All Channels
Popular
390°

Xbox LIVE: Microsoft isn’t your whore

Sarcastic Gamer: Today, as you’re probably no doubt aware by now, Microsoft announced a series of price hikes for the Xbox LIVE online gaming subscription service. 12 months of the Gold service will cost you an extra $10 a year ($60, to be precise) – the first time the price of subscribing to LIVE has been raised since the introduction of the service in 2002.

And you know what? It’s totally justified.

Read Full Story >>
sarcasticgamer.com
CombatEvolving5738d ago ShowReplies(1)
DaThreats5738d ago ShowReplies(3)
Anime-Vixen5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

♥ MS Is so greedy! You are a billion dollar company. We didn't ask for all those features! You don't see sony charging ps3 owners for everything. Also the guy who wrote this article is a total fanboy. How can anyone defend this ♥

NYC_Gamer5738d ago

its business though....MS knows its fan base will pay the extra $$ so why not charge?

SOAD5738d ago

Because it's unethical.

NYC_Gamer5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

every xbl user has the choice rather they'll pay or not....MS is not pointing guns at peoples heads here...they could easily do what the pc users did

shoddy5738d ago

it's also unethical to overcharge your products.

blasian5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

It is true that its a business and every company is in it for money. Although Halo reach is the biggest game on the 360 and all of a sudden they want to up the price right in the middle of its release and christmas. Now this is a great business decision since xbox owners will want to play the biggest game on their system but from a consumers perspective it does not look so great.

Since there are some who dont even use half of those features i really believe you should pay a standard fee for live and pay extra for the apps and what not.

CimmerianDrake5738d ago

Except they don't have the choice though. MS is basically saying this to them.

MS: Do you like to play online?

360 User: Hell yes.

MS: Well it's gonna cost you $60 to use your internet connection to play this game online.

360 User: Wait, so in addition to paying my ISP ____ a month for my internet connection, you're telling me I have to pay $60 plus taxes for my game, and then another $60 a year just to play this game online?

MS: You also get Twitter, Netflix, Facebook, Last.FM, Hulu, ESPN, Cross game chat, party chat, and streamlined friend adding services, as well as a nifty avatar that's never off screen.

360 User: I have a PC for the first 6 of those, I'd rather focus on the game than on what my buddy is having for supper (or a group of people), and what do I do with the avatar? What if I don't want all those features, can I still play online?

MS: No.

360 User: Why not?

MS: It's pay to play. Everything is included, you don't have a choice.

360 User: .... Well sign me up I guess.

MS's business policies with the Xbox brand are like the Borg in the Star Trek universe. Negotiation is irrelevant, Choice is irrelevant, Resistance is Futile.

shoddy5738d ago Show
stiggs5738d ago

"Because it's unethical"
Man. I literally burst out laughing at that comment.

Trebius5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

They're charging you just to PLAY online ... I would understand if they did what PSN did ... provide a FREE TO PLAY online service, then an OPTION to pay for extra features.

People that support this price hike are just M$ Zombies that feel it's all justified. (like the writer of this piece)

If all you want to do is play online, no extra features or anything, guess what, you CANT. It's all or nothing.

If you dont realize that they're doing this upon release of Halo:Reach and CoD:BO, then you're definitely deluded.

The 2 biggest Xbox Franchises are being released, of COURSE they're going to choose this time to hike prices.

CimmerianDrake5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

I wasn't aware that describing what Live offers and how much they charge for it was considered trolling. I wasn't aware that facts was trolling.

Ooohhh, I get it. If I was to say that a first time 360 user having to pay at least $120 for a game and the ability to play it online is an awesome thing because they get to pay for PC features that are free on the PC, then I wouldn't be trolling right? Oh ok, I get it now. MS greed is good, not wanting to pay for useless features is bad. Thanks for clearing that up for me. *rolls eyes*

Considering you have only 1 bubble and have been trolling all day (your comment history is hilarious), I'd take a look in the mirror. Drone.

**EDIT** Hahaha, you have to edit your comments because you're a troll.

Christopher5738d ago

@CimmerianDrake: I get where you're going, but it's kind of what we do every day.

I can't choose to buy just the single player portion of a game that offers both for $60. I have to pay for it all.

I can't choose to only subscribe/pay for the free games offered by PS+. I have to pay for it all (Qore, early demos, game sales, avatars, themes).

I can't choose to buy just a console out of the box (when buying new). I have to buy it with a controller and other accessories. I have to buy them all, even if I don't need them all.

I can't choose to buy a Blu-ray movie with just the theatrical version and no extras. I have to buy it with all the extras that come standard.

In all honestly, businesses are typically 'unethical' by your standard. Including Sony.

Having said that, I can see why many people don't like this change. But, would they be just as upset if PS+ a year from now starts to charge $60 as well?

I think anyone here who really has a problem with it needs to communicate their dislike of this change with their wallet. Not saying what you post here isn't relevant, only that Microsoft only listens to the money they get and not people on a Web site.

TotalPS3Fanboy5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

and monopolize the console market. This is the kind of sh*t that Microsoft would pull if Microsoft monopolized the market.

Thank god there's Sony and Nintendo to stop Microsoft from monopolizing.

badz1495738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

even when compared to the similar services offered elsewhere for free? really? then you're DUMBER than I thought!M$ sure love sheep like you!

this is directed for the article writer!

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 5738d ago
ocnkng5738d ago

Your logic fails. Xbl users don't really have a choice. Here's why:
If an XBL user buys a game with multi-player content. E.g. Halo:Reach
That user pays $60 which already includes the price for the multi-player component. If the game was single player only then it could have been cheaper.
However the user has no choice but to pay M$ for realizing the value of the game.
When you think about online only games like L4D/L4D2 (M$ exclusives) you realize how difficult it becomes not to take Gold.

CimmerianDrake5738d ago

With the exception of the game, and the blu-ray movie, the rest of those features you mentioned are necessary for the basic function of the product.

If we were to ask the question, what is necessary to play a game online, what would be the answer. It would be A) A game with an online component, and B) an Internet connection. Essentially, Live isn't necessary to play a game online. It is merely a hub, a hub that Microsoft charges you to gain access to. You already have the basic ability to play a game online as long as you have an internet connection, but Microsoft is charging you to use it for any game you play on their console.

I may not be able to buy only the single player experience for a game, but I don't require the multiplayer to be able to play it. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to get at.

gamingdroid5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

Unfortunately, what people seem to be confused about is that there is nothing moral or ethical about business. There is only "what customers are willing to pay and what sellers are willing to accept". It's called a free market! You are free to choose.

Don't like MS, sell your stuff to Gamestop (Ebay, or Craigslist) and buy a PS3 or Wii.

If there are FREE alternatives, why aren't people switching in droves. Clearly people see some value in Xbox Live. Personally, I just stock up now with one of their annual subscriptions when they hit $30.

To me, MS is clearly heavily investing into Xbox Live, but if you just want to game online, PSN is a fine choice for FREE!

djevolve5738d ago

Yo, I think thats why sony started plus because when they do start charging they will not look so bad. Plus is a medium to get to pay for online gaming.

Ps3 is going this way because they can't afford it anymore. it will happen.
plus is a way for them to make up for loses and I don't see a whole lot of people getting plus so it is inevitable.

I give it one year and psn will be charging .

djevolve5738d ago

SOny is going to start charging in about a year, can't wait until they do and this discussion comes up again. ps3 fanboys will be like, oh it's all good. I love psn and do the same as xbox fanboys.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5738d ago
Philoctetes5738d ago

"We might all have a little rant and a whine about how this price hike is just too much for us to comprehend but once we’ve exhausted our one liners we’ll stump up, pay, and enjoy the service we get anyway."

Which is exactly why you get hit with a price hike to begin with. Microsoft knows that the overwhelming majority of its customers aren't going to drop their XBL accounts over $10, so it seizes upon the opportunity to fleece them.

8-bit5738d ago

That's why they can get away with this nonsense.. It really is insane that people are still willing to pay and even defend it.. Makes you question, at what point would the masses collectively say no to this subscription fee? How much money would they have to charge every year for XBL that would make people cancel their subscription?

zootang5738d ago

I think they could get it to $99 and people would still pay. Any more and I doubt it.

8-bit5738d ago

I would own an xbox if it wasn't for XBL subscription fee. If it was like PS3 and online gaming is free, charge a sub for the "features" then it would make a lot more sense. You would think that with the way PSN is catching up to XBL they would be forced to do this but as it turns out, they like $$ more than anything.

jrbeerman115738d ago

its exactly WHY they are doing it now

I preferred my xbox to my PS3 at first, but MS is losing me, when I finally tire of Halo: Reach, I will cancel my gold which I've had since launch.

May turn it on for a couple months for Gears 3, then off.

No more leaving it on all year for me.

What about the COD people that arent into Halo or Gears? you dont think they may just buy a PS3 and get the next yearly installment on that?

Its harder to take in while PS3 online is free, it just is.

Show all comments (88)
70°

Microsoft Gaming Revenue Drops 7% Year-on-Year, Content and Services Down 5%, Xbox Hardware Down 33%

Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.

Read Full Story >>
simulationdaily.com
Jin_Sakai17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.

dveio17d ago

To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.

Jingsing16d ago

The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.

Tanktopmaster9217d ago

Once they re-evaluate exclusive all will be fine….

S2Killinit17d ago

Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.

Jingsing16d ago

15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.

Tanktopmaster9216d ago

These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse

Show all comments (13)
70°

Xbox boss: Memory crisis could impact next-gen hardware pricing

Xbox boss Asha Sharma has discussed how component shortages will impact the company's plans for Project Helix.

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
Eonjay18d ago

When does this end? Its killing everyone. Consoles and PC. And for what? AI? The benefits of AI are completely outweighed by the negatives. And the government should have never allowed one company to buy up all the RAM.

Lexreborn219d ago

This kind of proves this is an after thought product, most products like this are in r&d 5 years before they start mass producing. So they typically have the cost of components and things worked out long before assembly starts.

This is an assumption still, but I wouldn’t be surprised if project helix is similar to Scalebound,perfect dark and sod3. They had an idea but no actual execution other than concept stage. Being impacted by the ram shortage likely would also put this device 3-4 years out.

I’m not even sure MS has that endurance with Xbox yet

Fishy Fingers19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

I mean.... what?

We're at a point that Samsung wont even provide their own phone department ram because they can sell it at higher prices to 3rd parties (AI). Its more profitable to sell the ram than make their own devices with it.

You think because R&D starts 5 years ago the 3rd party component manufacturers will honour that price? They'll sell it to whomever is paying the most today, not some gentlemens agreement they made years ago. AI farms will buy more volume at higher prices than any console manufacturer will. It'll be the same for Playstation.

Lexreborn218d ago

Contractual agreements are not the same as “gentlemen” agreements. If you think that they work with their distributors a month before production then their entire business model is trash. They work with companies like nvidia constantly for building the graphics cards they need. They work with companies that build motherboards years in advance. This is what proper business planning does.

They are not buying components on a whim like a consumer. So again, considering the ram isn’t a singular module and is integrated into the motherboard I highly doubt they wouldn’t have a final schematic that they are supposed to be building around.

If they are delaying production another 3 years then it’s obvious again this is an after though project and is just trying to be responsive to their bad execution they had the last 14 years.

It also isn’t far fetched to use their failure to produce first party titles the last 7 years including the highly anticipated games I mentioned all being cancelled. That they would continue to you know… lie

Sitdown19d ago

You don't really know how this works huh?

Profchaos19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

Helix is going to be stupidly expensive

Instead of leaning into smarter upscaling techniques they're brute forcing hardware that will cost them dearly and it remains to be seen if it's genuinely going to provide a meaningful differential

I know in the oc.doace people like to brag about not using frame gen or dlss to get to high on a game but for the majority of players they happily use those technologies without a second thought

That's going to be ps6 vs Helix

Eonjay18d ago

Yeah with FSR 5 they should be able to offer a much cheaper version of Helix.

Eonjay18d ago

While this does seem to be the case, I am encouraged by the statement from Microsoft about wanting to provide affordable options. If this means a Series S style Helix, at least there will be something affordable being offered.

XBManiac18d ago

Series S is what has killed Xbox Series so... Will they dare?

blacktiger19d ago

It's called systematic inflationary. Yes we get it Microsoft, keep raising in the name ofall kinds of stuffs

pwnmaster300019d ago

Honestly if there was thing I learned from this generation is that new consoles arnt day one anymore.
I can wait 1-3 years.

DarXyde19d ago

Another important lesson from this generation: while Nintendo showed us that prices don't necessarily need to ever drop, we've now learned that waiting 1-3 years does carry some risk that prices increase. This generation is just bizarre in all the wrong ways.

LucasRuinedChildhood19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

The factors are largely external. Covid and Russia-Ukraine war causing inflation led to the first price increase in 2022.

Then we get Trump's tariffs increasing hardware prices, AI boom causing a RAM crisis, war on Iran causing a worldwide fuel crisis which impacts the cost of everything.

Gaming doesn't exist in a vacuum. The last few years have been a shitshow and lot of it was definitely avoidable.

DarXyde18d ago

LucasRuinedChildhood,

For sure. No disagreement on the external factors doing a lot of this. Where I have to gently push back however is on two fronts:

1. The pandemic definitely caused some issues: asynchronous development was a big issue and really complicated timelines and affected game quality. At the same time, when it comes to price hikes, it's really difficult to know what was genuine necessity and what was taking consumers for a ride. The pandemic brought about "stag-flation" which was increasing prices and stagnant wages, which was a problem caused by supply chain constraints. There was also "Greed-flation", where companies that were slightly affected or had no issues took advantage of the situation and squeezed everyone citing supply chain issues when there were none.

2. It's definitely true that the tariffs, AI boom, and RAM crisis were all things enabled by tech broligarchs throwing money at this caricature of a world leader, one of them being Satya Nadella. I don't think Sony and Nintendo have contributed much to this problem if at all, but Microsoft's Nadella I feel was instrumental in causing every one of those issues. Microsoft as a company contributed to both candidates (though they gave Harris 4x as much if I recall), but Nadella was all in on letting AI run wild. He paid for unregulated AI, and got a war that's not a war (even though Trump called it that at least five times on television) that screwed up helium access. So for me, I feel that one of the players in the gaming industry is a key architect of these issues, and for that reason I struggle a bit to think of it as "external".

Show all comments (28)
50°

'The big things that we're thinking about'

In an exclusive interview with Game File, new(ish) Xbox boss Asha Sharma and Xbox chief content officer Matt Booty explain their vision for Microsoft’s gaming division

Read Full Story >>
gamefile.news
Agent7520d ago

A good start would be to release games to go with the console. My Xbox Series X has gathered dust virtually from launch. My advice would be to ditch a next console and release games on PC, PlayStation and Switch. Another idea would be a hybrid console based on Xbox Series X tech and go the same route as Nintendo. Another idea would be to pull out of gaming altogether. Plenty of options there.

Reaper22_18d ago

Why would they pull out? They have the momentum. Sony has been getting nothing but bad news lately.