Same game on three different systems.
Roughly (considering the PC) the same price on release.
The major difference is: On one you have to pay a yearly fee to access the online features of that product (for a year) - otherwise a portion of the game is inaccessible.
So in short Gold does a nice job of holding game content hostage, simple really.
While Live is better than PSN, Gold is far from justified. It is a ripoff simple as that, people can argue about server costs, however ultimately these costs fall on anyone hosting their own network, which is kept afloat from the huge profits of digital distribution royalties (ads to insult how many console games rely on client hosts).
But hey Microsoft knows they can take advantage of the consumer with an unnecessary subscription fee and unfortunately there is nothing 360 gamers can do about it, aside from stop gaming online. No options, nothing. Its Microsoft's closed network, they are free to abuse it as they please, and the consumer is willing to pay to play online - hell I did.
If an antenna lets you watch TV for free, how can you say cable TV is worth any fee... that seems like a contradiction to me.
See how that works?
UnnDunn
Cable shows content free to air doesn't, that network finances - be it original new shows with a size able budget behind them, recent films from the cinema, or extra sport and news coverage. The network keeps this 'exclusive' content dense enough to try and justify the subscription.
Reality is on 3 different systems its exactly the same content being played, and the features that separate the two consoles online are dwindling (diminshing the 'services features override content justification in differences of service quality... while the aside from being well ahead offers the same features Live Gold does without the fee.
Log in to comment