should just take it back and get RE5 on PS3. FREE ONLINE
cant even play RE5 mutiplayer with silver
well that's too bad...u should of got it for PS3 if u knew u couldn't afford xbox live gold Nothing to do with "cant afford." If he can afford a ps3, i doubt live is an issue. Its more to do with the fact that PSN is just as good as live for online gameing, and its free. why waste money on live when PSN does it for free? Its not called being poor, its called being smart with how you spend you moeny. if you dont think its worth it., why get it? (not saying live istn worth the money for everyone, different people value things differently)
should just take it back and get RE5 on PS3. FREE ONLINE
cant even play RE5 mutiplayer with silver
well that's too bad...u should of got it for PS3 if u knew u couldn't afford xbox live gold Nothing to do with "cant afford." If he can afford a ps3, i doubt live is an issue. Its more to do with the fact that PSN is just as good as live for online gameing, and its free. why waste money on live when PSN does it for free? Its not called being poor, its called being smart with how you spend you moeny. if you dont think its worth it., why get it? (not saying live istn worth the money for everyone, different people value things differently)Anyone saying PSn is on par with Live is a fanboy. Yes PSn will let you game on-line for free, and does everything you need to play on-line. Live does it all, and more. IT is more coehesive for on-line play then PSn has ever hoped to be. Live is so much easier to do everything on it's not even funny. I have both PSn, and Live, and I play on-line almost exclusively on Live. I can talk to anyone of my friends anytime I want, no matter what I am playing or they are playing. One push of a button and I change party chats, and talk to other friends. I can send anyone of them game invites, switch games into their game, and still not lose contact with any party I am talking in, and still change to another party at the push of a button. PSn isn't anywhere close to this. I wish Live was free, but it's not. and 4.00 or less a month (with a 13 month prepaid card) isn't going to break anyone. If you feel like you shouldn't pay to play on-line, then don't . Get a PS3 and use PSn. It's good also. Just not as integrated with all games as Live is.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"][QUOTE="mike4realz"] well that's too bad...u should of got it for PS3 if u knew u couldn't afford xbox live goldloftus42
Nothing to do with "cant afford." If he can afford a ps3, i doubt live is an issue. Its more to do with the fact that PSN is just as good as live for online gameing, and its free. why waste money on live when PSN does it for free? Its not called being poor, its called being smart with how you spend you moeny. if you dont think its worth it., why get it? (not saying live istn worth the money for everyone, different people value things differently)Anyone saying PSn is on par with Live is a fanboy. Yes PSn will let you game on-line for free, and does everything you need to play on-line. Live does it all, and more. IT is more coehesive for on-line play then PSn has ever hoped to be. Live is so much easier to do everything on it's not even funny. I have both PSn, and Live, and I play on-line almost exclusively on Live. I can talk to anyone of my friends anytime I want, no matter what I am playing or they are playing. One push of a button and I change party chats, and talk to other friends. I can send anyone of them game invites, switch games into their game, and still not lose contact with any party I am talking in, and still change to another party at the push of a button. PSn isn't anywhere close to this. I wish Live was free, but it's not. and 4.00 or less a month (with a 13 month prepaid card) isn't going to break anyone. If you feel like you shouldn't pay to play on-line, then don't . Get a PS3 and use PSn. It's good also. Just not as integrated with all games as Live is. I never said overall PSN was on par with XBL :roll: I said as fa as online play goes, PSN is just as good, if not better. for starters many exclusives use dedicated servers instead os P2P. I get virtually no lag on PSN. Also having a ps3 I get the best shooters for online play. Yes XBL has all the neat little features like cross game chat, or switch games into someone elses game. But most PSN games let you join a friends game quite easily, some throguh invites,others in the menu system you click on friends and click on the friends name to join the game. Most games do invites, its nothing exclusive to XBL. so what do you ge? cross game chat? I can live without that. If I really need to say something I can send them a message, though generally when I go online I ask a frind if they want to play a game online with me, so I can easily talk like that. Personally I just dont see the point in getting XBL when im not bothered about its little extras. I just want an online service with little lag. And imo if your into online shooters, the ps3 is the better system to get, warhawk, resistance 2, Killzone 2, SOCOM confrontation, MGO. Its really good and none of them suffer lag. Yeah as a package XBL is better, but for my needs, as a huge shooter fan, PSN wins, and its free, just a bonus.
[QUOTE="loftus42"][QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"] Nothing to do with "cant afford." If he can afford a ps3, i doubt live is an issue. Its more to do with the fact that PSN is just as good as live for online gameing, and its free. why waste money on live when PSN does it for free? Its not called being poor, its called being smart with how you spend you moeny. if you dont think its worth it., why get it? (not saying live istn worth the money for everyone, different people value things differently)NinjaMunkey01
Anyone saying PSn is on par with Live is a fanboy. Yes PSn will let you game on-line for free, and does everything you need to play on-line. Live does it all, and more. IT is more coehesive for on-line play then PSn has ever hoped to be. Live is so much easier to do everything on it's not even funny. I have both PSn, and Live, and I play on-line almost exclusively on Live. I can talk to anyone of my friends anytime I want, no matter what I am playing or they are playing. One push of a button and I change party chats, and talk to other friends. I can send anyone of them game invites, switch games into their game, and still not lose contact with any party I am talking in, and still change to another party at the push of a button. PSn isn't anywhere close to this. I wish Live was free, but it's not. and 4.00 or less a month (with a 13 month prepaid card) isn't going to break anyone. If you feel like you shouldn't pay to play on-line, then don't . Get a PS3 and use PSn. It's good also. Just not as integrated with all games as Live is. I never said overall PSN was on par with XBL :roll: I said as fa as online play goes, PSN is just as good, if not better. for starters many exclusives use dedicated servers instead os P2P. I get virtually no lag on PSN. Also having a ps3 I get the best shooters for online play. Yes XBL has all the neat little features like cross game chat, or switch games into someone elses game. But most PSN games let you join a friends game quite easily, some throguh invites,others in the menu system you click on friends and click on the friends name to join the game. Most games do invites, its nothing exclusive to XBL. so what do you ge? cross game chat? I can live without that. If I really need to say something I can send them a message, though generally when I go online I ask a frind if they want to play a game online with me, so I can easily talk like that. Personally I just dont see the point in getting XBL when im not bothered about its little extras. I just want an online service with little lag. And imo if your into online shooters, the ps3 is the better system to get, warhawk, resistance 2, Killzone 2, SOCOM confrontation, MGO. Its really good and none of them suffer lag. Yeah as a package XBL is better, but for my needs, as a huge shooter fan, PSN wins, and its free, just a bonus.For shooters the 360 is definitely better, Halo, Gears, gears 2 9even though i dislike all those games) none of the games you mention are on par with them in terms of community and amount of players online on PSN feels so dead no one talks, maybe K2 in a few years but shooters are best on 360 imo. the problem with PS3 is that what happens in 5 years when i want to play some games online but the servers have been shutdown? the fact i can play call of duty 2 (my favorite 360 game) till the end of this gen shows dedicated servers are not always the best thing.
It was a ripoff when it was first introduced. And it still will be as long as MS forces people to pay to access content in games they have already purchased. Doesn't get much more of a ripoff than that.
sorry, your wrong, it is now, and always was 50 dollars/year Not in Canada, it's 60 bucks for 13 months. Canadian dollars. 1 US dollar = 1.274352198 Canadian dollars
It was a ripoff when it was first introduced. And it still will be as long as MS forces people to pay to access content in games they have already purchased. Doesn't get much more of a ripoff than that.skrat_01
Who am I to say that MS shouldn't charge for developing an intelectual property such as Live. Yes, others let you do basically the same thing, i.e. game on-line, for free. Live is more then that. It's a service with a number of features that are integrated into all games. This is coded by MS developers, So all games will run with the same features, at the same level. Games on PSn, don't all do this. One game runs different from others. some have some features other don't. Games on live will run the same, with all the same features from now untill Live is no more. Will first party games with thier dedicated servers on PSnrun the same in a few years when those servers are given to a newer game. No. Live is about convenience, and with that alone, IMO, Live is worth the small fee to play. No matter what game I play, All features will be there and will be done the same way. I won't have to remember how one feature is done in one game, over another game. For that, MS has done what no other platform has done. Consistancy over all games. No matter who developes them, or when they were developed.
Ive gone almost totally PC gaming in the past 2 years so have not bothered re-rewing my XBL after i got bored of halo 3. But it would not bother me if i did, its still like £40 a year here in the UK. i spend more on things like chrisps.
On a side note, is gamespot totally run by monkeys? they have slow as hell editing, Constant HTML errors and utterly broken search features in their forums, as im typing this im still waiting for the damed formating window to apear.
i remember like 5 years ago on xbox when i used to pay like 4$ a month. now its 8$ a month, 20$ for 3 months? WHAT A RIPOFF
Jamex1987
5 years ago you paid $4.00 a month? Considering the price has not changed in the last 5 years I am a bit confused at what you are saying. His parents financed the other .. o no, I won't do it. Haha, though if you're buying yearly it has always been around $4/mo huh
It was a ripoff when it was first introduced. And it still will be as long as MS forces people to pay to access content in games they have already purchased. Doesn't get much more of a ripoff than that.skrat_01
QFT. I imagine that M$ execs look at the money charts at the end of the year, and laugh their ***es off that their idiot tax rakes in about $0.5B a year. And although I doubt that fat cats worry about the opinions of Joe Schmoe, they would probably laugh even harder to know that people defend being gouged, despite the absolutely miniscule service they receive out of that .5B.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"][QUOTE="mike4realz"] well that's too bad...u should of got it for PS3 if u knew u couldn't afford xbox live goldloftus42
Nothing to do with "cant afford." If he can afford a ps3, i doubt live is an issue. Its more to do with the fact that PSN is just as good as live for online gameing, and its free. why waste money on live when PSN does it for free? Its not called being poor, its called being smart with how you spend you moeny. if you dont think its worth it., why get it? (not saying live istn worth the money for everyone, different people value things differently)Anyone saying PSn is on par with Live is a fanboy. Yes PSn will let you game on-line for free, and does everything you need to play on-line. Live does it all, and more. IT is more coehesive for on-line play then PSn has ever hoped to be. Live is so much easier to do everything on it's not even funny. I have both PSn, and Live, and I play on-line almost exclusively on Live. I can talk to anyone of my friends anytime I want, no matter what I am playing or they are playing. One push of a button and I change party chats, and talk to other friends. I can send anyone of them game invites, switch games into their game, and still not lose contact with any party I am talking in, and still change to another party at the push of a button. PSn isn't anywhere close to this. I wish Live was free, but it's not. and 4.00 or less a month (with a 13 month prepaid card) isn't going to break anyone. If you feel like you shouldn't pay to play on-line, then don't . Get a PS3 and use PSn. It's good also. Just not as integrated with all games as Live is. i like free interweb, does that make me fanboy? :?
[QUOTE="loftus42"][QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"] Nothing to do with "cant afford." If he can afford a ps3, i doubt live is an issue. Its more to do with the fact that PSN is just as good as live for online gameing, and its free. why waste money on live when PSN does it for free? Its not called being poor, its called being smart with how you spend you moeny. if you dont think its worth it., why get it? (not saying live istn worth the money for everyone, different people value things differently)12345yon
Anyone saying PSn is on par with Live is a fanboy. Yes PSn will let you game on-line for free, and does everything you need to play on-line. Live does it all, and more. IT is more coehesive for on-line play then PSn has ever hoped to be. Live is so much easier to do everything on it's not even funny. I have both PSn, and Live, and I play on-line almost exclusively on Live. I can talk to anyone of my friends anytime I want, no matter what I am playing or they are playing. One push of a button and I change party chats, and talk to other friends. I can send anyone of them game invites, switch games into their game, and still not lose contact with any party I am talking in, and still change to another party at the push of a button. PSn isn't anywhere close to this. I wish Live was free, but it's not. and 4.00 or less a month (with a 13 month prepaid card) isn't going to break anyone. If you feel like you shouldn't pay to play on-line, then don't . Get a PS3 and use PSn. It's good also. Just not as integrated with all games as Live is. i like free interweb, does that make me fanboy? :?I have nothing against people who like to game for free. PSn is free. There is nothing wrong with PSn. I'm saying that live is so much better IMO then PSn. I have both and have spent time on both. I much prefer Live over PSn. Anyone saying the two are even close to the same is a fanboy. Yes PSn does on-line gaming quite well. I have nothing against PSn. It's just not near the quality of integrated services that Live offers. If you don't want to pay for those services, I have nothing against you. Don't pay for it. PSn like I said is a great on-line gaming service. It can do on-line gaming great. But thats it. Live does on-line gaming just fine, and provides you with a well integrated community communication service that PSn can not match. I can play one game talk to a group of freinds, with a push of a button go to chat with another group of friends, recive an invite to game with another, switch games, with a push of a button, and a new game disk, start a new game, all while still talking to the one group of friends, then still change to chat with another group of friends with a push of a button. Total freedom, no matter which game is in or which game i change to, all is seemless, and works perfectly whatever game is in or games others might be playing. And I am not saying i wouldn't like it to be free. I would love to not pay for it, that would be great. But, is it worth not paying for and going somewhere else? No, I like Live and will pay to stay on it. If you don't like it, fine, don't pay for it. But, don't call me stupid because i like Live, and am willing to pay a small fee to enjoy this ease of use, and freedom of communication.
i remember like 5 years ago on xbox when i used to pay like 4$ a month. now its 8$ a month, 20$ for 3 months? WHAT A RIPOFF
What!?!? It's $50 a year. Who is paying $20 for 3 months? Where are you getting your information. This just looks like more trolling to me. They do have 3 month cards for $20. I geuss for those who are interested in a game and playing it for a few months. The better deal like some have said is of course the 13 month card that retails for $50. With some savy shopping you can find it for as little as $30. Fanboys like to make it sound worse then that. But, anyone who shops around can get deals. I bought my 06 civic for $15,000, by shopping around. I have seen it go for upwards of $16,500. You can get deals on anything is what i'm trying to say. Just shop around.
Log in to comment