You asked the question in the original post? I'm surprised no one pointed out that it didn't make a lick of sense. Of course no one would pay $50 for Gold if it offered no additional features. In reality it does offer features over Silver, and that's what people pay for. You can easily make the argument that Gold subscribers only really pay for online play, and you wouldn't be the first to do so here, but that hypothetical doesn't support such an argument no matter how you look at it. I mean, I posted the same exact question on a different board and majority understood it just fine. Fine, my question doesn't make a whole lot of point, here at least. My argument still remains that we only pay to play not because of its so awesome features. I can say that that's true of me, but then I have no one on my Friends list and probably never will, so I don't benefit from any of the social features. I'm sure it's worth it to some people, but with all Sony offers for free you would think they could at least keep the fees a bit lower.[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"][QUOTE="def_mode"] I asked the same question on a different video gaming related boards and they understood it alright and put up a better and well thought up argument. I should have just asked what you just said. Oh well, what's done is done. def_mode
a question for XBL Gold users
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="Respawn-d"]
Its a clever way of disguising a "gold account vs psn" thread ;)
Tc is right ppl only pay cause theres no other choice not cause they feel its worth the money
def_mode
Don't presume to speak for me.
I pay for Xbox Live Gold because it IS worth it to me. I could easily settle for PSN, but I don't. I have it, but play on Xbox Live most of the time.
Value is more than a price tag.
You sure if Silver offers everything Gold offers, you'd still prefer to pay for Gold just to justify that Gold is worth every penny you pay for it?There you go. You just clarified your question. If Silver offered EVERYTHING Gold offered, of course, why bother paying for Gold? What's the differentiator other than the fee? Nada.
Previous comments, especially your first, hints at the notion that you believe Gold only allows you get into multiplayer sessions. That's not everything.
The reality of the situation is that Silver does not offer evertying Gold does because there's more to Gold than multiplayer sessions.
I DO continue to pay because of its features and the way it's set up. From the party system to the cross game invites to community events that are easily found right there on the dash to the care given the community through its community managers.
If people don't find value in those things,then that's all well and good. There are those of us that do find value in them.
You sure if Silver offers everything Gold offers, you'd still prefer to pay for Gold just to justify that Gold is worth every penny you pay for it?[QUOTE="def_mode"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]
Don't presume to speak for me.
I pay for Xbox Live Gold because it IS worth it to me. I could easily settle for PSN, but I don't. I have it, but play on Xbox Live most of the time.
Value is more than a price tag.
VoodooHak
There you go. You just clarified your question. If Silver offered EVERYTHING Gold offered, of course, why bother paying for Gold? What's the differentiator other than the fee? Nada.
Previous comments, especially your first, hints at the notion that you believe Gold only allows you get into multiplayer sessions. That's not everything.
The reality of the situation is that Silver does not offer evertying Gold does because there's more to Gold than multiplayer sessions.
Is this some kind of academic exercise? I get the feeling that there's some underlying point you're trying to make. Why not just come out and make that point?
Think again for the last time. It might not apply to you but to others it does. Fanboys says XBL deserves the money they pay for yet they will ditch it if they had the option of getting the same service for free. Its not really a rocket science not to understand. Yes I may have used a wrong question or set of words but my point still remains that we pay for XBL so we could play online and not because it deserved our money or that its worth it. Please take your time understanding the simplicity in this, if you cannot get the point, there's really nothing I can do.
If I had the option of paying rent for my house, or have it all for free, I wonder what I would choose???? :|
PandaBear86
You'd rather live in a cardboard box?
There you go. You just clarified your question. If Silver offered EVERYTHING Gold offered, of course, why bother paying for Gold? What's the differentiator other than the fee? Nada.Previous comments, especially your first, hints at the notion that you believe Gold only allows you get into multiplayer sessions. That's not everything.
The reality of the situation is that Silver does not offer evertying Gold does because there's more to Gold than multiplayer sessions.
I DO continue to pay because of its features and the way it's set up. From the party system to the cross game invites to community events that are easily found right there on the dash to the care given the community through its community managers.
If people don't find value in those things,then that's all well and good. There are those of us that do find value in them.
VoodooHak
Well said......very well said in fact.
SW is such an awesome place where people really do seam concerned about how I spend my money - pure sweetness. :twisted:
Oh and yes, I'd take something for free > paying for it like most but it's just not offered that way. :P
Think again for the last time. It might not apply to you but to others it does. Fanboys says XBL deserves the money they pay for yet they will ditch it if they had the option of getting the same service for free. Its not really a rocket science not to understand. Yes I may have used a wrong question or set of words but my point still remains that we pay for XBL so we could play online and not because it deserved our money or that its worth it. Please take your time understanding the simplicity in this, if you cannot get the point, there's really nothing I can do.
def_mode
You act if this is some great revelation. If you have two identical items, of course you would choose the one that's free. But then again, that's not really your point.
My point of contention with you is when, based on the above, you draw the conclusion that people pay for XBL to play online, and not for its features. Talk about non sequiturs.
The two are not mutually exclusive as one serves the other. I pay because it lets me play online WITH those features. For me, playing online would be lessened if those features are were not there. This is why I feel it deserves my money. This is why I feel it's worth it. Like you said, not rocket science.
SW is such an awesome place where people really do seam concerned about how I spend my money - pure sweetness. :twisted:
Oh and yes, I'd take something for free > paying for it like most but it's just not offered that way. :P
SecretPolice
at least cows care about us.
them no good selfish lemmings think nothing of the situations other people are put in.
[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]If they were both the same then why would you pay? Anyway, it's clear people pay for the multiplayer. I know it's a great service, but I wouldn't pay if the multiplayer was free.def_modeExactly my point, if Silver offers the same but for free why wouldnt they choose that route? was it because Gold is so worth every penny? why would there be a gold if it was the same as the silver, it would just be a donation subscription
I'm sorry if majority does not get it, I've said it a lot of times and I'll say it again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words or simply just made the wrong question but overall point is, I dont understand how fanboys claim that XBL Gold is so worth theyr money and that it deserved the money it asks when really we pay to play online.
Of course this is my opinion, I could not change your and will not change it
Once again, I am sorry for using such a confusing question, I shouldnt have done this. The other boards was just fine with this question.
Thanks for your input nonetheless
[QUOTE="def_mode"]
Think again for the last time. It might not apply to you but to others it does. Fanboys says XBL deserves the money they pay for yet they will ditch it if they had the option of getting the same service for free. Its not really a rocket science not to understand. Yes I may have used a wrong question or set of words but my point still remains that we pay for XBL so we could play online and not because it deserved our money or that its worth it. Please take your time understanding the simplicity in this, if you cannot get the point, there's really nothing I can do.
VoodooHak
You act if this is some great revelation. If you have two identical items, of course you would choose the one that's free. But then again, that's not really your point.
My point of contention with you is when, based on the above, you draw the conclusion that people pay for XBL to play online, and not for its features. Talk about non sequiturs.
The two are not mutually exclusive as one serves the other. I pay because it lets me play online WITH those features. For me, playing online would be lessened if those features are were not there. This is why I feel it deserves my money. This is why I feel it's worth it. Like you said, not rocket science.
sigh, you know what, I wish I could explain this better. but yea whatever.TC this is insane. The question you asked made no sense at all. Of course people would take the free one everyone in here would love to have all the features that live has for free. But your saying that all people want to do is play online well the people on the PSN had that and they complained about all the features that live had that they didnt get so what does that tell you?
But you have been beatin down to the point where its not even fun anymore to argue with you about this.
I'm sorry if majority does not get it, I've said it a lot of times and I'll say it again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words or simply just made the wrong question but overall point is, I dont understand how fanboys claim that XBL Gold is so worth theyr money and that it deserved the money it asks when really we pay to play online.
Of course this is my opinion, I could not change your and will not change it
Once again, I am sorry for using such a confusing question, I shouldnt have done this. The other boards was just fine with this question.
Thanks for your input nonetheless
You don't understand what live is then, its not a server thats designed for xbox. Its standardized network code through microsoft implementation. Dev's don't have to add features or write their own code for networking really, live already has it all under the hood. This gives games standardized quality and features regardless if the dev decides to go with a server or p2p. with other platforms like psn and pc, dev's have to make most of the features that go into a game, for users this means they might not have the same experience on multiple games playing on the same system. Its quality control in other words. And we are paying for universal quality.This will be my last kick at the can.
My approach to strengthen my point was to use a hypothetical and situational question which obviously doesnt work too good around in this place.
Fanboys says Gold is worth every money they pay for and deserves the $45 to $50 they pay. BUT IF Silvers offers the same exact service for free, you'll ditch Gold in a heart beat, by doing so...It negates the statement that Gold deserves the $50 because you'd rather not payif given the chancenot to pay for it.
What's the overall point? We pay not because of its breakthrough features or cutting edge experience but we pay just so we have access to the online modes of the games we bought.
Once again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words and wrong type of question, I appologize for the lots of confusion but lets put it to rest as my main point is clearly explained and there's nothing else I can do if you cannot understand it.
I'm sorry if majority does not get it, I've said it a lot of times and I'll say it again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words or simply just made the wrong question but overall point is, I dont understand how fanboys claim that XBL Gold is so worth theyr money and that it deserved the money it asks when really we pay to play online.
Of course this is my opinion, I could not change your and will not change it
Once again, I am sorry for using such a confusing question, I shouldnt have done this. The other boards was just fine with this question.
Thanks for your input nonetheless
You don't understand what live is then, its not a server thats designed for xbox. Its standardized network code through microsoft implementation. Dev's don't have to add features or write their own code for networking really, live already has it all under the hood. This gives games standardized quality and features regardless if the dev decides to go with a server or p2p. with other platforms like psn and pc, dev's have to make most of the features that go into a game, for users this means they might not have the same experience on multiple games playing on the same system. Its quality control in other words. And we are paying for universal quality. Oh, I understand Live just fine. I have Steam/XBL Gold/PSN and i just could not tell why I pay $45 for it. At the end of the day, I pay because I wanna play my MW2 and Gears2 online.TC this is insane. The question you asked made no sense at all. Of course people would take the free one everyone in here would love to have all the features that live has for free. But your saying that all people want to do is play online well the people on the PSN had that and they complained about all the features that live had that they didnt get so what does that tell you?
But you have been beatin down to the point where its not even fun anymore to argue with you about this.
Vipa37
EDIT: Once again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words and wrong type of question, I appologize for the lots of confusion but lets put it to rest as my main point is clearly explained and there's nothing else I can do if you cannot understand it.
This will be my last kick at the can.
My approach to strengthen my point was to use a hypothetical and situational question which obviously doesnt work too good around in this place.
Fanboys says Gold is worth every money they pay for and deserves the $45 to $50 they pay. BUT IF Silvers offers the same exact service for free, you'll ditch Gold in a heart beat, by doing so...It negates the statement that Gold deserves the $50 because you'd rather not payif given the chancenot to pay for it.
What's the overall point? We pay not because of its breakthrough features or cutting edge experience but we pay just so we have access to the online modes of the games we bought.
Once again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words and wrong type of question, I appologize for the lots of confusion but lets put it to rest as my main point is clearly explained and there's nothing else I can do if you cannot understand it.
I'm sorry if majority does not get it, I've said it a lot of times and I'll say it again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words or simply just made the wrong question but overall point is, I dont understand how fanboys claim that XBL Gold is so worth theyr money and that it deserved the money it asks when really we pay to play online.
Of course this is my opinion, I could not change your and will not change it
Once again, I am sorry for using such a confusing question, I shouldnt have done this. The other boards was just fine with this question.
Thanks for your input nonetheless
You don't understand what live is then, its not a server thats designed for xbox. Its standardized network code through microsoft implementation. Dev's don't have to add features or write their own code for networking really, live already has it all under the hood. This gives games standardized quality and features regardless if the dev decides to go with a server or p2p. with other platforms like psn and pc, dev's have to make most of the features that go into a game, for users this means they might not have the same experience on multiple games playing on the same system. Its quality control in other words. And we are paying for universal quality. Oh, I understand Live just fine. I have Steam/XBL Gold/PSN and i just could not tell why I pay $45 for it. At the end of the day, I pay because I wanna play my MW2 and Gears2 online. your paying for quality control, ALL games on live use the same matchmaking, chat services, connection protacols, so you get the same quality and experience across all the games on live. PSN you don't always get the same quality, some times it kind of sux, missing features in games (some didn't even have voice chat at the start).[QUOTE="def_mode"]no it doesn't, if i go into a restaurant and they drop a steak on my table that is the most juicy steak ever, and they say, you can either eat this steak for free, or you can eat this steak for $20. Everyone would take a free steak. Regardless of its worth, we'll take things free or up to how much we value something. Live is worth paying for, but if they said i could have it free then why would i want to pay. Its charity money at this point. You compared Live to a food? Once again, we can leave the question alone. I apologize for it if it was too confusing. I used that approach to strengthen my point/opinion that Live is not $50 good or atleast not worth paying for. IN MY OPINION.This will be my last kick at the can.
My approach to strengthen my point was to use a hypothetical and situational question which obviously doesnt work too good around in this place.
Fanboys says Gold is worth every money they pay for and deserves the $45 to $50 they pay. BUT IF Silvers offers the same exact service for free, you'll ditch Gold in a heart beat, by doing so...It negates the statement that Gold deserves the $50 because you'd rather not payif given the chancenot to pay for it.
What's the overall point? We pay not because of its breakthrough features or cutting edge experience but we pay just so we have access to the online modes of the games we bought.
Once again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words and wrong type of question, I appologize for the lots of confusion but lets put it to rest as my main point is clearly explained and there's nothing else I can do if you cannot understand it.
savagetwinkie
[QUOTE="def_mode"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] You don't understand what live is then, its not a server thats designed for xbox. Its standardized network code through microsoft implementation. Dev's don't have to add features or write their own code for networking really, live already has it all under the hood. This gives games standardized quality and features regardless if the dev decides to go with a server or p2p. with other platforms like psn and pc, dev's have to make most of the features that go into a game, for users this means they might not have the same experience on multiple games playing on the same system. Its quality control in other words. And we are paying for universal quality.savagetwinkieOh, I understand Live just fine. I have Steam/XBL Gold/PSN and i just could not tell why I pay $45 for it. At the end of the day, I pay because I wanna play my MW2 and Gears2 online. your paying for quality control, ALL games on live use the same matchmaking, chat services, connection protacols, so you get the same quality and experience across all the games on live. PSN you don't always get the same quality, some times it kind of sux, missing features in games (some didn't even have voice chat at the start). Steam offers the same if not more and they don't charge. Oh well, MS is a business company. They want all the money they can get.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="def_mode"] Oh, I understand Live just fine. I have Steam/XBL Gold/PSN and i just could not tell why I pay $45 for it. At the end of the day, I pay because I wanna play my MW2 and Gears2 online.def_modeyour paying for quality control, ALL games on live use the same matchmaking, chat services, connection protacols, so you get the same quality and experience across all the games on live. PSN you don't always get the same quality, some times it kind of sux, missing features in games (some didn't even have voice chat at the start). Steam offers the same if not more and they don't charge. Oh well, MS is a business company. They want all the money they can get. steam does not offer anything that live offers, not in the same way. Its an overlay thats works outside of the game, so while the game features might suck, you can bandaid it with a 3rd party program. On xblive its all built into the game so i don't need a 3rd party bandaid. Also you cant fix terrible net code 3rd party, another advantange of making standardized netcode.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="def_mode"]
This will be my last kick at the can.
My approach to strengthen my point was to use a hypothetical and situational question which obviously doesnt work too good around in this place.
Fanboys says Gold is worth every money they pay for and deserves the $45 to $50 they pay. BUT IF Silvers offers the same exact service for free, you'll ditch Gold in a heart beat, by doing so...It negates the statement that Gold deserves the $50 because you'd rather not payif given the chancenot to pay for it.
What's the overall point? We pay not because of its breakthrough features or cutting edge experience but we pay just so we have access to the online modes of the games we bought.
Once again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words and wrong type of question, I appologize for the lots of confusion but lets put it to rest as my main point is clearly explained and there's nothing else I can do if you cannot understand it.
[QUOTE="def_mode"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] your paying for quality control, ALL games on live use the same matchmaking, chat services, connection protacols, so you get the same quality and experience across all the games on live. PSN you don't always get the same quality, some times it kind of sux, missing features in games (some didn't even have voice chat at the start).savagetwinkieSteam offers the same if not more and they don't charge. Oh well, MS is a business company. They want all the money they can get. steam does not offer anything that live offers, not in the same way. Its an overlay thats works outside of the game, so while the game features might suck, you can bandaid it with a 3rd party program. On xblive its all built into the game so i don't need a 3rd party bandaid. Also you cant fix terrible net code 3rd party, another advantange of making standardized netcode. Thats true, I give you that. Still does not justify the $50. In my opinion.
[QUOTE="def_mode"]You compared Live to a food? Once again, we can leave the question alone. I apologize for it if it was too confusing. I used that approach to strengthen my point/opinion that Live is not $50 good or atleast not worth paying for. IN MY OPINION. Food is a product with value, same as live, computers, and any thing you can spend youre money on. By saying you'd rather have something for free negates the value of the actual product is a completely flawed argument. The product has value and worth regardless of how much you have to pay for it. People are willing to pay for live, computers, playstation, food, cloths. Giving the option to take any of that for free everyone will do in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter how much someone is willing to pay for something, if they can get it cheaper at the end of the day they will, which is why your argument is completely invalid. Tell me, why do you pay for Live Gold? What is your main reason why you pay? Party Chat? Cross game chat? early access to the demos? or simply...you can play your multiplayer games?[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] no it doesn't, if i go into a restaurant and they drop a steak on my table that is the most juicy steak ever, and they say, you can either eat this steak for free, or you can eat this steak for $20. Everyone would take a free steak. Regardless of its worth, we'll take things free or up to how much we value something. Live is worth paying for, but if they said i could have it free then why would i want to pay. Its charity money at this point.savagetwinkie
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="def_mode"] You compared Live to a food? Once again, we can leave the question alone. I apologize for it if it was too confusing. I used that approach to strengthen my point/opinion that Live is not $50 good or atleast not worth paying for. IN MY OPINION.Food is a product with value, same as live, computers, and any thing you can spend youre money on. By saying you'd rather have something for free negates the value of the actual product is a completely flawed argument. The product has value and worth regardless of how much you have to pay for it. People are willing to pay for live, computers, playstation, food, cloths. Giving the option to take any of that for free everyone will do in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter how much someone is willing to pay for something, if they can get it cheaper at the end of the day they will, which is why your argument is completely invalid. Tell me, why do you pay for Live Gold? What is your main reason why you pay? Party Chat? Cross game chat? early access to the demos? or simply...you can play your multiplayer games? actually its the standardized quality, sincle i like playing alot of games, it tends to be a better experience on xbox.def_mode
I've had psn, and while killzone was good, people sounded like robots on some other games, or simple p2p games couldn't migrate the host as successfully as often as xbox can.
On pc its not as bad, but i do like the matchmaking over server browser, i also like how every game on 360 has good voice chat support, with all the people i'm playing with. I can get other programs to chat, but most likely half the people i'm playing with aren't chatting, or are using ventrilo, or some other people using teamspeak.
I just bounced around and eventually found myself playing more and more on my xbox vs anything else. I like how the online usually just works, its intuitive, very rarely do i have laggy matches, or peoples mics sound like ****. I like it, and i dont' mind paying for more universal features and less problems.
Tell me, why do you pay for Live Gold? What is your main reason why you pay? Party Chat? Cross game chat? early access to the demos? or simply...you can play your multiplayer games? actually its the standardized quality, sincle i like playing alot of games, it tends to be a better experience on xbox.[QUOTE="def_mode"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] Food is a product with value, same as live, computers, and any thing you can spend youre money on. By saying you'd rather have something for free negates the value of the actual product is a completely flawed argument. The product has value and worth regardless of how much you have to pay for it. People are willing to pay for live, computers, playstation, food, cloths. Giving the option to take any of that for free everyone will do in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter how much someone is willing to pay for something, if they can get it cheaper at the end of the day they will, which is why your argument is completely invalid. savagetwinkie
I've had psn, and while killzone was good, people sounded like robots on some other games, or simple p2p games couldn't migrate the host as successfully as often as xbox can.
On pc its not as bad, but i do like the matchmaking over server browser, i also like how every game on 360 has good voice chat support, with all the people i'm playing with. I can get other programs to chat, but most likely half the people i'm playing with aren't chatting, or are using ventrilo, or some other people using teamspeak.
I just bounced around and eventually found myself playing more and more on my xbox vs anything else. I like how the online usually just works, its intuitive, very rarely do i have laggy matches, or peoples mics sound like ****. I like it, and i dont' mind paying for more universal features and less problems.
Fair enough, I myself think XBL is better than PSN but not at the cost of $50.[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]actually its the standardized quality, sincle i like playing alot of games, it tends to be a better experience on xbox.[QUOTE="def_mode"] Tell me, why do you pay for Live Gold? What is your main reason why you pay? Party Chat? Cross game chat? early access to the demos? or simply...you can play your multiplayer games?def_mode
I've had psn, and while killzone was good, people sounded like robots on some other games, or simple p2p games couldn't migrate the host as successfully as often as xbox can.
On pc its not as bad, but i do like the matchmaking over server browser, i also like how every game on 360 has good voice chat support, with all the people i'm playing with. I can get other programs to chat, but most likely half the people i'm playing with aren't chatting, or are using ventrilo, or some other people using teamspeak.
I just bounced around and eventually found myself playing more and more on my xbox vs anything else. I like how the online usually just works, its intuitive, very rarely do i have laggy matches, or peoples mics sound like ****. I like it, and i dont' mind paying for more universal features and less problems.
Fair enough, I myself think XBL is better than PSN but not at the cost of $50. get it on sale on amazon or something, it stings a bit when you pay for it since its enough to get a new game, but then i get a year of happy online gaming. Truthfully though my ps3 was just because i didn't like paying for the online, once i realized its not really on par, only some games are, and i looked at what it was actually costing me, 4.50 a month? i realized i had a bigger coffee budget and it only really seems stupid at the time when i have to drop $50 all at once or get locked out of playing online.edit: did we just come to a conclusion with thought out arguments on system wars?
It's simple: a product's value is the measure of the highest amount people are willing to pay for it. People have shown they are willing to pay as much as $50/yr for Xbox Live Gold, so that is the product's value (and in fact, it may be higher, but Microsoft hasn't priced it higher, so we don't know.) That people would rather pay less for the product is irrelevant; peoplewould always preferto pay less for something.
Beyond that is the general question of what gives Xbox Live Gold its value; ie. what specifically does it offer that makes people willing to pay $50/yr for it. That depends on the individual. For some, it's the ability to play games online. For others, it's the facebook, netflix, sky-player or twitter support. For yet others, it's the early demo access. For the OP, obviously the only value he sees is the ability to play games online, and that to him isn't worth the asking price.
Here's the thing: no-one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to pay the price. To the OP, if you don't see the value in Xbox Live Gold, you are perfectly free to end your subscription and find some other service that provides the value you want. But finding the value in a product or service is a highly individual matter, and just because you can't see the value in XBL Gold does not mean it has no value or that no-one else can see it.
Fair enough, I myself think XBL is better than PSN but not at the cost of $50. get it on sale on amazon or something, it stings a bit when you pay for it since its enough to get a new game, but then i get a year of happy online gaming. Truthfully though my ps3 was just because i didn't like paying for the online, once i realized its not really on par, only some games are, and i looked at what it was actually costing me, 4.50 a month? i realized i had a bigger coffee budget and it only really seems stupid at the time when i have to drop $50 all at once or get locked out of playing online.[QUOTE="def_mode"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] actually its the standardized quality, sincle i like playing alot of games, it tends to be a better experience on xbox.
I've had psn, and while killzone was good, people sounded like robots on some other games, or simple p2p games couldn't migrate the host as successfully as often as xbox can.
On pc its not as bad, but i do like the matchmaking over server browser, i also like how every game on 360 has good voice chat support, with all the people i'm playing with. I can get other programs to chat, but most likely half the people i'm playing with aren't chatting, or are using ventrilo, or some other people using teamspeak.
I just bounced around and eventually found myself playing more and more on my xbox vs anything else. I like how the online usually just works, its intuitive, very rarely do i have laggy matches, or peoples mics sound like ****. I like it, and i dont' mind paying for more universal features and less problems.
savagetwinkie
edit: did we just come to a conclusion with thought out arguments on system wars?
I buy at bestbuy and they cost around $39 and considering we have a retarded tax here in Canada it'll be around $45. Yea great argument indeed. I appreciate your thoughts.Here a better question. Would I pay to play on my PS3 if it had XBL? Yes.
Fair enough, I myself think XBL is better than PSN but not at the cost of $50.def_modeget it on sale on amazon or something, it stings a bit when you pay for it since its enough to get a new game, but then i get a year of happy online gaming. Truthfully though my ps3 was just because i didn't like paying for the online, once i realized its not really on par, only some games are, and i looked at what it was actually costing me, 4.50 a month? i realized i had a bigger coffee budget and it only really seems stupid at the time when i have to drop $50 all at once or get locked out of playing online.
edit: did we just come to a conclusion with thought out arguments on system wars?
I buy at bestbuy and they cost around $39 and considering we have a retarded tax here in Canada it'll be around $45. Yea great argument indeed. I appreciate your thoughts. yah, alot of people don't look past what live does for 1 or 2 games, and more as a whole, M$ wants to avoid you having a piss poor experience on their console so they like to control as much as possible.I have a question. Would cows like their very own sticky where they argue and bicker about a service they don't even use? Nice job with the painfully obvious question. Of course we'd take the free version if it had everything Gold had. So here's the point where I say "its worth every penny" and then someone else can point out the whole principals of having to pay for something when you've already purchased the game...I think I've covered the main points of this tired and beaten topic. Looking forward to the next gen when sony will more than likely charge for their online service and then these threads will hopefully slip away as you cows wallow in your own hypocrisy.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="def_mode"] You compared Live to a food? Once again, we can leave the question alone. I apologize for it if it was too confusing. I used that approach to strengthen my point/opinion that Live is not $50 good or atleast not worth paying for. IN MY OPINION.Food is a product with value, same as live, computers, and any thing you can spend youre money on. By saying you'd rather have something for free negates the value of the actual product is a completely flawed argument. The product has value and worth regardless of how much you have to pay for it. People are willing to pay for live, computers, playstation, food, cloths. Giving the option to take any of that for free everyone will do in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter how much someone is willing to pay for something, if they can get it cheaper at the end of the day they will, which is why your argument is completely invalid. Tell me, why do you pay for Live Gold? What is your main reason why you pay? Party Chat? Cross game chat? early access to the demos? or simply...you can play your multiplayer games?def_mode
Party chat, yes, but only because it's part of the bigger feature of the whole Party system that also includes game launching. There's the more consistent user of cross-game invites. There are also community features that don't necessarily come up on bullet-pointed lists. Like...
Community managers. They are both visible and accessible. From Major Nelson's news and shows, Trixie's organization of girl gamers, StepTo's policy enforcement to the community developer and ambassador programs. Their response to the MW2 javelin glitch is a prime example. Although the onus of the responsiblity was solely on the shoulders of Infinity Ward, MS went above and beyond by actively seeking out the exploiters and suspending them. StepTo made public statement almost immediately. Sony's response was from a nameless rep with flat statement that they don't plan on doing anything. One is an example of service. The other is the absence of it.
Community events are more than the themed game nights on the Community Calendar. It's the Game With Fame, gaming with devs and my personal fave, Community PlayDate where I can game with people from a featured fan site.
This will be my last kick at the can.
My approach to strengthen my point was to use a hypothetical and situational question which obviously doesnt work too good around in this place.
Fanboys says Gold is worth every money they pay for and deserves the $45 to $50 they pay. BUT IF Silvers offers the same exact service for free, you'll ditch Gold in a heart beat, by doing so...It negates the statement that Gold deserves the $50 because you'd rather not payif given the chancenot to pay for it.
What's the overall point? We pay not because of its breakthrough features or cutting edge experience but we pay just so we have access to the online modes of the games we bought.
Once again, I may have chosen the wrong set of words and wrong type of question, I appologize for the lots of confusion but lets put it to rest as my main point is clearly explained and there's nothing else I can do if you cannot understand it.def_mode
I understand that you're just creating a hypothetical situation, but thats all it is, it doesn't actually exist. I mean if you were to give anyone the chance to pay for something or get it for free, theyre always going to pick the free option. That doesn't mean the product/service isn't worth the money, its just because we like free things.
I agree with you though that we pay because we have to .... because well its true. If you want to play online on the 360, you have no choice. But thats not to say everyone who does pay is unhappy with it. If you don't like paying, then don't do it. Its a simple as that. Ive been a gold subscriber since 2004, so paying roughly 30 quid a year means ive put in over 180 quid into Live. Has it been worth it? Absolutely, the amount of fun ive got from playing Halo 2/3, COD4, Battlefield Modern Combat, Lost Planet etc. with my friends over the years is priceless, and its something that can't be replicated on any other platform for me, free online or not.
If Microsoft sent me an email tomorrow, saying they would refund that 180 quid to me if I wanted, would I do it? Yes I would, because I love money. But that doesn't mean Im unhappy or annoyed that Microsoft actually do charge for Live. If I was, I would just stick with silver and use my PS3 for online gaming. But I don't.
Tell me, why do you pay for Live Gold? What is your main reason why you pay? Party Chat? Cross game chat? early access to the demos? or simply...you can play your multiplayer games?[QUOTE="def_mode"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] Food is a product with value, same as live, computers, and any thing you can spend youre money on. By saying you'd rather have something for free negates the value of the actual product is a completely flawed argument. The product has value and worth regardless of how much you have to pay for it. People are willing to pay for live, computers, playstation, food, cloths. Giving the option to take any of that for free everyone will do in a heartbeat. Doesn't matter how much someone is willing to pay for something, if they can get it cheaper at the end of the day they will, which is why your argument is completely invalid. VoodooHak
Party chat, yes, but only because it's part of the bigger feature of the whole Party system that also includes game launching. There's the more consistent user of cross-game invites. There are also community features that don't necessarily come up on bullet-pointed lists. Like...
Community managers. They are both visible and accessible. From Major Nelson's news and shows, Trixie's organization of girl gamers, StepTo's policy enforcement to the community developer and ambassador programs. Their response to the MW2 javelin glitch is a prime example. Although the onus of the responsiblity was solely on the shoulders of Infinity Ward, MS went above and beyond by actively seeking out the exploiters and suspending them. StepTo made public statement almost immediately. Sony's response was from a nameless rep with flat statement that they don't plan on doing anything. One is an example of service. The other is the absence of it.
Community events are more than the themed game nights on the Community Calendar. It's the Game With Fame, gaming with devs and my personal fave, Community PlayDate where I can game with people from a featured fan site.
Most of those you mentioned were not there when Xbox 360 first came out, still we pay for it...
People pay to play online on XBL. This is not a revelation. There is no other way to play your 360 online.
The error of your logic is the presumption that XBL would be exactly the same as it is if there was no Gold level. Thus you incorrectly assume that the only value for paying for XBL is online MP.
The choice to create multiple access levels is simply a marketing choice made by MS. The marketing premise is entice as many people to visit XBL as possible and explore many of its features for free (Silver). Then convert a % of them to pay the monthly/yearly fee (Gold).
If 50% of XBL users were Silver and 50% were Gold MS could have charged everyone half the price, eliminated the difference, and given everyone access to online MP. However, a certain % of people would not have visited in the first place because they would have been forced to pay. Thus you reduce the opportunity to convert visitors to payers.
The reality is that the Gold users are subsidizing the Silver users. ALL of the features/benefits of the entire system are being paid for by the Gold users. The Silver users are getting most of the same benefits for free. You are thinking that it is the other way around when it is not. This is why XBL is better than PSN; because it has a better/larger revenue stream. If there were no Gold users than there would be fewer features...it would be more like PSN.
Whether you personally believe it is worth ALL of the features is still debateable. But ALL of the features on XBL that are not on PSN are a result of Gold fees, not just online MP.
It isn't that difficult of a concept. You can get a free phone from any cell provider. It has almost all of the same features. Except one little problem...you can't actually phone anyone without a phone plan. The money you pay for the phone plan is not just for processing the call. It also includes the money required to cover the phone cost itself which is 'free'.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment