Microsoft is raising the cost of all Xbox Live Gold subscription plans for members in the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Mexico, although subscribers can lock in their current price if they renew or upgrade to an Xbox Live Gold subscription before the price change takes effect.
That'll be November 1, when the company raises U.S. Gold subscriptions for one month, three month and 12-month packages from $7.99, $19.99 and $49.99 to $9.99, $24.99 and $59.99, respectively. In the UK and Canada, only the 1-month package is getting an increase from 4.99 GBP/8.99 CAD to 5.99 GBP/9.99 CAD.
In Mexico, the change is only applied to the full-year package, which increases from 499 to 599 pesos. Microsoft didn't explain why it implemented the change.
However, EEDAR analyst Jesse Divnich suggests that eight years of inflation -- not to mention the additional features and services that have been added since the launch of the Xbox Live platform -- mean an eventual, moderate increase in the price comes as "no surprise."
"When originally launched in 2002, a Gold subscription cost the same as an AAA video game, $49.99," says Divnich. "When taking into account for inflation ($50 in 2002 is roughly $60 in 2010) and the additional services available to Gold subscribers in 2010, such as ESPN, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Last.fm and Video Kinect, a $10 price increase still represents an incredible value to consumers."
Compared to PlayStation 3 and Wii owners, Xbox 360 users play online more, suggesting they are "more core-orientated" or derive more value from the platform's online service than its rivals, "despite the fact that Microsoft’s competitors currently charge no subscription fees for online play."
With that in mind, Divnich doesn't see a price increase meaningfully impacting the current or future subscriber base, and suggests that promotions from Microsoft offering discounts for renewals will continue to play a role.
People buy it because it's a very robust and easy to use service with plenty of support. I can't speak for PS3, but while I love my Wii and have spent more time with the games there than on my 360, it doesn't have as polished an online experience as MS plain and simple.
I'm currently spending most of my console gaming time on Monster Hunter Tri, and enjoying it very much, but that game illustrates the difference between the offerings from each company. MH3 matchmaking is decent enough once you're through the opening layers, but the lack of a good voice communication solution mars the experience somewhat. I can and do make use of the keyboard, but it's undeniably more cumbersome than simple voice-coms. The Wiispeak (which I purchased specifically for this game) is an inadequate solution. The issue here isn't Capcom, since something like SSF4 doesn't have comparable issues. It's simply a matter of the tools (not) available to them on the Wii.
The online play in Live is much better to organize friends for meetups. For example, I've had an NHL 10 team last year and we've all got in touch over Live rather easily for an NHL 11 team.
Scheduling games is much easier, meeting up is much easier, notifying people of delays is much easier, and meeting friends of friends is made trivial. It's generally all around a much more convenient service when playing with friends.
Of course, I'm not commenting on the value of the service, that is for each individual to decide. I'm glad the price is not going up in Canada (we've been paying premium price already because the price didn't drop when our dollar jumped in value).
What I'm commenting on is why people would consider paying for it. It really is one of the best online services. The closest service to compare it to would be Steam, which is superior in some regards and inferior in others (but considering it's free I would argue it is the best).
Thats Crap...Microsoft imput these faetures in over the years simply because they wanted the xbox to be the console of choice. it wasnt demanded that things like twitter, facebook, Espn, lastFM and netflix be put in because we were all wanting it. We got the subscription because we wanted to play online. The added features, they did on there own, and we enjoyed it and thanked then for it by buying more subscriptions and staying loyal to the console. The justifications are crap...if thats the case then offer a service with out the twitter, facebook, lastFM, and espn, to keep the subscription price as is or lower. Netflix we additionally pay for on our own by choice....Come on Microsoft...really
I find this a big incentive to stop renewing my gold membership. I probably would have gone on renewing forever if they'd just never mentioned it.
(which can be done easily, here: https://live.xbox.com/Flows/ManageSubscription/ChooseSubscription.aspx?Check=true )
I play Gears now and then with one friend, and I enjoy the ease of Netflix. But I also have PS3 connected to my HDtv, for netflix. And I play far more games with far more friends on my PC, via Steam.
People ask me to justify paying for Gold, and I just don't know what to tell them. If Gold was free, it would be a reason to buy an Xbox. As it stands, it's a hidden endless cost.
I personally think it's an odd business choice on Microsoft part to announce this. I would say it is drawing attention to something that most people will pay without question in its current state. Users who have an autorenewing subscription would likely just let it renew and have no problem whether they were using the service to its potential.
However, with announcing this and having to notify users how much they are spending on the service it may cause many users to re-evaluate their subscription status. Which in the end could end up hurting subs not because of the price change, but simply because users are not sure what they are paying for anymore.
As a Canadian I've been paying that amount over the years and I'm glad it's not going up for us (for understandable reasons).
On the other hand, MS needs to increase the value of the service, mainly because services like PSN have been playing catchup yet remain free. I have a few ideas on how they can do this but I suppose I should make that a blog entry to keep discussion focused.
Twitter, Facebook, LastFM...are all nice features but do not tie into the one reason why we pay for Live, the ability to play against friends or others online.
I agree, while I do like getting the demos. I wish there was a separate service without Avatars, facebook, twitter, Zune, Advertisements, Xbox 101, Major's Minute, and ESPN.
Heck, I just don't see the point of Xbox 101 & Major's Minute, those shows haven't offered anything of value for a long time.
Users like having a choice, Microsoft is not providing one.
Sounds like when they said espn @ no extra charge this is why. They know 9 and a half out of 10 people care about sports so rather than have a live gold and a live espn gold splintering the userbase they simply raise the fee though i wonder how long the espn deal is for and when they go and re-negotiate terms will we see $69-$79 or higher all for sports under the guise of inflation.
Thoughts? I also have ps+ and will be very interested how quickly sony responds and whether they simply quickly double the benefits,keeping online free, and staying @ $49 or simply take the opertunity to also go $59 and stay the same.
I hope they go with the former and aggressively roll out features that they had planned to stagger out but
wonder if greed will trump common sense and we'll see ps+ @ $59 with little to no improvements.
The only part I don't really buy is "we can do this because of all the content we've given you". I have yet to meet anyone that cares, let alone uses, twitter, facebook and last.fm on the 360. Maybe I'm wrong and there are thousands that love twitting from their xboxes, but that hardly seems to be the case. If it's because of inflation, sure, it sucks for us but it's understandable. But don't go and justify it on content that apparently no one asked for.
If you consider that netflix is a separate required "service" then my $59 a yr is in addition to $10 for netflix a month so while last.fm,facebook,twitter are free only espn is new. If the terms between espn and ms were known that's where you'd find the cost increase as whether or not gamers know it espn isn't "free".
so when games reach $70 or $80 by 2012 then Xbox Live will go up to $70 or $80 by 2013 or 2014? So they can match the price of a regular console AAA game? right...
.....ouch........I defended the price point of live ...but this is irdiculous, sure it's just an extra $10 but still it was kind of hard swallowing paying an additional $50 on top of my actual on-line service.
I played for the free month that came packed with my system but it never seemed worth paying for since you realy don't get anything beyond,
In network only email, in network only voice chat (thank god for the ignore option) & mostly low grade game browsers that won't even show a numerical ping.
Alot of the games obviously didn't run on dedicated servers & MS seemed to like to charge you for almost eveything.
It was pretty nice for free but paying is just selling out options that should be free if they want to sell you thier hardware.
They should at least have dedicated servers for all the games at those prices.
Dear Microsoft, can I opt out of all this added Facebook, Twitter, ESPN, Kinect, etc... garbage and not pay the extra $10? Or better yet... I'll pay you the extra $10 if I can get rid of all the ads on the dashboard, I just want Friends List & System Menus and that's it! None of this What's New! Spotlight! Marketplace! Video Marketplace! Blahblahblah!
Yes, the pop in price ain't any fun, but you're still just talking the cost of one nice date night for a full year of fraggin' your friends and hanging out with them.
With economies of scale resulting in lower average service delivery cost per user than what they were at launch they should be reducing the price but of course that is not the Micro$oft way. I suspect the only added service they had to pay for is Netflix HD and ESPN but I still figure it is cheaper to run the service per user now than at launch.
Microsoft has always been about gauging customers so this should be no surprise but it just reaffirms my opinion of them as a necessary but evil company.
As a Canadian, as someone else mentioned, we've been paying that price for a long time to use the same service, and somehow we justified it ... Not to mention that the price has stayed the same for us despite our dollar gaining a good deal of value VS the USD. And hey, break that down - $10 a year over 12 months is just over 83 cents. So, you lose a cup of coffee a month, or something akin to that.
As far as all the bad-mouthing goes, why is nobody acknowledging that Microsoft DID tell you there would be a price increase? Would you be happier if they had taken more of your money without telling you? Would that have been a better business practice or PR stunt? :/
Come on guys ... Maybe it sucks you have to consider paying more, but aren't there always going to be better games to play on consoles, and better communities behind them? Then again, I obviously have a slightly jaded opinion - to me it's more like everybody else got a $10 discount all these years. ;P
I think people are forgetting the more obvious problem. MS now has had to include the wireless adapter into the new design of the Xbox360. They are losing that 1000% markup to make the machine usable. They cannot continue to operate without this much needed income! You people asked for it.
What do you mean when most special editions are @ $79+ now and go as high as $149 so if new boxes
do hit in 2012 or 2013 outside a wii hd i mean xbox next and ps4 i'd still expect games @ $59 though honestly with move and kinect+ current woes i certainly can wait until 2015 or later for the next round.
When it does happen i hope it's not simple do everything like now but in 3d so the next box and ps4 would double the memory so 3d @ 60fps is possible. I'd prefer an entire cloud based system that could be smaller than a current wii and store you profile data while everything you play resides on servers somewhere and even if physical games still existed you could buy on xbla or psn and never need a disc.
I'm currently spending most of my console gaming time on Monster Hunter Tri, and enjoying it very much, but that game illustrates the difference between the offerings from each company. MH3 matchmaking is decent enough once you're through the opening layers, but the lack of a good voice communication solution mars the experience somewhat. I can and do make use of the keyboard, but it's undeniably more cumbersome than simple voice-coms. The Wiispeak (which I purchased specifically for this game) is an inadequate solution. The issue here isn't Capcom, since something like SSF4 doesn't have comparable issues. It's simply a matter of the tools (not) available to them on the Wii.
Scheduling games is much easier, meeting up is much easier, notifying people of delays is much easier, and meeting friends of friends is made trivial. It's generally all around a much more convenient service when playing with friends.
Of course, I'm not commenting on the value of the service, that is for each individual to decide. I'm glad the price is not going up in Canada (we've been paying premium price already because the price didn't drop when our dollar jumped in value).
What I'm commenting on is why people would consider paying for it. It really is one of the best online services. The closest service to compare it to would be Steam, which is superior in some regards and inferior in others (but considering it's free I would argue it is the best).
(which can be done easily, here: https://live.xbox.com/Flows/ManageSubscription/ChooseSubscription.aspx?Check=true )
I play Gears now and then with one friend, and I enjoy the ease of Netflix. But I also have PS3 connected to my HDtv, for netflix. And I play far more games with far more friends on my PC, via Steam.
People ask me to justify paying for Gold, and I just don't know what to tell them. If Gold was free, it would be a reason to buy an Xbox. As it stands, it's a hidden endless cost.
However, with announcing this and having to notify users how much they are spending on the service it may cause many users to re-evaluate their subscription status. Which in the end could end up hurting subs not because of the price change, but simply because users are not sure what they are paying for anymore.
On the other hand, MS needs to increase the value of the service, mainly because services like PSN have been playing catchup yet remain free. I have a few ideas on how they can do this but I suppose I should make that a blog entry to keep discussion focused.
Twitter, Facebook, LastFM...are all nice features but do not tie into the one reason why we pay for Live, the ability to play against friends or others online.
I don't care about facebook, twitter, new demos first for gold members, and having netflix as a gold member exclusive is stupid.
Heck, I just don't see the point of Xbox 101 & Major's Minute, those shows haven't offered anything of value for a long time.
Users like having a choice, Microsoft is not providing one.
Thoughts? I also have ps+ and will be very interested how quickly sony responds and whether they simply quickly double the benefits,keeping online free, and staying @ $49 or simply take the opertunity to also go $59 and stay the same.
I hope they go with the former and aggressively roll out features that they had planned to stagger out but
wonder if greed will trump common sense and we'll see ps+ @ $59 with little to no improvements.
In network only email, in network only voice chat (thank god for the ignore option) & mostly low grade game browsers that won't even show a numerical ping.
Alot of the games obviously didn't run on dedicated servers & MS seemed to like to charge you for almost eveything.
It was pretty nice for free but paying is just selling out options that should be free if they want to sell you thier hardware.
They should at least have dedicated servers for all the games at those prices.
Microsoft has always been about gauging customers so this should be no surprise but it just reaffirms my opinion of them as a necessary but evil company.
As a Canadian, as someone else mentioned, we've been paying that price for a long time to use the same service, and somehow we justified it ... Not to mention that the price has stayed the same for us despite our dollar gaining a good deal of value VS the USD. And hey, break that down - $10 a year over 12 months is just over 83 cents. So, you lose a cup of coffee a month, or something akin to that.
As far as all the bad-mouthing goes, why is nobody acknowledging that Microsoft DID tell you there would be a price increase? Would you be happier if they had taken more of your money without telling you? Would that have been a better business practice or PR stunt? :/
Come on guys ... Maybe it sucks you have to consider paying more, but aren't there always going to be better games to play on consoles, and better communities behind them? Then again, I obviously have a slightly jaded opinion - to me it's more like everybody else got a $10 discount all these years. ;P
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2459.99+in+2002
do hit in 2012 or 2013 outside a wii hd i mean xbox next and ps4 i'd still expect games @ $59 though honestly with move and kinect+ current woes i certainly can wait until 2015 or later for the next round.
When it does happen i hope it's not simple do everything like now but in 3d so the next box and ps4 would double the memory so 3d @ 60fps is possible. I'd prefer an entire cloud based system that could be smaller than a current wii and store you profile data while everything you play resides on servers somewhere and even if physical games still existed you could buy on xbla or psn and never need a disc.