Support NeoGAF

[Hoo-doo]

I don't, they don't seem to be legitimate complaints to me. More like general attacks towards MS's successfully monetizing their service.

Ads, p2p gaming, apps behind pay walls, avatar shite, etc. XBL is a money printing machine. It's reaching Nintendo DS levels of money making, if it hasn't already and that's what really pisses some people off.

Why should consumers care about Microsoft making tons of money? Are you a shareholder?

On the consumer end, you simply get shafted for subscribing to XBL, no matter how you slice it.
Some people might weigh the pros and the cons, and decide they still need to access XBL gold, but that doesn't mean the service is as good as can be.
Microsoft has simply taken a very anti-consumer approach with XBL compared to the competition. Either pay up, or own a completely gimped console.

 

[oneils]

The article is so weird. Why rely so much on anonymous sources to get an idea of ad prices on Xbox Live. Penny Arcade could have just contacted the MS sales team and said they were interested in buying ad space. I'm sure everything would have been revealed to them.

Just weird. This is not like some sort of top secret stuff, here.

edit: Unless, that is exactly what they did but their sales rep asked that he not be named in the article.

 

[Satchel]

I don't know about the US, but in Australia, 90% of the ads are for Xbox related stuff, so I don't see the issue.

Would I prefer Live be free? Of course, but until a better alternative on console shows up, I'll keep handing over the $50 a year.

 

[Kunan]

Also laughing at the "and it still isn't free" - hilarious expectations.

Hilarious expectations? PSN doesn't have either. The only ads it has are for new upcoming games (ones you can actually buy on the PSN), not mountain dew. And there's no yearly fee. Same for Steam.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I pay a lot of money for cable tv yet im still bombarded with ads. Those arent ignorable like the ones on Xbox either. I pay for satellite radio.....ads there too. I pay for the internet, its full of ads.

Ads are everywhere, might as well get used to it.

The only ads I see in my life are billboards--and I consistently vote for city councillors that promote heritage and visual aesthetics over development and cash for the city--and on the internet, on sites where I choose not to block them. If the city put up a blanket ban on outdoor advertising (Sao Paolo, a city with a population of 11 million people, has a blanket ban on outdoor advertising) to a vote, I'd vote for it. They're litter. They're trash. They offer no value to anyone. There are less coercive, more cooperative ways to share information about your product with end consumers, when they initiate the transaction.

I don't have cable TV, I DVR public TV and skip the ads, I don't listen to commercial radio, I don't go to the cinema, I rip all my DVDs and Blus and thus don't see the unskippable ads. I don't have Hulu. When I do go to concerts, they're rarely the large Ticketmaster 100s-of-sponsors huge events. I don't use Facebook often or "like" any brands. I don't follow any companies on Twitter. I work for a university and so advertising does not determine or impact my job. I consistently express displeasure about corporate intrusion into the university, as it relates to advertising. I will never click on an ad. If I saw an ad for a game I wanted, I would open a new tab and Google that product. I will never be complicit in supporting this system.

I hate ads. They're not "everywhere". I won't get used to it. Whenever I'm able to avoid ads, I choose to do so. If they're still unfortunately required to prop up certain outlets, then that's truly a tragedy. I would rather pay for GAF than have to whitelist the ads here, but I understand that that's administrative overhead EL doesn't want to take on. If ever an option is allowed to pay to remove ads here or otherwise support the site in lieu of having to put up with ads, I will be the first person to register for it.

If your first response is "But what about ads for <xyz>?", my answer to that will be "I'd rather avoid them. If there's any alternative, I will." When Google Glasses gets more robust and feature-filled, I'll be first in line to help develop or pay for an application to block ads in real life.

I don't want ads on Xbox Live. I have no problem with promotional stuff in the store about current sales. I have no problem with the front page of Steam. I have no problem with "If you like X, you'll like Y". I have no problem with "Top Sales". I actually like Microsoft's discovery initiatives. I think it's much clearer what's available on and on sale on XBL than PSN. It always has been. But the second it crosses the barrier from useful, contextual information that benefits me to someone paying to get my eyes, I don't want them. I don't want ads for Mountain Dew or Gilette or Wal-Mart. I don't want ads for videos I'm not going to rent, music I'm not going to buy, Call of Duty map packs I'd never pay for or use, or anything else I'm not asking for. I especially don't want ads for games I own. You already have my money, you don't need my eyes. If they offer an option to turn off ads, I'll check that option. If there was a reliable way to block the ads at my router, I'd do that too.

 

[Speedymanic]

Why should consumers care about Microsoft making tons of money? Are you a shareholder?

On the consumer end, you simply get shafted for subscribing to XBL, no matter how you slice it.

Some people might weigh the pros and the cons, and decide they still need to access XBL gold, but that doesn't mean the service is as good as can be.
Microsoft has simply taken a very anti-consumer approach with XBL compared to the competition. Either pay up, or own a completely gimped console.

They should care as the more money they make, the better their services will be and the more exclusive content and games they can provide.

MS aren't Nintendo, they'll be spending that money on making their platform the most attractive one on the market, that's why we, as consumers should be happy that MS is raking the money in. It directly benefits us in the long term.

Monetizing XBL is the only reason it's as good as it is, Valve has similarly monetized their service, but through micro transaction and other in game fluff. People conveniently forget this whenever they bring up Steam and compare it to XBL.

As I said before, pay waling 2p2 gaming is mainly due then trying to establish their service it's a relic of a bygone era in gaming. It won't be the same next gen, the service is established, it's making money from every angle, p2p gaming will be free next gen.

The next 'big' thing will be dedicated servers and possibly cloud gaming, that's where MS will focus next gen and that's what they'll be charging for.

The 360 is 7 years old, don't forget this. In 2005, XBL was an unknown, online gaming in the console market was considered to be a non starter or something that wouldn't be embraced, setting up XBL was a massive risk on MS' part but it's one that paid off, in spades.

 

[jimi_dini]

If there was a reliable way to block the ads at my router, I'd do that too.

I think there is:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...Find-Way-to-Block-Ads-From-New-Xbox-Dashboard

at least it worked. Don't know, if it works anymore.

 

[xavi42]

Microsoft is hella smart.

 

[mxgt]

Monetizing XBL is the only reason it's as good as it is, Valve has similarly monetized their service, but through micro transaction and other in game fluff. People conveniently forget this whenever they bring up Steam and compare it to XBL.

They 'forget' it because it's not really relevant seeing as XBL is just as bad with micro transaction crap.

 

[Ramblin]

You already have my money, you don't need my eyes.

You're not married are you? If so I get this funny picture of you yelling this to your spouse when you take her to the movies.

 

[Hoo-doo]

They should care as the more money they make, the better their services will be and the more exclusive content and games they can provide.

MS aren't Nintendo, they'll be spending that money on making their platform the most attractive one on the market, that's why we, as consumers should be happy that MS is raking the money in. It directly benefits us in the long term.

Monetizing XBL is the only reason it's as good as it is, Valve has similarly monetized their service, but through micro transaction and other in game fluff. People conveniently forget this whenever they bring up Steam and compare it to XBL.

As I said before, pay waling 2p2 gaming is mainly due then trying to establish their service it's a relic of a bygone era in gaming. It won't be the same next gen, the service is established, it's making money from every angle, p2p gaming will be free next gen.

The next 'big' thing will be dedicated servers and possibly cloud gaming, that's where MS will focus next gen and that's what they'll be charging for.

The 360 is 7 years old, don't forget this. In 2005, XBL was an unknown, online gaming in the console market was considered to be a non starter or something that wouldn't be embraced, setting up XBL was a massive risk on MS' part but it's one that paid off, in spades.

You seem to be basing these assumptions on what exactly?

And the notion that Microsoft earning more money directly translates to the better gaming service is fucking hilarious.

Prices of XBLA games have steadily gone up, non-US regions are still completely ignored, the service has even more advertising than it did before, and the actual meat and potatoes of the service has barely changed from it's inception since launch, UI facelift non-withstanding.
It's just Microsoft making fucking bank, I don't see the amazing services it's providing.

 

[NBtoaster]

As I said before, pay waling 2p2 gaming is mainly due then trying to establish their service it's a relic of a bygone era in gaming. It won't be the same next gen, the service is established, it's making money from every angle, p2p gaming will be free next gen.

The next 'big' thing will be dedicated servers and possibly cloud gaming, that's where MS will focus next gen and that's what they'll be charging for.

MS will continue to charge for any sort of online play. P2P will still be used for all kinds of games including their own. There's no real reason to stop charging for it or to stop using it.

Also, "exclusive" content is not a real benefit for the consumer.

 

[Speedymanic]

I don't recall ever being forced to buy things on Steam to access vital components of a game I purchased.

Read my post again.

Valve has monetized their service, just not in the same way MS as that approach wouldn't work in the console market.

 

[mxgt]

Read my post again.

Valve has monetized their service, just not in the same way MS as that approach wouldn't work in the console market.

I know, I edited.

Also how? both services are guilty of shameless micro transactions.

Avatar items, lol.

 

[NBtoaster]

Read my post again.

Valve has monetized their service, just not in the same way MS as that approach wouldn't work in the console market.

They've monetised games, not the service. After you've bought something on Steam, the entirety of the service is open to you forever.

 

[Ramblin]

I know, I edited.

Also how? both services are guilty of shameless micro transactions.

Avatar items, lol.

I can never take anything anyone says seriously when they end it in lol.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Outside of the issue of discoverability for lower-profile releases, something that is universal across digital marketplaces, I don't see what's horrifyingly shocking about this information. MS has been trying to monetize their well-tread spaces for advertising from the beginning. I don't see it changing as their platform becomes more mainstream. It's going to happen for PSN 2.0 and there will likely be the beginnings of a more refined stab on Wii U. Definitely, with the rise of F2P and 'freemium' talk from all major publishers and developers on console, I expect it to fully infest the console game experience from the inside on all platforms in the future, which I view as worse than a bunch of relatively passive tiles you quickly filter out of mind with experience and repeated use of the interface. Not saying it's an ideal development, but it was inevitable for consoles as they aimed at the mainstream.

 

[mxgt]

I can never take anything anyone says seriously when they end it in lol.

So you didn't take what you just said seriously?

 

[Speedymanic]

You seem to be basing these assumptions on what exactly?

And the notion that Microsoft earning more money directly translates to the better gaming service is fucking hilarious.

Prices of XBLA games have steadily gone up, non-US regions are still completely ignored, the service has even more advertising than it did before, and the actual meat and potatoes of the service has barely changed from it's inception since launch, UI facelift non-withstanding.
It's just Microsoft making fucking bank, I don't see the amazing services it's providing.

The direction of the market. It's easy to see where it'll be heading with the phenomenal rise of competitive multiplayer.

EA and Epic have slowed introduced fans of their respective series' to the idea of dedicated servers, this is directly in line with the inevitable direction of online gaming and providing a more users with more controls.

It's not hilarious, you're just letting your bias blind you to the patently obvious truth.

Prices have gone up as the quality of those games have gone up considerably. Before you were paying for arcade ports, now you're paying for that games that regularly have as much if not more content than retail games. The gameplay experience they offer is also more in line with what you'd expect from retail games. This argument is moot. Quality has risen, it's not even up for debate, so it's not unexpected prices would also rise.

Non US regions aren't ignored, they are bound by the same copyright restrictions that stop services like netflix or amazon streaming to launch worldwide.

Blaming this on MS is silly.

It hasn't changed since it launched? Now you're just wrong. It's changed considerably, a lot more features, a lot more improvements, advancements, etc. This isn't even counting the constant UI changes which make the console feel new every single time.

MS will continue to charge for any sort of online play. P2P will still be used for all kinds of games including their own. There's no real reason to stop charging for it or to stop using it.

Also, "exclusive" content is not a real benefit for the consumer.

Nope, p2p will be free. You can bookmark my posts and if it isn't free within 6 months of launch, I'll send you 50 bucks through PP. No joke. I'm that confident that MS will make p2p gaming free as that's no longer where the money is and they can't afford to give Sony the bullet point of free online gaming.

exclusive content is directly of benefit to consumers on the platform it's available for. I've already gone over this, so let's not go over this again.

 

[Ramblin]

So you didn't take what you just said seriously?

Well to be fair I never take anything I say seriously. But especially that. lol. no not lol but loi.

 

[nel e nel]

Xbox live looks exactly like a platform that should be free. Load up the dashboard and its the same for a paid user as it is for a free user.

This just goes to show that Live should be free. We are helping pay for it just by using the machine online due to advertising.

Bonkers.

Not quite. Sure the layout is the same, but the ads aren't. I have a silver account that I use from time to time, and the only ads are for buying a gold membership.

 

[nel e nel]

Read my post again.

Valve has monetized their service, just not in the same way MS as that approach wouldn't work in the console market.

Aren't hats in TF2 (or character skins in Killing Floor) the equivalent of weapon skins in Gears?

 

[Speedymanic]

I know, I edited.

Also how? both services are guilty of shameless micro transactions.

Avatar items, lol.

I didn't argue or attempt to claim otherwise.

They've monetised games, not the service. After you've bought something on Steam, the entirety of the service is open to you forever.

And some used to cry bloody murder when MS were doing just that, but as soon as other companies started to do it and at a much faster pace than MS ever did, it's suddenly cool.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. My point was that both have successfully monetized their services. Valve through in game transactions, MS through subs and advertising. Different methods, same goal.

 

[BruiserBear]

I don't, they don't seem to be legitimate complaints to me. More like general attacks towards MS's successfully monetizing their service.

Ads, p2p gaming, apps behind pay walls, avatar shite, etc. XBL is a money printing machine. It's reaching Nintendo DS levels of money making, if it hasn't already and that's what really pisses some people off.

smh

 

[mxgt]

I didn't argue or attempt to claim otherwise.

You said Valve's approach wouldn't work on the console market when it clearly has?

 

[Majanew]

apologist

Yeah that's cute and all, but what you need to understand - which is the only thing that matters - is that consumers continue to pay for Xbox Live Gold. No amount of internet posts or articles is going to stop MS from charging, if consumers continue to pay. That's what I don't understand. Who are you trying to convince Live isn't worth the fee? Yourselves? I, and others, obviously have a reason or two for paying for it.

If Metro's current layout pushes consumers away and MS starts seeing a drop in revenue - and it's due to the layout - MS will change it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Xbox Live offers all of these amazing services and value that subscribers love to tout. But in reality, how many of these subscribers would drop Gold like a bad habit if they allowed Silver users to play their purchased games online with no frills?

 

[Speedymanic]

smh

Cool.

You said Valve's approach wouldn't work on the console market when it clearly has?

It hasn't worked to the same degree due to how the console market works. You can't monetize a game for more than a few months before everyone moves on, the amount of money you can make is limited by a number of factors (release schedule just being one), whereas on Steam, there's no such limits due to how the PC market works.

A game like TF2 would be pretty much dead on consoles by now, whereas on PC it's grown into a beast that probably brings in as much money as MS makes from ads. (an exaggeration and slightly hyperbolic, but needed to make a point).

 

[Hoo-doo]

Nope, p2p will be free. You can bookmark my posts and if it isn't free within 6 months of launch, I'll send you 50 bucks through PP. No joke. I'm that confident that MS will make p2p gaming free as that's no longer where the money is and they can't afford to give Sony the bullet point of free online gaming.

exclusive content is directly of benefit to consumers on the platform it's available for. I've already gone over this, so let's not go over this again.

Does the general consumer even know what a dedicated server is? Does it even really matter? I don't experience any lag either way.

I say you're crazy if you think Microsoft is going to be cutting the multiplayer gamers loose. The ability to play multiplayer is in my eyes the only real driving reason for the masses to subscribe to Xbox live. If that becomes free, then who's going to bother to resubscribe and for what? Just dedicated servers and Netflix?

 

[DangerousDave]

I understand that some Gold don't care about the cost, and that you simply ignore the ads so they don't bother you...

But all you should wonder, if MS is making so much money with Gold and ads, where the hell are my good first party games and why Sony have much more first party studios making good first party games than MS. All this money go straight to delay the CoD maps or Skyrim expansion in the other platforms instead of having a good first party lineup?

 

[RukusProvider]

Xbox Live offers all of these amazing services and value that subscribers love to tout. But in reality, how many of these subscribers would drop Gold like a bad habit if they allowed Silver users to play their purchased games online with no frills?

Seeing that my 360 sees more action as a media machine than an online gaming machine tells me I'd miss gold severely.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Xbox Live offers all of these amazing services and value that subscribers love to tout. But in reality, how many of these subscribers would drop Gold like a bad habit if they allowed Silver users to play their purchased games online with no frills?

In reality, we'll never know. In theory, I don't think it would hold up over time because the best sales and discounts are walled-off to the subscriber base, just like PSN. Also, features that many are accustomed to having available all of the time, like cross party chat or cloud saves. People point to how acceptable PSN+ is as a great deal for 'free' stuff and discounts for buying a subscription, so, I think it's really just about a couple things that mainly concern the big video game consumer...us. The ones with thousands of posts discussing, arguing, dreaming, and complaining about games on the internet. We buy and play more than any other group of people gaming, so these subscription services and their value propositions are directly aimed at us and not the casual user since is all about saving more over time with discounts on purchases and having more advanced or more gaming-centric features made available over a fixed period.

Now that stats mined directly from the platform itself paint an accurate picture of up-to-the-second activity, with multimedia use trumping gaming time now, overall, it's only natural that they'd start setting their sights on those users' habits. So, Gold becomes an all-in-one gateway to gamers and not-so-gamers. Gold just makes it easy to hook both sides in and promote shared interests in film/TV/music/sports on the interface and cross-pollinate features between their apps and promotion.

 

[RukusProvider]

I understand that some Gold don't care about the cost, and that you simply ignore the ads so they don't bother you...

But all you should wonder, if MS is making so much money with Gold and ads, where the hell are my good first party games and why Sony have much more first party studios making good first party games than MS. All this money go straight to delay the CoD maps or Skyrim expansion in the other platforms instead of having a good first party lineup?

Companies put money towards what they feel is the best way to expand their market.

Quality is subjective.

I rather have Halo 4 than twisted metal, star hawk, lbp karting, wonder book and all stars in the same year. You might not. It's irrelevant.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Why should consumers care about Microsoft making tons of money? Are you a shareholder?

On the consumer end, you simply get shafted for subscribing to XBL, no matter how you slice it.
Some people might weigh the pros and the cons, and decide they still need to access XBL gold, but that doesn't mean the service is as good as can be.
Microsoft has simply taken a very anti-consumer approach with XBL compared to the competition. Either pay up, or own a completely gimped console.

Then don't purchase XBL...

 

[Ramblin]

I think everyone here can agree, free PSN, or paid XBL all pale compared to GAF.

 

[mxgt]

Who are you trying to convince Live isn't worth the fee? Yourselves? I, and others, obviously have a reason or two for paying for it.

If you have a reason to pay for it and enjoy, that's fine.

But it's still never going to be worth the money. None of the 'features' offered in XBL are worth a fee.

 

[Speedymanic]

Does the general consumer even know what a dedicated server is? Does it even really matter? I don't experience any lag either way.

I say you're crazy if you think Microsoft is going to be cutting the multiplayer gamers loose. The ability to play multiplayer is in my eyes the only real driving reason for the masses to subscribe to Xbox live. If that becomes free, then who's going to bother to resubscribe and for what? Just dedicated servers and Netflix?

They are slowly beginning to understand the difference thanks to the efforts of EA and Epic.

They aren't going to cut the MP gamer loose, what they'll do is make p2p free. That doesn't mean cross party chat or any other number of new features they'll bring to the table will be free.

Make p2p free, introduce dedicated servers and possibly cloud gaming to make people sign up to gold.

Halo 5 will probably the first 1st party game to push dedicated servers and show the wider user-base the benefits of using them. Halo 2 showed everyone the benefits of online gaming, Halo 5 will show everyone the benefits of using dedicated servers.

 

[Ramblin]

If you have a reason to pay for it and enjoy, that's fine.

But it's still never going to be worth the money. None of the 'features' offered in XBL are worth a fee.

What makes XBL worth the cost is that it keeps the craziest ones that won't pay for it, off it.

 

[RukusProvider]

If you have a reason to pay for it and enjoy, that's fine.

But it's still never going to be worth the money. None of the 'features' offered in XBL are worth a fee.

Clearly if people are paying for it, they feel there is value to it. If they are paying just to support MS as a company, then that is funny I suppose.

None of the feature on live are worth a fee TO YOU.

I imagine gaf would be extremely boring if people understood objective vs subjective.

 

[Metalmurphy]

What makes XBL worth the cost is that it keeps the craziest ones that won't pay for it, off it.

Well that's a load of bull lol. As if all the annoying raging 12 yr olds don't just use their parents credit card.

 

[Haliela]

If you're earning close to 350k a day from one small window, are you really going to take what a few people on a gaming forum have to say seriously?

C'mon, think about it.

The millions upon millions of gold users out there do not care. It's a non issue outside of a few gaming forums. It's time to stop pretending it's a major issue when less than point one percent of the entire gold userbase is complaining about it. Hell, wouldn't surprise me if some of those complaining didn't even own a 360.

This. I love the sheltered little bubbles called gaming forums where the few elitests that make up less than a fraction of the overall gaming community feel that their complaints are serious business. GAF is KING of this.

 

[snap0212]

What makes XBL worth the cost is that it keeps the craziest ones that won't pay for it, off it.

You're either joking or have never ever played any online game on Xbox Live.

 

[nel e nel]

Well that's a load of bull lol. As if all the annoying raging 12 yr olds don't just use their parents credit card.

Doh! Ramblin can't take you seriously now, lol.

On topic: is there any validity to the argument that XBL is more secure than PSN in light of the hacking incident last year? (FIFA notwithstanding, but not sure if that was an EA issue since they run their own servers).

P.S. - am I just not playing the 'right' online games? Because I have a really low occurrence of asshattery on XBL, and when I do: mute, avoid, file complaint.

 

[mxgt]

Clearly if people are paying for it, they feel there is value to it. If they are paying just to support MS as a company, then that is funny I suppose.

None of the feature on live are worth a fee TO YOU.

I imagine gaf would be extremely boring if people understood objective vs subjective.

Only reason I ever paid for gold is because I had to to play games online (which aren't even dedicated servers), not because I saw value in it.

IMO there's no value in paying to access services like Netflix that you're already paying for separately or to play a game online that you just bought.

I guess there's party chat? but that's still just a console version of TS/vent/mumble which you have to pay for for some strange reason.

The LEAST they could do is offer good deals on stuff related games. But they don't.

 

[Speedymanic]

You're either joking or have never ever played any online game on Xbox Live.

Or maybe he plays online and uses CPC.

 

[DangerousDave]

Companies put money towards what they feel is the best way to expand their market.

Quality is subjective.

I rather have Halo 4 than twisted metal, star hawk, lbp karting, wonder book and all stars in the same year. You might not. It's irrelevant.

MS have less studios and are spending much less money in having a good amount of first party titles than the competence, even if they are getting much more money, and this is not subjective, so the benefits of all this is not affecting the users that generate those benefits.

What is subjective is making a list war choosing the games, and I won't fall in.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Doh! Ramblin can't take you seriously now, lol.

On topic: is there any validity to the argument that XBL is more secure than PSN in light of the hacking incident last year? (FIFA notwithstanding, but not sure if that was an EA issue since they run their own servers).

As far as we know no, but facts matter more then anything, PSN was hacked, big time, XBL was not, so everyone is gonna say XBL was/is/will be more secure. The FIFA thing shows more how Microsoft doesn't care about it's users since they didn't seem to do anything about it until it happened to Geoff Keighley and he made it public...

Or maybe he plays online and uses CPC.

And how does that "keeps the craziest ones that won't pay for it, off it"? You might not listen to them but they'll still exist.

Anyway, he was obviously being sarcastic.

 

[snap0212]

On topic: is there any validity to the argument that XBL is more secure than PSN in light of the hacking incident last year? (FIFA notwithstanding, but not sure if that was an EA issue since they run their own servers).

Absolutely not. Any service can be hacked, without exception.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

On topic: is there any validity to the argument that XBL is more secure than PSN in light of the hacking incident last year? (FIFA notwithstanding, but not sure if that was an EA issue since they run their own servers).

Not invulnerable to hacking, but it does have a longer and much more successful history than PSN in this regard.

 

[metareferential]

Is the US dashboard that bad ads-wise?

I mean, it's not like I stare at it for hours. Load up the game, bye-bye ads.