Reall well said, dude. I am a 12 stepper and we have a saying:you can spend a lifetime on should or shouldn't. Deal with what is on life's terms. There is a fee. You don't pay it. that's dealing with what is. Hats off, bro.Xbox Live not being free has nothing to do with being a view from a moral stand point for me. It should be free because I see no reason why I should buy it. Other companies offer this for free, what makes it worth paying for? They don't have a monopoly on online gaming services and they are the ones that exclusively charge for it. I think it's fair to say it should be free on the grounds that it seems logical at first. Of course it shouldn't because of the amount of money it brings in. When I say it should be free I am saying "I don't think this is worth money and hence I wont buy it. I can get this service for free so I will." However if I were to buy it again I would be agreeing that Live is worth money, which I don't think it is. I am essentially declaring that I think it is worthless rather than making any real logical argument as to whether or not they should charge for it. If I were to attempt to do that simply because Live is mega profitable and to make it free would be complete idiocy. Really what I should say is "Don't buy this, it's not worth your money."
Ek-Andy
Should Be Free
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="voxware00"]
Why defend it at all if opinions don't matter..
cainetao11
Opinions do matter in general. But an opinion, by it's very definition, can't be debated objectively.
Not once have I told you that you are wrong in your decision to not pay for XBL. Why? Because that's your opinion and your decision. I can't argue your against preference. That would be equivalent to us debating about our favorite colors.
The converse applies.
If the converse does not apply, then that's what we call a double-standard.
Well i disagree on opinions mattering. They matter as much as you allow them to in your life experience. I doubt a Shaoulin monk who meditates on transending his ego cares what I think of his life pursuit. All that matters is what one does in life. Which is why I believe if you really want to change the Xbl fee problem, do something proactive. Look into a court petition, or write MS Shawshank style. Two letters a week until they do something for you. We all have a right to voice our complaints as I am doing now. But this topic has been debated to death and if your that outraged by this issue then do something. Otherwise it's just I want it my way and I want something to haoppen to make it so.How you described an opinion is actually what I meant when I said that they matter in general.
[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"][QUOTE="heretrix"]I've been gaming since the Colecovision days and have played every major videogame system released since then and I have never, ever played a flawless videogame. What they did is just made the improvements and put them in a sequel.Since there was no channel to push updated content to the consoles, you had to wait for an entirely new game for any improvement.
I have also never seen gamers more spoiled than in these last 2 generations. People complain about EVERYTHING. And while some complaints are valid, most are utterly ridiculous. Such as the one that inspired the TC to create this thread. Nothing SHOULD be free, but it is excellent when it is. It's really sad that people seem to not realize this.
VideoGameGuy
I hear you on that one heretrix. Gamers today are so spoiled about graphics and overall game quality like never before. You see them all the time scrutinizing every texture, every polygon, spotting every little jaggy, complaining when the game isn't native 1080p, not photorealistic enough for them, the environments aren't big enough, not enough enemies to fight, the stories aren't cinematic enough.... and apparently every game even outside of an RPG should be a 40hr campaign.
They all want to think technology somehow met their expectations. And I am pretty sure every one of these spoiled complainers haven't been gaming for very long, beyond say PS1, and don't know just how GOOD we have it today. Games are as good as the current technology allows for and as best as the talented developers can make them with the tools they have. And things will advance and progress further, but at it's own pace, not how some gamers sitting on their couch thinks they can dictate.
First off i've been gaming since the NES era. Secondly i could careless about all those things you mentioned (graphics, polygons etc., etc., ) My problem is DLC that in previous generations would have either just been unlocked with a cheat code, or earned with hard work. And if you honestly can't see this trend of less content on disc more paid DLC then you are crazy. Frankly, i blame MS and Sony's power struggle for the poor shape the market is in. Poor? Yeah, Nintendo is responsible for 99% of all growth. Developers now either have to make solid blockbusters or face closure (like the dozen or so we've seen close now just this gen). DLC is a way to strech an already overpriced $60 game into maybe a $100+ dollar game. It's NOT a good step.I have never seen something like the Lost and the Damned, any of the map packs nor anything like the expansions to Fallout 3 unlocked through cheat codes, or hard work. Take the rose colored glasses off.
That nonsense that EA, Namco and Capcom are doing with DLC is not the norm and is just an example of bad DLC. Just like the examples I've given above are examples of what would have been an expansion pack.
[QUOTE="heretrix"]I've been gaming since the Colecovision days and have played every major videogame system released since then and I have never, ever played a flawless videogame. What they did is just made the improvements and put them in a sequel.Since there was no channel to push updated content to the consoles, you had to wait for an entirely new game for any improvement.
I have also never seen gamers more spoiled than in these last 2 generations. People complain about EVERYTHING. And while some complaints are valid, most are utterly ridiculous. Such as the one that inspired the TC to create this thread. Nothing SHOULD be free, but it is excellent when it is. It's really sad that people seem to not realize this.
I hear you on that one heretrix. Gamers today are so spoiled about graphics and overall game quality like never before. You see them all the time scrutinizing every texture, every polygon, spotting every little jaggy, complaining when the game isn't native 1080p, not photorealistic enough for them, the environments aren't big enough, not enough enemies to fight, the stories aren't cinematic enough.... and apparently every game even outside of an RPG should be a 40hr campaign.
They all want to think technology somehow met their expectations. And I am pretty sure every one of these spoiled complainers haven't been gaming for very long, beyond say PS1, and don't know just how GOOD we have it today. Games are as good as the current technology allows for and as best as the talented developers can make them with the tools they have. And things will advance and progress further, but at it's own pace, not how some gamers sitting on their couch thinks they can dictate.
First off i've been gaming since the NES era. Secondly i could careless about all those things you mentioned (graphics, polygons etc., etc., ) My problem is DLC that in previous generations would have either just been unlocked with a cheat code, or earned with hard work. And if you honestly can't see this trend of less content on disc more paid DLC then you are crazy. Frankly, i blame MS and Sony's power struggle for the poor shape the market is in. Poor? Yeah, Nintendo is responsible for 99% of all growth. Developers now either have to make solid blockbusters or face closure (like the dozen or so we've seen close now just this gen). DLC is a way to strech an already overpriced $60 game into maybe a $100+ dollar game. It's NOT a good step. Looking at your post from a developer perspective, it actually is a good step because they're doing everything they can just to stay afloat. I'm not justifying the cost of DLC by any means but these are people who want to keep their job, keep their company going, feed their families, get what they want out of life, etc....Making video games is significantly more expensive now in comparison to the generations you're talking about so in essence, that's not even a fair comparison.I have never seen something like the Lost and the Damned, any of the map packs nor anything like the expansions to Fallout 3 unlocked through cheat codes, or hard work. Take the rose colored glasses off.
That nonsense that EA, Namco and Capcom are doing with DLC is not the norm and is just an example of bad DLC. Just like the examples I've given above are examples of what would have been an expansion pack.
This is true as well.OK, forget Live & pre planned rip-off DLC. How aboot when devs want their DLC to be free and M$ won't let them? They did it to epic over Gears of War maps & others as well. In that case, it's stuff that SHOULD be free but M$ too greedy discuss...
bubnux
Why even bother with that drama? It shouldn't even be a second thought.
Based on reviews, etc, does the DLC seem like it's worth whatever they're asking for? If so, I'll buy it......totally regardless of what Epic wanted or what MS forced them to do. That's all fluff.
My decisions are made based on what is, not what should be or what could have been.
I'm not justifying MS's decision, especially since I haven't bought any Gears 2 maps but they also are trying to make sure they stay profitable as well. Companies are worried right now, which is probably why they have laid people off despite still being profitable. They're making sure they stay that way. MS used to make older maps free when a new map pack came out, such as Halo 2 and the Heroic map pack with Halo 3 but if you check the Legendary map pack, it's still being charged for although it's currently at a reduced rate. Companies being greedy set aside, you have to figure these companies are also made up of people who have families to take care of and bills to pay. If a company doesn't make a profit, those same people are left without a job. I can't imagine how this doesn't make sense.OK, forget Live & pre planned rip-off DLC. How aboot when devs want their DLC to be free and M$ won't let them? They did it to epic over Gears of War maps & others as well. In that case, it's stuff that SHOULD be free but M$ too greedy discuss...
bubnux
First off i've been gaming since the NES era. Secondly i could careless about all those things you mentioned (graphics, polygons etc., etc., ) My problem is DLC that in previous generations would have either just been unlocked with a cheat code, or earned with hard work. And if you honestly can't see this trend of less content on disc more paid DLC then you are crazy. Frankly, i blame MS and Sony's power struggle for the poor shape the market is in. Poor? Yeah, Nintendo is responsible for 99% of all growth. Developers now either have to make solid blockbusters or face closure (like the dozen or so we've seen close now just this gen). DLC is a way to strech an already overpriced $60 game into maybe a $100+ dollar game. It's NOT a good step.[QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]
I hear you on that one heretrix. Gamers today are so spoiled about graphics and overall game quality like never before. You see them all the time scrutinizing every texture, every polygon, spotting every little jaggy, complaining when the game isn't native 1080p, not photorealistic enough for them, the environments aren't big enough, not enough enemies to fight, the stories aren't cinematic enough.... and apparently every game even outside of an RPG should be a 40hr campaign.
They all want to think technology somehow met their expectations. And I am pretty sure every one of these spoiled complainers haven't been gaming for very long, beyond say PS1, and don't know just how GOOD we have it today. Games are as good as the current technology allows for and as best as the talented developers can make them with the tools they have. And things will advance and progress further, but at it's own pace, not how some gamers sitting on their couch thinks they can dictate.
heretrix
I have never seen something like the Lost and the Damned, any of the map packs nor anything like the expansions to Fallout 3 unlocked through cheat codes, or hard work. Take the rose colored glasses off.
That nonsense that EA, Namco and Capcom are doing with DLC is not the norm and is just an example of bad DLC. Just like the examples I've given above are examples of what would have been an expansion pack.
Thank you Heretrix. Extra game content may be new to consoles, but not to PC games. back in the day people went into stores to BUY a piece of software that was added to a game they already had (right there in the requirements, needed the base game to install the expansion). And this was seen as a great thing, extending the life of the game after completing it. So now it's suddenly milkage? the hell???
It just wasn't possible with older console games before the incorporation of HDDs and the internet, when you couldn't add extras to a cartridge or CD. back then, all you had was what you got and had to wait for an entirely new sequel. And as Heretrix pointed out, unlockable items on older console games were additional outfits or weapons. NOT complete new environements and story chapters like Lost and Damned or the expansions in Fallout 3.
You can talk all you want about how the current $60 game was stripped down intentionally for later resale. But the fact is YOU DON'T KNOW what was in the original design of the game, how long the devs intended it to be, or how much they could afford to initially develop. Not every developer tries to stretch out every game. They start with an outline of the story, the beginning middle and end, work everything around that. If the plot worked out to 8 hours of game play or 15, or maybe even 30 adding in side quests, that's what it was. Nothing more and nothing less.
As long as the campaign feels like it had consistent story structure with a reasonable ending, then any DLC is just what its intended to be; a means of extending the game beyond it's natural conclusion.
[QUOTE="bubnux"]
OK, forget Live & pre planned rip-off DLC. How aboot when devs want their DLC to be free and M$ won't let them? They did it to epic over Gears of War maps & others as well. In that case, it's stuff that SHOULD be free but M$ too greedy discuss...
Why even bother with that drama? It shouldn't even be a second thought.
Based on reviews, etc, does the DLC seem like it's worth whatever they're asking for? If so, I'll buy it......totally regardless of what Epic wanted or what MS forced them to do. That's all fluff.
My decisions are made based on what is, not what should be or what could have been.
Exactly, I feel the same way. For the time being, I haven't bought the Gears 2 maps because it's not worth it to me at this time. When I go back to playing Horde mode, I'll probably pick them up because at that point, it'll be worth it to me.OK, forget Live & pre planned rip-off DLC. How aboot when devs want their DLC to be free and M$ won't let them? They did it to epic over Gears of War maps & others as well. In that case, it's stuff that SHOULD be free but M$ too greedy discuss...
bubnux
No, that's called propaganda. "Well, I mean, we really wanted to offer our DLC for free, but well, MS just wouldn't let us not make any profit off it." "Well, I mean, we really wanted to let them offer the DLC for free, but well, God just wouldn't let them and us not make any profit off it."
It's most likely blatant lies to pretend that they are "with" the fans. This probably dosn't affect MS, but it will effect Epic positively. Probably why they would not deny it unless they were specifically prompted to.
"Well, I mean, I... wait a second, I didn't say that!"
EDIT: Note that I don't know how to use effect and affect :S.
I think Epic is lying when they make those statements. You're exactly right on that point. It doesn't affect MS at all and if it did, it's not like that's on the same level as E74 or RROD while Epic is going to look good by saying it.
Edit: Voodoohak is correct though, ultimately this is irrelevant and unimportant in my decisions on whether or not to purchase DLC.
[QUOTE="bubnux"]
OK, forget Live & pre planned rip-off DLC. How aboot when devs want their DLC to be free and M$ won't let them? They did it to epic over Gears of War maps & others as well. In that case, it's stuff that SHOULD be free but M$ too greedy discuss...
Why even bother with that drama? It shouldn't even be a second thought.
Based on reviews, etc, does the DLC seem like it's worth whatever they're asking for? If so, I'll buy it......totally regardless of what Epic wanted or what MS forced them to do. That's all fluff.
My decisions are made based on what is, not what should be or what could have been.
Exactly, VoodooHak. It's all just ego driven drama, the should, shouldn't stuff. What are you going to DO about it? I pay the fees for Live and believe that MS in our society have a free right to charge a fee. But if I'm presented with a petition to remove the fee, I'll sign it. I just don't see my $4 per month as stressfull enough to go out and try to enact a change.Wait wait wait, people apparently have the money to afford an incredibly expensive entertainment format like video games, but when it comes to paying a scant $4 a month, they suddenly don't have any money? Once again, the amount of double-standards in this hread amazes me. Maybe they should charge you for plugging in your controller, and each time you wanna play one of your games... Dude no double standards here. It's free EVERYWHERE else, the same service is on PC for FREE, heck there are better services out there that do more and are free, I'm being consistent, and for the record I'm not bashing people who pay for Live, I'm bashing people who defend the fee. And it doesn't cost 4 bucks a month, I have 4 bucks with me right now and I can't pay live with them. Every time I go online to buy an online 12 month live card I see a bunch of games like LBP 10 pounds, Fifa 09 17 pounds etc etc (DvD.CO.UK) I always end up just buying more games. I should not have to give up on new games to pay for something that's free everywhere else. Microsoft has you guys completly brainwashed, it's sad. What is sad is how uninformed and downright fanatical your response was. You're apparently a literalist, think everyone is entitled to dictating the price, or lack thereof, of goods...this is a total mess.[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Typical "I have money so I don't care about the people that don't" stance. You know it's wrong, why you guys defend it is beyond me, I understand perfectly why you pay for it, you wanna play your games online, you have the dough, so go for it, but to defend it?Eddie-Vedder
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Maybe they should charge you for plugging in your controller, and each time you wanna play one of your games... Dude no double standards here. It's free EVERYWHERE else, the same service is on PC for FREE, heck there are better services out there that do more and are free, I'm being consistent, and for the record I'm not bashing people who pay for Live, I'm bashing people who defend the fee. And it doesn't cost 4 bucks a month, I have 4 bucks with me right now and I can't pay live with them. Every time I go online to buy an online 12 month live card I see a bunch of games like LBP 10 pounds, Fifa 09 17 pounds etc etc (DvD.CO.UK) I always end up just buying more games. I should not have to give up on new games to pay for something that's free everywhere else. Microsoft has you guys completly brainwashed, it's sad. What is sad is how uninformed and downright fanatical your response was. You're apparently a literalist, think everyone is entitled to dictating the price, or lack thereof, of goods...this is a total mess. Makes more sense then what your defending imo, it's like if MS raised the Live fee to 100 bucks a month, if you were a lotery winner you wouldn't give a crap cause you can easily afford it, and it's has "value" for you cause you like to game online etc... It's still a rip off cause it's everywhere else free. I'm sorry but this is a forum where we are supposed to share our views, and if I shouldn't be argueing against the Live fee's cause some of you think it's more then worth it, you guys shouldn't be argueing for it, cause there are plenty of us that think it's one of the biggest rip off's in gaming today.[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Wait wait wait, people apparently have the money to afford an incredibly expensive entertainment format like video games, but when it comes to paying a scant $4 a month, they suddenly don't have any money? Once again, the amount of double-standards in this hread amazes me.Verge_6
[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]Then use those companies service. It really is simple. The idea that we get to tell a company what they're not allowed to charge for in a free market is what bothers me. You can send that message by not paying for it.Online play should be free because we have companies out there that are giving it out for free.
cainetao11
I don't pay, that's why my 360 collects so much damn dust.
I get drinking water for free, but I'll be damned if there aren't 25 different brands of bottled water in the grocery store.[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]
Online play should be free because we have companies out there that are giving it out for free.
heretrix
What if you can get even better bottle water (PC) yet still not get charged for it? ;)
Wrong. The term "rip-off" depends on "value" (or the lack of it, better said), which is subjective, making what's a rip-off and what's not also subjective.IronBassSo rip off is subjective as well because of value?
I recently got the new L4D content and get to play it for free, if I had chosen to get on 360 I'd have to pay for that same content and to be able of play it for no apparent reason other than giving my money away to MS. In which of those cases am I getting ripped off? The later one.
Oh and edit: I am well aware that the L4D content is supposed to be free on XBL as well which is definitely a great thing, but still have to pay the live fee.
[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Maybe they should charge you for plugging in your controller, and each time you wanna play one of your games... Dude no double standards here. It's free EVERYWHERE else, the same service is on PC for FREE, heck there are better services out there that do more and are free, I'm being consistent, and for the record I'm not bashing people who pay for Live, I'm bashing people who defend the fee. And it doesn't cost 4 bucks a month, I have 4 bucks with me right now and I can't pay live with them. Every time I go online to buy an online 12 month live card I see a bunch of games like LBP 10 pounds, Fifa 09 17 pounds etc etc (DvD.CO.UK) I always end up just buying more games. I should not have to give up on new games to pay for something that's free everywhere else. Microsoft has you guys completly brainwashed, it's sad.What is sad is how uninformed and downright fanatical your response was. You're apparently a literalist, think everyone is entitled to dictating the price, or lack thereof, of goods...this is a total mess. Makes more sense then what your defending imo, it's like if MS raised the Live fee to 100 bucks a month, if you were a lotery winner you wouldn't give a crap cause you can easily afford it, and it's has "value" for you cause you like to game online etc... It's still a rip off cause it's everywhere else free. I'm sorry but this is a forum where we are supposed to share our views, and if I shouldn't be argueing against the Live fee's cause some of you think it's more then worth it, you guys shouldn't be argueing for it, cause there are plenty of us that think it's one of the biggest rip off's in gaming today. My oh my, where to start? 1) The differences between a monthly $4 fee and a $100 are self-explanatory, so that example is absolutely horrid 2) No, everywhere else it is NOT free, as already pointed out. Not with the same features, even. 3) Once again, you show signs that you do not comprehend subjective value, as somehow, in your head, paying a small fee for something on a singular device, with no other option, is a "rip-off" just because other singular devices offer, in some cases free services which may or may not offer the same services 4) I never said you couldn't argue against Live. You're just doing it in a very poor fashion.Eddie-Vedder
I get drinking water for free, but I'll be damned if there aren't 25 different brands of bottled water in the grocery store.[QUOTE="heretrix"]
[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]
Online play should be free because we have companies out there that are giving it out for free.
W1NGMAN-
What if you can get even better bottle water (PC) yet still not get charged for it? ;)
That PC service isn't offered on the 360, so what's the goddamn point?So rip off is subjective as well because of value?[QUOTE="IronBass"] Wrong. The term "rip-off" depends on "value" (or the lack of it, better said), which is subjective, making what's a rip-off and what's not also subjective.Dystopian-X
I recently got the new L4D content and get to play it for free, if I had chosen to get on 360 I'd have to pay for that same content and to be able of play it for no apparent reason other than giving my money away to MS. In which of those cases am I getting ripped off? The later one.
Whether or not it's a rip off or not is subjective because of the langauge used its self. It's a subjective term. Though objectively speaking the PC content is of the same value as the 360 content, and hence value can be objective when comparing the same item. Objectively speaking the PC content is better value for money and the 360 content worse value for money. However that does not mean it should logically be free. That just means that the consumer is disadvantaged in the sense that he is not getting as much value for money. If you think it's a rip off don't buy it. That is the best way to show that you feel it is of low value than you desire is to not buy it.
I get drinking water for free, but I'll be damned if there aren't 25 different brands of bottled water in the grocery store.[QUOTE="heretrix"]
[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]
Online play should be free because we have companies out there that are giving it out for free.
W1NGMAN-
What if you can get even better bottle water (PC) yet still not get charged for it? ;)
Is there really such a thing as 'better" water dude?Toll road. Faulty analogy because there's a built in assumption that both services are equal. They are not. The analogy is oversimplified. The Sony road would have no toll, but would have less amenities. The NPD study about online service usage puts a kink in everything anyway. The paid service is the most used even when taking userbase into account. How do Xbox Live complainers reconcile their overgeneralizations with empirical data?The analogy works fine... why because the added amenities you get from paying for XboxLive are given away for free with the silver account. And Just like a toll road you can't drive on it (Play online) unless you pay the fee. You are not paying the fee for amenities for a free service (like priority match making, or leader boards) your paying the fee to use the service at all. I would have no problem with a value added service... but a service fee for a service which allows you to use things you've already payed for... and worse yet uses the internet connection you payed for to allow other paying members to play... is morally wrong.Levels of importance for each feature are another quality assessment on your part. Another opinion.
I see things like online play and the other features all part in parcel to the whole package. MS doesn't charge for only the core mechanic. They charge for the whole package. Personally, I put a premium on this type of holistic approach to gaming. That's a value assessment on my part. And a differing opinion.
So my point still stands. The opinions that XBL is a ripoff or the best cannot be universally applied.
VoodooHak
So rip off is subjective as well because of value?[QUOTE="IronBass"] Wrong. The term "rip-off" depends on "value" (or the lack of it, better said), which is subjective, making what's a rip-off and what's not also subjective.Dystopian-X
Yes. Exactly. "Rip off" is totally subjective because it IS a value call on your part.
The simple fact that there are people who believe it's not a rip-off proves this point. Not that it is or isn't a rip-off, but that it's subjective and that different people will have different opinions.
That's all well and fine, but PAYING to use P2P online gaming is simply ridiculous...no matter how you spin it.Zoso-8You are oversimplifying it quite a bit.
There is no other service, not even on the PC, where one company maintains the entire infrastructure and supports an online gaming platform.
You are oversimplifying it quite a bit.[QUOTE="Zoso-8"]That's all well and fine, but PAYING to use P2P online gaming is simply ridiculous...no matter how you spin it.heretrix
There is no other service, not even on the PC, where one company maintains the entire infrastructure and supports an online gaming platform.
Microsoft doesn't maintain the entire infrastructure. They have match making servers localized, but why do they need to do that... anyway? Sony does just fine with out a central match making system.The analogy works fine... why because the added amenities you get from paying for XboxLive are given away for free with the silver account. And Just like a toll road you can't drive on it (Play online) unless you pay the fee. You are not paying the fee for amenities for a free service (like priority match making, or leader boards) your paying the fee to use the service at all. I would have no problem with a value added service... but a service fee for a service which allows you to use things you've already payed for... and worse yet uses the internet connection you payed for to allow other paying members to play... is morally wrong.[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]Toll road. Faulty analogy because there's a built in assumption that both services are equal. They are not. The analogy is oversimplified. The Sony road would have no toll, but would have less amenities. The NPD study about online service usage puts a kink in everything anyway. The paid service is the most used even when taking userbase into account. How do Xbox Live complainers reconcile their overgeneralizations with empirical data?
Levels of importance for each feature are another quality assessment on your part. Another opinion.
I see things like online play and the other features all part in parcel to the whole package. MS doesn't charge for only the core mechanic. They charge for the whole package. Personally, I put a premium on this type of holistic approach to gaming. That's a value assessment on my part. And a differing opinion.
So my point still stands. The opinions that XBL is a ripoff or the best cannot be universally applied.
GundamGuy0
Cross-game invites work with Silver? The party system works with Silver? A silver account can participate in Community Calendar events? Submit feedback on griefers and cheaters?
So no. You're not paying only for online multiplayer. you're paying for the whole package because, well that's what they're offering you. Fact.
So rip off is subjective as well because of value?[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"]
[QUOTE="IronBass"] Wrong. The term "rip-off" depends on "value" (or the lack of it, better said), which is subjective, making what's a rip-off and what's not also subjective.VoodooHak
Yes. Exactly. "Rip off" is totally subjective because it IS a value call on your part.
The simple fact that there are people who believe it's not a rip-off proves this point. Not that it is or isn't a rip-off, but that it's subjective and that different people will have different opinions.
That's true but value isn't nessecarily subjective under all circumstances. If you take the same item and under diffrent circumstances are offered for diffrent prices then the cheaper item will be the of the better value. That's using objective reasoning to determine somethings value. Whether or not it's a rip off or not is subjective though.
[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"]
I recently got the new L4D content and get to play it for free, if I had chosen to get on 360 I'd have to pay for that same content and to be able of play it for no apparent reason other than giving my money away to MS. In which of those cases am I getting ripped off? The later one.
Ek-Andy
Whether or not it's a rip off or not is subjective because of the langauge used its self. It's a subjective term. Though objectively speaking the PC content is of the same value as the 360 content, and hence value can be objective when comparing the same item. Objectively speaking the PC content is better value for money and the 360 content worse value for money. However that does not mean it should logically be free. That just means that the consumer is disadvantaged in the sense that he is not getting as much value for money. If you think it's a rip off don't buy it. That is the best way to show that you feel it is of low value than you desire is to not buy it.
Exactly value, and that's right I don't pay for this yet it seems that many of those that DO pay for it try to justify why they pay in order to get the same content that is free by saying: "No one is entitled to pay for the service" but that doesn't change the fact that you are paying for that same value just because MS decided they SHOULD charge you. This is reason enough to say that "This should be free".
You are oversimplifying it quite a bit.[QUOTE="heretrix"]
[QUOTE="Zoso-8"]That's all well and fine, but PAYING to use P2P online gaming is simply ridiculous...no matter how you spin it.GundamGuy0
There is no other service, not even on the PC, where one company maintains the entire infrastructure and supports an online gaming platform.
Microsoft doesn't maintain the entire infrastructure. They have match making servers localized, but why do they need to do that... anyway? Sony does just fine with out a central match making system.MS maintains the entire XBL infrastructure. This includes developing the actual multiplayer component to all of it's games. The only exception is EA.The analogy works fine... why because the added amenities you get from paying for XboxLive are given away for free with the silver account. And Just like a toll road you can't drive on it (Play online) unless you pay the fee. You are not paying the fee for amenities for a free service (like priority match making, or leader boards) your paying the fee to use the service at all. I would have no problem with a value added service... but a service fee for a service which allows you to use things you've already payed for... and worse yet uses the internet connection you payed for to allow other paying members to play... is morally wrong.[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"]
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]Toll road. Faulty analogy because there's a built in assumption that both services are equal. They are not. The analogy is oversimplified. The Sony road would have no toll, but would have less amenities. The NPD study about online service usage puts a kink in everything anyway. The paid service is the most used even when taking userbase into account. How do Xbox Live complainers reconcile their overgeneralizations with empirical data?
Levels of importance for each feature are another quality assessment on your part. Another opinion.
I see things like online play and the other features all part in parcel to the whole package. MS doesn't charge for only the core mechanic. They charge for the whole package. Personally, I put a premium on this type of holistic approach to gaming. That's a value assessment on my part. And a differing opinion.
So my point still stands. The opinions that XBL is a ripoff or the best cannot be universally applied.
VoodooHak
Cross-game invites work with Silver? The party system works with Silver? A silver account can participate in Community Calendar events? Submit feedback on griefers and cheaters?
So no. You're not paying only for online multiplayer. you're paying for the whole package because, well that's what they're offering you. Fact.
I would agree with you that those were value added services, but they aren't why because the silver doesn't have any value to add too. You can't play online on silver... if you could play online with sliver, and then were able to pay for cross game invites, a party system, a calendar of events, or submit feedback, then that would be a great value added service. PS: Why would you need Cross Game Invites, The Party System, or the ability to submit feedback on cheaters, in an account where you can't play online anyway?Microsoft doesn't maintain the entire infrastructure. They have match making servers localized, but why do they need to do that... anyway? Sony does just fine with out a central match making system.MS maintains the entire XBL infrastructure. This includes developing the actual multiplayer component to all of it's games. The only exception is EA. So not true, they have a pre-bulit suite which they give to developers for XboxLive support, but they don't develop the online for them... that would be silly. Also there is not much in the way of infrastructure to maintain because much of XBL is not run from centrally located servers... much of it is done using peer connections.[QUOTE="GundamGuy0"]
[QUOTE="heretrix"]You are oversimplifying it quite a bit.
There is no other service, not even on the PC, where one company maintains the entire infrastructure and supports an online gaming platform.
heretrix
[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]
[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"]
I recently got the new L4D content and get to play it for free, if I had chosen to get on 360 I'd have to pay for that same content and to be able of play it for no apparent reason other than giving my money away to MS. In which of those cases am I getting ripped off? The later one.
Dystopian-X
Whether or not it's a rip off or not is subjective because of the langauge used its self. It's a subjective term. Though objectively speaking the PC content is of the same value as the 360 content, and hence value can be objective when comparing the same item. Objectively speaking the PC content is better value for money and the 360 content worse value for money. However that does not mean it should logically be free. That just means that the consumer is disadvantaged in the sense that he is not getting as much value for money. If you think it's a rip off don't buy it. That is the best way to show that you feel it is of low value than you desire is to not buy it.
Exactly value, and that's right I don't pay for this yet it seems that many of those that DO pay for it try to justify why they pay in order to get the same content that is free by saying: "No one is entitled to pay for the service" but that doesn't change the fact that you are paying for that same value just because MS decided they SHOULD charge you. This is reason enough to say that "This should be free".
No it's not. It's a reason enough to say you shouldn't buy it. If MS can make money off of it then logically this is what they will do. It's the best option for them as a buisness and it is they that are offering it. The only exception might be is if they want to gain a loyal fanbase or bring in new customers. We can't demand and dicatate what someone wants to sell to us, but we can complain about it by not buying the product. If everyone united as a whole and said "We don't think this is worth buying" then MS would be forced to offer it for free. That would never happen, and MS are counting on that. The people who are to blame are they people who make it profitable, the people who buy it. MS are just being logical, it is us that are the morons that keep buying their crap.
No it's not. It's a reason enough to say you shouldn't buy it. If MS can make money off of it then logically this is what they will do. It's the best option for them as a buisness and it is they that are offering it. The only exception might be is if they want to gain a loyal fanbase or bring in new customers. We can't demand and dicatate what someone wants to sell to us, but we can complain about it by not buying the product. If everyone united as a whole and said "We don't think this is worth buying" then MS would be forced to offer it for free. That would never happen, and MS are counting on that. The people who are to blame are they people who make it profitable, the people who buy it. MS are just being logical, it is us that are the morons that keep buying their crap.
Ek-Andy
Yes and that only benefits MS and not the consumer, why should I defend MS' interests since they don't give me the same value? And I understand that the "everyone not paying for it" Isn't happening but the worst thing is not that ppl pay for this because that's really their call, but that they actually defend all this.
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]
[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"] So rip off is subjective as well because of value?
Ek-Andy
Yes. Exactly. "Rip off" is totally subjective because it IS a value call on your part.
The simple fact that there are people who believe it's not a rip-off proves this point. Not that it is or isn't a rip-off, but that it's subjective and that different people will have different opinions.
That's true but value isn't nessecarily subjective under all circumstances. If you take the same item and under diffrent circumstances are offered for diffrent prices then the cheaper item will be the of the better value. That's using objective reasoning to determine somethings value. Whether or not it's a rip off or not is subjective though.
Value is a subjective concept. Exact same item under different cirumstances with different prices: the circumstances could affect value. If it's the exact same item, same circumstances, different prices, the value could STILL be different. Maybe the person making the value judgment chooses the higher priced item arbitrarily. The only objective conclusion in this case is that one item is cheaper, not that one item is better.
[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]
Yes. Exactly. "Rip off" is totally subjective because it IS a value call on your part.
The simple fact that there are people who believe it's not a rip-off proves this point. Not that it is or isn't a rip-off, but that it's subjective and that different people will have different opinions.
VoodooHak
That's true but value isn't nessecarily subjective under all circumstances. If you take the same item and under diffrent circumstances are offered for diffrent prices then the cheaper item will be the of the better value. That's using objective reasoning to determine somethings value. Whether or not it's a rip off or not is subjective though.
Value is a subjective concept. Exact same item under different cirumstances with different prices: the circumstances could affect value. If it's the exact same item, same circumstances, different prices, the value could STILL be different. Maybe the person making the value judgment chooses the higher priced item arbitrarily. The only objective conclusion in this case is that one item is cheaper, not that one item is better.
Here's the circumstance. Two items that are exactly the same. One is cheaper. One is more expensive. And it's from the same store and supplier. Having an increased price does not effect value positively in any possible way. It might mean people might buy it because they think it might be better, but that's just objective ignorance. Under these circumstances you can say that something is objectively of better value than another item.
EDIT: Major typo.
[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]
No it's not. It's a reason enough to say you shouldn't buy it. If MS can make money off of it then logically this is what they will do. It's the best option for them as a buisness and it is they that are offering it. The only exception might be is if they want to gain a loyal fanbase or bring in new customers. We can't demand and dicatate what someone wants to sell to us, but we can complain about it by not buying the product. If everyone united as a whole and said "We don't think this is worth buying" then MS would be forced to offer it for free. That would never happen, and MS are counting on that. The people who are to blame are they people who make it profitable, the people who buy it. MS are just being logical, it is us that are the morons that keep buying their crap.
Dystopian-X
Yes and that only benefits MS and not the consumer, why should I defend MS' interests since they don't give me the same value? And I understand that the "everyone not paying for it" Isn't happening but the worst thing is not that ppl pay for this because that's really their call, but that they actually defend all this.
That's not the point though.
You're saying it "should be free" because you don't think it's worth money. That's not the same thing. Logically it should not be free as they make money off it. If the circumstances were that MS would not make any money off it, and there would be more of a negative outcome than positive for charging then that would mean that it should be free. The common use of the phrase is just illogical.
I have the right to whine all I want, and I will whine cause I like it, I think the world in general would be a better place if more people voiced their opinions, yeah it can be annoying but it's how information and thoughts get shared. Just because it's a luxury item/service doesn't mean it can't be overpriced or that I don't have the right to comment on its pricing.
Just as long as you know you're whining it's cool. What isn't cool is whining about something you don't even want.I have the right to whine all I want, and I will whine cause I like it, I think the world in general would be a better place if more people voiced their opinions, yeah it can be annoying but it's how information and thoughts get shared. Just because it's a luxury item/service doesn't mean it can't be overpriced or that I don't have the right to comment on its pricing.
mr_mozilla
Just as long as you know you're whining it's cool. What isn't cool is whining about something you don't even want.[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]
I have the right to whine all I want, and I will whine cause I like it, I think the world in general would be a better place if more people voiced their opinions, yeah it can be annoying but it's how information and thoughts get shared. Just because it's a luxury item/service doesn't mean it can't be overpriced or that I don't have the right to comment on its pricing.
heretrix
What? Like war, world hunger, feminists, Sheep (Just kidding), disease, Soulja Boy or RRoD? Might want to rephrase that :P.
Should be free. The providers get money from game sales, or the console sales if it's the console company. This is why I don't play online on consoles, PC FTW.
Here's the circumstance. Two items that are exactly the same. One is cheaper. One is more expensive. And it's from the same store and supplier. Having an increased price does not effect value positively in any possible way. It might mean people might buy it because they think it might be better, but that's just objective ignorance. Under these circumstances you can say that something is objectively of better value than another item.
Ek-Andy
This is valid only under the premise that everyone assigns value to a concept like monetary price. Even so some may see the price as too low or too high for it to be of any practical significance. Then we go into things like scale of value and people's perceptions of value. Bottom line is that the idea of value for a situation cannot be applied universally.
Mind you, we've been debating this issue on the most simple of situations. Throw in all the variables involved with Xbox Live and my point is further illustrated.
Take this academic exercise into the real world and we have many threads on the subject, both sides having valid points as well as a study showing that when given the choice, people will play online with Xbox Live.
What does this mean?
It means that there is no easy answer and we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter.
Take this academic exercise into the real world and we have many threads on the subject, both sides having valid points as well as a study showing that when given the choice, people will play online with Xbox Live.It means that people are willing to play to play the games they love... it doesn't mean that they should have to do so.What does this mean?VoodooHak
I don't get how some people don't see what some of us are really defending here. It's freedom. Mine, yours, and MS'. They have the right to decide if their going to charge for live. I and everyone else has the right not to use it. That's what I defend. I don't believe in "should or shouldn't". cainetao11
sounds like libertarianism.. based on your beliefs, lobbyists should have the freedom to shape our government behind closed doors for money
Just as long as you know you're whining it's cool. What isn't cool is whining about something you don't even want.[QUOTE="heretrix"]
[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]
I have the right to whine all I want, and I will whine cause I like it, I think the world in general would be a better place if more people voiced their opinions, yeah it can be annoying but it's how information and thoughts get shared. Just because it's a luxury item/service doesn't mean it can't be overpriced or that I don't have the right to comment on its pricing.
Ek-Andy
What? Like war, world hunger, feminists, Sheep (Just kidding), disease, Soulja Boy or RRoD? Might want to rephrase that :P.
A legit complaint>>>>>>>>>>>>whining anyday of the year. :)Not enough people know the diff.
That's not the point though.You're saying it "should be free" because you don't think it's worth money. That's not the same thing. Logically it should not be free as they make money off it. If the circumstances were that MS would not make any money off it, and there would be more of a negative outcome than positive for charging then that would mean that it should be free. The common use of the phrase is just illogical.Ek-AndyIt's not just because I don't "think" it isn't worth the money, I have stated why it's not worth the same value as your money compared to what you get in exchange and compared to what others offer as well.
This is just my 2 cents. I have skimmed this thread, and some of the postings seem very insightful, others are way off the mark. First off, you truly can't compare the online experiences of consoles. Why not? Well you can't really use live to play ps3 online, vice versa (works for all platforms). So if you want to play online with the 360, you have to pay to play. Nothing wrong with this, since they have been doing it since Live's inception, and continue to do so this gen. If there were to be a nationwide boycott, or more people refusing to pay, this would twist MS's arm, then they would change. However, this won't happen and they will continue to do so. MS is smart to charge, and why would they stop? PS3's online is decent, I am truly not an online gamer, so this is not something I truly desire. My younger bro is an avid online gamer, and the 360 is good for him. He gets his money's worth with his subscription, and I have noted that 360 seems to have a better following in terms of online community.
You still can't change how people feel about paying the fee, especially when other platforms offer online play for free. And in a way MS has been able to convince people to keep paying......only because gamers have no choice. Not like people can say well I won't use live, I'll use "insert any free online service mentioned here." They don't exist, so MS hasn't lured anyone away from free online mp. They simply haven't given you a choice, just as Sony or Nintendo haven't either (difference is they don't charge a fee). So I see nothing wrong with MS charging, since they are getting away with it, as evident with the size of their online community. People it's a business, here to make money. While they may care for the gaming community, the only real reason is because it feeds their bottom line. So they have to be in tune with the gamers in order to offer what they want, and in the end turn a profit. MS has mastered this well.
My gripe comes with DLC. Many have stated $60 is too much money for games. This is debatable. Games these days offer a lot for the price. Most offer single player mode, coop mode, and the obligatory online mp mode. Games are not truly considered complete if they don't offer a good online experience. I couldn't agree more. The technology and gaming industry has been moving in this direction for a while now. Why should it stop? Now back to DLC. I have no problems when the DLC content being offered is adding value to the game you already have. The new DLC content for GTA 4, the Lost and Damned, added so much value to the game. It's a complete new story mode. I have no problem paying for this. Nor when you can get new mp map packs or such things. I wish there were DLC content for Uncharted, since there really wasn't any online mp.
I do have issues when you have to pay to unlock items that already are included on the actual disc bought (I'm lookign at you RE, SF4, and some other games mentioned in this thread). The developers are nickel and diming players when they do this. It's similar to how airlines are nickel and diming passengers. In the past meals were included with your flight. Now you have to pay for that, as well as your checking a 2nd bag (something that was free before), all while you are paying more for airfare. This needs to stop. How can it stop, by people refusing to buy dlc content of this nature. Will it stop...I hope so, but prob not. Any ways that was my 2...er 5 cents?
PS. Love the shout out to Coleco Vision!! I was a Coleco Vision player...this system sucked me into gaming, and i have never looked back. I was never an Atari player...not bashing...anyways there are my 10 cents
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment