Busting a myth: xbox live is worth $50 edition

EDIT!

Nobody is saying xbox live is expensive or unaffordable. Simply saying "lol it's only $50!" is not a point. The topic is WHY we pay for it and whether it is worth paying for.

Anyone else posting "but roffle it's just $5 a month man!" will be ignored. Being able to afford it does not make it worth paying for.

Short and sweet; no it aint.

Ok i'll make a thread about it then....

But honestly, where to begin. I've been an xbox live subscriber since the day it launched. And honestly, it kicks ass. I'm sorry sony fanboys but in the real world, PSN has got nothing on xbox live. But it isn't supposed to. It's the functional service which does everything you need, but maybe not everything you'd like. That doesn't matter though, because it's free. And that's awesome.

You cant have it both ways. It's a dream to try and claim your online is free, and also better than the one you have to pay for.

It just aint. Sorry.

But i'm not talking about PSN today, i'm talking about xbox live. And in many ways, despite being by far the best online service to ever grace a console and heck, in terms of features and the social aspect, easily a contender for the best online service ever - including PC gaming - i'm still going to go with the conclusion that overall, xbox live blows.

Why? Because you have to pay $50 a year for it. Not that you have to pay, but that you have to pay $50 a year. And it just isn't worth it.

Think about it; i happily paid for xbox live because well, it's awesome. And you probably do too. Is it better than playing online games on your PS3? Easily. Better than playing online games on your PC? Heck, maybe. Is it $50 a year better?

Heck no.

XBox Live should cost $15 a year. That is the price whereby the "you get what you pay for" slogan would stand true. Whereby nobody would complain about the price (except microsoft haters) and i would feel satisfied with the service i'm getting for my money. The fact that microsoft feel their service is honestly worth paying $50 a year for is frankly, a joke.

So what exactly are you paying for?

Beats me. This is the question i frequently ask myself while playing. I'm serious. Numerous time i've been playing Rainbow Six Vegas and have yelled "WHAT THE HELL AM I PAYING FOR!?" at my TV screen.

There are no dedicated servers. What does that $50 a year go towards? Pure profit? Honestly, it seems like it to me because i haven't come across a single game with dedicated servers. Every game relies on the player's connection. And i'm fine with that,as around 70% of the time you'll have a happy, lag-free game. Games like Rainbow Six tell you the host's ping before joining. Uber-awesome games like Halo 2 automatically select the best person to host, without you even know who it is.

But wait a second; i'm paying $50 a year. FIFTY DOLLARS people. I shouldn't have to rely on a good host. What about that other 30% of the time? Where the host sucks? Where you have to aim in front of your target because of the bullet lag? Where shooting games frankly become unbarable because they simply cannot work under those circumstances.

I had never experienced bull**** until i played xbox live. I mean REAL bull****, not sore-loser bull****. I mean genuine "I just emptied half a clip into that guy's face and he's still alive!?"

Minutes before making this thread, i put my controller down on my bed in the middle of a game and muttered to myself "i cant stand this any more..." Not xbox live, just playing that one individual game. Bullet lag. Rampant bull****. The constant feeling of being screwed over. Robbed of kills. Forced into deaths. And the bitter taste of "I'm PAYING for this..."

To pay $50 a year xbox live shouldn't be great most of the time. It should be absolutely amazing, ALL of the time. It should be unparalled. It shouldn't make your blood boil in games like gears which are full of horrible net code and glitches.

I ask again; what the hell am i paying for? We're told this is the ferrari of the online services. The lobster. The luxury choice. Why the hell isn't every online game AWESOME. And i'm not talking about gameplay. If a dev screws up i cant expect microsoft to fix that. I sure as hell expect them to set up servers however. To set a standard whereby buggy netcode, bullet lag and glitches are not tolerated.

Why?

"Because people are PAYING for this. Now clean your game up or it aint shippin' on our box."

Never mind that the worst offender of the lot is a freakin' MICROSOFT GAME!

And so that is my myth busted. Feel free to disagree without calling me an idiot. That post was somewhat of a rant, which isn't what i intended but it's difficult to write down everything i'm annoyed about regarding xbox live. There's plenty more.

*In conclusion...

Is xbox live the best online service? Heck yes.

Is it better than the competition? Yeah...

Is it $50 a year better? Absolutely not.

If you disagree, i guess the topic of conversation here is - what are we paying for?

Well, to me it's like this: If I want to play Halo 3 online, I'll have to pay 50$. It's that simple. They have the games, they have the online.

If 50$ is too much to pay to play Gears and Halo online,then vote with your wallet and stay offline.

Ultra-Simple.

Its not worth complaining about. Take Halo 3 for example. You can buy it for 60 bucks and play the single player campaign a few times. Take Bioshock, you can do the same thing. However, most people who get Halo 3 will spend the predominant amount of time with the game online. Bioshock has no multiplayer. The game costs the same. Many, many people will get hundreds of hours out of Halo 3 online.

For 50 bucks? And you can get Live for cheaper. It was 40 bucks at Circuit City last week for example. And what about other games? You can play everything that is online capable for 1 price. Yeah it sucks that you have to pay for it. But its nothing compared to the amount of enjoyment you can get out of it.

You know what MS? Make online play free.

Charge for all your extra features like chatrooms, video chat, and **** like that. I never use it, so why am I paying for it?

Just make the online play free.

Two reasons why I'll pay $50 for Xbox Live:

A: I played WoW, so to me, a meager $4 a month is nothing.

B: It's less than the cost of a game, and it makes games like Gears and Halo 2 a lot more fun for a lot longer. If I didn't have Xbox Live, I'd be buying more games, which would cost more in the long run. Much more.

Live should be $30 in my mind, especially if Microsoft has the cojones to run adds on the Dashboards.

The thing is, you NEED Live. The Live service is the backbone of the 360, which is what I think is it's biggest flaw. Without Live you have essentially nothing. Most of the good games are really big on the online, so yeah. 50 bucks is a pain in the ass, but you need to have it or your 360 is kind of useless.BigDaddyPOLO

Oh, and that's reason C for me. My Xbox 360 is a worthless piece of junk without Live. Trust me, my router was being a d*ck for three months over the summer.

You know what MS? Make online play free.

Charge for all your extra features like chatrooms, video chat, and **** like that. I never use it, so why am I paying for it?

Just make the online play free.

asdasd

Those are features that PSN has for free; that would make live worse than PSN.

Its not worth complaining about. Take Halo 3 for example. You can buy it for 60 bucks and play the single player campaign a few times. Take Bioshock, you can do the same thing. However, most people who get Halo 3 will spend the predominant amount of time with the game online. Bioshock has no multiplayer. The game costs the same. Many, many people will get hundreds of hours out of Halo 3 online.

For 50 bucks? And you can get Live for cheaper. It was 40 bucks at Circuit City last week for example. And what about other games? You can play everything that is online capable for 1 price. Yeah it sucks that you have to pay for it. But its nothing compared to the amount of enjoyment you can get out of it.

NavigatorsGhost

The fact is you can get that same enjoyment elsewhere to an equal and often higher standard for free.

I see live as a phone service s well as all the other stuff.

Ifg you have a freind a who move a way away, or a reletive at uni. It could work out a lot cheaper.

[QUOTE="asdasd"]

You know what MS? Make online play free.

Charge for all your extra features like chatrooms, video chat, and **** like that. I never use it, so why am I paying for it?

Just make the online play free.

X_CAPCOM_X

Those are features that PSN has for free; that would make live worse than PSN.

No it doesn't. I know cows who have PSN think it's the same thing, but it isn't. Not even close.

Dedicated servers are only good under the right circumstances, certainly not when its developer run ded. servers.

Why do people pay for anything? atleast with Live its on the quality side of the fence. People pay for MMO's and thats like $180 a year. People pay for GAMESPOT....

Its the best and better than anything the competition has but its not worth $50 a year?

You mean for $50 a year I only have to play with 60% of the kids instead of 100% of the kids?

Sure the whole system could probably run on ad support but its not...

Do you know if its not dedicated servers run by publishing companies then people have to pay for the servers anyways? I pay for a dedicated server in CS, whats so free about that? just because its free for everyone else...

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"]

Its not worth complaining about. Take Halo 3 for example. You can buy it for 60 bucks and play the single player campaign a few times. Take Bioshock, you can do the same thing. However, most people who get Halo 3 will spend the predominant amount of time with the game online. Bioshock has no multiplayer. The game costs the same. Many, many people will get hundreds of hours out of Halo 3 online.

For 50 bucks? And you can get Live for cheaper. It was 40 bucks at Circuit City last week for example. And what about other games? You can play everything that is online capable for 1 price. Yeah it sucks that you have to pay for it. But its nothing compared to the amount of enjoyment you can get out of it.

Ninja-Vox

The fact is you can get that same enjoyment elsewhere to an equal and often higher standard for free.

Where else will you be able to play Halo 3 online? The exclusives define the online service's value.

I think the price is quite reasonable when you consider the exclusive software the 360 has.

Well if you consider the fact there are so many great games on 360 to play online I think it's worth it just for that. But look we get so many demos, videos, great online that you can play 10 years from now if you want to. Great organization, and online community (except the jerks). We are paying for the updates, which always add something great, online support, and people to actually play with. Also the price keeps away some kids. Kids can still play but you can't really blame live on that because you'll see PSN be filled with kids because the online is free. Also do most of the players who play on PSN talk, have headset? nope, communication is important for online.

You know what MS? Make online play free.

Charge for all your extra features like chatrooms, video chat, and **** like that. I never use it, so why am I paying for it?

Just make the online play free.

asdasd

It's true...since there are NO dedicated servers they should making playing games online free. But if that meant having to pay for being able to chat during a game then no cause that's a HUGE part of live IMO

Where else will you be able to play Halo 3 online? The exclusives define the online service's value.

I think the price is quite reasonable when you consider the exclusive software the 360 has.

jethrovegas

The fact that it's Halo 3 online does not make xbox live worth paying for. My point was that there are multiplayer games of equal quality which can be paid online for free.

XBox live is not worth $50 a year. Simple as that.

Dedicated servers are only good under the right circumstances, certainly not when its developer run ded. servers.

Why do people pay for anything? atleast with Live its on the quality side of the fence. People pay for MMO's and thats like $180 a year. People pay for GAMESPOT....

Its the best and better than anything the competition has but its not worth $50 a year?

You mean for $50 a year I only have to play with 60% of the kids instead of 100% of the kids?

Sure the whole system could probably run on ad support but its not...

Do you know if its not dedicated servers run by publishing companies then people have to pay for the servers anyways? I pay for a dedicated server in CS, whats so free about that? just because its free for everyone else...

MrGrimFandango

Plenty of games have free dedicated servers. And i'm baffled by your question " you say it's better but not worth $50?"

Yes. That was the point of my whole post. It's better. It's not $50 a year better.

My second point was also; if we are paying, what are we paying for? Why are microsoft not using the gabillions they're getting every year to set up servers? Or at least impose better netcode to flat-out stop horrendous multiplayer like Gears?

Don't forget the slow as heck download times. Premium service right there!cametall

Er, no. If you have slow downloads your connection blows. That's one thing i cant fault it on. It's amazingly fast. I can download a file over a gig in size in half an hour? That's incredible.

Where else will you be able to play Halo 3 online? The exclusives define the online service's value.

I think the price is quite reasonable when you consider the exclusive software the 360 has.

jethrovegas

$50 for 13 months

50/13 = $3.85 a month

3.85/30 = $0.13 a day

.13x7 = $0.91 a week

Personally that's completely reasonable for online play, downloads and all.

There should be dedicated servers i completely agree, but it is worth $50 a year for all the other features. Voice chat, private chat, demos.. etc. $4 a month isn't that much though.Lemmywinks_360

All of those things come for free with silver. You literally pay $50 a year to play games.

[QUOTE="cametall"]Don't forget the slow as heck download times. Premium service right there!MrGrimFandango

?

What do you mean "?"

Downloads from Xbox Live are slow as snot compared to PC or even a file download service FilePlanet.
And then the "must-have-demos." 8 hour download times. "Bu bu bu, t3h lots of pplz!" Well what are they using my $50 for? Toilet paper? They need more servers or bandwidth.

It's robbery.ball_of_air

Quite. I've never experienced lag on ANY online game I've played on PSN, EVER. Whatever the game, be it RFoM, MotorStorm, R6V, or any other, it's always ran smooth, without any lag or anything. Therefore in that respect, PSN is better than Live.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Where else will you be able to play Halo 3 online? The exclusives define the online service's value.

I think the price is quite reasonable when you consider the exclusive software the 360 has.

Ninja-Vox

The fact that it's Halo 3 online does not make xbox live worth paying for. My point was that there are multiplayer games of equal quality which can be paid online for free.

XBox live is not worth $50 a year. Simple as that.

Halo 3 will have the best MP ever in an FPS. And look at the exclusive DLC, and Live games like LP, and GeoW.

I think it all makes for a nice online package that is easily worth 50$.

If you don't want to play H3 and other 360 exclusives online, then don't buy Live.

Vote with your wallet.

You would think that it would be perfect for 50 dollars.

Their should be an update one of these days that would fix that lag problem.

[QUOTE="ball_of_air"]It's robbery.ShmenonPie

Quite. I've never experienced lag on ANY online game I've played on PSN, EVER. Whatever the game, be it RFoM, MotorStorm, R6V, or any other, it's always ran smooth, without any lag or anything. Therefore in that respect, PSN is better than Live.

No it isn't. Honestly you're one of the biggest cows i'm aware of so i'm not sure if it's even worth posting with what it's like in the "real world" but RFoM and Motorstorm are both sony games. They pay for servers. Nobody else will.

And the fact that you say you've never encountered lag in R6V amuses me to great lengths.

PSN is not better than xbox live. Get over it. It's great in that it's free; but you cant have it both ways. It's not Free, AND better than the inferior service we all just pay for anyway.

Think about it. You know it makes sense.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Where else will you be able to play Halo 3 online? The exclusives define the online service's value.

I think the price is quite reasonable when you consider the exclusive software the 360 has.

jethrovegas

The fact that it's Halo 3 online does not make xbox live worth paying for. My point was that there are multiplayer games of equal quality which can be paid online for free.

XBox live is not worth $50 a year. Simple as that.

Halo 3 will have the best MP ever in an FPS. And look at the exclusive DLC, and Live games like LP, and GeoW.

I think it all makes for a nice online package that is easily worth 50$.

If you don't want to play H3 and other 360 exclusives online, then don't buy Live.

Vote with your wallet.

Again; what am i paying for? You're honestly telling me that you pay $50 for the priviledge to play good games? Seriously?

Plus I can play any game online, no matter how old, as long as someone else wants to play.

Something servers wouldn't be able to provide. They're are advantages to servers and peer to peer networking.

[QUOTE="MrGrimFandango"]

Dedicated servers are only good under the right circumstances, certainly not when its developer run ded. servers.

Why do people pay for anything? atleast with Live its on the quality side of the fence. People pay for MMO's and thats like $180 a year. People pay for GAMESPOT....

Its the best and better than anything the competition has but its not worth $50 a year?

You mean for $50 a year I only have to play with 60% of the kids instead of 100% of the kids?

Sure the whole system could probably run on ad support but its not...

Do you know if its not dedicated servers run by publishing companies then people have to pay for the servers anyways? I pay for a dedicated server in CS, whats so free about that? just because its free for everyone else...

Ninja-Vox

Plenty of games have free dedicated servers. And i'm baffled by your question " you say it's better but not worth $50?"

Yes. That was the point of my whole post. It's better. It's not $50 a year better.

My second point was also; if we are paying, what are we paying for? Why are microsoft not using the gabillions they're getting every year to set up servers? Or at least impose better netcode to flat-out stop horrendous multiplayer like Gears?

A server is never free, why on earth would you even think that? I currently pay for one, dont tell me a server is free.

Why would I play on worse for free? How many games are online for 360 that arent for PS3? How many will be?

Diablo II is free and b.net is terrible

If I was a developer I wouldn't host my own servers because its definately not free and not worth the money.

$50 a year isn't that bad. :|

[QUOTE="MrGrimFandango"]

[QUOTE="cametall"]Don't forget the slow as heck download times. Premium service right there!cametall

?

What do you mean "?"

Downloads from Xbox Live are slow as snot compared to PC or even a file download service FilePlanet.
And then the "must-have-demos." 8 hour download times. "Bu bu bu, t3h lots of pplz!" Well what are they using my $50 for? Toilet paper? They need more servers or bandwidth.

I download at like 70KB/s on fileplant and I download at around 400KB/s on live, get a better ISP?

WOW is what, $14 a month for one online game? That's $168 a year to play ONE GAME. I think $50 a year is pretty reasonable seeing as how you can play any game you own that has live capability.Trashface

Some people pay $40 for bottles full of sea water which they spray on their faces as moisturiser. That doesn't suddenly put it all into perspective and make xbox live worth $50.

Again; i'm not complaining about just having to pay. I'm complaining about the service you get for that payment. You dont get what you pay for.

$50 a year isn't that bad. :|

SaintBlaze

I didn't say i couldn't afford it. I said it wasn't worth it.

[QUOTE="cametall"]Don't forget the slow as heck download times. Premium service right there!Ninja-Vox

Er, no. If you have slow downloads your connection blows. That's one thing i cant fault it on. It's amazingly fast. I can download a file over a gig in size in half an hour? That's incredible.

Not when the file is new, took me forever to download bioshock or medal of honor airborne.

[QUOTE="cametall"][QUOTE="MrGrimFandango"]

[QUOTE="cametall"]Don't forget the slow as heck download times. Premium service right there!MrGrimFandango

?

What do you mean "?"

Downloads from Xbox Live are slow as snot compared to PC or even a file download service FilePlanet.
And then the "must-have-demos." 8 hour download times. "Bu bu bu, t3h lots of pplz!" Well what are they using my $50 for? Toilet paper? They need more servers or bandwidth.

I download at like 70KB/s on fileplant and I download at around 400KB/s on live, get a better ISP?

try fle planet instead...I get around 800KB/s.

If you can't afford less than $4 a month for online service you seriously need to get your economic situation in order.0starter0

Again, i didn't say i couldn't afford it. I said it wasn't worth it. If i started charging you a dollar a day to breath, would you happily go along with it because "hey! i can afford it!" Heck no. That's complete robbery.