@CornBREDX said:
@oulzac: Live gets you a more stable network service. That's really it- you're paying for bandwidth costs (too much). Everyone complains about it, but they get it anyway because you have too. If you don't you don't have access to a majority of the features games come with (multiplayer mainly).
I'm not saying you're wrong that Microsoft's model is shitty, but it's no different then PS+. I guess the only difference is PS+ gives you old games to play for free. If you want to prove to yourself its worth it, that's totally logical. It's not for me, but I cant deny your logic there.
I don't know that I buy that anymore. Bandwidth is expensive, especially as much as Xbox uses, but a lot of that is paid for by publishers like EA and Activision, who run the servers that their games are played on.
If Sony can afford to run a successful online service without mandating that their users pay for it, I fail to see why MS can't. XBox Live costs what it does because MS can hold their multiplayer games behind a paywall, and people will line up to pay to play them. You may not be saying MS's model is shitty, but I sure as hell am. And it is different from PS+ in that PS+ IS NOT REQUIRED TO PLAY MULTIPLAYER GAMES. It is a value add, not a requirement, and there's no service on PS3 that requires it that is otherwise unavailable. (I don't count early access to betas as a service, btw. I'm talking about Netflix.)
Also, I kind of prefer multiplayer without headsets - when I play PS3 games online, I don't have to deal with idiots & immature kids calling me various racial slurs.
Log in to comment