN users are still crying for in game XMB. Yeah your going to get it hopefully, but it isn't there. XBL is just superior in every way to PSN. ALso MS has more improvement for XBL they stated so themselves. You ar ejust going to have to wait and see.They are going to make a good reason why paying $50 is justified.
we all know xbox live is a ripp off. but it does offer some good things. but ur right they should not charge for it .
[QUOTE=''deadmeat59'']we all know xbox live is a ripp off. but it does offer some good things. but ur right they should not charge for it .[/QUOTE]Agreed. Xbox Live is the best online service, but they really shouldn't charge for it :
|[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
[QUOTE=''deadmeat59'']we all know xbox live is a ripp off. but it does offer some good things. but ur right they should not charge for it .[/QUOTE]Since PSN came into existance they need to quit charging. Would you rather pay for a Lexus or get a Mazda for free?
[QUOTE=''patriots7672''] [QUOTE=''deadmeat59'']we all know xbox live is a ripp off. but it does offer some good things. but ur right they should not charge for it .[/QUOTE]Since PSN came into existance they need to quit charging. Would you rather pay for a Lexus or get a Mazda for free?[/QUOTE] I would take the Mazda and sell it an duse that money to help me get a lexus in all honesty.
[QUOTE=''PS3_3DO'']So many things false in your post. XBL does have dedicated servers in some games, It does have dedicated download servers for game demos, content, and video content. XBL is vastly better over PSN right now. You pay $50 a year for a lot of things in a closed system. [/QUOTE]We are still waiting for you to back up your argument with evidence ;)
you know you can choose whether you want to have ads or not, right?
[QUOTE=''patriots7672''][QUOTE=''deadmeat59'']we all know xbox live is a ripp off. but it does offer some good things. but ur right they should not charge for it .[/QUOTE]Since PSN came into existance they need to quit charging. Would you rather pay for a Lexus or get a Mazda for free?[/QUOTE]I think Live= Lexus PSN=Toyota, both do the job well one just does it a little nicer. Personally they need to stop charging I can't believe how greedy MS has gotten this generation. I was a big Xbox fan last gen, but I'm so happy I made the switch to PS3 this time. Oh and huge props to Sony for not giving in to charging for online and keeping online free. I think gaming would really suck if everyone followed MS like they wanted and fees became the industry standard for online play.
Until PSN evolves (More than just HOME) xbl doesn't need to stop charging.
[QUOTE=''BobHipJames''][QUOTE=''PS3_3DO''] So many things false in your post. XBL does have dedicated servers in some games, It does have dedicated download servers for game demos, content, and video content. XBL is vastly better over PSN right now. You pay $50 a year for a lot of things in a closed system. [/QUOTE]I want a link for your claims, I want an example of games with dedicated servers, I want you to acknowledge that even the games that HAVE dedicated servers are not hosted or provided by Microsoft, but by the third party, thus totally passing my point without contact....And I want you to qualify your ''XBL is vastly better than....I'm a fanboy, endgame.'' statement with something a little less in the freaking clouds.Also, apologize for being such a raging fanboy. It's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Shadowrun, BF2 modern combat, Frontlines fuel of war, R6V etc.. there are quite a few games with dedicated servers. Shadowrun I believe is published by Microsoft so I believe they would have a role in the servers. They also have dedicated servers for downloads, how else would you be able to download content at any time, I can't think of how it would even be possible to not have dedicated servers for downloadable content. They also have dedicated servers to keep track of every ones gamertags, achievments, gamerscore, MS points, etc..
[QUOTE=''theflash118'']Until PSN evolves (More than just HOME) xbl doesn't need to stop charging.[/QUOTE]That's not a very good argument considering you'd be hard pressed to prove just how XBL is in any way the best service on the market...The only reason its viable is because it's tied to a very successful product with a closed network system....And I've already illustrated ways in which PSN is superior to XBLive....you have yet to illustrate any way in which XBL is superior to PSN and I won't suppose it will be enough to totally eradicate any of my above points as to the worthiness or unworthiness of the cost of XBL in the OP.They're all legit to my understanding...at least, thus far, until anybody makes a serious attempt to debunk all of my claims, one of which I said I'd be glad to rescind.Anyway, it's not like XBL doesn't need to make some changes or cut some of its excesses, which I've illustrated above.