Microsoft - Only half of XBOX Live users on Gold

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]IFirst off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. Dire_Weasel

Microsoft is charging you for peer-to-peer online play. XBL is the only service that chooses to do this. Online play, on a system you paid for, using bandwidth that you paid for, with the games that you paid for, shouldn't come with an additional yearly fee. I can't see why anyone would be so excited to jump to Microsoft's defense on this one, besides Stockholm Syndrome.

woulda been alot higher if they lowered the price instead of making it higher

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"][QUOTE="GFugue"]

Yes... because the Playstation online network had just as many features as Xbox Live and PSN do, right? Different tiers, what AncientDozer probably meant is that the 360 set the bar for online gaming this generation.

Locutus_Picard

The ps3 is doing a great job at emulating xbox live and its free. but to ignor what the xbox has done for online is just... fanboy much?

MS probably wrote this while banning another million subscribers for alleged hacking. :P

i still say that you are never going to get anywhere with the xbl debate.

if people do not have a common frame of reference it's a waste of time to talk about it.

my entire household expenses are easily over a hundred dollars a day when you look at car payments and mortgage and utlities and taxes and food and whatever and of that xbl is what now?20 cents a day?

let's look at one single expense and go from there, i have 2 dogs (doberman ftw!) and in food alone not counting grooming and vet bills and whatever just food mind you it costs at least 4 dollars a day to feed them a premium food(blue buffalo + some crumbled freshpet select+ treats).

one of my smallest ongoing expenses is $4 a day so what does that make xbl?

it's just a mindnumbingly stupid argument and if xbl is a rip off so what i earned the $$$ i can **** it away any way i think improves my life.

people in sw are all boo hoo xbl is teh rip and i'm all boo hoo i spent thousands of dollars in property taxes this year on things that are paid off and that the government charges me to own.

it would be funny if it was not so telling of the lack of perspective you have.

i still say that you are never going to get anywhere with the xbl debate.

if people do not have a common frame of reference it's a waste of time to talk about it.

my entire household expenses are easily over a hundred dollars a day when you look at car payments and mortgage and utlities and taxes and food and whatever and of that xbl is what now?20 cents a day?

let's look at one single expense and go from there, i have 2 dogs (doberman ftw!) and in food alone not counting grooming and vet bills and whatever just food mind you it costs at least 4 dollars a day to feed them a premium food(blue buffalo + some crumbled freshpet select+ treats).

one of my smallest ongoing expenses is $4 a day so what does that make xbl?

it's just a mindnumbingly stupid argument and if xbl is a rip off so what i earned the $$$ i can **** it away any way i think improves my life.

people in sw are all boo hoo xbl is teh rip and i'm all boo hoo i spent thousands of dollars in property taxes this year on things that are paid off and that the government charges me to own.

it would be funny if it was not so telling of the lack of perspective you have.

Riverwolf007

I accept that you've been brainwashed into thinking paying for online multiplayer in the games you already paid $60 for is reasonable. Fair enough.

I assume that if Microsoft announced tomorrow that you'd only be able to save your single-player games if you paid a $60/year subscription fee you'd be fine with that as well. After all, you spend money on property tax and your dogs. Therefore, any arbitrary fee Microsoft wants to charge you for basic functionality in the games you own, you're fine with.

So, no, I don't accept your flawed perspective. I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]IFirst off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. Dire_Weasel

Microsoft is charging you for peer-to-peer online play. XBL is the only service that chooses to do this. Online play, on a system you paid for, using bandwidth that you paid for, with the games that you paid for, shouldn't come with an additional yearly fee. I can't see why anyone would be so excited to jump to Microsoft's defense on this one, besides Stockholm Syndrome.

And if Steam decided one day to start charging a dollar a month to keep their many servers alive would you be pissed at that? psn as well? the problem here is is that your arguing value and that every ones value they find in it is wrong. People say they find value in it and you reply your wrong!!!!!! *gives arbitrary reasons that are your opinion only and that aren't fact and shouldn't be forced upon others*

Whats funny is that you'll say but psn has this, and this is free, and steam has this and steam is free. they are free because they are forced to be in reality and because its a method by which to get sales. why do you think steam has such massive sales sometimes? do you think they are some charitable giving organization? no they see that sales on these smaller games and older games get you sales on other more expensive games this has been a common practice since the beginning of business if you get people into your store you've won half the battle.

It wouldn't matter the reasons given you would still tell people they are wrong and make multiple snide remark. I find value in XBL I've found value since 2002, and Have found enough value that I paid up my account till 2013. Free has and always will be just a method to get what you truly want...and with Companies its your hard earned money... TINSTAAFL

P.S: I'm sure pretty soon you expect every thing to be free....including the games..

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i still say that you are never going to get anywhere with the xbl debate.

if people do not have a common frame of reference it's a waste of time to talk about it.

my entire household expenses are easily over a hundred dollars a day when you look at car payments and mortgage and utlities and taxes and food and whatever and of that xbl is what now?20 cents a day?

let's look at one single expense and go from there, i have 2 dogs (doberman ftw!) and in food alone not counting grooming and vet bills and whatever just food mind you it costs at least 4 dollars a day to feed them a premium food(blue buffalo + some crumbled freshpet select+ treats).

one of my smallest ongoing expenses is $4 a day so what does that make xbl?

it's just a mindnumbingly stupid argument and if xbl is a rip off so what i earned the $$$ i can **** it away any way i think improves my life.

people in sw are all boo hoo xbl is teh rip and i'm all boo hoo i spent thousands of dollars in property taxes this year on things that are paid off and that the government charges me to own.

it would be funny if it was not so telling of the lack of perspective you have.

Dire_Weasel

I accept that you've been brainwashed into thinking paying for online multiplayer in the games you already paid $60 for is reasonable. Fair enough.

I assume that if Microsoft announced tomorrow that you'd only be able to save your single-player games if you paid a $60/year subscription fee you'd be fine with that as well. After all, you spend money on property tax and your dogs. Therefore, any arbitrary fee Microsoft wants to charge you for basic functionality in the games you own, you're fine with.

So, no, I don't accept your flawed perspective. I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

how about he and many more people enjoys and finds value xbox live?

ugh i hate when people just pull out unrealistic scenerious/analogys out their ass.

was that really necessary?

And if Steam decided one day to start charging a dollar a month to keep their many servers alive would you be pissed at that? psn as well?

WilliamRLBaker

I wouldn't be happy about it. I wouldn't post online about how much I love paying it, that's for certain.

P.S: I'm sure pretty soon you expect every thing to be free....including the games..

WilliamRLBaker

That's a very interesting, but completely incorrect assumption. I have a substantial games collection and none of them are pirated.

ugh i hate when people just pull out unrealistic scenerious/analogys out their ass.

Deadbeatcobra

Microsoft already charges you a fee to access a major element of the games you already own. It's not an unrealistic or unreasonable comparison.

[QUOTE="Deadbeatcobra"]

ugh i hate when people just pull out unrealistic scenerious/analogys out their ass.

Dire_Weasel

Microsoft already charges you a fee to access a major element of the games you already own. It's not an unrealistic or unreasonable comparison.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i still say that you are never going to get anywhere with the xbl debate.

if people do not have a common frame of reference it's a waste of time to talk about it.

my entire household expenses are easily over a hundred dollars a day when you look at car payments and mortgage and utlities and taxes and food and whatever and of that xbl is what now?20 cents a day?

let's look at one single expense and go from there, i have 2 dogs (doberman ftw!) and in food alone not counting grooming and vet bills and whatever just food mind you it costs at least 4 dollars a day to feed them a premium food(blue buffalo + some crumbled freshpet select+ treats).

one of my smallest ongoing expenses is $4 a day so what does that make xbl?

it's just a mindnumbingly stupid argument and if xbl is a rip off so what i earned the $$$ i can **** it away any way i think improves my life.

people in sw are all boo hoo xbl is teh rip and i'm all boo hoo i spent thousands of dollars in property taxes this year on things that are paid off and that the government charges me to own.

it would be funny if it was not so telling of the lack of perspective you have.

Dire_Weasel

I accept that you've been brainwashed into thinking paying for online multiplayer in the games you already paid $60 for is reasonable. Fair enough.

I assume that if Microsoft announced tomorrow that you'd only be able to save your single-player games if you paid a $60/year subscription fee you'd be fine with that as well. After all, you spend money on property tax and your dogs. Therefore, any arbitrary fee Microsoft wants to charge you for basic functionality in the games you own, you're fine with.

So, no, I don't accept your flawed perspective. I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

I renew gold every once in a while yes.. I can't really say I want to though. I quite simply have to because I want to play games online. Thats all I care about.

The rest of the features can go stuff it for all I care. I can pretty much guarantee all Gold Subscribers would jump to Silver if they could play online for free. With the exception of a select few people that think theres any value in XBOX Live Gold.

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]IFirst off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. WilliamRLBaker

Microsoft is charging you for peer-to-peer online play. XBL is the only service that chooses to do this. Online play, on a system you paid for, using bandwidth that you paid for, with the games that you paid for, shouldn't come with an additional yearly fee. I can't see why anyone would be so excited to jump to Microsoft's defense on this one, besides Stockholm Syndrome.

And if Steam decided one day to start charging a dollar a month to keep their many servers alive would you be pissed at that? psn as well? the problem here is is that your arguing value and that every ones value they find in it is wrong. People say they find value in it and you reply your wrong!!!!!! *gives arbitrary reasons that are your opinion only and that aren't fact and shouldn't be forced upon others*

Whats funny is that you'll say but psn has this, and this is free, and steam has this and steam is free. they are free because they are forced to be in reality and because its a method by which to get sales. why do you think steam has such massive sales sometimes? do you think they are some charitable giving organization? no they see that sales on these smaller games and older games get you sales on other more expensive games this has been a common practice since the beginning of business if you get people into your store you've won half the battle.

It wouldn't matter the reasons given you would still tell people they are wrong and make multiple snide remark. I find value in XBL I've found value since 2002, and Have found enough value that I paid up my account till 2013. Free has and always will be just a method to get what you truly want...and with Companies its your hard earned money... TINSTAAFL

P.S: I'm sure pretty soon you expect every thing to be free....including the games..

PS. If Steam started charging for their multiplayer service, I'd stop playing multiplayer through them (because they don't provide the multiplayer servers--they're usually userland or business-sponsored--Live's the same way, you know?).

heh, the world is going to run a train on you and you don't even know it. man what a luxury that is, i miss it, seriously, i do.

Riverwolf007

The world is going to run a train on me because I don't want to pay extra for something that others offer for free? Do you even know what "run a train" means?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, the world is going to run a train on you and you don't even know it. man what a luxury that is, i miss it, seriously, i do.

Dire_Weasel

The world is going to run a train on me because I don't want to pay extra for something that others offer for free? Do you even know what "run a train" means?

i see those people all around me everyday, they knash their teeth and ball up their little fists and stomp their feet over the unfairness of it all and it's just sad.

tbo, idk you, that may not be the case at all but if it is you are going to make things harder for yourself than it needs to be.

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, the world is going to run a train on you and you don't even know it. man what a luxury that is, i miss it, seriously, i do.

Riverwolf007

The world is going to run a train on me because I don't want to pay extra for something that others offer for free? Do you even know what "run a train" means?

i see those people all around me everyday, they knash their teeth and ball up their little fists and stomp their feet over the unfairness of it all and it's just sad.

tbo, idk you, that may not be the case at all but if it is you are going to make things harder for yourself than it needs to be.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

Microsoft is charging you for peer-to-peer online play. XBL is the only service that chooses to do this. Online play, on a system you paid for, using bandwidth that you paid for, with the games that you paid for, shouldn't come with an additional yearly fee. I can't see why anyone would be so excited to jump to Microsoft's defense on this one, besides Stockholm Syndrome.

HuusAsking

And if Steam decided one day to start charging a dollar a month to keep their many servers alive would you be pissed at that? psn as well? the problem here is is that your arguing value and that every ones value they find in it is wrong. People say they find value in it and you reply your wrong!!!!!! *gives arbitrary reasons that are your opinion only and that aren't fact and shouldn't be forced upon others*

Whats funny is that you'll say but psn has this, and this is free, and steam has this and steam is free. they are free because they are forced to be in reality and because its a method by which to get sales. why do you think steam has such massive sales sometimes? do you think they are some charitable giving organization? no they see that sales on these smaller games and older games get you sales on other more expensive games this has been a common practice since the beginning of business if you get people into your store you've won half the battle.

It wouldn't matter the reasons given you would still tell people they are wrong and make multiple snide remark. I find value in XBL I've found value since 2002, and Have found enough value that I paid up my account till 2013. Free has and always will be just a method to get what you truly want...and with Companies its your hard earned money... TINSTAAFL

P.S: I'm sure pretty soon you expect every thing to be free....including the games..

PS. If Steam started charging for their multiplayer service, I'd stop playing multiplayer through them (because they don't provide the multiplayer servers--they're usually userland or business-sponsored--Live's the same way, you know?).

This post conatins to much logic for system wars......Please leave before everyone onbrings you down to their level. Save yourself!

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

And if Steam decided one day to start charging a dollar a month to keep their many servers alive would you be pissed at that? psn as well? the problem here is is that your arguing value and that every ones value they find in it is wrong. People say they find value in it and you reply your wrong!!!!!! *gives arbitrary reasons that are your opinion only and that aren't fact and shouldn't be forced upon others*

Whats funny is that you'll say but psn has this, and this is free, and steam has this and steam is free. they are free because they are forced to be in reality and because its a method by which to get sales. why do you think steam has such massive sales sometimes? do you think they are some charitable giving organization? no they see that sales on these smaller games and older games get you sales on other more expensive games this has been a common practice since the beginning of business if you get people into your store you've won half the battle.

It wouldn't matter the reasons given you would still tell people they are wrong and make multiple snide remark. I find value in XBL I've found value since 2002, and Have found enough value that I paid up my account till 2013. Free has and always will be just a method to get what you truly want...and with Companies its your hard earned money... TINSTAAFL

P.S: I'm sure pretty soon you expect every thing to be free....including the games..

MattDistillery

PS. If Steam started charging for their multiplayer service, I'd stop playing multiplayer through them (because they don't provide the multiplayer servers--they're usually userland or business-sponsored--Live's the same way, you know?).

This post conatins to much logic for system wars......Please leave before everyone onbrings you down to their level. Save yourself!

More interestingly, it seems that more money is coming from sales now, i honestly thought 12 million people coughing up $60 a year for a service that doesnt exactly cost that much to run would be pure profit for them. GulliversTravel

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

[QUOTE="racing1750"] Well, then I bend over once a year :lol:racing1750

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, the world is going to run a train on you and you don't even know it. man what a luxury that is, i miss it, seriously, i do.

Riverwolf007

The world is going to run a train on me because I don't want to pay extra for something that others offer for free? Do you even know what "run a train" means?

i see those people all around me everyday, they knash their teeth and ball up their little fists and stomp their feet over the unfairness of it all and it's just sad.

tbo, idk you, that may not be the case at all but if it is you are going to make things harder for yourself than it needs to be.

Being vocal about practices and policies you don't agree with is not the same as getting all bent out of shape over unfairness. Quite simply, without people trying to make things better and spread information to help do so nothing would ever change.

Accepting situations for what they are means that you've given up, not that you've grown up.

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i still say that you are never going to get anywhere with the xbl debate.

if people do not have a common frame of reference it's a waste of time to talk about it.

my entire household expenses are easily over a hundred dollars a day when you look at car payments and mortgage and utlities and taxes and food and whatever and of that xbl is what now?20 cents a day?

let's look at one single expense and go from there, i have 2 dogs (doberman ftw!) and in food alone not counting grooming and vet bills and whatever just food mind you it costs at least 4 dollars a day to feed them a premium food(blue buffalo + some crumbled freshpet select+ treats).

one of my smallest ongoing expenses is $4 a day so what does that make xbl?

it's just a mindnumbingly stupid argument and if xbl is a rip off so what i earned the $$$ i can **** it away any way i think improves my life.

people in sw are all boo hoo xbl is teh rip and i'm all boo hoo i spent thousands of dollars in property taxes this year on things that are paid off and that the government charges me to own.

it would be funny if it was not so telling of the lack of perspective you have.

Deadbeatcobra

I accept that you've been brainwashed into thinking paying for online multiplayer in the games you already paid $60 for is reasonable. Fair enough.

I assume that if Microsoft announced tomorrow that you'd only be able to save your single-player games if you paid a $60/year subscription fee you'd be fine with that as well. After all, you spend money on property tax and your dogs. Therefore, any arbitrary fee Microsoft wants to charge you for basic functionality in the games you own, you're fine with.

So, no, I don't accept your flawed perspective. I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

how about he and many more people enjoys and finds value xbox live?

ugh i hate when people just pull out unrealistic scenerious/analogys out their ass.

was that really necessary?

A lot of people (including myself) are opting not to renew subscriptions. That's why their numbers aren't exactly as high as some would believe. You're offering a service that others (PC, Wii, PS3) are getting for free, what the *blank* do you honestly expect. OhSnapitz

You buy a car. You pay for it's accessories. You repair it constantly. And they have the audacity to charge you for fuel?!

You buy an oven. You buy the pans. You buy food. And they dare to charge you for gas, preposterous!

I could go on, but I won't.

I'm not some avid fanboy who sucks Microsoft's balls no matter what it does, but I don't mind paying for a SERVICE. Sure, if it kept the quality, I wouldn't mind it being free. But it isn't, so o'well, I'll shed a fraction of a day's income to game online. What astounds me is that people think that it's something outrageous for Microsoft to charge the enhanced online services -- optional as they are -- when it's their console, and as other posters are sure to say, when there are other competing consoles that do not charge a fee for online gaming.

And, truth be told, so far I haven't seen anyone make a valid enough point to actually convince me (and I can be convinced) or anyone with half a wit that paying for a Gold membership is absurd.

You buy a car. You pay for it's accessories. You repair it constantly. And they have the audacity to charge you for fuel?!

You buy an oven. You buy the pans. You buy food. And they dare to charge you for gas, preposterous!

I could go on, but I won't.

I'm not some avid fanboy who sucks Microsoft's balls no matter what it does, but I don't mind paying for a SERVICE. Sure, if it kept the quality, I wouldn't mind it being free. But it isn't, so o'well, I'll shed a fraction of a day's income to game online. What astounds me is that people think that it's something outrageous for Microsoft to charge the enhanced online services -- optional as they are -- when it's their console, and as other posters are sure to say, when there are other competing consoles that do not charge a fee for online gaming.

And, truth be told, so far I haven't seen anyone make a valid enough point to actually convince me (and I can be convinced) or anyone with half a wit that paying for a Gold membership is absurd.

GFugue

PSN provides free multiplayer. Wii provides free multiplayer. Steam (and PC gaming in general) provides free multiplayer and in fact backlashed against an attempt to introduce a subscription model; it forced Microsoft to trim its Games for Windows Live expectations.

When companies B, C, and D are able to provide something for free, that's going to inevitably leave company A with a few broken eggs on its face for being "parasitic" and not trying to instill customer loyalty.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]what i am saying is if you can't accept things for the way they are you are going to be miserable.

i see those people all around me everyday, they knash their teeth and ball up their little fists and stomp their feet over the unfairness of it all and it's just sad.

tbo, idk you, that may not be the case at all but if it is you are going to make things harder for yourself than it needs to be.

AncientDozer

Being vocal about practices and policies you don't agree with is not the same as getting all bent out of shape over unfairness. Quite simply, without people trying to make things better and spread information to help do so nothing would ever change.

Accepting situations for what they are means that you've given up, not that you've grown up.

lol no only 1 quarter of xbox users use gold live

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

You buy a car. You pay for it's accessories. You repair it constantly. And they have the audacity to charge you for fuel?!

You buy an oven. You buy the pans. You buy food. And they dare to charge you for gas, preposterous!

I could go on, but I won't.

I'm not some avid fanboy who sucks Microsoft's balls no matter what it does, but I don't mind paying for a SERVICE. Sure, if it kept the quality, I wouldn't mind it being free. But it isn't, so o'well, I'll shed a fraction of a day's income to game online. What astounds me is that people think that it's something outrageous for Microsoft to charge the enhanced online services -- optional as they are -- when it's their console, and as other posters are sure to say, when there are other competing consoles that do not charge a fee for online gaming.

And, truth be told, so far I haven't seen anyone make a valid enough point to actually convince me (and I can be convinced) or anyone with half a wit that paying for a Gold membership is absurd.

HuusAsking

PSN provides free multiplayer. Wii provides free multiplayer. Steam (and PC gaming in general) provides free multiplayer and in fact backlashed against an attempt to introduce a subscription model; it forced Microsoft to trim its Games for Windows Live expectations.

When companies B, C, and D are able to provide something for free, that's going to inevitably leave company A with a few broken eggs on its face for being "parasitic" and not trying to instill customer loyalty.

Again, wasting my time, but I'll refute your arguments:

The 360 offers a free month of Gold for first-timers -- roughly the same as your car dealership example.

The fact that companies B, C and D provide a free service (of different quality) doesn't mean company A has too, either. I don't know what kind of twisted notion of reality you have to think things like that. You've apparently skipped some Biology classes, as well, since Parasiting - even in the metaphorical way you're utilizing the term - is not what Microsoft is doing.

The most interesting, however, is how you state that Microsoft is "not trying to instill customer loyalty", yet its sales are not only profitable but in larger amount than that of other consoles. Explain to me how this happens, if it apparently offers a crippled service.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

You buy a car. You pay for it's accessories. You repair it constantly. And they have the audacity to charge you for fuel?!

You buy an oven. You buy the pans. You buy food. And they dare to charge you for gas, preposterous!

I could go on, but I won't.

I'm not some avid fanboy who sucks Microsoft's balls no matter what it does, but I don't mind paying for a SERVICE. Sure, if it kept the quality, I wouldn't mind it being free. But it isn't, so o'well, I'll shed a fraction of a day's income to game online. What astounds me is that people think that it's something outrageous for Microsoft to charge the enhanced online services -- optional as they are -- when it's their console, and as other posters are sure to say, when there are other competing consoles that do not charge a fee for online gaming.

And, truth be told, so far I haven't seen anyone make a valid enough point to actually convince me (and I can be convinced) or anyone with half a wit that paying for a Gold membership is absurd.

GFugue

PSN provides free multiplayer. Wii provides free multiplayer. Steam (and PC gaming in general) provides free multiplayer and in fact backlashed against an attempt to introduce a subscription model; it forced Microsoft to trim its Games for Windows Live expectations.

When companies B, C, and D are able to provide something for free, that's going to inevitably leave company A with a few broken eggs on its face for being "parasitic" and not trying to instill customer loyalty.

Again, wasting my time, but I'll refute your arguments:

The 360 offers a free month of Gold for first-timers -- roughly the same as your car dealership example.

The fact that companies B, C and D provide a free service (of different quality) doesn't mean company A has too, either. I don't know what kind of twisted notion of reality you have to think things like that. You've apparently skipped some Biology classes, as well, since Parasiting - even in the metaphorical way you're utilizing the term - is not what Microsoft is doing.

The most interesting, however, is how you state that Microsoft is "not trying to instill customer loyalty", yet its sales are not only profitable but in larger amount than that of other consoles. Explain to me how this happens, if it apparently offers a crippled service.

Actually, most fuel deals are for a year if not more.

And it's not Microsoft making the killing this generation in the console wars; it's Nintendo. Microsoft and Sony are vying for #2. And Sony is catching up: thanks at least in part to the ability to play online without any additional expenditure apart from the game and the system. Sounds to me like Microsoft's service model is hampering its efforts to solidify its position.HuusAsking

Fantastic job! Cars last longer than a generation of consoles, as well, but entering that merit is unecessary given how low you went with a metaphor.

I never discussed which console was doing better financially. I know the Wii is, and the PS3 has been "catching up" for the past three years. And, honestly? Why the **** would I give a **** as to whether the console I own is doing well financially or not? I don't have a part in their company's profits, so I couldn't care less.

Even at 12.5 million users pay $60 a pop that is some cake at the end of the year. Approx. $750 Mil a year alone.

You buy a car. You pay for it's accessories. You repair it constantly. And they have the audacity to charge you for fuel?! You buy an oven. You buy the pans. You buy food. And they dare to charge you for gas, preposterous! I could go on, but I won't.I'm not some avid fanboy who sucks Microsoft's balls no matter what it does, but I don't mind paying for a SERVICE. Sure, if it kept the quality, I wouldn't mind it being free. But it isn't, so o'well, I'll shed a fraction of a day's income to game online. What astounds me is that people think that it's something outrageous for Microsoft to charge the enhanced online services -- optional as they are -- when it's their console, and as other posters are sure to say, when there are other competing consoles that do not charge a fee for online gaming.And, truth be told, so far I haven't seen anyone make a valid enough point to actually convince me (and I can be convinced) or anyone with half a wit that paying for a Gold membership is absurd.GFugue

First off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. There are only two services for consoles, one free and one not and xbox live has been doing it a lot longer. We don't know what Sony had to give up to keep PSN free, we don't know what Microsoft does with the money. We do know that the PSN has been looking for ways to get money, such as that PSN+ service and that Live is looking to reward customers for loyalty. AncientDozer

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]First off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. There are only two services for consoles, one free and one not and xbox live has been doing it a lot longer. We don't know what Sony had to give up to keep PSN free, we don't know what Microsoft does with the money. We do know that the PSN has been looking for ways to get money, such as that PSN+ service and that Live is looking to reward customers for loyalty. agentfred

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

If you're so against Microsoft and their pricing of online services, boycott them in the most effective way you can (instead of ranting on the forums right before you go back to your Xbox 360 and renew your Gold subscription): stop using your 360 -- don't buy games or accessories for it, and surely don't spend your money on Live.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Actually, most fuel deals are for a year if not more.

And it's not Microsoft making the killing this generation in the console wars; it's Nintendo. Microsoft and Sony are vying for #2. And Sony is catching up: thanks at least in part to the ability to play online without any additional expenditure apart from the game and the system. Sounds to me like Microsoft's service model is hampering its efforts to solidify its position.

Fantastic job! Cars last longer than a generation of consoles, as well, but entering that merit is unecessary given how low you went with a metaphor.

I never discussed which console was doing better financially. I know the Wii is, and the PS3 has been "catching up" for the past three years. And, honestly? Why the **** would I give a **** as to whether the console I own is doing well financially or not? I don't have a part in their company's profits, so I couldn't care less.

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]First off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. There are only two services for consoles, one free and one not and xbox live has been doing it a lot longer. We don't know what Sony had to give up to keep PSN free, we don't know what Microsoft does with the money. We do know that the PSN has been looking for ways to get money, such as that PSN+ service and that Live is looking to reward customers for loyalty. agentfred

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

If you're so against Microsoft and their pricing of online services, boycott them in the most effective way you can (instead of ranting on the forums right before you go back to your Xbox 360 and renew your Gold subscription): stop using your 360 -- don't buy games or accessories for it, and surely don't spend your money on Live.GFugue

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Actually, most fuel deals are for a year if not more.

And it's not Microsoft making the killing this generation in the console wars; it's Nintendo. Microsoft and Sony are vying for #2. And Sony is catching up: thanks at least in part to the ability to play online without any additional expenditure apart from the game and the system. Sounds to me like Microsoft's service model is hampering its efforts to solidify its position.xscrapzx

Fantastic job! Cars last longer than a generation of consoles, as well, but entering that merit is unecessary given how low you went with a metaphor.

I never discussed which console was doing better financially. I know the Wii is, and the PS3 has been "catching up" for the past three years. And, honestly? Why the **** would I give a **** as to whether the console I own is doing well financially or not? I don't have a part in their company's profits, so I couldn't care less.

You didn't blow it off proportion enough, try again.

Yes, because the Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony consoles are running serious financial risks, to the point that game developers are pondering not to develop games for them anymore.

It doesn't matter if the PS3 outsells Microsoft by a million consoles, that's just a fraction of their income and won't affect the overall status of games and 3rd party support.

[QUOTE="agentfred"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]First off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. There are only two services for consoles, one free and one not and xbox live has been doing it a lot longer. We don't know what Sony had to give up to keep PSN free, we don't know what Microsoft does with the money. We do know that the PSN has been looking for ways to get money, such as that PSN+ service and that Live is looking to reward customers for loyalty. xscrapzx

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

[QUOTE="agentfred"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]First off, the assumption that Xbox Live is a service that should be free needs to die because, really, we don't know. There are only two services for consoles, one free and one not and xbox live has been doing it a lot longer. We don't know what Sony had to give up to keep PSN free, we don't know what Microsoft does with the money. We do know that the PSN has been looking for ways to get money, such as that PSN+ service and that Live is looking to reward customers for loyalty. GFugue

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

If you're so against Microsoft and their pricing of online services, boycott them in the most effective way you can (instead of ranting on the forums right before you go back to your Xbox 360 and renew your Gold subscription): stop using your 360 -- don't buy games or accessories for it, and surely don't spend your money on Live.

[QUOTE="GFugue"]

[QUOTE="agentfred"]

Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft has to pay to keep their servers running. As long as their competition is offering a practically identical servivce for sixty less dollars a year, they should too. As a consumer, I really don't mind if Microsoft loses a few bucks upfront. That's the price of operating in a competitive market. The 360 is the only system where I need to pay an upfront cost to play online. Ergo, they should charge the same price as everyone else - nothing.

HuusAsking

If you're so against Microsoft and their pricing of online services, boycott them in the most effective way you can (instead of ranting on the forums right before you go back to your Xbox 360 and renew your Gold subscription): stop using your 360 -- don't buy games or accessories for it, and surely don't spend your money on Live.

... you realize you're just pointing the reasons I even made that suggestion in the first place, right? I don't care enough about the fee to boycott it, but if someone else does, be my guest -- if anything, it may end up making the subscription free for me, as well.