So just wanted to get a idea on what peoples thoughts were on here. I've owned a Xbox 360 since day one and have only paid for live once and while it is an awesome service I can't justify paying $50 dollars a year. I recently bought a Playstation 3 figuring at the least it will save me the $50 dollars and if the systems life span is 1/6 what they say it is the system will pay for itself ($50x6 = $300). I have yet to set up my playstation network, home for xmas break, but I wanted opinons of what people thought about the respective services. Also before anyone calls me out for being cheap or what not...i'm an accounting and finance major, it's my job to safe money. Thanks for your thoughts.
Xbox Live vs Playstation Network: opportunity cost thoughts
This topic is locked from further discussion.
It all depends on the games you want to play. $50 a year works out to ~4 a month, which should really be a negligible amount for anyone with a job.H3LLRaiseR
Well,I don´t know about PSN,but I´m more then happy with the XBL.The Service is great,I can do what I want to,got a long Friens-List...I think it´s worth every cent.
One of the reasons I ended up with the PS3 is that the online is free.
I don't actually like playing online very much to begin with. So for me, even if I want to try playing online once with a 360, I'd have to pay a substantial sum just to find out that I might not like it very much. For me, there is no loss when playing on PSN.
But if you know you're going to be dedicated to online gaming, the $50/year shouldn't be very hard to swallow at all.
Games released today, especially for 360 tends to have 50%-70% focus on the online play. When paying 60$ for a game you also buy the online part with it. Therefore I think that all Online services should be free. Just because you have already compensated the devs by actuallly bying the game. However, I do think that Sony/MS can charge for their service wich doesn't include actual online-play. So to me it's okay to put a charge on the online service but let the actual online-play be free. That sounds most fair to me.
However, like Vampyro said, 50$ isn't much if you're a dedicated hardcore gamer.
Free online is the main reason I got a PS3. With Live, you're basicly paying $50 to play against cheaters, glitchers, lag and foul mouthed kids. Why pay when you can have the same thing for free on PS3? The only real difference in the two services is the price imo.musicXpirate
the real difference is since XBL is a pay service... Glitchers, Cheaters get kicked off or banned after a while... on PSN they can ruin the games forever just like they did with SOCOM games and everything
It doesn't seem to be a very popular sentiment these days, but my view is that XBL is a waste of my money. I just don't see why I should have to pay $50 a year for matchmaking, a buddy list, and unbalanced P2P multiplayer. I don't care whether that amount of money is trivial or not, in my eyes any amount of money for that kind of service is simply too much.Teufelhuhn
Agreed, being forced into paying money only to be able to play games online for which you've already payed good money for is total and complete bull****. Xbox Live is an online service, that's it. It doesn't offer anything that other services don't offer for free. Microsoft can charge for the fluff if they really want to, but free online play should be mandatory - there's absolutely no justification charging money for it.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]It doesn't seem to be a very popular sentiment these days, but my view is that XBL is a waste of my money. I just don't see why I should have to pay $50 a year for matchmaking, a buddy list, and unbalanced P2P multiplayer. I don't care whether that amount of money is trivial or not, in my eyes any amount of money for that kind of service is simply too much.UpInFlames
Agreed, being forced into paying money only to be able to play games online for which you've already payed good money for is total and complete bull****. Xbox Live is an online service, that's it. It doesn't offer anything that other services don't offer for free. Microsoft can charge for the fluff if they really want to, but free online play should be mandatory - there's absolutely no justification charging money for it.
there is no reason why you should pay for xbox live, that is true. youtube is free and its alot bigger then xbox live. but sadly the cost is so little you dont notice it leaving your bank account. to complain about paying for xbox live is basically sayying "im unemployed or a child" paying for wow is payying for a game after you brought it. xbox live doesnt do that, you pay for a service, which does things alot better then psn. cross service friends list. its shocks me that psn doesnt have these basic friend features in it already, there was a small possibility that mgo for mgs4 would be a seperate game. thats 10X worst then what wow is doing. and hence xbox.there is no reason why you should pay for xbox live, that is true. youtube is free and its alot bigger then xbox live. but sadly the cost is so little you dont notice it leaving your bank account. to complain about paying for xbox live is basically sayying "im unemployed or a child" paying for wow is payying for a game after you brought it. xbox live doesnt do that, you pay for a service, which does things alot better then psn. cross service friends list. its shocks me that psn doesnt have these basic friend features in it already, there was a small possibility that mgo for mgs4 would be a seperate game. thats 10X worst then what wow is doing. and hence xbox.feel_freetwo
I knew someone would make the MMO comparison - it's not the same thing. Nobody, I repeat, nobody is charging for an online service except for Microsoft...Steam, Xfire, Gamespy, PSN - they all offer the same stuff for free. Hell, even Microsoft itself can't get away with it on PC. The cost itself is not that relevant, it's the principle of the matter. Why should I be paying for something that others are offering for free?
Your kind of thinking is exactly why Microsoft can get away with it. 'It's not a lot of money.' Well, it's not a lot of money, but it should be free in the first place. That makes it a rip-off by default.
[QUOTE="musicXpirate"]Free online is the main reason I got a PS3. With Live, you're basicly paying $50 to play against cheaters, glitchers, lag and foul mouthed kids. Why pay when you can have the same thing for free on PS3? The only real difference in the two services is the price imo.smerlus
the real difference is since XBL is a pay service... Glitchers, Cheaters get kicked off or banned after a while... on PSN they can ruin the games forever just like they did with SOCOM games and everything
Well, actually you'll get banned from PSN now because Sony has a much better structure on their network this time around.And PS3 is the only non-hacked console on the market. PS2 online was a mess, I agree.
[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"]there is no reason why you should pay for xbox live, that is true. youtube is free and its alot bigger then xbox live. but sadly the cost is so little you dont notice it leaving your bank account. to complain about paying for xbox live is basically sayying "im unemployed or a child" paying for wow is payying for a game after you brought it. xbox live doesnt do that, you pay for a service, which does things alot better then psn. cross service friends list. its shocks me that psn doesnt have these basic friend features in it already, there was a small possibility that mgo for mgs4 would be a seperate game. thats 10X worst then what wow is doing. and hence xbox.UpInFlames
I knew someone would make the MMO comparison - it's not the same thing. Nobody, I repeat, nobody is charging for an online service except for Microsoft...Steam, Xfire, Gamespy, PSN - they all offer the same stuff for free. Hell, even Microsoft itself can't get away with it on PC. The cost itself is not that relevant, it's the principle of the matter. Why should I be paying for something that others are offering for free?
Your kind of thinking is exactly why Microsoft can get away with it. 'It's not a lot of money.' Well, it's not a lot of money, but it should be free in the first place. That makes it a rip-off by default.
Good point, I would agree with you.
Microsoft could, however, justify this if there was more to it than just more content available for purchase. If, for example, for your $50 per year, you received a certain amount of money to spend and programming to watch, then I could understand. $50 just to get in the gates, however, is a rip-off.
I knew someone would make the MMO comparison - it's not the same thing. Nobody, I repeat, nobody is charging for an online service except for Microsoft...Steam, Xfire, Gamespy, PSN - they all offer the same stuff for free. Hell, even Microsoft itself can't get away with it on PC. The cost itself is not that relevant, it's the principle of the matter. Why should I be paying for something that others are offering for free?
Your kind of thinking is exactly why Microsoft can get away with it. 'It's not a lot of money.' Well, it's not a lot of money, but it should be free in the first place. That makes it a rip-off by default.
UpInFlames
and your comparison is equally unfair.
not a single one of those services you listed are as consolidated and/or offer as much as Xbox Live does in a unified place.
plainly put, there is no service quite like XBL in all of gaming... for some people, such as myself, it's worth the $4 a month that i might spend on supersizing my McDonald's meal, for others it's an outrage. oh well
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="musicXpirate"]Free online is the main reason I got a PS3. With Live, you're basicly paying $50 to play against cheaters, glitchers, lag and foul mouthed kids. Why pay when you can have the same thing for free on PS3? The only real difference in the two services is the price imo.azad_champ
the real difference is since XBL is a pay service... Glitchers, Cheaters get kicked off or banned after a while... on PSN they can ruin the games forever just like they did with SOCOM games and everything
Well, actually you'll get banned from PSN now because Sony has a much better structure on their network this time around.And PS3 is the only non-hacked console on the market. PS2 online was a mess, I agree.
cheaters and glitchers are never really a problem on XBL... the rep system is a pretty good system and if you don't like playing with someone, you can just ignore them through XBL.
Now if they could only fix the problem with achievement whores, that would be great. Them and foul mouthed children are the biggest problems on XBL
This is the last year that I pay for XBL. Most of my friends have PS3s, and between COD4, Resistance, and Warhawk, I know that PSN is a great service. The things that are missing from it, like cross game messaging, are likely to be added in firmware updates. Couple that with not being able to connect my 360 to our wireless network at my new place, and I've been paying for a service I can't use since late October. I realize that most people paying for XBL seem to like it, but I feel like I'm getting the same experience for free elsewhere.rragnaar
Did you get that Crackdown DLC yet? It is pretty much a must that you download it before you actually start playing the game. It adds so many good things. It just sucks that I had the game, beat it many times and the DLC came out months later.
It did get me to go back for a little bit but i didn't enjoy it as much as if it was just included in the beginning
not a single one of those services you listed are as consolidated and/or offer as much as Xbox Live does in a unified place.smerlus
Like what exactly? But let's assume you're right - like I said, they can charge for the fluff. Not being able to play the games you bought is indeed outrageous. That's what it's all about - Microsoft is preventing you to play games you already payed good money for.
[QUOTE="rragnaar"]This is the last year that I pay for XBL. Most of my friends have PS3s, and between COD4, Resistance, and Warhawk, I know that PSN is a great service. The things that are missing from it, like cross game messaging, are likely to be added in firmware updates. Couple that with not being able to connect my 360 to our wireless network at my new place, and I've been paying for a service I can't use since late October. I realize that most people paying for XBL seem to like it, but I feel like I'm getting the same experience for free elsewhere.smerlus
Did you get that Crackdown DLC yet? It is pretty much a must that you download it before you actually start playing the game. It adds so many good things. It just sucks that I had the game, beat it many times and the DLC came out months later.
It did get me to go back for a little bit but i didn't enjoy it as much as if it was just included in the beginning
Like I said, I haven't been able to sign in to XBL since October. Apparently my 360 wireless adaptor doesn't like Apple Airport.
Like I said, I haven't been able to sign in to XBL since October. Apparently my 360 wireless adaptor doesn't like Apple Airport.rragnaar
I thought you were going to just hook it up with a wire and download the things you need to download.
[QUOTE="rragnaar"]
Like I said, I haven't been able to sign in to XBL since October. Apparently my 360 wireless adaptor doesn't like Apple Airport.smerlus
I thought you were going to just hook it up with a wire and download the things you need to download.
At heart I am a fundamentally lazy person. It would involve going out and buying a cable, bringing it back home, stringing a wire through the house, etc. I'm tired just thinking about it. :P
[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]It doesn't seem to be a very popular sentiment these days, but my view is that XBL is a waste of my money. I just don't see why I should have to pay $50 a year for matchmaking, a buddy list, and unbalanced P2P multiplayer. I don't care whether that amount of money is trivial or not, in my eyes any amount of money for that kind of service is simply too much.feel_freetwo
Agreed, being forced into paying money only to be able to play games online for which you've already payed good money for is total and complete bull****. Xbox Live is an online service, that's it. It doesn't offer anything that other services don't offer for free. Microsoft can charge for the fluff if they really want to, but free online play should be mandatory - there's absolutely no justification charging money for it.
there is no reason why you should pay for xbox live, that is true. youtube is free and its alot bigger then xbox live. but sadly the cost is so little you dont notice it leaving your bank account. to complain about paying for xbox live is basically sayying "im unemployed or a child" paying for wow is payying for a game after you brought it. xbox live doesnt do that, you pay for a service, which does things alot better then psn. cross service friends list. its shocks me that psn doesnt have these basic friend features in it already, there was a small possibility that mgo for mgs4 would be a seperate game. thats 10X worst then what wow is doing. and hence xbox.dont even try mentioning paying for wow as paying for a game after you bought it. you arent paying for the game, you are paying for the servers, support, and maintenance. paying for xbox live is paying for something that pc's do for free. there is no getting around this issue. just because sony's online isnt up to snuff, does not mean that MS should get away with charging. i unhappily pay for live, but only because it is relatively cheap.
Microsoft also charges for rediculous things like gamer pics, themes (are you serious?), bigger Halo 3 file share (lol!), a slew of Arcade games that you can get for free on PC. So really, you pay $60 for Halo 3, then pay $50 just to play the multiplayer half of the game... if you bought a 360 just for Halo then you basicly pay $110 to get the full Halo experience. Talk about a cash cow. Then all these devs want to offer maps for free but M$ demands they charge and then it makes the devs look like cash cows also. People say the $50 a year is to help get rid of cheaters and glitchers and what not... but they don't do as good a job as they should. And look at recently with all the trouble Live has been having...
I pay for Live and really, I don't know why I still do it...
Anyways.... Xbox Live is a service and like any other service, it's up to the person to determine if it's worth the cost. If you don't want to pay for it then don't but there's no need to complain about it.
Games like Hellgate: London are a joke to me. to get a bit extra goodies for paying customers and I don't really like the idea of paying fees for MMORPGS, but you won't see me posting in threads saying how crazy it is when games like Guild Wars are offering it for free.
It goes back to my original point...people pay because they think it's worth it and that there's nothing else like it
Xbox Live is a service and like any other service, it's up to the person to determine if it's worth the cost. If you don't want to pay for it then don't but there's no need to complain about it.smerlus
Actually, every other service is free so there's no need for the person to determine is it worth it or not - all they need to do is install it. Xbox Live is the ONLY exception and there's very much reason to complain about it regardless if you're paying or not paying for it.
Games like Hellgate: London are a joke to me. to get a bit extra goodies for paying customers and I don't really like the idea of paying fees for MMORPGS, but you won't see me posting in threads saying how crazy it is when games like Guild Wars are offering it for free.smerlus
But that's just it, isn't it? You can still play Hellgate: London, if you want the perks, you can pay for them. Fine by me, I just want to play the game, I don't give a **** about the fluff. Xbox Live has no such choice - it is denying a fundemental thing--playing games you bought. Also, Guild Wars is an online RPG, not an MMO. It doesn't have a persistant online world.
[QUOTE="smerlus"]not a single one of those services you listed are as consolidated and/or offer as much as Xbox Live does in a unified place.UpInFlames
Like what exactly? But let's assume you're right - like I said, they can charge for the fluff. Not being able to play the games you bought is indeed outrageous. That's what it's all about - Microsoft is preventing you to play games you already payed good money for.
XBL offers a centralized hub for all online functionality. It offers a better organized online construct than anywhere else and it cost MS a considerable amount of money to get up and running. I have no problem paying a modest fee to play on something so well organized, epsecially when I compare XBL with Sony's mediocre online model that I'm forced to slog through anytime I play my PS3 online. (Although it has improved recently)
What you call fluff I and many others call money well spent and that reality is something you might as well accept now. You are content with bare bones functionality and you feel MS is screwing the consumers by making them pay to play online but not everybody shares your viewpoint. Just because something has always been free doesn't mean it can or even should remain so, especially considering how inconsistent online gaming has been. For the most part, XBL has offered a consistent and quality service so fifty bucks a year really isn't an issue for that type of service.
PSN network is free and you know what? It feels free. I see what I'm paying for with XBL and I'm more than happy to do so.
[QUOTE="smerlus"]Xbox Live is a service and like any other service, it's up to the person to determine if it's worth the cost. If you don't want to pay for it then don't but there's no need to complain about it.UpInFlames
Actually, every other service is free so there's no need for the person to determine is it worth it or not - all they need to do is install it. Xbox Live is the ONLY exception and there's very much reason to complain about it regardless if you're paying or not paying for it.
Games like Hellgate: London are a joke to me. to get a bit extra goodies for paying customers and I don't really like the idea of paying fees for MMORPGS, but you won't see me posting in threads saying how crazy it is when games like Guild Wars are offering it for free.smerlus
But that's just it, isn't it? You can still play Hellgate: London, if you want the perks, you can pay for them. Fine by me, I just want to play the game, I don't give a **** about the fluff. Xbox Live has no such choice - it is denying a fundemental thing--playing games you bought. Also, Guild Wars is an online RPG, not an MMO. It doesn't have a persistant online world.
But the reasons for paying for WoW are security, service, maint, upgrades and blah blah blah... the devs of Guild Wars have to pay for all those things too (except they make you pay for upgrades by coming out with expansions) and it's still a free service. Acclaim offers a bunch of MMORPG's for free anyways so either way you look at it there are a lot of people that are enjoying a service that is free elsewhere.
and your second point islike saying "why do i have to pay for the internet....? i don't use all the internet... i just want to go to 4 or 5 sites" Some services just wouldn't be the same if they're split.
i think the problem is that you see Xbox Live just like Xfire, Gamespy or PSN when it offers much more than all of those. Can I play every PC game on Xfire? if i'm playing a game on Xfire can I talk to someone playinganother game that may not be on Xfire?
What you are doing is taking 5 - 6 services that in total do everything that Xbox Livedoesand comparing them to a single one and then saying you see nothing special about it. What's so hard about seeing that combining the best parts of 5-6 services into one and charging $4 isn't too bad for some people.
it's convienient, hassle free for the most part, and a service that keeps offering more and more
it's convienient, hassle free for the most part, and a service that keeps offering more and more
smerlus
Agreed.
XBL Arcade is awesome and keeps improving and the ability to download new movie releases in HD is also a pretty cool feature.
XBL is also swimming with demos and extra content, most of which is free. MS and other companies do nickel and dime a bit too much but so does Sony on the PSN. It's the nature of the beast.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]It doesn't seem to be a very popular sentiment these days, but my view is that XBL is a waste of my money. I just don't see why I should have to pay $50 a year for matchmaking, a buddy list, and unbalanced P2P multiplayer. I don't care whether that amount of money is trivial or not, in my eyes any amount of money for that kind of service is simply too much.UpInFlames
Agreed, being forced into paying money only to be able to play games online for which you've already payed good money for is total and complete bull****. Xbox Live is an online service, that's it. It doesn't offer anything that other services don't offer for free. Microsoft can charge for the fluff if they really want to, but free online play should be mandatory - there's absolutely no justification charging money for it.
I agree with you completely, except that there is a justfication for it. Microsoft wants to make more money. They charge $50/year because they can, pure and simple.
I agree with you completely, except that there is a justfication for it. Microsoft wants to make more money. They charge $50/year because they can, pure and simple.Dire_Weasel
In all fairness, XBL was an expensive venture to get up and running and they continue to funnel money into it. The cost of developing and maintaining XBL is much more than the PS Network.
The funny thing is, most don't seem to realize some of that money MS gets from live goes to developers to improve thier online stuff and others. Gives them tools. Its why you noticed in allot of cases 360's online is far more developed then PS3's or Wii and in some cases as it while the others lackShinotogive me some examples.
Well I haven't been able to try PSN for the PS3 yet so I'm not sure how it stacks up or how improve it is over the PS2's service but it does sound like it has gotten much better and does quite well for itself given that it's free.
As for Xbox Live I have been a subscriber for over 3 years now and I love the service. I love it for all the reasons I have seen on this thread already mentioned like unified Friend's List, cross game voice-chat support, ect. Another thing I love it for that I don't think I've seen mentioned yet is that Microsoft does all the work on maintaining the service so what this does is allow for alot of other smaller developers to put in online content and functionality while relieving them of alot of the burden. I think there would be alot of games for the 360 that wouldn't have any online functionality at all if it were not for this paid service from MS.
XBL has two big advantages over PSN: crossgame communication and demos for every downloadable game. The advantage PSN has is 'pick your own server' in all games (I prefer being able to look at the details of an ongoing game or game about to start and decide for myself if I want to join) and dedicated servers (which can handle more players than a machine that has to run a player's game).
In online games I think the more the merrier,so I love the dedicated servers. However, I also enjoy just being able to talk to someone when they hop online in XBL. In PSN I get notified when a friend is online or has just sent me a message, but I have to stop playing and go to XMB in order to talk to them, which is just stupid.
I can't attest to what happens in all PS3 games, but Motorstorm and Warhawk (the two games I play quite a bit) are both moderated and boast frequent updates.
The funny thing is, most don't seem to realize some of that money MS gets from live goes to developers to improve thier online stuff and others. Gives them tools. Its why you noticed in allot of cases 360's online is far more developed then PS3's or Wii and in some cases as it while the others lackShinoto
What on earth are you talking about? Developers pay very dearly for those tools (both in the up-front cost of the dev kits and in the per-game licensing fees), and have no choice but to use them since all 360 games must implement baseline Live functionality.
[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]
I agree with you completely, except that there is a justfication for it. Microsoft wants to make more money. They charge $50/year because they can, pure and simple.Grammaton-Cleric
In all fairness, XBL was an expensive venture to get up and running and they continue to funnel money into it. The cost of developing and maintaining XBL is much more than the PS Network.
I agree with GC halfly, the thing is that MS wouldn't be losing out on much money in the end if they decided to make XBL free. Think about it, if XBL was free then that would only expand MS's potential clientele, bigger clientele means more potential for digital sales and also a bigger audience for MS's Iptv. It really is a win win situation, and would be a smart move for MS if they really want to solidify that second place spot in the console war.
smerlus, Grammaton, I can't shake the feeling that there's some sort of miscommunication going on here. Either I'm not explaining my views right or you just won't read what I'm writing. You don't need to explain the service to me - I know full well what Xbox Live is and what it offers - and in turn, what it doesn't. Personally, I think it's a very solid online service with a lot of pros, but it's not without flaws. It's an online service, not the second coming. I'm planning to buy a 360 this year, so I'll probably subscribe to Gold myself at least for a few months.
What I can't wrap my head around is the fact you guys are ecstatic about paying to be able to play your games online (games you gave your hard-earned for, games you own) - something that should come out of the box, something every other service under the Sun enables you to do. Again, even Microsoft itself is offering free online play with Games for Windows Live. So while everyone else is getting it for free, why do you think it's fair for Xbox owners to pay for playing games online? Wouldn't you want every 360 owner to be able to play games online with an option to pay for the additional perks? The way it is now is not an option, it's an ultimatum - pay us money or don't play games. For the millionth time, Microsoft can charge for the perks, but denying online play is simply not fair.
I really can't see a single reason why anyone but Microsoft shareholders would disagree with this.
I'm not going to pretend to know what it takes for a service like Live to run but I do know one thing about paying for a service. When I give my money to Microsoft, it gives me more leverage than if I were to use a free service. I suppose I look at it as insurance. If Live messes up Microsoft "usually" makes up for it and have at times offered content to those that have Gold service by giving away free games. They don't want to lose that money so they are going to do more to stay on top of things than other services who offer it for free.
In my mind, I see that I am more of a "hassle" with a free service because I am unsure of what they get out of giving me a service I don't pay for. So it questions my right to complain about issues that may interrupt my gameplay online. I might be apart of the naivity crowd, but knowing that I contribute money to a company just makes me feel I like am more in a position of authority because they promise a service and I pay for it. Everything is cut and dry. No grey area. They mess up and I have something to take away.
In my mind, I see that I am more of a "hassle" with a free service because I am unsure of what they get out of giving me a service I don't pay for.juradai
I very much disagree, paying (directly, that is) or not - all customers are equally important. Xfire is a completely free service yet the company was bought by Viacom for $107 million. It would have never happened if not for the fact Xfire has 7 million registered users - despite the fact that none of them are paying anything. Or take Steam (approx. 13 million active users) for example. Steam now has pretty much every feature boasted by Xbox Live...why would Valve break their backs to provide such a stellar service to gamers for absolutely free if it's not very much worth it to them. Hell, take Microsoft's own GFW Live - they offer everything Live does (save for matchmaking) for absolutely free - why would they bother if there's no profit in it?
That's exactly why I can't understand Microsoft's narrow-mindedness regarding this matter. Xbox Live subscriptions are peanuts for the company. Like HiResDes pointed out, by opening Live up to all users would provide a much bigger install base and a much bigger and more regular stream of revenue. Whomever is still pushing for the subscription should be fired at once.
EDIT: By the way, you would be a paying customer regardless. You bought the console - you are a customer. You are buying games - you are a customer. You play games by using the service - you are a customer. A paying customer.
What I can't wrap my head around is the fact you guys are ecstatic about paying to be able to play your games online (games you gave your hard-earned for, games you own) - something that should come out of the box, something every other service under the Sun enables you to do. Again, even Microsoft itself is offering free online play with Games for Windows Live. So while everyone else is getting it for free, why do you think it's fair for Xbox owners to pay for playing games online? Wouldn't you want every 360 owner to be able to play games online with an option to pay for the additional perks? The way it is now is not an option, it's an ultimatum - pay us money or don't play games. For the millionth time, Microsoft can charge for the perks, but denying online play is simply not fair.
I really can't see a single reason why anyone but Microsoft shareholders would disagree with this.
UpInFlames
I completely understand what you are saying and I even agree to some extent but at the same time MS is a business and they have to recoup the cost of developing and maintaining XBL. My understanding is that the cost of creating XBL was huge and the cost of keeping it going is likewise costly. Maybe MS is making a profit in the long run by charging for XBL Gold but considering the cost to the consumer is four dollars a month, I really don't think it's that big a deal. I think if XBL Silver allowed online play most people wouldn't purchase Gold and XBL would go the way of the PSN; barebones and no option for better features.
I'm not estatic to pay for anything. I am pleased to pay a paltrysum that gives me access to a high quality service. I think for the time being the XBL model makes the most sense.
That said, I respect where you're coming from.
I have been against paying to play online since forever so I choose PSN. There is a lot of over exaggeration about PSN being a poor service. the only thing it has going against it is no crossgame communication or access to the menu in games, once that is up it will be damn close to Live. Playing online is as simple as putting an online game in system, press online play, tada, you are playing lag free online gaming, that simple. CoD4, TF2, both games I played that have perfect online on the PS3, I pay nothing extra, 360 owners have to pay to have access to it.
The thing is Live is not just paying for a service, its a method of blocking users from accessing a part of your game that you paid for. When you buy CoD4 it should be your right to access the online mode of the game, but on the 360, without gold you are locked out. I really doubt the majority of people are paying for live cause they just love the service, the majority are paying cause that is the only way they can play online with the 360. They really want to make it about the service, than make it an OPTION, allow people to play online with no cross game communication or whatever. As long as they force people to pay to play online I wont support it.
dvader654
That is pretty much 100% all that is needed to say. I mean, for silver members, they still get to chat cross game, message, see their friends, dl stuff, except play online (and timed demos or w/e). They are charging to you to play, not for all the bells and whistles, thats already free. Its totally backwards. Juradi...LIVE has been down for over a week and messing up etc, where are my free games? When has PSN ever been down? Never.
I have been against paying to play online since forever so I choose PSN. There is a lot of over exaggeration about PSN being a poor service. the only thing it has going against it is no crossgame communication or access to the menu in games, once that is up it will be damn close to Live. Playing online is as simple as putting an online game in system, press online play, tada, you are playing lag free online gaming, that simple. CoD4, TF2, both games I played that have perfect online on the PS3, I pay nothing extra, 360 owners have to pay to have access to it.
The thing is Live is not just paying for a service, its a method of blocking users from accessing a part of your game that you paid for. When you buy CoD4 it should be your right to access the online mode of the game, but on the 360, without gold you are locked out. I really doubt the majority of people are paying for live cause they just love the service, the majority are paying cause that is the only way they can play online with the 360. They really want to make it about the service, than make it an OPTION, allow people to play online with no cross game communication or whatever. As long as they force people to pay to play online I wont support it.
dvader654
PSN is a joke compared to XBL, it's really that simple. You can think PSN will someday approach XBL butthat just isn't going to happen and no amount of positive thinking is going to change this reality. I have both and the PSN is a painful experience compared to Live and the money MS invested is reflected in their product. Like I've stated before, PSN feels like a barebones free service so paying 4 bucks a month for LIVE really is a non-issue when you consider the perks. You and others have chosen to blow this issue out of all credible proportion by acting like MS is putting the screws to the consumers over 4 bucks per month and I just don't see why such a tiny sum is that outrageous when the service is literally many times better than Sony's own.
My understanding is that the cost of creating XBL was huge and the cost of keeping it going is likewise costly. Maybe MS is making a profit in the long run by charging for XBL Gold but considering the cost to the consumer is four dollars a month, I really don't think it's that big a deal. I think if XBL Silver allowed online play most people wouldn't purchase Gold and XBL would go the way of the PSN; barebones and no option for better features.Grammaton-Cleric
Yeah, this is something that is very strange to me. Sure, Microsoft has claimed that the cost was huge and whatnot, but then you have a company like Valve that employs a total of 150 people that has managed to set up a service that offers pretty much everything Live does (and more - you can buy and download a lot of full third-party games like BioShock...I just got a sweet holiday deal on S.T.A.L.K.E.R. the other day) for a lot more people (13 million compared to Live's 8 million)...it's bound to leave you baffled. Surely if Valve--an independant developer for Christ's sake--can handle the maintainance what kind of issue would it be for the world's biggest corporation? I don't think the subscription fees are doing anything for Microsoft so that's another thing that baffles me - what's the point? I think it's perfectly feasible for Microsoft to offer the service completely free with all the add-ons - they're doing it on PC after all. I really can't fathom what is Microsoft trying to accomplish with this. It all really smells like a bad business decision.
By the way, Live isn't that cheap in Europe - in my country a 3-month fee is $44 and a yearly fee is $160 (tax included). Throw in the fact that Microsoft doesn't "officially" support Live here into the mix--which means if anything goes wrong I'm pretty much ****ed--and it doesn't really feel like a good deal at all.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment