Xbox Live vs Playstation Network: opportunity cost thoughts

[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"][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.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.

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.

no, it actually wasnt. you still saw the movie. you still got to experience the story and the visuals and all of that. the millions of sales of home movies speak for themselves. there is a certain level of acceptance knowing that you do not get the widescreen HD experience, but you take that because its the best you can do, and you still get to experience it. are you going to tell me that i never actually saw a movie until i got my widescreen hdtv? thats absurd.

in fact, ive gone back and watched movies after the fact which i had seen in SD. its nice. it didn't change the entire experience of the movie however as far as the core story or plot delivery. so no, the comparison is completely valid. elitists like to think that even though they are the vast minority, that they are the only ones who get the real experience. the vast majority will disagree. and as someone who has been on both sides, i can tell anyone that while its nice to experience the film in HD, those who do not certainly still saw the same core film. to claim otherwise is flat out wrong.

i am not being obtuse about anything, elitists are the ones who are obtuse and fail to realize that you can gain the majority of the experience for very modest fractions of the cost, and that is the problem. and in the case of gold, the same experience can be had everywhere else for free. thats the bottom line.

your insinuation that the only conclusion is to cancel if you are unhappy is false. making a statement with your dollar is a nice notion, but it never works out when the medium you mean to influence has a massive head of steam behind it anyway. its like voting republican in new york. it makes no difference. besides, gold is not the only factor in owning a 360. the biggest reason to own any console is without a doubt the library. that is the primary reason to own any one console. the ps3 fails miserably in this area and as such why would i own one?

to bring in another political analogy, choosing a console never equates to getting exactly what you want. you must choose the platform that most closely matches your preference. same goes with choosing a presidential candidate. i have never been happy with what choices i have had in that regard. you choose the lesser of two evils who derives the least from what you believe in. that does not mean you have no right to question or complain about this person when they fail to deliver certain things you believe in.

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.

UpInFlames

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.

UpInFlames

And its sheer nonsense like this that has blown the XBL argument out of proportion. I was cool with your earlier rants until you belted out this mess. Again, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY YOUR GAMES ONLINE. Nor are the majority of games being released based completely around multiplayer features. Seriously, if this issue of charging for online play were as desparate and serious as you make it out to be, then XBL wouldn't be bringing in more customers everyday.

You act as though free online play is an inalienable Constitutional right. XBL is wildly successful and as such, for Sony to even attempt to approach XBL's share of the sptlight, they would have to make online gaming free, and thereby eat the costs of maintaining dedicated servers.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor. Yes, online play is free now, but long term, we'll see. In fact, we may only have to wait and see what happens when HOME is deployed.

XBL has been around for a good while now at the same cost. I find your last sentence completely irrational. And please don't bring up the online aspects of PC gamin, we've already put that issue to bed.

Like GC said, if people don't like it, sell your X360 and get a PS3 while sticking with PC gaming.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]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.UpInFlames

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:

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.

Frankly, those pics look significantly worse than many XB360 and PS3 games.As a point of fact, it hardly looks like the same game I've been seeing pics and watching videos of for the last year. If you think those pics completely outclass what's on the PS3 and XB360, go right on ahead and think that but I'm not seeing it personally.

As for your complaints that my cost analysis is illogical, bear in mind thatit was you and your faction that decided to turn this little XBL molehill into Everest. The fact remains that gaming contains ancillary costs and those costs can range from batteries to video cards, which is really the only point I'm trying to make. XBL is an ancillary cost and for most of us, the cost is small.

Really, the only viable argument you have is that online gaming has always been free in the past so thus it should remain free. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking doesn't always dictate the direction of the market, and in this case MS has opted to utilize a pay model for online. You think that model is detrimental to the industry, fine. I think it's a benign entity that assures my online experience stays top notch.When you also factor in some of the unique types of games that are being offered online through XBL, games like VF5 and the upcoming Super Street Fighter II remake, it is an easy cost to swallow because much of what I play there I cannot play on a PC or even on the PSN.

Again, to those of you who find XBL that offensive, you shouldn't subscribe to the service or even purchase an XB360 for that matter. Personally, I have no problems with MS's model so I can pay four dollars a month with a clear conscience.

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY YOUR GAMES ONLINE.MarcusAntonius

Err, no they're not forcing me to play games online, they're NOT ALLOWING me to play MY GAMES online.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor.MarcusAntonius

And this is where the maintainance argument falls apart when you realize that an indie developer with 150 employees is providing a much bigger service for almost half as much users as Xbox Live.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor. Yes, online play is free now, but long term, we'll see. In fact, we may only have to wait and see what happens when HOME is deployed.

MarcusAntonius

I'm sure that whoever at Sony decided to go with a free online service was smart enough to project what would happen as the user base got bigger. As software and hardware sales climb for the PS3 they are going to have more income coming in, which means they can accommodate a larger base. Games like Resistance, Warhawk, and COD4 all have a large online following and they all run flawlessly. They might not be as big as Halo 3, but they have a hell of a lot of people playing them. More PS3 owners=more money=more servers... The fact remains that I've never experienced lag in a PS3 online game, while I have experienced it on XBL.

Edit:

Also, Microsoft didn't start charging for XBL when the userbase got bigger, it was $50 from the start. Their plan was to charge for it from the get go regardless of how many people signed up. While I can't project what Sony will do as the userbase gets bigger, I'm sure they had a plan from the start. No one at Sony was expecting the PS3 to sell as poorly as it did, so it wasn't a mentalitly of "Oh well, we will just have free online since this thing isn't going to ever have a large userbase."

no, it actually wasnt. you still saw the movie. you still got to experience the story and the visuals and all of that. the millions of sales of home movies speak for themselves. there is a certain level of acceptance knowing that you do not get the widescreen HD experience, but you take that because its the best you can do, and you still get to experience it. are you going to tell me that i never actually saw a movie until i got my widescreen hdtv? thats absurd.

in fact, ive gone back and watched movies after the fact which i had seen in SD. its nice. it didn't change the entire experience of the movie however as far as the core story or plot delivery. so no, the comparison is completely valid. elitists like to think that even though they are the vast minority, that they are the only ones who get the real experience. the vast majority will disagree. and as someone who has been on both sides, i can tell anyone that while its nice to experience the film in HD, those who do not certainly still saw the same core film. to claim otherwise is flat out wrong.

i am not being obtuse about anything, elitists are the ones who are obtuse and fail to realize that you can gain the majority of the experience for very modest fractions of the cost, and that is the problem. and in the case of gold, the same experience can be had everywhere else for free. thats the bottom line.

your insinuation that the only conclusion is to cancel if you are unhappy is false. making a statement with your dollar is a nice notion, but it never works out when the medium you mean to influence has a massive head of steam behind it anyway. its like voting republican in new york. it makes no difference. besides, gold is not the only factor in owning a 360. the biggest reason to own any console is without a doubt the library. that is the primary reason to own any one console. the ps3 fails miserably in this area and as such why would i own one?

to bring in another political analogy, choosing a console never equates to getting exactly what you want. you must choose the platform that most closely matches your preference. same goes with choosing a presidential candidate. i have never been happy with what choices i have had in that regard. you choose the lesser of two evils who derives the least from what you believe in. that does not mean you have no right to question or complain about this person when they fail to deliver certain things you believe in.

OneWingedAngeI

You really need to stay away from the film analogies. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that because you really have no idea what you are talking about. Widescreen was around long before HD had even come to market; it was available on VHS. Widescreen is all about preserving the original aspect ratio of the film, otherwise up to 60% of thepicture can be lost in any given frame. Stephen Spielberg, a man who has forgotten more about film than you will ever know, once commented that pan and scan was the equivalent of having somebody else edit his work.

So no, you don't get the same experience anymore than you get the same experience playing Crysis on a three-year-old video card. Games, like film, are a visual medium. Any alteration to the visual component can damage the overall experience.

As for opting not to pay for XBL, the issue isn't merely one of sending a message but also of having the courage of your personal convictions. If you feel slighted by MS and XBL, you shouldn't support their company. Period.

My sister hates Wal-Mart for their various practices and she refuses to shop there because of those beliefs. It's an inconvenience and she is sometimes forced to pay more for certain things but she stands by her beliefs. You guys have turned this issue into something much bugger than it should have ever been so perhaps you should follow through and not support something you seem to think is damaging to the medium and unfair to the consumer.

Frankly, those pics look significantly worse than many XB360 and PS3 games.As a point of fact, it hardly looks like the same game I've been seeing pics and watching videos of for the last year. If you think those pics completely outclass what's on the PS3 and XB360, go right on ahead and think that but I'm not seeing it personally.

As for your complaints that my cost analysis is illogical, bear in mind thatit was you and your faction that decided to turn this little XBL molehill into Everest. The fact remains that gaming contains ancillary costs and those costs can range from batteries to video cards, which is really the only point I'm trying to make. XBL is an ancillary cost and for most of us, the cost is small.

Really, the only viable argument you have is that online gaming has always been free in the past so thus it should remain free. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking doesn't always dictate the direction of the market, and in this case MS has opted to utilize a pay model for online. You think that model is detrimental to the industry, fine. I think it's a benign entity that assures my online experience stays top notch.When you also factor in some of the unique types of games that are being offered online through XBL, games like VF5 and the upcoming Super Street Fighter II remake, it is an easy cost to swallow because much of what I play there I cannot play on a PC or even on the PSN.

Again, to those of you who find XBL that offensive, you shouldn't subscribe to the service or even purchase an XB360 for that matter. Personally, I have no problems with MS's model so I can pay four dollars a month with a clear conscience.Grammaton-Cleric

They're only low-res screens intended to give you a glimpse of how the game looks because I usually get a vibe that if you lower any settings the game suddenly turns into garbage - when it clearly does not. I've played BioShock and Call of Duty 4 maxed out on my PC which look better than their console counterparts and the state I'm running Crysis in easily beats those games. Especially when you realize just how gigantic the levels are and how interactive everything is - a stark contrast to basically every other FPS on the market.

But paying for it doesn't assure quality, does it? The service has already crashed numerous times and now it's involved in a legal suit.

I think your last paragraph pretty much sums up smerlus and yourself - we think Live is awesome, we prefer paying for it, and anyone who thinks differently isn't worthy of being a 360 owner and a Live user and should just bugger off. Sorry, but it's not that easy. I will buy the console, use the service and still reserve the full right of voicing my opinion on something I view as negative about the product.

They're only low-res screens intended to give you a glimpse of how the game looks. I've played BioShock and Call of Duty 4 maxed out on my PC which look better than their console counterparts and the state I'm running Crysis in easily beats those games. Especially when you realize just how gigantic the levels are and how interactive everything is - a stark contrast to basically every other FPS on the market.

But paying for it doesn't assure quality, does it? The service has already crashed numerous times and now it's involved in a legal suit.

I think your last paragraph pretty much sums up smerlus and yourself - we think Live is awesome, we prefer paying for it, and anyone who thinks differently isn't worthy of being a 360 owner and a Live user and should just bugger off. Sorry, but it's not that easy. I will buy the console, use the service and still reserve the full right of voicing my opinion on something I view as negative about the product.

UpInFlames

PC's will always have the graphical advantage over consoles because consoles are cemented by their specs. I still feel that those pics are unimpressive.

The issue of XBL crashing is unfortunate. The network got hammered over the holidays and MS is compensating people for it. I'm willing to bet that with a phone call I can get the entire month refunded. As to the lawsuit, some people are suing for millions because the network crashed. More than likely they will either be laughed out of court or MS will make them some token offer for the sake publicity. If you honestly think that case has any real legal merit, you are as uninformed about the law as the people who brought suit. Filing a lawsuit and actually seeing the inside of a courtroom are two different things entirely.

I will state that I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth and claiming I said this or that. That's lowbrow and it should be beneath you, especially since you are wearing that Mod tag. I never said if you disagreed with me that you don't deserve to own an XB360 or XBL; what I did assert was that for all of your bravado, belly-aching and complaints you shouldn't support MS or XBL with your money. If I felt as strongly as you apparently do about the issue, I certainly wouldn't. You also seem to have some sort of underlying distain for console gaming so why even bother with an XB360? You present PC gaming as some utopian ideal so stay with that.

All us lowly, ignorant console gamers can pay us our four dollars and be taken for a ride by the big, bad Microsoft company.

Or maybe you can understand that my values differ from yours and that while I understand your position I think it's baseless when applied to the console market.

The issue of XBL crashing is unfortunate. The network got hammered over the holidays and MS is compensating people for it. I'm willing to bet that with a phone call I can get the entire month refunded. As to the lawsuit, some people are suing for millions because the network crashed. More than likely they will either be laughed out of court or MS will make them some token offer for the sake publicity. If you honestly think that case has any real legal merit, you are as uninformed about the law as the people who brought suit. Filing a lawsuit and actually seeing the inside of a courtroom are two different things entirely.Grammaton-Cleric

Oh, I think that the suit is silly, I just used it to make a point - I don't really care much about the suit itself. The crashes are unfortunate (this isn't the first time it happened) and Microsoft is compensating, but it's still a demonstration that paying for something doesn't inherently make it a quality product which was the point you were making, if I'm not mistaken.

I will state that I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth and claiming I said this or that. That's lowbrow and it should be beneath you, especially since you are wearing that Mod tag. I never said if you disagreed with me that you don't deserve to own an XB360 or XBL; what I did assert was that for all of your bravado, belly-aching and complaints you shouldn't support MS or XBL with your money. If I felt as strongly as you apparently do about the issue, I certainly wouldn't. You also seem to have some sort of underlying distain for console gaming so why even bother with an XB360? You present PC gaming as some utopian ideal so stay with that.

All us lowly, ignorant console gamers can pay us our four dollars and be taken for a ride by the big, bad Microsoft company.

Or maybe you can understand that my values differ from yours and that while I understand your position I think it's baseless when applied to the console market.Grammaton-Cleric

I didn't mean to disrespect you nor smerlus with that comment, it was just a slightly humorous paraphrase. I honestly don't think I've made that big of a deal out of this, I'm more under the impression that you and some others were trying to portray that we were making a big deal out of it. I think paying for online play is unfair, I believe it's something that should come out of the box (which indeed is the case everywhere else but on Xbox Live including Microsoft's own GFW Live), it's not something I am offended by, it's not something that keeps me from falling asleep at night. Honestly, I got more riled up about the fact some people were so passionately defending Microsoft and its service in this thread rather than anything else. As if not paying for it is somehow bad for you...that's basically what I cannot understand. I can understand and appreciate the fact that you're pleased with the service and willing to pay for it, but beyond that...I'm at a loss.

The main reasoning were great costs of setting up and maintainance, but even so (which I very much doubt due to previously mentioned facts) - who cares? What does that mean to you? The only valid reason you guys gave is the assured quality of the service, but that has been disproved as well. So what's left?

EDIT: By the way, I don't have a disdain for console gaming, I love console gaming very much. However, I've never even tried to hide the fact that I greatly prefer PC gaming which is far from utopian and has more than its fair share of issues. But online play isn't one of them. :wink:

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"]there is no reason why you should pay for xbox live, that is true. youtube is free and its alot bigger then xbox live. but sadly the cost is so little you dont notice it leaving your bank account. to complain about paying for xbox live is basically sayying "im unemployed or a child" paying for wow is payying for a game after you brought it. xbox live doesnt do that, you pay for a service, which does things alot better then psn. cross service friends list. its shocks me that psn doesnt have these basic friend features in it already, there was a small possibility that mgo for mgs4 would be a seperate game. thats 10X worst then what wow is doing. and hence xbox.UpInFlames

I knew someone would make the MMO comparison - it's not the same thing. Nobody, I repeat, nobody is charging for an online service except for Microsoft...Steam, Xfire, Gamespy, PSN - they all offer the same stuff for free. Hell, even Microsoft itself can't get away with it on PC. The cost itself is not that relevant, it's the principle of the matter. Why should I be paying for something that others are offering for free?

Your kind of thinking is exactly why Microsoft can get away with it. 'It's not a lot of money.' Well, it's not a lot of money, but it should be free in the first place. That makes it a rip-off by default.

Feel_freetwo you really do not know what you are talking about. Have you ever touched a ps3 in your life? It hasnt matched live from 6 years ago? You realize you couldn't bring up a friends list via guide right? What exactly did live do 6 years ago that PSN doesnt do today? The onyl way to see friends was if the game designer had it built into the game. (halo 2)

GC, once again, you know its FREE on PC right! All the stuff you are paying for on 360 is on PC for Free.

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.

OneWingedAngeI

You're right, If a bunch of people use XBL doens't mean they enjoy it... But seeing steady increases of subscribers meansMS is doing something right and I can safely say with confidence that i'm closer to the truth that the majority of XBL subscribers are happy with what they have.

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.

OneWingedAngeI

I'm sorry to say thisbut everything in history proves your "core experience is just as good" idea wrong and I think you actually believe it as a fact. If core experience is all people need, why is technology constantly getting better? why are graphics card and CPU makers making fortunes if outdated equipment is the same thing? Why do PC gamers make fun of console gamers for using a mouse and keyboard when no matter if i play COD 4 with a nintendo remote or a $400 gaming mouse and keyboard setup... i'm playing the exact same game? why is it that console gamers that switch to HDTV are taken back by the improvements in graphics? why don't PC game reviewers just use 4 year old rigs when they review PC games?

I can name probably a million more things all across the globe ranging from first class seats to luxury cars... If i were to watch theHamlet performed by an elementary class as opposed to broadway actors... it's still know the whole story but guess which is the better experience?all of thissimply proves your core experience theory is fantasy in a world where people constantly want more and better and are willing to pay money for more and better things.

I never attacked you and said that you're a liar and you shouldn't get any enjoyment from playing COD 4 at medium settings but if you think that playing that game on medium settings is getting the 100% wholeness of the game, then what do youthink people that have $2500 computers are getting, 130%?

I'm sorry to say thisbut everything in history proves your "core experience is just as good" idea wrong and I think you actually believe it as a fact. If core experience is all people need, why is technology constantly getting better? why are graphics card and CPU makers making fortunes if outdated equipment is the same thing? Why do PC gamers make fun of console gamers for using a mouse and keyboard when no matter if i play COD 4 with a nintendo remote or a $400 gaming mouse and keyboard setup... i'm playing the exact same game? why is it that console gamers that switch to HDTV are taken back by the improvements in graphics? why don't PC game reviewers just use 4 year old rigs when they review PC games?

I can name probably a million more things all across the globe ranging from first class seats to luxury cars... If i were to watch theHamlet performed by an elementary class as opposed to broadway actors... it's still know the whole story but guess which is the better experience?all of thissimply proves your core experience theory is fantasy in a world where people constantly want more and better and are willing to pay money for more and better things.

I never attacked you and said that you're a liar and you shouldn't get any enjoyment from playing COD 4 at medium settings but if you think that playing that game on medium settings is getting the 100% wholeness of the game, then what do youthink people that have $2500 computers are getting, 130%?

smerlus

its good to see that HD has penetrated the entire market, as well as broadband. no wait, it hasnt even come close. my core theory is not a fantasy because everything you list has a cheaper counterpart that everyone else can enjoy and get a mostly similar experience. why do pc gamers all act like they are all running top end pc's? i would love to see the figures on it but it cant even be 25% that run top notch rigs, so it really invalidates pretty much everything to do with that.

ive already said that you dont get 100% of the experience but what you refuse to acknowledge is that flat out being locked out of a major portion of the game is not similar to lowering your settings slightly. are you really comparing dropping the resolution down 2 notches and dealing with some jaggies to watching hamlet performed by an elementary cast?

You really need to stay away from the film analogies. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that because you really have no idea what you are talking about. Widescreen was around long before HD had even come to market; it was available on VHS. Widescreen is all about preserving the original aspect ratio of the film, otherwise up to 60% of thepicture can be lost in any given frame. Stephen Spielberg, a man who has forgotten more about film than you will ever know, once commented that pan and scan was the equivalent of having somebody else edit his work.

So no, you don't get the same experience anymore than you get the same experience playing Crysis on a three-year-old video card. Games, like film, are a visual medium. Any alteration to the visual component can damage the overall experience.

As for opting not to pay for XBL, the issue isn't merely one of sending a message but also of having the courage of your personal convictions. If you feel slighted by MS and XBL, you shouldn't support their company. Period.

My sister hates Wal-Mart for their various practices and she refuses to shop there because of those beliefs. It's an inconvenience and she is sometimes forced to pay more for certain things but she stands by her beliefs. You guys have turned this issue into something much bugger than it should have ever been so perhaps you should follow through and not support something you seem to think is damaging to the medium and unfair to the consumer.

Grammaton-Cleric

really? because i have above average tech in every medium i enjoy, and i can still go back to the standard definition and come away with a pretty much similar experience. ive watched movies in HD and then in SD, most recently 300, and i didn't feel anything different except that it didnt look as crisp. i didn't lose out on an entire scene of the movie, which is what would be comparable to being locked out of online play.

and by using your logic, stephen spielburg should have never made the movie if some people were not going to get exactly what he wanted. that is how you talk about not using live. sorry, but this kind of logic does suffice.

as far as boycotting, no that makes no sense. this isnt walmart where there are tons and tons of other places i can go. first of all, there was no ps3 for a long long time when the 360 came out. second, there are only 2 other players in the market, offering pretty different experiences. the 360 matches my needs most closely, with price, availability, and most importantly library. the ps3 is overpriced, should i have bought that then or should i boycott them as well?

i am a gamer and as such i will own a console. i need to pick one, its not as easy as saying well, they dont all match my criteria 100% so i will just get nothing. please see my other analogy about presidential candidates if i need to make it more clear.

do you use a car? how do you feel about our foreign policies in regards to oil and how it is obtained. do you agree with everything your police department does? there are plenty of law officers operating above the law, so by this same theory maybe we shouldnt call them when we need them. i am not saying that gaming is of the same exact importance, but as we all enjoy this hobby, we full well know no one is going to say well im just skipping this generation because even though i like this console, i believe they are charging for one thing everyone else does free.

finally, i think you and smerlus are going about this argument the wrong way. while most of us can understand that certain audo/videophiles believe everything should be seen and heard and experienced in the absolute top notch way that they were originally created, for most people this is not only not possible, but not necessary. when you can have a mostly similar core experience for fractions of the cost, you do not somehow lose most of the experience because of some lines of resolution or jaggier textures. i do feel however that the way you guys argue this, its like you cannot fathom that anyone would see it another way.

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.

UpInFlames

And this is where the maintainance argument falls apart when you realize that an indie developer with 150 employees is providing a much bigger service for almost half as much users as Xbox Live.

UpInFlames

I think your last paragraph pretty much sums up smerlus and yourself - we think Live is awesome, we prefer paying for it, and anyone who thinks differently isn't worthy of being a 360 owner and a Live user and should just bugger off. Sorry, but it's not that easy. I will buy the console, use the service and still reserve the full right of voicing my opinion on something I view as negative about the product.

UpInFlames

UIF.... I'm sorry but all i see from your posts is contradictions. Your favorite gaming platform has all the corruption you see in XBL and has been doing it for far longer on a greater scale.

1. Less than every two years, pc parts are replaced by bigger and better parts even though the "complete"quality of games on PC isn't getting any better for the most part. Ask a bunch of PC gamers what their favorite RPGs are and you get responses naming 5 - 10 year old games, Same with FPS's, RTS's and so on and so forth. Yet these computer parts makers are making a fortune from flooding the market with better, faster, more! Before you point the finger at another platform and say "How dare they charge $50 for something we've had for free for years" why don't you ask "How dare these companies keep touting new GPUs, CPU's every 18 months while consoles have long 6 year life spans without hits to framerates, and all that?

2. Why aren't you in a topic complaining about all the MMORPG's that charge? Here's another thing you claim is outrageous that is happening in your own back yard. You have a company that went almost bankrupt (Acclaim) offering MMORPG's for free while game companies that have been successful their whole lives are making fortunes off of charging.

3. Lastly there's no reason for you to get offended by what we are saying. We're not some XBL patriots that are here to make sure none of you free online hippies ever step foot in our cyberspace. We're just saying that how are you going to buck this trend if you're willing to pay for something you don't believe in? How is MS going to know that you are upset with their service when you're using it and paying them for it? Simply they won't or if they do, they won't care because they'll have your money.

1. Less than every two years, pc parts are replaced by bigger and better parts even though the "complete"quality of games on PC isn't getting any better for the most part. Ask a bunch of PC gamers what their favorite RPGs are and you get responses naming 5 - 10 year old games, Same with FPS's, RTS's and so on and so forth. Yet these computer parts makers are making a fortune from flooding the market with better, faster, more! Before you point the finger at another platform and say "How dare they charge $50 for something we've had for free for years" why don't you ask "How dare these companies keep touting new GPUs, CPU's every 18 months while consoles have long 6 year life spans without hits to framerates, and all that?

2. Why aren't you in a topic complaining about all the MMORPG's that charge? Here's another thing you claim is outrageous that is happening in your own back yard. You have a company that went almost bankrupt (Acclaim) offering MMORPG's for free while game companies that have been successful their whole lives are making fortunes off of charging.

3. Lastly there's no reason for you to get offended by what we are saying. We're not some XBL patriots that are here to make sure none of you free online hippies ever step foot in our cyberspace. We're just saying that how are you going to buck this trend if you're willing to pay for something you don't believe in? How is MS going to know that you are upset with their service when you're using it and paying them for it? Simply they won't or if they do, they won't care because they'll have your money.smerlus

Before I respond I just want to say that the first two points you're making have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand and I fail to understand why do you keep derailing this thread with it. These are completely seperate, unrelated issues which should be discussed (and are discussed constantly) somewhere else.

1. How do you know that I'm not? That's the nature of PC gaming, it's always moving forward, but I do have a choice. I don't buy new tech coming out every year which doesn't even utilize its full capacity in the case of 99.9% games out there (there are always exceptions such as Crysis) because I simply don't NEED them to enjoy PC games. I simply wait until the prices drop (and they drop insanely fast) and upgrade when I'm ready and when I feel there's a real need for it. This is only comparable (barely) to buying new consoles, not online services. The cutting edge tech that comes out every year is there for the aficionados, an extremely small portion of PC gamers - I cannot emphasize this enough.

2. Because I don't give a flying **** about MMO's.

3. I don't get offended that easily. :wink: I think you're mistaken a bit here, I'm not on any kind of a crusade. We're having a discussion and I've said my opinion. Just because I say I'm against killing whales but don't immediately jump to join Greenpeace doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself. Have you ever bought something that you weren't fully and unequivocally satisfied with? Did you immediately chuck it in the garbage upon that realization? It's not like there's much of a choice here. I would like to buy a console...there's three of them. I could name pros and cons for each of them - some more, some less. This is one of the cons of the 360.

I very much doubt that I'm ever going to be a full Xbox Live subscriber. The most realistic scenario is that I'll get a 3-month card every once in a while to play some online games.

PS3 online is still pretty new, and they are constantly imroving and updating it. very soon it will be equivalent to XBOX LIVE but free. then, when the playing field is even, PLAYSTATION HOME will come out and it will become a superior online sevice for free. who wouldn't want that?

Oh, and doesn't this belong in the System Wars forum?mechworrior762

thanks for the contribution

[QUOTE="mechworrior762"]Oh, and doesn't this belong in the System Wars forum?HiResDes

thanks for the contribution

Yeah... I don't want to discuss this with the people at system wars. I want to discuss it with my fellow GGDers.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY YOUR GAMES ONLINE.UpInFlames

Err, no they're not forcing me to play games online, they're NOT ALLOWING me to play MY GAMES online.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor.MarcusAntonius

And this is where the maintainance argument falls apart when you realize that an indie developer with 150 employees is providing a much bigger service for almost half as much users as Xbox Live.

As well as all the services that XBL provides? Not a shot a PSN, but I'm only saying...........

By the way, perhaps if Sony wasn't providing free online play, maybe I could have a $399 PS3 that was backwards compatible. You don't like paying for online gaming and I don't like overpaying for a console that has additional features that I believe should be available on all models.

PS3 online is still pretty new, and they are constantly imroving and updating it. very soon it will be equivalent to XBOX LIVE but free. then, when the playing field is even, PLAYSTATION HOME will come out and it will become a superior online sevice for free. who wouldn't want that?

digxxbitty

sorry but your idea of PSN surpassing XBL requires MS to stop improving which they haven't done since the service came out.

xbox 360 has been around for 2 years. xboxlive has been around for 6 years. they havnt even managed to equal xboxlive 6 years ago yetfeel_freetwo

OneWingedAngeI

I notice you like to argue technicalities and not the full point

ok so you pulled out some random percentage that proves that HDTV, Nvidia 8800 GT's and whateverother NEW technology isn't in every household. too bad my point on the "core experience" still stands because color tvs with microchips and not tubes or black and white tvs are the standard. Cd's and not vinyl, tape or 8 tracks are the standard, DVD and not VHS are the standard.

My POINT was is that people are constantly looking for a better experience in everything and it's only a matter of time before thae majority of house holds in 1st world nations ( just so you can't start naming villages in southern africa to prove that little part of a point off) have HDTVs because the experience on a 4 inch black and white screen is not the same... you personal view of core experience is the minority and history proves that.

And your point on oil prices and police has no standing here... the point of Xbox Live and PC gaming is about hobbies with extra costs. these are things that are not needed in life. If i get shot, robbed, my car stolen or i'm raped that is an unfortunate circumstance that i have no control overand I have to call the cops. I have to travel to work so that I canwork and make money to enjoy other things in life...

Nobody on this whole forum HAS to play games.. it's a hobby and just like other hobbies it has expenses. why would you pick a hobby that has expenses and practices you don't agree with? I don't want to become a game hunter/ fisherman because i know I have to pay for permits, only do it a certaintime of the year, and also constantly have to pay for bait, bullets, hooks and so forth. and even If i dont mind thatand if I wanted to, I could simply be a bow hunter, you wouldn't see me complain about rifle hunters because of the cost of bullets,gun cleaning, sighting and all that

I don't know, these arguments all seem so trite that I'm having a hard time understanding them especially coming from a PC gamer. Every single argument you guys have made about XBLeffects PC gaming on a much larger scale.

I upgraded my computer to handle Oblivion on medium settings and now I can't really run Witcher on medium settings and STALKER is also running a little iffy. I have to upgrade pretty much everything on my computer and it's going to cost me around $700 (14 years of Xbox live) just so I can get back to running games that are coming out on Medium settings again... and this happens roughly every three years. I'm not complaining because I actually like building my own computer, customizingit the way i like and it'sa gaming expense thati figured long ago that it was needed for me to enjoygaming.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY YOUR GAMES ONLINE.MarcusAntonius

Err, no they're not forcing me to play games online, they're NOT ALLOWING me to play MY GAMES online.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor.MarcusAntonius

And this is where the maintainance argument falls apart when you realize that an indie developer with 150 employees is providing a much bigger service for almost half as much users as Xbox Live.

As well as all the services that XBL provides? Not a shot a PSN, but I'm only saying...........

By the way, perhaps if Sony wasn't providing free online play, maybe I could have a $399 PS3 that was backwards compatible. You don't like paying for online gaming and I don't like overpaying for a console that has additional features that I believe should be available on all models.

Oh, you mean like a harddrive?

2. Why aren't you in a topic complaining about all the MMORPG's that charge? Here's another thing you claim is outrageous that is happening in your own back yard. You have a company that went almost bankrupt (Acclaim) offering MMORPG's for free while game companies that have been successful their whole lives are making fortunes off of charging.

smerlus

Personally I dont care that much about paying for live, it costs me the price of one new game per year to have all the extra fluff that makes online gaming that much more enjoyable. I would rather pay to have a more full experience than a barebones one. However in the future, for their next console I think MS should have silver accounts able to play games online right out of the box and have the gold accounts offer all the extra fluff and some discounts of live purchases and such. That would be ideal for everyone. I do overall agree that silver members should be able to play games online at no charge. They could easily offset the costs of allowing people to game online for free with some targeted advertising and such on the XBL page and menus while you are trying to go into your match or something.GodModeEnabled

I like this idea. I would probably still pay for Gold but ideally I think more of my friends would be motivated to play online if what you suggested would be initiated by Microsoft.

All in all, I think it comes down to this... if paying $4/month for something that I find value in is the worst I can find to complain about Live service then that is just a battle I don't find worth fighting.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY YOUR GAMES ONLINE.F1Lengend

Err, no they're not forcing me to play games online, they're NOT ALLOWING me to play MY GAMES online.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor.MarcusAntonius

And this is where the maintainance argument falls apart when you realize that an indie developer with 150 employees is providing a much bigger service for almost half as much users as Xbox Live.

As well as all the services that XBL provides? Not a shot a PSN, but I'm only saying...........

By the way, perhaps if Sony wasn't providing free online play, maybe I could have a $399 PS3 that was backwards compatible. You don't like paying for online gaming and I don't like overpaying for a console that has additional features that I believe should be available on all models.

Oh, you mean like a harddrive?

That's a completely invalid comparision.
MMORPGs are an actual, valid subscription service... they provide thousands of dedicated servers, plenty of additional, evolving content, and in-game gamemasters and customer support that are generally available 24/7.
XBL is a peer-to-peer service... games are hosted "in the wild" on client Xbox 360s. Processor time, bandwidth, and memory are provided by the customer and his 360.
Ironically, when the 360 starts getting MMORPGs, XBL customers will end up paying both the XBL fee and the MMORPG fee.Dire_Weasel

It's a totally valid comparison. If everything ran just like a peer to peer network, then XBL wouldn't have been down during christmas

so obviously they have servers, they have to do maintenance and repairs, they constantly upgrade the service, supply customer support everything a MMORPG company does for a fee, and also that some MMORPG companies do for free...

so how are they not similar?

Or a rumble enabled controller? Or a headset? Or cables than can transmit HD signals? Live isn't the only thing that is standard otherplaces that has an extera chargehair001

[QUOTE="hair001"]Or a rumble enabled controller? Or a headset? Or cables than can transmit HD signals? Live isn't the only thing that is standard otherplaces that has an extera chargerragnaar

Ya, not to mention I got the HDMI cable for 5 dollars, and a headset with warhawk (wireless btw...)

But my point is that HE was the one who brought it up when obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect.

Back on topic, I guess no one wants to argue any of my points? How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free. Second...you guys keep touting all these great xbox features that PSN doesnt have so its worth the money...but that stuff is free too. All the features mean nothing cause you are only paying to PLAY online.

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]
That's a completely invalid comparision.
MMORPGs are an actual, valid subscription service... they provide thousands of dedicated servers, plenty of additional, evolving content, and in-game gamemasters and customer support that are generally available 24/7.
XBL is a peer-to-peer service... games are hosted "in the wild" on client Xbox 360s. Processor time, bandwidth, and memory are provided by the customer and his 360.
Ironically, when the 360 starts getting MMORPGs, XBL customers will end up paying both the XBL fee and the MMORPG fee.smerlus

It's a totally valid comparison. If everything ran just like a peer to peer network, then XBL wouldn't have been down during christmas

so obviously they have servers, they have to do maintenance and repairs, they constantly upgrade the service, supply customer support everything a MMORPG company does for a fee, and also that some MMORPG companies do for free...

so how are they not similar?

It's a totally valid comparison. If everything ran just like a peer to peer network, then XBL wouldn't have been down during christmas

smerlus

Ya, not to mention I got the HDMI cable for 5 dollars, and a headset with warhawk (wireless btw...)

But my point is that HE was the one who brought it up when obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect.

Back on topic, I guess no one wants to argue any of my points? How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free. Second...you guys keep touting all these great xbox features that PSN doesnt have so its worth the money...but that stuff is free too. All the features mean nothing cause you are only paying to PLAY online.

F1Lengend

people already mentioned your points but you don't want to listen to them. I said I'll pop in City of heroes and talk to my friends on Neverwinter Nights 2 and Crysis while I send messages to my other friend playing the Witcher...

oh i can't do that because all of PC's games aren't integrated with live

I assure you that all games on XBL are run peer-to-peer. Obviously something on the system (matchmaking, login, stat-tracking?) is run through a centralized system, 'cause yep, it's still broken right now. Forget "during Christmas", it was unplayable as of yesterday, January 6th.
XBL has no dedicated game servers, which, unlike matchmaking, is a service that's actually worth paying for.
And again, when the 360 gets an MMORPG you'll be paying $50/year for XBL and then $X/month for each MMORPG, so it's lose-lose.Dire_Weasel

it doesn't matter what you can assure me. Microsoft has all of the same expenses that Blizzard has with WoW and they both decided to charge and it's not going to change anytime soon so what's the point?

And xbox live already has 2 MMORPG's that the company chargers for because they also have their expenses

It all depends on the games you want to play. $50 a year works out to ~4 a month, which should really be a negligible amount for anyone with a job.H3LLRaiseR

Even if you don't have a job, that's still pretty cheap...

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY YOUR GAMES ONLINE.F1Lengend

Err, no they're not forcing me to play games online, they're NOT ALLOWING me to play MY GAMES online.

And there something else, though I didn't want to state this earlier for fear of some hot-tempered moderator misinterpreting this statement as a system wars rant. The little fact that hardly anyone is talking about is that it cannot be too difficult to maintain free online play with dedicated servers when your userbase is significantly less than your competitor.MarcusAntonius

And this is where the maintainance argument falls apart when you realize that an indie developer with 150 employees is providing a much bigger service for almost half as much users as Xbox Live.

As well as all the services that XBL provides? Not a shot a PSN, but I'm only saying...........

By the way, perhaps if Sony wasn't providing free online play, maybe I could have a $399 PS3 that was backwards compatible. You don't like paying for online gaming and I don't like overpaying for a console that has additional features that I believe should be available on all models.

Oh, you mean like a harddrive?

Meaning?

How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free.

F1Lengend

This issue has already been addressed.............pages ago.:| I can't help you if you're not reading the replies in this thread so quit whining about nobody addressing your points.

first off because of the services it provides you includin warranty for example here in mexico the number they give is comunicated to spain. and then to get it fixed you have to send it to spain so mainly because of the warranty services that is provided by the PS

by the way can anyone give me XB warranty phone number for mexico?

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]
I assure you that all games on XBL are run peer-to-peer. Obviously something on the system (matchmaking, login, stat-tracking?) is run through a centralized system, 'cause yep, it's still broken right now. Forget "during Christmas", it was unplayable as of yesterday, January 6th.
XBL has no dedicated game servers, which, unlike matchmaking, is a service that's actually worth paying for.
And again, when the 360 gets an MMORPG you'll be paying $50/year for XBL and then $X/month for each MMORPG, so it's lose-lose.smerlus

it doesn't matter what you can assure me. Microsoft has all of the same expenses that Blizzard has with WoW and they both decided to charge and it's not going to change anytime soon so what's the point?

And xbox live already has 2 MMORPG's that the company chargers for because they also have their expenses

they most certainly do not. blizzard has dedicated servers fully supporting everything done in the game. live has a central hub but games actually run off peer to peer. i can promise the cost of running wow servers, the redundancy hardware needed to backup the data (which it is all backed up multiple times for emergency and rollbacks) is obviously going to cost much more than live (which is evident in the price difference). WoW also requires a large staff who are constantly supporting the playerbase. GM's in game do not come free. live is unmonitored.

i agree that the fees probably arent going anywhere anytime soon, but live is not comparable to whatWoW does.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]
I assure you that all games on XBL are run peer-to-peer. Obviously something on the system (matchmaking, login, stat-tracking?) is run through a centralized system, 'cause yep, it's still broken right now. Forget "during Christmas", it was unplayable as of yesterday, January 6th.
XBL has no dedicated game servers, which, unlike matchmaking, is a service that's actually worth paying for.
And again, when the 360 gets an MMORPG you'll be paying $50/year for XBL and then $X/month for each MMORPG, so it's lose-lose.OneWingedAngeI

it doesn't matter what you can assure me. Microsoft has all of the same expenses that Blizzard has with WoW and they both decided to charge and it's not going to change anytime soon so what's the point?

And xbox live already has 2 MMORPG's that the company chargers for because they also have their expenses

they most certainly do not. blizzard has dedicated servers fully supporting everything done in the game. live has a central hub but games actually run off peer to peer. i can promise the cost of running wow servers, the redundancy hardware needed to backup the data (which it is all backed up multiple times for emergency and rollbacks) is obviously going to cost much more than live (which is evident in the price difference). WoW also requires a large staff who are constantly supporting the playerbase. GM's in game do not come free. live is unmonitored.

i agree that the fees probably arent going anywhere anytime soon, but live is not comparable to whatWoW does.

again, you are arguing technicalities and not the point.

they are both services, the companies that provide the services both have expenses for running the services, they both decided to charge fees despite the fact that there are other companies out there offering the similar services for free...

I know Bill Gates works at one or not the other so that makes them different, they also have head quaters in differen't areas of the world so that makes them different even further... but my main point still stands

how isn't that the same?

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]

Ya, not to mention I got the HDMI cable for 5 dollars, and a headset with warhawk (wireless btw...)

But my point is that HE was the one who brought it up when obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect.

Back on topic, I guess no one wants to argue any of my points? How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free. Second...you guys keep touting all these great xbox features that PSN doesnt have so its worth the money...but that stuff is free too. All the features mean nothing cause you are only paying to PLAY online.

smerlus

people already mentioned your points but you don't want to listen to them. I said I'll pop in City of heroes and talk to my friends on Neverwinter Nights 2 and Crysis while I send messages to my other friend playing the Witcher...

oh i can't do that because all of PC's games aren't integrated with live

You can do that with a silver account....

[QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="hair001"]Or a rumble enabled controller? Or a headset? Or cables than can transmit HD signals? Live isn't the only thing that is standard otherplaces that has an extera chargeF1Lengend

Ya, not to mention I got the HDMI cable for 5 dollars, and a headset with warhawk (wireless btw...)

But my point is that HE was the one who brought it up when obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect.

Back on topic, I guess no one wants to argue any of my points? How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free. Second...you guys keep touting all these great xbox features that PSN doesnt have so its worth the money...but that stuff is free too. All the features mean nothing cause you are only paying to PLAY online.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="F1Lengend"]

Ya, not to mention I got the HDMI cable for 5 dollars, and a headset with warhawk (wireless btw...)

But my point is that HE was the one who brought it up when obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect.

Back on topic, I guess no one wants to argue any of my points? How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free. Second...you guys keep touting all these great xbox features that PSN doesnt have so its worth the money...but that stuff is free too. All the features mean nothing cause you are only paying to PLAY online.

F1Lengend

people already mentioned your points but you don't want to listen to them. I said I'll pop in City of heroes and talk to my friends on Neverwinter Nights 2 and Crysis while I send messages to my other friend playing the Witcher...

oh i can't do that because all of PC's games aren't integrated with live

You can do that with a silver account....

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="hair001"]Or a rumble enabled controller? Or a headset? Or cables than can transmit HD signals? Live isn't the only thing that is standard otherplaces that has an extera chargehair001

Ya, not to mention I got the HDMI cable for 5 dollars, and a headset with warhawk (wireless btw...)

But my point is that HE was the one who brought it up when obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect.

Back on topic, I guess no one wants to argue any of my points? How about the fact that the pc has live and all its functions for free. Second...you guys keep touting all these great xbox features that PSN doesnt have so its worth the money...but that stuff is free too. All the features mean nothing cause you are only paying to PLAY online.

Oh I agree, thats even what i said "obviously it goes both ways. Neither are perfect." I also subscribe to live (been subscirbed since mech warrior) but that doesnt mean I like it. If I could get on to play games free, I wouldnt care about all the bells and whistles, besides, its not like they can remove the integrated guide button so that plus online gaming is good enough for me. But it doesn't work that way.