Log in or sign up to comment
252 Comments
Posted by SeriouslyNow

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Posted by Hellstrom
@MideonNViscera said:
@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.
b-b-b-b but............ its superior. 
 
I'm just saying if you're a gamer, you should definately not cancel out PC cause you're definately missing out on games. However, PC gaming is not for everyone....so....yeah. If convenience is your thing, stick with consoles.
Posted by Grumbel
@sammo21 said: 

 Why do we still pay to be able to play on Xbox live

Because that's the only way to do multiplayer and a few other things on Xbox360.

 and why do people defend it so vigorously?

That is called Cognitive dissonance, when people make bad choices, which they can't easily undo, they invent all kinds of different reasons to justify them, because people have a hard time admitting that they where wrong, even if they obviously are.
 
Also to those people that say "$5 a month, that's almost nothing!", lets rephrase that: Assume that the Xbox360 lives for 7 years, $5 a month is then equal to $420. Maybe some people are richer then I am, but $420 is a lot of money in my book. That it is spread out over a few years changes absolutely nothing, as you still have to pay it. If Microsoft released Xbox720 for $700 and included free online, would you all jump and say "$700, thats almost nothing!"? I doubt it, but that is pretty much exactly the same as  what you say when you say "$5 a month, that's almost nothing!".
Posted by Coombs
@MideonNViscera said:
@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.
I used to game on PC for a long time, But now my gaming is mainly console. 
I only game on my PC now mainly for indie games (Minecraft, Terraria, TrackMania, Ect..) 
the only exception to this rule is Starcraft, Because it's not on console and even if it was  Console RTS = Fail
Edited by NTM

It's true, paying for it sucks ass; always has and always will. But it doesn't make me like Microsoft and the 360 alone any less 'cause with what I can do, it's fun enough. I just hate when it comes time to renew. The only argument that anyone can make is the fact that Microsoft wants money, and they need that money to do the things they're doing, even if you say "Why don't they just do what Sony does?", I'm sure Microsoft has a reason whether it be a good or bad reason. Maybe everyone should just stop using Live and then Microsoft will come to their senses huh? I don't know if you knew this, but as much as you'd like to think everyone's looking out for others needs more than their own, well you'd be wrong. These companies are greedy. This is a question to go on  Pach-Attack!.

Posted by Kazona

The simple fact of the matter is that many a person who's used both services will tell you that Xbox Live is a higher quality service than PSN. The only logical explanation for this is that MS invests the money they get from subscriptions into the system.

And just to be clear here, I am talking about quality. Just like some people don't mind paying more for better quality shoes, there are those who don't mind paying for a better quality online service.

Also, it's an undeniable fact that Sony did get hacked, and Xbox Live has (as of yet) never been hacked. Saying that it could probably/maybe/possibly happen to MS too is a bad counter-argument. Now if someone actually manages to hack Xbox Live, and bring it to its knees like has been done to PSN, then that argument holds water. Until then it's as stupid as saying "well my ISP that goes down five times a week is just as good as the one that's never been down because.. hey.. the could, maybe, one day go down too!"

Edited by Xzeno

I can't say this due to the subscription fee on Xbox or not but my experiences with the service on PS3 and Xbox360 have been a lot different, some small and some large. Call me nit picking but the idea that we have to usually wait a good amount more time to download games off of PSN then once their downloaded then have to wait another few minutes to install them to the console once they've already been downloaded is annoying. With Xbox I find what I need hit download and the service does the rest, all i have to do after that is wait for it to tell me that it's done. On the PSN not every game has a demo, and even if they do have demo's are often located in completely different areas in the PSN store. On Xbox every game with the exception the Digital downloads (and those might have demos not too sure) has a demo associated with it and as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think you can just unlock the ability to buy a game from within the demo with the PSN.
 
Cross game chat might not mean a lot to people but it makes it a lot easier to get games going with friends, to me it's the difference between meeting up at a friends house and going to the movies with friends and everyone just planning on arriving at the theater at the same time. One has a higher success rate of making sure everyone gets there on time and can get seats together. My online experience with Playstation 3 is very limited so some of this may be out of ignorance on my part but I find it insanely easier to get into a game with friends as well. I see a friend playing a game I highlight their name, go to join game and I'm in, something I'm not sure is available on the ps3. Even with Playstation Plus there are certain games that are offered for free on the service yet once you stop being a member you lose those rights. Hate on gold as much as you want but if I go from gold to silver all I lose is the ability to play online and although the game was free you still had to pay for the service so I don't find it to be terribly different. Simple things like loading your achievements/trophies take a lot longer on the PS3, Updates also seem to take longer as do loading of the game....I could literally have started a match and have got a few hits in on Marvel vs Capcom 3 on the xbox before the ps3 has finished loading the content into the game and gone through the startup sequence. Updates are mandatory across games where as they are technically optional on xbox although you give up your ability to go online while playing said games. PS3 updates are way too frequent and sometimes become a burden where you really only see maybe 2 a year on the xbox.
 
I enjoy both systems but for me Xbox live is well worth my money and until I feel i'm not getting my money's worth I doubt i'll stop being a gold subscriber it doesn't make me stupid for paying it just makes me a satisfied customer.

Posted by SpudBug

I don't really care. I usually get years of xbox live for less than $30 and have never, ever in the 6 or so years i've subscribed paid full price. I like the Xbox online experience enough to not want to switch, and I have no friends on PSN and no desire to use it. Steam is awesome too though.

It's just like anything, if you choose to pay full price you spend more. If you look for deals you can find them. I bet you're the kind of guy who goes and pre-orders his new releases for $60 at gamestop too, instead of looking for deals and spending $30-$40 like a smart person. Oh well.

Posted by Guided_By_Tigers

I agree with EpicSteve its infrastructure is the best.

Posted by SpudBug

The reason they don't and can't charge for multiplayer on PC is not because of multiplayer, it's because the PC already does all of the other non-multiplayer related gold features like netflix, hulu, ESPN, friends lists, video/voice chat, etc. And because they simply don't have the means to control modding/cheating that they do on their own console. That's just the nature of the device.

Or it's LOLZ GREEDY MICRO$OFT LOLZ

Posted by benitobb

I rarely play online that often, but I find that paying something like $5 a month more than makes up for itself with the constant deals on dlc and XBLA games that are available for gold members only. To me, Xbox Live is used the same as Playstation + is: which is to get deals on content.

Posted by RiotBananas

@Lobster_Monster said:

I guess they could give us a free service that's super-slow and has half-assed security like PSN. Is that really preferable?
Edited by MideonNViscera
@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Yeah, and they take ridiculous amounts of time and effort. I will give WoW props for keeping it simple so everyone's computer can run it nowadays though. Regardless of how many people play that game, a gigantic portion of them probably play everything else on their X-Box haha
Posted by SeriouslyNow

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Yeah, and they take ridiculous amounts of time and effort. I will give WoW props for keeping it simple so everyone's computer can run it nowadays though.

WoW is a fucking drop in the ocean compared all of the K-MMOs in the wild.

Posted by CL60

Why wouldn't I pay for it when clearly that money goes into the service, and it shows because anyone who has used both can tell that Live is the better quality service.

Posted by MideonNViscera
@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Yeah, and they take ridiculous amounts of time and effort. I will give WoW props for keeping it simple so everyone's computer can run it nowadays though.

WoW is a fucking drop in the ocean compared all of the K-MMOs in the wild.

Ok, but I don't know what the hell a K-MMO even is, though I'd guess it's Korean. However, that's the country that is the poster child for unhealthy gaming habits so I wouldn't exactly be surprised.
Posted by eschatonik

@rebgav said:

To date, Xbox Live has provided me with consistent high-quality services while continuing to roll out new features. I have no problem with paying for that. Given the success of Xbox Live subs the real question is why other platforms don't charge for their services.

This.

Posted by ZeForgotten

@rebgav said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@rebgav said:

@c0l0nelp0c0rn1 said:

Why do you think they haven't released Halo 3-Reach on PC yet? Because they haven't figured out how to charge for P2P multiplayer on the PC yet.

Sure they have, It's called Windows Live.

That doesn't charge for online at all though.

And they shouldn't because it's awful. But they could, if they wanted to make Gears or Halo X for the pc.

They tried it at first and it did actually have the Silver and Gold bullshit then they got a ton of complaints about how pathetic it was on the PC and they removed it. Then again, it's Microsoft so they would probably do it again and go "What are you talking about? We never heard any complaints, we just wanted to make it better!" or some bullshit like that

Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1
@rebgav said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@rebgav said:

@c0l0nelp0c0rn1 said:

Why do you think they haven't released Halo 3-Reach on PC yet? Because they haven't figured out how to charge for P2P multiplayer on the PC yet.

Sure they have, It's called Windows Live.

That doesn't charge for online at all though.

And they shouldn't because it's awful. But they could, if they wanted to make Gears or Halo X for the pc.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If they were to release Halo X and Gears X on PC and then charge for it? I would rather play it on Xbox at that point, because I know more people who play it on Xbox than PC. So there's basically no motivation for Microsoft to release any of their games on PC. It's really sad that the PC gaming OS maker does not make great games to go with.
Posted by MysteriousBob
@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Yeah, and they take ridiculous amounts of time and effort. I will give WoW props for keeping it simple so everyone's computer can run it nowadays though.

WoW is a fucking drop in the ocean compared all of the K-MMOs in the wild.

I'd rather take sandpaper to my eyeballs than play any MMOs. The PC can have its crappy exclusive genres, I've got fighting games to play.
Posted by Sammo21

@MysteriousBob: Fighting games exist on PC and many people would argue with you in that regards. We were playing Street Fighter Third Strike and other games with GGPO years before a console even got just a fighter online...

Posted by MideonNViscera
@MysteriousBob said:
@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Yeah, and they take ridiculous amounts of time and effort. I will give WoW props for keeping it simple so everyone's computer can run it nowadays though.

WoW is a fucking drop in the ocean compared all of the K-MMOs in the wild.

I'd rather take sandpaper to my eyeballs than play any MMOs. The PC can have its crappy exclusive genres, I've got fighting games to play.
Ya know, I got to 48 in Everquest when 50 was the cap, I got to 60 in WoW when that was the cap, and I played DAoC and EQ2 both a fair bit. They were all exactly the same, for all intents and purposes. I absolutely cannot imagine an MMO that would persuade me to not only buy it, but buy a computer to run it, and then pay monthly to play it. If there's a genre in existence that truly needs a redefinition, it is the MMO. Until then, I'll stick to fighting games with you haha
Posted by Mr_Skeleton

Paying sucks and they raise the price because they can (and don't think for a moment that other wouldn't do the same) but people pay that because Xbox Live does what it's needs to do and it does it well unlike the other consoles.

Posted by MideonNViscera
@sammo21 said:

@MysteriousBob: Fighting games exist on PC and many people would argue with you in that regards. We were playing Street Fighter Third Strike and other games with GGPO years before a console even got just a fighter online...

3rd Strike was a rom, not an actual PC game though.
Posted by Sammo21

@MideonNViscera: What do we care, we were playing it. Even then we still had lag free times compared to some of the stuff on any console. Better than the new SF3S HD coming out? Don't know, but I'll take a ROM of an arcade game that plays online exceptionally well to a fighting game on a console that has spotty online.

Posted by CL60
@MideonNViscera said:
@MysteriousBob said:
@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

LOL @ Console players arguing over which service is best. PC gamers have LOTS of services to choose from and lots of destinations to get demos, media, games and information and most of them are free.

Yes, but most of us don't wanna play on PC.

MMOs, the largest market yet.

Yeah, and they take ridiculous amounts of time and effort. I will give WoW props for keeping it simple so everyone's computer can run it nowadays though.

WoW is a fucking drop in the ocean compared all of the K-MMOs in the wild.

I'd rather take sandpaper to my eyeballs than play any MMOs. The PC can have its crappy exclusive genres, I've got fighting games to play.
Ya know, I got to 48 in Everquest when 50 was the cap, I got to 60 in WoW when that was the cap, and I played DAoC and EQ2 both a fair bit. They were all exactly the same, for all intents and purposes. I absolutely cannot imagine an MMO that would persuade me to not only buy it, but buy a computer to run it, and then pay monthly to play it. If there's a genre in existence that truly needs a redefinition, it is the MMO. Until then, I'll stick to fighting games with you haha
I disagree. I got to 40 in EQ, I have 2 85s in WoW, and I've played basically every MMO on the market and I still love them.
Posted by BraveToaster
@CL60 said:
Why wouldn't I pay for it when clearly that money goes into the service, and it shows because anyone who has used both can tell that Live is the better quality service.
And all the extra services announced this E3 makes the membership even sweeter. More TV on a console is good for someone like me, since I my cable months ago.
Edited by kmg90
@EpicSteve said:

Microsoft has the best online infrastructure. PSN is clunky, doesn't work as well as it should, and is impossible to navigate.

I beg to differ, the PSN is very stable (security is another thing though),  other than the major outage ealier this year the PSN was never down for more than a day, that's pretty good track record. 
 
I just recently had my sisters xbox over to play some games I will never get to play otherwise on my PS3, I kept getting disconnected from Xbox live at random multiple intervals. I couldn't believe the issues had with it that I've never really experienced with my PS3. 
 
I had give it a static IP address to DMZ to finally get it from disconnecting, something I never had to do with my PS3.   
 
Also the overabundance of ads on the paid service is laughable, and is probably one of the top reasons why I will never invest in the system. The PS3 has little to no ads on the main interface and yet I don't pay for the service itself.  
 
The only time I've seen ads on the PSN was either on Playstation Home or the PSN Store. No where on the home menu (XMB) of PS3 are there ads that you have to navigate through just to play a game. 
 
 I'm aware of the concept if its free, you are the product (e.g ad space and consumer exposure) but for xbox live,  users pay and yet they still are the product to ad space 
 
The E3 Day Zero bombcast talked about some of the flaws of xbox live (include ads and having to navigate through them just to play games)
Posted by Afroman269

@CL60 said:

Why wouldn't I pay for it when clearly that money goes into the service, and it shows because anyone who has used both can tell that Live is the better quality service.
Posted by haggis
@SeriouslyNow said:

So basically you choose to ignore reality and have an opinion based what you choose not to see which everyone else, including the media (HALO KID/CHOCOLATE MILK) recognises as reality. Saying something is your own experience is fine and dandy but arguing against reality because you choose to ignore reality and calling that your own experience as if it's some evidence that your point of view holds any merit really isn't ok. It's not even crazy. It's just plain old blinkered bullshit. Bullshit yourself all you want but don't expect other people to agree with you.
Nice overreaction there, SeriouslyNow. Apparently I'm only allowed to have an opinion based on your experience, and not my own. That's blinkered bullshit. If you don't like what I say, that's fine, but your going to need to grow up someday and realize that other people have different experiences and opinions that are valid whether or not you like them.
Posted by arca

People are young and stupid. That's the crowd you are generally talking to. Yeah there are probably old stupid people too but nowhere near as many, they have bills to pay and often make informed choices when paying for entertainment and gaming services.

They are happy to conform because 'they can understand why companies are charging the subscription rate'. Companies only get away with hiking up the prices and charging for use-to-be free services because people do not stand up to them. The biggest example of this is the MW2 'boycott': Tonnes of people said they wouldn't buy it but as soon as it's released they pay full prices for it and maybe even another subscription to live. The majority of people are like a extremely obese fat guy. He might die if he eats another piece of cake and decides to diet and get healthy but as soon as a new, delicious™ cake is revealed to the public he is first in line at the store ready to buy it no matter the risk.

Posted by BestUsernameEver
@buft said:
it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow.  how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?
barely anything? Wow.
Edited by c0l0nelp0c0rn1
@ZeForgotten: Because they failed at charging for the multiplayer the first time, I think they were sufficiently scared away from putting out their key Xbox franchises on PC. So it looks to Microsoft like this: they can put out Halo and Gears on Xbox to get money off of people for Xbox LIVE and stem piracy via Banning accounts and consoles, or they can put it out on PC and have people pirate it and not pay more over the boxed copy.
 
However, a solution to piracy on the GFWL platform is to ban a GFWL account after a pirated copy has been found to have been played on that account. Further action can be taken by permabanning the Windows OS from installing GFWL or playing GFWL games. It's not cool or Steam, but it worked on the Xbox. The only real big problem with that is how often Windows is pirated.
Posted by haggis
@nintendoeats said:

@MideonNViscera said:

Keep in mind also that a PS3 has always cost more than an X-Box with a year (at first 2 or 3 years) of XBL.

Yeah, but then for most of this gen the Xbox was kind of incomplete out of the box. The PS3 has always come with an HDD, Wifi (except the launch 20 GB), Rechargeable wireless controllers, free online and Blu-Ray. You don't NEED any of those things (except the HDD), but for most people the PS3 was a better deal on a feature-level.

If that were true, it would have sold better than the 360, right? I think the relative parity of sales vindicates the choices both companies made. I don't think there is a consensus regarding paying for online services, nor was there much of a consensus on Blu-ray during the early days of the PS3. People will make (and did make) a variety of decisions about the consoles after weighing what features mattered most to them. Whether one or the other was a better deal came down to preferences: launch titles; exclusives; online services; storage; media playback. Depending on needs, people chose one or the other. It still strikes me as a bit crazy that we're still debating over which console is better five years after they're out.
Posted by Radar

We've been having this same, stupid discussion since Xbox Live was released on the orignal Xbox. Why do you pay for it? Because a public company wants to keep their shareholders happy and that $60 goes towards the maintenance and R&D of the service. There's alternatives to Xbox Live + the media/entertainment services, you're not stuck paying for it.

Posted by rav84

Oh hey...Look, its this argument....Again....

Posted by phantomzxro

I think it is smart on a money making sense because people will pay to play online and that is really the  heart of it.  That is the reason why mircosoft is doing it and people are paying for it happly or by chance.The other feature are window dressing they may keep a few still on board if they don't play online that often. I was one of them and i think if you are playing online games alot then it nice to have  with the features xbox has built. I don't think it is that much better then sony but it down to the player in the end. 
 
I for think it is a lttile over the top now because i hate how they have netflix locked to gold when i could easily jump to ps3 and wii for that. I think someone hit the nail on the head by saying speak with your wallet. There not many games i'm playing on xbox now so i don't have gold and i'm thinking of trying out plus well i do my gaming on the ps3 for now.
Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1
@Radar: But there's no alternative way to play the latest Halo or Gears. That's my biggest complaint.
Posted by Vinny_Says
@sammo21: Cloud saving, just like Sony charges for....now you can't complain anymore.
Posted by Turtlemayor333

This thread is the worst.

Most of the points I wanted to talk about have already been addressed, but I do want to say something about the word "charity" being used to describe how users are justifying Xbox Live Gold. Charity is the use of your own resources to help others. I am subscribed to Xbox Live because I want the benefits of the service. Just because we don't always know what exact maintenance or new feature Microsoft is planning doesn't make your subscription a "cash donation."

I'm so sick of the selective whining about big corporate bullies stomping down on the blue collar gamers and how we shouldn't take it anymore. Rockstar can charge for an online pass giving discounts to DLC of which we have no idea what the quality will be, and nobody complains (in fact I'll probably get on that before the deal runs out this week). Then Activision charges for a subscription that isn't even needed to play the game online, and that's the straw that breaks the camel's back? I'm personally not interested in Elite but I'm not bashing it, because if people find value in that sort of thing, it really isn't my business. Stop crying about slippery slopes or how people spend their money.

Posted by Hot_Karl

Yo you guys should play on the PC, dawg. Steam is awesome.

Posted by Sammo21

@blacklabeldomm: When did I ever say anything about wanting cloud saving? I don't take my profile to other people's house anyway so that doesn't matter to me. The only reason that I ever used it on PS3 was when I got a Ps3 Slim for the living room and even then I could have used a usb stick for that...well not all saves (certain games are locked from copying just like on 360) so cloud saves will be nice for everyone because of that stuff.

Posted by Sin4profit
@sammo21: Stock holders dig it. 
Posted by Napalm
@rebgav said:

To date, Xbox Live has provided me with consistent high-quality services while continuing to roll out new features. I have no problem with paying for that. Given the success of Xbox Live subs the real question is why other platforms don't charge for their services.

Yeah, high quality services. You have to love all of those ads you get even when you do pay, and having half a dozen things shoved in your face when you start up your Xbox 360! So many great services and deals! I need them allllll.
Posted by Selftest

You're paying because they can get you to pay.  That's it. That's all. AND IT FUCKING WORKED. How many millions of XBL members are there? Anyone know? 
 
If a corporation can get you to pay for something, why wouldn't they? Personally, I don't mind paying for a service I like. If you don't like that service, then stop paying. It truly is that simple. You don't have to "defend" the company. I'm not. If someone is asking why you pay for it, they're idiots. I'm not a fucking fanboy... I pay to play the games I want to play. Also, the argument about having Netflix and Hulu or whatever on other devices is stupid. The Xbox/PS3 is hooked up to the TV, where I want to watch the majority of my movies/shows. And you need PS+ to play Hulu+ through PSN, so where's your gripe?  I own both a PS3 and an XBOX, I pay for both XBL and PS+. I feel that I get what I pay for. Well, less so on PSN, but that's a whole other post.  
 
TL;DR version: If you don't like it, stop paying.

Posted by nintendoeats

@haggis said:

@nintendoeats said:

@MideonNViscera said:

Keep in mind also that a PS3 has always cost more than an X-Box with a year (at first 2 or 3 years) of XBL.

Yeah, but then for most of this gen the Xbox was kind of incomplete out of the box. The PS3 has always come with an HDD, Wifi (except the launch 20 GB), Rechargeable wireless controllers, free online and Blu-Ray. You don't NEED any of those things (except the HDD), but for most people the PS3 was a better deal on a feature-level.

If that were true, it would have sold better than the 360, right? I think the relative parity of sales vindicates the choices both companies made. I don't think there is a consensus regarding paying for online services, nor was there much of a consensus on Blu-ray during the early days of the PS3. People will make (and did make) a variety of decisions about the consoles after weighing what features mattered most to them. Whether one or the other was a better deal came down to preferences: launch titles; exclusives; online services; storage; media playback. Depending on needs, people chose one or the other. It still strikes me as a bit crazy that we're still debating over which console is better five years after they're out.

Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few).

Posted by SirPsychoSexy

I will happily pay for a better online experience than what I get on PSN, ads won't change that

Edited by arca

@VinceNotVance said:

Yo you guys should play on the PC, dawg. Steam is awesome.

Damn right. This is why they have no leg to stand on when agreeing that the cost is worth it. Steam does the exact same thing for free. They have hosted servers, community, everything.

Saying what I said in the other post. In comparison to Sony, Microsoft is much better (or it at least looks like that, they might get hacked. who knows.) in terms of security. You could say that I'm paying for security but then you are just fooling yourself because there are thousands of companies that offer good security of their websites and services for free.

@SirPsychoSexy Then you are an idiot. Having ads on a service you pay for is absurd, It is backwards! Advertisements are meant for customers that do not pay as an incentive to upgrade your account, advertisements bring in so much money for Microsoft and then on top of that you are paying for it! Haha! Pretty much every website in existence uses this as a way to get people to pay for a premium service: take giant bomb for example. They offer a lot of things in their premium/supporting user subscription and the removal of ads is one of them.