xbox live - do i really have to pay to play!?

@chaoscougar1:

What do you mean what about "microsofts huge financial loss over the past year"? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? If they had a huge financial gain, would they bring the price of live down considerably. No. Plus they have been charging for live since the 360 came out. What does a finacial loss or gain have to do with this discussion? Where can you show that their net profits/loss impacts or effects the cost of live? Until you do so, that statement is invalid and irrelevant. Which opinion did I make out as a fact? Are you reading my posts with understanding?? No. The PSN may not be free to everyone but it is free to us. AND WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT US, RIGHT? Unless you know someone on here who is a developer. Are you a developer or the TC or anyone who has posted on this thread? No, so that makes a second invalid and irrelevant point in your post. Thirdly, that's microsofts fault for losing money everythime they sell a 360. Do you think we are supposed to help them break even? Again, what does this have to do with the topic? How does make us cheap and not microsoft? What did you say in your post to validate this?

Before he stepped down, Bill Gates should have ensured that the Live rates were justified i.e. so spoilt Westerners like myself could enjoy a lag-free ride online. But no, that just isn't noble enough and Gates is now looking after the truly needy with his untold billions. He's got a nice legacy project for himself there post-MS, but jeez -couldn't he have spared a thought for his own? We deserve better service, but then there's a reason MS has officially been rebranded as M$.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"]

[QUOTE="kboone13"]

It's not being cheap, its called "I already paid for the game, system, and the internet connection(possibly even the ethernet cable or WiFi port)! Should I also have to pay to play with what I've already paid for!?!?!"

Thank You kboone13!! I really don't see how people are saying it's being cheap. For those who are saying that, are you paying any bills? Mortgage, rent, car notes, water, lights, cell phone, anything?? If so, how can you say such a thing, especially in this economy. That $50 can go to other expenses. But i bet most of you all have mommy and daddy pay for it, so i guess it really isn't cheap, is it?

Now, if you object to paying for Xbox Live out of principle, that's fine, but to describe the price of the service as you are is a little silly. I'm a working professional, and I am paying bills. You say that that $50 can go to other expenses? What other expenses? What is $50 a year going to buy? I pay double that on magazine subscriptions. I spend an order of magnitude more than that on my ****ing cell phone. Fifty dollars, when measured over the course of the year, is completely insignificant to a person who has the spare income to afford a $400 console and $60 games.

It's the principle of the matter, that you people seem to miss.People like you, who are complacent with big business ripping off their customers, are what's wrong with this country. "It's only $50 dollars what are you poor? Oh you must just be cheap." No, morons.If someone from GM (or Honda, Toyota, whatever type of car you own) were to stand outside your car and charge you a quarter every time you want to get in and drive, would you do it? Would you make excuses for your multi-billion dollar corporations and say, "oh well its only a quarter who cares"? Probably you would.

The point is is that the fee is unnecessary and it is just another wayfor Micro$oft to rip uf off, REGARDLESS of whether or not we can afford it.

I can't believe there are so many people sticking up for and defending Microsoft for unnecesarilly gouging their customers. I have grown so tired of Microsoft with their Xbox Live fee, completely bullsh!t MS Points system, and loud faulty consoles that I am switching to PS3 as soon as I can save a little money and convince some sucker to buy my 360 and my 360 games.

And to those of you who just completely disregard the PS Network and claim that "Live is sooo much better" : .....are you serious?? You get THE SAME EXACT SERVICE.Whenever I sign onto my brother-in-law's PSN account to play COD4, I have no trouble finding a game, staying connected to a game, or talking to people during the game. "Oh but on the PSN you don't get group party voice chat featurees waah waah waah". If you want to talk to people invite some people over to your house, call someone, or go into a goddam chat room. I play COD4 to murder people with my AK-47 not make social connections.

I don't see you peoples logic. Just because you can afford to pay it, makes it justifiable purchase?

sourcerah

You just jumped all over someone for accusing you of saying something you didn't say. This:

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL YOU KNOW.

In an early post sourcerah

So, in that vein, I ask you to produce the quote block where I comment on the justification or non-justification of Xbox Live at all.

I simply addressed your implication that $50 a year represents anything other than a completely insignificant amount of money. Gee, if I didn't have Xbox Live to pay for, in a month's time, I could do one of the following:

• Buy half a drink
• Get two extra gallons of gas
• Subtract 5% from my cellphone bill
• Get a couple bottles of water
• Pay the tax on a 360 game
• Get the cheapest appetizer at a mediocre restaurant
• Pick up an Esquire off the rack

Without the expense of Xbox Live, the possibilities are endless! (Sarcasm)

The argument against Xbox Live is that users are being nickled and dimed, and that's unecessary, not that those nickles are dimes are actually worth anything. I'm not saying paying for Xbox Live is justifiable. I'm saying it's so cheap, that I don't give a ****.

I can't believe there are so many people sticking up for and defending Microsoft for unnecesarilly gouging their customers. I have grown so tired of Microsoft with their Xbox Live fee, completely bullsh!t MS Points system, and loud faulty consoles that I am switching to PS3 as soon as I can save a little money and convince some sucker to buy my 360 and my 360 games. And to those of you who just completely disregard the PS Network and claim that "Live is sooo much better" : .....are you serious?? You get THE SAME EXACT SERVICE. Every time I sign onto my brother-in-law's PSN account to play COD4dirtydishko2

I don't see you peoples logic. Just because you can afford to pay it, makes it justifiable purchase? Do you even know how your $50 is used? And you ask what expenses can $50 go to? Let's see... cell phone, water, electric, etc. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind going without paying one of those bills for a month. maybe that's just me. it would be different if I knew how my money is being used but i don't. Not specifically, just generalizations. Unless someone can direct me to where i can find this info...sourcerah

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/118488/microsoft-justifies-xbox-live-costs/

Basically, we are paying for the service, and its as simple as that. Running XboxLive isn't free and it costs Microsoft money. Just like with many large MMO games, it requires a team to constantly keep the servers up and running properly, they do a lot of work on certification processes for developer patches, they work on future console updates, they work to secure exclusive content, they organize events and promotions through Live, etc etc. And they do all of this advertisement-free.

Its all a big service and hence, the fee. Its great that others may offer it for free, but I'm sure they'd love to charge a fee for it. I imagine the reason they dont is because it would be a huge loss of incentive for people to buy their system(speaking mainly of Sony here, as the Wii is online, but is not known for its online gaming).

[QUOTE="sourcerah"]I don't see you peoples logic. Just because you can afford to pay it, makes it justifiable purchase? Do you even know how your $50 is used? And you ask what expenses can $50 go to? Let's see... cell phone, water, electric, etc. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind going without paying one of those bills for a month. maybe that's just me. it would be different if I knew how my money is being used but i don't. Not specifically, just generalizations. Unless someone can direct me to where i can find this info...seankane

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/118488/microsoft-justifies-xbox-live-costs/

Basically, we are paying for the service, and its as simple as that. Running XboxLive isn't free and it costs Microsoft money. Just like with many large MMO games, it requires a team to constantly keep the servers up and running properly, they do a lot of work on certification processes for developer patches, they work on future console updates, they work to secure exclusive content, they organize events and promotions through Live, etc etc. And they do all of this advertisement-free.

Its all a big service and hence, the fee. Its great that others may offer it for free, but I'm sure they'd love to charge a fee for it. I imagine the reason they dont is because it would be a huge loss of incentive for people to buy their system(speaking mainly of Sony here, as the Wii is online, but is not known for its online gaming).

Oh, and not to mention its probably one of the reasons they can afford to sell their console at such a low price point. Instead of making everybody pay more, they go ahead and lower the price and then give those that want it the option to pay for it.

If you openly describe it as a ripoff, and you still purchase the service, there's a term for that, and one of you is born every minute.

Sorry for the 3rd post(there is no EDIT function for me)

I hear a lot of people saying that we're just getting ripped off and that the fee is compeletely unjustifiable and whatnot, but does anybody have any evidence to support that? How do any of you know that the fee is just 'tacked on' to increase profits and that we'd get the exact same sort of service without the fee?

And the ole 'Microsoft is rich and can afford it' is not an argument. Toyota can afford to give me a free Camry without denting their business but they aren't going to do it. They all want to make money. Just because Sony doesn't make money off the Playstation 3 doesn't mean they're just doing it for the love. They're doing it for their brand recognition and their reputation.

Sorry for the 3rd post(there is no EDIT function for me)

I hear a lot of people saying that we're just getting ripped off and that the fee is compeletely unjustifiable and whatnot, but does anybody have any evidence to support that? How do any of you know that the fee is just 'tacked on' to increase profits and that we'd get the exact same sort of service without the fee?

And the ole 'Microsoft is rich and can afford it' is not an argument. .

If you openly describe it as a ripoff, and you still purchase the service, there's a term for that, and one of you is born every minute.

Palantas

[QUOTE="seankane"]

Sorry for the 3rd post(there is no EDIT function for me)

I hear a lot of people saying that we're just getting ripped off and that the fee is compeletely unjustifiable and whatnot, but does anybody have any evidence to support that? How do any of you know that the fee is just 'tacked on' to increase profits and that we'd get the exact same sort of service without the fee?

And the ole 'Microsoft is rich and can afford it' is not an argument. .

dirtydishko2

Says who? Microsoft could give away their consoles for free but it wouldn't make the argument that Sony should too a valid argument. Its like car dealerships that offer free inspections and oil changes for life. It doesn't mean that dealerships are unjustified in charging for these things, it just means that certain dealerships are trying to undercut the ones that do in order to entice people to come to them.

Like I said, I'm sure that Sony would love to charge a fee for it, but they're already struggling and with the console war at a stalemate these days, they sure as hell aren't going to give people more incentive to go and buy 360's instead.

Proving that the XboxLivefee is unjustified is going to need a much better argument than that.

[QUOTE="dirtydishko2"][QUOTE="seankane"]

Sorry for the 3rd post(there is no EDIT function for me)

I hear a lot of people saying that we're just getting ripped off and that the fee is compeletely unjustifiable and whatnot, but does anybody have any evidence to support that? How do any of you know that the fee is just 'tacked on' to increase profits and that we'd get the exact same sort of service without the fee?

And the ole 'Microsoft is rich and can afford it' is not an argument. .

seankane

Says who? Microsoft could give away their consoles for free but it wouldn't make the argument that Sony should too a valid argument. Its like car dealerships that offer free inspections and oil changes for life. It doesn't mean that dealerships are unjustified in charging for these things, it just means that certain dealerships are trying to undercut the ones that do in order to entice people to come to them.

Like I said, I'm sure that Sony would love to charge a fee for it, but they're already struggling and with the console war at a stalemate these days, they sure as hell aren't going to give people more incentive to go and buy 360's instead.

Proving that the XboxLivefee is unjustified is going to need a much better argument than that.

Although I pretty firmly believe the fee is unjustified because of Sony's ability to offer it for free and because of MS's history of squeezing every possible penny out of their customer, I agree with you - I would like to see more information on just exactly how much power and money is spent on "maintaining servers" and what not.

It's too bad, however, that in press releases like the one mentioned earlier Microsoft executives only reaveal that there are costs that "go above and beyond" and that since these executives pay $100 dollars a month for cable $50 a year for Live is justifiable. Also, they said Live gives you features like voice communication, Marketplace, and demos.. Hmm. Interesting. All they could argue was that costs go "above and beyond" (whatever the hell that means), that they pay $100 a month for cable so $50 a year for Live is reasonable (which is like saying 'I pay $30 a month for pool fees so $50 a month for Live is reasonable' - meaningless), and Live offers demos and voice communication (even though PSN offers demos, trailers, PSone games, etc. also).

Maybe we're paying for Microsoft to hire top-notch executives who create and maintain useful and creative dashboard interfaces and tools like the much advertised NXE (New Xbox Experience)? Except that all we got there was ideas from other companies ripped off and re-hashed by Microsoft. The ENTIRE Nintendo Mii idea was COMPLETELY and utterly stolen, right down to the music and character animations. And the whole interface of slides is just a re-hash of Apple's iTune album interface.

its actually kinda cheap

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]if you work is 50 bucks that much? for a whole year? like come on person on min wadge can make 50 bucks easy in a day of work. 2 50 bucks for a year is not much if u can afford all the 3 systems like come on sourcerah

Hell yeah.I can't believe anyone would defend the service are people claiming that they'd rather pay money or else they will feel'kinda cheap'.Screw that man i'd rather save every dollar i have to enjoy myself why should i care if a multi million dollar business doesn't earn there share of my money?If there was more effort like no lag,better servers etc. and all that money we are paying for goes into xbox live i think i'd be happy too but you can see they obviously haven't put the effort in because i get the same experience out of a PS3 which is free.

And whats with the wireless adapter i bought it for $150 AU(so maybe $90-100 US)and it broke 2 days after my warranty was up so that was 92 days.I was really pissed off that was a lot of money you know now i'm going for an alternative because i'm not putting up with that crap again.Stuff isn't made to last these days right?

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]if you work is 50 bucks that much? for a whole year? like come on person on min wadge can make 50 bucks easy in a day of work. 2 50 bucks for a year is not much if u can afford all the 3 systems like come on sourcerah

Although I pretty firmly believe the fee is unjustified because of Sony's ability to offer it for free and because of MS's history of squeezing every possible penny out of their customer, I agree with you - I would like to see more information on just exactly how much power and money is spent on "maintaining servers" and what not.

It's too bad, however, that in press releases like the one mentioned earlier Microsoft executives only reaveal that there are costs that "go above and beyond" and that since these executives pay $100 dollars a month for cable $50 a year for Live is justifiable. Also, they said Live gives you features like voice communication, Marketplace, and demos.. Hmm. Interesting. All they could argue was that costs go "above and beyond" (whatever the hell that means), that they pay $100 a month for cable so $50 a year for Live is reasonable (which is like saying 'I pay $30 a month for pool fees so $50 a month for Live is reasonable' - meaningless), and Live offers demos and voice communication (even though PSN offers demos, trailers, PSone games, etc. also).

Maybe we're paying for Microsoft to hire top-notch executives who create and maintain useful and creative dashboard interfaces and tools like the much advertised NXE (New Xbox Experience)? Except that all we got there was ideas from other companies ripped off and re-hashed by Microsoft. The ENTIRE Nintendo Mii idea was COMPLETELY and utterly stolen, right down to the music and character animations. And the whole interface of slides is just a re-hash of Apple's iTune album interface.

dirtydishko2

Well I've shown that the fee is not unjustified just because Sony offersthe servicefor free. The car dealership comparison is the perfect example. Its plain flawed reasoning.

Basically, we're getting a service provided to us and it obviously costs a good deal of money for them to give us that service. The fact that you're going to use the argument that you dont know the specifics of their spendingshows you're just grasping at straws.

Obviously, its not going to come out to an equal number and there will be profit in there for Microsoft somewhere. Thats to be expected.Very, very, veryrarely is anything we buy actually worth the exactamount we pay for it. And this is where themeasly$5 a month argument becomes valid. We are paying a very small amount for a service that many of us are going to use quite extensively and that makes sense to us.

As for your last paragraph, the originality of their ideas is hardly relevant to the discussion. I could go on about how many of Microsoft's ideas certainly aren't mere ripoffs, but that would take us off-topic.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"][QUOTE="k2theswiss"]if you work is 50 bucks that much? for a whole year? like come on person on min wadge can make 50 bucks easy in a day of work. 2 50 bucks for a year is not much if u can afford all the 3 systems like come on dcap8424

where is the proof of that, in regards to the statement made about the ps3 and wii? Where are the numbers and facts?? And if what you say is true, there should be some numbers to support your claim about ps3. Meaning, there should be factual information that shows that Call of Duty lags more on the ps3 than the 360. Not saying that there isn't any info., but I have not seen any evidence of this...sourcerah

He never said that it would lag more on the PS3 than on the 360....

yep, you have to pay. pretty sad you have to pay the one of therichest men in the world just so you can play online with friends. I haven't bought live since halo 3, I did not care for halo and have no interest in GOW2 online, because it is TERRIBLE. I really have no reason to buy live because l4d is the only half way decent game for 360 and I bought it on my PC.

lol i never struggle in life lol thats funny. Live in small house, only time i ever get a dime from my mom is my b-day and xmas and thats 100 bucks and if i'm lucky 150. if i want anything else i must work for it.... Payed for driving school, pretty much every kid i know at school their stupid parents paid for, my 1300 dollar 1996 car, my xbox, my laptop, pay half of the internet bill every month, and soon have to start paying for school next year... gov paying 3/4's of the bill but 1600 a semaster.... From all that i still think xbox live is pretty cheap for a year so ya i must not struggle huh?

Seems like you have it pretty easy.

yep, you have to pay. pretty sad you have to pay the one of therichest men in the world just so you can play online with friends. I haven't bought live since halo 3, I did not care for halo and have no interest in GOW2 online, because it is TERRIBLE. I really have no reason to buy live because l4d is the only half way decent game for 360 and I bought it on my PC.

imaps3fanboy

Well going by your username, forgive us if we dont take your opinion all too seriously.

Xbox Live is one of the main reasons to own an Xbox 360 so yes you need to pay, and yes it's worth every penny.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"]

I don't see you peoples logic. Just because you can afford to pay it, makes it justifiable purchase?

You just jumped all over someone for accusing you of saying something you didn't say. This:

[QUOTE="In an early post sourcerah"]

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL YOU KNOW.

So, in that vein, I ask you to produce the quote block where I comment on the justification or non-justification of Xbox Live at all.

I simply addressed your implication that $50 a year represents anything other than a completely insignificant amount of money. Gee, if I didn't have Xbox Live to pay for, in a month's time, I could do one of the following:

• Buy half a drink
• Get two extra gallons of gas
• Subtract 5% from my cellphone bill
• Get a couple bottles of water
• Pay the tax on a 360 game
• Get the cheapest appetizer at a mediocre restaurant
• Pick up an Esquire off the rack

Without the expense of Xbox Live, the possibilities are endless! (Sarcasm)

The argument against Xbox Live is that users are being nickled and dimed, and that's unecessary, not that those nickles are dimes are actually worth anything. I'm not saying paying for Xbox Live is justifiable. I'm saying it's so cheap, that I don't give a ****.

It's not being cheap, its called "I already paid for the game, system, and the internet connection(possibly even the ethernet cable or WiFi port)! Should I also have to pay to play with what I've already paid for!?!?!"kboone13

1. Servers

2. Data centers

3. Communication accessories

4. Internet provider expenses

5. Systems engineers to service data centers and equipment.

6. Future Project Marketing Expenses

ETC. There is a lot of stuff to pay for. Go create your own game and make it happen so that people could play your GOOD console game online without lag and performance issues. That Xbox live few bucks a month is nothing compared to what goes into making games and support their multiplayer modes.

lol i never struggle in life lol thats funny. Live in small house, only time i ever get a dime from my mom is my b-day and xmas and thats 100 bucks and if i'm lucky 150. if i want anything else i must work for it.... Payed for driving school, pretty much every kid i know at school their stupid parents paid for, my 1300 dollar 1996 car, my xbox, my laptop, pay half of the internet bill every month, and soon have to start paying for school next year... gov paying 3/4's of the bill but 1600 a semaster.... From all that i still think xbox live is pretty cheap for a year so ya i must not struggle huh?

Seems like you have it pretty easy.

I have had three acounts for years. My wife, my son, and me. I am in no way rich but I get by. Alot of ppl spend $100 plus on cell phones every month so $50 a year is pretty cheap if you ask me. It is a pretty cheap source of entertainment. Hey it costs $13 to just see a movie these days!

[QUOTE="dirtydishko2"]Although I pretty firmly believe the fee is unjustified because of Sony's ability to offer it for free and because of MS's history of squeezing every possible penny out of their customer, I agree with you - I would like to see more information on just exactly how much power and money is spent on "maintaining servers" and what not.

It's too bad, however, that in press releases like the one mentioned earlier Microsoft executives only reaveal that there are costs that "go above and beyond" and that since these executives pay $100 dollars a month for cable $50 a year for Live is justifiable. Also, they said Live gives you features like voice communication, Marketplace, and demos.. Hmm. Interesting. All they could argue was that costs go "above and beyond" (whatever the hell that means), that they pay $100 a month for cable so $50 a year for Live is reasonable (which is like saying 'I pay $30 a month for pool fees so $50 a month for Live is reasonable' - meaningless), and Live offers demos and voice communication (even though PSN offers demos, trailers, PSone games, etc. also).

Maybe we're paying for Microsoft to hire top-notch executives who create and maintain useful and creative dashboard interfaces and tools like the much advertised NXE (New Xbox Experience)? Except that all we got there was ideas from other companies ripped off and re-hashed by Microsoft. The ENTIRE Nintendo Mii idea was COMPLETELY and utterly stolen, right down to the music and character animations. And the whole interface of slides is just a re-hash of Apple's iTune album interface.

Well I've shown that the fee is not unjustified just because Sony offersthe servicefor free. The car dealership comparison is the perfect example. Its plain flawed reasoning.

Basically, we're getting a service provided to us and it obviously costs a good deal of money for them to give us that service. The fact that you're going to use the argument that you dont know the specifics of their spendingshows you're just grasping at straws.

Obviously, its not going to come out to an equal number and there will be profit in there for Microsoft somewhere. Thats to be expected.Very, very, veryrarely is anything we buy actually worth the exactamount we pay for it. And this is where themeasly$5 a month argument becomes valid. We are paying a very small amount for a service that many of us are going to use quite extensively and that makes sense to us.

As for your last paragraph, the originality of their ideas is hardly relevant to the discussion. I could go on about how many of Microsoft's ideas certainly aren't mere ripoffs, but that would take us off-topic.

[QUOTE="kboone13"]It's not being cheap, its called "I already paid for the game, system, and the internet connection(possibly even the ethernet cable or WiFi port)! Should I also have to pay to play with what I've already paid for!?!?!"reanor2

1. Servers

2. Data centers

3. Communication accessories

4. Internet provider expenses

5. Systems engineers to service data centers and equipment.

6. Future Project Marketing Expenses

ETC. There is a lot of stuff to pay for. Go create your own game and make it happen so that people could play your GOOD console game online without lag and performance issues. That Xbox live few bucks a month is nothing compared to what goes into making games and support their multiplayer modes.

Not that I think it should be free, but as far as I know it is run like a P2P system so not really alot of server cost. I do wonder if the game creators get a cut of live revenue. Maybe dependent on amount of ppl playing online?

While my last paragraph COULD be the topic of another discussion it is without a doubt relevant to this discussion as well. The very fact that Microsoft obviously isn't spending lots of money/effort on maintaining and updating the Xbox Live / Marketplace interface further goes to show that our $50 yearly fees aren't going towards a whole lot. dirtydishko2

The originality of ideas has nothing to do with how much they're spending on maintaining and updating XboxLive. Thats seriously the weakest argument I've heard yet.

Anyways, by the fact that you've ignored the rest of my post, I think my fears that you were trying to deflect the topic is somewhat warranted, and I'm not gonna keep talking about this asinine suggestion anymore.

$50 a year=about 15 cents a day. that's like pocket change that if you drop it on the ground you don't bother to pick it up. If you cant afford that then video games may not be the best of hobbies for you.

@reanor2:But my question is, what makes you think that all of that is worth $50 per year? How do you know that $20 wouldn't get the job done with a great amount of profit for the companies? That's been my point since earlier on in this thread, none of you know how the money is dispersed. They could've charged $75 a year from the consoles launch date and you people would be saying the same exact thing. You have no clue of what it costs to do all of that in relation to how much they actually take in.

@reanor2:But my question is, what makes you think that all of that is worth $50 per year? How do you know that $20 wouldn't get the job done with a great amount of profit for the companies? That's been my point since earlier on in this thread, none of you know how the money is dispersed. They could've charged $75 a year from the consoles launch date and you people would be saying the same exact thing. You have no clue of what it costs to do all of that in relation to how much they actually take in.

sourcerah

You're right. We dont know that. But equally, we dont know that itisn't perfectly justified and that the $50IS necessary if Microsoft want to walk away with any decent sort of profit.

This sort of argument doesn't really support either side. The bottom line is that it does cost money for Microsoft to run XboxLive and we pay a service fee for it.

There's many products and services that simply dont seem worth it when you look at the actual cost of it compared to what it actually takes for somebody to make or do, but it boils down to whether or not we think its personally worth the money or not. And in this case, its not a lot of money and we're getting a pretty nice service, so many of us probably dont feel there's much to complain about.

why are people on here bashing LIVE subscribers who are fine with the service and have no problem paying for it. who cares if its free for PS3. Im not going to stop playing halo just because online is free with ps3 so you ps3 fanboys can go post somewhere else. Yes it sucks that not everything is free in life but I dont regret paying for LIVE. $50 can be spent in one day at the movies and dinner for 2. $50 for a year is so petty to argue about. There are free trials for LIVE. If youre not happy with it then go away and let other people enjoy it.

Dudes chillax ok this is all we know

Microsoft is only console peaple that charges for online while Psn and Nintendo Wi-Fi dont but cut out Nintendo , its crap but Psn its catching up very fast with its own movies star and alot more stuff

And we also know from what other peaple say that Xbox-Live is laggy i dont know that because i dont have an xbox360 but i do know that the Psn isnt laggy

Last thing is that Microsoft isnt obviously using the money they earn for better servers because of the laggyness peaple claim so im thinking they are using it on getting games early or demos like Resident Evil 5 and exclusives and etc

Oh and Microsoft seriously needs to make it free for live , its like being the only cat in a dog party or the only chiken in a pig farm.

ToonShadow

Everything you've said has either been countered and/or shown to be 100% false already. Thanks for the contribution.

Here is the deal you can pay the $50 an year that works out to be a few bucks a month. You are pretty much paying for the voice chat /friends list/ gamer card "achievments" / Download clients fordemos/DLC/movies etc.severs through MS and client to connect all games not just one for the Xbox 360 & Xbox. So let take into account how all the other free services like PSN. How stable is there network ?How easy is it to find games and friends ? I really have never had any problems with using MS Live "also works with some PC games that is very nice when it does". It's really about choice. Pay for it if you want the multiplayer exp on Xbox or not if your not into it. I think it's as simple as it gets.It's about $4.10 a month for the service when you break it down.Hey you can always dish out the Extra cash fora PS3 and get free online play for less titles then the 360. Even though the PS3 is starting to get more titles.

Dudes chillax ok this is all we know

Microsoft is only console peaple that charges for online while Psn and Nintendo Wi-Fi dont but cut out Nintendo , its crap but Psn its catching up very fast with its own movies star and alot more stuff

And we also know from what other peaple say that Xbox-Live is laggy i dont know that because i dont have an xbox360 but i do know that the Psn isnt laggy

Last thing is that Microsoft isnt obviously using the money they earn for better servers because of the laggyness peaple claim so im thinking they are using it on getting games early or demos like Resident Evil 5 and exclusives and etc

Oh and Microsoft seriously needs to make it free for live , its like being the only cat in a dog party or the only chiken in a pig farm.

ToonShadow

"I'm a fanboy" is written all over this post, you people need to find better things to do with your time because everything you said there is laughable. 50 Dollars for 13 months is an amazing deal for the amount of stuff xbox live gives you. Friends,party chat, video chat, Game demos, game add-ons, arcade games, movies, original xbox games not to mention they keep you updated on all the latest xbox news and releases. Also... saying PS3 isn't laggy, I laughed.

$50 a year=about 15 cents a day. that's like pocket change that if you drop it on the ground you don't bother to pick it up. If you cant afford that then video games may not be the best of hobbies for you.

RabidAnts

[QUOTE="RabidAnts"]

$50 a year=about 15 cents a day. that's like pocket change that if you drop it on the ground you don't bother to pick it up. If you cant afford that then video games may not be the best of hobbies for you.

sourcerah

Its not irrelevant reasoning at all. You're just being pedantic.

[QUOTE="ToonShadow"]

Dudes chillax ok this is all we know

Microsoft is only console peaple that charges for online while Psn and Nintendo Wi-Fi dont but cut out Nintendo , its crap but Psn its catching up very fast with its own movies star and alot more stuff

And we also know from what other peaple say that Xbox-Live is laggy i dont know that because i dont have an xbox360 but i do know that the Psn isnt laggy

Last thing is that Microsoft isnt obviously using the money they earn for better servers because of the laggyness peaple claim so im thinking they are using it on getting games early or demos like Resident Evil 5 and exclusives and etc

Oh and Microsoft seriously needs to make it free for live , its like being the only cat in a dog party or the only chiken in a pig farm.

"I'm a fanboy" is written all over this post, you people need to find better things to do with your time because everything you said there is laughable. 50 Dollars for 13 months is an amazing deal for the amount of stuff xbox live gives you. Friends,party chat, video chat, Game demos, game add-ons, arcade games, movies, original xbox games not to mention they keep you updated on all the latest xbox news and releases. Also... saying PS3 isn't laggy, I laughed.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"][QUOTE="RabidAnts"]

$50 a year=about 15 cents a day. that's like pocket change that if you drop it on the ground you don't bother to pick it up. If you cant afford that then video games may not be the best of hobbies for you.

Its not irrelevant reasoning at all. You're just being pedantic.

OMFG!!! You people need to stop posting crap about this. yes you have to pay to play, no exceptions!

it is irrelevant b/c nobody pays per day. It would be relevant if a daily fee existed, but it doesn't. Please tell me the relevance in a payment method or rate that NOBODY can use. sourcerah

It works out to thesame amount of money, thats why. Just puts it into a different perspective.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"]it is irrelevant b/c nobody pays per day. It would be relevant if a daily fee existed, but it doesn't. Please tell me the relevance in a payment method or rate that NOBODY can use. seankane

It works out to thesame amount of money, thats why. Just puts it into a different perspective.

...what doesn't make sense is you assuming that everyone is in the same financial situation as yourself...you are assuming that everyone buys their own console and games. There are things called presents you know. What makes you think everyone who is playing xbox paid $400 for the console and $60/game. And what makes you think everyone is buying them at retail price?

sourcerah

The only person this could possibly apply to is children whose folks get them the system and the games, but won't get them the online service. When you're 10, $5 a month might actually be a sizeable amount of your income.

Of course, that's not to whom you were referring. You specifically brought up the economy, and talked about having to pay bills. If someone lives on their own and has a job, any job, then they can effortlessly afford $5 a month. Considering that most people in low paying temp and retail jobs spend significantly more than $5 per day on food, if $5 per month actually makes some sort of difference in your budget, then you probably have much greater concerns than playing games online.

You are also quoted as saying "it's so cheap, that i don't give a ****" Which may be fine for you, but not everyone else. It's quite humorous how people defend themselves by using their own financail situations as examples...

sourcerah

I'm using the financial situation of anyone who lives and works in First World country. I'm a working professional, but even when I worked a part-time job in high school, five bucks a month was insignificant. It's fine if you're annoyed by the principle of the thing, but you took it beyond that, to suggest that paying for Xbox Live is taking money away from your bills. Only an inveterate penny pincher would fret over $5 a month, and someone who does probably leads an exceedingly frugal lifesty|e.

If you're not trying to justify the fee, then exactly what have you been doing in your last few post in this thread.

sourcerah

I've been stating that raising financial objections to $5 a month is silly. "Xbox Live is not worth $5 a month" is a valid argument, or at least one that can be debated. "Xbox Live is taking money away from my bills" is not an argument, or certainly not one that a reasonable person is going to take seriously. While you may feel that the service is overpriced, it's patently absurd to complain about the opportunity cost of it. You can't buy jack **** with 17 cents per day.

FYI, I didn't jump all over anyone, I just used a certain set of words to tell the person to READ (with understanding) what I wrote before he tries to quote me.

sourcerah

You said exactly what you could without risking moderation, much as I did to someone else in this thread. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I commend your restraint, and suggest that you continue exercising it in order to avoid administrative punishment on this site.