Oh no, not another XBL price topic
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Holy crap, this topic again? Here's a better question: Why do you care why people pay for xbox live?
I don't. That's not the subject of this thread at all. The point is people always say to those who dislike paying, that its a small price and they shouldn't care. I'm saying, that does not apply to anyone and everyone. Only no that's not what people say, as i've explained. The argument is not 'it's only a little money so just pay it and shut up' the argument is 'it's only a little money so it's worth it.' A subtle difference, but a major change in the point being made. Nobody is advocating that you mindlessly pay money for something which isn't worth paying for. But they make the assumption that its automatically worth it to everyone. We know that isn't the case.
youre wasting youre time skittles, despite live fees being a travesty to gaming, people here will still defend it with all thier might so just leave it.
Zaibach
In your opinion. :)
This argument again? Really?
Well, I said yesterday that the argument was flawed. Now I'm going to explain why it's flawed.
You have to ask yourself a number of questions here. Do I enjoy Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2? Do I enjoy it enough to spend $15 on a map pack for it? With Xbox Live, you have to ask yourself "do I enjoy playing all of my games online?" The number of people who would deem the DLC as a negligible expense is likely a great deal lower than those who would not because MW2 is one game whereas the Xbox Live service applies to all games on the service and the audience it appeals to (every online connected 360 owner) is inherently larger than one the Stimulus Pack DLC appeals to (namely MW2 owners).
Hell, to get the most enjoyment out of the Stimulus Pack DLC, you have to have paid for an Xbox Live subscription in the first place. Again, this comparison is inherently flawed.
The Stimulus Pack and Xbox Live are not comparable as they are completely different concepts. One gives you access to new maps for one game. The other gives you access to play every game on the Xbox 360 online. This is akin to comparing the purchase of a game to the purchase of a console to play the game on and it inevitably brings up two very different value assessments. Let me put it this way. Do you put more thought into the purchase of a game or the purchase of a console? One game is just that, one game. The console gives you access to every game that's available on the system. It's likely (unless you have money to burn) that you put a great deal more value in the console than the single game and that's the situation for Xbox Live.
I'm not trying to say that Xbox Live's $50 a year fee is negligible for everyone but it likely will be for the vast majority of people because it gives them access to the online portions of the games that they own. The Stimulus Pack DLC is also likely a negligible cost for many people but not as many because its audience is inherently smaller and detached from the majority of Xbox Live users. That's why the comparison can't be made and that's why the argument is flawed.
But the idea is that both have cheaper options that still, for the most part, achieve the same end. Yes there are differences physically, but that is the part that I'm getting at.But thats my point, entirely. There are options that are free, and do the same thing. From the eyes of the consumer, why should I pay? The concept is that the response to anyone who doesn't want to pay shouldn't be "its such a small price" because that has nothing to do with it. I don't want to pay for something when I have other options that are just as good and free. That's the comparison here. Why did people not buy the DLC? Because they had other options. Telling them "oh its such a small price" wouldn't change their mind, why should it change mine?Skittles_McGee
It would be a lot harder for Microsoft to do what they do if there were options that were free and did the same thing. Then again, saying, "there are options that are free, and do comparable things that aren't quite the same," doesn't have the same ring to it.
As with anything, you should pay if you think the service is worthwhile. I think playing games on the 360 online with my friends, with easily-integrated cross-game chat, is worth the money I spend on it. It greatly enhances the value of a number of the 360's existing services, making the friends list itself far more meaningful. And I like playing games online. But if you think playing games online on the PS3 and PC is a good enough experience for free, for whatever reason, then why should you pay for Xbox Live? That would be silly.
The reason that argument comes up isn't because those people think that you should pay for it. It's because they're trying to justify their own purchase. If you tell them, "PSN is just as good as Live, and is free. Why are you paying for Xbox Live?" why wouldn't they give the defenses they give? In the eyes of many, the feature-set of Xbox Live Silver makes playing games online better than the free feature-set of PSN, and for them, the price isn't that significant for the service they receive. If playing PS3 games like Demon's Souls and Uncharted 2 online had a price tag attached, I would be tempted to pay also, depending on the price.
If you disagree, and think that all online services short of MMOs should be free, that's fine, but not everyone is going to think that they're being ripped off if they're paying a price they think is reasonable for a service they enjoy. The Stimulus Pack is the same sort of thing.
But the idea is that both have cheaper options that still, for the most part, achieve the same end. Yes there are differences physically, but that is the part that I'm getting at.Skittles_McGeeHere you are trying to factually argue that xbox live is not worth the money, yet you simultaneously complain that others try to factually argue that it IS worth they money. See what i'm getting at here?
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] But they make the assumption that its automatically worth it to everyone. We know that isn't the case.Ninja-HippoI dont feel that they do. They have only posted in the same manner as you have, only on the other end of the argument. You have explained why it is not worth paying for, they have explained why it is worth paying for. I doubt either side actually thinks that everyone is in the same boat, it's just how you express your argument. Let's not mince words though. This is System Wars. The likelihood of someone stating their opinion as though it applies to everyone is pretty high. Wouldn't you agree on that? True it's only assumption, and I admit that's a little weak in itself. But it's not a baseless one, at any rate.
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] But the idea is that both have cheaper options that still, for the most part, achieve the same end. Yes there are differences physically, but that is the part that I'm getting at.Ninja-HippoHere you are trying to factually argue that xbox live is not worth the money, yet you simultaneously complain that other try to factually argue that it is worth they money. See what i'm getting at here? But it is a fact there are other options that provide similar services, for free. The question is what you prefer to use. I said nothing of worth in my statement there.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] But they make the assumption that its automatically worth it to everyone. We know that isn't the case.Skittles_McGeeI dont feel that they do. They have only posted in the same manner as you have, only on the other end of the argument. You have explained why it is not worth paying for, they have explained why it is worth paying for. I doubt either side actually thinks that everyone is in the same boat, it's just how you express your argument. Let's not mince words though. This is System Wars. The likelihood of someone stating their opinion as though it applies to everyone is pretty high. Wouldn't you agree on that? True it's only assumption, and I admit that's a little weak in itself. But it's not a baseless one, at any rate. Of course it's true which is exactly the point i just made. You've done exactly the same thing, stated your view about xbox live as though it is a factual argument which applies to everyone. Anyone who pays for it therefore does so in spite of your factual argument. It's exactly the same behaviour that you're complaining about others doing, who attempt to factually tell you that you SHOULD pay for xbox live and that you're wrong for doing so. Like so many others have pointed out, there is no right and wrong here, only value and worth. If you dont like xbox live or feel it's worth the money, dont pay for it. Others will be the opposite. And when the topic arises of whether you should or shouldn't pay, the two will explain why you should/shouldn't.
[QUOTE="Zaibach"]A travesty to gaming? No, I think you should look up what that word means. Yeah getting more money to make their console better is a travesty now :?youre wasting youre time skittles, despite live fees being a travesty to gaming, people here will still defend it with all thier might so just leave it.
h575309
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I dont feel that they do. They have only posted in the same manner as you have, only on the other end of the argument. You have explained why it is not worth paying for, they have explained why it is worth paying for. I doubt either side actually thinks that everyone is in the same boat, it's just how you express your argument. Ninja-HippoLet's not mince words though. This is System Wars. The likelihood of someone stating their opinion as though it applies to everyone is pretty high. Wouldn't you agree on that? True it's only assumption, and I admit that's a little weak in itself. But it's not a baseless one, at any rate. Of course it's true which is exactly the point i just made. You've done exactly the same thing, stated your view about xbox live as though it is a factual argument which applies to everyone. Anyone who pays for it therefore does so in spite of your factual argument. It's exactly the same behaviour that you're complaining about others doing, who attempt to factually tell you that you SHOULD pay for xbox live and that you're wrong for doing so. Like so many others have pointed out, there is no right and wrong here, only value and worth. If you dont like xbox live or feel it's worth the money, dont pay for it. Others will be the opposite. And when the topic arises of whether you should or shouldn't pay, the two will explain why you should/shouldn't. But I haven't done that at all. I pointed out what are facts, and then my view on said facts. I never said my view applies to everyone, nor should it. :?
Not as good? There's nothing in playing games, buying games, and chat that Steam and Xfire do worse than XBL.:? And both of those are services that are updated, continuously running, and always getting new features. And both are free. But as for the comparison, the concept is what is up for debate. If you don't feel you should pay for something, why should "its not much money for what you get" be the response, when that has nothing to do with it?Skittles_McGee
PC gaming is a different animal in my eyes. The simple fact that you can name two services on the same platform lends credence to another fact that there is no platform wide standard. And those are only two. This isn't even counting the reasons why people prefer console gaming to PC gaming in general, or that not everyone has a gaming PC.
On the consoles, there's only PSN for the PS3 and XBL for the 360.
I don't see it as an apples-to-apples comparison.
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]But the idea is that both have cheaper options that still, for the most part, achieve the same end. Yes there are differences physically, but that is the part that I'm getting at.This argument again? Really?
Well, I said yesterday that the argument was flawed. Now I'm going to explain why it's flawed.
You have to ask yourself a number of questions here. Do I enjoy Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2? Do I enjoy it enough to spend $15 on a map pack for it? With Xbox Live, you have to ask yourself "do I enjoy playing all of my games online?" The number of people who would deem the DLC as a negligible expense is likely a great deal lower than those who would not because MW2 is one game whereas the Xbox Live service applies to all games on the service and the audience it appeals to (every online connected 360 owner) is inherently larger than one the Stimulus Pack DLC appeals to (namely MW2 owners).
Hell, to get the most enjoyment out of the Stimulus Pack DLC, you have to have paid for an Xbox Live subscription in the first place. Again, this comparison is inherently flawed.
The Stimulus Pack and Xbox Live are not comparable as they are completely different concepts. One gives you access to new maps for one game. The other gives you access to play every game on the Xbox 360 online. This is akin to comparing the purchase of a game to the purchase of a console to play the game on and it inevitably brings up two very different value assessments. Let me put it this way. Do you put more thought into the purchase of a game or the purchase of a console? One game is just that, one game. The console gives you access to every game that's available on the system. It's likely (unless you have money to burn) that you put a great deal more value in the console than the single game and that's the situation for Xbox Live.
I'm not trying to say that Xbox Live's $50 a year fee is negligible for everyone but it likely will be for the vast majority of people because it gives them access to the online portions of the games that they own. The Stimulus Pack DLC is also likely a negligible cost for many people but not as many because its audience is inherently smaller and detached from the majority of Xbox Live users. That's why the comparison can't be made and that's why the argument is flawed.
Skittles_McGee
No, they don't have cheaper options.
In MW2, you can either pay for the Stimulus Pack or you can not pay for it. There is no cheaper alternative to the Stimulus Pack for MW2.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] But the idea is that both have cheaper options that still, for the most part, achieve the same end. Yes there are differences physically, but that is the part that I'm getting at.Skittles_McGeeHere you are trying to factually argue that xbox live is not worth the money, yet you simultaneously complain that other try to factually argue that it is worth they money. See what i'm getting at here? But it is a fact there are other options that provide similar services, for free. The question is what you prefer to use. I said nothing of worth in my statement there. You're continually missing my point. Your thread complains about people using factual arguments against those who don't think xbox live is worth the money. At the same time, you push factual arguments against people who DO pay for xbox live to explain why they shouldn't. Thus, you complain about the exact same behaviour which you yourself are engaging in. As a side note, your post was all about worth. The minute you said something else which is similar but cheaper is available you obviously bring worth into the equation.
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"]
This argument again? Really?
Well, I said yesterday that the argument was flawed. Now I'm going to explain why it's flawed.
You have to ask yourself a number of questions here. Do I enjoy Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2? Do I enjoy it enough to spend $15 on a map pack for it? With Xbox Live, you have to ask yourself "do I enjoy playing all of my games online?" The number of people who would deem the DLC as a negligible expense is likely a great deal lower than those who would not because MW2 is one game whereas the Xbox Live service applies to all games on the service and the audience it appeals to (every online connected 360 owner) is inherently larger than one the Stimulus Pack DLC appeals to (namely MW2 owners).
Hell, to get the most enjoyment out of the Stimulus Pack DLC, you have to have paid for an Xbox Live subscription in the first place. Again, this comparison is inherently flawed.
The Stimulus Pack and Xbox Live are not comparable as they are completely different concepts. One gives you access to new maps for one game. The other gives you access to play every game on the Xbox 360 online. This is akin to comparing the purchase of a game to the purchase of a console to play the game on and it inevitably brings up two very different value assessments. Let me put it this way. Do you put more thought into the purchase of a game or the purchase of a console? One game is just that, one game. The console gives you access to every game that's available on the system. It's likely (unless you have money to burn) that you put a great deal more value in the console than the single game and that's the situation for Xbox Live.
I'm not trying to say that Xbox Live's $50 a year fee is negligible for everyone but it likely will be for the vast majority of people because it gives them access to the online portions of the games that they own. The Stimulus Pack DLC is also likely a negligible cost for many people but not as many because its audience is inherently smaller and detached from the majority of Xbox Live users. That's why the comparison can't be made and that's why the argument is flawed.
But the idea is that both have cheaper options that still, for the most part, achieve the same end. Yes there are differences physically, but that is the part that I'm getting at.No, they don't have cheaper options.
In MW2, you can either pay for the Stimulus Pack or you can not pay for it. There is no cheaper alternative to the Stimulus Pack for MW2.
There's the map pack for CoD4. Offers maps for a similar game, but cheaper :) Although if we go with what you said, the comparison still brings up a point. There is no cheaper alternative to playing your 360 games online. You either pay, or you don't play online. That brings up the question of alternatives. Like someone brought up earlier, why can't there simply different "packages" for people who want different features. I don't care at all about Netflix (something you have to pay for on top of XBL anyway) or Facebook/Twitter use, why is there no "play games online" option? It still brings up the question of having options, in the end.
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Here you are trying to factually argue that xbox live is not worth the money, yet you simultaneously complain that other try to factually argue that it is worth they money. See what i'm getting at here?Ninja-HippoBut it is a fact there are other options that provide similar services, for free. The question is what you prefer to use. I said nothing of worth in my statement there. You're continually missing my point. Your thread complains about people using factual arguments against those who don't think xbox live is worth the money. At the same time, you push factual arguments against people who DO pay for xbox live to explain why they shouldn't. Thus, you complain about the exact same behaviour which you yourself are engaging in. As a side note, your post was all about worth. The minute you said something else which is similar but cheaper is available you obviously bring worth into the equation. There have to be facts somewhere. Arguments hold no basis without them. But my complaint was making a broad approach. I'm saying, that doesn't always apply. It shouldn't be an immediate justification to everyone. But we're going in circles now.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] I don't. That's not the subject of this thread at all. The point is people always say to those who dislike paying, that its a small price and they shouldn't care. I'm saying, that does not apply to anyone and everyone.Skittles_McGeeOnly no that's not what people say, as i've explained. The argument is not 'it's only a little money so just pay it and shut up' the argument is 'it's only a little money so it's worth it.' A subtle difference, but a major change in the point being made. Nobody is advocating that you mindlessly pay money for something which isn't worth paying for. But they make the assumption that its automatically worth it to everyone. We know that isn't the case.
Okay, so don't pay for it. Problem solved!
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Here you are trying to factually argue that xbox live is not worth the money, yet you simultaneously complain that other try to factually argue that it is worth they money. See what i'm getting at here?Ninja-HippoBut it is a fact there are other options that provide similar services, for free. The question is what you prefer to use. I said nothing of worth in my statement there. You're continually missing my point. Your thread complains about people using factual arguments against those who don't think xbox live is worth the money. At the same time, you push factual arguments against people who DO pay for xbox live to explain why they shouldn't. Thus, you complain about the exact same behaviour which you yourself are engaging in. As a side note, your post was all about worth. The minute you said something else which is similar but cheaper is available you obviously bring worth into the equation. I thought the OP was about a very poor arguement from the pro-live side The concept of "It's only pocket change". Yet when it comes to other overpriced items that are also "pocket change" those same people will complain. It's hypocritical.
[QUOTE="Zaibach"]A travesty to gaming? No, I think you should look up what that word means.well after I payed 300 poundS sterling for my elite, bought the batt pack 20POUNDS rechargeable kit, wifi 90-110 pounds, 60 pounds for MW2(EXAMPLE) and then you think I should fork over another 60 just for the priviledge to play a game that I paid for on the internet service that I paid for, on a console that I payed for?youre wasting youre time skittles, despite live fees being a travesty to gaming, people here will still defend it with all thier might so just leave it.
h575309
No my fellow Gs member I think i nailed the concept of a Travesty to a T
Exactly. To be quite honest. XBL is a ripoff. It be one thing if I was paying for bells and whistles, but you're paying to PLAY online. Something the competition lets you do for free. jg4xchamp
Yeah, but none of my friends actually play the competition's console, so that's a moot point.
The general statement in contention: "Xbox Live is cheap, so you should pay for it."
That statement alone, taken in the most literal way possible, is ludicrous. On that, I think we can agree. Buying anything, disregarding the item or service, based solely on low price, is idiotic.
However, I believe that's a subtext there that underlies the actual statement. The meaning I see behind the words "Xbox Live is cheap for what you get, so you should pay for it."
That's probably subconscious on my part. My assumption is that the same probably applies to many other people.
This was my exact point on the first page. That's the problem skittles, you did not respond to this point as a rebuttal to your thread's topic but instead went down another track and just started telling me why people are wrong to think live is worth the money.The general statement in contention: "Xbox Live is cheap, so you should pay for it."
That statement alone, taken in the most literal way possible, is ludicrous. On that, I think we can agree. Buying anything, disregarding the item or service, based solely on low price, is idiotic.
However, I believe that's a subtext there that underlies the actual statement. The meaning I see behind the words "Xbox Live is cheap for what you get, so you should pay for it."
That's probably subconscious on my part. My assumption is that the same probably applies to many other people.
VoodooHak
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Exactly. To be quite honest. XBL is a ripoff. It be one thing if I was paying for bells and whistles, but you're paying to PLAY online. Something the competition lets you do for free. MangaJ
Yeah, but none of my friends actually play the competition's console, so that's a moot point.
and one of the reasons why I take a bullet for the team(as in pay the 50 bucks for live).[QUOTE="Mestitia"] I just wanted to point out the price tag was still there when Live lacked a lot of the features it has today, and outside of the US, Live is pretty damn crappy and low on content and it's even more expensive then in the US. Ninja-HippoI live in the UK and xbox live is more or less identical to how it is in the US. :|
I second that, i have access to all the features that where listed in the previous post. From Ireland!
The general statement in contention: "Xbox Live is cheap, so you should pay for it."
That statement alone, taken in the most literal way possible, is ludicrous. On that, I think we can agree. Buying anything, disregarding the item or service, based solely on low price, is idiotic.
However, I believe that's a subtext there that underlies the actual statement. The meaning I see behind the words "Xbox Live is cheap for what you get, so you should pay for it."
That's probably subconscious on my part. My assumption is that the same probably applies to many other people.
This was my exact point on the first page. That's the problem skittles, you did not respond to this point as a rebuttal to your thread's topic but instead went down another track and just started telling me why people are wrong to think live is worth the money. What? You presented to me a view on XBL's worth in your own post. I responded with my own view on it, nothing more. :?[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]There's the map pack for CoD4. Offers maps for a similar game, but cheaper :) Although if we go with what you said, the comparison still brings up a point. There is no cheaper alternative to playing your 360 games online. You either pay, or you don't play online. That brings up the question of alternatives. Like someone brought up earlier, why can't there simply different "packages" for people who want different features. I don't care at all about Netflix (something you have to pay for on top of XBL anyway) or Facebook/Twitter use, why is there no "play games online" option? It still brings up the question of having options, in the end.No, they don't have cheaper options.
In MW2, you can either pay for the Stimulus Pack or you can not pay for it. There is no cheaper alternative to the Stimulus Pack for MW2.
Skittles_McGee
Except that it's not the same thing. Now, you're adding another variable to the equation and I'm sorry to say (okay, no I'm not because I'm right) that you can't do that. That's the logical fallacy of Red Herring you're doing by adding COD4 to the mix.
Your argument was based on the premise of there being cheaper alternatives to Xbox Live and the Stimulus Pack, which is only available for MW2. This is a flawed premise because there is no cheaper alternative to the Stimulus Pack for MW2. If you add in COD 4, we're talking about a completely different game. Same developer, same series, different game and thus, a new variable.
That's where this argument falls apart. Because there is no cheaper alternative to the Stimulus Pack for MW2, you have no argument.
Thanks for playing. :)
A travesty to gaming? No, I think you should look up what that word means.well after I payed 300 poundS sterling for my elite, bought the batt pack 20POUNDS rechargeable kit, wifi 90-110 pounds, 60 pounds for MW2(EXAMPLE) and then you think I should fork over another 60 just for the priviledge to play a game that I paid for on the internet service that I paid for, on a console that I payed for?[QUOTE="h575309"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]
youre wasting youre time skittles, despite live fees being a travesty to gaming, people here will still defend it with all thier might so just leave it.
Zaibach
No my fellow Gs member I think i nailed the concept of a Travesty to a T
You did not buy any of the things you just claimed you did buy, as the prices you claim to have paid for them are wildly inaccurate.
A full year's subscription is £34.99 - how on earth you bought one for £60 is beyond me.
A play and charge kit is £12.99, not £20.
Wi-fi is £40, not £90-100. Even the new wirless N premium one is only £54 so i have no idea what you paid £100 for. Besides, you can get any old wifi adapter for as little as £20.There's no need to buy the official one.
An xbox 360 elite is also £180. It has never been £300.
I thought the OP was about a very poor arguement from the pro-live side The concept of "It's only pocket change". Yet when it comes to other overpriced items that are also "pocket change" those same people will complain. It's hypocritical. jg4xchamp
It just depends on how you look at it. If something is pocket change, but you get nothing for it, it's a waste of pocket change that could be better spent on cans of Arizona Iced Tea. But if it's pocket change, and you're getting something worthwhile, then you may as well go for it.
It's almost impossible to argue over perceptions of value, because it's hard to chance people's preferences. I may think the Stimulus Package is a poor value, but if I told a big MW2 fan that he shouldn't pay $15 for 3 maps, he wouldn't agree, because those maps are worth that money to him. Who am I to tell him what a map is worth to him?
It's only hypocritical if you take your preferences as law.
[QUOTE="h575309"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]
youre wasting youre time skittles, despite live fees being a travesty to gaming, people here will still defend it with all thier might so just leave it.
A travesty to gaming? No, I think you should look up what that word means.well after I payed 300 poundS sterling for my elite, bought the batt pack 20POUNDS rechargeable kit, wifi 90-110 pounds, 60 pounds for MW2(EXAMPLE) and then you think I should fork over another 60 just for the priviledge to play a game that I paid for on the internet service that I paid for, on a console that I payed for?No my fellow Gs member I think i nailed the concept of a Travesty to a T
All of this stuff your describing is called a "luxury". None of that stuff that your describing is life or death here. If you were complaining about having to pay $60 a month to have the option to buy food, that would be a "travesty". Simply having to pay for luxury items is in no way fitting of the word travesty. This is really all stemming from this mentality that we as gamers are entitled to certain things without having to pay a dime for them. The corporations selling these things are out to make money, not NFP organizations. You exercise your dismay, or dislike of a product by not purchasing it, or buying the competitors product.well after I payed 300 poundS sterling for my elite, bought the batt pack 20POUNDS rechargeable kit, wifi 90-110 pounds, 60 pounds for MW2(EXAMPLE) and then you think I should fork over another 60 just for the priviledge to play a game that I paid for on the internet service that I paid for, on a console that I payed for?[QUOTE="Zaibach"]
[QUOTE="h575309"] A travesty to gaming? No, I think you should look up what that word means.Ninja-Hippo
No my fellow Gs member I think i nailed the concept of a Travesty to a T
You did not buy any of the things you just claimed you did buy, as the prices you claim to have paid for them are wildly inaccurate.
A full year's subscription is £34.99 - how on earth you bought one for £60 is beyond me.
A play and charge kit is £12.99, not £20.
Wi-fi is £40, not £90-100. Even the new wirless N premium one is only £54 so i have no idea what you paid £100 for. Besides, you can get any old wifi adapter for as little as £20.There's no need to buy the official one.
An xbox 360 elite is also £180. It has never been £300.
my mistake I was quoting US prices lol :lol:oh I bought an elite at launch - sort of,
I know how much it cost me
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]This was my exact point on the first page. That's the problem skittles, you did not respond to this point as a rebuttal to your thread's topic but instead went down another track and just started telling me why people are wrong to think live is worth the money. What? You presented to me a view on XBL's worth in your own post. I responded with my own view on it, nothing more. :?The general statement in contention: "Xbox Live is cheap, so you should pay for it."
That statement alone, taken in the most literal way possible, is ludicrous. On that, I think we can agree. Buying anything, disregarding the item or service, based solely on low price, is idiotic.
However, I believe that's a subtext there that underlies the actual statement. The meaning I see behind the words "Xbox Live is cheap for what you get, so you should pay for it."
That's probably subconscious on my part. My assumption is that the same probably applies to many other people.
Skittles_McGee
Cool, then get off that track.
Hippo and I directly addressed the supposed point of this thread with little to no response from you. So what is it?
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]I thought the OP was about a very poor arguement from the pro-live side The concept of "It's only pocket change". Yet when it comes to other overpriced items that are also "pocket change" those same people will complain. It's hypocritical. sonicmj1
It just depends on how you look at it. If something is pocket change, but you get nothing for it, it's a waste of pocket change that could be better spent on cans of Arizona Iced Tea. But if it's pocket change, and you're getting something worthwhile, then you may as well go for it.
It's almost impossible to argue over perceptions of value, because it's hard to chance people's preferences. I may think the Stimulus Package is a poor value, but if I told a big MW2 fan that he shouldn't pay $15 for 3 maps, he wouldn't agree, because those maps are worth that money to him. Who am I to tell him what a map is worth to him?
It's only hypocritical if you take your preferences as law.
fair enough.You can't really compare content to a service you get 5 maps for $15 and 1 year of playtime for $50. Playing those maps is goign to take up a very very small fraction of the 1 year, in fact i didn't even get the map pack.
Microsoft uses money from live subscriptionsto make sure that gameson their system (with the exception of EA games)have multiplayer for the life of the console without requiring developers and publishers to host their own stuff. The competition does not charge because the competition cannot guarentee that servers won't go down in a few years.
To be fair, the company should be charging developers who use the Live services instead of the consumers who play the games. But they know game companies would rather use their own proprietary solutions than buy into Live if it wasn't free to them. So the cost is passed onto us instead.
Atleast, this is my understanding of the situation. Anyone want some friedchicken?
[QUOTE="MajorGamer531"][QUOTE="h575309"] Yes your PC does it, but the 360 is streamlined and simplifies everything. Whether thats a pro or a con depends on who you are. And the PS3 does have similar functionality, but coming from someone who also has both, it really does not compare. XBL's integration is much better IMO. So basically, Im paying for convenience and a little more functionality (in comparison to the PS3). For $4 a month, its worth it.h575309
Then why not offer a package for free that doesn't have these superfluous features and free online play. When it comes down to it, it is still a scam. You end up having to buy their services in order to play online games on bandwidth you already pay for on machines MS does not own.
Why does everyone feel like their entitled to everything free? Someone has to maintain XBL, there has to be a revenue stream from somewhere. This diluted dream of everyone's that everything besides games should be free is getting a bit absurd.You missed the point, I said offer a set up that doesn't include all the excess services, merely supports online play. That should in fact be 'free' under these terms. Though you already purchased the device that acts as a server to host games and you are already paying your ISP for internet access. And perhaps people believe this should be free because it has been before the 360? That contrary to popular belief the 360 did not invent online gaming?
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Not as good? There's nothing in playing games, buying games, and chat that Steam and Xfire do worse than XBL.:? And both of those are services that are updated, continuously running, and always getting new features. And both are free. But as for the comparison, the concept is what is up for debate. If you don't feel you should pay for something, why should "its not much money for what you get" be the response, when that has nothing to do with it?VoodooHak
PC gaming is a different animal in my eyes. The simple fact that you can name two services on the same platform lends credence to another fact that there is no platform wide standard. And those are only two. This isn't even counting the reasons why people prefer console gaming to PC gaming in general, or that not everyone has a gaming PC.
On the consoles, there's only PSN for the PS3 and XBL for the 360.
I don't see it as an apples-to-apples comparison.
The only difference is the XBL platform is proprietary and you are unable to use Steam and Xfire as per design. So they are forcing you into choosing their service which is not free.
Not really the same thing if you ask me. To me the big difference is in when the next COD game comes out chances are you won't be playing the map pack you wasted $15 on. Live on the other hand upgrades and improves from time to time. You'll also be using it far more than it.
Don't worry though, this is a tiny bit more detailed than your average topic on it ;)
So during a conversation yesterday, I noticed something. Most people who defend XBL's price generally say its not that much and if you can't afford it, get a job. It's a negligible expense, etc.
So, specifically those people, my question to you is this: did you buy the MW2 Stimulus DLC? Its only $15 for forever, thats LESS money than $50 a year! Whoa! That's a deal, right? I mean $15 is pocket change.
What's that? You didn't buy it? Oh why ever did you not buy it? What's that? You don't think it should have been $15? Well sorry, that's just rude to complain about such a SMALL price. Its ONLY $15. I mean, if $50 is pocket change, then $15 is like, pennies right?
Okay, all sarcasm aside, the idea is that people often bring up XBL's price in its defense as small and negligible as though you have no right to not want to pay it, but these same people will often see things like the Stimulus DLC and criticize the price of it. Sure there is a difference between DLC and an online service, but the concept here is the same.
Thoughts on this, System Wars?
Skittles_McGee
sorry buddy, your comparison isn't the same. maybe comparing the dlc to an MMO, but comparing an add-on dlc for one game, and a ONE TIME YEARLY fee is not comparable. also.... who got the DLC first?? go talk crap to the world of warcraft players. THOSE people are getting ripped off. they 5x what XBL players pay for ONE friggin game!!! there is something to complain about.
[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]
Don't worry though, this is a tiny bit more detailed than your average topic on it ;)
So during a conversation yesterday, I noticed something. Most people who defend XBL's price generally say its not that much and if you can't afford it, get a job. It's a negligible expense, etc.
So, specifically those people, my question to you is this: did you buy the MW2 Stimulus DLC? Its only $15 for forever, thats LESS money than $50 a year! Whoa! That's a deal, right? I mean $15 is pocket change.
What's that? You didn't buy it? Oh why ever did you not buy it? What's that? You don't think it should have been $15? Well sorry, that's just rude to complain about such a SMALL price. Its ONLY $15. I mean, if $50 is pocket change, then $15 is like, pennies right?
Okay, all sarcasm aside, the idea is that people often bring up XBL's price in its defense as small and negligible as though you have no right to not want to pay it, but these same people will often see things like the Stimulus DLC and criticize the price of it. Sure there is a difference between DLC and an online service, but the concept here is the same.
Thoughts on this, System Wars?
jlevin860
sorry buddy, your comparison isn't the same. maybe comparing the dlc to an MMO, but comparing an add-on dlc for one game, and a ONE TIME YEARLY fee is not comparable. also.... who got the DLC first?? go talk crap to the world of warcraft players. THOSE people are getting ripped off. they 5x what XBL players pay for ONE friggin game!!! there is something to complain about.
They constant additions to content, a myriad of dedicated highspeed servers able to host 5,000 players with minimal latency, and the best customer service in gaming. Yeah they are hurtin' all right. The DLC is more compareable to the mount they sold like crazy except that it doesnt alienate the player base to not purchase the mount.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment