why xbox shouldnt be free

hey everyone, i just want to say that Xbox should not be free because why do something that isn't broke. i have tried to play on the psn a couple of times and got into some pretty lagging games and i got into some games that have less lag then my xbox. the one reason why i bought an xbox is that my friends told me to get one. all in all they are pretty much the same.   

 

Question Info


Last updated July 4, 2018 Views 11 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

They both have their pros and cons. It just your opinoin.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

People have this mentality because they pay makes it better and better servers..This does not make much sense since most 3rd party games run on the same listen servers on both 360 and ps3.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

It helps when members get jobs that pay more then 60 bucks a year.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

That is the poorest excuse i've heard...a job is a job, i have a job and i can't afford to spend $60 a year on a gaming service i can get for free via steam & Psn.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

agreed with you, Assassinator.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

Well I know for myself. If I don't like something. I don't do it. Maybe you guys should try that. It works for me.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

I'm also with Assassinator on this. But folks understand my stance, I've been quite outspoken the past few weeks on the subject.

Shame there are so many people out there who refused to ask "what am I paying for?", or simply refuse to acknowledge what he pointed out above. People pay a bill and assume they're actually paying for something significant. I used to, then I just decided to look into it one day. Still gold, love my Xbox, but it's a money grab, we pay for nothing special. Best part is, people are more than happy to pay anyways.

Also, don't think for a second the fact you have to pay weeds out slackers and kids with an allowance. Need proof? Play any new multiplayer title. Or play them all, because they do! ;) Want to know why? Parents work, and tend to spoil their children. Be 12 years old, or in their late teens, early 20's. Walk into and game store and see!

It's not an affordability problem. It's getting the money to work to improve the quality of Live, and letting those who wish to not play online still use their machines online for the other services. Kinda like the other two consoles. I see it as "Making my Xbox the only console I need" as opposed to "Xbox for games, PS3 or Wii for multiplayer games/ web browsing/ Netflix/ etc. Etc."

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

I think map packs should at least be discounted, I noticed they are more on Live than psn... a one month exclusive isn't that big of a deal... not really worth $65/yr.

I've been asking "what exactly are we paying for" for months and now that I've given Live a go... I don't see much difference between the free service and the $65/yr service. Just curious as to why Microsoft charges for Live when others don't. In business you learn that your product has to stand out from the crowd, especially when you charge extra for it... it's basic marketing/promotion.

I've actually noticed less people on Live with actual headsets, and the ones that do have been insanely rude for the most part. Very poor sportsmanship.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

It doesn't make sense to offer a service that is valuable for free. That's a simple business principal. If you offer something for nothing it means that either your service has no value or you (the merchant) do not value it. Xbox Live Gold offers what many consider to be valuable and so they have no problem paying for it.

 

 

People say that the PSN is better because it's the same thing, only free. If that were true Xbox Live would not have nearly as many customers as it currently does. The PSN is offered for free because it seems to be a sort of "catch up" strategy on Sony's part in attempt to 1-up Microsoft. If Sony charged $60 a year for online services many of their customers would gladly pay it as they value the service. Perhaps Sony could even use a portion of that revenue to bolster and improve upon their service.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

[quote user="Silent Paradigm"]

It doesn't make sense to offer a service that is valuable for free. That's a simple business principal. If you offer something for nothing it means that either your service has no value or you (the merchant) do not value it. Xbox Live Gold offers what many consider to be valuable and so they have no problem paying for it.

 

People say that the PSN is better because it's the same thing, only free. If that were true Xbox Live would not have nearly as many customers as it currently does. The PSN is offered for free because it seems to be a sort of "catch up" strategy on Sony's part in attempt to 1-up Microsoft. If Sony charged $60 a year for online services many of their customers would gladly pay it as they value the service. Perhaps Sony could even use a portion of that revenue to bolster and improve upon their service.

[/quote]

 

Yet that valuable service is being offered for free on both PS3 and PC. So, it does make sense.

 

Also, you know why Live has more customers? Fanboys. Plain and simple. You'd be surprised how many people who have gold only have a 360. $60 a year for something that isn't that much better, or at all, than the competition isn't worth it to me.

Did this solve your problem?

Sorry this didn't help.

Great! Thanks for marking this as the answer.

How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve the site.

How satisfied are you with this response?

Thanks for your feedback.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.