I've payed for it for 3 years since I got my 360, but lately i've actually been questioning why they chrage for it. Before you could say it had a much better service then PS3 which it did, but I think we can agree that they are pretty much equal. But the worst thing I find is that on PSN they have games like Socom, Resistance and Warhawk which run with 32+ players. While 360 has no game above 16 online players and yet we pay to play it online. Also Gears lags with 5 v 5 while games on PS3 have 5 times as many players and it runs fine. LIVE is a rip off.
I pay because the good times to be had with friends online is more than worth a few petty dollars a month. Also, more players do not equate to better online experiences, and the FIRST Xbox had 60-player online capabilities, so don't act like PSN pioneered such a thing for consoles. I'd also like to add that lag is very largely in part due to one's connection, not the service.
To play online /thread "While 360 has no game above 16 online players and yet we pay to play it online. Also Gears lags with 5 v 5 while games on PS3 have 5 times as many players and it runs fine" The 360 does have games above 16 players... Gears lag has to do with Gears net code, not XBL.
I have played on the 360 quite a bit at my friend's house, but I don't have the full details on it. Can you not message friends on the 360 if they don't have a Live account? If so, that's pretty sad...
I have played on the 360 quite a bit at my friend's house, but I don't have the full details on it. Can you not message friends on the 360 if they don't have a Live account? If so, that's pretty sad...Dark_Torment
If they have an offline account how do you expect them to receive the message? There is a free Live too, its called Silver.
Microsoft has the most streamlined online system, and they decided they want money for it.
PlayStation 3's online system is improving regularly, though, and it's free, so Microsoft might have to stop charging for Live if Sony starts picking up more former Live members.
[QUOTE="Ohyeas"]I've payed for it for 3 years since I got my 360, but lately i've actually been questioning why they chrage for it. Before you could say it had a much better service then PS3 which it did, but I think we can agree that they are pretty much equal. But the worst thing I find is that on PSN they have games like Socom, Resistance and Warhawk which run with 32+ players. While 360 has no game above 16 online players and yet we pay to play it online. Also Gears lags with 5 v 5 while games on PS3 have 5 times as many players and it runs fine. LIVE is a rip off.dthach614
Well if you don't wanna pay then don't pay, why do people keep complaining about paying for live. You knew you had too pay for it so stop acting like MS put a gun too your and made you. If you don't wanna pay run out your account and don't renew. But if you want free online gaming get a PS3 or Wii.
Live isn't free because MS provides most of the tools needed for Devs to run online modes to their games. MS also runs most of the dedicated servers needed to track stats, and allow you to search and connect to games. PSN/Wii/PC do not have systems in-place that do this, which can cause problems like those seen in GTA4, VF, VT, etc.. were developers don't necessarily have the skills or time to maintain there own servers, so one console might not get an online component while others do, or they might have problems running. Overall creating an un-unified service where some games shine online while others can have some problems doing so.
Because you have no choice if you want to play your 360 games online. You and millions of others have already given MS the positive reinforcement they need so dont expect it to stop any time soon. And does anyone know if you can still play the original xbox online?
I've payed for it for 3 years since I got my 360, but lately i've actually been questioning why they chrage for it. Before you could say it had a much better service then PS3 which it did, but I think we can agree that they are pretty much equal. But the worst thing I find is that on PSN they have games like Socom, Resistance and Warhawk which run with 32+ players. While 360 has no game above 16 online players and yet we pay to play it online. Also Gears lags with 5 v 5 while games on PS3 have 5 times as many players and it runs fine.LIVE is a rip off.Ohyeas
Maybe you can. I use both on a regular basis and I can easily say Live is still the better service.
Wrong. Perfect Dark Zero supports 32 players, Battlefield: Bad Company Supports up to 24 players. More does not equal better.
That's because Gears has some terrible netcode, not because of Xbox Live.
In your opinion, maybe, but many will disagree with you.
Silver should include online play. There's no reason to pay extra for using your own connection for peer to peer gaming. The funky stuff like cross game chat and invites could still be limited to gold members. Won't happen though.
Silver should include online play. There's no reason to pay extra for using your own connection for peer to peer gaming. The funky stuff like cross game chat and invites could still be limited to gold members. Won't happen though.nethernova
I agree and the funny thing is, all that "crap" that many use to say paying for live is justifiable, I hardly use em. I mostly just play online with others and sometimes my friends. That alone should be free. I dont care about messenger, videochat, and all that nonsense.
[QUOTE="nethernova"]Silver should include online play. There's no reason to pay extra for using your own connection for peer to peer gaming. The funky stuff like cross game chat and invites could still be limited to gold members. Won't happen though.Tjeremiah1988
I agree and the funny thing is, all that "crap" that many use to say paying for live is justifiable, I hardly use em. I mostly just play online with others and sometimes my friends. That alone should be free. I dont care about messenger, videochat, and all that nonsense. You make the most sense right now overall. MS shouldn't be charging but they do because they believe they're offering a higher quality service. IMO they should see that it's not needed considering PSN and PC gaming are much more fundamentally better overall, now if XBL offered something with the charge that would make me care about it i would definitely be more intrigued to use it, as of now i just don't see a reason for price no matter how many people believe it to be just!
[QUOTE="nethernova"]Silver should include online play. There's no reason to pay extra for using your own connection for peer to peer gaming. The funky stuff like cross game chat and invites could still be limited to gold members. Won't happen though.Tjeremiah1988
I agree and the funny thing is, all that "crap" that many use to say paying for live is justifiable, I hardly use em. I mostly just play online with others and sometimes my friends. That alone should be free. I dont care about messenger, videochat, and all that nonsense.
Log in to comment