Why is the ps3 online free and Xbox isnt ?

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

xboxmad12

Remember, these are just different companies, Like FORD and CHEVY.

They each have different ideas. Just be happy that LIVE is better than PSN...if that's not enough, then play on PS3 for FREE, PSN is still good.

Can't we all just get along? :P

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

xboxmad12

I meant to add-Why is this?

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

xboxmad12

because M$ wants to bring you a superior online experience...and in order to do that they need some money for better more dedicated servers and for better coding for console updates

Due to the fact that it's much better. And I know that you and every other game are aware of this. Meaningless thread.Propaganda_

I hope they're not correlated :lol:

[QUOTE="xboxmad12"]

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

SolidTy

Can't we all just get along? :P

You know better than that!:P

But to echo what Ty said 2 different companies, 2 different business plans.

Neither is "free", its just that their source of revenue is different

SONY charges Developers, MS charges users. PSN users get free online, XBL devs get distribute games at no cost. PSN users get less content, XBL users have to pay. They both have their ups and downs.

XBL model was best 5 years ago when many developers, couldn't afford their own infastrucutre and distributing networks, which is why SONY's previous online attempt failed. But now that online is more common and affordable, we're starting to see the flaws of XBL's closed free network.

[QUOTE="xboxmad12"]

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

SolidTy

Remember, these are just different companies, Like FORD and CHEVY.

They each have different ideas. Just be happy that LIVE is better than PSN...if that's not enough, then play on PS3 for FREE, PSN is still good.

Can't we all just get along? :P

PSN is a barebones service that no one in there right mind would ever pay for, while Xbox live is a much more feature rich service, which gets more and more additions to it on a regular basis. I own a PS3 and 360, and the difference is night and day when im playing UC2 or Halo 3. Its much more intergrated, and overall the user experience is much more appealing.

Neither is "free", its just that their source of revenue is different

SONY charges Developers, MS charges users. PSN users get free online, XBL devs get distribute games at no cost. PSN users get less content, XBL users have to pay. They both have their ups and downs.

XBL model was best 5 years ago when many developers, couldn't afford their own infastrucutre and distributing networks, which is why SONY's previous online attempt failed. But now that online is more common and affordable, we're starting to see the flaws of XBL's closed free network.

Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="xboxmad12"]

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

Superzone

[QUOTE="Superzone"][QUOTE="xboxmad12"]

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

Trmpt

and people wouldn't pay for it every year if they didn't know that it was worth the money

so obviously XBL is WORTH the $50 a year

Neither is "free", its just that their source of revenue is different

SONY charges Developers, MS charges users. PSN users get free online, XBL devs get distribute games at no cost. PSN users get less content, XBL users have to pay. They both have their ups and downs.

XBL model was best 5 years ago when many developers, couldn't afford their own infastrucutre and distributing networks, which is why SONY's previous online attempt failed. But now that online is more common and affordable, we're starting to see the flaws of XBL's closed free network.

Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="Superzone"][QUOTE="xboxmad12"]

I love xbox but Its So UNFAIR

Trmpt

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="Superzone"] Because Microsoft loves to charge for things that shouldn't be charged.CDUB316

and people wouldn't pay for it every year if they didn't know that it was worth the money

so obviously XBL is WORTH the $50 a year

Of course its worth it, the fact that people willingly paid for Xbox live when it originally launched on the original Xbox is a testament to its value.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="Superzone"] Because Microsoft loves to charge for things that shouldn't be charged.Brownesque

People like Mariah Carey, and think her music is worth the money. I have no clue what you are trying to get at with that comparison.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="Trmpt"] But yet people still buy it. Fizzman

People like Mariah Carey, and think her music is worth the money. I have no clue what you are trying to get at with that comparison.

[QUOTE="CDUB316"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"] But yet people still buy it. Fizzman

and people wouldn't pay for it every year if they didn't know that it was worth the money

so obviously XBL is WORTH the $50 a year

Of course its worth it, the fact that people willingly paid for Xbox live when it originally launched on the original Xbox is a testament to its value.

exactly

if $50 isn't much to you...then of course XBL is superior and worth it...if you can't afford $50 a year (which you shouldn't be buying gaming systems anyway if so) then of course you would have to settle for PSN to get your online gaming fix

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"] People listen to Mariah Carey, what's your point?Brownesque

People like Mariah Carey, and think her music is worth the money. I have no clue what you are trying to get at with that comparison.

Yeah dude totally her music is so bad that people buy it cause they pitty her, dont get me wrong i dont like her music either, but its incredibly ignorant to say just cause you think her music is trash that it must be true. People like all sorts of things that you dont like, and that doesnt make it bad.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="Brownesque"] People listen to Mariah Carey, what's your point?Brownesque

People like Mariah Carey, and think her music is worth the money. I have no clue what you are trying to get at with that comparison.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Neither is "free", its just that their source of revenue is different

SONY charges Developers, MS charges users. PSN users get free online, XBL devs get distribute games at no cost. PSN users get less content, XBL users have to pay. They both have their ups and downs.

XBL model was best 5 years ago when many developers, couldn't afford their own infastrucutre and distributing networks, which is why SONY's previous online attempt failed. But now that online is more common and affordable, we're starting to see the flaws of XBL's closed free network.

Brownesque

When I said free, I meant the bandwith cost for developers not the XBL users.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

People like Mariah Carey, and think her music is worth the money. I have no clue what you are trying to get at with that comparison.

Trmpt

So I suppose it never had "no value."

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="Trmpt"] But yet people still buy it. Propaganda_

jakehouston88 would...lmao

When I said free, I meant the bandwith cost for developers not the XBL users.Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="CDUB316"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"] But yet people still buy it. Fizzman

and people wouldn't pay for it every year if they didn't know that it was worth the money

so obviously XBL is WORTH the $50 a year

Of course its worth it, the fact that people willingly paid for Xbox live when it originally launched on the original Xbox is a testament to its value.

Or that it's a necessity to play online. Lets put it in these terms: Suppose your car needs it's oil changed. You know this, because you need it for the car to run. If you suddenly found out that you didn't need to pay to change your oil, would you still? Suppose you found out that there was a dealership where you could by an equivalent but different car and they changed your oil for free. Sure, your old car might've had a couple extra cupholders or more trunk space, and it might just be the good oil, not premium oil, but this comes down to necessity. Don't confuse NECESSITY with VALUE.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="Brownesque"] Mariah Carey makes garbage music, LoL. The point is that people will buy anything. If you dress up a piece of poop and market it properly, somebody, somewhere, would probably buy it. That has no bearing on the value of the product whatsoever.Brownesque

So I suppose it never had "no value."

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="CDUB316"]

and people wouldn't pay for it every year if they didn't know that it was worth the money

so obviously XBL is WORTH the $50 a year

Ryan_Som

Of course its worth it, the fact that people willingly paid for Xbox live when it originally launched on the original Xbox is a testament to its value.

Or that it's a necessity to play online. Lets put it in these terms: Suppose your car needs it's oil changed. You know this, because you need it for the car to run. If you suddenly found out that you didn't need to pay to change your oil, would you still? Suppose you found out that there was a dealership where you could by an equivalent but different car and they changed your oil for free. Sure, your old car might've had a couple extra cupholders or more trunk space, and it might just be the good oil, not premium oil, but this comes down to necessity. Don't confuse NECESSITY with VALUE.

ok...let's say the oil that you were getting free wasn't that good...i mean it got you where you needed to go, but it wasn't what was best for your car

but the oil you have to pay for was superior to the free oil and it made your car run nice and smooth and allowed you to go many more places with it

yea...i'd buy the special oil

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"] Since when does LIVE have no value?Trmpt

So I suppose it never had "no value."

Using this analogy I could say that it would be better seeing Fall Out Boy live than it would be seeing Billy Talent live. Fall Out Boy costs more to see live, so that makes it better right? Wrong. It might be a bigger production on a bigger stage with more flashing lights, but Fall Out Boy is HORRIBLE live. I would easily pay less money to see Billy Talent in a small club because they're a good band. Ergo, cash value is not always equivalent to actual value.

1. Microsoft wants Xbox Live to cost money.
2. Sony wants PSN to cost nothing.

I think I just about summed it all up.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="Brownesque"] I never said that.

So I suppose it never had "no value."

Ryan_Som

Using this analogy I could say that it would be better seeing Fall Out Boy live than it would be seeing Billy Talent live. Fall Out Boy costs more to see live, so that makes it better right? Wrong. It might be a bigger production on a bigger stage with more flashing lights, but Fall Out Boy is HORRIBLE live. I would easily pay less money to see Billy Talent in a small club because they're a good band. Ergo, cash value is not always equivalent to actual value.

I wouldn't even classify PSN as a service. It gives you the ability to play online. I think that's the difference. Xbox Live on the other hand offers things like a party system and cross-game invites. They also offer staff that are very accessible and in the public eye whenever they get a chance. Whether that be Major Nelson's general news, Trixie's leadership with the gamerchix to Stepto's policy enforcement. Or the Xbox Live Community Developer and Ambassador programs. Subscribers also enjoy community-focused online events outside of the theme nights on the community calendar. For me, these are the differences that help define Xbox Live as a service while PSN is bare-bones.

[QUOTE="Ryan_Som"]

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Of course its worth it, the fact that people willingly paid for Xbox live when it originally launched on the original Xbox is a testament to its value.

CDUB316

Or that it's a necessity to play online. Lets put it in these terms: Suppose your car needs it's oil changed. You know this, because you need it for the car to run. If you suddenly found out that you didn't need to pay to change your oil, would you still? Suppose you found out that there was a dealership where you could by an equivalent but different car and they changed your oil for free. Sure, your old car might've had a couple extra cupholders or more trunk space, and it might just be the good oil, not premium oil, but this comes down to necessity. Don't confuse NECESSITY with VALUE.

ok...let's say the oil that you were getting free wasn't that good...i mean it got you where you needed to go, but it wasn't what was best for your car

but the oil you have to pay for was superior to the free oil and it made your car run nice and smooth and allowed you to go many more places with it

yea...i'd buy the special oil

I say it's more comparison of good to premium. It's not hurting your car or experience, and the other one is one step above it. Same thing with putting premium gas in a car that doesn't need it. Will your car run a little better? Yeah, probably. Do you need it? Not really. It's really a combination of the 2 analogies. Similar cars but different brands, continued support after purchase versus paid support, and other little bells and whistles that come with the car that might be nice, but aren't necessary.

If the XBOX 360 were a Ferrari in comparison to the PS3 then I could understand paid support after the fact to keep it in top running condition. The fact is, they are similar beasts.

[QUOTE="CDUB316"]

[QUOTE="Ryan_Som"]

Or that it's a necessity to play online. Lets put it in these terms: Suppose your car needs it's oil changed. You know this, because you need it for the car to run. If you suddenly found out that you didn't need to pay to change your oil, would you still? Suppose you found out that there was a dealership where you could by an equivalent but different car and they changed your oil for free. Sure, your old car might've had a couple extra cupholders or more trunk space, and it might just be the good oil, not premium oil, but this comes down to necessity. Don't confuse NECESSITY with VALUE.

Ryan_Som

ok...let's say the oil that you were getting free wasn't that good...i mean it got you where you needed to go, but it wasn't what was best for your car

but the oil you have to pay for was superior to the free oil and it made your car run nice and smooth and allowed you to go many more places with it

yea...i'd buy the special oil

I say it's more comparison of good to premium. It's not hurting your car or experience, and the other one is one step above it. Same thing with putting premium gas in a car that doesn't need it. Will your car run a little better? Yeah, probably. Do you need it? Not really. It's really a combination of the 2 analogies. Similar cars but different brands, continued support after purchase versus paid support, and other little bells and whistles that come with the car that might be nice, but aren't necessary.

If the XBOX 360 were a Ferrari in comparison to the PS3 then I could understand paid support after the fact to keep it in top running condition. The fact is, they are similar beasts.

eh, just saying...that oil argument wasn't the best of choices to compare PSN and XBL

I wouldn't even classify PSN as a service. It gives you the ability to play online. I think that's the difference. Xbox Live on the other hand offers things like a party system and cross-game invites. They also offer staff that are very accessible and in the public eye whenever they get a chance. Whether that be Major Nelson's general news, Trixie's leadership with the gamerchix to Stepto's policy enforcement. Or the Xbox Live Community Developer and Ambassador programs. Subscribers also enjoy community-focused online events outside of the theme nights on the community calendar. For me, these are the differences that help define Xbox Live as a service while PSN is bare-bones.

VoodooHak

Now you show me what tangible product you're purchasing with Xbox Live. Oh that's right, nothing. Pixie dust. A kick in the nuts. That's what you get with XBL subscription fees. Air. An intangible nothing. A feature set that could be and probably will be replicated and that already exists from multiple third parties on the PC platform and probably would already be out if PSN allowed third-party user-developed applications for PS3.

Why do you pay $50 annually? 8 man party chat. Hot frickin' damn.

There's this PSN game called Calling All Cars which is only 2 years old and there's hardly anyone playing it, so they're shutting down the servers. At the same time there's tons of Indie Games and 5 year old XBLA games with hardly any players but they will never shut down the servers on XBL. Which service do you like.

because M$ wants to bring you a superior online experience...and in order to do that they need some money for better more dedicated servers and for better coding for console updates

CDUB316

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I wouldn't even classify PSN as a service. It gives you the ability to play online. I think that's the difference. Xbox Live on the other hand offers things like a party system and cross-game invites. They also offer staff that are very accessible and in the public eye whenever they get a chance. Whether that be Major Nelson's general news, Trixie's leadership with the gamerchix to Stepto's policy enforcement. Or the Xbox Live Community Developer and Ambassador programs. Subscribers also enjoy community-focused online events outside of the theme nights on the community calendar. For me, these are the differences that help define Xbox Live as a service while PSN is bare-bones.

Brownesque

Now you show me what tangible product you're purchasing with Xbox Live. Oh that's right, nothing. Pixie dust. A kick in the nuts. That's what you get with XBL subscription fees. Air. An intangible nothing. A feature set that could be and probably will be replicated and that already exists from multiple third parties on the PC platform and probably would already be out if PSN allowed third-party user-developed applications for PS3.

Why do you pay $50 annually? 8 man party chat. Hot frickin' damn.

No... I told you what I get with the fee. You just conveniently ignored it my whole post, and used it as another opportunity to grind your axe without addressing any one of my points. Good job.

Intangible? Except for the GamerChix, I've used every one of the service features I mentioned and use a few of them on a daily basis. Sure third parties can implement those things independently. It's a good thing that on Xbox Live, each of these things is either part of the SDK or applicable to ALL games simply because it's a platform-wide standard. I'm glad you brought this up, because this illustrates how XBL is not only a service to the gamers, but to the developers as well.

You can't hide behind coulda-woulda-shoulda. Come back when it's common practice for third party devs to implement these features. Until then, all you have is wishful thinking.

Great example Warhawk. A Sony published game. Because THAT's the norm, right? Hardly.