Xboxist

Editorial: Should Xbox LIVE Be Free?

Heated debate usually flares up between PS3 owners and Xbox 360 owners when they argue over their respective online services. There are pros and cons to each service. PS3 users tout that PSN is free and offers enough features to satisfy the average gamer. Xbox owners scoff that they rather pay a paltry $30-60/year for a service that isn't broken like PSN. Who do you side with? Should online play be free like it traditionally has been on PC and PS3? Or would you rather pay an annual fee for Xbox LIVE?

The economy being what it is, maybe free isn't so bad? Historically, online play has been a free service offered by game publishers. By educating consumers about this, future gamers might think twice before shelling over their 60 bucks. Maybe they'll realize that they aren't getting any real value for their subscription fees. Look at Steam, a popular PC online service that is not only free, but surpasses LIVE in content pricing and features and regularly offers sales.

So why isn't Xbox LIVE free? If you look at its features set, it doesn't necessarily warrant being a paid service. Back during the original Xbox days, Microsoft packaged simple online features and marketed them under the Xbox LIVE brand. With a strong and expensive marketing push that leveraged celebrity endorsements, they eventually convinced the public into accepting the Xbox LIVE brand as a premium, pay-to-play service. Xbox LIVE succeeded with the general public in the console realm because regular folks didn't know better. They weren't used to living the good life for free, like with Steam. They let Microsoft dictate to them that LIVE service is something you have to pay for.

The question arises then: What are we really getting for our subscription fees? Well there's the Inside Xbox videos and organized events that let community members play against developers, but these are just marketing tools when you get down to it. Sony has even gotten into the act recently by offering gamers a chance to brawl with the Mortal Kombat developers. Of course, $50 isn't a lot to charge Xbox owners, but aren't gamers already supporting the service with ad views and marketplace purchases? In essence, what gamers pay for is access -- access to play against other players. Fees don't go to maintaining servers because games are hosted natively on someone's Xbox. To put it bluntly: Paying for Xbox LIVE is like paying for bottled water.

PC users are savvy people. Why pay for something when you can get it for free, especially if the free service outclasses the paid one? Take for example, Games for Windows (GFW) LIVE and its epic failure to entice the PC gaming community. Microsoft made their biggest mistake when they assumed they could migrate their console online service over to the PC realm, charge $60 a year, and expect the same fervent support they get from the general public out of the PC community. With little reason to make the switch, PC users stuck with the free model that they've always known and dismissed Microsoft's ill-conceived marketing push. GFW LIVE had to become free in June 2008 in order to compete with Steam. You know things weren't going right for GFW LIVE, when they fired the general manager in early January 2009.

Should Xbox LIVE be free? Yes, but it's too late. People are happy to pay for what they perceive as a premium service. Microsoft succeeded in indoctrinating that notion in the public's mind. Perceived value translates to demand and that means paid service. It's too late for this generation and maybe the next. If Sony can put pressure on Microsoft by offering a free service that is as full featured and innovative as Steam, maybe then Microsoft will have no choice but to make their online service free on consoles, just like they had to do on PC.

Until then, gamers should head over here and learn how to sign up for free monthly trials of Xbox LIVE Gold.

.