Advertisement
56 per cent of Live users have Gold News
Xbox 360 News by Oli Welsh
According to an internal Microsoft document seen by the Seattle P-I, 56 per cent of Xbox Live users worldwide were paying for Gold subscriptions as of this time last year.
The spreadsheet included projections up to June 2008, and showed the proportion of Live Users with Gold staying steady at between 50 and 60 per cent for more than a year. The proportion was slightly higher in the US (60 versus 56 per cent in February 2008).
A Gold Xbox Live membership allows players to play games online. The free silver membership only allows the use of Microsoft's content download services, such as Xbox Live Arcade and the Video Marketplace.
Microsoft's most recent figures state that there are 17 million Xbox Live members out of a total of 28 million Xbox 360s sold since launch. If the Seattle P-I's figures are still accurate, some 9.5 million people - around 34 per cent of the total number of Xbox 360 owners - are paying Gold members.
If 34 per cent doesn't sound that impressive, consider that they're paying a minimum of USD 50 a year each. Xbox Live Gold could therefore be bringing the software giant some half a billion dollars in annual revenue.
In other words, it's up there with only World of Warcraft in terms of subscription gaming services.
Microsoft wouldn't comment on the specifics of the document, but did confirm to the Seattle P-I that "a majority" of Live users were Gold members, at that the number was always growing.
"We've said before that Xbox Live is experiencing incredible growth; in January we had more new Live members join than any other month in the history of Xbox Live," it said.
"With more than 17 million active members, a majority of whom are paying members, Live is a rich social entertainment and gaming experience that is unmatched in the industry."
Advertisement
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
Doctor_What
24/02/09 @ 09:09
0
Suckers.
I've not had any better experiences on the MS service compared to the Sony service, so I let my Gold sub go pretty quickly and save myself £30 a year. So far that's a £60 saving and counting. I'm really not sure what the huge advantage of a Gold sub is over the PSN service. |
|
DutchDemons
24/02/09 @ 09:11
0
yea...i still pay for it, but with resentment. at first i was like 'but look at the service!!!'...but after realising the service is just 'buy more games/DLC/vids/ p00', and not even server based gaming...i kinda wondered why were supposed to pay that much. i mean...imho they (MS) shouldn't be making a killing of this kind of service.
|
|
0
They need to start offering more to Gold subs to at least raise the perception of value. The special offers like Braid are welcome, but what about a regular "loyalty" discount, or some MSP included in with your subscription?
It is a better service that PSN, but the gap is not as wide as it once was. |
|
0
To me that headline just says that 44% of Xbox customers can't play games online, on a dedicated gaming machine more than 20 years after online gaming came about.
I think it's actually very poor show from Microsoft, and the only people you could possibly brag about this to are shareholders, not customers. |
|
absolutezero
24/02/09 @ 09:25
0
Its not as if the servers that Live runs off of are all that great anyway. Im still seeing the little loading icon far more than I should really have to just to d-load a fucking theme.
|
|
SpaceMidget75
24/02/09 @ 09:29
0
I'd rather not pay for it certainly, and it stops the casual player who may only pop online every now and then, but its not the big deal the Sony brigade make it out to be.
"So far that's a £60 saving and counting." Whooah there Doctor_what... £60 in TWO Years! Sixty Pounds in two years!!! What are you gonna do with all that cash? |
|
0
Gold subs are just a way to make the boxed product look cheaper. If sony charge for PSN then they could cut £100 from the price of the PS3.
The 360 has sold alot based on it's percieved value to the averager consumer. And while MS have given the consumer more choice it comes at the expense of those people who do want to play online, have rechargable controller and wireless network. |
|
0
Whooah there Doctor_what... £60 in TWO Years! Sixty Pounds in two years!!!
What are you gonna do with all that cash? If you keep the console for five years, which is probably about average, you will save £150 - so Live Gold basically doubles the cost of the console, or if you like to think in fanboy terms, makes it more expensive than a PS3.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/02/09 @ 09:34
|
|
0
"To me that headline just says that 44% of Xbox customers can't play games online, on a dedicated gaming machine more than 20 years after online gaming came about. "
What? Previous console online take up was about 5-10%. Live has singlehandedly dragged console gamers into the online world (like PCs). The fact that they have a wow-like userbase is an amazing step forward. The most popular console in the universe (Wii) only has a few % online... what does that tell you oh all knowing? |
|
asphaltcowboy
24/02/09 @ 09:41
0
If sony charge for PSN then they could cut £100 from the price of the PS3.
Where the heck did you pluck that number from? /keeps distance just in case! |
|
metalangel
24/02/09 @ 09:48
0
You pay £150 for a console and £30 for games but struggle to afford another £30 for a subscription that will provide hours of online gaming fun? I remember online games that cost PER MINUTE. Stop whining, order one less takeaway a year and that's your sub paid, you idiots.
|
|
Dave_McCoy
24/02/09 @ 09:48
0
I wonder if some of the subs you pay go towards buying the exclusive rights to DLC? Half a billion must fill a few money hats for MS to dish out.
|
|
0
@ asphaltcowboy
"If sony charge for PSN then they could cut £100 from the price of the PS3. Where the heck did you pluck that number from?" Well at £30 a month for 5 years they get £150 so once you take into account decreasing production cost as well means they would more then likely have been able to bring the PS3 down to 199.99 by now instead of in a years time. |
|
0
Well I'm cancelling my Xbox LIVE sub shortly as I don't play games online and have no desire to so I'm wasting my £40 per annum. The only reason I even paid it in the first place was to get demos early but with the PS3 and PC offering free downloads without the week long delay (which itself is a cheeky tactic by Microsoft to give people another reason to subscribe to Gold) there's less need to pay for the service. I can try the PC or PS3 version then wait a week for the 360 version instead. If I want to play games online at any time I can use my PS3 or PC.
Asking people to pay a subscription for an online gaming service is really a bit off IMO particularly as Xbox LIVE doesn't offer anything above and beyond what you get on other platforms. Certainly you've no guarantee that the experience will be lag-free at all and standard voice-comms and Friends list are available to Silver users anyway outside of games so they don't count. |
|
0
It's a small token for a relatively good service. Sure it's not perfect and sure I would love not paying at all but considering I get at least 2 hours of entertainment each day on average for it, it's a good deal imo. Before you go there, I've been an online gamer since the days of 14k4 dialups.
It costs a fair deal of money but if you are nitpicking a sub 50 euro figure on a yearly basis then you might have the wrong hobby. On the plus side, I bought some good deals and am using an account that doesn't expire until 2011 (bought in 2007) and costs me 7 euro. |
|
Britesparc
24/02/09 @ 11:02
0
I still pay for Gold, and don't really have a problem doing so, and I rarely play online. I just like knowing that, if I wanted to, I could. However, I do think they need to overhaul the service; I've got friends who've just bought 360s, and they're a bit unhappy that, if they want to play with me, they need to fork out an extra £30+ for the privelage.
I don't mind paying for an improved service, or there being a two-tier system, but I do think they need to make some kind of online play free. Perhaps Gold customers get other benefits, eg. parties, clans, better servers, exclusive demos, videos, etc. But if you just want to hop into some slayer matches on Halo, or co-op on Fable, then it's free. It's bad enough the wi-fi costs £50...! |
|
0
I wish Microsoft would do something about the delays when trying to download stuff from the Marketplace.
Ironically it seems much worse since the NXE update last year but then there's more images and stuff so I shouldn't be too surprised I guess. I *always* have to wait, typically, 30 to 60 seconds before I can even click on the Download button, whether it's a video, XBLA trial or a game demo. Not only that but I get occasional 15 second freezes when accessing my Friends list or Messages, inside and outside of games. I only have four people in my list now for goodness' sake so why all the lag? I cut the list down for exactly that reason but it hasn't made any noticeable difference. I've never experienced anything similar on either the PS3 or Wii, which all share the same wireless connection to my router and are the same distance away from it. Is it because Xbox LIVE can't cope with the sheer number of users? |
|
0
Heh, so it may well be that more PS3 users have gamed online by now than 360 users, at least in theory. ;)
I think this year will have been the last I'll pay for Gold, after paying 60 bloody euros for six years now (since the first xbox). Online gaming with the 360 has been disappointment after disappointment (all racing games use outdated non-UPNP supporting effin P2P crap) and there just aren't enough games on the system that make me want to play, let alone online. All the good stuff I do like (gamertag, comparing scores with friends, achievements) is available on Silver anyway, and then PSN is catching up fast there too (though never fast enough). My 360 will need something good or it will be retired soon. I was hoping Race Pro (I love me some racing sim) would be good, but alas - 30fps with screen tear? Bah. And fuck, the stuff I could have bought for the 360 euros I spent on live!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/02/09 @ 11:22
|
|
SpaceMidget75
24/02/09 @ 11:38
0
All this "look how much you'll spend on Live over 5 years" if laughable bollocks I have to say. It's 5 fucking years before you get that perceived £150 back!
Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from rich (or even 'well off'), but stop being so petty. You wouldn't be saving that money in a little pot to buy a game with at the end of a WHOLE YEARS wait. It would disappear every month with all the other £3s you spend monthly. Get some fucking perspective. I was spending £4-5 on lunch every day at work. That's £100 a month (not £30 a year) on LUNCH. So I make my own to save money. You go down the pub and could easily spend £30 in one night. Smokers spend £100s every month and see a tangible difference when they save that money in a pot (which is usually done to help them break the habit.) It's not ideal and I don't agree with it but get some perspective and stop using it as a Sony argument. |
|
0
"It's not ideal and I don't agree with it but get some perspective and stop using it as a Sony argument. "
From the trolls here I was always under the impression that 360 was for the poor people and the PS3 was for the fashionable, trendy rich. Turns out they are now moaning about a few $$$ a year. How unfashionable. |
|
0
From the trolls here I was always under the impression that 360 was for the poor people and the PS3 was for the fashionable, trendy rich. Turns out they are now moaning about a few $$$ a year. How unfashionable.
When people can't afford something, it is generally considered very crass to mock them for that. I can't say I've seen anyone on this site mocking Xbox 360 as being a console for poor people. It's not ideal and I don't agree with it but get some perspective and stop using it as a Sony argument. I don't own a PS3, nor do I intend to buy one, but you can't deny that free online is an argument for Sony. Maybe not a compelling one for you, but it's certainly one of the things to consider when buying a new console. |
|
AusFreelancer
24/02/09 @ 12:25
0
@ Dizzy - Actually you could say the ps3 is for clever foward thinkers, it does so much the 360 can't (like browse the internet...as i'm doing now). The 360 on the other hand is loaded with hidden traps like a wi-fi adapter that costs 1/2 the console price....as well as the hdd & live. Before you accuse me of being a SDF of whatever, I'm actually about to plonk down some cash on a 360 arcade....for use as a divx/dvd player....and occasional games machine for the spare room.
|
|
IneptPercy
24/02/09 @ 12:40
0
It goes in roundabouts if it should be free etc, maybe it should be on on the flip side £30 is not a lot, personally it comes from my games budget so hardware prices have nothing to do with it.
Interestingly how many PS3 games cost £5 more than the 360 versions (sometimes more) so you could argue that the money saved there could pay for Live. Comes back down to choice, I know many people who have no interest in online gaming so etc. As for PC online being free, yes it might be but I gave up on that a good while ago. To me cheating is a big problem on PC games online and to me its enough for me to rather pay £30 and play on my xbox. PSN being free is great, just a shame you have to pay for a PS3 to use it. |
|
0
@ AusFreelancer:
"AusFreelancer 17-Dec-08 05:03:39 HAHAHAHAHA!!! 1mill lead....is that all.....surely 2million 360s have RROD'd is that factored in? Just by reading this site , you'd think the lead would be 40 to 1. Guess the console crowd make-up round here is an is disproportionate to the real world's. ignore poster " "AusFreelancer 09-Oct-08 07:34:34 LOL!!!!!! you wish. Tekken is not exactly a system seller, so no company is going to pay a premium to keep that franchise exclusive. Also, with development costs so large, why would any third-party keep their game on 1 system? IMHO you can have your button-mashing crap...you'll be over it in a week. With posts like these, no one would ever know, buddy... If those aren't SDF at its best, idk...
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 24/02/09 @ 12:56
|
|
AusFreelancer
24/02/09 @ 12:57
0
@ miiiguel - LOL!!! EXPOSED! Damn completely forgot I posted that! Still though....there is a little truth to my comments you dug up from what seems like 50yrs ago....What are you a historian?
|
|
0
@Dizzy - "> I *always* have to wait, typically, 30 to 60 seconds
Change your ISP or your country :)" Terrific suggestion, Dizzy, considering I've just mentioned that I don't have the same issue when downloading stuff from my PS3, Wii (both wireless too) or PC (wired). :P Whatever is causing these annoying delays, it's an Xbox 360 issue. And judging by the forum, I'm not the only one with this issue either. It seems to be a common problem from what I've read here and on other forums. |
|
AusFreelancer
24/02/09 @ 13:08
0
Stealth?.....what stealth?....must of got it from MGS4....
Being honest about getting a 360 though.....they're almost too cheap at the basic end....could easily get expensive, must resist getting mugged by ms "extras". |
|
SpaceMidget75
24/02/09 @ 13:10
0
"I don't own a PS3, nor do I intend to buy one, but you can't deny that free online is an argument for Sony. Maybe not a compelling one for you, but it's certainly one of the things to consider when buying a new console."
That wasn't the argument I was talking about though. It was the "I've saved myself £30 this year" issue I was talking about. They are subtly different. If you think you're going to notice that £30 at the end of a whole year you are sorely mistaken. The only people that would, are people that wouldn't be able to afford a £270 console in the first place. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
