56 per cent of Live users have Gold

By Oli Welsh Published 24 February, 2009

Around a third of 360 owners pay subs.

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."

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (91) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • uglygamer #1 3 years ago

    Considering the quality of Live, the cheapness of the XBox 360 and so on, its a fair trade off paying for subscription.

  • JDub #2 3 years ago

    Alas, it's a necessity if you want to play online - Case closed. :/

  • nickthegun #3 3 years ago

    I still resent paying for, essentially, p2p gaming.

  • Doctor_What #4 3 years ago

    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 #5 3 years ago

    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.

  • DrDamn #6 3 years ago

    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.

  • Dizzy #7 3 years ago

    Live has dedicated servers and P2P support. Sometimes I think some of you here never even played on Live. L4D for example has plenty of dedicated servers.

  • skillian #8 3 years ago

    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 #9 3 years ago

    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.

  • DFawkes #10 3 years ago

    I have as good reliability with Live as I do with Gold, but I certainly don't mind paying for Gold. It's a tad unnecessary, but I'm okay with it. Like I'll rip off from the Simpsons, "It ensures a healthy mix of the rich and the ignorant!"

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #11 3 years ago

    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?

  • Retroid #12 3 years ago

    "If 34 per cent doesn't sound that impressive, consider that they're paying a minimum of USD 50 a year each."

    Oh?

    I'm sure it's not just in the US that gamers like myself will shop around and get the Gold subs for far lower than their RRP. I've never paid the full price for a year's sub.

  • Lexx87 #13 3 years ago

    50dollarsminimumlol

    Or what Retroid said

  • mcbi4kh2 #14 3 years ago

    @spacmidget75

    Buy two games?

  • Entity #15 3 years ago

    "Alas, it's a necessity if you want to play online - Case closed. :/ "

    Unless you only want to play FFXI, then silver will do. Saved me a few pennies over two years.

  • Moz #16 3 years ago

    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.

  • skillian #17 3 years ago

    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 by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 09:34

  • Dizzy #18 3 years ago

    "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 #19 3 years ago

    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!

  • Nova5lag #20 3 years ago

    I'm Silver and proud of it. I refuse to pay for online gaming when I can log in to my steam account and shoot people in the head on PC for approx £0.00* subscription!

    *Not taking into account the electric, cost of box, cost of game of course.

    ?

  • metalangel #21 3 years ago

    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 #22 3 years ago

    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.

  • Moz #23 3 years ago

    @ 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.

  • skillian #24 3 years ago

    what does that tell you oh all knowing?

    It's tells me nothing related to the point I made.

    I'm not talking about Wii owners, nor PC owners or anyone else. I'm saying that despite millions of Xbox gamers having their console plugged into an internet connection, they can't play a game online.

  • Retroid #25 3 years ago

    I'd be curious about the number of online players on both formats as percentage of total sales, for games like CoD4.

    I have a feeling it wouldn't make as much of a difference as the defenders of PSN suggest.

  • stepneg #26 3 years ago

    It's worth every penny to me, I use it a lot and easily get my moneys worth, yes the PC\PS3 etc.. is free but it's more hassle and just not as good.

  • asharkman #27 3 years ago

    I got mine on ebay for 30euros sucker that microsoft!

  • stampax #28 3 years ago

    Never got value for it personally, but i think that was more because i didnt have any friends on it. Never made much use of the microphone for all the obvious and well documented reasons.

  • Darren #29 3 years ago

    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.

  • Xerx3s #30 3 years ago

    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 Verified Creative, ITV #31 3 years ago

    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...!

  • Darren #32 3 years ago

    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?

  • Dizzy #33 3 years ago

    > I *always* have to wait, typically, 30 to 60 seconds

    Change your ISP or your country :)

  • Arwin #34 3 years ago

    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 by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 11:22

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #35 3 years ago

    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.


  • Dizzy #36 3 years ago

    "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.

  • Eraysor #37 3 years ago

    It's totally worth it just for the amount of enjoyment Street Fighter has given me online over the weekend. Lost and Damned's Road Rash-style multiplayer is also brilliant.

  • skillian #38 3 years ago

    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.

  • Fab4 #39 3 years ago

    99% of them are complete assholes too.

  • Xerx3s #40 3 years ago

    "99% of them are complete assholes too. "

    With comments like that the phrase "It takes one to know one" springs to mind.

  • AusFreelancer #41 3 years ago

    @ 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.

  • Fab4 #42 3 years ago

    Yes, because gathering empircal evidence requires the gatherer to be a member of the subject group...thats how research works. *rolls eyes*

  • miiiguel #43 3 years ago

    I pay, most of all because I can. My life wouldn't be any better or worse with a 40 Eur more in the bank *a year!*.
    I can be wrong but if that keeps some of the SDF away from Live, they can even make it more expensive.

  • IneptPercy #44 3 years ago

    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.

  • miiiguel #45 3 years ago

    @ 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 by 2 at 24/02/09 @ 12:56

  • AusFreelancer #46 3 years ago

    @ 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?

  • Darren #47 3 years ago

    @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.

  • miiiguel #48 3 years ago

    WEll nevermind, just a good skill in having lunch and brwsing the net at the same time. Stealth isnt' cool, that's all. I for once am very proud in my xbot shiny badge.

    ;)

  • AusFreelancer #49 3 years ago

    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 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #50 3 years ago

    "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.

  • miiiguel #51 3 years ago

    @ Aus: You do good, send me a FR while you have that free Gold month, we'll have some fun.
    Nevermind the jokes (attempts at) they're just that.


    Peace!
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 13:13

  • Vic #52 3 years ago

    How many suckers is that then?

    I wonder if those users mind bending over for Bill and paying for the privilege of peer-to-peer play.

  • Nomgle #53 3 years ago

    Skillian 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.

    I'm not quite sure why you'd consider anything except the games. You choose whichever console hosts the games you want to play, and that's all there is to it. If you want to play online, you're limited to the consoles your friends own (it's no good buying a 360, if all your mates are PS3 users...).
    You sure as hell don't disregard either of those factors, to save a bit of cash - that's not value for money by any standard !
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 13:18

  • miiiguel #54 3 years ago

    It all ends up what a euro is worth to you (and within that you have many other variables, like how much is your wage and shit).
    I couldn't not have a 360 + Gold Live this gen, like I couldn't not have a PS2 plus + 200 games last gen. But I do suck at saving money.

  • Fab4 #55 3 years ago

    Its not even p2p, for the most part. You are paying to provide server functionality, in a client/server model. Just because you are serving your peers, doesnt make it p2p.

  • miiiguel #56 3 years ago

    "Its not even p2p, for the most part. You are paying to provide server functionality, in a client/server model. Just because you are serving your peers, doesnt make it p2p. "

    This is what I'm talking about, if I had this skill, I would never have meals in restaurants.
    I just want to be served and not having to do the dishes, like I only want to press one or two buttons.

    I'll have my coffee now sir..., thank you
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 13:28

  • AusFreelancer #57 3 years ago

    @ miiiguel - Hey were all men here...and women.....some of us. No offence taken. Sure, you'll have a month of easy gamer point....points.

  • DoctorZoidberg #58 3 years ago

    @Asharkman
    I got mine on ebay for 30euros sucker that microsoft!

    Which is about £22 or so, which works out about 50 dollars......

  • miiiguel #59 3 years ago

    @ AusFreelancer: yay, I've been misunderstood before, and sometimes I did push shit too far - I'm just trying to be less edgy. Heck..., forget it. You have a 1 month free Gold which will be given to the 1st profile you create and connect to Live on your new 360.

  • AusFreelancer #60 3 years ago

    Hey, bastard comments keep me comming to this site more than the articles. Keep that crap up ;)

  • skillian #61 3 years ago

    You sure as hell don't disregard either of those factors, to save a bit of cash - that's not value for money by any standard

    @SpaceMidget and Nomgle:

    As I said it is not the only argument, and of course I'd agree that the games available for that system will likely swing you either way, but you cannot deny that it would be a tick on the pros or the cons list either way. This isn't even really an opinion, surely you must see that's the case.

  • kangarootoo #62 3 years ago

    "I got mine on ebay for 30euros sucker that microsoft"

    Errr, yeah. You showed them. Gutted I bet.


    Anyway, I'll say it again. The clock is ticking on XBLive pay-to-play. Its all very well saying "a majority of users..." but 56% is barely that. Next year it could easily be a minority of users, which is hardly great PR.

    "I'm saying that despite millions of Xbox gamers having their console plugged into an internet connection, they can't play a game online."

    One of the most important points made in this thread. For a service that is all about "playing together" (as I believe the marketing tag line goes), its not the best advert in itself.

    I recently renewed my gold membership, after probably over a year of leaving it lapsed. The reason? Left 4 Dead. If that game was available on the PS3, my membership would still be silver. But next time the renewal comes around, will there be an exclusive killer app to tempt me back? Will it stay lapsed for another year? By that time I expect it to be free anyway.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #63 3 years ago

    skillian read my last post again please. I'm not talking about purchasing decisions per se. Stop drawing me into it.

  • BadBoyBonner #64 3 years ago

    **PS3 Fanboys**

    Surely these figures actually show that live gold subscription is at 100% i.e. every working 360 is a gold subscribing one? ;-)

  • Kyledanutmeg #65 3 years ago

    Geeks!!

  • kangarootoo #66 3 years ago

    Irony!!

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #67 3 years ago

    "Stop whining, order one less takeaway a year and that's your sub paid, you idiots."

    Your takeaways cost £30 a time? YOU FAT BASTARD.

  • Les #68 3 years ago

    "If you think you're going to notice that £30 at the end of a whole year you are sorely mistaken."

    LOL, almost ROFL. That's one of the most ridiculous 'arguments' I've ever had the pleasure to read around here. Thanks! :)

  • DFawkes #69 3 years ago

    I can never agree with the reasoning £30 isn't a lot of money, to the point it's almost free. I'm happy enough to pay it, but is is the cost of a new game, or 2-3 older games. That isn't nothing, so I respect the people that take up the option of buying another game instead.

    £30 is real money that can be spent on other things. A couple of takewaways for the whole family/ 1 takeaway for people aiming to claim on hyper-obesity, Homer style. Or some games. Or an MP3 Player. A few good books. Some socks. There's plenty of things you could otherwise buy.

    Like I say though, I'm happy paying it.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #70 3 years ago

    Care to explain?

  • Retroid #71 3 years ago

    While I think it's a silly price, the RRP for the Wifi dongle doesn't bother me as I wouldn't use wifi on a stantionary console anyway. Wifi is for PDAs and mobile consoles - and before anyone asks, my PS3 is hooked up via ethernet because I found it more reliable.

  • GamesConnoisseur #72 3 years ago

    Posing a question, if Sony decided that the only way they can invest in a more content heavy and improving online infrastructure was to start charging subs would you be happy with this?

    I for one certainly would pay if I believe it would leads to a better service, but agreed the gap is not as great as it was and the profits to MS seem certainly to pay for the exclusive DLC for X360!!

    People wanting FREE this and FREE that, please consider that this is a bona fide business and Sony/MS/Nintendo are in it to make money and not free love in with gamers! SO if not subs then it would be another revenue ie advertising or sponsorships.

    WE ll see what business model best survives in the long run in a very competitive market.

  • cyber_nicco #73 3 years ago

    You can get it for around $38.00 for 13 months...

  • Les #74 3 years ago

    "WE ll see what business model best survives in the long run in a very competitive market."

    Exactly, they're two different business models. Sony's online isn't free, it's just paid for by PS3 owners in a different way than a direct service fee as MS charges. Sony's model (TBH it's entire PS3 concept) basically favours the hardcore: Price of entry is steep but if you want it all, you get it at a significant discount. MS's model favours the casual: Entry is cheap but for everything extra you pay a (steep) price.

    There's no knowing who will have to change their business model first. So far, most consumers still don't seem to care much for online (just over half of MS's customers want to pay for it which indicates the majority of console owners (the non-paying 360 owners ,PS3 and Wii owners) don't really see the benefit of a paid-for online service). This is likely to change over time but nowhere near as fast as video game press would like us to believe. Online was irrelevant in the PS2/xbox era and it still is now*.

    * Irrelevant in the sense of not being an important factor when making the buy decision for a significant number of potential console owners, before people start to reply that it is not irrelevant to them personally...

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #75 3 years ago

    Les, seeing as you missed my point and decided to take one line and quote it out of context I'll say it again!

    I'm referring to this recurring point that over the years they'll have saved this huge amount of money to be used elsewhere.

    "In 5 years I'll have saved £150"

    That's what I meant be you won't notice it. You're not gonna suddenly open your wallet and go "Wooah! It's taken a while, but after FIVE years I've now got £150 to play with - Great!"

    The human mind, not to mention peoples monthly finances just don't generally allow that to happen.

    Now go 'Almost ROFL' elsewhere.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #76 3 years ago

    If Einstein was still alive, he would probably tell us not to pay £30 and instead watch the various bargain forums for when its on offer for £20 or less. You know....just like most of us do with games already.
    And for "Live is just..." moaners, why not just join a game server on that PC your'e typing from?
    When I bought my PS3 for £425 and started replacing my favourite DVDs for 3 times the price, I damn well expected free online.
    The same could be said of todays prices, £120 Arcade versus £280 PS3, you f#cking bet they want free online.

  • Les #77 3 years ago

    "Les, seeing as you missed my point and decided to take one line and quote it out of context I'll say it again!"

    I thought DFawkes put it nicely and saw no need to add to that. Didn't mean to ignore you.

    "The human mind, not to mention peoples monthly finances just don't generally allow that to happen."

    You're missing the point. Of course not paying 30 GBPyearly for 5 years for something means you won't have spent 150 GBP on that something. That doesn't mean you'll have 150 GBP in your wallet after 5 years unless one's very anal and strict and puts the 30 GBP in there each year and keeps it there. You're right in saying that most people will not have the discipline to do that. But that's besides the point. It's irrelevant. Not spending those 150 GBP on that something will mean they can (and will) be spent on something else. Or to put it in another way: If someone offered you 30 GBP a year over 5 years, no strings attached, would you pass up on it because you wouldn't notice the extra 30 GBP.

    And what made it very funny as well is the arbitrariness of a 30 GBP 'line'. I probably wouldn't miss a couple of hundred GBP (especially not at the current FX rate ;) ) on my bank account by the end of the year. Does that mean that basically the PS3 and the 360 are the same price for me as I wouldn't really notice the difference in spend at the end of the year? I'd think not.

    Cash is cash and should not be confused with psychological relevancy of an amount of money.

  • RedSparrows #78 3 years ago

    I spend £30 or whatever it is once a year, which allows me to play Halo 3 for eons. I love it. Yeah, would be nicer if it were free, but rather than buying some middle of the road game (y'know, you're bored, you have the MUST HAVES from that period, you want something fresh...), I shoot Americans in the head. It's fun.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #79 3 years ago

    Les, I think you've just expanded upon my point. It's £3 a month mate, so yes it will be spent on something else...a fucking sandwich or pint in the pub and then that's it for the rest of the month.

    I'm simply saying that anyone who says "I've saved £60 already in the last two years" is being a bit pathetic, and unfortunately I don't think you'll change my mind on that.

    I do agree that it's a con point when making a buying decision and also that they shouldn't be charging it but as I've said I'm talking about that particularly constructed quote I've just mentioned.

    "If someone offered you 30 GBP a year over 5 years, no strings attached, would you pass up on it because you wouldn't notice the extra 30 GBP. "

    Well of course, but what will happen is it will go in my wallet and then gradually disappear throughout the week only to be completely finished off when I go and spend £80 on shopping at the end of the week. By the second week, it's gone, forgotten about, made no difference to my life and I then have to wait another 50 WEEKS before the next £30.

    Now if you'd said, "would you like someone to give me a lump £150 every fives years?", then that would be great! But it's not is it? It's £30 a year.

    I guess if you could show me that all those PS3 owners actually went a bought an extra game (or something equally tangible) because they don't need to pay for Live, then great. But they aren't....it will have been spent on 10 cans of coke, 5 bags of crisps, a pint, a magazine and a birthday card. THEY WONT NOTICE IT!
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 19:50

  • coolbritannia #80 3 years ago

    PSN is a bag of shite, you get what you pay for...

  • Les #81 3 years ago

    @ SpaceMidget75

    Hey, I don't blame you. 99.9% of humanity can't grasp finance so you're in good company. ;)

    "I'm simply saying that anyone who says "I've saved £60 already in the last two years" is being a bit pathetic, and unfortunately I don't think you'll change my mind on that."

    You're free to think that and I have absolutely no expectations of changing your mind nor the mind of anyone else. But from a financial perspective you're dead wrong. But again, you're in good company as it's the sole reason subscriptions work so well.

    "Now if you'd said, "would you like someone to give me a lump £150 every fives years?", then that would be great! But it's not is it? It's £30 a year."

    The current value of 30 GBP a year for 5 years is roughly 137 GBP (at 3% inflation). Is that an amount that tickles your fancy? Of course the whole emotional sandcastle is built upon very shaky foundations. Cause, let's be honest, 150 pounds isn't that much either. Just shy of 3 GBP a week. That's like a hamburger. I can easily miss a hamburger a week. I might even be able to go without 2 hamburgers a week without too many problems. In this way any amount can be rationalized to being fairly insignificant if that suits your agenda (whether conscious or not).

    In the end where it all comes down to is that we receive (or earn) x amount a year. Every one of those monetory units we can spend just once. It's irrelevant what we spend them on. If we spend them on A we can't spend them on B. It's as simple as that. Pure, cold logic. No need for emotions or psychology.

  • smelly #82 3 years ago

    YAY!!! Im in the minority!

    Fuck you gold membership!

  • Spekingur #83 3 years ago

    How many here are WoW players?
    I don't see anyone complaining about the 13 Euro monthly fee for that. That's 156 Euros for 12 months without any 3, 6 or 12 months subscription plan.
    It's 9 GBP per month, which amounts to 108 GBP for 12 months.

    You are complaining about the wrong thing. Plus, since this is a paid service MS is legally bound to some things - probably mostly by deals made with some game companies guranteeing online servers or somesuch thing but also because it is a consumer paid service and many countries have strict laws regarding consumer rights. Sony is on the opposite end, PSN is not a paid service and thus no obligations to us, the consumers.

  • tardo #84 3 years ago

    >>YAY!!! Im in the minority!

    Fuck you gold membership!

    >>


    Well, technically you're in the majority. 34% of 360 users are subscribed to gold membership.

  • MrMud #85 3 years ago

    Its dishartening as it means that any removal of the fee is very unlikely.
    Personally they would have to deliver something far, far more fantastic for me to even consider paying for multiplayer on a console.

  • Ryze #86 3 years ago

    There really should be an alternative payment method. A cheap way of getting online for 2-4 hours at a time, for example.

    There should also be more periods of free live access for games such as Xbox originals released on the marketplace.

  • BadBoyBonner #87 3 years ago

    Well everyone puts forward the augments of it being good value compared to price of a game/a takeaway/a day in the arcades/a king size Mars a day etc etc - they seem to be missing the point. There is no need for an analogy when you can make a direct comparison with all other similar systems.

    PC- free on-line
    PS3 - free on-line
    Wii - free on-line
    PSP - free on-line
    DS - free on-line

    Currently Xbox 360 is the ONLY system you need to pay to play (in a general sense) and lets not forget MS will charge for bloody anything i.e. gamer pics!! Shame on anyone that has bought some of those.

    It would not surprise me at all to learn that Live is the most profitable part of the entire Xbox franchise by a huge margin.

    Now if they offered the new Xbox console on release for £100 on a five year Live contract at £40 annually I would be much happier!

    If they don't (which seems likely) then people will have had the seed planted of a running cost that they perhaps never gave a moments thought to prior to purchasing the 360 i.e. all those with PS2's/Xbox's who never went online.

    Or perhaps MS will now hold much greater faith in the Live service and it;s revenue stream, factor it in the projected profit from it and then launch at a lower price point with the new console than they would have otherwise?
    Edited by 2 at 25/02/09 @ 15:35

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #88 3 years ago

    Les, you're not as clever as you try to sound.

    I've written numerous accounting packages and I'm a certified developer of Iris Exchequer and Pegasus Opera so I think I might know a little bit about finance.

    Thanks for the education on money ACTUALLY disappearing from your ownership when you spend it. WOW!! That's incredible.

    My point is obviously beyond your feeble little mind.




  • Les #89 3 years ago

    "Les, you're not as clever as you try to sound."

    I'm probably way more clever than I sound but I try to make my points as best I can given that English is not my first language. :)

    "I've written numerous accounting packages and I'm a certified developer of Iris Exchequer and Pegasus Opera so I think I might know a little bit about finance."

    You don't really display that in this thread with an emotional approach to money.

    "My point is obviously beyond your feeble little mind."

    No, your point is invalid. As I and others have tried to explain. I'm trying to find out what keeps you from grasping it. Maybe my initial post was a bit on the aggressive side for which I apologize.

    Maybe you have difficulty with the way the word 'save' is being used. Saving is not just putting money on a savings account. Cutting expenses is also a form of saving: It frees up money for other, better uses. Or using money for one purpose instead of another.

    One of the many definitions of 'save' from the Oxford dictionary:
    avoid the need to use up or spend (money, time, or other resources)

    If I make the conscious decision not to spend an amount that I can actually spend (in this case GBP 30 a year) on something, that means that I save myself the expense. It means I can spend those GBP 30 on different things which implicitly I deem more valuable. If I don't make this expense for 5 years, I've freed up GBP 150 for other, better purposes. Whether or not those amounts are significant relative to my income and whether or not I'm consciously aware of what else I spend them on isn't relevant.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #90 3 years ago

    For fuck sake Les I don't need you tell me what the fucking word SAVE means you tedious man!

    You're arguing from a literal standpoint which is obviously not wrong - it's cold hard fact, so don't patronise me by repeating yourself like a fucking stuck record.

    IT'S NOT MY POINT!!

    "Whether or not those amounts are significant relative to my income and whether or not I'm consciously aware of what else I spend them on isn't relevant."

    YES IT IS.

    Do I think about or care about the fact I lost a £20 note 12 months ago? NO - because if I did, I'd say I needed to get out more IT'S ONLY TWENTY POUNDS. A YEAR AGO! My emotional response to money is very real unless you're a bloody robot.

    If you (not you specifically) come in here and say that you've saved £150 over FIVE YEARS like it's a big deal you're a petty little cunt.

    I'm done.



    Edited by 1 at 26/02/09 @ 19:12

  • Les #91 3 years ago

    "IT'S NOT MY POINT!!"

    Someone says: Not paying 30 GBP for x saves me GBP 30 which I can spend on something else.
    Your response: GBP 30 is an insignificant amount on a yearly basis, you're not going to notice that at the end of the year.

    That's not an argument against the first statement (in fact it's acknowledging its validity and then putting it down using questionable logic and subjective judgement of relative value).