Log in or sign up to comment
252 Comments
Edited by Seraphx2
@EndrzGame: Oh, right, so the user gets cahrged a premium so MS can handle special services for the developer/publisher ?  If anything, that cost should be handed to the developer/publisher , and if the developer/publisher so chooses, they up the price of the game. (What, with games being 60$ a shot now and no real reasoning behind that other than Activision did it one day so everyone followed along)  I'm sure it doesn't cost $4.50/m * <subscribers> to maintain some databases.
Posted by BraveToaster

I can find the yearly membership cards online for less than $40. I've always preferred using my 360 over my PS3 for games. And I will continue to use my 360 more, since Microsoft is getting the TV streaming and other non-game related items.

Edited by Anund

@GrandHarrier said:

@hckling said:

Because of this I will never buy a game I want to play online on the 360: I play online on my PS3, for free and it works great even without the hallowed "party chat" thing the xbox boys keep raving about. Who gives a rat's ass? I had gold for a month to play L4D with some friends. I didn't find it any easier to join a game on the 360. In fact, the mic kept screwing around and not working until I finally gave up and played without being able to talk. Then suddenly, 15 mins in, it suddenly started working for no reason. Whatever. And I'm not even going to go into the hassle I had to go through to cancel my Gold membership.

Microsoft is laughing all the way to the bank thanks to all the people who are willingly paying for, and even defending the fact that they have to pay for, something which should, without question, be free: Playing your games online. The PSN+ model is much better: you pay for bonus content and improvements which are not necessary to enjoy the games you have already paid for. However, blocking off a whole section of the game you bought for no good reason other than greed, that is not ok in my book.

The sad part is, because the unshakable loyalty of the 360 players, I'm betting next generation we will be paying for online play on all services. Indeed, why shouldn't Sony charge for online play if people are stupid enough to pay for it? I've even seen people laughing at how stupid Sony is for not charging for online play. It's baffling.

You realize that "Playstation Plus" is Sony admitting, "Fuck, we should be charging for this..." And they would be making you pay if they could. But they are locked by the promise they put on those console boxes. That is why Plus is such a clusterfuck of garbage that is desperately trying to attract you.

...and so I don't pay for PSN+, it doesn't seem worth it. But, unlike on the 360, I can still get full value for the games I am buying.

@rebgav said:

@hckling said:

something which should, without question, be free: Playing your games online.

Why should it be free? Seems like a valid question to ask. Every step of the process, from log-in to log-out, is costing somebody money, who should be absorbing that cost for you? The big publishers do take care of some of their own matchmaking and that cost is presumably coming from the retail sale of the game. Who should pay for you to be able to play online if the publisher or developer can't provide for you? Should they strip online components out of their game? That would solve the problem to some extent.

It's not costing Microsoft any money. In fact, if you hook your console up to the net you are bombarded with ads which I am sure aren't cheap to put on there. They aren't running any dedicated servers, and you are paying for the bandwidth. It shouldn't cost money any more than Steam should cost money.

Posted by haggis
@Seraphx2 said:
@EndrzGame: Oh, right, so the user gets cahrged a premium so MS can handle special services for the developer?  If anything, that cost should be handed to the developer, and fi the developer/publisher so chooses, they up the price of the game. (What, with games being 60$ a shot now and no real reasoning behind that other than Activision did it one day so everyone followed along)  I'm sure it doesn't cost $4.50/m * <subscribers> to maintain some databases.
Do you know this for sure, or are you just guessing? Can you show us some numbers?
Posted by MysteriousBob

Oh yeah, and the UK XBL is treated as a equal. The European PSN is like some bastard cousin that Sony doesn't want to acknowledge with monthly delays and loads of missing games. 
 
I don't mind paying for XBL because I get what I pay for.

Posted by Sammo21

@hckling said:

@GrandHarrier said:

@hckling said:

Because of this I will never buy a game I want to play online on the 360: I play online on my PS3, for free and it works great even without the hallowed "party chat" thing the xbox boys keep raving about. Who gives a rat's ass? I had gold for a month to play L4D with some friends. I didn't find it any easier to join a game on the 360. In fact, the mic kept screwing around and not working until I finally gave up and played without being able to talk. Then suddenly, 15 mins in, it suddenly started working for no reason. Whatever. And I'm not even going to go into the hassle I had to go through to cancel my Gold membership.

Microsoft is laughing all the way to the bank thanks to all the people who are willingly paying for, and even defending the fact that they have to pay for, something which should, without question, be free: Playing your games online. The PSN+ model is much better: you pay for bonus content and improvements which are not necessary to enjoy the games you have already paid for. However, blocking off a whole section of the game you bought for no good reason other than greed, that is not ok in my book.

The sad part is, because the unshakable loyalty of the 360 players, I'm betting next generation we will be paying for online play on all services. Indeed, why shouldn't Sony charge for online play if people are stupid enough to pay for it? I've even seen people laughing at how stupid Sony is for not charging for online play. It's baffling.

You realize that "Playstation Plus" is Sony admitting, "Fuck, we should be charging for this..." And they would be making you pay if they could. But they are locked by the promise they put on those console boxes. That is why Plus is such a clusterfuck of garbage that is desperately trying to attract you.

...and so I don't pay for PSN+, it doesn't seem worth it. But, unlike on the 360, I can still get full value for the games I am buying.@rebgav said:

@hckling said:

something which should, without question, be free: Playing your games online.

Why should it be free? Seems like a valid question to ask. Every step of the process, from log-in to log-out, is costing somebody money, who should be absorbing that cost for you? The big publishers do take care of some of their own matchmaking and that cost is presumably coming from the retail sale of the game. Who should pay for you to be able to play online if the publisher or developer can't provide for you? Should they strip online components out of their game? That would solve the problem to some extent.

It's not costing Microsoft any money. In fact, if you hook your console up to the net you are bombarded with ads which I am sure aren't cheap to put on there. They aren't running any dedicated servers, and you are paying for the bandwidth. It shouldn't cost money any more than Steam should cost money.

This

Posted by Seraphx2
@haggis: No one is quesitoning the charging of extra services.  We are questioning the charging of online play, when MS doesn't even host or manage or have ANYTHING TO DO WITH the online servers, where all the real cost is (bandwidth, server maintenance, etc.)  Basically, MS is charging you to do nothing, and the developers/publishers are footing the bill for you to pay online and get nothing for it.  Just on ethics alone, it doesn't make sense.  Now, if it is found out that MS kicks back money to the developer/publisher then I'm all for it.
Edited by Sammo21

@rebgav: He's essentially right. I am paying Microsoft to give me the ability to do something I already pay for. I am paying Mcdonalds to let me come in and buy a hamburger (XBLA) and watching netflix on my laptop through an internet connection they are not providing. Also, they are charging me to play a game of Go in their restaurant while I am already there when I could simply go to next door and not have to worry about the hassle. The only difference is defenders are saying "well...the seats are comfortable here so...yeah i guess ill just stay here" and when rebutted with "well, the seats really arent much different there" the only reply we get it is "well...the seats here are fine".

Posted by haggis
@Seraphx2 said:
@haggis: No one is quesitoning the charging of extra services.  We are questioning the charging of online play, when MS doesn't even host or manage or have ANYTHING TO DO WITH the online servers, where all the real cost is (bandwidth, server maintenance, etc.)  Basically, MS is charging you to do nothing, and the developers/publishers are footing the bill for you to pay online and get nothing for it.  Just on ethics alone, it doesn't make sense.  Now, if it is found out that MS kicks back money to the developer/publisher then I'm all for it.
So, you're saying that Microsoft doesn't run any servers at all to host Xbox Live, and it costs them nothing? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Posted by xSuddenimpactx

@nintendoeats said:

@GrandHarrier said:

I don't mind paying, but this is an unreasonable amount, especially considering there are more ads on the Xbox dashboard than on the competing consoles.

Its hardly fair to say that 60 bucks a year is unreasonable. (thats how much it is still right) I don't pay attention i just let Microsoft take its share automatically.

But seriously, what is this mentality that people today think everything should be free? They are providing a service, they have the right to charge. I feel like this is the same argument people gave against whiskey media sites when they started charging. People need to make money.

Posted by Twisted_Scot

XBL has a lot more features than PSN or Wii. I find it worth every penny for the chat and party system alone. Its always updating and when things do require updating its fast )unless its one of those new COD map pack or Gears Beta days). Almost everything is free on PC and should remain so but for console gaming I don't mind paying the cash. Id even be quite happy if MS release an XBL system for PC that you paid a little more on top of your XBL subscription if it made everything as quick and simple. You can always find gold card cheaper online than the $60 retail price but if you do spend $60 a year for Xbox gold it only works out to be like spending the same on 2 cups of coffee every month. Although I have noticed they stopped putting 48 hour trial in with games these days.

Posted by Hellstrom

My two cents. 
 
I have a PS3 & 360. 
 
I had PS plus for a while, turned auto renew off. I pay for Xbox live, why? Because though some fanboys might not want to admit it. Its better in every way. Not just because of its various features that make Live more community friendly than PSN but small things such as download times. Ive tested this wired & wifi 360 with PS3 and the 360 always destroyed the PS3 in terms of download times. I downloaded a 6gb game on 360 in a matter of minutes rougly it took the same amount of time to download a demo on PS3. 
 
Community is another big deal. PSN does not have it. When i look back at how much fun ive had playing online all of my fondest memories are from gaming on Steam & 360. I have not had one enjoyable online experience with PSN. Its all quiet time, and random users, with the occasional two people in a session with mics and they usualy play rap music on them. The only game ive had an enjoyable time online with PS3 is DCUO. Thats only because its required to use a mic in that game otherwise you're not playing it right. 
 
I have met all kinds of great people from around the world on Steam & 360. Everyone on my 360 or Steam list is on there for a reason. Either its something i liked about them, or they liked something about me. On my PS3 is the exact opposite, everyone on my PSN list is random, and added me randomly for reasons i don't even know. 
 
There's plenty other reasons that i don't feel like getting into this early, but PSN still is not comparable to live in anyway. 

Posted by jmood88

@sammo21 said:

@babblinmule: The only real difference that matters is party chat and that's it. The comments about a slow service are trolls as I use both XBL and PSN reguarly, almost every day. The same thing goes for security, those are either 1) trolls or 2) people who are uneducated on the topic.

I use both too and it takes much longer to download anything on PSN, plus you have to wait for the stuff to install as well. You can say it's trolling if you want but anyone who uses both systems knows that there is a clear difference in the speed of the networks.

Posted by haggis
@rebgav said:

@hckling said:

It's not costing Microsoft any money. In fact, if you hook your console up to the net you are bombarded with ads which I am sure aren't cheap to put on there. They aren't running any dedicated servers, and you are paying for the bandwidth. It shouldn't cost money any more than Steam should cost money.

They aren't running dedicated servers for games but they are running servers dedicated to providing the matchmaking service, and the servers which provide the marketplace, and the servers which host the content in the marketplace, and so on. If they did not do this then there would be a pitiful number of online-enabled games, no dlc, no Live arcade, no way to connect to Netflix through your Xbox, and blah blah blah.

It's worth noting that just the initial cost to build the Xbox Live infrastructure ten years ago when the service launched was something like half a billion dollars. They built huge server arrays--four of them, if I remember correctly, just in the US--and have been expanding them as the service has become more popular. The costs of maintaining huge server arrays, the electricity, the maintenance and standard upgrades, etc., is massive.
Edited by Sammo21

@Twisted_Scot: The only real additional feature is party chat and that's really about it.

@Hellstrom: The fact you compare PS+ to XBox Live makes me question if you actually had it...again, PS+ is all supplemental and optional stuff. XBox Live is not that...either you pay for Gold so you can play online or you do not...that's it.

@xSuddenimpactx: The difference is whiskey media doesnt limit me from the message boards, video content, blogs, posts, etc if I chose not to pay. That's what Microsoft does. That point didn't make much sense.

The only real argument I am seeing is "Well, $60 isn't that much". That's not a point or an argument, that's "whatever I don't care".

Posted by haggis
@rebgav: I've come to the conclusion that he thinks "no dedicated servers" means that MS has no servers at all. That's the only thing that makes his comment make sense.
Posted by GrandHarrier
@sammo21 said:

@GrandHarrier: I guess Stacking is included in that "cluster fuck" of garbage you speak of...or Sam and Max...or Wipeout HD.

@MysteriousBob: Party chat is the only real difference between the services.

Congrats. It is free until you stop paying for it. Or the service is discontinued. Then all that amazing "free" content is gone.
Posted by Sargus

Oh look, another post where someone says, "Blah blah blah, paying too much, blah blah subscription fees, blah blah DLC, blah blah $60 games..." And then people like me come in and say, "Blah blah, back in my day we paid $70 for PilotWings 64 and we LIKED IT, you kids have it easy, blah blah."

Posted by DrDarkStryfe

When there is a perceived value, people will pay.

Microsoft's marketing did one hell of a job to get people to pay for Xbox Live, turning the service into a commnity unto itself. The service has been consistently solid for the most part, and enough additional features have been added to keep adding to the value of the product. Microsoft, as well as several third parties, have also leveraged Live into a way to give incentive by offering those free 48 hour codes and whatnot.

Simply put, yes, in a perfect world Live would be free to play online. But Microsoft is a business, it is their decision to charge for the service, and the it is your decision as a consumer to choose to pay, or not pay, for it. You are looking for some larger answer to the question, when the answer is really pretty simple.

Posted by Sammo21

@GrandHarrier: Yeah, which is optional to me...and thats PS+....which is optional...again...XBL Gold if I want to play online is not optional. Thanks for proving my point..

Posted by EndrzGame
@Seraphx2 said:
@EndrzGame: Oh, right, so the user gets cahrged a premium so MS can handle special services for the developer/publisher ?  If anything, that cost should be handed to the developer/publisher , and if the developer/publisher so chooses, they up the price of the game. (What, with games being 60$ a shot now and no real reasoning behind that other than Activision did it one day so everyone followed along)  I'm sure it doesn't cost $4.50/m * <subscribers> to maintain some databases.
I'm not exactly sure what the first part of your reply is supposed to mean so I'll just leave it at that. 
But I don't think you realize just how big an undertaking it is to provide an online service as big as Live. The thing is global and huge. To keep something like that up and running 24/7/365 has a little more to do than just maintaining 'some' databases.
Posted by Hellstrom
@sammo21:  
 
I have no reason to lie :/  It doesn't matter that we pay to play. Its worth it. They cannot charge for the basic PSN service because ITS NOT WORTH IT. Not even PS plus with its selectively downloadable content is worth it. 
 
Posted by YoungFrey

If you are unhappy with the fee, you have 2 options.  3 if you count "writing them a letter".  You can stop paying for it or you can seek out subscription cards for less than the MS renew price.   It's a huge source of money for them, they'll never remove it without people voting with the money. 
Posted by Sammo21

@Sargus: The difference being? You didn't pay $70 for Pilotwings and then take it home realizing you would have to pay additional money to play all of the game you just bought.

Posted by AlexW00d

You make good points but I bet people will still berate you.

Posted by EndrzGame
@Sargus said:

Oh look, another post where someone says, "Blah blah blah, paying too much, blah blah subscription fees, blah blah DLC, blah blah $60 games..." And then people like me come in and say, "Blah blah, back in my day we paid $70 for PilotWings 64 and we LIKED IT, you kids have it easy, blah blah."

I paid $80! Damnit Nintendo I want my $10 back!!
Posted by tooPrime

The OP sounds like a 14 year old that spent his life savings on a PS3 and now needs to bash the alternatives to justify the purchase to himself.

Posted by ZeForgotten

Pay for online play seems like the dumbest thing about Xbox Live, but the other stuff you get when you pay is alright.

Also willing to admit that although the PSN is free when it comes to playing games you paid a lot of money for, it's not "super fucking terrible" or whatever fanboys feel like saying. Both of the services hold up pretty well compared to each other. Compared to my PC experince though both Xbox live and PSN can suck a dick

Posted by Anund

@rebgav said:

@hckling said:

It's not costing Microsoft any money. In fact, if you hook your console up to the net you are bombarded with ads which I am sure aren't cheap to put on there. They aren't running any dedicated servers, and you are paying for the bandwidth. It shouldn't cost money any more than Steam should cost money.

They aren't running dedicated servers for games but they are running servers dedicated to providing the matchmaking service, and the servers which provide the marketplace, and the servers which host the content in the marketplace, and so on. If they did not do this then there would be a pitiful number of online-enabled games, no dlc, no Live arcade, no way to connect to Netflix through your Xbox, and blah blah blah.

So yay, they are charging you extra so they can sell you stuff through the store. Anyone who has a membership system will have a database of users which is the foundation of your matchmaking system. Tell me, how many memberships do you have to various sites and services? How many of them charge you money for running the database server? Take something like Facebook for example. That is one hell of a match making service right there: the amount of data they store far surpasses anything Microsoft is running related to X-Box live, yet how much do you pay for Facebook? That's right: Nothing.

The difference is, Microsoft has managed to get themselves into a position where people actually think they get something back for their money when in actuality they are not. Normally companies cover the cost of servers using advertising. So does Microsoft, or do you think it's random chance you end up on a row with a bunch of ads when you first start your console? The difference between MS and any other company running a large database is just that they are also charging you money to use their service, which is great. For them. Not for you. Never for you.

Posted by Sammo21

@YoungFrey: That is what I do actually, but that's called going around the system. Movie tickets are expensive but the fact I get in for free doesn't change what the price of movie tickets are.

@Hellstrom: Again I get dedicated servers for free on many games and the service is not noticeably different. I run a 30Mbps connection at my house and my PSN times are nothing what other people complain about (even someone on Giant Bomb said those remarks are a little unfounded once). Again, thats optional...nothing about playing online is optional on 360. Party chat side, the differences are near non existent. Unless you count army ads, car ads, doritos ads, and movie ads (all money to microsoft) as one of your sweet 360 deals.

Posted by EndrzGame

@haggis 
It was years ago when I read this info, back during the original XBox days. I'm sure you could find the info somewhere.

Posted by nintendoeats

@xSuddenimpactx said:

@nintendoeats said:

@GrandHarrier said:

I don't mind paying, but this is an unreasonable amount, especially considering there are more ads on the Xbox dashboard than on the competing consoles.

Its hardly fair to say that 60 bucks a year is unreasonable. (thats how much it is still right) I don't pay attention i just let Microsoft take its share automatically.

But seriously, what is this mentality that people today think everything should be free? They are providing a service, they have the right to charge. I feel like this is the same argument people gave against whiskey media sites when they started charging. People need to make money.

The problem is that they provide a very small fixed-cost service to a lot of people. If they were running dedicated servers, then this would be a reasonable amount to charge.

The thing is, we don't get online play for free on other platforms. We pay our ISPs. Microsoft is double-dipping.

Posted by Sammo21

@tooPrime: Considering I own all next gen systems including (kind of unfortunately) a 3ds...you'd be mistaken. Your post sounds like your angry about the tribe you left.

Posted by Natesaint

Most of the things you mention I do use. Especially party chat. I have friends. I like talking to them while playing games. And I like being able to do everything on the fly no matter what I'm doing. PSN is free, yet my PS3 collects dust.
Posted by haggis
@tooPrime said:
The OP sounds like a 14 year old that spent his life savings on a PS3 and now needs to bash the alternatives to justify the purchase to himself.
I got that sense too. Still, I can understand why you wouldn't want to pay for it. We all wish we could get shit for free. But it strikes me as the same as buying a car and then complaining that you have to pay to put gas in it to drive it. Sony offers the gas for free, and that's their choice. That does not, however, make it somehow irrational, greedy, or evil for Microsoft to ask people to pay for it. Most of us find Live to be worth the money we've paid for it because of its reliability, speed, features, and community. I've always found PSN to be lacking in all four. It does what it does and very little more.
Edited by Hellstrom

Basicaly. 
 
I have a job, i have no problem paying that amount to be able to come home and have an enjoyable online experience. Which is the most important aspect of online gaming too me. Online gaming on PS3 might as well be single player gaming. Its not about the community in the slightest, until it is. PSN's service is not worth it, Free or with a cost. 
 
If this was PC i'd have a problem with the cost, but its not. I fully expect to pay for good online play. If you're so concerned over prices why aren't you PC gaming instead? The games are far more costly and expensive on consoles.

Posted by haggis
@hckling said:

Tell me, how many memberships do you have to various sites and services? How many of them charge you money for running the database server? Take something like Facebook for example. That is one hell of a match making service right there: the amount of data they store far surpasses anything Microsoft is running related to X-Box live, yet how much do you pay for Facebook? That's right: Nothing.
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're comparing Xbox Live, with its routing of data from millions of concurrent gamers on hundreds of different games simultaneously with voice and text chat, all in real time to ... Facebook. Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?
Posted by MordeaniisChaos

@sammo21: Netflix isn't all you get from Xbox Live. Even BASIC fuckin features like chat are MUCH better on XBL. Paying for XBL is what gets you away form the blades and into better, smoother experiences on the dashboard, it's why they put out an arcade game every week, instead of once in a blue moon. It's paying for demos, timed exclusives, and the addition of more and more new services like Facebook, Twitter (both awful), Netflix (just because it doesn't cost you anything to use it on your PS3, doesn't mean Sony didn't have to pay out the ass, and Xbox had it first and best for a long time because WE PAY), Hulu+, Last.FM we get a new audio codec so that voice can sound a hell of a lot better, we get trials for every single XBLA game on the list, we get promotions and rewards services and "play with devs". Even some of the launch features are from paying for XBL, and there is no denying that the evolution of the 360 has been an awesome, awesome thing. PS3 still can't even play audio over the game through the XMB. And their chat? Clunky and lacking functionality. We get a hell of a lot for $5 a month, and if it's too much for you, then don't pay it. Otherwise, stop whining. It's worth the money to most people, and if it isn't for you it's because you expect too much.

@HairyMike87: Because most people don't have a PC near them and it's ridiculous to expect people to do that. Arguments like that are why Sony still has shit chat, and really shit anything social. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's GOOD. XBL is a better service, and you pay 5 bucks a fuckin' month. If you can't pay that, you don't get the benefits of Live. The only reason peopel complain about paying for live is because it's clearly something they very much want access for, but they aren't will to pay all the people that work hard to bring you new features, new partners, and even total redesigns of the dashboard.

Posted by Sammo21

@haggis: If that's your analogy, you really need to work on critical thinking. Car requires gas to run. My car in this analogy would be any of my systems. The gas, aka what I use to run with, is the internet. I pay for my 30Mbps connection to my ISP, aka the gas station.

Stauch XBL defenders remind me of launch console defenders. No matter what is said or evidence to the contrary its just "well...i just think its better".

Posted by Anund

@haggis said:

@tooPrime said:
The OP sounds like a 14 year old that spent his life savings on a PS3 and now needs to bash the alternatives to justify the purchase to himself.
I got that sense too. Still, I can understand why you wouldn't want to pay for it. We all wish we could get shit for free. But it strikes me as the same as buying a car and then complaining that you have to pay to put gas in it to drive it. Sony offers the gas for free, and that's their choice. That does not, however, make it somehow irrational, greedy, or evil for Microsoft to ask people to pay for it. Most of us find Live to be worth the money we've paid for it because of its reliability, speed, features, and community. I've always found PSN to be lacking in all four. It does what it does and very little more.

Except it's not gas, it's more like... You buying a car with its max speed capped at 30mph. Then you had to pay the price of the car again, yearly, to remove the cap. All because you bought it at a specific retailer, even though all other retailers sell normal, uncapped cars. And then you have people defending the retailer. Which is fine I guess, if people like that sort of thing.

Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1
@sammo21: You're right, but there's not really anywhere else to play Gears, Halo, and Banjo Kazooie. I mean you've got Halo 2 and GoW on PC, but Gears 2 and Halo: Reach are the ones you actually want to play. I don't pay for xbox live currently, but I have in the past and enjoyed it a great deal.
 
I thought about this even harder trying to think of reasons to keep my Xbox. Several games popped up, and they are ones I really want to play or love to play.
 
  • Shadow Complex
  • Limbo
  • Fable II
  • Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts
  • Halo: Reach
  • Gears of War 2
  • Crackdown
  • Dead Rising
  • Alan Wake
  • Lost Odyssey
  • Blue Dragon
And then there are games that are on the PS3 and 360 but not PC.
  • Mortal Kombat
  • Super Street Fighter IV
  • Marvel vs. Capcom 3
  • Red Dead Redemption
  • L.A. Noire
  • Rock Band
  • Vanquish
  • Enslaved: Odyssey to the West
I'd be totally happy if all these games were on PC, but since they're not I might consider paying $10-20 bucks for a few months of LIVE. Yes, I think Microsoft is stupid to charge money to play games online, but they provide me with games that I would want to play online and they can only be found on the Xbox.
Posted by haggis
@sammo21 said:

@haggis: If that's your analogy, you really need to work on critical thinking. Car requires gas to run. My car in this analogy would be any of my systems. The gas, aka what I use to run with, is the internet. I pay for my 30Mbps connection to my ISP, aka the gas station.

Stauch XBL defenders remind me of launch console defenders. No matter what is said or evidence to the contrary its just "well...i just think its better".

No, the car in my example is your online game. You buy the game knowing full well you need the online capability to play it. The ISP connection is the road. Misinterpreting an analogy is not "critical thinking."
Posted by Sammo21

@Hellstrom: as stated many times, I have all next gen systems and way more games than I need to on Steam. So why is it understandable on a PC but not on your XBox360? Again you keep bringing PS+, an optional service that provides supplemental content that has no effect on your online gaming experience, in relation to Xbox Live? There is no comparison and there isn't meant to be. I work a job too and I also have a family so money is money...when you grow up you learn to question why you give money to certain things and you also learn there are people who just don't care.

Also, I keep hearing community, community, community...what community are we talking about here? The fact everyone has a microphone on XBL? I mute most of the racist foul mouth people anyway. You interact with just as many people at one time as you do on a PS3?

Posted by Hellstrom
@sammo21 said:

@haggis: If that's your analogy, you really need to work on critical thinking. Car requires gas to run. My car in this analogy would be any of my systems. The gas, aka what I use to run with, is the internet. I pay for my 30Mbps connection to my ISP, aka the gas station.

Stauch XBL defenders remind me of launch console defenders. No matter what is said or evidence to the contrary its just "well...i just think its better".

You mean like the Sony lackies, who were hailing PS3 the greatest system on earth when it didn't even have a library. Those same lackies who defended Sony for their incompotence during Sony's hacking situation? You shouldn't be talking about any fanboy of Nintendo or Xbox 360. Espeacialy when the majority of the retardeness this gen came from Sony lackies.  
 
"Killzone 3 looks better than Crysis". 
Posted by haggis
@hckling said:

Except it's not gas, it's more like... You buying a car with its max speed capped at 30mph. Then you had to pay the price of the car again, yearly, to remove the cap. All because you bought it at a specific retailer, even though all other retailers sell normal, uncapped cars. And then you have people defending the retailer. Which is fine I guess, if people like that sort of thing.
That doesn't even make any sense.