Microsoft has failed to rule out the possibility of significantly raising the subscription price for Xbox Live Gold membership in the very near future.
Speaking after Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter said that he can foresee Microsoft introducing tiered Xbox Live subscription packages similar to cable TV offerings, with the price of a top end XBL package rising from $50 to as much as $100, Microsoft spokesperson David Dennis failed to directly reject the possibility.
"I don't foresee a scenario where we're going to double the price of Live any time in the next couple months," he told PC World.
Dennis went on to defend Microsoft’s Xbox 360 accessory pricing strategy, acknowledging that it’s “certainly something we've heard a lot about from consumers". The platform holder came under fire this week from select third party manufacturers and some sectors of the gaming community for its decision to lock out unlicensed memory units in an upcoming system update, a move that will force consumers wanting to back up their save data to part with more cash for less storage space.
"Our accessory attach rate is higher than anyone's," said Dennis. "It's 4.1 for us, 2.2 for PS3, and 3.4 for the Wii... We go to great lengths to ensure the accessories we're selling are high quality. A lot of the price comparisons you hear have to do with the hard drive, but your average off-the-shelf PC hard drive isn't as exhaustively tested or run through the same quality and safety compliance checklists we employ… The fact that people continue to purchase our accessories over a lot of third-party alternatives in many instances shows that people do gravitate toward the ones they know they can trust."
i paid for xbox live once [full year] and i won't pay again should be free. paid service should be top quality no constent restarting search and lag and endless waiting sometimes where you have back and forth on the menu to connect....
i know what you mean, a paid service should also be consistent across all games, however the only game i have found to work reasonably well (only lags when my internet is slow) is halo
having owned all the current gen consoles at various points i have found PSN to be far superior on comparable games that i owned for both 360 and ps3, such as burnout and cod4
"your average off-the-shelf PC hard drive isn't as exhaustively tested or run through the same quality and safety compliance checklists we employ"
If they test their HDD's so thoroughly why the hell didn't they employ the same test for the rest of the console and fix the RROD problem before about 50% of 360's had to be returned at massive cost to M$?
For the record I have never had a HDD fail in my PC's and I am not exactly what you might call a light user. This is corporate bullshit.
Maybe I spoke too soon, my windows 7 install on my desktop hasn't gone 100% to plan and I think a faulty HDD may be at the root of the problem. £56 buys me 1TB though!
That's pretty much garbage. Not in the next couple months sure seems like definitely to me. And their Charge 'n' Play straight just doesn't work. This is Sony's one opportunity to win the first-gen HD console war.
In related news, I am unlikely to let my Xbox Live subscription lapse in the next couple milliseconds.
It's funny how it's always the same people that instantly jump to the defense of these kind of threads. You guys all go on about the SDF. Look at yourselves!
So it's wrong to see the same people "jump to the defense" but ok for another group of people to always jump to the attack? In this particular instance, MS is being criticized for something it hasn't even done. One analyst (who freely admits he makes these things up for attention) made an off the wall comment on GTTV and suddenly MS is the Evil Empire?
Not at all, neither is right tbh. Everyone will have a preference, it just seems that with a subject like this that some people are loyal to the point that it's painful.
I do have to appologise though as I mis-read this somehow thinking they were saying they were going to increase the price.
The thing is, "if" MS were to double the price of Live next year, it seems that there are a lot of people that will just happily accept that and pay it. Why would MS need to start charging extra for live?
Personally I think its terrible having to pay to play online, you can go on about x game chat, sky player, 1vs 100 etc, but what if I don't want cross game chat or to watch sky TV etc, what if I just want the ability to play online, why should someone have to pay for, we've never had to pay for it in that past.
As has also been said above, if I do HAVE to pay for online, I expect a vastly superior online gaming service in the areas that matter. Lag, number of players etc, which clearly we do not get from Live.
Interesting your mention about U2 lower down with 7000 players as well, I assume something terrible has happened.
I don't have an interenet connection at home this week as I'm changing provider, but when I was playing U2 online, there were usually 6000+ players on the Beta, and a week after release in the UK, I was seeing between 14,000 and 20,000+ people logged on between 6pm GMT and 11pm GMT.
On that note, got a PS3 mic? Let me know if you fancy some Co-op at some point. Muchos funnos! :) Send me your PSN if you're interested. Always good to find new people to play with. Oooo errr.
LOL, "suddenly."
Jump to conclusions often, people? Astonishing how everyone missed the part where he confirmed that they're not raising prices. Of course, he can't say they'll never raise prices - that just opens them up for a lawsuit if they adjust for inflation years from now.
Also, it is entirely possible that Live! is going to offer an additional subscription tier for movies/tv shows/music with the introduction of Zune marketplace, which is the far more likely scenario than just doubling the price of Live! with the existing package.
Zune already has a music subscription option for the portable players and marketing surveys have been going around the US all year asking if 360 owners would be interested in music/movie/tv show subscription packages at various price points. Considering how much most US consumers pay for cable/satellite tv, raising this to $100 for everything would actually be a HUGE savings. Of course, that would be giving MS the benefit of the doubt - something many Edge regulars seem incapable of doing.
I find it very hard to believe that the 360's accessory attach rate is higher than the Wii's
Yeah, there's definitely a lot of Wii-white plastic out there!
However, considering 360 gets played exponentially more than Wii, there's probably a lot more controllers and/or charge packs being purchased for 360.
Lots of great quotes in this one.
So what exhaustive testing are Microsoft doing exactly, that say Seagate, Samsung or Western Digital are not?
The Xbox 360's hard drive does no more work over its life cycle than the average P.C's drive does. In fact I'd say that P.C drives work much harder, with all the page memory that is in use and the bloat-ware that is Vista. What about those running raids or server cabinets which can sometimes keep the drives in constant use.
Average 120gb hard drive from either Samsung or Western Digital would cost you around £30. Microsoft 120gb branded version, which I heard runs a Western Digital with custom firmware just over £90. Depending on the source you may be able to shave a little more off the price in both instances. The facts speak for themselves.
People buy Microsoft peripherals over third parties because either there is no alternative or as with the Datel memory cards. Consumers have been stung by Microsoft aggressive use of firmware updates and the potential for losing their content, making them wary of going the that route again. Fear of repercussion is seemingly what keeps gamers buying official kit.
I had the same feelings. If MS are in fact testing their products more than 3rd party companies then perhaps they need to look at if they are over testing them.
All products have their faults but i have never heard of any major, consistant problems with 3rd party HDs.
Also the reason the 360s perpherial attach is higher would prob be because you have to buy EVERYTHING in addition to the 360, battery packs, wireless dongle, larger HDs and even for a time HD DVD player (when compared to the PS3s built in blu ray)
Have M$ lost their minds? In the face of increased competition from Sony the response is to raise prices! I'm beginning to think they want to lose the console war.
The "accessory attach rate" for XBox being higher is an interesting comment - what would they be? Oh yes, a WiFi adapter and high-def(unct) HD-DVD drive, two features built into PS3s as standard. His implication that standard PC hard drives aren't as reliable seems bizarre - what's the average PC hard drive failure rate compared with the XBox 360 failure rate (even now after several hardware revisions)?
So the most expensive video game system in history (when factoring online gaming charges) is going to get more expensive. Looks like I'll be buying the multiplatform games that I want to play online for my PS3 for the foreseeable future then.
You've already been buying all your games on PS3 and obviously need to rationalize choosing an inferior experience by bringing this up repeatedly.
How's that voice chat in every game, party system, cross-game voicechat, community and API support going? For that matter, how are you enjoying playing Borderlands co-op online - oh that's right, you can't play it because Sony QC didn't bother testing it to find out it didn't work - at all.
You get what you pay for, which is precisely why PSN lacks any sense of community and has such an inconsistent experience from one game to another. Even games that get online right on PS3, like Uncharted 2, suffer from the inherent faults in the system. I've logged on several nights now (during prime time) and there has never been more than 7K people online. I sincerely hopes this means that most PS3 owners don't even bother playing online anymore and is not a reflection of the sales for the game.
No I own both PS3 and 360, for me free will always win over paid for services especially when the paid for service is mainly peer to peer and the free service is up to the job of playing online, for free. Did I mention that it's free?
What if Sony were to introduce a charge? What would you do then?
Go back to playing on PC?
I don't have a problem with chargin for online services, but it really gripes me having to pay to play multiplayer. Charge extra for X Game chat, the videos, any other crap, but not online play.
I wouldn't pay and I'd bitch just as hard about it.
Good luck with that!
Are Sony charging for online play?
No.. Of course not.. Just wondering what your position would be.
Missionary.
So orthodox and unimaginative - no wonder you like the PS3 so much! ;)
At least I can rely on the PS3 to "put out!" The 360 is a really temperamental old thing.
Nice trolling, bravo.
Yeah because your comment adds so so much more.
I dispise the phrase 'trolling', its the reason i dont post on any other sites, so dont clog up this one with your retarded 'trolling' posts
Well done again!
In other words you don't have an argument?
Games, not trolling.