Why doesnt MS let silver memberships play some games for free?

#1 Posted by redbliss (647 posts) -

I have always thought they would eventually allow silver memberships to play older games online or something like that, but it has never happened. Is there any reason for that that anyone knows of or can think of? Just curious.

#2 Posted by Subjugation (4720 posts) -

Because money.

#3 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

Well, I don't think they will ever allow older games to be open for silver members.

The structure is online matchmaking is for gold, on all titles. They do have free weekends but they are very infrequent.

#4 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5262 posts) -

They like the part where you have to pay them money to do something. I personally think that being able to play multiplayer games should be free because PC and PS3 do it. 360 has enough stuff to justify a gold membership without holding a basic feature.

#5 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

They know that we're dumb enough to pay for it.

#6 Posted by Soapy86 (2621 posts) -

They have no incentive to make online gaming free. Millions of people are paying them to pay online. Why would they change that?

I do think they should find some kind of middle ground though. Maybe free weekends for silver members? I don't know.

#7 Posted by Contrarian (1143 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

They know that we're dumb enough to pay for it.

Dumb people = Profit.

Sure as hell they are not getting my money. On those odd occasions that I had free Gold for a month (with a game), I didn't use it enough to justify paying for it. I bought the game, I am not paying to play it. Just my view, but I think they should allow free play for all new games through a code and thereby lock out used games. That then is an incentive to buy new. It doesn't take away my choice - if I want to play a game online, then I will go new.

#8 Posted by laserbolts (5322 posts) -
@SethPhotopoulos

They like the part where you have to pay them money to do something. I personally think that being able to play multiplayer games should be free because PC and PS3 do it. 360 has enough stuff to justify a gold membership without holding a basic feature.

I think you would be pretty surprised how many people would drop gold if playing online was free. Myself and everyone I know would. It sucks to have to pay 60 bucks a year to play gears online a couple nights a week.
#9 Posted by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

People forget that Microsoft is one of the most evil publishers. I blame EA for continuing to overshadow it for the past 2 years.

#10 Posted by DarthOrange (3864 posts) -

I refuse to pay for X-Box live because what they are doing is discussing. I just want to be able to use it for netflix since my 360 is in my room but alas, no you need to pay to use what you are already paying for. There shit is greedy and evil.

#11 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@Subjugation said:

Because money.

#12 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

Because the majority of console owners are still stupid enough to pay for peer to peer gaming.

#13 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

I refuse to pay for X-Box live because what they are doing is discussing. I just want to be able to use it for netflix since my 360 is in my room but alas, no you need to pay to use what you are already paying for. There shit is greedy and evil.

What are they discussing?

#14 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5262 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

@SethPhotopoulos

They like the part where you have to pay them money to do something. I personally think that being able to play multiplayer games should be free because PC and PS3 do it. 360 has enough stuff to justify a gold membership without holding a basic feature.

I think you would be pretty surprised how many people would drop gold if playing online was free. Myself and everyone I know would. It sucks to have to pay 60 bucks a year to play gears online a couple nights a week.

I'm pretty sure most people would drop it too, especially the college audiance. I think that Microsoft could get away with a $20-$30 a year gold package with all the other gold features though.

#15 Posted by Synthballs (2193 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

I refuse to pay for X-Box live because what they are doing is discussing. I just want to be able to use it for netflix since my 360 is in my room but alas, no you need to pay to use what you are already paying for. There shit is greedy and evil.

Apart from that hilarious typo, I think this is bullshit also. Australian users don't get HALF the features and have to pay more.

#16 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -
@Subjugation said:

Because money.

#17 Edited by pyromagnestir (4324 posts) -

A lot of people here seem very anti Microsoft in this aspect, but XBL is pretty good and maybe the best online game service thingy other than maybe steam, and maybe in some cases more consistently reliable than steam, although I can't say for sure because I don't play much PC multiplayer. That shits gotta cost money, so I guess what I'm ok with them charging for it, or more accurately I get why they would even though I don't like it. Although I'm really just speaking out of my ass on this, so go ahead and hate on me. I probably deserve it.

And I agree with the op that it would be great if they let some games be free based on age or maybe if they let some niche XBLA games online modes be free since the audience for those games is small or something, or maybe had a rotating free game of the month which would lead to people going out to get that game, but money.

#18 Posted by DarthOrange (3864 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

@DarthOrange said:

I refuse to pay for X-Box live because what they are doing is discussing. I just want to be able to use it for netflix since my 360 is in my room but alas, no you need to pay to use what you are already paying for. There shit is greedy and evil.

What are they discussing?

lol they are disgusting like my writing.

#19 Posted by Jeust (10650 posts) -

@StaticFalconar said:

@Subjugation said:

Because money.

Yep, money. People pay to play games online. As long as that continue to happen, they will continue charging for it.

#20 Posted by DocHaus (1331 posts) -

@Subjugation said:

Because money.

#21 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

People seem to think paying for a good service is stupid. Since I have a job, I'm ok with this. It's a small amount of money, and I find the xbox online service better than others. But people will have e-peen envy

#22 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

@BraveToaster said:

@DarthOrange said:

I refuse to pay for X-Box live because what they are doing is discussing. I just want to be able to use it for netflix since my 360 is in my room but alas, no you need to pay to use what you are already paying for. There shit is greedy and evil.

What are they discussing?

lol they are disgusting like my writing.

Sorry, I thought you meant something else. I was nervous for a second.

#23 Posted by EightBitShik (1334 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

@DarthOrange said:

I refuse to pay for X-Box live because what they are doing is discussing. I just want to be able to use it for netflix since my 360 is in my room but alas, no you need to pay to use what you are already paying for. There shit is greedy and evil.

What are they discussing?

lol

#24 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

It'll happen eventually, when people realise they aren't actually paying for anything..

#25 Posted by EvilKatarn (465 posts) -

The thing bothering me about Xbox Live Gold, and it's been discussed multiple times before, is how online passes work in conjunction with Gold. The whole selling point of Gold has been that - hey, you pay this thing every year and you get access to multiplayer! Easy enough. But now with the shitty popularisation of online passes I don't feel the incentive to keep paying for Gold. I mean, of course that would cut my access to multiplayer, but it's already kind of being cut.

It's a crappy situation, because I understand why publishers are forcing it on the games, but that doesn't mean they aren't dicks.

Microsoft should be paying the publishers to keep online passes away from Xbox.

#26 Posted by Fattony12000 (7416 posts) -
#27 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@pyromagnestir said:

A lot of people here seem very anti Microsoft in this aspect, but XBL is pretty good and maybe the best online game service thingy other than maybe steam, and maybe in some cases more consistently reliable than steam, although I can't say for sure because I don't play much PC multiplayer. That shits gotta cost money, so I guess what I'm ok with them charging for it, or more accurately I get why they would even though I don't like it. Although I'm really just speaking out of my ass on this, so go ahead and hate on me. I probably deserve it.

And I agree with the op that it would be great if they let some games be free based on age or maybe if they let some niche XBLA games online modes be free since the audience for those games is small or something, or maybe had a rotating free game of the month which would lead to people going out to get that game, but money.

Xbox Live isn't compareable to Steam. If you really want to get into some weird comparison then Steam automatically wins, because Steam sales and Valve.
#28 Posted by mlarrabee (2961 posts) -

In my opinion, and as The Crew has said on the podcast several times, Xbox Live is the best online multiplayer experience available. The tools available are better than on the PS3, and don't require finding, downloading, and tweaking as on the PC.

@EvilKatarn: I think that this is the main issue. As you said, we're already paying for the privilege of playing online. My purchase of a used game shouldn't negate that.

#29 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2687 posts) -

Because Gold is pretty much free as it is.

#30 Posted by pyromagnestir (4324 posts) -

@mlarrabee said:

In my opinion, and as The Crew has said on the podcast several times, Xbox Live is the best online multiplayer experience available. The tools available are better than on the PS3, and don't require finding, downloading, and tweaking as on the PC..

@Sooty: Looking back over my post, I was tired and waiting for a download to finish so I could shut my computer off and so my argument isn't what I wanted it to be, as what I wanted to say is more or less the above quote. As you say, steam isn't comparable to XBL, as it's more akin to Bestbuy or something. And it is much better at selling games than XBL is. But XBL also is a multiplayer platform, and a damn good one, which I don't know if Steam even tries to be.

#31 Posted by M_Shini (551 posts) -

There are some online games you can play while on silver, the only one i know of is Final fantasy XI Online, But then it is a mmo with an already required subcription, Besides if i could play games on my silver, i would never even think of paying for gold, i just dont care about the sopposed 'quality' it has over a free service like Psn even when it was down for its hacked period and whatever other problems i just dont give a damns D:

#32 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2298 posts) -

Why SHOULD MS let silver memberships play some games for free?

#33 Posted by gamma_male (69 posts) -

The other week there was a story about the creators of Bastion being forced to charge for some DLC that was free on other platforms. Microsoft are adamant that giving away free content devalues the paid content. Besides, developers shut down their servers for a reason. Outside CoD, there won't be that many games over 18 months old that have particularly popular online communities. Those that do are exactly the communities that are generating vast amounts of cash for Microsoft.

#34 Posted by SomeJerk (3251 posts) -

Exactly. Silver users aren't contributing like Gold users towards the amazing catalogue of platform exclusives the 360 has, just look at this past year..  um..

#35 Posted by Suedehead (111 posts) -

So you will buy a gold membership.

#36 Posted by Blue_Eon (18 posts) -

You have to remember that online gaming is something that a huge portion of the population didn't even know existed before Xbox Live. Most of the people on Live right now probably never grew up playing PC games online in the 90s and to them, MS might as well have invented online gaming.

MS is a little scummy in the fact that not only do they make you pay for features that are free on other platforms, they also shove ads everywhere on the dashboard. People don't seem to care, though, and that's what MS is banking on. It's another case of companies taking advantage of people not knowing any better. Happens everywhere.

So, they don't really have anything to gain from it. It'd be a nice gesture, sure, but it isn't going to happen.

#37 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5262 posts) -

@mlarrabee said:

In my opinion, and as The Crew has said on the podcast several times, Xbox Live is the best online multiplayer experience available. The tools available are better than on the PS3, and don't require finding, downloading, and tweaking as on the PC.

@EvilKatarn: I think that this is the main issue. As you said, we're already paying for the privilege of playing online. My purchase of a used game shouldn't negate that.

@TheHumanDove said:

People seem to think paying for a good service is stupid. Since I have a job, I'm ok with this. It's a small amount of money, and I find the xbox online service better than others. But people will have e-peen envy

You could make the argument that they should only have the basic multiplayer content be free. The subscription can be for cross game chat and stuff like that. Having all three consoles and having played online on a PC/Mac the other services seem pretty good about actually letting you play the multiplayer without any problems. I mean if all I want to do is jump in a Street Fighter or Gears of War match online I don't see how Xbox Live does it better than PSN or Steam. Now XBL does have a great system built around it like cross game chat and stuff like that but I don't see why there is a premium for selecting "find a game".

#38 Edited by spazmaster666 (1967 posts) -

@CaptainCody said:

People forget that Microsoft is one of the most evil publishers. I blame EA for continuing to overshadow it for the past 2 years.

Yeah, cause the "good publishers" don't care about making money right? I bet Sony wishes that they could charge for multiplayer access like Microsoft does (if they did, I bet PSN would be better supported than it is now). Saying that a business is "evil" because they care about profit is a pretty ironic statement.

Anyway, Microsoft charging for Live has certainly been profitable for them, and has also benefitted the marketplace as well (i.e. Sony charges publishers to host demos, trailers, etc. on PSN whereas Microsoft doesn't because they have Gold subcriptions, hence their marketplace is notably better than Sony's.)

#39 Edited by jozzy (2042 posts) -

Making multiplayer free for a select few (old) games would be a terrible idea for microsoft from a business perspectve. Publishers like Activision and EA would not be happy about it, because it would be (unfair) competition for their flagship multiplayer games. These publishers would force microsoft to make their multiplayer free for silver members as well, which would make a lot of people question the worth of the gold sub. The best you can hope for is periods where all games are playable with only a silver membership, to wet the appetite for silver members.

#40 Posted by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

@spazmaster666 said:

@CaptainCody said:

People forget that Microsoft is one of the most evil publishers. I blame EA for continuing to overshadow it for the past 2 years.

Yeah, cause the "good publishers" don't care about making money right? I bet Sony wishes that they could charge for multiplayer access like Microsoft does (if they did, I bet PSN would be better supported than it is now). Saying that a business is "evil" because they care about profit is a pretty ironic statement.

Anyway, Microsoft charging for Live has certainly been profitable for them, and has also benefitted the marketplace as well (i.e. Sony charges publishers to host demos, trailers, etc. on PSN whereas Microsoft doesn't because they have Gold subcriptions, hence their marketplace is notably better than Sony's.)

BIg business is evil, dawg. I also wouldn't call massive advertisements for people who pay 60 dollars a year, "benefitting the market place." It is a multibillion dollar company, to say they NEED money which would be better off with people putting it towards shit that isn't superfluous is fairly ludicrous.

#41 Edited by spazmaster666 (1967 posts) -

@CaptainCody said:

BIg business is evil, dawg. I also wouldn't call massive advertisements for people who pay 60 dollars a year, "benefitting the market place." It is a multibillion dollar company, to say they NEED money which would be better off with people putting it towards shit that isn't superfluous is fairly ludicrous.

Never said that Microsoft needed that money. It certainly does not cost them that much to maintain the live service. But my point is, just because Xbox Live Gold isn't the most consumer-friendly service around, it's not like they are forcing it upon you. You don't have to get an Xbox, you don't have to get Xbox Live Gold. And even if you choose to pay for Xbox Live Gold, it's not like you're getting a raw deal from it either. If you would rather play online games for free, you can always play on the the PC or PS3. This generation, more than any other, consumers have other options available. So saying that trying to make a profit in an area where they know they can make a profit makes a business evil just doesn't make sense to me (as that's pretty much the most logical thing for a business to do). As long as consumers are willing to pay for it, Microsoft will continue charging for it, it's as simple as that. There's nothing inherently "evil" about businesses wanting to make as big of a profit as possible as long as the methods used are legitimate and equitable.

#42 Edited by bybeach (4830 posts) -

If I wanted to do MP games on the X-box 360, I'd meet MS's terms. I don't wish to, and so I forgo that whole side of gaming on that console. Playstation is still free (I believe) but that still doesn't change anything for me, I'm pretty much a SP gamer.

Just to mention I watched my nephew playing MW 3 on the Playstaion 3 a few days ago. The game looked good and seemed to be little lag. I know X-box gold has a more extensive community and as I hear it, better service. But to me it's presently moot and may even be unimportant if I ever changed.

#43 Posted by solidejake (484 posts) -

Because they're Microsoft, and everybody knows that they are in desperate need of money. Bill Gates... Pretty poor guy.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.