Xbox Live Users, what would be the maximum price you would pay for gold?

Just Curious.

(per month/3 months/1 year).

About 60 dollars is right...

$120/year. That's only $2.50 a week. Deathtransit

[QUOTE="Deathtransit"]$120/year. That's only $2.50 a week. posthuman23

They could up the price another 10 euro and I would have no problem paying. Whats the maximum I would pay for PSN if they were to charge? Not quite so much...

$100 a year for XBL and it's worth every penny. I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

kindredmachine

That's false.

[QUOTE="posthuman23"]

[QUOTE="Deathtransit"]$120/year. That's only $2.50 a week. WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="kindredmachine"]

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

That's false.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="posthuman23"]That is disgusting

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="posthuman23"]That is disgusting

posthuman23

No its not lol.

[QUOTE="posthuman23"]

why is that? hes not allowed to have an opinion?WilliamRLBaker

No its not lol.

[QUOTE="kindredmachine"]

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

Brownesque

That's false.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="kindredmachine"]

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

WilliamRLBaker

That's false.

Let me educate you on how this works.

The P2P performance on any platform cannot be different. You're hosting the content on your local server via your local internet connection. There is no intermediary. PSN literally is not a function in the equation. That's assuming you're the server. If someone else is the server, the host is 100% variable, and that's not dependent on network, that's dependent on the quality of the search algorithm and the player base available at any one moment, but it's sort of silly to blame PSN for something that is literally out of its control....by design, in fact.

Alternately, dedicated servers are variable because it's Sony, or EA, or whomever's hardware. It's not hosted locally. The connection, location, etcetera depend on whomever you're connecting to, be it Joe Schmoe's server at data center X or Sony's server rack at location Z. They're not the same. And most importantly, that's the part that's actually hosted by Sony.

Which is why download servers would actually be variable. The servers are owned by Sony.

This is aside from the extraordinary hubris to say one network is superior to another in terms of....I don't know, bandwidth, speed, latency?....when you've literally provided not one single shred of evidence to support such a claim.

599 US DOLLARS/year

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="kindredmachine"]

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

WilliamRLBaker

That's false.

no its not. downloading updates sure (some times) but if anything ive lagged more on the 360 then i have on the ps3.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="posthuman23"]That is disgusting

posthuman23

You do realize people pay more than that a year to play World of Warcraft alone right?

$40 a year

is worth about 20 a year maximum to me, hence its cancelled

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="kindredmachine"]

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

WilliamRLBaker

That's false.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="Brownesque"]

That's false.

Brownesque

Let me educate you on how this works.

The P2P performance on any platform cannot be different. You're hosting the content on your local server via your local internet connection. There is no intermediary. PSN literally is not a function in the equation. That's assuming you're the server. If someone else is the server, the host is 100% variable, and that's not dependent on network, that's dependent on the quality of the search algorithm and the player base available at any one moment, but it's sort of silly to blame PSN for something that is literally out of its control....by design, in fact.

Alternately, dedicated servers are variable because it's Sony, or EA, or whomever's hardware. It's not hosted locally. The connection, location, etcetera depend on whomever you're connecting to, be it Joe Schmoe's server at data center X or Sony's server rack at location Z. They're not the same. And most importantly, that's the part that's actually hosted by Sony.

Which is why download servers would actually be variable. The servers are owned by Sony.

This is aside from the extraordinary hubris to say one network is superior to another in terms of....I don't know, bandwidth, speed, latency?....when you've literally provided not one single shred of evidence to support such a claim.

Let me educate you on how this works. when a company creates a p2p suite of tools and code that is superior to another then when a developer uses such tools and code to create the p2p sections of their multiplayer that p2p works better then the competitions that doesn't use said tools or code.

Let me also educate you.
When 2 companies use the same backbones in data centers for their dedicated servers...then they usually work the same.

"On the PS3, we don't have a rich online system like an Xbox Live, and each title has to create its own online system features." -- Kazunori Yamauchi, CEO of Polyphony Digital, speaking to PlayStation: The Official Magazine about Gran Turismo 5, January 2010.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM

Yawn... I pay about the same amount to gamespot as I do for xbox live if you break it up monthly, sure I resent it because it should apply to the console and not one account but it really isn't a lot of money for those of us living in the real world (and not our parents house).

Let me educate you on how this works. when a company creates a p2p suite of tools and code that is superior to another then when a developer uses such tools and code to create the p2p sections of their multiplayer that p2p works better then the competitions that doesn't use said tools or code.

Let me also educate you.
When 2 companies use the same backbones in data centers for their dedicated servers...then they usually work the same.

"On the PS3, we don't have a rich online system like an Xbox Live, and each title has to create its own online system features." -- Kazunori Yamauchi, CEO of Polyphony Digital, speaking to PlayStation: The Official Magazine about Gran Turismo 5, January 2010.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM

WilliamRLBaker

GeoW2 was famous for networking issues

so much so that GeoW3 is getting dedicated servers

http://gearsofwar.xbox.com/Templates/Secondary.aspx?id=1964

is that indicative of the robustness and consistency of the network code on XBL? I sure hope not. What have you done to demonstrate to me that the P2P code on XBL is universally superior to the code on PSN? You cannot demonstrate that it is universally superior since precisely nothing is keeping a PSN developer from making more robust netcode than the XBL netcode. PSN is inconsistent, obviously for that reason, as Yamauchi notes. But that's not necessarily a drawback. As long as you have a developer making strong netcode, it could very well be superior. Yamauchi's quote really is dealing with features, though, instead of netcode/performance, so it's not really pertinent to this discussion.

And the point still stands regardless that the hardware and the internet connection is literally not a function in the P2P equation that is dependent on PSN or XBL.

Sony doesn't even write all the net code, whereas XBL does. It's pointless to say PSN is universally bad.

Regarding XBL's superior and consistent netcode:

"So while we were happy to get our hands on Hyper Fighting, it isn't finished. This was obvious when we tried to play the game online. Between people at the office the game was fine. However, on games outside our office network it suffered from crippling lag. Again, this is still being worked out, and we're hopeful it's improved."

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/711/711018p1.html

"Right when you boot up your first match, your tongue wagging in excitement, you'll be disappointed with some problematic lag issues. The animations are a half-second behind the controls, in almost every match we've played, and we don't exactly have slow gaming connections at the IGN office. Usually, they're blazing. The lag has been so bad at times that when you go for a jump kick, your character will hit the ground before even starting the kick animation."

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/723/723017p1.html

According to the post, the patch will target persistent issues with lag. "Infinity Ward is aware that some players have experienced challenges with lag issues," says Infinity Ward, "and we are currently working with Microsoft to create an update that will resolve it."

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/680/680576p1.html

While the sheer size and intensity of Royal Rumble makes it an appealing addition, connectivity issues can make it tough to actually get into a match. Once you are in the ring, nagging lag can cause serious problems, especially during crucial struggles on the ropes.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/wwesmackdownvsraw2011/review.html

I don't know I buy that the experience is entirely consistent, nor that it's universally a good experience.

Moreover, netcode affects dedicated servers in the same way it affects P2P. If the netcode on a dedicated server

owait

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsrkCiwXN2E

sorry

If the netcode on a dedicated server is chummy on PSN that could drag down the performance and cause it to be variable just as on a P2P connection. That's not a variable between P2P and deds, it stays the same, so your point about deds being the same on both platforms is still questionable.

BTW, do you mean to imply with that last comment that all games on PSN and XBL that use dedicated servers host them on the same backbone? Seeing as that's your only contingency, I hope that's the case, else your assertion that deds are the same on both platforms is false.

To be perfectly honest, I don't play much online. AT ALL. The last several online games I played were on PC, anyway. That's why LIVE will always be overpriced to me, because I see no reason why I should have to pay $60 a year simply to track Achievements/Trophies and have a friends list.

To be perfectly honest, I don't play much online. AT ALL. The last several online games I played were on PC, anyway. That's why LIVE will always be overpriced to me, because I see no reason why I should have to pay $60 a year simply to track Achievements/Trophies and have a friends list.

Mrmccormo

You like to cherry pick, but hey thats fine when one has no proof they have to cherry pick.
let alone what I posted about a certain developer on gt5s words.

It is a fact right now that PSN updates and firmware updates are slower to download *not including install* then 360 ones, And 13 million gold users are willing to pay for 360's p2p. Thats really all the proof I need to back up my point. *didn't they just announce 30 million xbox live accounts?*

360's service is superior to psn's service specially in the coding it offers to developers *where on psn they are left to do all their own* cherry picking doesn't change that.
As well If 2 hardware systems work, are on the same data back bones then dedicated servers work the same in terms of preformance.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="Brownesque"]

That's false.

Brownesque

Let me educate you on how this works.

The P2P performance on any platform cannot be different. You're hosting the content on your local server via your local internet connection. There is no intermediary. PSN literally is not a function in the equation. That's assuming you're the server. If someone else is the server, the host is 100% variable, and that's not dependent on network, that's dependent on the quality of the search algorithm and the player base available at any one moment, but it's sort of silly to blame PSN for something that is literally out of its control....by design, in fact.

Alternately, dedicated servers are variable because it's Sony, or EA, or whomever's hardware. It's not hosted locally. The connection, location, etcetera depend on whomever you're connecting to, be it Joe Schmoe's server at data center X or Sony's server rack at location Z. They're not the same. And most importantly, that's the part that's actually hosted by Sony.

Which is why download servers would actually be variable. The servers are owned by Sony.

This is aside from the extraordinary hubris to say one network is superior to another in terms of....I don't know, bandwidth, speed, latency?....when you've literally provided not one single shred of evidence to support such a claim.

[QUOTE="Mrmccormo"]

To be perfectly honest, I don't play much online. AT ALL. The last several online games I played were on PC, anyway. That's why LIVE will always be overpriced to me, because I see no reason why I should have to pay $60 a year simply to track Achievements/Trophies and have a friends list.

Brownesque

You like to cherry pick, but hey thats fine when one has no proof they have to cherry pick.
let alone what I posted about a certain developer on gt5s words.

It is a fact right now that PSN updates and firmware updates are slower to download *not including install* then 360 ones, And 13 million gold users are willing to pay for 360's p2p. Thats really all the proof I need to back up my point. *didn't they just announce 30 million xbox live accounts?*

360's service is superior to psn's service specially in the coding it offers to developers *where on psn they are left to do all their own* cherry picking doesn't change that.
As well If 2 hardware systems work, are on the same data back bones then dedicated servers work the same in terms of preformance.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="Mrmccormo"]

To be perfectly honest, I don't play much online. AT ALL. The last several online games I played were on PC, anyway. That's why LIVE will always be overpriced to me, because I see no reason why I should have to pay $60 a year simply to track Achievements/Trophies and have a friends list.

Mrmccormo

$0 as long as I have free options :S But I do use the test cards you get with some games to play some halo online ^^

You like to cherry pick, but hey thats fine when one has no proof they have to cherry pick.
let alone what I posted about a certain developer on gt5s words.

It is a fact right now that PSN updates and firmware updates are slower to download *not including install* then 360 ones, And 13 million gold users are willing to pay for 360's p2p. Thats really all the proof I need to back up my point. *didn't they just announce 30 million xbox live accounts?*

360's service is superior to psn's service specially in the coding it offers to developers *where on psn they are left to do all their own* cherry picking doesn't change that.
As well If 2 hardware systems work, are on the same data back bones then dedicated servers work the same in terms of preformance.

WilliamRLBaker

If it's superior, it's not due to the consistent P2P suite, which clearly allows some bad eggs to slip through. That point was merely meant to specifically refute one argument, that the P2P suite provided a consistently better experience. If there are bad eggs, it's not consistent. I don't mean to say anything beyond that. Say it's cherry picking all you like, but concede the point plz.

I don't care if PSN is slower to download, but you haven't demonstrated that. I suggest you do so. I'm also not saying that XBL isn't popular or that people aren't willing to pay for it, because clearly it is and people are. That doesn't mean that it's universally faster or that the online on PSN is "slow" and "terrible." 360 offering a suite of features and code to their developers doesn't make PSN's online "slow and terrible." Yamauchi pointing out that XBL offers a suite of features and code to developers whereas PSN does not does not mean PSN's online is "slow and terrible."

"As well If 2 hardware systems work, are on the same data back bones then dedicated servers work the same in terms of preformance." If they're the same hardware, on the same backbone, and using the same netcode, sure. So you were gonna show me that the dedicated servers on PSN and XBL both use the same hardware, are on the same backbone, and use the same netcode, right? Else you were gonna concede the point that they were the same, right?

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="kindredmachine"]

I only use the PS3 for movies and single player games like FFXIII cause the online is so slow and terrible.

campzor

That's false.

I exaggerate, but my point was that if I'm not playing online w/ a 360, what's the point of LIVE Gold (or a 360 in the first place)?Mrmccormo

There is no point. That's why I rarely pay for Gold.

I'm at my cap right now, and to be honest after not loving Reach like I did Halo 3, I may never renew again. If I can convince my pesky cheap ass friends to go PS3, or even better PC (fat chance with my friends :( ) then I'd be set.

I do love some Halo though. Stupid MS. ;)

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"] actually its pretty true. The ps3 is incredibly slow compared to the PC and 360 when it comes to downloading updates and firmware..etc As far as online gaming p2p on pc and 360 is superior. Dedicated server preformance is the same though.kuraimen

Let me educate you on how this works.

The P2P performance on any platform cannot be different. You're hosting the content on your local server via your local internet connection. There is no intermediary. PSN literally is not a function in the equation. That's assuming you're the server. If someone else is the server, the host is 100% variable, and that's not dependent on network, that's dependent on the quality of the search algorithm and the player base available at any one moment, but it's sort of silly to blame PSN for something that is literally out of its control....by design, in fact.

Alternately, dedicated servers are variable because it's Sony, or EA, or whomever's hardware. It's not hosted locally. The connection, location, etcetera depend on whomever you're connecting to, be it Joe Schmoe's server at data center X or Sony's server rack at location Z. They're not the same. And most importantly, that's the part that's actually hosted by Sony.

Which is why download servers would actually be variable. The servers are owned by Sony.

This is aside from the extraordinary hubris to say one network is superior to another in terms of....I don't know, bandwidth, speed, latency?....when you've literally provided not one single shred of evidence to support such a claim.

did i miss something? $200? Who? what? when? You think coming up with "stuff" is a way of justifying payment for something which MS has every right to charge for? Let me ask you this: If Sony started charging for online play, you would turn your nose up at it right? Of course you would by the sound of you. This shows to me that you obviously don't think PSN is worth paying for, where millions and millions of xbox live users are happy to pay for their service...

What we're currently charged should be more than enough for MS, so lets not give them any wrong ideas in thinking they can further increase subscription fees for Live (Gold)...

$60/year is just about right. Any more and I'd have to re-evaluate.

Heck, I'd be willing to pay for PSN, but clearly not as much.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Brownesque"]

Let me educate you on how this works.

The P2P performance on any platform cannot be different. You're hosting the content on your local server via your local internet connection. There is no intermediary. PSN literally is not a function in the equation. That's assuming you're the server. If someone else is the server, the host is 100% variable, and that's not dependent on network, that's dependent on the quality of the search algorithm and the player base available at any one moment, but it's sort of silly to blame PSN for something that is literally out of its control....by design, in fact.

Alternately, dedicated servers are variable because it's Sony, or EA, or whomever's hardware. It's not hosted locally. The connection, location, etcetera depend on whomever you're connecting to, be it Joe Schmoe's server at data center X or Sony's server rack at location Z. They're not the same. And most importantly, that's the part that's actually hosted by Sony.

Which is why download servers would actually be variable. The servers are owned by Sony.

This is aside from the extraordinary hubris to say one network is superior to another in terms of....I don't know, bandwidth, speed, latency?....when you've literally provided not one single shred of evidence to support such a claim.

iano-87

did i miss something? $200? Who? what? when? You think coming up with "stuff" is a way of justifying payment for something which MS has every right to charge for? Let me ask you this: If Sony started charging for online play, you would turn your nose up at it right? Of course you would by the sound of you. This shows to me that you obviously don't think PSN is worth paying for, where millions and millions of xbox live users are happy to pay for their service...

I was responding to claims of some people here saying they will pay $200. And no if PSN starts charging for online play I wouldn't pay for it, I wouldn't even buy a Playstation. And I already pay for online play to my internet service provider and to the developers of the games I don't like to get ripped off paying for something I already paid for.kuraimen

Ok fair enough if you see it that way, but these online services cost alot of money to run so I have no problem paying 60 euro a year for xbox live. I dont see a problem paying for online pay as long as its not a drastic amount of money. I would count on Sony and Nintendo to startcharging for the service in the near future as both companies have hinted at doing so. Although Nintendo could not possibly justify a price tag on it's service at this time. imo.

INB4DR.EVIL "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" PIC.

The most I would pay for xbl gold is like 70 bucks. I can't imagine them ever raising that high anyway, I don't like paying anything for it even though it is a great service. These people says hundreds of dollars need to get their priorities straight lol

Just Curious.

(per month/3 months/1 year).

allthatdown