Xbox Live vs Playstation Network: opportunity cost thoughts

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.smerlus

This is silly. Nobody is saying that Microsoft charging for online gaming is an instant dealbreaker. If I didn't give a crap about the console I wouldn't be here discussing it. But as a past and future Xbox user, you can be sure that I'll voice my opinion on certain things that I feel are wrong. It's the same with anything, it doesn't mean I hate the product/service as a whole. As a Microsoft customer, you are being denied certain options...are you seriously suggesting that bailing and purchasing another console is a viable option? Seriously, I can't comprehend why are you so zelously defending Microsoft concerning this.

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.smerlus

This is so irrelevant to this discussion and a really bad comparison. Having DirectX 10 cards is an option available to those who can afford them. I can still play and enjoy Crysis--every single mode it features--without shelling out for high-end cards. Sorry man, but you're reaching.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]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.UpInFlames

This is silly. Nobody is saying that Microsoft charging for online gaming is an instant dealbreaker. If I didn't give a crap about the console I wouldn't be here discussing it. But as a past and future Xbox user, you can be sure that I'll voice my opinion on certain things that I feel are wrong. It's the same with anything, it doesn't mean I hate the product/service as a whole. As a Microsoft customer, you are being denied certain options...are you seriously suggesting that bailing and purchasing another console is a viable option? Seriously, I can't comprehend why are you so zelously defending Microsoft concerning this.

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.smerlus

This is so irrelevant to this discussion and a really bad comparison. Having DirectX 10 cards is an option available to those who can afford them. I can still play and enjoy Crysis--every single mode it features--without shelling out for high-end cards. Sorry man, but you're reaching.

it's common sense, no one is forcing anyone in here to buy a 360 or pay for xbox live yet there's people saying "what choice do we have? easy, buy a 360 and xbox live, buy a 360 and no xbox live or buy another system. it's just that easy.

and reducing graphics for a dated system isn't stretching. pc gamers want to complain that if you don't get the multiplayer portion of the game, you're not getting the full game... Well if you're turning off lighting effect, shadows, water effects and draw distance because your PC isn't updated, you're also not playing the game in all it's full glory and that's an undebatable fact.

it's like watching a Star Wars Blu Ray disc on a black and white HDTV... less quality and an overall inferior experience so yes, it does relate

it's common sense, no one is forcing anyone in here to buy a 360 or pay for xbox live yet there's people saying "what choice do we have? easy, buy a 360 and xbox live, buy a 360 and no xbox live or buy another system. it's just that easy.

and reducing graphics for a dated system isn't stretching. pc gamers want to complain that if you don't get the multiplayer portion of the game, you're not getting the full game... Well if you're turning off lighting effect, shadows, water effects and draw distance because your PC isn't updated, you're also not playing the game in all it's full glory and that's an undebatable fact.

it's like watching a Star Wars Blu Ray disc on a black and white HDTV... less quality and an overall inferior experience so yes, it does relatesmerlus

No, it really doesn't relate because we're not talking about reduced quality or an inferior experience, we're talking about not being able to experience a portion of the game you bought - at all. In any way, shape, or form. It would be like buying the Star Wars original trilogy only to be denied to watch the last movie. Why you refuse to acknowledge this is beyond me. There is no option, there is no justification. It's even worse when you consider multiplayer-only games.

PC upgrades are an entirely different matter. Complaining about not being able to play Crysis on 10 year old PC's would be like complaining about not being able to play Halo 3 on the original Xbox - it's simply impossible due to the technology/game itself, not because of some artificial boundary.

No, it really doesn't relate because we're not talking about reduced quality or an inferior experience, we're talking about not being able to experience a portion of the game you bought - at all. In any way, shape, or form. It would be like buying the Star Wars original trilogy only to be denied to watch the last movie. Why you refuse to acknowledge this is beyond me. There is no option, there is no justification. It's even worse when you consider multiplayer-only games.

PC upgrades are an entirely different matter. Complaining about not being able to play Crysis on 10 year old PC's would be like complaining about not being able to play Halo 3 on the original Xbox - it's simply impossible due to the technology/game itself, not because of some artificial boundary.

UpInFlames

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.smerlus

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.UpInFlames

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

yes it does... here's just one simple example,take off dynamic lighting on STALKER and you can say good bye to the game's atmosphere.

one of the most raved about elements in that game is gone just by reducing one setting.

don't tell me playing a game on the lowest settings doesn't effect the game at all, that's absurd.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.smerlus

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

yes it does... here's just one simple example,take off dynamic lighting on STALKER and you can say good bye to the game's atmosphere.

one of the most raved about elements in that game is gone just by reducing one setting.

don't tell me playing a game on the lowest settings doesn't effect the game at all, that's absurd.

Playing a game on low settings and being locked out of multiplayer are two totally different things. You can't crank a game up to max setting because your hardware simply can't handle it. Theres nothing anyone can do to change that. You can't play online multiplayer on Xbox simply because MS is filled with greedy ****heads (like any good business).

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.smerlus

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

yes it does... here's just one simple example,take off dynamic lighting on STALKER and you can say good bye to the game's atmosphere.

one of the most raved about elements in that game is gone just by reducing one setting.

don't tell me playing a game on the lowest settings doesn't effect the game at all, that's absurd.

UpInFlames is trying to say that Online is a huge part of games nowadays that you shouldn't pay for something that the competitors is doing for free. Playing a game on low setting isn't the same thing as playing a 60$ game without online. That would be a rip-off. I don't see you you think it's good that MS has put a price-tag on their online-service?!

im gessin ur one of the many(being sarcasttic) that likes vista!!!

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.H3LLRaiseR

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

yes it does... here's just one simple example,take off dynamic lighting on STALKER and you can say good bye to the game's atmosphere.

one of the most raved about elements in that game is gone just by reducing one setting.

don't tell me playing a game on the lowest settings doesn't effect the game at all, that's absurd.

Playing a game on low settings and being locked out of multiplayer are two totally different things. You can't crank a game up to max setting because your hardware simply can't handle it. Theres nothing anyone can do to change that. You can't play online multiplayer on Xbox simply because MS is filled with greedy ****heads (like any good business).

my argument isn't that not being able to play 1/2 a game because you have to pay extra and not playing a game on max settings is the same thing. You guys are arguing the middle of my statement and not the end result.

If i can't afford to buy a plane or If i have a plane that is too old to fly, they both result in the same thing... I'm not flying. I know they are two totally different circumstances but the end result is the same.

if you have a mid range computer and you have to turn down all the settings in your game because you don't want to continue paying outrageous prices constant upgrades cost, but that sits fine with you playing a lesser version of a game..why would you complain about a $50 because you think it's an outrageous cost that results in a lesser version of a game?

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.smerlus

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

yes it does... here's just one simple example,take off dynamic lighting on STALKER and you can say good bye to the game's atmosphere.

one of the most raved about elements in that game is gone just by reducing one setting.

don't tell me playing a game on the lowest settings doesn't effect the game at all, that's absurd.

Playing a game on low settings and being locked out of multiplayer are two totally different things. You can't crank a game up to max setting because your hardware simply can't handle it. Theres nothing anyone can do to change that. You can't play online multiplayer on Xbox simply because MS is filled with greedy ****heads (like any good business).

my argument isn't that not being able to play 1/2 a game because you have to pay extra and not playing a game on max settings is the same thing. You guys are arguing the middle of my statement and not the end result.

If i can't afford to buy a plane or If i have a plane that is too old to fly, they both result in the same thing... I'm not flying. I know they are two totally different circumstances but the end result is the same.

if you have a mid range computer and you have to turn down all the settings in your game because you don't want to continue paying outrageous prices constant upgrades cost, but that sits fine with you playing a lesser version of a game..why would you complain about a $50 because you think it's an outrageous cost that results in a lesser version of a game?

rofl thats absurd. you dont turn off dynamic lighting. you turn down the resolution or take off the AA. this is not comparable to missing out on half of the damned game. you are exaggerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

i can play CoD 4 on my 5 yr old pc by just setting the resolution down to 1024x768 (the most common anyway) and losing some of the anti aliasing. that does not equate to "omg the atmosphere disappeared from the game!!". its still the same game. its not missing half of it like you are if you only have live in silver.

rofl thats absurd. you dont turn off dynamic lighting. you turn down the resolution or take off the AA. this is not comparable to missing out on half of the damned game. you are exaggerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

i can play CoD 4 on my 5 yr old pc by just setting the resolution down to 1024x768 (the most common anyway) and losing some of the anti aliasing. that does not equate to "omg the atmosphere disappeared from the game!!". its still the same game. its not missing half of it like you are if you only have live in silver.

OneWingedAngeI

rofl that's absurd. You don't miss out on 1/2 the game if you can't play online mulitplayer. You can play single player and split screen which would make 2/3 and not comparable to half of the damned game. You are exagerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

I can play CoD 4's single player and split screen multiplayer. that does not equate to "omg I only have 1/2 the game!!". its still the same game.It's nota lesser experience because I can't play with a few people online.

Wow..amazing how that works isn't it?

rofl that's absurd. You don't miss out on 1/2 the game if you can't play online mulitplayer. You can play single player and split screen which would make 2/3 and not comparable to half of the damned game. You are exagerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

I can play CoD 4's single player and split screen multiplayer. that does not equate to "omg I only have 1/2 the game!!". its still the same game.It's nota lesser experience because I can't play with a few people online.

Wow..amazing how that works isn't it?

smerlus

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

rofl that's absurd. You don't miss out on 1/2 the game if you can't play online mulitplayer. You can play single player and split screen which would make 2/3 and not comparable to half of the damned game. You are exagerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

I can play CoD 4's single player and split screen multiplayer. that does not equate to "omg I only have 1/2 the game!!". its still the same game.It's nota lesser experience because I can't play with a few people online.

Wow..amazing how that works isn't it?

Teufelhuhn

but you can play split screen with your friends on top of the 5 hour experience. Obviously if $4 a month is too much for you, you don't think it's worth playing online against people that spout racist comments, little kids and achievement whores... your options are to not buy a game that relies so heavily on online portions Or buy the game, play single player and splitscreen with your friends. either way you look at it, you're not missing out on 50% of the game... that's an exageration

you see it's easy to nit pick people's arguments and break them down into nothing

andfor the millionth timei never said that having to pay for multiplayer and having to pay for upgrades to play a game in all its glory is the same thing. what results in both situations is you're not getting the full experience.

every day there are threads all over the internet of how console gamers bought an HDTV and are amazed at the improvements that a higher resolution makes. They rave about that. Everyday there are threads all over the internet from PC gamers that are fed up with paying for constant upgrades just so they can get all they can out of a game.

so you guys can't sit there and tell me that improved graphics don't effect people's enjoyment of a game. How come people that review PC games use these monster computers for the reviews when "hell it's the same game if i turn down the settings"?

it's because they are reviewing the complete, 100%, game the way it is supposed to be played on maximum settings or as close as they can get to them.

You don't see reviewers saying "well i don't want to pay for XBL so we just won't use it and still review the game"

in the end it's for the exact same reason.

so read my post and go back to saying "not paying for xbox live and not paying for upgrades isn't the same thing" for the 40th time so I can repost for the 41st time that that isn't my point.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

rofl that's absurd. You don't miss out on 1/2 the game if you can't play online mulitplayer. You can play single player and split screen which would make 2/3 and not comparable to half of the damned game. You are exagerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

I can play CoD 4's single player and split screen multiplayer. that does not equate to "omg I only have 1/2 the game!!". its still the same game.It's nota lesser experience because I can't play with a few people online.

Wow..amazing how that works isn't it?

Teufelhuhn

yes, he actually is because he has a terribly weak argument. dont forget, no one plays games on the 360 for online multiplayer :roll:

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="smerlus"]

rofl that's absurd. You don't miss out on 1/2 the game if you can't play online mulitplayer. You can play single player and split screen which would make 2/3 and not comparable to half of the damned game. You are exagerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

I can play CoD 4's single player and split screen multiplayer. that does not equate to "omg I only have 1/2 the game!!". its still the same game.It's nota lesser experience because I can't play with a few people online.

Wow..amazing how that works isn't it?

smerlus

but you can play split screen with your friends on top of the 5 hour experience. Obviously if $4 a month is too much for you, you don't think it's worth playing online against people that spout racist comments, little kids and achievement whores... your options are to not buy a game that relies so heavily on online portions Or buy the game, play single player and splitscreen with your friends. either way you look at it, you're not missing out on 50% of the game... that's an exageration

you see it's easy to nit pick people's arguments and break them down into nothing

andfor the millionth timei never said that having to pay for multiplayer and having to pay for upgrades to play a game in all its glory is the same thing. what results in both situations is you're not getting the full experience.

every day there are threads all over the internet of how console gamers bought an HDTV and are amazed at the improvements that a higher resolution makes. They rave about that. Everyday there are threads all over the internet from PC gamers that are fed up with paying for constant upgrades just so they can get all they can out of a game.

so you guys can't sit there and tell me that improved graphics don't effect people's enjoyment of a game. How come people that review PC games use these monster computers for the reviews when "hell it's the same game if i turn down the settings"?

it's because they are reviewing the complete, 100%, game the way it is supposed to be played on maximum settings or as close as they can get to them.

You don't see reviewers saying "well i don't want to pay for XBL so we just won't use it and still review the game"

in the end it's for the exact same reason.

so read my post and go back to saying "not paying for xbox live and not paying for upgrades isn't the same thing" for the 40th time so I can repost for the 41st time that that isn't my point.

no one said reduced graphics settings does not affect the experience at all, but no one with an ounce of logic in their brain can compare that to a massive part of the game, being the online multiplayer portion. split screen co-op isn't even available in every game, and on top of that you need to have someone available to play, and on top of that, you get the same one or two people to play with as opposed to the pool of oh, the entire online community. get real with this nonsense.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="smerlus"]

rofl that's absurd. You don't miss out on 1/2 the game if you can't play online mulitplayer. You can play single player and split screen which would make 2/3 and not comparable to half of the damned game. You are exagerating your argument to absolutely ridiculous extremes in order to make it look better, and it shows the argument is weak. no one is talking about the dirt lowest settings.

I can play CoD 4's single player and split screen multiplayer. that does not equate to "omg I only have 1/2 the game!!". its still the same game.It's nota lesser experience because I can't play with a few people online.

Wow..amazing how that works isn't it?

OneWingedAngeI

yes, he actually is because he has a terribly weak argument. dont forget, no one plays games on the 360 for online multiplayer :roll:

yes, he actually is because he has a terribly weak argument. dont forget, no one upgrades their computers for a better experience with a game:roll:

wow what do you know... it works again

you know what forget it, i concede. playing a game on 1024x768 instead of 1680x1050, and with AA turned down or off is completely comparable to being locked out of online multiplayer versus the entire online gaming community.OneWingedAngeI

hey speaking of only 50%, you're doing a great job of only pointing out only 50% of my argument :D

wow what do you know some might but the majority of pc gamers are not playing with maxed out pcs. whee.OneWingedAngeI

wow what do you know. some might disagree with the cost of xbox live but the majority of xbox live members are completely satisfied. whee.

i'm so amazed on how sarcasm works perfectly both ways. it truly is a great invention

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]wow what do you know some might but the majority of pc gamers are not playing with maxed out pcs. whee.smerlus

wow what do you know. some might disagree with the cost of xbox live but the majority of xbox live members are completely satisfied. whee.

i'm so amazed on how sarcasm works perfectly both ways. it truly is a great invention

really? so because a person has live means they are wholly satisfied? where do you get your logic from because it is highly flawed. i use live because there is no other alternative. i use nintendo's virtual console but i am far far far from satisfied with it. ive used public transportation, but it sucks. you make no sense with this argument.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]you know what forget it, i concede. playing a game on 1024x768 instead of 1680x1050, and with AA turned down or off is completely comparable to being locked out of online multiplayer versus the entire online gaming community.smerlus

hey speaking of only 50%, you're doing a great job of only pointing out only 50% of my argument :D

what? that you can play split screen? try backing up a page and reading my reply to that.

really? so because a person has live means they are wholly satisfied? where do you get your logic from because it is highly flawed. i use live because there is no other alternative. i use nintendo's virtual console but i am far far far from satisfied with it. ive used public transportation, but it sucks. you make no sense with this argument.

OneWingedAngeI

is that the best you come up with? so since you don't like it and since you can come up with a silly metaphor, you are automatically the majority? please, I see you as one of the more intelligent posters on this board but don't tell me that is your come back.

I agree with UpInFlames, I appreaciate, but don't need buddy list or any thing trivial like that. The fact that you're PAYING for online services no matter what the cost is absurd espeacially when the competition doesn't. I don't see why MS can't just make their silver membership have your basic online capabilities (no buddy lists or any of that nonsense) but than again that might be their point, trying to justify paying for online services by adding all this extra stuff nobody really craved for. It's essentially an ultimatum, either you pay or you don't play, which I think is bulls***. I'm getting an Xbox 360 and I hope you guys areexaggerating about paying for putting up freakin' pics, I can understand charging for DLC (if it's REAL content, like an expansion pack) that isn't something like horse armor but charging for something like uploadingpics is the gaming equivalent of charging to breath.greenghost123

A lot of picture packs are sold on XBL, but its easy to link one's X360 to one's PC and transfer pictures from one to the other so its not as if those that refuse to pay are forced to stare at the same old blades (the offical name of the X360's menus) over and over again.

You guys realize xbox live is free on PC right. You get all the benifits of the console version, FREE. If you guys argue (smerlus, GC) that live is an accumalation of steam, xfire, and "14" other services, why is it free on pc?

Doesn't Xbox Live's online structure benefit developers as well? If so then I think that is a very important aspect to look at also.Archangel3371

Alright everyone, whenever you buy a PS3 game, give the dev 4 dollars extra to make it better.

You guys realize xbox live is free on PC right. You get all the benifits of the console version, FREE. If you guys argue (smerlus, GC) that live is an accumalation of steam, xfire, and "14" other services, why is it free on pc?

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]Doesn't Xbox Live's online structure benefit developers as well? If so then I think that is a very important aspect to look at also.F1Lengend

Alright everyone, whenever you buy a PS3 game, give the dev 4 dollars extra to make it better.

but I don't have a PS3, why am I buying a PS3 game and also tipping developers an extra 4 bucks it just sounds irrational...:P

what? that you can play split screen? try backing up a page and reading my reply to that.

OneWingedAngeI

and once again.... why do i have to reread your posts and comment on them when it is clear to me that you haven't read mine and don't even know what you are responding to right here...? just give up like you said you were going to

I can safely say that my position in this thread is the only constant. If i couldn't afford XBL and you offerto pay for it for me.. i would gladly accept it even though I rarely play online.... I would enjoy the service and like having the option to play online.

However let's say I offered you a top of the line PC... would you take it?

would you take it despite your position that an increase in graphics, processing power and being able to use all the bells and whistles in a game really isn't important?

I'm just asking because so far you seem to think that playing a game on medium or low settings is getting all you can from the game and nothing else really matters. you would get the same exact experience from Crysis using your computer now as you would using the best computer one could buy. You have yet to admit that a computer that fully maxes out Crysis is a better experience than what your computer can offer so, in turn that if you were to put Crysis on your computer, you are essentially not playing the game 100% like it was meant to be played.

now like i said, you can just copy and paste this right here ---> "You're an idiot because you are saying that paying for Xbox Live is like paying $500 for a graphics card" but then do me a favor and quote this along with it to save me some time ---> "For the 42nd time you're only taking 50% of my argument."

You guys realize xbox live is free on PC right. You get all the benifits of the console version, FREE. If you guys argue (smerlus, GC) that live is an accumalation of steam, xfire, and "14" other services, why is it free on pc?

[F1Lengend

oh since Xbox live on the computer is the same... I'll log into City of Heroes, Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayerand IM my friends on Xbox Live in a few minutes...

oh wait... again, i can't do that. how is it the same?

~goes back to unlock achievements on Crysis~

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]Doesn't Xbox Live's online structure benefit developers as well? If so then I think that is a very important aspect to look at also.F1Lengend

Alright everyone, whenever you buy a PS3 game, give the dev 4 dollars extra to make it better.

Oh come on now you know what I meant, it helps them by taking some of the burden off of them in respect to online maintenance.

Anyway I don't pay for it because I have too I pay for it because I want too, for me I see it as value for my money.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

what? that you can play split screen? try backing up a page and reading my reply to that.

smerlus

and once again.... why do i have to reread your posts and comment on them when it is clear to me that you haven't read mine and don't even know what you are responding to right here...? just give up like you said you were going to

I can safely say that my position in this thread is the only constant. If i couldn't afford XBL and you offerto pay for it for me.. i would gladly accept it even though I rarely play online.... I would enjoy the service and like having the option to play online.

However let's say I offered you a top of the line PC... would you take it?

would you take it despite your position that an increase in graphics, processing power and being able to use all the bells and whistles in a game really isn't important?

I'm just asking because so far you seem to think that playing a game on medium or low settings is getting all you can from the game and nothing else really matters. you would get the same exact experience from Crysis using your computer now as you would using the best computer one could buy. You have yet to admit that a computer that fully maxes out Crysis is a better experience than what your computer can offer so, in turn that if you were to put Crysis on your computer, you are essentially not playing the game 100% like it was meant to be played.

now like i said, you can just copy and paste this right here ---> "You're an idiot because you are saying that paying for Xbox Live is like paying $500 for a graphics card" but then do me a favor and quote this along with it to save me some time ---> "For the 42nd time you're only taking 50% of my argument."

Dude, having shadows off and some lighting isn't the same thing. Playing Crysis on medium is a great experience. And you're right, Cod4 isn't 50% single player and 50% online. It's 20% single player and 80% online multiplayer. That game was built around online. Buying that game without the online-functionality is the same thing as buying...... I can't come up with anything more absurd than you're argument. If you want to live in a world where every single network service has a fee on it, then let it be so. But yet again, you pay for the online-play, so all the demos and videos doesn't count. MS is charging for the obvious.

You guys realize xbox live is free on PC right. You get all the benifits of the console version, FREE. If you guys argue (smerlus, GC) that live is an accumalation of steam, xfire, and "14" other services, why is it free on pc?

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]Doesn't Xbox Live's online structure benefit developers as well? If so then I think that is a very important aspect to look at also.F1Lengend

Alright everyone, whenever you buy a PS3 game, give the dev 4 dollars extra to make it better.

Are you talking about Live for Windows? Gold memberships do cost money. What's really interesting is that the set-up is the exact opposite of XBL. In Live for Windows non-payingmembers can play online for free, but they don't get the 'premium network experience' gold members do.

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Live/Pages/AboutLive.aspx

PC to PC multiplayer including browsing a listof active PC games is free.

Gold memberships deliver the premium online network experience for $49.95 (U.S.) per year.

I don't know how popular the service is, but it sounds like its gaining more support (unsurprising given the power of MS in the PC arena).

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6180660.html

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]

You guys realize xbox live is free on PC right. You get all the benifits of the console version, FREE. If you guys argue (smerlus, GC) that live is an accumalation of steam, xfire, and "14" other services, why is it free on pc?

[smerlus

oh since Xbox live on the computer is the same... I'll log into City of Heroes, Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayerand IM my friends on Xbox Live in a few minutes...

oh wait... again, i can't do that. how is it the same?

~goes back to unlock achievements on Crysis~

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]

Oh come on now you know what I meant, it helps them by taking some of the burden off of them in respect to online maintenance.

Anyway I don't pay for it because I have too I pay for it because I want too, for me I see it as value for my money.

Archangel3371

thats fair :P

Are you talking about Live for Windows? Gold memberships do cost money. What's really interesting is that the set-up is the exact opposite of XBL. In Live for Windows non-payingmembers can play online for free, but they don't get the 'premium network experience' gold members do.

I don't know how popular the service is, but it sounds like its gaining more support (unsurprising given the power of MS in the PC arena).CarnageHeart

The only thing Microsoft is charging for is matchmaking and cross-platform play which basically means no one is paying for it. Everything else is free. I've heard only bad things about the service, there were a lot of problems with Gears of War and Viva Pinata. It's not doing very well at this point.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

really? so because a person has live means they are wholly satisfied? where do you get your logic from because it is highly flawed. i use live because there is no other alternative. i use nintendo's virtual console but i am far far far from satisfied with it. ive used public transportation, but it sucks. you make no sense with this argument.

smerlus

is that the best you come up with? so since you don't like it and since you can come up with a silly metaphor, you are automatically the majority? please, I see you as one of the more intelligent posters on this board but don't tell me that is your come back.

instead of answering my questions only with questions, please see the main idea of my post, which is that just because people use live does not mean they are satisfied with it. i think you are trying to do way too much with a simple comment instead of taking what i said for what it is.

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]

what? that you can play split screen? try backing up a page and reading my reply to that.

smerlus

and once again.... why do i have to reread your posts and comment on them when it is clear to me that you haven't read mine and don't even know what you are responding to right here...? just give up like you said you were going to

I can safely say that my position in this thread is the only constant. If i couldn't afford XBL and you offerto pay for it for me.. i would gladly accept it even though I rarely play online.... I would enjoy the service and like having the option to play online.

However let's say I offered you a top of the line PC... would you take it?

would you take it despite your position that an increase in graphics, processing power and being able to use all the bells and whistles in a game really isn't important?

I'm just asking because so far you seem to think that playing a game on medium or low settings is getting all you can from the game and nothing else really matters. you would get the same exact experience from Crysis using your computer now as you would using the best computer one could buy. You have yet to admit that a computer that fully maxes out Crysis is a better experience than what your computer can offer so, in turn that if you were to put Crysis on your computer, you are essentially not playing the game 100% like it was meant to be played.

now like i said, you can just copy and paste this right here ---> "You're an idiot because you are saying that paying for Xbox Live is like paying $500 for a graphics card" but then do me a favor and quote this along with it to save me some time ---> "For the 42nd time you're only taking 50% of my argument."

i asked you to go back because my previous post addressed what you were talking about, not that you didnt get what i said. the post was the last on the previous page, and like i said it addressed your comment, so it is logical to conclude that you did not see it. it was not a sarcastic jab i assure you.

i dont see how your position is the only constant, ive had the same position throughout as well. this confuses me. i do not see the point of asking whether or not i would take either free live or a pc. what is the point of that comment? of course i would, anyone would.

what you are failing to understand is that i do not think that playing on med-low is getting all i can get out of a game. when did i ever say that? i never did. you are trying to apply the all or nothing criteria that DOES apply to not having gold and not being able to play online, to someplace that it does NOT apply, and that is graphical setting.

you are trying to apply this and it is flat out inaccurate. not playing on full resolution and turning down AA a bit does not cause you to lose out on the core experience. it is the same thing as watching a movie on a non widescreen high def tv. i think people have been pretty damned satisfied without those features since the dawn of home movies.

they did not watch them in the format originally intended, but they still got the same core experience. it is the same exact thing. the major difference between live and pc with lower settings is that one completely cuts out a feature, and the other offers the flexibility of dynamically adjusting only the level of detail, on a sliding scale based on what every user can afford. live is either you are in or youre out.

and the last paragraph is really uncalled for. im not calling you an idiot, and when i respond to you i go paragraph by paragraph responding to what you are saying. i believe i have addressed every point you have made.

[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

No offense to you personally, but that is just about the most ignorant thing I've read in this entire thread. You seem to equate being first with being relevant and that simply isn't the case. While it's true both SEGA and SONY had their respective networks up before XBL, neither was particularly effective at delivering the goods and both hit the market with the impact of a mouse fart. Basically, SEGA and Sony offered an ancillary service that was damn near a token effort. MS and XBL made online gaming a central component of console gaming and in turn propelled it forward. Console online gaming is what it is today because of MS and XBL, period. Everything Sony, and to a lesser extent Nintendo, are doing online is in direct response to MS and XBL.

You can hate the hell out of XBL and MS all you want but downplaying their contributions to online console gaming isn't going to stick, as it simply doesn't mesh with reality.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.UpInFlames

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

See, I disagree strongly with that mentality. I think playing Crysis at 60% is pointless because the game is largely predicated upon the visuals. If I buy the game I want it to look like the back of the box, not some watered-down version.

Its' really a matter of perspective.

The other thing people seem to be forgetting is that playing any game online requires broadband service, which not only can be expensive (especially if you pay for decent bandwidth) but is also still not available in many areas. Many people can't play these games online and if they do choose to play online that too is an extra cost. Extra costs are abound for console gamers and they can either choose to pay four bucks per month or thay can opt to not pay and not to play.

I think this XBL issue really has been blown out of proportion given the costs of this hobby overall.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.Grammaton-Cleric

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

See, I disagree strongly with that mentality. I think playing Crysis at 60% is pointless because the game is largely predicated upon the visuals. If I buy the game I want it to look like the back of the box, not some watered-down version.

Its' really a matter of perspective.

The other thing people seem to be forgetting is that playing any game online requires broadband service, which not only can be expensive (especially if you pay for decent bandwidth) but is also still not available in many areas. Many people can't play these games online and if they do choose to play online that too is an extra cost. Extra costs are abound for console gamers and they can either choose to pay four bucks per month or thay can opt to not pay and not to play.

I think this XBL issue really has been blown out of proportion given the costs of this hobby overall.

see my above comment about non widescreen/HD movies. same thing applies. just because since the dawn of home movies people havent been watching them in the "intended" format, does not mean they did not deliver the same core experience. turning down the resolution or AA in a game is the exact same thing.

and i dont think anyone is really debating the merits of what live is, its more the idea that we already have enough extra costs, and having to pay the unlocking fee of gold is not at all comparable to adjusting a game's visual quality via a sliding scale of what hardware the customer can afford, and still get the same core experience.

i do think it may be blown somewhat out of proportion as you say, but this is a place to discuss the issue. look at how many of us posting have gold, and you will see that we do indeed still use it. that does not mean we cannot be displeased with it and our arguments are not completely valid in spite of that fact.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. you're sitting here saying that playing crysis on the lowest settings is the same experience as playing it on the highestand it's not. Paying for Xbox Live, you may miss out on MP portions of gamesbut playing any game on minimum settingson most games andyou're missing a lot more.

either way you're not getting the whole experience.... i seem to be able to admit that, you're the one refusing that.OneWingedAngeI

Er, I never said that. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in not being able to max out a game and not playing half of the game at all. That comparison simply doesn't fly.

See, I disagree strongly with that mentality. I think playing Crysis at 60% is pointless because the game is largely predicated upon the visuals. If I buy the game I want it to look like the back of the box, not some watered-down version.

Its' really a matter of perspective.

The other thing people seem to be forgetting is that playing any game online requires broadband service, which not only can be expensive (especially if you pay for decent bandwidth) but is also still not available in many areas. Many people can't play these games online and if they do choose to play online that too is an extra cost. Extra costs are abound for console gamers and they can either choose to pay four bucks per month or thay can opt to not pay and not to play.

I think this XBL issue really has been blown out of proportion given the costs of this hobby overall.

see my above comment about non widescreen/HD movies. same thing applies. just because since the dawn of home movies people havent been watching them in the "intended" format, does not mean they did not deliver the same core experience. turning down the resolution or AA in a game is the exact same thing.

and i dont think anyone is really debating the merits of what live is, its more the idea that we already have enough extra costs, and having to pay the unlocking fee of gold is not at all comparable to adjusting a game's visual quality via a sliding scale of what hardware the customer can afford, and still get the same core experience.

i do think it may be blown somewhat out of proportion as you say, but this is a place to discuss the issue. look at how many of us posting have gold, and you will see that we do indeed still use it. that does not mean we cannot be displeased with it and our arguments are not completely valid in spite of that fact.

Actually, you are dead wrong about non-widescreen movies delivering the same core experience. As a point of fact, they do not. The issue of non-widescreen became so annoying to directors that some were threatening to remove their names from films because the pan and scan versions looked like different movies and compromised their visions.

So, that was a really bad comparison.

Beyond that, you seem to be purposely acting obtuse regarding the concept of extra cost and how it can and does add up in this hobby. The whole concept of a "core experience" that you are pushing is debatable, since everyone has his or her own personal expectations as to what an acceptable experience represents. You say graphical settings and online play are not the same thing, I say they are both important components that can require additional money to fully appreciate and enjoy. You have done nothing to refute this sound argument but rather seem to think your own perspective is the definitive stance, which it is not.

As for discussion, this has been mostly a complain-about-paying-for-online-gaming thread and my advice to all of you feeling slighted by MS is this: don't pay it. If you have Gold cancel it, sell your XB360, and get a PS3. That is the strongest possible message you guys can send to MS.

See, I disagree strongly with that mentality. I think playing Crysis at 60% is pointless because the game is largely predicated upon the visuals. If I buy the game I want it to look like the back of the box, not some watered-down version.Grammaton-Cleric

How Crysis looks is just one of its strongpoints, it does not make the game. That said, this is how the game looks on my PC:

This is actually well below 60%. 1024x768, no AA, no AF,a couple settings are on low, most are on medium and a few on high - and it looks amazing. If playing a game that looks like this is pointless then so is playing every 360 and PS3 game out there.

I'll give you that the decision of playing or not playing Crysis maxed out is a subjective one, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the discussion we were having.

The other thing people seem to be forgetting is that playing any game online requires broadband service, which not only can be expensive (especially if you pay for decent bandwidth) but is also still not available in many areas. Many people can't play these games online and if they do choose to play online that too is an extra cost. Extra costs are abound for console gamers and they can either choose to pay four bucks per month or thay can opt to not pay and not to play.

I think this XBL issue really has been blown out of proportion given the costs of this hobby overall.Grammaton-Cleric

If we're going to include the cost of broadband Internet into the mix then what about electricity? Surely you like to take a snack while playing? Gamer fuel? It's an endless and non-sensical list that could go on forever for no valid reason whatsoever.

I don't think the issue is being blown out of proportion - it is exactly because the cost of this hobby that gamers should be voicing their displeasure. As long as we keep shrugging our shoulders with our credit card in a reached out hand, these companies simply won't stop. This is a fact we're witnessing as we speak.