adrian1480's forum posts

Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#1 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"][QUOTE="GunmetalXIII"][QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"]

[QUOTE="GunmetalXIII"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="VILE_VIVI"][QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]XBL $50a yr > WoW $14.99 a month.GunmetalXIII


WoW is a better experiance than any game XBL enabled



But we're not talking about WoW versus any one game on XBL. In terms of cost, we're talking Wow vs ALL games on XBL, since by being an XBL subscriber, you can play online with all of them... for less than what you pay for Wow.... a single game.



ALL games on Xbox Live cost more combined than WoW and a year of monthly fees. This is a silly comparison...

wtf...

you pay $50 for the service of xbox live.. all xbox live enabled games can be played for free...

unless you think it's $50 for halo2, another $50 crimson skies, another $50 for ghost recon, etc, etc, etc..

silly...:lol:



First of all, I have Xbox Live... so stop trying to lecture me. :roll:

And the reason why this is so dumb is because you're comparing a service to a game. Buying Xbox Live doesn't give you instant access to the entire library. You have to buy the game before you can play it online. Hence, when comparing the cost of WoW to the cost of having the entire library of Xbox Live available, you also have to factor in game cost.

Make sense now?

xbox live gives you instant access to every xbox live enabled game....

having your pc online doesnt' give you access to all pc online titles either... you still have to buy the game...

you still make no sense...



The issue is WoW vs. The Xbox Live library, not PC online vs. XBL which is another argument entirely. You can't enjoy the Xbox Live library without paying for it. :|



you guy's debate is becoming stranger and stranger. It's a very silly comparison on both sides.
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#2 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
I think this thread should end already. It's obvious that PC online > XBL.UssjTrunks


:lol: :| no. They both have their merits and demerits. Both do things that the other *wished* it could do half as well.
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#3 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"]

[QUOTE="GunmetalXIII"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="VILE_VIVI"][QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]XBL $50a yr > WoW $14.99 a month.GunmetalXIII


WoW is a better experiance than any game XBL enabled



But we're not talking about WoW versus any one game on XBL. In terms of cost, we're talking Wow vs ALL games on XBL, since by being an XBL subscriber, you can play online with all of them... for less than what you pay for Wow.... a single game.



ALL games on Xbox Live cost more combined than WoW and a year of monthly fees. This is a silly comparison...

wtf...

you pay $50 for the service of xbox live.. all xbox live enabled games can be played for free...

unless you think it's $50 for halo2, another $50 crimson skies, another $50 for ghost recon, etc, etc, etc..

silly...:lol:



First of all, I have Xbox Live... so stop trying to lecture me. :roll:

And the reason why this is so dumb is because you're comparing a service to a game. Buying Xbox Live doesn't give you instant access to the entire library. You have to buy the game before you can play it online. Hence, when comparing the cost of WoW to the cost of having the entire library of Xbox Live available, you also have to factor in game cost.

Make sense now?



I agree. It IS stupid.

But the sad reality is that *someone* jumped onto this board a few pages ago proclaiming that WoW (a game) was better than Xbox Live (a service). Hence this vein of conversation.

*someone* came on and said that WoW's implementation was better than the implementation of the ENTIRE framework and design of Live. That is indeed asinine.
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#4 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="adrian1480"][QUOTE="onslaught460"]

One thing that I've really been wondering about. Is the cost of making games online for the developers. They basically have to keep paying microsoft royalties to keep their games on xbox live. If they got the ps3 route. They probably have to pay to keep their servers up, and maintained.

PC gaming doesn't have this problem, problem because gaming servers are left up to the end user to put up...The developer might put up a server here and there, but they don't really have to......basically what I'm saying is. What's the motivation of putting games online for consols? I look at halo 1 and 2. They had great multiplayer for a console game.....but when the game dies out, bungie still has to pay to keep the servers up.

onslaught460



Are you 100% sure that's how MS has negotiated Xbox Live with their partners?

I bet it's much looser than you think it is. I just have to believe that devs would be up in arms about something like that... :?

I'm not 100% sure, but that's how I think it goes. :? However you look at it, someone is paying to keep the servers up.



I think it's Microsoft paying to keep the servers up, though. I could be wrong.
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#5 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="JeffGenocideX"]XBL $50a yr > WoW $14.99 a month.VILE_VIVI

WoW is a better experiance than any game XBL enabled



But is 1 game better than the summation of all the games and experiences that can be found on live?

Not when you put them all together. Nope...but it's an AWESOME GAME.
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#6 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="Gabino_basic"]I think microsoft´s focus on online its gonna make single player games more shorth and unpolished...... and also the nintendo strategy seems very appealing to me... but thats just me... maybe im crazy____SHERMIT____


Your not crazy you bring up many good points... especially about the single player parts of first part exclusive games being a let down

look at the recent track record and Failo 2 for evidence



I don't think that's a real concern...yet.

The fact is that only a small segment of the population will be online via high speed internet. There was only 10% penetration of Live this gen for Microsoft. As such, I don't thik devs will make not cut short games because there will be a majority of people who are pissed and can't download the nwe stuff. But we'll see, i guess. Down the road MS AND Sony are talking about "episodic content"...which may attempt to suck us dry. Hard to tell.
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#7 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts

One thing that I've really been wondering about. Is the cost of making games online for the developers. They basically have to keep paying microsoft royalties to keep their games on xbox live. If they got the ps3 route. They probably have to pay to keep their servers up, and maintained.

PC gaming doesn't have this problem, problem because gaming servers are left up to the end user to put up...The developer might put up a server here and there, but they don't really have to......basically what I'm saying is. What's the motivation of putting games online for consols? I look at halo 1 and 2. They had great multiplayer for a console game.....but when the game dies out, bungie still has to pay to keep the servers up.

onslaught460


Are you 100% sure that's how MS has negotiated Xbox Live with their partners?

I bet it's much looser than you think it is. I just have to believe that devs would be up in arms about something like that... :?
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#8 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"][QUOTE="onslaught460"][QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"][QUOTE="VILE_VIVI"][QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"][QUOTE="donnie_mcgee"][QUOTE="Scottydooo"][QUOTE="AntiType"][QUOTE="Dr_Drooom"]

[QUOTE="AntiType"]By making it FREEJeffGenocideX

Free = you get what you pay for = crap

Free PC Online > X-Box LIVE



pc online is a lot easier to maintain, the resources are there... for console gaming, if you dont pay, it is crud... and you know it

Yeah, playing WoW and Everquest 2 are free! Cool, lets all play WoW all day long with no fees!

That's 2 games. In order to play anything on Xbox Live it will cost you

it moots the point all pc gaming online is free....


Nearly all PC online games are free

that's nice... but still not free as stated earlier...

You're saying that pc online gaming isn't free for the end user?

i'm saying not all pc gaming online is free... try to keep up or find a new thread more your speed...:)

:lol: "more your speed"



:lol:
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#9 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="adrian1480"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="Rosencrantz"]

The fact is that if anything is going to kill XBL it is going to be Microsoft themselves. They have full control over it and they profit off of it. Meanwhile developers get little to nothing out of the deal. I predict that if other consoles can gain enough of a percentage of their user base, developers will focus more on them. Developers don't like that the PS2 online is unreliable in terms of who will buy into it. However, they love the fact that they have full control over their own product...something XBL doesn't exactly offer.

Having said that, right now the user base for online shows no signs of breaking through that %10 point. So to argue that nobody else can compete is like going back in time to the 80s and asking Sega to compete with the Power Glove. It's stupid and not worth the time at this point.

hd28guy_basic



Developers aren't getting anything by being on XBL? They have the benefit of having online available to their games without having to run servers or maintain all the services that XBL does for them. They also have a ready medium through which they can distribute extra content.

This opens the door to developers not as big as EA to actually get their games online.

Online, in turn, is a decent selling point for a game.

Comparing the support that devs/pubs give XBL as opposed to PS2 online.... that says alot.



And did someone mention MICROTRANSACTIONS?

Last I remember, devs were exstatic about being able to sell DIRECLY TO THE CONSUMER in this way. I'd be my left pinkie finger that Bungie made out like bandits on those newly released maps that most propbably bought via Live. No packaging or shipping costs for Bungie incurred. just straight $$$$$.

actually every one of those maps are now available for FREE via xbox live download...

nice self ownage...:lol:



DID NOT! lol

see the line "MOST probably bought via Live." I know some went ou tto the store or waited for them to become free...but not anyone I know ;)
Avatar image for adrian1480
adrian1480

15045

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

84

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#10 adrian1480
Member since 2003 • 15045 Posts
[QUOTE="adrian1480"][QUOTE="____SHERMIT____"]I dont know they could try having it be FREE

FREE > PAY FOR ONLINE

in a hearbeat
____SHERMIT____


LAW > LAWLESSNESS AND CHAOS

in 1/2 a heartbeat

;)



Law?

que?



LOL. It was an analogy.

Sometimes being completely free = less rules and less organization = less control.

XBLive brings a very real and tangible order to online gaming. In my analogy, XBLive is "law" (order). Free is chaos, derived from the afore mentioned train of thought.