And Now For Something Completely Different: Why Xbox Live isn't Free

I'd like to take a day off from my usual casual game focused ravings to discuss an interesting topic near and dear to my heart.

I found this article while I was digging around Gamesradar last week, and I've been meaning to bring it up. Why don't you all take a look, then come on back. Go on, we'll wait.

......

Back? Ok then.

So what do you think? I don't mean to be ragging on Xbox Live by the way, which is of course a fantastic system that was really a frontrunner for online communities and downloadable content, but it doesn't really seem like you're getting much for your buck when you consider these services are available free elsewhere.  Especially for PC gamers, who are starting to get tangled up with Xbox Live and have access to most of the same game as Xbox console players, is there really any point to making the Live connection when you could be using Steam (and by the way, for those hard-core gamers out there who aren't a part of Steam: WHAT, ARE YOU LIVING UNDER A ROCK? LOG ON!)?

On one hand, Microsoft is picking up a huge profit  while kind of sticking it to the users who could be getting this stuff for free elsewhere. Bad for gamers. On the other hand, Microsoft uses that money to maintain the Live hosting itself, instead of charging the third-party developers, which allows them to put more money towards creating the games and also helps smaller companies and independents get into the mix. Good for gamers. Except the Steam development tool Steamworks still does it better. And it's, you know, free.

So what do you guys think? A  well-built and well-running service that has the double benefit of providing an advantage to developers, which is always good for users, but of course is in the end hosing those same users; or free and open systems like Steam, PlayStation Network, or even cafe.com that provide the same slick solutions for players without charging them a cent and passing the cost onto the developers instead, saving the users money but discouraging smaller companies from getting in on the act.

Please post in the comments section, I'd love to hear everyones opinions.

Comments

[Keytap]

I think Xbox Live can continue to charge as long as it continues to be the best service. Because, let's face it, compared to the rival consoles' services, Xbox Live blows them out of the water. Yes, if we strip them down and just list out their features and say, "Well, the PS3 gives online matchmaking as well!", then they seem comparable. But actually using the two services and comparing your user experience is a whole other ball game.

I've got an Xbox 360, and had an Xbox, and have had Xbox Live since about halfway through the original Xbox's lifespan. I've, on rare occasions, used PSN at a friend's house. I can honestly say, when I log in to Xbox Live, I feel like I just jumped into a community of friends, and the way their online service blends so perfectly with their games is remarkable. As overhyped as many say Halo is, look at Halo 3's interface. Right from the main menu you can tell this was meant to be an online game - Campaign, Matchmaking, Custom Games, Forge, and Theater. One of those is useless without Xbox Live, and three of them are -severely- limited without it. Xbox games are just so more well-developed in the online category at the moment. So while PSN may be free, when I've used it, it just felt like it was finding people for me to play with in a match, not finding people for me to hang out with for a few hours while enjoying a few hearty rounds of Halo, or Guitar Hero, or Gears, or what-have-you.