Xbox Live vs Playstation Network: opportunity cost thoughts

This Topic would be more appropriate for System Wars.Elraptor

Well, I haven't tried PSN, or Steam, so I have little grounds for making a thoughtful evaluation. I like the features Live offers, even though I'm not that much of a Live player to begin with. I don't like the idea of having to pay for playing online, but as of now, it's the only choice, and maybe that's one of the reasons I keep paying for it. Frankly, I believe that if they made online play available for all accounts, they would have to go the extra mile to make Gold attractive enough to keep paying for it, because nobody would be renewing otherwise.

I don't like the fact that Live still supports P2P online, while others have dedicated servers. If other free services have that, and enjoy lag-free online, I want that too, dammit!

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

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.

Grammaton-Cleric

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.

it's really quite simple. because every single PC out there does this for free. i am totally with dvader's stance on the issue, except when it comes down to the fact that the 360 has more games i want to play. the funny thing about live though, is that over time it makes your system more expensive than a PS3. realistically, you have a gimped system if you don't have gold, unless you only want to ever play single player.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

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.

OneWingedAngeI

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.

it's really quite simple. because every single PC out there does this for free. i am totally with dvader's stance on the issue, except when it comes down to the fact that the 360 has more games i want to play. the funny thing about live though, is that over time it makes your system more expensive than a PS3. realistically, you have a gimped system if you don't have gold, unless you only want to ever play single player.

PC's don't offer what LIVE offers. LIVE is a collection of online services tied into a central hub for the gamer. Even PC-enthusiasts have admitted that what LIVE offers the online gamer is significant. So again, the issue is simple: you pay asmall fee for a service that offers much, much more.

As for your argument that in the long run Live makes the cost of the XB360 greater than that of the PS3, you are correct.And keeping to your rationale, the cost of batteries in my Wimote will make the cost of the Wii eventually surpass the PS3 as well. I could get a 3rd party charger unit but that too is an extra cost. I guess that means my Wii is likewise "gimped" because of the extra cost I must doll out to use my console, yes?

I'm really not trying to be a dick here but all this pedantic crying over four bucks a month strikes me as silly. To play the newest and best software is an expensive proposition, console or PC. We pay out the nose for software and hardware so personally, that fourextra bucks doesn't strike me as the end of the world. If LIVE really was only offering the equivalent of the PSN, I would see the point of all this outrage but since LIVE is so much better, who really cares?

Is this issue really about the money or the principle?Either way, it all seems muchto doabout nothing.

For those of you who keep bringing up the fact that online PC gaming is free, save yourselves the trouble and don't, its really a disingenuious point to throw in that is hardly applicable to console gaming. PC gamers would never accept paying to run and gun against friends online. Console gaming is a different creature entirely as it is traditionally an offline experience whereas PC gaming relies on the online component to maintain its audience.

Beyond that, GC has pretty much covered everything as far as XBL is concerned.

As far as PSN, remember, you get what you pay for and I'm not so sure how "free" it will remain once HOME is deployed. But hey, if Sony has figured out a way to maintain an online network, eat the costs, put up a service on par with XBL without charging for it and somehow not bleed money like blood from a slashed wrist, then my hat is off to them. There is such a place that I know of, oh yeah, its called Fantasyland.

If you would have read the poster above, LIVE is NOT cheap outside of NA. And in Canada its like 79 bucks plus tax.F1Lengend

This is what boggles my mind. What? Canadian bandwidth is just that much more special outside of the U.S.? I'm really at a loss here.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]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.UpInFlames

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.

You guys over in Europe keep getting the shaft on just about everything game related. Don't you also pay a much higher price for your games?

160 dollarsper year is insane to pay for XBL; that's literally more than three times what we pay in the states.

So yes, that cost is a ripoff. Period.

I really don't know what the cost of XBL actually was, though for some reason I swear remembering reading that it was insanely high. That said, if all 8 million XBL users were to subscribe to gold, that would generate a revenue of 400 million dollars per year, so the issue may simply come down to XBL being an alternatesource ofrevenue. MS has spent billions trying to penetrate the console market and love them or hate them, it's been their efforts that have propelled console online gaming forward. The only reason Sony, and to a lesser extent Nintendo, are taking online seriously this generation is because of MS pushing that particular envelope.

I think XBL is going to stay a pay service for the duration of this generation but I'm sorry to hear the cost is so hefty overseas. Personally, at four dollars per month, the cost isn't even an afterthought for most American gamers.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

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.

Grammaton-Cleric

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.

it's really quite simple. because every single PC out there does this for free. i am totally with dvader's stance on the issue, except when it comes down to the fact that the 360 has more games i want to play. the funny thing about live though, is that over time it makes your system more expensive than a PS3. realistically, you have a gimped system if you don't have gold, unless you only want to ever play single player.

PC's don't offer what LIVE offers. LIVE is a collection of online services tied into a central hub for the gamer. Even PC-enthusiasts have admitted that what LIVE offers the online gamer is significant. So again, the issue is simple: you pay asmall fee for a service that offers much, much more.

As for your argument that in the long run Live makes the cost of the XB360 greater than that of the PS3, you are correct.And keeping to your rationale, the cost of batteries in my Wimote will make the cost of the Wii eventually surpass the PS3 as well. I could get a 3rd party charger unit but that too is an extra cost. I guess that means my Wii is likewise "gimped" because of the extra cost I must doll out to use my console, yes?

I'm really not trying to be a dick here but all this pedantic crying over four bucks a month strikes me as silly. To play the newest and best software is an expensive proposition, console or PC. We pay out the nose for software and hardware so personally, that fourextra bucks doesn't strike me as the end of the world. If LIVE really was only offering the equivalent of the PSN, I would see the point of all this outrage but since LIVE is so much better, who really cares?

Is this issue really about the money or the principle?Either way, it all seems muchto doabout nothing.

no, you are using baseless arguments of a peripheral as compared to the full game, which is absurd. i could use wireless controls for the ps3 also and that is the same thing. this is not comparable to not being able to play a full game as it should be without paying extra.

the pc can do exactly what live does, just get xfire or steam and you have your hub where you can talk to all your friends and set up games. is it that hard to IM someone and say lets play this? absolutely not.

it's not silly. the pc does it for free, and so should the 360, its that simple.

and by the way, i am not crying. i am discussing, on a forum for discussion. just because i disagree with the practice does not mean i am a whining 5 year old. i am debating the merits of the issue, which i think fall woefully short.

If you would have read the poster above, LIVE is NOT cheap outside of NA. And in Canada its like 79 bucks plus tax. And guess what, mine expires in February. I am not looking forward to paying another fee. What exactly does this offer that PC doesn't on steam? I can send messages to anyone of my friends, any game, anytime. I cant invite them to voice chat, but big deal. Please tell me the features you cant find anywhere else.F1Lengend

Like Marcus already pointed out, PC gaming exists in a totally different construct than console gaming. Most PC games arebuilt upon their online features while console games are still evenly divided between single player and multiplayer.

That said,XBL Arcade is an awesome addition and continues to growwith some amazing classic and original games that can be played online. Most of these games will never be available elsewhere so that alone justifies my 4 bucks per month.

The amount of demos on XBLalso warrants the fee I pay monthly.

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]If you would have read the poster above, LIVE is NOT cheap outside of NA. And in Canada its like 79 bucks plus tax. And guess what, mine expires in February. I am not looking forward to paying another fee. What exactly does this offer that PC doesn't on steam? I can send messages to anyone of my friends, any game, anytime. I cant invite them to voice chat, but big deal. Please tell me the features you cant find anywhere else.Grammaton-Cleric

Like Marcus already pointed out, PC gaming exists in a totally different construct than console gaming. Most PC games arebuilt upon their online features while console games are still evenly divided between single player and multiplayer.

That said,XBL Arcade is an awesome addition and continues to growwith some amazing classic and original games that can be played online. Most of these games will never be available elsewhere so that alone justifies my 4 bucks per month.

The amount of demos on XBLalso warrants the fee I pay monthly.

no, you are using baseless arguments of a peripheral as compared to the full game, which is absurd. i could use wireless controls for the ps3 also and that is the same thing. this is not comparable to not being able to play a full game as it should be without paying extra.

the pc can do exactly what live does, just get xfire or steam and you have your hub where you can talk to all your friends and set up games. is it that hard to IM someone and say lets play this? absolutely not.

it's not silly. the pc does it for free, and so should the 360, its that simple.

and by the way, i am not crying. i am discussing, on a forum for discussion. just because i disagree with the practice does not mean i am a whining 5 year old. i am debating the merits of the issue, which i think fall woefully short.

OneWingedAngeI

Why is citing a peripheral absurd? Additional cost is additonal cost and the amount I spend on batteries in my Wimote is comparable to what I spend per month on XBL. Both are expenses that are needed to use my respective consoles. It's a logical comparison and you seem angry because it effectivelytears down your so very tenuous argument.

And who cares what the PC offers? Was I talking about PC gaming? Do I even need to explain to you that console gaming is a different beast entirely? And while we are on the subject of additional costs, should Imention the cost of keeping a PC current to run all these wonderful games?

Additional costs come in many different forms and the fact of the matter is that you are being selective in what you have chosen to getannoyed about. XBL costs me 4 dollars per month. A PC that could play something like COD4 at 60fps in a resolution the equivalent of 1080ior higher is going to cost me more than several decades of XBL.

Just because something is free somewhere else doesn't mean it will stay universally free everywhere. Things change, times change, and at four dollars a month I'm getting something that works well, provides what I need and allfor a paltry sum of money.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]If you would have read the poster above, LIVE is NOT cheap outside of NA. And in Canada its like 79 bucks plus tax. And guess what, mine expires in February. I am not looking forward to paying another fee. What exactly does this offer that PC doesn't on steam? I can send messages to anyone of my friends, any game, anytime. I cant invite them to voice chat, but big deal. Please tell me the features you cant find anywhere else.MAILER_DAEMON

Like Marcus already pointed out, PC gaming exists in a totally different construct than console gaming. Most PC games arebuilt upon their online features while console games are still evenly divided between single player and multiplayer.

That said,XBL Arcade is an awesome addition and continues to growwith some amazing classic and original games that can be played online. Most of these games will never be available elsewhere so that alone justifies my 4 bucks per month.

The amount of demos on XBLalso warrants the fee I pay monthly.

Micortransactions are a big problem and if companies don't watch their step they are going to piss off consumers with all this nickle and dime nonsense. When Sony released Pain on the PSN they literaly released the game for 10 dollars and immediately offered two additional player skins at a dolllar each. Now, PAIN is a fun little game but it's pretty shallow and a bit overpriced at ten dollars so charging an additional cost for something as superficial as skins was just...tacky. I've seen similar offers on XBL and this stuff needs to be handled much better.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

no, you are using baseless arguments of a peripheral as compared to the full game, which is absurd. i could use wireless controls for the ps3 also and that is the same thing. this is not comparable to not being able to play a full game as it should be without paying extra.

the pc can do exactly what live does, just get xfire or steam and you have your hub where you can talk to all your friends and set up games. is it that hard to IM someone and say lets play this? absolutely not.

it's not silly. the pc does it for free, and so should the 360, its that simple.

and by the way, i am not crying. i am discussing, on a forum for discussion. just because i disagree with the practice does not mean i am a whining 5 year old. i am debating the merits of the issue, which i think fall woefully short.

Grammaton-Cleric

Why is citing a peripheral absurd? Additional cost is additonal cost and the amount I spend on batteries in my Wimote is comparable to what I spend per month on XBL. Both are expenses that are needed to use my respective consoles. It's a logical comparison and you seem angry because it effectivelytears down your so very tenuous argument.

And who cares what the PC offers? Was I talking about PC gaming? Do I even need to explain to you that console gaming is a different beast entirely? And while we are on the subject of additional costs, should Imention the cost of keeping a PC current to run all these wonderful games?

Additional costs come in many different forms and the fact of the matter is that you are being selective in what you have chosen to getannoyed about. XBL costs me 4 dollars per month. A PC that could play something like COD4 at 60fps in a resolution the equivalent of 1080ior higher is going to cost me more than several decades of XBL.

Just because something is free somewhere else doesn't mean it will stay universally free everywhere. Things change, times change, and at four dollars a month I'm getting something that works well, provides what I need and allfor a paltry sum of money.

because the cost of a peripheral can be tied to any system. it has nothing to do with the argument. i can get rechargable batteries for the wiimote for $10 and thats a one time fee. not nearly comparable to a $50 fee to play the full version of every game that has online play.

um, who doesn't care about what another platform offers when comparing...gaming platforms? the PC is just as relevant as a console. citing the cost of upgrading hardware is invalid because in addition to the fact that a PC does other things than just gaming, you also do not need to upgrade constantly to keep playing games, contrary to popular belief. you can get by for 5 years off a $500 pc.

you also dont just go out and buy new pc after new pc if you are on a budget. you upgrade an item here or there. you dont buy a $500 video card, you buy last years sweet model for chump change. you dont need to play at 5 million FPS on top resolution to play. where as with the live comparison, you flat out cannot play online without paying. a pc can get by based on the funds available to the person.

also, no one cares if you think the $4/month is cheap. to a lot of people it isnt. to kids it isnt. to low income people it isnt. the fact that you think it is paltry is irrelevant. donald trump can afford millions in taxes, so its fine if we raise taxes across the board. no.

its free on the PSN and its free on the PC. thePSN is muchyounger and so it isnt as full featured. in time, they are just going to take ideas from the pc (no, not from live, because everything there is taken from the pc) and add them on. times change, and as the PSN catches up people are going to keep asking why its free when live isn't.

For those of you who keep bringing up the fact that online PC gaming is free, save yourselves the trouble and don't, its really a disingenuious point to throw in that is hardly applicable to console gaming. PC gamers would never accept paying to run and gun against friends online. Console gaming is a different creature entirely as it is traditionally an offline experience whereas PC gaming relies on the online component to maintain its audience.MarcusAntonius

Console gaming has changed a lot and is now a lot closer to PC gaming than it has ever been. The only real difference is that console gaming is taking everything PC has been enjoying for free since forever and charging for it - online play, additional game content such as map packs and horse armors, themes, skins, cheats...it's getting out of hand. So I'm not really sure why would console gamers want to accept being ripped-off at every turn.

You guys over in Europe keep getting the shaft on just about everything game related. Don't you also pay a much higher price for your games?Grammaton-Cleric

Pretty much everything is more expensive in Europe mostly thanks to VAT and such, but yeah, this is especially true for gaming. Euro PC game prices are comparable to American prices ($50-$70 new) and their prices fall very fast, but console games are much more expensive ($80-$100) and their prices don't drop for years.

MS has spent billions trying to penetrate the console market and love them or hate them, it's been their efforts that have propelled console online gaming forward. The only reason Sony, and to a lesser extent Nintendo, are taking online seriously this generation is because of MS pushing that particular envelope.Grammaton-Cleric

That goes without saying. There would be no console online gaming if it weren't for Microsoft. Lord knows Nintendo doesn't give a crap about it and Sony is just playing an obligatory game of catch-up. However, there's a possibility that charging for things that should be free in the first place might come and bite Microsoft (and EA, Activision, Sega and whomever else is on board) in the ass. The crowd Microsoft has so far seems to have no big problems with this system, but they are holding themselves back because not everyone can afford (or simply doesn't appreciate) being nickle and dimed at every turn.

Personally, I feel there's too much greed for fast profit involved here instead of looking at the big picture.

Personally, I feel there's too much greed for fast profit involved here instead of looking at the big picture.

UpInFlames

Well, hey, it's MS we are talking about here. If there is a buck to be made, they'll find a way. At the same time I think the service is worth the price and the quality has been consistent so I have no complaints. If the choice is XBL quality for money or PSN qualityfor free, I'll gladly pay.

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]If you would have read the poster above, LIVE is NOT cheap outside of NA. And in Canada its like 79 bucks plus tax.MarcusAntonius

This is what boggles my mind. What? Canadian bandwidth is just that much more special outside of the U.S.? I'm really at a loss here.

I'm at a loss too because I'm a Canadian and all the major retailers around me, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, Future Shop, etc. only charge $59 plus tax for a 12+1 month free Live card.

because the cost of a peripheral can be tied to any system. it has nothing to do with the argument. i can get rechargable batteries for the wiimote for $10 and thats a one time fee. not nearly comparable to a $50 fee to play the full version of every game that has online play.

um, who doesn't care about what another platform offers when comparing...gaming platforms? the PC is just as relevant as a console. citing the cost of upgrading hardware is invalid because in addition to the fact that a PC does other things than just gaming, you also do not need to upgrade constantly to keep playing games, contrary to popular belief. you can get by for 5 years off a $500 pc.

you also dont just go out and buy new pc after new pc if you are on a budget. you upgrade an item here or there. you dont buy a $500 video card, you buy last years sweet model for chump change. you dont need to play at 5 million FPS on top resolution to play. where as with the live comparison, you flat out cannot play online without paying. a pc can get by based on the funds available to the person.

also, no one cares if you think the $4/month is cheap. to a lot of people it isnt. to kids it isnt. to low income people it isnt. the fact that you think it is paltry is irrelevant. donald trump can afford millions in taxes, so its fine if we raise taxes across the board. no.

its free on the PSN and its free on the PC. thePSN is muchyounger and so it isnt as full featured. in time, they are just going to take ideas from the pc (no, not from live, because everything there is taken from the pc) and add them on. times change, and as the PSN catches up people are going to keep asking why its free when live isn't.

OneWingedAngeI

You are hurling quite a bit of misinformation at me so I'll just take it apart one subject at a time:

Additional cost is additonal cost. Period. I find rechargable batteries a hassle so I'm forced to spend more on regular alkaline batteries. Whether you agree or not, it is an additonal cost, even assuming you purchase rechargables, as they don't last forever either. The real point is that who cares? Small price to pay, yes?

Your claim that you can game for 5 years on a 500 dollar PC is nonsense. I used to do quite a lot of PC gaming and the shelf life for most 3D cards is about 2 years and even less if you want to keep up. True, if you want to play everything on low settings, you can go cheaper but I already explained that I like HD gaming with all the perks of graphics and solid frame rates.

And PC's are not gaming machines; they also play games. They are multi-task workstations and their very nature places them in an entirely different category than consoles.

Your comments about the PSN are sad bits of conjecture and speculation that will turn out to be flatly wrong. The PSN is only a year younger than XBL (the XB360 version) and it is far, far behind. In the last year Sony has done little to imrpove the PSN which is why demos are rare and game-related content minimal. Cross your fingers all you want and keep repeating your "but it's free!" mantra but the PSN will always lag behind XBL. XBL was developed at a hefty cost and is maintained through subscriptions and it shows.

As cliche as it sounds, you get what you pay for.

I just went on STEAM and downloaded some new HD movies and the newest episodes of South Park that I missed and then I popped in City Of Heroes logged into Xfire and had a group voice chat with my one friend playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and my other friend playing Orange Box without using additional resources to slow down my game...

Oh wait, I can't do that on those services... so how are they the same as Xbox Live?

What a lot of you are doing is equivelent to getting a 3 legged Pug/Poodle free from the SPCA and then going to someone who paid for a purebred Belgian Shephard and saying "hey we both have dogs and they can do the exact same thing except my dog was free"

they are simply not the same and it's plain to see. you guys are adding up 14 different services offered on the internet and comparing them to a single service.

Another thing is, I'm one of the many people on XBL that even rarely uses the online match making portion so no, it's not like paying $50 a year to unlock the rest of the game i paid for or any other overdramatic way you guys want to put it. I'm paying a reasonable fee for a service that I deemed adequate for my needs. it's as simple as that.

If you can't afford to have a maid clean your house and your whole argument is "hey why pay when I can get my kids/little brother/ girlfriend/ parents to do it for free?" then good for you, just don't get appalled when someone pays for a maid.

a bit of misinformation at me so I'll just take it apart one subject at a time:

Additional cost is additonal cost. Period. I find rechargable batteries a hassle so I'm forced to spend more on regular alkaline batteries. Whether you agree or not, it is an additonal cost, even assuming you purchase rechargables, as they don't last forever either. The real point is that who cares? Small price to pay, yes?

Your claim that you can game for 5 years on a 500 dollar PC is nonsense. I used to do quite a lot of PC gaming and the shelf life for most 3D cards is about 2 years and even less if you want to keep up. True, if you want to play everything on low settings, you can go cheaper but I already explained that I like HD gaming with all the perks of graphics and solid frame rates.

And PC's are not gaming machines; they also play games. They are multi-task workstations and their very nature places them in an entirely different category than consoles.

Your comments about the PSN are sad bits of conjecture and speculation that will turn out to be flatly wrong. The PSN is only a year younger than XBL (the XB360 version) and it is far, far behind. In the last year Sony has done little to imrpove the PSN which is why demos are rare and game-related content minimal. Cross your fingers all you want and keep repeating your "but it's free!" mantra but the PSN will always lag behind XBL. XBL was developed at a hefty cost and is maintained through subscriptions and it shows.

As cliche as it sounds, you get what you pay for.

Grammaton-Cleric

no its not. we are comparing here the forced missing out on parts of a game unless you pay, with a one time $10 fee. the difference here is that with the wiimote, you at least have an option. with live its either you can play online or you cannot. simple.

you used to game on pc's for a while? wow. i have been gaming on pc's since radio shack put out its tandy pc in the early 80s. there are easy ways to extend the usability of a pc for gaming. lower resolution or turning off AA are massive performance improvers that will inflate its longevity. you like HD gaming, thats fine, you pay the premium for it with a pc or with a console (wii is only $250). I routinely make my pc's last 5 years or more. i understand that you prefer not to, but do not imply it is not entirely feasible because i have been doing it for a long time.

i fully understand that pc's do more than consoles, but that gap is narrowing down, and whats more you can buy a pc just for gaming, many people do. i can browse the internet on my wii, use webmail, etc. its not my choice but the option is there. these things are blending more and more every year.

as for the PSN and live, thats convenient for you to argue the 1 year age difference, convenient because you leave out the infrastructure and know how that the original xbox live delivered. in a way the PSN is far far behind, but somehow, it isnt. you can play your ps3 games online. the GUI may not be as cohesive and nice, but it works. at least you arent forced to pay extra for the full versions of your games. also, with live you get most of the features for free with silver. online play is why you pay. explain that? its not all of live you pay for.

i can understand your argument, and i may even agree with it somewhat on a personal level, but when you look at the position of the entire gaming community, in order to be impartial and fair you need to understand the other side of the argument, and the fact that it works for you does not mean it is the best possible solution.

I just went on STEAM and downloaded some new HD movies and the newest episodes of South Park that I missed and then I popped in City Of Heroes logged into Xfire and had a group voice chat with my one friend playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and my other friend playing Orange Box without using additional resources to slow down my game...

Oh wait, I can't do that on those services... so how are they the same as Xbox Live?

What a lot of you are doing is equivelent to getting a 3 legged Pug/Poodle free from the SPCA and then going to someone who paid for a purebred Belgian Shephard and saying "hey we both have dogs and they can do the exact same thing except my dog was free"

they are simply not the same and it's plain to see. you guys are adding up 14 different services offered on the internet and comparing them to a single service.

Another thing is, I'm one of the many people on XBL that even rarely uses the online match making portion so no, it's not like paying $50 a year to unlock the rest of the game i paid for or any other overdramatic way you guys want to put it. I'm paying a reasonable fee for a service that I deemed adequate for my needs. it's as simple as that.

If you can't afford to have a maid clean your house and your whole argument is "hey why pay when I can get my kids/little brother/ girlfriend/ parents to do it for free?" then good for you, just don't get appalled when someone pays for a maid.

smerlus

wait... i cant buy movies on live with silver? cant download a tv show or a demo? on live, you pay for the online pay. stop touting the entire service as what you pay for. its not accurate.

I want to go back to the whole PSN is trash opinion GC has. When it comes to the actual playing of online games, remember this is what MS is having you pay, not the service, for the ability to play online is what they make you pay for, what about the actual execution of games online is so much better than PSN. We all know about the cross game communication and in game friends list, that is excellent but I am talking about how a game runs online. As far as I see PSN is lag free, PSN has dedicated servers Live does not,all the games I have played have voice chat,while live was crashinglast week I was on the PSN playing lag free games. I just want to play games online, I dont care about the bells and whistles just let me play lag free, in that aspect I dont see how PSN fails.

As for the cost or principle question, of course its about the principle. MS gives you the Live service for FREE, you get to have friends lists, you have access to XBLA, all that is free. What they charge you for is the ability to play online, they actively lock out a piece of all onlinegames you pay full price for so that you cannot access it until you pay MS a fee, what the hell is that. If this really was about the service than do it the right way, allow online play for free and have the cross game communication, media bar access all that stuff come with a cost. I do not believe I should have to pay extra to play a part of a game I payed for.

The even weirder thing is how some people seem to be proud to pay MS this fee. Its insane that people want PSN to fail at being free. All gamers should want PSN to succeed, to be as good as Live so that MS has no choice but to stop charging or learn to offer alternatives.Paying money to play online should NOT be the future of console gaming. We having rising console costs, rising game costs and now you guys want to have to pay to play online. I understand the service is great, I understand some are totally willing to pay for it, thats great no problem. The problem is that MS offers no other way, its either pay our fee or too bad, join our service or you get no service at all. Lets say Sony charges to join Home, I would have no problem with that cause I still have the option to play online for free, cause Home is an extra, everything is not tied too it. I believe there is a right to offer a service and a wrong way, and I think MS is going about it the wrong way basically shoving it down everyones throats like it or not.

dvader654

It is pretty early to be handing out Post of the Year Awards (a.k.a. The POTY's) but Jeff Gerstmann and I agree.

I just went on STEAM and downloaded some new HD movies and the newest episodes of South Park that I missed and then I popped in City Of Heroes logged into Xfire and had a group voice chat with my one friend playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and my other friend playing Orange Box without using additional resources to slow down my game...

smerlus

I want to go back to the whole PSN is trash opinion GC has. When it comes to the actual playing of online games, remember this is what MS is having you pay, not the service, for the ability to play online is what they make you pay for, what about the actual execution of games online is so much better than PSN. We all know about the cross game communication and in game friends list, that is excellent but I am talking about how a game runs online. As far as I see PSN is lag free, PSN has dedicated servers Live does not,all the games I have played have voice chat,while live was crashinglast week I was on the PSN playing lag free games. I just want to play games online, I dont care about the bells and whistles just let me play lag free, in that aspect I dont see how PSN fails.

As for the cost or principle question, of course its about the principle. MS gives you the Live service for FREE, you get to have friends lists, you have access to XBLA, all that is free. What they charge you for is the ability to play online, they actively lock out a piece of all onlinegames you pay full price for so that you cannot access it until you pay MS a fee, what the hell is that. If this really was about the service than do it the right way, allow online play for free and have the cross game communication, media bar access all that stuff come with a cost. I do not believe I should have to pay extra to play a part of a game I payed for.

The even weirder thing is how some people seem to be proud to pay MS this fee. Its insane that people want PSN to fail at being free. All gamers should want PSN to succeed, to be as good as Live so that MS has no choice but to stop charging or learn to offer alternatives. Paying money to play online should NOT be the future of console gaming. We having rising console costs, rising game costs and now you guys want to have to pay to play online. I understand the service is great, I understand some are totally willing to pay for it, thats great no problem. The problem is that MS offers no other way, its either pay our fee or too bad, join our service or you get no service at all. Lets say Sony charges to join Home, I would have no problem with that cause I still have the option to play online for free, cause Home is an extra, everything is not tied too it. I believe there is a right to offer a service and a wrong way, and I think MS is going about it the wrong way basically shoving it down everyones throats like it or not.

dvader654

That's fine and dandy that you only care about playing games online. Not everyone (obviously) shares your sentiment. I used to shell out 11 bucks for OXM just to get the demos. Now I pay less than half of that and get far more demos and everything else that comes with LIVE. Financially, I'm actually in a better position than before I had XBL.

Then there is XBL Arcade, which is a reason in and of itself to have LIVE.

There are video and even TV services, whcih are actually pretty cool if you happen to utilize them.

XBL is a superior service for a nominal fee. And all you can do is complain that you have to pay anything at all because, in your mind, it should be free? That it's all about the principle?

And speaking of which, where were your principles when you bought a PS3 and paid a couple of extra hundred diollars because Sony piggy-backed Blueray onto the Playstationbrand name? You and I both ate about two hundred extra dollars because we had to buy a Blueray player to play PS3 games. Was that fair? Shouldn't we have had a choice? (FYI, 200 bucks is about four years of LIVE)

It's not even that I completely disagree with you but rather I think you are being unrealistic. Console gaming isn't PC gaming and the fact that it's free on PC's doesn't mean it's going to be likewise free on consoles. The fact that Sony is offering the PSN for free is unimpressive because itfails to deliver even a fraction of what XBL gives consumers. You make these claims that people want the PSN to fail when in reality they want it to simply be less craptastic. If that means paying for it then I would happily do so.

In reality, if the PSN eventually forces MS to offer XBL for free, the quality of LIVE will suffer because companies treat free services different than they treat services that consumers pay for. When XBL had issues over the holidays MS responded by giving everyone with a LIVE account a free XBLA title. When the PSN craps out, sucks to be us because guess what? It's free.

So maybe online gaming should be free and maybe XBL will eventually become free as well and maybe, just maybe, it will degenerate into the PSN.

All to save an amount of money that couldn't buy a happy meal.

That's fine and dandy that you only care about playing games online. Not everyone (obviously) shares your sentiment. I used to shell out 11 bucks for OXM just to get the demos. Now I pay less than half of that and get far more demos and everything else that comes with LIVE. Financially, I'm actually in a better position than before I had XBL.

Then there is XBL Arcade, which is a reason in and of itself to have LIVE.

There are video and even TV services, whcih are actually pretty cool if you happen to utilize them.

XBL is a superior service for a nominal fee. And all you can do is complain that you have to pay anything at all because, in your mind, it should be free? That it's all about the principle?

Grammaton-Cleric

I think you missed the point of his whole argument. You aren't paying $50 a year for XBL Arcade, Video Marketplace, or demos. All of those things are available to Silver members.

If you can't afford to have a maid clean your house and your whole argument is "hey why pay when I can get my kids/little brother/ girlfriend/ parents to do it for free?" then good for you, just don't get appalled when someone pays for a maid.smerlus

The correct analogy would be either you pay to get your house cleaned or you're forced to live in a pig pen - there's no option involved here, only an ultimatum.

Ultimately the Playstation Network would not exist in anything near its current form if it was not for the creation of Xbox Live. Now as a cost proposition its good value and as a service it works excellently, recent issue withstanding of course.

With regards to the service its quite easy to say "Xbox Live Gold subscribers only get multiplayer as an extra", however its the standard of the multiplayer service that justifys the cost. Its the ease on which multiplayer can be accessed using Quick Match, Custom Match, Player Match, Ranked Match etc. All you have to do is select the quick match option and you are multiplayer gaming. And of course all this comes with voice communication as standard, and if I remember correctly it is provided by Microsoft using a private backbone so to provide the quality.

Its also a little disheartening to see comparisons with the PC, as I see this as a bad comparison. Ive gamed on the PC since 1995 and seen the evolution of online gaming first hand, anyone who played Quake or similar on a 28.8k modem or less will testify things are great now but it does not make certain things fact. Ultimately with multiple applications on the PC you certainly can achieve the features of Xbox Live, but the variables involved are infinitely more complex and I dont need to explain why. And in reality if you take arguably the PC's best online service to date which is Steam, didnt it just rip-off achievements?

Im not going to mention the Playstation Network as I dont personally have any experience of it first hand but from reading multiple news articles on various internet sites, with the exception of Home its simply trying to evolve into a service akin to Xbox Live. And thats great as everyone should be able to game in such a great multiplayer environment.

However I know its a cliche but "You get what you pay for", and by paying I honestly believe that it funds research and development, allowing innovation and expanding the service. And because of this then its worth the small amount of money I pay each month.

i can understand your argument, and i may even agree with it somewhat on a personal level, but when you look at the position of the entire gaming community, in order to be impartial and fair you need to understand the other side of the argument, and the fact that it works for you does not mean it is the best possible solution.

OneWingedAngeI

I understand both sides perfectly, I just see your side as being unrealistic. Just because something was free in the past doesn't mean it will always be free.

Ilive in a word where you pay for what you play. If that is different for the PC universe good for them, although we all know many games require monthly fees. MS dumped a large amount of money into XBL and they pretty much pushed console online gaming forward so paying them 4 bucks a month doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Some of you want to make paying for online gaming some sort offorbidden threshold but I don't see it as that big of deal.

The bottom line is if you people hate the MS model that much, don't support it. Buy a PS3 and use the PSN. As DVADER pointed out, it's functional. Personally, I'm happy to pay as long as the quality remains intact.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

i can understand your argument, and i may even agree with it somewhat on a personal level, but when you look at the position of the entire gaming community, in order to be impartial and fair you need to understand the other side of the argument, and the fact that it works for you does not mean it is the best possible solution.

Grammaton-Cleric

I understand both sides perfectly, I just see your side as being unrealistic. Just because something was free in the past doesn't mean it will always be free.

Ilive in a word where you pay for what you play. If that is different for the PC universe good for them, although we all know many games require monthly fees. MS dumped a large amount of money into XBL and they pretty much pushed console online gaming forward so paying them 4 bucks a month doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Some of you want to make paying for online gaming some sort offorbidden threshold but I don't see it as that big of deal.

The bottom line is if you people hate the MS model that much, don't support it. Buy a PS3 and use the PSN. As DVADER pointed out, it's functional. Personally, I'm happy to pay as long as the quality remains intact.

ok, just keep ignoring the fact that pretty much all the features you tout are free to silver members, except for playing online. the fact is microsoft is the only one who does it.

i enjoy live, but most of the "features" are free ones and its is the ability to play online costing money that is the stickler. not to be mean, but you do not understand both sides because you keep ignoring the fact that most of live is free.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[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.

HiResDes

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.

I don't mean to be an ass, but since no one seems to have been able to come up with an argument against my proposal, I think we can all agree that in the end making XBL may be the best decision for MS, even financially speaking, when considering the future.

"Now I pay less than half of that and get far more demos and everything else that comes with LIVE. Financially, I'm actually in a better position than before I had XBL. "

Thats FREE.

"Then there is XBL Arcade, which is a reason in and of itself to have LIVE. "

Thats FREE.

There are video and even TV services, whcih are actually pretty cool if you happen to utilize them.

Thats FREE.

All those aspects you get for free, it has nothing to do with paying for the service. You are paying to have access to your games online, thats what drives me nuts. Charge me for those things but let me play online,its the way the go about it that doesn't sit right with me.

I understand your fears, about the quality of the service going down. But I believe there is a place for both options, I think having a premium version of online play and a basic one can work. Plus there are many avenues for making profit like advertisements, it doesn't have to be bad, it can just pop up in load screens or on the menu. I think they cangive options and it could work out, if I am wrong, well then in the future we will have to pay to play all online games on all consoles, then I will have zero options.

I don't want Live to disappear, I know I don't want it but I know many do. Therejust has to be a better way than join or don't join.

dvader654

See, that those services are free isn't the point. The point is that they are there with everything else I do pay for, which comes out to four bucks a month.

I do see your point but at the same time I think you're fighting the wrong battle here. Seriosuly, don't you feel more burned by what Sony pulled with the PS3? I know I do and we bought our consoles around the same time last year.

Ultimately, we get screwed on every turn, from software prices to console defects. Why get bent out of shape over such a small amount of money, especially if the service is that good? It seems selective to me rather than practical. XBL is a generally good thing for the console industry and has been since its inception.

For the record, I think the PSN does what it does okay. I expected more after a year but if the PSN is giving you all you personally want and need, power to you.

I don't mean to be an ass, but since no one seems to have been able to come up with an argument against my proposal, I think we can all agree that in the end making XBL may be the best decision for MS, even financially speaking, when considering the future. HiResDes

Ass. :P

Hey, I'm all for having what Live has to offer for free, provided that doesn't mean a harsh downgrade in quality. The thing is, without some sort of inside scoop on how much of those Gold fees go to R&D, maintenance and such, all we can do is make assumptions about what would happen if MS went and made Live free tomorrow.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

i can understand your argument, and i may even agree with it somewhat on a personal level, but when you look at the position of the entire gaming community, in order to be impartial and fair you need to understand the other side of the argument, and the fact that it works for you does not mean it is the best possible solution.

OneWingedAngeI

I understand both sides perfectly, I just see your side as being unrealistic. Just because something was free in the past doesn't mean it will always be free.

Ilive in a word where you pay for what you play. If that is different for the PC universe good for them, although we all know many games require monthly fees. MS dumped a large amount of money into XBL and they pretty much pushed console online gaming forward so paying them 4 bucks a month doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Some of you want to make paying for online gaming some sort offorbidden threshold but I don't see it as that big of deal.

The bottom line is if you people hate the MS model that much, don't support it. Buy a PS3 and use the PSN. As DVADER pointed out, it's functional. Personally, I'm happy to pay as long as the quality remains intact.

ok, just keep ignoring the fact that pretty much all the features you tout are free to silver members, except for playing online. the fact is microsoft is the only one who does it.

i enjoy live, but most of the "features" are free ones and its is the ability to play online costing money that is the stickler. not to be mean, but you do not understand both sides because you keep ignoring the fact that most of live is free.

Here's what I'm touting:

I play online using an incredibly streamlined service that affords me minimal issues, solid connections, and plenty of great features.

I play XBLA games, most of which are not available anywhere else, online.

I pay four dollars a month which for me is next to nothing.

Everything else is gravy.

And please quit insulting my intelligence with your claims that I can't follow a simple logic thread. I clearly stated why I'm happy to pay for LIVE. Agree or disagree but lay off the personal crap.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="dvader654"]

dvader654

"Now I pay less than half of that and get far more demos and everything else that comes with LIVE. Financially, I'm actually in a better position than before I had XBL. "

Thats FREE.

"Then there is XBL Arcade, which is a reason in and of itself to have LIVE. "

Thats FREE.

There are video and even TV services, whcih are actually pretty cool if you happen to utilize them.

Thats FREE.

All those aspects you get for free, it has nothing to do with paying for the service. You are paying to have access to your games online, thats what drives me nuts. Charge me for those things but let me play online,its the way the go about it that doesn't sit right with me.

I understand your fears, about the quality of the service going down. But I believe there is a place for both options, I think having a premium version of online play and a basic one can work. Plus there are many avenues for making profit like advertisements, it doesn't have to be bad, it can just pop up in load screens or on the menu. I think they cangive options and it could work out, if I am wrong, well then in the future we will have to pay to play all online games on all consoles, then I will have zero options.

I don't want Live to disappear, I know I don't want it but I know many do. Therejust has to be a better way than join or don't join.

Huh,XBLA and both the video and tv services are not free. In fact, nothing is free on XBL except for Demos and minutia. If you are referring to the ability to look at things on XBLA, and the video and tv services it would be illogical for MS not to provide free access to view things within the digital store. If you were to go to a mall or a convenient store, and they made you pay at the door just to view the things inside, you'd think they were crazy. I agree with you that you should be able to play your games online for free, but if you are suggesting that there be some kind of tradeoff where I have to pay to get access to the digital store I'm incomplete disagreement...Free access, means more digital sales, it makes complete sense financially. MS wants you to buy things, there is a greater potential for financial profits within the digital store than there is in either hardware or tangible software sales. There is nothing illogical about MS's decision to silver members access to their digital store, however you could argue that you should indeed have to pay for things like cross messaging, etc.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[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.

HiResDes

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.

I don't mean to be an ass, but since no one seems to have been able to come up with an argument against my proposal, I think we can all agree that in the end making XBL may be the best decision for MS, even financially speaking, when considering the future.

That's MS's call. I certainly don't feel compelled to pay for something I can get for free but at the same time I have no qualms paying a few bucks for something I use all the time.

Vader: Those are free because MS can get more money out of you ^_^

One more point before I go, yes I am a bit hypocritical when it comes to other aspects of this industry. What Sony pulled was kind of the same thing but for me buying a console is a choice we have always had to make. I have to buy a console to play games, thats just the way it is, I determined that based on the games and yes online service that PS3 was the right choice for me at the time (sadly most games went to the 360 or got delayed... *sigh*, should have gone with the 360 first). Do I need blu-ray, nope, do I use blu-ray, nope, but for me gamesare everything and I though most of my favorites would be on the PS3 so that overrides all, I will pay to play my games. But once I pay that fee for my console and the games I expect everything that console has to offer to be available to me for free, that includes going online.

Yes I treat online differently than buying a console or games cause it has always been free.I still see companies allowing me to play for free, so until that stops, and there is no way to play online without paying for it I will continue to support the free avenues (as long as it works fine, I dont want a laggy mess). If that is not to be then well one day I may see paying to play online as being a nessesary step in gaming like buying a console, till then I don't.

dvader654

Don't feel bad for nabbing a PS3. I pissed and moaned for months about the Blueray/PS3 issue, then bought a PS3 to get VF5. I now own 10 BR movies so if anybody is Sony's *****, it's me.

I think you summed this whole issue up very well because in the end, it's all about personal choice. As long as we can respect each other and our individual right to choose for ourselves, things will work out. I don't think XBL is going to harm the industry or online gaming and if anything an improved PSN might force MS to re-evaluate their business model.

We'll just wait and see.

Don't feel bad for nabbing a PS3. I pissed and moaned for months about the Blueray/PS3 issue, then bought a PS3 to get VF5. I now own 10 BR movies so if anybody is Sony's *****, it's me.

Grammaton-Cleric

Anyone can be Sony's ****, it takes hard work and dedication to be a Sony whore.

Ultimately the Playstation Network would not exist in anything near its current form if it was not for the creation of Xbox Live. 

MarkMannion

[QUOTE="MarkMannion"]

Ultimately the Playstation Network would not exist in anything near its current form if it was not for the creation of Xbox Live.

Dire_Weasel

The point he was making was that Xbox Live motivated both Sony and Nintendo to get more serious about online which I also believe to be true. Whether you like the fee of Live or not it was a boon to the console gaming scene.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

i can understand your argument, and i may even agree with it somewhat on a personal level, but when you look at the position of the entire gaming community, in order to be impartial and fair you need to understand the other side of the argument, and the fact that it works for you does not mean it is the best possible solution.

Grammaton-Cleric

I understand both sides perfectly, I just see your side as being unrealistic. Just because something was free in the past doesn't mean it will always be free.

Ilive in a word where you pay for what you play. If that is different for the PC universe good for them, although we all know many games require monthly fees. MS dumped a large amount of money into XBL and they pretty much pushed console online gaming forward so paying them 4 bucks a month doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Some of you want to make paying for online gaming some sort offorbidden threshold but I don't see it as that big of deal.

The bottom line is if you people hate the MS model that much, don't support it. Buy a PS3 and use the PSN. As DVADER pointed out, it's functional. Personally, I'm happy to pay as long as the quality remains intact.

ok, just keep ignoring the fact that pretty much all the features you tout are free to silver members, except for playing online. the fact is microsoft is the only one who does it.

i enjoy live, but most of the "features" are free ones and its is the ability to play online costing money that is the stickler. not to be mean, but you do not understand both sides because you keep ignoring the fact that most of live is free.

Here's what I'm touting:

I play online using an incredibly streamlined service that affords me minimal issues, solid connections, and plenty of great features.

I play XBLA games, most of which are not available anywhere else, online.

I pay four dollars a month which for me is next to nothing.

Everything else is gravy.

And please quit insulting my intelligence with your claims that I can't follow a simple logic thread. I clearly stated why I'm happy to pay for LIVE. Agree or disagree but lay off the personal crap.

no, its the fact that people pointed out the difference in several posts and you ignored it. im glad to you everything else is gravy, but to others its not. the only thing live is giving you is the streamlined system. ps3 has a stable network, and has its own downloadable games. it is fortunate that you prefer the XBLA games to what sony has, but that is as much opinion as to what console library you enjoy more.

all in all you are paying for the hub that connects gamers and the online play. the rest is the gravy, is free, and is not what you pay for. dont get me wrong, i enjoy live as well, but i hate paying for it. especially when the pc does it for free and the ps3 does enough of it for free that you at least get the full featured game when you buy it.

i know im never going to convince you otherwise, and thats okay. you enjoy the service as a whole, so for yourself you are able to spread that $4/month across all of the features. the problem lies in the fact that the features are not realistically spread out that way at all. i dont download movies or tons of stuff like that. gold is just an access card to be able to play multiplayer online. its the only true defining difference between gold and silver

All right, lets get rid of some logic loops right away.

For all those people that say they dont have a choice, you're wrong. if you don't like what one company is doing and don't think they are worth it, you move on and go to a different company. you have PC, Wii, PS3, PS2, the DS and PSP to go to... Or simply enjoy the the single player portions of the games. those are your options.

The thing about the Wii remote is exactly the same except that if you dont pay the extra cost of battaries, you're not even going to be able to play a single game on your system let alone the multiplayer part.

For all the bleeding heart gamers that also play PC games, how do you defend DX 10 cards or even Crysis.If you don't pony up the cost of these cards ($200 - $500)you're not playing the game 100% like it was intended to beplayed... some where along the lines, constant upgrades became the nature of the beastand totally accepted. Is it so strange that some people like gaming on PC so much that they don't mind buying a new card to stay ahead of the pack and play a game in all it's full glory? Pc gamers don't have to do that, they can go hop on consoles and never have to worry about having a terrible framerate on a console game (unless the game is designed shoddy)So i see that a bit hypocritical that some of you PC gamers are bringing up the excuse that you're paying for a game but not getting 100% but in turn you have mid range computers where you have to turn off all these effects to play a game but that's ok. simply put, anyway you want to argue it, you're not getting 100% of the game either.

and for the 2nd time. I rarely play games online so I dont see the 4 double cheeseburgers a month that i'm paying Microsoft as for me only playing games online. They offer an exceptional service and i think that measley amount of money is worth every penny just like I think this gamespot community is worth paying the total access fee even though I only utilize the Ice background and blue screen name. I know they MS could make their money elsewhere, they could throw up ads all over the place, raise price of microtransactions.... there's a million things but I don't care, I don't see spending $4 as a budget breaker even though I don't use all of the service

And please don't talk about this nonsense with "using up additional resources", as if its exclusive to the PC. Do you somehow believe that what takes resources on a PC is somehow magically free on the 360? It's not as if I've ever seen anybody complaining about Teamspeak orXfireslowing down their game, anyway.Teufelhuhn

I know that I can group voice chat with people, play games and still recieve IMs from people with absolutely no consequence to gaming when i'm on my 360but on my PC... If i have Yahoo messenger running and i get an IM on yahoo while playing Neverwinter Nights 2, it crashes the game a majority of the times.

so maybe Microsoft is doing something magical,because there are those notices in PC gamemanuals that tell you if you want the best performance out of a game, to turn off as many unimportantapplications as possible for smooth performance but it is mysteriously missing from 360 game manuals