Why do people pay for Xbox Live?

Q: Why do people pay for satellite / cable TV when there are similar alternatives available for free?

A: Because people find value in it. The fact that there are free alternatives is irrelevant.

HaRmLeSS_RaGe

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

Q: Why do people pay for satellite / cable TV when there are similar alternatives available for free?

 

A: Because people find value in it. The fact that there are free alternatives is irrelevant.

mems_1224

Yea, not like satelite / cable providers offer a crap ton of channels that are not OTA.

Terrible example.

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

Q: Why do people pay for satellite / cable TV when there are similar alternatives available for free?

 

A: Because people find value in it. The fact that there are free alternatives is irrelevant.

mems_1224

I was given a 7 day ban for using logic a while back

[QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

Q: Why do people pay for satellite / cable TV when there are similar alternatives available for free?

A: Because people find value in it. The fact that there are free alternatives is irrelevant.

mems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

Q: Why do people pay for satellite / cable TV when there are similar alternatives available for free?

 

A: Because people find value in it. The fact that there are free alternatives is irrelevant.

dxmcat

Yea, not like satelite / cable providers offer a crap ton of channels that are not OTA.

Terrible example.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="HaRmLeSS_RaGe"]

Q: Why do people pay for satellite / cable TV when there are similar alternatives available for free?

A: Because people find value in it. The fact that there are free alternatives is irrelevant.

Murderstyle75

[QUOTE="dxmcat"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] shhhhhh logic isn't allowed here. mems_1224

Yea, not like satelite / cable providers offer a crap ton of channels that are not OTA.

Terrible example.

Because microsoft is holding multplayer hostage :D they payed for the games yet cant play them without having to pay ms , thats a rip off per excellance

The drones are crying because people spend ~70 pence a week on something they get enjoyment out of?

LMFAO :lol:

party chat, halo, gears, theres plenty of reasons

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="dxmcat"]

Yea, not like satelite / cable providers offer a crap ton of channels that are not OTA.

Terrible example.

Murderstyle75

It's the only way to play the latest Halo or Gears online.

Because all my friends decided to buy a 360 and I gave into peer pressure :(

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]Word. Its not like XBL offers features and services that PSN doesnt :roll:RR360DD

I don't really see how Sony knows how to run well as a company.  Lost billions the last 6 years in a row.  They really don't know what they are doing.  Seems like they are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. 

Getting back on track to the topic.  People pay for Xbox Live because its better than PSN.  If they didn't think so, they wouldn't pay, and they would go to PSN.  Xbox fees do have their limits though and the market will dictate what it will pay.

I don't really see how Sony knows how to run well as a company.  Lost billions the last 6 years in a row.  They really don't know what they are doing.  Seems like they are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. 

 

Getting back on track to the topic.  People pay for Xbox Live because its better than PSN.  If they didn't think so, they wouldn't pay, and they would go to PSN.  Xbox fees do have their limits though and the market will dictate what it will pay.

jimmypsn

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

I don't really see how Sony knows how to run well as a company.  Lost billions the last 6 years in a row.  They really don't know what they are doing.  Seems like they are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. 

 

Getting back on track to the topic.  People pay for Xbox Live because its better than PSN.  If they didn't think so, they wouldn't pay, and they would go to PSN.  Xbox fees do have their limits though and the market will dictate what it will pay.

MonsieurX

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

I don't really see how Sony knows how to run well as a company.  Lost billions the last 6 years in a row.  They really don't know what they are doing.  Seems like they are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. 

 

Getting back on track to the topic.  People pay for Xbox Live because its better than PSN.  If they didn't think so, they wouldn't pay, and they would go to PSN.  Xbox fees do have their limits though and the market will dictate what it will pay.

jimmypsn

I don't really see how Sony knows how to run well as a company.  Lost billions the last 6 years in a row.  They really don't know what they are doing.  Seems like they are throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. 

 

Getting back on track to the topic.  People pay for Xbox Live because its better than PSN.  If they didn't think so, they wouldn't pay, and they would go to PSN.  Xbox fees do have their limits though and the market will dictate what it will pay.

jimmypsn

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

 

You could have just left it at "I have no idea how structured P2P networks work", but then you decide to just say something stupid.

tormentos

Your are silly you want to know something about P2P is really call peer to peer  connection,is when you connect directly with another system using your internet connection or lan on a multiple systems,you don't need a fu**ing single server to have P2P connection,in fact i played on the original xbox online without xbox live,yeah we use a tunneling program and played Halo CE multiplayer by peer connection,you don't need a server.

Is basically Napster or Limewire where you connected to other people computers and downloaded a file from the computer who had the file rather than from a server.

MS servers are for stats keeps,achievements and all that crap,not for gaming almost all games on 360 i dare say 99% are P2P,this is not the same on PS3 which has more games on servers.

And by the way and again Sony does have those servers to and i play online free,hell sony has even more servers since they run Home as well.

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

 

You could have just left it at "I have no idea how structured P2P networks work", but then you decide to just say something stupid.

Ly_the_Fairy

Your are silly you want to know something about P2P is really call peer to peer  connection,is when you connect directly with another system using your internet connection or lan on a multiple systems,you don't need a fu**ing single server to have P2P connection,in fact i played on the original xbox online without xbox live,yeah we use a tunneling program and played Halo CE multiplayer by peer connection,you don't need a server.

Is basically Napster or Limewire where you connected to other people computers and downloaded a file from the computer who had the file rather than from a server.

MS servers are for stats keeps,achievements and all that crap,not for gaming almost all games on 360 i dare say 99% are P2P,this is not the same on PS3 which has more games on servers.

And by the way and again Sony does have those servers to and i play online free,hell sony has even more servers since they run Home as well.

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

Pretty much this.

This is the first post in a while that is worth reading in this filthy of a place where nobody know what they're talking about.

[QUOTE="RR360DD"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Yet all those services are free and better on Roku and Apple TV and the only reason the lame ass party chat is missing is because the PS3's shitty RAM cannot support it. It has nothing to do with Sub fees. Its also interesting how the main development platform of Netflix is the PS3.Murderstyle75

:lol:

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="RR360DD"]Probably because in NA more people use the PS3 for media capabilities (including netflix) than playing games. Quite funny that - people say the 360 has no games yet its used for gaming more than the PS3.mems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Yet most are just playing mainstream Beiber games. All the 360 games that really shined, nobody even bought because they were not "Popular" enough. Nobody even tried Battlefield until EA stuck a shitty Jay Z song in the commercial.Murderstyle75

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]What the f*** does that even mean???? :lol:

 

jimmypsn

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Yet most are just playing mainstream Beiber games. All the 360 games that really shined, nobody even bought because they were not "Popular" enough. Nobody even tried Battlefield until EA stuck a shitty Jay Z song in the commercial.Murderstyle75

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

 

You could have just left it at "I have no idea how structured P2P networks work", but then you decide to just say something stupid.

Ly_the_Fairy

Your are silly you want to know something about P2P is really call peer to peer  connection,is when you connect directly with another system using your internet connection or lan on a multiple systems,you don't need a fu**ing single server to have P2P connection,in fact i played on the original xbox online without xbox live,yeah we use a tunneling program and played Halo CE multiplayer by peer connection,you don't need a server.

Is basically Napster or Limewire where you connected to other people computers and downloaded a file from the computer who had the file rather than from a server.

MS servers are for stats keeps,achievements and all that crap,not for gaming almost all games on 360 i dare say 99% are P2P,this is not the same on PS3 which has more games on servers.

And by the way and again Sony does have those servers to and i play online free,hell sony has even more servers since they run Home as well.

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

The fact that running these services costs money does not justify charging for basic functionality. Live and PSN are used to deliver content, content which we pay for. They sell games, in-game items, avatar items, movies and advertising, the revenue from which more than cover the running costs. Charging for MP and access to services that are free on virtually every other internet enabled device is pure profiteering. 

It seems insane to me that people actually try to justify these practises rather than just refusing to participate. I'm certain the same people that pay for Live Gold would laugh if their local store started charging entrance fees and just shop somewhere else, but for some reason it's acceptable when MS do it.

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]What the f*** does that even mean???? :lol:

 

mems_1224

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

JamDev

The fact that running these services costs money does not justify charging for basic functionality. Live and PSN are used to deliver content, content which we pay for. They sell games, in-game items, avatar items, movies and advertising, the revenue from which more than cover the running costs. Charging for MP and access to services that are free on virtually every other internet enabled device is pure profiteering. 

It seems insane to me that people actually try to justify these practises rather than just refusing to participate. I'm certain the same people that pay for Live Gold would laugh if their local store started charging entrance fees and just shop somewhere else, but for some reason it's acceptable when MS do it.

Live, and PSN aren't pure-profit ventures. There is overhead to everything, and 95% of the content on both services is put there by other devs, publishers, and media companies; not just Sony and Microsoft. So you shouldn't think that MS and Sony are just raking in $15 for every $15 DLC pack they sell.

And also, online isn't "free" elsewhere. 

When you access an online server on PC you are using a server that someone else is paying for. While you can access it for free, you are doing so on someone else's dollar. This system of community-donation isn't something you'll see on the consoles anytime soon.

I said earlier in this thread that I pay roughly $108 a year to host a Minecraft server that 10 people play on. One server, one game, $108 a year for it to function. Now multiply that five million times (50 million or so people; my estimate for how many people do online gaming across the consoles).

That's over half a billion dollars to run online games for 50 million Minecrafters. And that's just running the online. That's simply providing the bandwidth. That number does not account for the hardware costs, the maintenance costs, or the team of engineers who are keeping all of that hardware and software up to date.

Now add that figure to the whole of Xbox Live. Microsoft and Sony host bandwidth for a variety of just about everything else as well, and provide the server hardware, and employees to keep it all running tip-top.

Now, while the PSN and XBL do function differently than PC online, the figure is still astronomical.

This is an article from 2010; the last year Sony ever posted PSN figures (which says a lot when a company won't publicly comment about their revenue).

http://www.1up.com/news/hirai-psn-losing-money-turn

~~~~~~

According to the report, PSN sales during the 2009 fiscal year added up to 36 billion yen (approx. $434.3 million USD). That number "nearly doubled" in 2010. However, Hirai said "we're aiming to enter the black during the 2011 fiscal year."

~~~~~~

PSN made $434 million in revenue in 2009, "nearly doubled" in 2010 so around $800 million revenue in 2010, and yet was STILL IN THE RED. $800 million in revenue, and STILL IN THE RED. And that was PSN in 2009. Do you know how bad PSN was in 2009 compared to 2013? Their costs have most asurdly gone up much more than that.

So much for covering the costs of online with sales, huh? 

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

Your are silly you want to know something about P2P is really call peer to peer  connection,is when you connect directly with another system using your internet connection or lan on a multiple systems,you don't need a fu**ing single server to have P2P connection,in fact i played on the original xbox online without xbox live,yeah we use a tunneling program and played Halo CE multiplayer by peer connection,you don't need a server.

Is basically Napster or Limewire where you connected to other people computers and downloaded a file from the computer who had the file rather than from a server.

MS servers are for stats keeps,achievements and all that crap,not for gaming almost all games on 360 i dare say 99% are P2P,this is not the same on PS3 which has more games on servers.

And by the way and again Sony does have those servers to and i play online free,hell sony has even more servers since they run Home as well.

JamDev

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

The fact that running these services costs money does not justify charging for basic functionality. Live and PSN are used to deliver content, content which we pay for. They sell games, in-game items, avatar items, movies and advertising, the revenue from which more than cover the running costs. Charging for MP and access to services that are free on virtually every other internet enabled device is pure profiteering. 

It seems insane to me that people actually try to justify these practises rather than just refusing to participate. I'm certain the same people that pay for Live Gold would laugh if their local store started charging entrance fees and just shop somewhere else, but for some reason it's acceptable when MS do it.

I agree that the multiplayer portion of Xbox Live should be provided for free because all other services does it for no charge, especially the superior service that is Steam. It made me believe that running the multiplayer server would give them enough revenue to cover the running cost, thus being able to provide it for free.

I don't pay for Xbox Live because I simply can't justify my £40 for it due to the fact that I'm only using it for multiplayer. Microsoft must have employed other things and services that rised the cost for them to run the servers which in the end forced them to charge their users - unnecessary really. Since how much I dislike Microsoft, I do believe that part of the XBL subscription is simply because they just want to reach the wallets of their consumers for no reason. It's Microsoft.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] Yet most are just playing mainstream Beiber games. All the 360 games that really shined, nobody even bought because they were not "Popular" enough. Nobody even tried Battlefield until EA stuck a shitty Jay Z song in the commercial.Murderstyle75

I agree that the multiplayer portion of Xbox Live should be provided for free because all other services does it for no charge, especially the superior service that is Steam. It made me believe that running the multiplayer server would give them enough revenue to cover the running cost, thus being able to provide it for free.

I don't pay for Xbox Live because I simply can't justify my £40 for it due to the fact that I'm only using it for multiplayer. Microsoft must have employed other things and services that rised the cost for them to run the servers which in the end forced them to charge their users - unnecessary really. Since how much I dislike Microsoft, I do believe that part of the XBL subscription is simply because they just want to reach the wallets of their consumers for no reason. It's Microsoft.

Cyberdot

The thing about Steam, and Valve, is that they do not host the online for any of the games you play outside of Dota 2 which Valve does pay for out-of-pocket, but that game is a good marketing tool to get people to make an account on Steam. Valve also has a few in-house servers for games like TF2, and Counter Strike, but you're talking a fraction of a fraction OF A FRACTION of a percent of all servers across all games on Steam. Valve is not hosting the online for Call of Duty, Battlefield, Killing Floor, any of the MMOs, Civilization, etc etc. That is all hosted by other companies, or your fellow gamers through donations.

Steam is simply a store with built-in community features. It's not hosting all the forms of media that PSN and Xbox Live do, and as I said, it's not hosting the online for the games you play on Steam. 

PCs online network of community-driven servers can truly, really only work on PC due to the open-nature. It's one of the best qualities of the PC.

I don't pay for Xbox Live either as I don't have any value for it, but the subscription price is perfectly justifiable, and it'll be perfectly justifiable if Sony ever implements one as well, but that's simply because Xbox Live and PSN operate very differently from other online networks. You can't compare PC online directly to console online because they don't function anywhere near the same. PC online is "free" because your fellow gamers donate more than enough money to allow you to also play with them.

Because $50 isn't jack to people who live in the real world...

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

I agree that the multiplayer portion of Xbox Live should be provided for free because all other services does it for no charge, especially the superior service that is Steam. It made me believe that running the multiplayer server would give them enough revenue to cover the running cost, thus being able to provide it for free.

I don't pay for Xbox Live because I simply can't justify my £40 for it due to the fact that I'm only using it for multiplayer. Microsoft must have employed other things and services that rised the cost for them to run the servers which in the end forced them to charge their users - unnecessary really. Since how much I dislike Microsoft, I do believe that part of the XBL subscription is simply because they just want to reach the wallets of their consumers for no reason. It's Microsoft.

Ly_the_Fairy

The thing about Steam, and Valve, is that they do not host the online for any of the games you play outside of Dota 2 which Valve does pay for out-of-pocket, but that game is a good marketing tool to get people to make an account on Steam. Valve also has a few in-house servers for games like TF2, and Counter Strike, but you're talking a fraction of a fraction OF A FRACTION of a percent of all servers across all games on Steam. Valve is not hosting the online for Call of Duty, Battlefield, Killing Floor, any of the MMOs, Civilization, etc etc. That is all hosted by other companies, or your fellow gamers through donations.

Steam is simply a store with built-in community features. It's not hosting all the forms of media that PSN and Xbox Live do, and as I said, it's not hosting the online for the games you play on Steam. 

PCs online network of community-driven servers can truly, really only work on PC due to the open-nature. It's one of the best qualities of the PC.

I don't pay for Xbox Live either as I don't have any value for it, but the subscription price is perfectly justifiable, and it'll be perfectly justifiable if Sony ever implements one as well, but that's simply because Xbox Live and PSN operate very differently from other online networks. You can't compare PC online directly to console online because they don't function anywhere near the same. PC online is "free" because your fellow gamers donate more than enough money to allow you to also play with them.

Don't forget that publishers support alot (if not the vast majority) of the "gameplay" related infrastructure. It's not Sony/Microsoft that are supporting gameplay. If you are playing Battlefield 3 on PS3, you are playing on EA's servers (or the custom, "rented" servers), just like if you are playing Battlefield 3 on 360. Heck, they might actually be the exact same servers. Sony isn't running those servers for stat hosting or gameplay, obviously there is some integration with the PSN and XBOX infrastructure, but that has more to do with user accounts and security rather than whatever resources are used to actively play the game.  

Sure, they are supporting file hosting (which is possibly the largest money loser), chat, trophies, friends lists, account maintenance, security, and all of that. Of course that all costs money. But it's not like the burden is 100% on Sony and Microsoft when it comes to the gameplay. There are alot of reasons that PSN was losing money (and probably lost a ton more money immediately after the hack) - but that doesn't mean that a fee structure is the correct way to go moving forward. It's quite possible that if Sony simply got "better" or more efficient at managine PSN, that it could be run profitably just based on direct sales revenue. More likely, they will find creative ways like PSN+ to increase overall PSN revenues while actually adding value to customers. There are other things they can do to improve profitability. Hell, I wonder how many millions $$$ Sony blows by allowing (or necessessating, whichever it is) games with multi GB patches to download...

Because $50 isn't jack to people who live in the real world...

PatchMaster

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

 

Your are silly you want to know something about P2P is really call peer to peer  connection,is when you connect directly with another system using your internet connection or lan on a multiple systems,you don't need a fu**ing single server to have P2P connection,in fact i played on the original xbox online without xbox live,yeah we use a tunneling program and played Halo CE multiplayer by peer connection,you don't need a server.

Is basically Napster or Limewire where you connected to other people computers and downloaded a file from the computer who had the file rather than from a server.

MS servers are for stats keeps,achievements and all that crap,not for gaming almost all games on 360 i dare say 99% are P2P,this is not the same on PS3 which has more games on servers.

And by the way and again Sony does have those servers to and i play online free,hell sony has even more servers since they run Home as well.

JamDev

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

The fact that running these services costs money does not justify charging for basic functionality. Live and PSN are used to deliver content, content which we pay for. They sell games, in-game items, avatar items, movies and advertising, the revenue from which more than cover the running costs. Charging for MP and access to services that are free on virtually every other internet enabled device is pure profiteering. 

It seems insane to me that people actually try to justify these practises rather than just refusing to participate. I'm certain the same people that pay for Live Gold would laugh if their local store started charging entrance fees and just shop somewhere else, but for some reason it's acceptable when MS do it.

Bad example. 

Costco, BJ's, Sams Club etc all charge entrance fees and seem to be doing pretty good. :lol:

Of course they actually offer good deals, so it's worth paying $60 a year to be a Costco member (and/or BJ's member). Microsoft offers the worst deals of all gaming store-fronts, and the vast majority of stuff behind their "paywall" shouldn't be behind a paywall. So basically paying Microsoft $60 a year is like giving money to a charity... a charity that doesn't do anything for anyone. 

Don't forget that publishers support alot (if not the vast majority) of the "gameplay" related infrastructure. It's not Sony/Microsoft that are supporting gameplay.

Sure, they are supporting file hosting (which is possibly the largest money loser), chat, trophies, friends lists, account maintenance, security, and all of that. Of course that all costs money. But it's not like the burden is 100% on Sony and Microsoft when it comes to the gameplay. There are alot of reasons that PSN was losing money (and probably lost a ton more money immediately after the hack) - but that doesn't mean that a fee structure is the correct way to go moving forward. It's quite possible that if Sony simply got "better" or more efficient at managine PSN, that it could be run profitably just based on direct sales revenue. More likely, they will find creative ways like PSN+ to increase overall PSN revenues while actually adding value to customers. Hell, I wonder how many millions $$$ Sony blows by allowing (or necessessating, whichver it is) games with multi GB patches to download...

2Chalupas

Publishers ensure that their customers can connect to Xbox Live or PSN, and play the game. However, all the server costs are on Microsoft, and Sony's end.

The PC paints a good picture of it. I'll use EA and Battlefield as an example. If nobody hosts a server, you can't simply make your copy of Battlefield connect with someone else over the internet. You have to go through the server to do it, and that server is not paid for by EA. 

There is no huge cost associated with "gameplay" related infrastructure as you say. That's simply the dev writing a list of instructions in their game code that, when called on, will let the gamer connect to the network. The network itself is the big money sink.

A subscription may not be the "only" way of providing a quality service, but it's proven to the only sustainable one so far. I fear what Xbox Live, and subsequently PSN, would be like today if Xbox Live had never charged. Perhaps all consoles would have Wii-level online that was never improved because of the cost associated with it. It'd be truly horrifying.

On the PC there are a couple MMOs that still have subscription fees. They are seen as "archaic" with the rise of free-to-play games, but anyone who's played a free-to-play MMO knows that they strip the game almost entirely of its quality, and nickel-and-dime every feature back in at hiked up prices, so to get a "complete" game you'd actually spend many times more per month than you would on a $15 per month MMO like WoW.

I'm sure Microsoft is keeping a close eye on PS+, but until it threatens their business they won't have any real reason to offer a monthly selection of games to play, or anything of that sort. 

People pay for xbox live because most lems cant afford a decent pc gaming and theyre stuck with crappy consoles. And as far as console gaming goes, it's the only decent online service.

[QUOTE="JamDev"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

There are two types of P2P networking; structured, and unstructured.

Structured requires servers. No, not just for stat tracking. You need to quit saying such an idiotic thing. The servers are used to maintain a level of consistency across the entire network. A level of dependability, and quality that is about equal for everyone who uses it. It's required for a service on the scale of Xbox Live. Someone with Xbox Live in rural Kansas is getting the exact same quality of service as someone in a busy metropolis. Xbox Live employs tens of thousands of servers so that people can play with each other, download media, and interact with each other, without a single hiccup.

Unstructured does not. You might know of the term ad-hoc. That's an unstructured P2P network, and it's only used for very small-scale operations such as four people playing Monster Hunter in a cafe in Japan.

Xbox Live does not use ad-hoc networks for games. And same goes for PSN. I repeat. Xbox Live and PSN do NOT use ad-hoc networks for online gaming. Both services use tens of thousands of servers across dozens of server banks the world over, so that everyone gets a the same quality service.

On top of this, both PSN and Xbox Live have huge teams of engineers keeping them updated, and running smoothly. It's not like PC gaming where someone builds a server, and keeps it running in their house.

Also, you act like I'm attacking PSN even though I didn't even bring up PSN at all. Sony eats hundreds of millions of dollars each year to keep PSN free, and they only keep it free to compete with Microsoft. They don't keep it free because it's some sort of "right" for gamers to have free online. They keep it free so people buy PS3s instead of 360s. Don't be surprised if they start charging if they become the market leader in consoles again, but it's perfectly justifiable if they do. I personally want them to do so. Only cows seem to wish death to Sony by making them eat billion dollar losses.

2Chalupas

The fact that running these services costs money does not justify charging for basic functionality. Live and PSN are used to deliver content, content which we pay for. They sell games, in-game items, avatar items, movies and advertising, the revenue from which more than cover the running costs. Charging for MP and access to services that are free on virtually every other internet enabled device is pure profiteering. 

It seems insane to me that people actually try to justify these practises rather than just refusing to participate. I'm certain the same people that pay for Live Gold would laugh if their local store started charging entrance fees and just shop somewhere else, but for some reason it's acceptable when MS do it.

Bad example. 

Costco, BJ's, Sams Club etc all charge entrance fees and seem to be doing pretty good. :lol:

Of course they actually offer good deals, so it's worth paying $60 a year to be a Costco member (and/or BJ's member). Microsoft offers the worst deals of all gaming store-fronts, and the vast majority of stuff behind their "paywall" shouldn't be behind a paywall. So basically paying Microsoft $60 a year is like giving money to a charity... a charity that doesn't do anything for anyone.