LitleWaffle:

TheRightToArmBears:
Oh, thank god for the PS3's free online. Sure it's not quite as good as XBL but I'd rather go cheap as a student.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sony is planning on making their online service cost money. Not sure how much or when yet but they will. (-_-)

OT: Please don't give them any ideas. They might make it so that online play is only on platinum It is bad enough as it is already mister Patcher.

I hope nobody goes to this platinum. It will give Microsoft a swift kick in the balls that is entirely nessescary.

If you're thinking of what I'm thinking you're thinking of, they already did that, and basically you pay per month to get free shit, discounts, and early demo access. Kind of like Sams Club compared to Walmart. So, not quite the same.

Pachter predictions aren't news, they're a joke - I can't recall one time that he's actually been a 100% right on something. I'm not saying Microsoft won't introduce a higher tier membership, they're bound to be looking at how playstationplus performs.

My prediction:
On the next console generation a subscription will be mandatory for online play on both the Playstation and the XBox, both will offer a premium service on top of this with roughly the level of bells and whistles PSPlus offers now.

cursedseishi:
"Ten bucks over the course of a year is hardly a deal-breaker (although you might think otherwise based on some reactions to the news)"

Thats a good joke... specially since 50$ a year ain't worth it when all I want is to play online, and none of the other shit they force onto me that I never use... and the same goes with the 60$ plan as well...

And Pachter needs to shut his trap before he gives Microsoft any ideas.

And yes, while it works out to 8 a month, it isn't. Its a 100$ sum paid all at once, just like the 60$ a year isn't actually 5$ a month. If it was, people wouldn't care as much then.

This is precisely how I look at the matter. It is not realistically X amount per month or week or day; I am straight up dropping a trip to the grocery store, a small electrical appliance, or just buying a Full New Release game.

If anything, they need a "Bronze" plan for those of us who accept that Silver will apparently never get online, but would like to actually use their Halo or Gears disc for more than a coaster. I would honestly be content with free random online play where I can't even use/hear chat or something of the likes because that is how little I really care about online play. I have used Live before and it's a nice service for multiplayer, but only if you use it enough to give it that value.

But really, I love the "incentives" that he mentions. Armor for Halo? Seriously, the best you've got is a freaking model change that you can't even look at while playing?!? And considering inane features like Twitter and Facebook for Live (plus a price raise), what other BS would they randomly throw in there that has absolutely no relevance to just playing a game online?

I cant believe there are actually people who would pay this much for that service.

Microsoft make a deal with Apple?

Pachter, I am disappoint. Not like I expected anything else, but oh well.

So that's roughly $8.33 a month. Depending on what they offer it's not too bad compared to what some people pay for mobile phones. However for an extra $40 a year what would/could Microsoft offer? Unlimited(obscene) amounts of movie rentals? Longer demos? Porn?

SHUT UP MAN! Dont give Microsoft any ideas!!

Eldritch Warlord:
Pachter really likes this idea of an Xbox Live Platinum membership doesn't he? But I guess he was right about the price increasing (it remains to be seen if it's going to go up even more as he said a year ago).

I consider the valuable part of Xbox Live to be online play only and I think it's well worth $60 a year. I think your perception of its lesser worth is purely psychological so you may be more able to make a good purchasing decision if you imposed a concrete value metric. For entertainment products I like to say that an hour of use is worth one dollar (if you want to be a little more frugal you could say that a minute is worth one cent).

The dollar sign goes before the number by the way (ie $50).

Eh, I guess the PS3, even the Wii, and MMOs have spoiled me in that regard.
I've paid for the fees for MMOs, but with those fees you get content updates (and not 3 maps for $15) much larger online social environment, and tend to find people that are fun to talk and hang out with. Plus the increased cost has to due with the increased needs the servers have to meet.

With the PS3, I've not heard a single 12yr old in Modern Warfare, and have had fun that the stereotypical frat boys of the 360 would ruin in a heartbeat for the drunken "lulz". Voice-chat is iffy at times, but other than that have had zero issues with it.

And the Wii...? It had MH3... free online play, which I couldn't quite argue against, though the amount of content cut from the series is enough to still have me doubt its worth.

The 360 though? I have no issue for paying to play online, but when a majority of the fee comes from something I have little to no interest in, or is free elsewhere (as is Netflixs case with the wii and ps3), I get annoyed. I dealt with the $50 a year because I had a good base of friends to play online, and it made even the 12yr olds bearable with them around them. Yet we all also have PS3s, and with that choice, not much really holds favor with the 360 besides its cross-game chat. Hell, PS3s sub gets you free games, discounts, early demos, and all that jazz.

And yeah, I tend to accidentally switch the signs back and forth, not too sure why, just happens randomly with me. Doesn't happen though when I get conscious of it though since I never tend to notice.

cursedseishi:
"Ten bucks over the course of a year is hardly a deal-breaker (although you might think otherwise based on some reactions to the news)"

Thats a good joke... specially since 50$ a year ain't worth it when all I want is to play online, and none of the other shit they force onto me that I never use... and the same goes with the 60$ plan as well...

And Pachter needs to shut his trap before he gives Microsoft any ideas.

And yes, while it works out to 8 a month, it isn't. Its a 100$ sum paid all at once, just like the 60$ a year isn't actually 5$ a month. If it was, people wouldn't care as much then.

so basicly you are paying a little over the price for a new game for an entire years worth of online gaming.

let me point this out even further, Anarchy Online, the 9 year old MMO, costs roughly $194.00 USd for an entire year of play time.

If people are getting worked up on a price hike THIS insignificant, they should remember the golden rule of capitalism: there is an idiot born every minute if something does not suit your tastes, needs, or expectations, there is someone else that will.

Pachter again?. Yawn.

Ironic Pirate:

LitleWaffle:
Snip

If you're thinking of what I'm thinking you're thinking of, they already did that, and basically you pay per month to get free shit, discounts, and early demo access. Kind of like Sams Club compared to Walmart. So, not quite the same.

I'm not entirely sure on my info, but I sure hope that what your saying is the case. I would hate to see Sony be so evil.

As you can see, I clearly don't have a PS3 =D

Guy I never heard of makes Statement about Thing. World still turning.

Slightly more on-topic, I happily pay the money for xbox live gold. I think the current service is well worth that money (for me). Price increase might cause a re-evaluation of staying subscribed.

Sniper Team 4:
I'm not sure what scares me more. The fact that he thinks Microsoft would do this, or the fact that there are people who would actually pay this.

Personally, the amount of support any price increase, decrease of service and splitting up of full games so that DLC can be sold separately later gets with all the editors on this site and the amount of articles always trying to rationalize said things/molding public opinion as something "good" for the playerbase and not only the company ripping off people with em.

Premium membership? what more could they offer?

Kalezian:

cursedseishi:
"Ten bucks over the course of a year is hardly a deal-breaker (although you might think otherwise based on some reactions to the news)"

Thats a good joke... specially since 50$ a year ain't worth it when all I want is to play online, and none of the other shit they force onto me that I never use... and the same goes with the 60$ plan as well...

And Pachter needs to shut his trap before he gives Microsoft any ideas.

And yes, while it works out to 8 a month, it isn't. Its a 100$ sum paid all at once, just like the 60$ a year isn't actually 5$ a month. If it was, people wouldn't care as much then.

so basicly you are paying a little over the price for a new game for an entire years worth of online gaming.

let me point this out even further, Anarchy Online, the 9 year old MMO, costs roughly $194.00 USd for an entire year of play time.

If people are getting worked up on a price hike THIS insignificant, they should remember the golden rule of capitalism: there is an idiot born every minute if something does not suit your tastes, needs, or expectations, there is someone else that will.

EXCEPT! Anarchy Online is free to play as you like, and if you like it enough, you can start paying to have access to the expansions, and considering the excess strain of having bits of data controlling large globs of data as they fight random bits of data with other globs of data, or against other globs of data, sometimes in even larger globs of data, the price fits. And the fact they are updating the games graphics engine for free, is a nice thing as well.

At most, XBox's servers just need to support 16 players in a copy of a map. Guild Wars does the exact thing for free, along with giving them persistent areas to hang out in for free. And MAG handles large scale battles free as well.

cursedseishi:

And yes, while it works out to 8 a month, it isn't. Its a 100$ sum paid all at once, just like the 60$ a year isn't actually 5$ a month. If it was, people wouldn't care as much then.

Exactly right, my friend!

People actually listen to this guy? No wonder.

I'm getting kinda sick of seeing on just about every game news site where pachter is spouting some bullshit that makes no sense and doesnt happen.

Straying Bullet:

JP Sherman:
While I'm not a fan of the price hikes, they'd have to add some significant value to the service to justify it.

It's a classic price vs. value argument. If we'd have to pay more to get what we already have, then that's crap. Yet, if they add a lot more function, value, media, services (and not just access) then I'd consider it.

Blatant lie, these services are horrible. Netflix, requires still a seperate fee to use despite the pricehike.

Tweeter and Facebook? Sure, they are apps but god they are awfully designed and not compatible with the Xbox360. My iPhone does a better job than this.

Zune HD and the rest? I don't use them and never will. I only want to have a good multiplayer session.

Many people are proposing a tier plan.

1. Just multiplayer only.
2. Exclusive right to the aforementioned services + online
3. Platinum, something very extreme.

I belong to the first group, I don't want to pay for shit I never asked for.

Nope. Not a lie. However you've demonstrated very well that the additional stuff on Xbox Live (Netflix/ Twitter/ Facebook) has much less value to you than it does to me. I was already using Netflix, so now I use it on my Xbox & in the mail. I dont use twitter or facebook on my xbox, so for me, those services have no value.

The additional cost would probably add no more value to your Xbox experience.

My point is that if Xbox Live adds things that are useful and valuable to me, then I'd consider it. You may find those same things as having no value... then you can keep the gold level and ignore the platinum.

Personally, I totally support the "only online play" + tiered plan, you can pay for the access and perks you would actually use. You get online multiplayer and I get an entertainment system that I can play games, watch movies, listen to music... etc.

LitleWaffle:

Ironic Pirate:

LitleWaffle:
Snip

If you're thinking of what I'm thinking you're thinking of, they already did that, and basically you pay per month to get free shit, discounts, and early demo access. Kind of like Sams Club compared to Walmart. So, not quite the same.

I'm not entirely sure on my info, but I sure hope that what your saying is the case. I would hate to see Sony be so evil.

As you can see, I clearly don't have a PS3 =D

Well when did you hear about it? The thing went live a few weeks ago.

This all makes me grin very nicely.

I'm a PC Elitist, tra la la la lah lah...

My bum is in the butter, tra la la la lah lah...

If it means a more reliable service with more media options I can understand it. Not personally - I only occasionally use online gaming and when I do by that point at least one of my games has come with a free trail for a few days anyway - but knowing a few friends that use their XBOX as their main home entertainment system, they wouldn't mind paying a little extra for a premium download and stream rate and less buggy online interactions.

Provided that that's actually what Microsoft DO with the profits.

I'm buying a PS3...
Ok, I cant even joke about that.

I would pay £50 a year if they included more stuff like a search engine and extra content for games.

GoGo_Boy:
Why is everything that guy says news-worthy? I mean even if it may come true, it's just a frigging prediction right now. And if you wonder why I don't like that guy, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y8SaUIvArE

That was brilliant, this is even better though xD

http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2010/04/michael-pachter-nostradamus-or-cunt.html
http://www.pakgamers.com/forums/f4/michael-pachters-most-inaccurate-predictions-4265/

I think

"In 2010, Sony's going to have 55 per cent, Microsoft's going to have 35 per cent and Nintendo 10 per cent, with all three of those having plus or minus five per cent."

was his best.

LitleWaffle:

TheRightToArmBears:
Oh, thank god for the PS3's free online. Sure it's not quite as good as XBL but I'd rather go cheap as a student.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sony is planning on making their online service cost money. Not sure how much or when yet but they will. (-_-)

OT: Please don't give them any ideas. They might make it so that online play is only on platinum It is bad enough as it is already mister Patcher.

I hope nobody goes to this platinum. It will give Microsoft a swift kick in the balls that is entirely nessescary.

Nuh-uh. They introduced one you had to pay for that gave you lots of extras, but the basic online is free as ever. Kind of like the Publisher's Club on here. Plus I don't think it was very much anyway, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't say the PS3's online setup is better for everyone; some people who are willing to pay the money benefit from XBLA being better than PSN and the more stable internet. For the cash-strapped though, it's PS3 all the way.

Funny how things change.

LitleWaffle:

TheRightToArmBears:
Oh, thank god for the PS3's free online. Sure it's not quite as good as XBL but I'd rather go cheap as a student.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sony is planning on making their online service cost money. Not sure how much or when yet but they will. (-_-)

Pretty sure they aren't, unless you can provide evidence.

They introduced PSN+ which gives you discounts on things and a few early releases but that's it. A lot of people mistook that for the PS3 equivalent of a Gold membership.

I'm actually pretty confident they wouldn't be allowed to charge for the current services anyway. Free online features is a massive selling point, if removing the 'Other OS' feature caused an uproar charging people for what they'd already paid for will be that tenfold.

Why is everything Pachter says news? -_-"

He even suggested that Microsoft could make a deal with Apple to allow 360 owners to manage their iTunes accounts through their consoles.

Industry analyst fail.

Apple not only isn't interested by is openly hostile to any use of apple services except on apple products. Itunes for Windows is an anomaly because it was needed at the time to break into the market.

I support you Microsoft... I just, I don't know... I just do...