Why Do People Keep Bringing Up The Cost of Xbox Live?

[QUOTE="Baird-06"]Obviously people are having some difficulties understanding what Xbox Connect is. :?comstrikeiscool

Why shouldn't people bring it up? If you want to play online, it's an expense that you have on the 360 but not on the PS3.Rocky32189

Don't forget that you have to pay in order to be able to get certain achievements that require you to play online (unless you steal the service by using countless trials), which is absolutely free on PSN. :D

Not to mention that you pay so much for laggy game in even the biggest titles for the 360 (looking at you Gears), while PS3's biggest titles such as R2 have extremely minimum to no lag at all for FREE!!!!!

You can't beat a free service that works in your favor. :)

Cedmln

Here, take one:

[QUOTE="comstrikeiscool"][QUOTE="Baird-06"]Obviously people are having some difficulties understanding what Xbox Connect is. :?Baird-06

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Why shouldn't people bring it up? If you want to play online, it's an expense that you have on the 360 but not on the PS3.Baird-06

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Why shouldn't people bring it up? If you want to play online, it's an expense that you have on the 360 but not on the PS3.Baird-06

[QUOTE="Baird-06"][QUOTE="comstrikeiscool"] The title of your thread is "Why do people keep bringing up the cost of Xbox live?" Therefore, people are telling you why they keep bringing up why they shouldn't pay for xbox live. It looks like you are the one have difficulties.comstrikeiscool

[QUOTE="Baird-06"][QUOTE="Rocky32189"]Why shouldn't people bring it up? If you want to play online, it's an expense that you have on the 360 but not on the PS3.comstrikeiscool

Don't forget that you have to pay in order to be able to get certain achievements that require you to play online (unless you steal the service by using countless trials), which is absolutely free on PSN. :D

Not to mention that you pay so much for laggy game in even the biggest titles for the 360 (looking at you Gears), while PS3's biggest titles such as R2 have extremely minimum to no lag at all for FREE!!!!!

You can't beat a free service that works in your favor. :)

Cedmln

Depending on the person, people who want to play online need to pay $50 a year to do what others can do for free on PS3 or PC.dual_boot

Not really. Everyone pays a base fee of 45 dollar or more a month for internet service so no one has a "free service"

So now your justifing using NO service at all with a console, beleive it or not psn is a service that is free and its pretty good aswell lol, not just some 3rd party connection. Heck is xbox connect still connecting you to xbL players?GreyFoXX4

[QUOTE="dual_boot"]Depending on the person, people who want to play online need to pay $50 a year to do what others can do for free on PS3 or PC.jasonheyman

Not really. Everyone pays a base fee of 45 dollar or more a month for internet service so no one has a "free service"

Do you know why ?

Cus the majorty of live users play halo3 and call of duty 4 ( according to gamespot article ) and those games doesn't have dedicated servers, which mean you're playing on normal ppl systems, that's why paying extra money just to play on other ppl servers sux

While online games on ps3 : call of duty waw ( no dedicated servers ) resis2 ( both type of servers ) and battlefield bad company (dedicated servers ) are all free, and don't tell me live have more stuff cus most of em are NOT free

So yea there's no reason to pay extra money to play on users machines

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

I mean it is 60 bucks a year. So thats why. Its not a huge deal but its still a dealacsguitar

[QUOTE="dual_boot"]Depending on the person, people who want to play online need to pay $50 a year to do what others can do for free on PS3 or PC.jasonheyman

Not really. Everyone pays a base fee of 45 dollar or more a month for internet service so no one has a "free service"

Ok, so why is MS charging $50 more then? That doesn't really help the argument lol.

So now your justifing using NO service at all with a console, beleive it or not psn is a service that is free and its pretty good aswell lol, not just some 3rd party connection. Heck is xbox connect still connecting you to xbL players?GreyFoXX4

So yea there's no reason to pay extra money to play on users machines We_never_die

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

People bring it up because by now you have spent $150 on something that should be free.HoldThePhone

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

You're comparing apples to oranges. That's like Sony tacking on extra costs to other consoles to justify the PS3's price. Most people don't walk into a store and wonder how much energy they're going to use on their system. They're going to think, hmmm to play online I need either $50 or I can play for free on PC and PS3. And when it comes to online, people think about paying for online not for electricity. That's a pretty irrelevent point IMO.

[QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]People bring it up because by now you have spent $150 on something that should be free.heretrix

How is Live better ? Name me one thing you can do on live that you can't do on PSN.PS3nut

im still waiting to hear a response to this.

Because if you only talked about features and games, the PS3-only crowd wouldn't have a leg to stand on - barring a handful of exceptions.

I find it ironic that the people who had no problem paying $600 for their console complained about the price of the competition's online plan.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

110million

I live at home with my parents and they pay my XBL fees :roll:

Because if you only talked about features and games, the PS3-only crowd wouldn't have a leg to stand on - barring a handful of exceptions.

I find it ironic that the people who had no problem paying $600 for their console complained about the price of the competition's online plan.

donalbane

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

dual_boot

You're comparing apples to oranges. That's like Sony tacking on extra costs to other consoles to justify the PS3's price. Most people don't walk into a store and wonder how much energy they're going to use on their system. They're going to think, hmmm to play online I need either $50 or I can play for free on PC and PS3. And when it comes to online, people think about paying for online not for electricity. That's a pretty irrelevent point IMO.

$$$ is $$$ it doesn't matter if most people don't wonder how much energy they're using. Power companies get paid and that's the end of it. If people don't think about paying for electiricty that doesn't change that they will have to pay it.

Because if you only talked about features and games, the PS3-only crowd wouldn't have a leg to stand on - barring a handful of exceptions.

I find it ironic that the people who had no problem paying $600 for their console complained about the price of the competition's online plan.

donalbane

[QUOTE="dual_boot"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

You're comparing apples to oranges. That's like Sony tacking on extra costs to other consoles to justify the PS3's price. Most people don't walk into a store and wonder how much energy they're going to use on their system. They're going to think, hmmm to play online I need either $50 or I can play for free on PC and PS3. And when it comes to online, people think about paying for online not for electricity. That's a pretty irrelevent point IMO.

$$$ is $$$ it doesn't matter if most people don't wonder how much energy they're using. Power companies get paid and that's the end of it. If people don't think about paying for electiricty that doesn't change that they will have to pay it.

It's the principal of the matter and not the amount of money, I find it hilarious that you people are bringing energy costs into this.HoldThePhone

Well 360 adds to Global Warming since it runs so hot, and that is going to cost us a helluva lot more than just money!Chutebox

I eagerly await for you to prove your very sarcastic claims.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]Well 360 adds to Global Warming since it runs so hot, and that is going to cost us a helluva lot more than just money!Blackbond

I eagerly await for you to prove your very sarcastic claims.

[QUOTE="dual_boot"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

You're comparing apples to oranges. That's like Sony tacking on extra costs to other consoles to justify the PS3's price. Most people don't walk into a store and wonder how much energy they're going to use on their system. They're going to think, hmmm to play online I need either $50 or I can play for free on PC and PS3. And when it comes to online, people think about paying for online not for electricity. That's a pretty irrelevent point IMO.

$$$ is $$$ it doesn't matter if most people don't wonder how much energy they're using. Power companies get paid and that's the end of it. If people don't think about paying for electiricty that doesn't change that they will have to pay it.

But how does paying for electricity have anything to do with whether or not someone wants to pay for online or not. Do you honestly and realistically believe that most consumers think that way? Like if I was to stay at a Gamestop all day and ask people whether or not they would pay for online and do a poll, that most people would actually bring that up? I highly doubt that. When it comes to paying for online, people think about principal and whether or not they want to invest $50 a year on a service they can get free else where.

According to your logic, if someone buys a Lexus over a Toyota, then they must automatically be in favor of paying for online. What if some people just don't want to pay for online? Has that ever occured to you?

It's the principal of the matter and not the amount of money, I find it hilarious that you people are bringing energy costs into this.HoldThePhone

Did you not read when I said I'd rather have it free and that I would rather not pay for it? The point is that PS3 owners have no room to talk about the cost of XBL in a price comparison. Because in the end they come out of it worse.

[QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]It's the principal of the matter and not the amount of money, I find it hilarious that you people are bringing energy costs into this.Blackbond

Did you not read when I said I'd rather have it free and that I would rather not pay for it? The point is that PS3 owners have no room to talk about the cost of XBL in a price comparison. Because in the end they come out of it worse.

But how does paying for electricity have anything to do with whether or not someone wants to pay for online or not. Do you honestly and realistically believe that most consumers think that way? Like if I was to stay at a Gamestop all day and ask people whether or not they would pay for online and do a poll, that most people would actually bring that up? I highly doubt that. When it comes to paying for online, people think about principal and whether or not they want to invest $50 a year on a service they can get free else where.

According to your logic, if someone buys a Lexus over a Toyota, then they must automatically be in favor of paying for online. What if some people just don't want to pay for online? Has that ever occured to you?

dual_boot

Trying to deflect the argument because you believe that most consumers wouldn't think about it doesn't change the facts about the argument. Look around in this forum of all the false, misinformed, statements about PC gaming and then ask again what peopel think of realistically.

Car analogies for the 500,000,000 time are not relevent on SW I'd think you guys who used it would have remembered that epic 20+ page thread about it that got deleted. Do not put my logic in a car analgoy because based on economic princiapals a car analogy doesn't work period.

What consumers do and don't do doesn't change anything. Its still there.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]It's the principal of the matter and not the amount of money, I find it hilarious that you people are bringing energy costs into this.HoldThePhone

Did you not read when I said I'd rather have it free and that I would rather not pay for it? The point is that PS3 owners have no room to talk about the cost of XBL in a price comparison. Because in the end they come out of it worse.

Yes my countless posts of garbage. It was only like two pages ago man.

[QUOTE="We_never_die"]So yea there's no reason to pay extra money to play on users machines Baird-06

[QUOTE="dual_boot"]

But how does paying for electricity have anything to do with whether or not someone wants to pay for online or not. Do you honestly and realistically believe that most consumers think that way? Like if I was to stay at a Gamestop all day and ask people whether or not they would pay for online and do a poll, that most people would actually bring that up? I highly doubt that. When it comes to paying for online, people think about principal and whether or not they want to invest $50 a year on a service they can get free else where.

According to your logic, if someone buys a Lexus over a Toyota, then they must automatically be in favor of paying for online. What if some people just don't want to pay for online? Has that ever occured to you?

Blackbond

Trying to deflect the argument because you believe that most consumers wouldn't think about it doesn't change the facts about the argument. Look around in this forum of all the false, misinformed, statements about PC gaming and then ask again what peopel think of realistically.

Car analogies for the 500,000,000 time are not relevent on SW I'd think you guys who used it would have remembered that epic 20+ page thread about it that got deleted. Do not put my logic in a car analgoy because based on economic princiapals a car analogy doesn't work period.

What consumers do and don't do doesn't change anything. Its still there.

I think you're the one deflecting my argument, actually. You haven't answered my questions. Your argument may sort of work in theory, but that's all it is, theory. Reality is what counts my friend. But I see you feel pretty strongly about this, as you should because you probably are much more informed than the average consumer. And you're hardcore from what I can tell. But the fact remain is that the average consumer will not come to what you have concluded, sorry.