In today’s Coffee Talk, reader RRODisHere pointed out this interesting tidbit from Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter. On an episode of Gametrailer’s Bonus Round, Pachter said:
Microsoft wants you to never play a game again on your PC and play everything on your 360.
You really want to hook every gamer who has a 360, you want them to buy all their games on 360, play everything multiplayer, pay you 50 bucks a year so that, in a couple years, it’s a 100 bucks a year. That’s going up — we all know that. It’s a profit deal.
While it’s normal for prices to go up, this is one case where it might be a tough sell. There’s no doubt that Microsoft offers the best online console gaming experience with Xbox Live. It’s so good that the company justifies charging its customers $50 a year to use the service. That said, Sony’s PlayStation Network is getting better and better all the time. If both services continue to improve and Sony’s continues to be free, it will be difficult for Microsoft to raise the price of online admission to $100.
Then again, I could be totally wrong. I’ll ask you what RROD asked earlier — would you pay $100 for Xbox Live? I don’t think I would. The service is good, but not $100 good. Hit the break for the full video.
On a completely random note, one of Bonus Round’s guests this week, Tom Russo, is a sexy beast.
Source via That Videogame Blog
I love Xbox Live…but not enough to pay $100 a year for it. I have both systems so I can make that choice…I don't think it's that easy for 1 console families to do…but it would hinder potential new customers.
Oh the joy of being a professional guesser. Is Pachter ever right about anything?
@TheJediRevan Exactly! New customers would not go for that at all, especially if that price carries over to the next generation. Then again, this is a Pachter pick, so….
@Nightshade386 I think his "being right" percentage would make an excellent baseball batting average. *joke* I'd say he's more like 50/50.
I can't even bring myself to pay the $50. I had a couple of 3 month Golds once. But I never did anything on XBL that felt like a justification for paying. I started off PC gaming and never payed anything, now I play my PS3 more and never pay anything, what makes Microsoft so much better that they should feel justified in charging at all. I still haven't found one thing on their service that is worth paying for that I would use.
I perfer the community feel of XBL over PSN. I have used PS Home once and it was a bunch of guy avatars hitting on a 3 girl avatars….creepy. XBL is also the first time I met RPad which was a lot of fun. Uno anybody?
@TheJediRaven
Even if you didn't like PSHome at least it is something that the PSN offers you for free. It has plenty of free games and can be mildly entertaining in short bursts. XBL has nothing like it paid or not.
i have a gold account, but i dont use live that much. in fact, im not that much of a multiplayer person, and online coop isn't really a thing for me.
Yeah, I'm a cheapskate. I haven't even paid for an XBL subscription yet, I've just used a couple of free month subscriptions I received through various means. I like playing online, but I don't know if I really want to pay for it or not, when I enjoy single-player campaigns or local multiplayer (as limited as that may be in some cases these days) just as much.
I wouldn't pay for it at that price. I doubt my friends would either so I wouldn't have any need for a gold account if my few friends didn't own one anyway. none of my close friends own a PS3 though so that's why I pay for gold anyway. Since I don't use MP much I'm really only in it for co-op. but I probably play online 2-3 times a month. is it worth 10 bucks? I guess so
I enjoy Call of Duty and I perfer the XBL community over PSN when it comes to people I play with and attention to things like cheaters and the such. I do love Fat Princess though!
@TheJediRevan Uno sounds like a fine idea. I should organize something after things settle down a bit — still have a large writing assignment to fulfill (need to pay the bills so I can afford to do this site!).
I have an issue with another part of his quote. I don't think MS wants PC gaming to end.
$100 no way, I usually don't even pay the $50, I wait until some website has the 12+1 month xbox live cards for 29.99.
I live in AZ, most of my friends I play online with live on the East Coast. So to me the $50 for live is well worth it. A 100% price increase however is an absurd idea and bound to be absolutely wrong.
sorry, I meant to say is $4 a month worth it. to which I say yes
right now for me the $50 a year is already a hard enough sell for me. im still in college and while yes it is only a few bucks a month, its still not always in my budget and its not worth it to me most of the time. when i wanna play halo 3 or something online bad enough i might get a month subscription and play everything online in that month.
bundle everything together is the most cost efficient way for me to be on Live.
typical M$
It would have to offer more to justify a $100 price tag.
@Sandrock323 What features would make it worth $100 for you?
Well, I have a problem paying at all so of course increasing it to $100 is a no go for me. Only one of my real life friends have an Xbox and that only because he buys pirated games for $10.
@R-Pad
Dedicated servers for all their games would be an instant win, but other than that I wouldn't know. Maybe if Xbox Live came with its own ISP, double win if it is fast, it would justify a $100-$150 price range. However, that is probably just me wanting phone and cable companies to get their hands off our internet. I ran a speed test on my PC for the Live Preview program coming up, and I got a 15mb rating even though everything I download rates in at < 1mb.
@Sandrock
That still doesn't warrant a $100 a year price tag. Almost all PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers with zero visible lag and it's still free.
@RRODisHere
That isn't saying much. Most 360/PS3 games use p2p servers. Why Microsoft doesn't use dedicated servers on their own games is a mystery to me. EA games are the only ones I can think of that use dedicated servers, mainly Battlefield though.
On a side note, before I head home, Microsoft is trying to use leftover radio waves as a source for Wi-Fi, so maybe they have something up their sleeve.
@Sandrock
Why is that not saying much when you said dedicated servers for Xbox games would justify a $100 a year price tag?
I said it before, and I will post again.
I have not once paid the full 50 dollar price for an xbox live gold account. Toys R Us at least 2 times a year sells the cards for 30 bucks. I have seen the deal on Amazon a few times a year, so I know the 30 dollar price is easy to get.
I would not EVER pay 100 dollars to keep my account gold.
I dont think I would ever pay 50 dollars either though.
Nope. The fifty dollars is already ridiculous. $60 dollar games, $300 dollar machines and support by buying digital distributed crap on their network should be enough.
This guy is a total dipshit. If you read what he said about MS wanting to end PC gaming…yeah right. Talking out his ass.
@RROD
Not many online games worth playing on the PS3 that are in addition exclusive to the console. It is nice that Sony does it for its costumers, but no one really cares if it doesn't have Call of Duty in the title. (and by no one, I mean the casual gamers who don't really care about game politics.) Yes, there are lots of Resistance, Uncharted, and Killzone fans, but the games with the largest fanbases tend to be multiplatform. Sony and Microsoft should just be glad that FFXI is the only cross plat form game right now that lets people play with users on both PC/XBox/PS2(3). Otherwise, exclusives would never be able compete (online) with third party games.
@Smartguy I wouldn't call him anything like that, but yeah, his predictions are often…off he mark. I've said this before, but his press appearances and quotes are a small part of his job. Plus, the dude makes bank. I should have mugged him at DICE 2009 when he was walking around the casino with his bonus.
@Sandrock
You totally missed the point and didn't answer the question. For you to say certain games are not worth playing when they've all sold millions is quite foolish. You are but one person and don't speak for the world when you say a game isn't worth playing. You don't even have a PS3 and probably haven't played most of the exclusive but can make a claim that they are not worth playing? That was really foolish.
"the games with the largest fanbases tend to be multiplatform."
Are you basing this on sales? If so, I don't agree with this at all. If you're talking historically then Mario and Pokemon trounce any other multiplatform franchise. If you're talking about this generation, Halo, Gears, Wii Fit/Play/Sports, Smash Bros., and Pokemon (again) say otherwise.
@RROD
I'm very open about my lack of owning a PS3 and I said those games have large fanbases.
@R-Pad
Pokemon is kind of unique. Nintendo hasn't really had any competition it the handheld market (and they aren't going to compete with their own game). I'm basing my, “the games with the largest fanbases tend to be multiplatform.”, comment on what I hear from non core gamers as they tend to be the largest percentage of gamers. GTA, CoD, and Guitar Hero/Rock Band are the biggest I can think of when it comes to that demograph. True, exclusives draw in a lot of money and sales, but good multiplatform game tend to do even better in my opinion. I'm using the word tend because there are some good counter evidence to this like Gears of War and God of War. Probably worth some looking into, but that would require pools and statistics (which are easily manipulated). Maybe if NPD didn't separate the same game for each platform, it would be more obvious as to who is right from a sales perspective at least. I'm not a 100% certain on this one, it just seems like most exclusives get over shadowed when a new big name third party game comes out. Kind of like ODST, non of my friends (both non core and core) care about it but are dying to play MW2.