Xbox Live Gold Going Free Is Possible If It Follows PlayStation Plus Model
Posted on Thursday, January 10 @ 09:00:00 Eastern by Nicholas Tan
No matter the criticism, Xbox Live Gold will likely never be free. Scouring the litany of blogs, comments, editorials, and rants against Xbox Live Gold's annual fee, the general consensus is that Microsoft should forego the $60/year fee (or $120/year by the $10/month approach) and simply be free. The obvious comparison is to the PlayStation 3's free online service, a point which has been made since the console's inception, and also to PlayStation Plus which only costs $50/year and is an additive service instead of an restrictive one. No one should need to pay to unlock online multiplayer.
But this negative perception of Xbox Live Gold wasn't always the popular opinion. When the Xbox 360 first arrived on the scene, its online capabilities were lauded and were enough of an upgrade from the previous PS2/Xbox/Dreamcast generation that most people didn't mind paying the upfront cost of the online service. Since then, it has evolved with the addition of new party functions, a better user interface (remember the blades interface?), and the addition of apps like Netflix and HuluPlus.
The trouble now is that the online playing field has evened out, and PlayStation Plus offers similar, if not more, content than its competitor with new games and various PlayStation Network discounts. Some apps like Netflix even work better on PSN, and users don't have access to Netflix on Xbox 360 if they don't have Xbox Live Gold. So it's difficult justifying the $60 cost anymore, or in other words, sacrificing the equivalent of one full game every year just for online service.
Defenders will point out that, while Xbox Live does get hacked every now and then, its security breaches have not been as severe as those of Sony's in the last three years. Making this service free would also feed into a sense of consumer entitlement, to a base who wants everything but doesn't want to pay anything. Also, on a per title basis, online communities on Xbox 360 tend to be stronger than those on the PS3, particularly in North America.
In fact, the major reason why players still pay the barrier-to-entry fee is to remain in contact with their friends. Microsoft allowed itself a head-start on the PS3 by releasing earlier, helping to establish social circles that are tough to break. It's not a matter of simply refusing to fork over $60 to a big business that doesn't really need it, but a matter of whether you're willing to drop from your network of gaming friends. Likewise, it seems silly to ask all your friends to switch over to PSN or complain that $60 (cheaper, if you shop around) is too expensive.. It's peer pressure.
Still, the prospect that Microsoft will ever make Xbox Live entirely free is farfetched given how profitable it is. The $60 goes straight to the company without going to other publishers and developers. As a conservative estimate, Microsoft stated in 2010 that at least half of its 25 million XBL base are Gold subscribers. Given the assumption that this figure has increased over the last three years, that's a total of at least $750 million going to Microsoft every year since then. So shout all you want; they can't hear you through all the money.
So why is the fight still worth the trouble? Because Microsoft needs to know our gripes before the next-generation consoles rolls out. It's the time between generation cycles that consumers have the most purchasing power, and though it's unlikely that every Xbox 360 owner on this issue alone will abandon the console for the next PlayStation or Steam on PC, Microsoft wants to attract its fanbase as well as newcomers. Having a restrictive annual fee for online (effectively paying for it twice since you have to pay your internet provider too) is one strong bullet in the cons column.
Ultimately, I believe the best solution is a sort of "Xbox Live Plus" that's similar to PlayStation Plus and to make the traditional Xbox Live Gold free; essentially, change what the $60 fee gets the consumer. Even if they decide to keep online services behind a barrier, having additional games and discounts through an "Xbox Live Plus" would be a noticeable improvement and something I would be willing to purchase. Of course, if the next PlayStation continues to deliver free online service, that might force Microsoft's hand. Besides, it's important in a negotiation to start high even it's unreasonable, and thus why it's important to demand free online service for the next Xbox.
Are you still willing to pay for Xbox Live Gold as it is for the next Xbox console? State your claim in the comments!
|
[ Editor's Note: As Nick Olsen is a writer for Theory of Gaming, this won't be counted in the monthly Vox Pop prize. However, it is very much a worthy read. ]
By Nick Olsen
Co-founder, Theory of Gaming
In 1985 Nintendo started a revolution when it...
spartan317
Joined: Dec 2005
Gold can have all the extras... the third party apps... exclusive release dates...
UghRochester
Joined: Jun 2006
Playstation Plus is a great way to expand your gaming library without spending so much. As long as you stick to PS Plus, you'll get to keep full games for free. I definitely enjoy the savings of PS Plus. However, I'm still buying Xbox LIVE Gold, because they're online experience is pretty solid. As mentioned in the article, the online connection between friends is way better than it is with PSN, I don't want to make this whole comment a compare and contrast of PSN vs Xbox LIVE, but Xbox LIVE is worth it just like PS Plus is worth it. Again, I wished Microsoft would set it up like PSN, but then Xbox LIVE would dominate the competition if that happened.
Nick_Tan
Joined: Jul 2006
danielrbischoff
Joined: Nov 2009
That and I'm pretty close to punching Bill Gates over the ads flooding the Dashboard. Why am I paying for this service if I'm going to be choked out by ads anyway?
Nick_Tan
Joined: Jul 2006
UghRochester
Joined: Jun 2006
wildmario
Joined: Jan 2007
MootCoffee
Joined: Jan 2007
Chunibrow
Joined: Mar 2010
jvernet
Joined: Sep 2010
Axelownz
Joined: Apr 2011
I do agree about the Netflix though, i usually watch Netflix on my PS3 anyway. I like the app more on PS3.
elmoreoocyte
Joined: Apr 2012
I have, as stated already above by others, never understood why I should pay for the luxury of internet, pay for the luxury of a game, and then pay for the luxury of playing the game on the internet when there are other, above board, ways to do so.
As an aside, I have to agree with Moot Coffee about the dashboard. I've been out of the 360 experience for some time. My wife treated herself to a bundle for Christmas, and I set it up for her while she was at work. The new, very Windows 8 inspired, dashboard seemed just as messy, if not moreso, than the old dash.
WILLS_COOL_MODE
Joined: Oct 2010
BigTruckSeries
Joined: May 2006
How many subscribers does Microsoft have for XBOX LIVE?
How many subscribers does PSN have?
I can say I've been an Xbox member for about 5 years and I've thus spent roughly $300 to be on XBOX Live. I don't think about it. I prefer Xbox Live to PSN. Sometimes people are willing to pay for things someone else is giving for free. Especially when you have IDENTITY THEFT LEAKS, a LAST GENERATION CONTROLLER and WEAK EXCLUSIVE TITLES.
There isn't a single IP on PS3 as strong as HALO or Gears of War.
AcidTk03
Joined: Mar 2011