Comments (184)
« 1 2 3 »
NYC_Gamer  +   476d ago | Well said
I agree,that's way my Xbl account is on free status.I refuse to pay for online features that Steam and PSN offer for free of charge.
Welshy  +   476d ago | Well said
All fanboyism etc aside.

When you look at the facts between XBL, PSN and Steam, it seems more than a little ridiculous that XBL still gets away with charging for online features.

The simplest way to break it down in the XBL vs PSN debate in my book is: If everything on XBL was made free excluding cross game chat which was still $60/£40, would you still pay for it knowing that you were only paying for features literally EVERY other platform does for free?

Apart from the obvious (not being able to play online at all) without paying, i think it's got to such a stage where long term XBL users have just been so accustomed to paying that they feel that:

A) If they are paying, then by default it MUST be better or worth it somehow.

or B) Admitting it's a rip-off now and saying it's not worth it after shelling out hundreds, if not 1000's, of £/$ over the years would be like admitting defeat and confessing to being fooled all those years and not wanting to look silly.

Regardless of platform, title or company, online features should ALWAYS be free, especially if they want to go down the Online Pass route we have been travelling. Can anyone honestly say it's fair to have to buy a £400 console, buy a £40 game, pay up to £10 per month for your internet, pay £40 MS to allow you access to your own internet and if the game is preowned or rented, having to shell out £8 AGAIN just to play the full product on the disc?

It's all getting a bit out of hand and, especially MS, if they just swallowed their pride and admitted noone has the money to go through that process for 5 more years next gen, and ditched the XBL fee, they'd be on to an absolute winner not just in the eyes of Xbox gamers, but the industry in general.
#1.1 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(99) | Disagree(21) | Report | Reply
SolidSystem  +   476d ago
For me, its something that when I first got into the platform and grew accustom to it. Its the same way with something like WOW. I go into it knowing I'll be paying yearly for MP.

I dislike it, but at the same time its where the games I like are. So I have to.

It will be interesting to see what MS does.
Akuma-  +   476d ago
paying for xbl is silly but i guess we all are individuals and free to do whatever as long as its not hurting anyone.

ive got an xbox or several but i realise that i shouldn't be paying extra to play online because i can play most of its games on ps3 and way more. also the few extra xbox exclusives i dont need to experience online for xbox because i dont need to experience every game online or play. i love gears of war but ill just have to go without playing them all because i refuse to pay for xbl.

ill get the next xbox but dont plan on ever getting xbl for it.
Eazy-Eman  +   476d ago
Yo, faceless...that was a really good comment. I bubbled you up. Couldn't have said it better myself. I have had both a ps3 and an xbox and I can tell you that aside from playing halo and gears online it's really not worth it playing 60 dollars a year just to play those few games online. I also felt like when I had a gold membership I would feel like I was wasting it by just playing single player games.
Diver  +   476d ago
the ps3 was attacked relentlessly for its launch price. for those that bought a launch 360 an live 7 years later the get it cheap now didn't pay off.. ps3 cost more at launch but was the better investment
omi25p  +   476d ago
im happy paying for Xbox live because i think the service is better but also the main reason is party chat.

If ps3 had party chat for free i may reconsider.

Also microsoft is the only Publisher/Developer not doing Online Passes.
#1.1.5 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(35) | Report
DigitalRaptor  +   476d ago
The truth is strong in this one. Well said!

Being forced to pay for P2P online gameplay is outrageous. By all means, charge for the advanced features like party chat but I can guarantee that there are millions upon millions of willing Xbox customers in waiting (like myself) who would snap up a next generation Xbox, minus the ransom to play half of its games online that you paid full dollar for.

Microsoft have been investing in first party studios and this is an absolutely positive move for next gen, but I just wish they would go a step further, swallow their pride and stop charging for basic connectivity where it's neither necessary nor pro-consumer.

@ omi25p

PS3 hasn't and won't ever get party functionality. PS Vita has it for free, as should PS4.
#1.1.6 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(5) | Report
thebudgetgamer  +   476d ago
@omi: Xbox live is an online pass.
riverstars86  +   476d ago
I don't think that Xbox Live Gold is worth the money that I spend for it, however, I pay for it because I value the social features such as cross game chat and party chat. These features are great and I wish the PS3 had them, but because they aren't on the PS3, it is hard for me to have the same experience when I play PS3 online.

I know there are a lot of people on this site who will argue that it isn't a big deal, but I got so accustomed to using cross game and party chat on Xbox 360 that I find myself hard pressed to play PS3 online because of the lack of these features.

Honestly, that is all it comes down to for me sadly. I don't care much about the apps of either service, but PS+ is a great service for that easily puts Xbox Live Gold to shame. I'm not a fan boy of either.

However, I'm so excited about next generation because I know that the PS4 will implement these features and if I find myself not having to pay a yearly fee to use them on PSN, then Microsoft has lost me as a customer, because I know Microsoft will still charge for Xbox Live. Now will Microsoft and Sony please quit stalling and bring on the next generation!!
#1.1.8 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(4) | Report
MasterCornholio  +   476d ago
Well said faceless well said.

And i completely agree with you that it doesn´t make any sense to pay for multiplayer on XBOXlive if every one else is offering for free. Its free for the PS3, Vita, Wii U, Wii, 3DS, PC and many other platforms so what reason does Microsoft have for charging for it? None at all in my opinion and the only reason why they can get away with this is because XBOX gamers (since the first XBOX) are used to paying for multiplayer which is why they continue to pay for it.

I used to own a 360 and i used to have a subscription to gold so i know what it was like to pay for online multiplayer. But the problem that i had with the service is that it didn't provide me with anything that i couldn't get on the PC. So i made a decision to sell my 360 and buy a PS3. I had a regular PSN account for a short while but then i saw Plus offered for 40€ and in September i joined PlayStation plus. Ever since i joined plus i manage to download a ton of games that i haven't played before. Which got me thinking why gold subscribers are not demanding a similar service with XBOXlive gold? I seriously cant believe that XBOX owners don't want something like plus because it provides a lot more content than XBOXive and in my opinion its a service worth paying for.

Thanks for your comment as it was a very thoughtful, logical and very pleasurable one to read. However you might receive some degree of backlash from the fans who refuse to accept the truth about XboxLive.
cannon8800  +   475d ago
The only reason I personally didn't buy the xbox 360 was because I would have to pay just to play my own games online etc. I swear I would have bought it if xbox live was just free.
mewhy32   475d ago | Off topic | show
carlocgc  +   475d ago
@ TheFaceless

excellent comment very well put and my sentiment exactly however MS will charge while people will pay for it and i cannot see them turning away easy money.

I would rather that all the people willing to pay for Xbox live ON Xbox live and away from me as i no longer use Xbox for gaming though i do still use LIVE on windows for FREE from time to time but only if i have to.
#1.1.12 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
aquamala  +   476d ago
cloud saves are not free on PSN. yesterday Best Buy had a sale of 3-month XBL cards plus 800 ms points for $12.99 , so really 2.99 for 3 months, I bought 2 years worth of cards.
Welshy  +   476d ago
So paying slightly less for something that should be free, and IS free everywhere else makes it OK?

Bottom line: you are still needlessly forced into paying for something you already pay your ISP for.

Edit: @SolidSystem PSN, Steam, Wii U, 3DS, Vita etc all let you use your ISP without a 3rd party surcharge for basic online play.

My point being that what MS provide is no different from the other platforms, so all they are essentially doing is standing in your way demanding more $ for the privelage of using their service which offers nothing different.

Refer to my comment #1.1 for a full explanation of what i'm trying to say so i don't have to retype my whole point here.
#1.2.1 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(44) | Disagree(13) | Report
SolidSystem  +   476d ago
Faceless, you have that wrong. I pay my ISP for a connection. Not the other services available on the internet.

I agree gaming online should be free, with maybe some promotions (like PSN+ does.... which I am a member of) to bring in additional money.

Though the argument about ISP is silly.
dontbhatin  +   476d ago
Still paying to play the games you purchased to their full usefulness. discounted or not.
aquamala  +   476d ago
@TheFaceless

like I said, cloud saves are not free on PS, to get it on PS you need to pay $50 a year for PS+. so no the "free" PSN does not have the same features as XBL gold.
#1.2.4 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(29) | Report
DigitalRaptor  +   476d ago | Well said
@ TheFaceless

It's frustrating when people completely miss the point you're trying to make, isn't it? Happens all time in specific regard to this topic.

People think you're hating on a service. No!!! Xbox Live is excellent service. What is under scrutiny (and rightly so) is Microsoft's decision to charge their customers for something that is free in ecosystems outside Xbox. Basic online play or P2P. Look it up people. That shouldn't be a ransom/selling point for Xbox Live. That should be a guarantee for the $60 you pay for each of your games. Have MS charge $60 a year for advanced features only - I have absolutely no issues with that.

And discount arguments shouldn't even apply here since it's about the principle, not about how much you can save on things you shouldn't have to consider paying for to begin with.
#1.2.5 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(5) | Report
Hozi  +   476d ago
you bought two years? did you check the expiration date(not sure if there is one) I just don't want that to happen to you before you finish your first 3 months.
grifter024  +   475d ago
It's funny that people that don't know where to look cry about paying for XBL.

If you actually were a person that played on the 360 and paid for XBL you would already find deals everywhere.

The dashboard when you become a silver member has $1 for 1 month deals...and guess what you can cancel the auto renewal so when the month ends you just do it over again. Not to mention everyone that was gold last week got 1 whole free month for free because cloud was down.

I've paid 12$ for 1 whole year doing that...oh but wait I'm still paying boohoo.

If you don't want to pay and don't have a 360 I don't know why you are in here crying about it.
#1.2.7 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
MrBishopX   476d ago | Spam
mochachino  +   476d ago
My Gold account expired December 2012, haven't renewed it and don't plan too. Not having a gold account makes my 360 seem worthless now though, like a car missing an integral part that isn't worth fixing.

I may even sell my 360 as I'm starting to really appreciate my PS3 lately. Looks like all my future multiplats will be on PS3 for the foreseeable future, which is OK cause all my friends switched over to PS3-only a while ago for the free online anyways.

$60 per year to play online is about $30 too much for me. The apps and other stuff certainly isn't worth the high surcharge.

It seems the US is the only place where 360 does well now, PS3 dominates every other market. I live in Canada and don't know anyone that has a 360 anymore. They all switched to PS3 after their consoles broke or just sold it for PS3s free online.
#1.4 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
Rivitur  +   476d ago
Cheap ass gamer had a post a while back that I used to get 2$ for two months

http://www.cheapassgamer.co...
MasterCratosKong66  +   475d ago
not disagreeing w your main point, but ps3 does not dominate every other market
Zephyrus34   476d ago | Bad language | show | Replies(1)
If ps4 and 720 release at the same price 720 will be $60 more.. $120 for multi-player and a game on 720 or a $60 for a ps4 launch game + gaikai features? hmmm

Buy a MS car(xbox) and they will charge you extra for the steering wheel(multiplayer).
#1.6 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
delboy  +   475d ago
And when did you realize that?! Lol
Why did you buy a xbox in the first place?
Lol for everyone that bought a xbox in the first place,knowing about gold subscription and no online without payment.
Mr_Writer85  +   475d ago
@ omi25p

im happy paying for Xbox live because i think the service is better but also the main reason is party chat.

If ps3 had party chat for free i may reconsider.

Also microsoft is the only Publisher/Developer not doing Online Passes.

Sooooooo..... You pay £40 a year for party chat? Hahahahahahahahahahah mug.

And MS wont do online passes because they charge you for online already :/
#1.8 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Kran  +   475d ago
I don't disagree with you. I do agree.

But the problem is so many people pay for XBL, which means Microsoft will think: "Wow. We're actually making money from this. Stuff those people who disagree with us. XBL WILL ALWAYS BE A PAID SERVICE!!!"

Stupid I know.
Nes_Daze  +   475d ago
Another thing people bring up is lag on PSN, which is ridiculous. There's lag on both sides, when I was on Live I got kicked about every 15 minutes from a party chat, or randomly disconnected. And now with PSN Plus, I just can't justify paying $50 for cross game chat and a prettier display.
#1.10 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
otherZinc  +   475d ago
No, its ridiculously naive for a so-called super site like Gamespot doesnt realise the importance & fluidity of XBOX Live. PSN is a POS & all of you know this.

PSN doesnt work until a few patches have been released. It isn't integrated.

Most of All:
If you guys think SONY is going to do this for free next gen...You're Stupid!

M$ worked on LIVE for 3 years before it released: Oh, and you nuts think people work for free? Do you work for free? Yet, a service like Live that isn't duplicated, you want for free? You're Stupid!

Its funny, these articles release every month. I know its for traction, but, it just tells me how Stupid a Site can actually be.

Keep up with the day 1 patches & complaining about SONY online games that dont work day 1, also, the massive load times.

Keep up the Stupid, People.
You get what you pay for.
If LIVE were overrated it wouldnt be killing PSN right now!
Cam977  +   476d ago
It never was.
NeverEnding1989  +   476d ago
I just renewed my annual gold subscription for $30. I wasn't too happy about it, but it's the best way to play multiplayer. Forget about most PS3 owners not having a mic, PSN is a gimped service compared to Xbox Live. Chat, Invites, UI, etc.

PS+ will force M$ to do better next gen. But until that time multiplayer gamers don't have a choice.
DA_SHREDDER  +   476d ago
Gimped? I can play free games online for free like DCU, PShome, MAG, and Dust 514. Where's this gimp you speak of?
SolidSystem  +   476d ago
DA_Shredder, he outlined the features he considered gimped. if you agree or not... thats a different matter.

I agree with him though. The invites, and missing chat support (cross game specifically) are a big deal to me.
dontbhatin  +   476d ago
Since when do invites not exist on PSN? LOL
ThanatosDMC  +   476d ago
That just means he's criticizing a console he's never touched.
ipe  +   476d ago
yes they do.

bunch of garbage right there. Huge amount of people on live dont use mic at all, most of them use it in halo or cod, but it not some "standard".

bunch of people on psn and steam use mics.
I wont speak for everyone, but when i use mics i get distracted from game, i use it for casual games with friends, thats it.

It doesnt matter anymore is it 60 or 40 bux, i refuse to pay for p2p and things i dont use.

At this point psn, steam>>>> live, i received about 500 + euros worth of content with ps+ which was 45 euros. Many games i wouldnt have tried.
And steam is also different world dor live. PERIOD
miDnIghtEr20C_SfF   476d ago | Trolling | show
tee_bag242  +   476d ago
@ NeverEnding - "Multiplayer gamers dont have a choice" Heard of Steam or PS3?

If your happy paying for online play...thats fine, maybe I should make some extra money off you too and buy some MS shares.
Try and respect and educate yourself to the fact people have been gaming online for free, years before the xbox existed.
Riderz1337  +   476d ago
Lol the reason why I don't even bother with Multiplayer games is because of the mic. Just a bunch of pre puberty kids screaming every time they die or yelling "I'm the best" when they get a kill. I just use Skype if I wanna communicate with friends online. It's free too.
Alderney  +   476d ago
I'm assuming he's referring to cross game invites and the amount of time it takes to bring up the XMB while in game.

I agree tho. PSN+ is awesome, but my primary method of online gaming is going to continue to be Xbox live because of the features you listed.
Max-Zorin  +   476d ago | Well said
This gen isn't the gold standard.
1. Gamers showing nothing but hatred toward each other. No unity whatsoever.
2. Companies purposely locking away game content and calling it DLC claiming technical difficulties.
3. Flame bait articles left and right.
Etc.
BanBrother  +   476d ago
The funny thing about your comment is that, I bet half of the people who 'agreed' with you fit right into your first point, but are in denial.

I also agree with you, but this will never change. This gen we saw a massive influx of this generations teens (the bratty, over-spoiled douche-bags) and so it is more apparent.
mochachino  +   476d ago
You realize that you just demonstrated that you too are in denial by showing your hatred making your comment not only hypocritical but an indictment of yourself as well.
AD705  +   476d ago
Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true sir

high five!
wumster  +   476d ago
I stopped paying this past November. It was hard to give up 7 years, but I have to agree that I don't think it is worth the price anymore. In the beginning, I was amazed that the online experience was so cohesive with the OS. Now, we have Steam, SEN and even Miiverse and they are free.

I know people are going to say it is not 60 dollars and you are right, you can find it for cheaper. However, when there are free services that offer the same thing and in some cases more, I had to eliminate my LiVE account.
Godmars290  +   476d ago
Have to say as someone with a PS3 who never used XBL, the only people who seemed to think it was only had a 360. Worked for pro-360 sites.
taylork37  +   476d ago
I have both and can tell you that PSN is where it is today because of XBL. I actually prefer my PS3 over my 360 for multiplats, but besides the fee (which is still not a big deal), XBL was the model that Sony followed to better PSN. Its really as simple as that.

PSN would look very different if XBL did not come first and I really don't think anyone can argue.

With that said, XBL never stopped being the "gold standard." XBL doesn't stop being the gold standard because a bunch of people who don't like anything about the 360 or MS don't like the fact that it isn't free and other people don't mind paying the insignificant fee.

You can pretend to downplay the popularity and success of XBL but that doesn't make it disappear.
Nest gen, when PSN is still free and has some of the obvious features that it lacked this gen then XBL will no longer be the gold standard. It will happen, it just hasn't happened yet.
#5.1 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
AD705  +   476d ago
I'm not a fan of xbl but I agree with your comment. PSN did pretty much follow XBL when it came to online. I remember when I first got my ps3 and how I refused to play on PSN in it's current state due to how terrible it was. But as it start to take after XBL it got better.
P_Bomb  +   476d ago
Absolute credit to XBL for forcing Sony to improve their service to the point that MS now has reason to do the same.

The 10 million hardware lead is gone, so it's time for the pay model to reflect that and evolve. Apps like Youtube, IE, Netflix, Twitter and even the discontinued Facebook shoulda been open to Silver users. Period. Competition is great though cuz it forces these guys to look at what they offer, bang for buck. Remember no in-game messaging on PSN, no in-game XMB, the awful Konami log-ins for MGO, no scrolling game tickers on friend profiles, no premium avatars, no trophies, no blocking, no custom soundtracks period, no Plus, no Home? I do.

We've come a long way. From the "haz no gaemz" memes to this. Both systems became better because they had to and subsequently leapfrogged eachother at different points, while the Wii just kinda went on in its own lil' SD bubble.
#5.1.2 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report
josephayal  +   476d ago
We all hate paying for Xbox live every year
ItsTrue  +   476d ago
Don't we all? If it was free, then the world would be a happier place (except of Microsoft of course).
B1663r  +   475d ago
The worst thing that could happen to the PS3 is for Microsoft to make XBL free. Xbox 360 sales in Europe in particular would asplode, and the xbox would start to pull away from the PS3 again, because as of right now, the XBL fee does in fact make the xbox 360 quite a bit more expensive than the PS3.

I mean if you look at the costs of the consoles over three years, the xbox is like a $600 dollar console, and the PS3 only costs 1/3 of the xbox and it only manages to sell a tiny bit more.

PS3 fanboys are taking EXACTLY the wrong tact here... Should the xbox 360 get free XBL at CES this month for example, it would add 5 years to the life of the xbox, and the Xbox 360 would end the generations by far and away the number one console of the generation.

The crushing effect that this would have on the ego PS3 fanboys could be life threatening.
wenaldy   476d ago | Trolling | show
Fishy Fingers  +   476d ago
I love steam because I prefer my PC. But if you forgot about the subscription fee for just a moment, XBL is (in my opinion) a much better, connected experience compared to Sonys (and Nintendo) service. But MS are a software and OS company. It comes as no surprise, to me anyway.

The PSN is great, does everything you need it to and more, but it's not as easy or enjoyable to use (again, IMO).

Prefer the games though.
#8 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
ILive  +   476d ago
Are you speaking of strictly playing games online, or are you speaking of using the psn store? I just don't understand what you mean when you say " it's not as easy or enjoyable to use." What does that mean? When you say "prefer the games," are you talking about multiplats or exclusives?
Belking  +   476d ago
I have no problems paying for live. Iv'e never paid full price. I don't see MS doing away with fee. It makes them money so it will most likely stay. I do see them adding even more stuff to it next gen. There are some misconceptions out there about the service though. Some think that you have to pay for xbox live which isn't true. It's the gold service that you pay for. It's more about choices. Some chose to pay for it and others won't. That's the beauty of it. If you decide yes, you can just pay for a limited time and you don't have to pay the full 60 bucks. There are always deals out there. I would rather pay for a year of live than sign a contract for cell phone or cable TV which we all know is a sure rip off.
#9 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(14) | Report | Reply
Ultr  +   476d ago
Well I actually did not want to read your comment as I knew where it was going... though
I did

but I stopped here

"It's more about choices."

that was funny pal ^^

oh btw THAT does not make any sense at all
GenericNameHere  +   476d ago
You're funny. Choices? Hahahahahaha

If you just bought the, lets say, new COD for example, without Xbox Live Gold, you basically payed twice as much, and you're getting half of the feature you were promised with. Sure, there's the campaign (gold not needed), and you can still play Zombies and mutiplayer, but you can only play them by yourself, or with splitscreen. You HAVE to pay for Gold to access the other half of a game (if it has multiplayer multiplayer). That's a RIP-OFF. With the Wii U, PSN, and Steam, you can access ALL of the features of a game, without having to pay for another service just to access the online features for it. Sure, there's a bajillion Xbox Live Gold offers every day, but really, when 3/4 of the gaming hardwares are offering FREE ONLINE, then you're sticking out like a sore thumb. And what do you mean "limited time"? You're still paying for it, despite the offers doing it for free. Even a lot of the Xbox 360 console's features are locked out. You want to watch Netflix? Oops too bad. In addition to paying $9.99 (or however much it costs) for the Netflix subscription, you have to buy Xbox Live Gold subscription!! The PC, Wii U, and PS3 all have access to Netflix for free! Just put in your account, and you're good to go! I don't know why you compared Live with a cell phone or cable TV subscription, when they are "rip-offs".

I once a read a comment that said "Gaming is a very expensive luxury", and I somewhat agree to that. However, I hate to repeat this, but when 3 of the 4 major gaming hardwares offer free online, Xbox Live Gold sticks out like a sore thumb.

*note: A working Internet connection must be required to access said online features too. However, if you can read this, you probably have an Internet connection anyways... Unless you're reading this from work, a friend/family's house, school library, etc.
Flatbattery  +   476d ago
If you don't pay for the gold service then you are locked out of the full experience of games containing online elements. If you want that full experience then that choice to pay for gold or not is taken away.

So in essence your choices are (minus features) pay Microsoft for full access to your games (games which Microsoft already take a substantial cut from) or don't and have access blocked to portions of your games.

Ok, the cost isn't great when you break it down over time, but it's still an extra cost that no other platform demands.
jetlian  +   476d ago
not true 100 percent. live has had free weekends every month. 48 hour trials with games my halo 4 has 14 day trial. only thing free psn offers is online play all the time.

psn+ is same as live gold with different options. Psn still doesnt have voice message, party chat, custom music. Psn as a whole doesnt have nearly as much content, slower dl speeds, longer installs, takes longer to get patches and has worst 3rd party games support
P_Bomb  +   476d ago
@Jetlian
The right to open apps and the browser has always been free as well. There's certainly no free-to-play Gold equivalent to the DC Universe Online or Dust514 MMOAGs. Preference I guess is subjective, but your list of negatives is mostly relegated to system memory rather than service value. Plus and Gold are actually very different.

Party chat for example is a hardware issue. Memory. Hence why the Vita has no cross game blabbing issues. Hell, it does cross *play*. Not really applicable here. 360 hardware lacks its own features that a Gold sub' can't resolve, like the lack of DTS/DTS HD/Dolby HD/7.1 lcpm audio or BluRay's elimination of disc swapping. Cloud is another issue. PS Plus Cloud backups circumvent all DRM. Gold's doesn't. I can back up ME3 to PSN cloud but not Gold cloud.

You mention installs, but again that's got nothing to do with Plus and Gold as services either. Nor does what I presume you define 3rd party support to be. Fact is, paying for Plus gets you full regional 3rd party downloads like SSF4, Borderlands, Tomb Raider Underworld, FC2, JC2, SR2, BioShock2, Ratchet&Clank:All4One (Insomniac is 3rd party), Arkham City, Vanquish and various Arcade games from Trine2 to JetSetRadio. I even got $5 off my Walking Dead season pass. Paying for Gold got me none of those perks. Yeah I got Walking Dead Ep1 for free over XMas with Gold, but that's a month after I'd already platinumed it on PSN, and more months still after Ep1 AND Ep2 were up for "free" on Plus.

True perks like the early RE6 demo on Gold aren't as prevalent these days. I need to see more if I'm to renew next year. I bought Prey last year and enjoyed it, but have exactly zero online achievements cuz the community is dead anyways, Gold for naught. Paying for access to dead online games is lame. At least open up old games to Silver then.
#9.4.1 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
jetlian  +   476d ago
wow lol. Walking dead was 10 dollars last week for the whole thing(5 eps) on LIVE!!! which is 15 dollars in savings so keep your 5 dollars

Every game you mentioned in plus is 2-3 years old. That one of the problems with it. And for 3rd party support I was talking about how the games run and when you get patches later.

PSN downloads then installs which 360 does not do. once the DL is done you can play also the DL are faster. Happy wars is free for gold members

True perks like RE6 demo? wheres fez, minecraft, trials,mark of the ninja, deadlight,dust, kung fu strike,dungeon fighter, and thats not all the xbla games released this year that arent on psn.

Did psn get torchlight, bastion, guardian heroes from 2011. took 2 years to get braid and castle crashers, limbo year later.

Live got me 5 dollars off trials, 7.50 off deadlight, 7.50 off deus ex dlc. Got 5 back for spending 50 bucks in feb and 5 dollars last year in oct 2011 and more. thats 25 dollars I save right there could have been more if I waited for some sales in 2012.

Also to note bing gets me 10 dollars a month worth of MS points wheres sony way?! the whole achievement gets you points already got me 50 cents just buying stuff(15 dollars) I was getting anyway.

Dust and DC weren't well received Now sony get blade and soul count me in. disk swapping isnt an issue for me nor is sound quality since I use standard tv speakers
#9.4.2 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report
P_Bomb  +   475d ago
Well, why wouldn't I keep my $5.00? I had platinumed the entire Walking Dead season (with an extra 500gs btw) on PSN a month before the XBLA sale even hit. You talk about old games on PS Plus in the negative, yet praise a sale on XBLA 8 months after the PS Plus one?

Every Plus game I listed isn't "2-3 years old" either. Trine2 went free in May 2012, just 6 months after release, with a platinum. Not 2-3 years later. JetSetRadio just came out in September 2012. Ratchet & Clank All4One went free after 8 months. DCUO went free-to-play without Plus. IGN loved Dust http://ca.ign.com/articles/... . Gold can do better than Happy Wars imo.

Off topic there about 3rd party game performance. Gold didn't make Hitman Absolution or ME1 run better on the 360 according to Digital Foundry. Article's about the paid Gold service vs free Silver, not hardware performance.

You mention patches as well, still off topic. But you do realise that Konami patched the Silent Hill HD Collection for the PS3 but aren't for the 360, opting to leave it broken http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... right? Patches aren't always a bad thing, Gold or not.

Off topic again bringing up console exclusives like Fez, Mark of the Ninja, Minecraft which you don't need a Gold Membership to buy. We were talking about the monetary value of Gold subscriptions. Trials Evolution isn't a Gold perk. I bought it with a Silver. For the early RE6/Forza Horizons demos...I needed Gold. That's what I mean by perks. Game swag you can't get with a Silver sub' OR on the other consoles. I'd like to see more of that to justify Gold's price, like the 1 week early exclusive Dead Space 3 demo coming up.

PSN getting Braid after XBL is off topic again. XBLA has had to wait for odds'sods too like Joe Danger, Kung Fu Live/Impact. And again, they're available just the same to free Silver members.
#9.4.3 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report
jetlian  +   473d ago
MS uses gold to get exclusives and after time silvers can get demos too.

SSF4, Borderlands, Tomb Raider Underworld, FC2, JC2, SR2, BioShock2, Ratchet&Clank:All4One (Insomniac is 3rd party), Arkham City, Vanquish and various Arcade games from Trine2 to JetSetRadio."

jet set is a dreamcast game its over 2-3 years. trines is the only game not 2 years old
AngelicIceDiamond  +   476d ago
I was waiting for an article like this (Sarcasm).

Anyway, I do believe standard MP should be a given right out of the box.

"Xbox Live: No Longer The Golden Standard." Never was in the first place? Its just a great service for customized tailored gaming and a streamlined experience, a constantly changing and evolving service and allot of people prefer it. MS does do dirty cheap discounts and even give away a (few) games for free also. P2P should be a welcome to Xbox users

Listen, these articles are old and over done. At this point its Over Kill. Yes, come next gen I would want MS to open up the console, Standard MP right out of the box. And overall bring more to the table as far as subscriptions.

XBL is far from perfect but it must be doing something right for people to up keep there subscriptions and consumers to buy into it.
#10 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
TongkatAli  +   476d ago
This well said.
ASTAROTH  +   476d ago
Paying for LIVE is the only way you can enjoy the multiplayer part of 360 games. So most people are obligated to buy the service just to play COD or HALO. Its business for MS, and a good one as long as people dont have other choice. Dont blame MS, blame yourself for support a service that no matter how good or bad it is, others have it for FREE.
taylork37  +   476d ago
Why don't you blame Sony for not being able to deliver a service equivalent to what other people are willing to pay money for.

And intead of blaming Sony, you blame the people who recognize the difference in quality and MS just because they aren't Sony.
GenericNameHere  +   476d ago
@taylork37
Blame Sony for what? Making a great online service that is almost, or even on par with Xbox Live, even though it's free, and also offers more features without locking them out?
Also, I can ask you the same thing. Why is it that Steam, a FREE service, is MILES (exaggeration) ahead of Xbox Live, a paid service? They have more deals, more games, better security, mods available, etc. What does Xbox Live, despite a few exclusives and decent deals, have?

Instead of blaming Sony, why don't you look at Microsoft, and ask yourself, "Why is my precious Xbox Live Gold just slightly better than PSN, and why is it not better than STEAM?".
tordavis  +   476d ago
I own an Xbox 360, gaming PC with Steam and PS3. I gladly pay my XBL Gold fees every year. I don't like that I have to pay it, but I pay it. PSN is not on par with XBL. PS+ is great! However, the PSN download speeds are slow as turtles. It's not a very robust network. I like it, but not as much as XBL Gold. I think it's stupid that you need a gold account for Netflix and stuff like that. Hopefully MS will change that or they won't get my Gold fees next gen. Please oh please don't say that PSN is on par with XBL. It's just not. I get 500mb of cloud storage, cross game chat, a slick party system, etc. I don't get any of that with my free, slow, PSN. Steam blows them both away. It's free, has free games, it's fast, has cloud storage and great community features. MS and Sony need to be more like Steam next gen.
#10.2.3 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(7) | Report
Belking  +   476d ago
"XBL is far from perfect but it must be doing something right for people to up keep there subscriptions and consumers to buy into it."

Can't argue with that. People are still paying for the service and as long as that happens they will keep it. But i do agree that a free service would be great but at what cost to it's functionality. If they are putting funds toward making the service better (which is most likely what they do) then its ok with me.
#10.3 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
god_mode  +   476d ago
I never paid full price for Live either and compared to the UI PSN has I would rather stick to Live. PS+ does have great deals that I see on this site all the time but most are for games I already owned or finished long ago.

Not really appealing in my opinion.

But in all fairness both Nintendo and Sony have stepped up their online game and have made Xbox Live not the true king it once was. This is why for the next Box MS definitely needs to offer more (or anything) to justify the price for new comers. Which is probably the reason why we are seeing them buying up major companies that will make them the living room center piece.
iistuii  +   476d ago
Here we go again. There are alternatives, PS3, Wii, WiiU, nobodys holds a gun to anyones head, but people continue to pay, because they choose to. If everyone moved across to the alternatives then they may stop charging, but millions of people continue to pay, so I can't see them not charging even next gen. If your not an Xbox owner, it's not your problem, so stop crying over it, If you are & no longer want to pay, buy an alternative, simple really.
Godofgames  +   476d ago
It's just psn has got up to live
taylork37  +   476d ago
No it hasn't. If it is up to the same standard then why aren't people switching.
ChrisBoogie17  +   476d ago
Maybe because they already paid up for the year or just fanboys who refuse to buy a ps3.
xursz  +   476d ago
I know a few people who stopped paying for Live when they bought a ps3.
taylork37  +   476d ago
LULZ.....Both services have been out how long?

Give me a break.

And you wanna talk about fanboys...its pretty obvious that the people most pissed about XBL charging (**most** not all) don't have an xbox, never had an xbox, and will never get an xbox.
RGB  +   476d ago
Sounds like taylork37 hasn't played a PS3 or signed in to PSN.

"why aren't people switching" wonder why PS3 equalled 360's worldwide sales as of October 2012... reducing the 360's 7 million (over the years) lead at a way higher price point. :/

Judging by his other comments, the dude hasn't used Steam either. Xbox Live hasn't been the "Gold Standard" (terrible pun in the title) for years, Steam has had that title since 2009 at least.
Riderz1337  +   476d ago
How do you know people aren't switching? Do you have a way of proving to me that the subscriber base for Xbox Live is increasing whilst the fan base of PSN is decreasing? Please don't talk out of your ass.
JamieL  +   475d ago
@ Riderz1337
Do you have a way to prove they have been switching? Don't go out of your way to point out ass talking when just as much, if not more, is flowing out of your own ass.
#13.1.6 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report
insomnium2  +   475d ago
Ummm..jamie. Riderz wasn't saying people have been switching in the first place so your comment comes off as extremely retarded fanboy BS.

taylor

People don't want to switch unless their friends switch too. Young boys (15-24 yo) need to hang out with their friends a lot in real life. Their real life friends you know. If they all bought a x360 first it's impossible to get a teenager to switch unless he gets his friends to switch with him. Human nature.

Most who are pissed off never even had a x360? I have no idea but to see MS getting away with charging p2p gaming it might bring some bright ideas to other manufacturers. How about Wii U and PS4 going the same route?

You see anyone and I do mean ANYONE with common sense would be afraid of that happening so that's why the way MS does it and gets away with it is threatening to pollute the entire industry. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. That's just you trying to throw anything and everything at advesary and hoping something would stick. Pathetic really.

@ baconbits below

I honestly feel sorry for you. An 8yo kid decides these kinds of stuff in your house?
#13.1.7 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report
JamieL  +   472d ago
@ insomnium2
look man I agree with you sometimes, but please don't call anyone else a fanboy. Every since insomnium 1 you've been one of the biggest this site has to offer, so nice calling the kettle black, pot. I also think you completely misunderstood my point. I was just pointing out how stupid he was making himself look for calling out everyone for providing not evidence to back up their claim's, when he himself offered nothing to support his own side of the debate. You can't point your finger and scream "You have no proof", when you have none yourself. That was a real nice try to swoop in to save one of your fellow Sonyite, but Please, Please, Please don't be such a blatant HYPOCRIATE.
BaconBits  +   476d ago
As my son get older and wants to play too, it is frustrating that I need a second gold account for him or else his progress does not get saved. Can't they make it possible for a buddy to play MP as long as it is played on the same xbox as my gold AND I am in the game too?
Also, if I am going to pay $69/year, why do I have to sit through ads! If it wasn't for the fact that most of the games I like are on xbox, I would stick to my PS3.
Septic  +   476d ago
There's a family account you can buy. I'm not sure on the price though.

But yeah you're right, it can be annoying in your scenario.
masterBLUME  +   476d ago
family plan is $99 a year for four accounts
BaconBits  +   476d ago
I actually got the family account but still $99 dollars for 4 accounts when I only need 2? My son is 8 so maybe when my other son is older (4 now) it might be ok. The family account is a good deal if you have teenagers but when it is just me and my son and we only play together...? I "rented" out one account for $30 a year so that helped but it is the principle.
I know I should just boycott it but when your kid gets so much enjoyment of playing with his dad online it is hard to say no to a couple of bucks.
Sci0n  +   475d ago
what is cool about PS3 is you can also gameshare with your son. Like say yall have 2 PS3's and you buy games, content or whatever from the PS store. You can share all of that with your son meaning you wouldn't have to pay twice for anything.
#14.3 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
mikemadden  +   476d ago
Online gaming on xbox should be free, but if you want to play Halo online, you got to pay. Though i would never pay $60, $50, or $40 for one year. Microsoft can get out with that crap. Just buy the $2 for two months plans like i do and game online.
mwjw696  +   476d ago
* putts on flame proof pants
* putts on Fanboy repellant shirt
* putts on shit storm resistant waders boots
* putts on magic future seeing hat

Well here goes. (I'm sorry ahead of time if you disagree with my OPINION)

The fact is MS is making bank off of Gold right? They say this money is used to increase the services offered and improve everything. And honestly I can not think of to many problems with Live, minus the ads. Sony on the other hand does not gain money Like MS, they are just now adding in the PS+ service. It has slowly went from a abysmal service to right behind Live. I am proud and happy that it has been improving since its launch. The problem is it took to long, with out a constant revenue like Gold members Sony was scrapping the barrel to get funds for improvements.

With the cost of R&D, and Sony (as a company) losing money every single year I can not see PSN staying free. I want Live and PSN to be free sure, but life is not fair and things will change. PS+ is a great service but to Sony its only a constant source of money just like Live is to MS. Sony will need more money for the next gen as will MS. Anyone that thinks Sony can bleed money for what is it 5 years strait now and survive is insane. They need that money and fast! Making PS+ mandatory for online play is a good way to do it.

Every one criticizes MS for what they have done but the service has matured and improved very fast because of the money Live made for them.

For those that do not want to pay for online services next Gen I would suggest a PC. Good luck upgrading your hardware every year, bet it will cost you more than $60

*Removes clothes and sits back in chair naked. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
tordavis  +   476d ago
Who upgrades their PC every year? That's just dumb.
BaconBits  +   476d ago
Maybe not every year but I get his point. It probably works out to more that $69 per year. I bought a gaming pc for BF3 after years of console only and yes it is pretty good but I still fall back to consoles for a quick gaming fix. So for me I have gotten more for my money in console games if you don't count the xbox live price.
ChrisBoogie17  +   476d ago
ms will continue to charge for xbl until we as gamers stop paying for it. Don't complain just refuse to pay and see how fast ms restructes xbl.
#17 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Angerfist  +   476d ago
As long as Sony does not offer a better Service for free then MS will be charging for live, simple as that.
Adropacrich2  +   476d ago
This antiquated dinosaur makes MS a load of money not to be worried I think
ALLWRONG  +   476d ago
Yes it is, that's why these damage control articles come out every week. These things are just people begging to ditch the Live for PSN. You can keep trying, it's not working, but you can keep trying. Live subscription number keep growing not falling.
Riderz1337  +   476d ago
Do you work at Microsoft? Show me the rising number of subscribers for Xbox Live Gold. I'm willing to bet that it's actually slowly decreasing because people are fed up with paying for something that can be attained for free. Not only this, but the fact that you can actually use that money you are wasting on Xbox Live for PS Plus to get 36 games a year also makes me to further believe Xbox Live numbers are slowly decreasing. Pay 50$ to use your internet or get 36 games for 50$? To me, the answer is simple.
#20.1 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
AngelicIceDiamond  +   475d ago
Riderz you've been a pain lately when MS posted the sales numbers for Xbox sold during black. And MS also noted.

"Another important data point Microsoft sent along is that Xbox Live Gold Subscription card sales increased more than 50 percent compared to last year's Black Friday week."

http://n4g.com/news/clickou... When people buy Xbox I'm pretty sure at least half of them buy Live subscribtions.

Btw you flex your fanboyism pretty strong. Everything you post in conjunction with Xbox is always negative. So I tend to completely ignore your comments half the time.
#20.1.1 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report
JamieL  +   475d ago
Here you go again. Why don’t YOU show us the numbers Rider? You keep coming with that "prove it" shit, but have not backed up any of your claims with evidence. I couldn't care 1 little drop less about this shit, yes it's a little entertaining to read through these comments, it’s a guilty pleasure I won't lie, but I don't put too much stock into it. When I see comments like yours though, I sometimes feel compelled to add my 2 cents, but please, please, don't be such a hypocrite. I can see you jumping up and down, waving your arms, about to kill over with pure hatred of anything Xbox or not Sony, screaming that what ALLWRONG said is bullshit, and he can't prove it, when you yourself hasn't even attempted to prove them wrong yourself. You are pointing your finger at them while not noticing you are just pointing at yourself. Can you not see you are doing the EXACT same thing? It's really kind of funny, carry on.
BitbyDeath  +   476d ago
MS should make Live free nextgen.

PS3 has around 40million more online gamers than the 360 cause it is free.

Some may argue that MS is raking in the cash but at the same time are restricting the amount of gamers you can verse while also roadblocking others who are interested in buying the system.

Wouldn't it be better for MS to fall in line with the others and benefit the community and developers instead of only themselves?
#21 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
Captain Tuttle  +   476d ago
more accounts, not more gamers
BitbyDeath  +   476d ago
I was going by systems owned.

Both have sold approx 70 million consoles. Approx 20 million PS3 consoles will likely have no internet access whatsoever. (Give or Take)

MS had 10 million Gold members as of last year.

50 million PS3 consoles - 10 million Gold Members = 40 million more PS3 console members.
#21.1.1 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(9) | Report
ALLWRONG  +   476d ago
BitbyDeath

no
tordavis  +   476d ago
XBL Silver members can still use online services. Every Xbox comes with free Silver.
Captain Tuttle  +   476d ago
I'm a long time subscriber to Live and I agree that MS has to step it up next gen, they need to set themselves apart from Sony if they want to continue to charge. If Sony charges then nothing will change.

Edit: Nintendo isn't even in the picture
#22 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Munky  +   476d ago
I have a feeling MS is going to change the Live model for the next console. They can't continue charging ppl when their competitors are not. Hopefully they use all the cash the banked with from Live towards making Live 2.0 free.
JozzyV1  +   476d ago
I have owned all three consoles since day one, and also work for a major retailer that sells these consoles for very long time, directly in the gaming department. I also managed a Gamestop for years beforehand. I am a staple in the gaming community in my area and constantly converse with gamers, hundreds of them a year if not more. Using my experience as a sample and based on the industry as a whole, I guarantee you that PlayStation plus will become a mandatory paid service before Xbox live becomes a free service. The Xbox $100 offer that Microsoft has been running is a test, expect the next generation of consoles come with a required paid online subscription to subsidize the manufacturing cost. The only reason Nintendo didn't do it with the WiiU is because their online infrastructure is nothing anyone would pay for (yet) and because they're selling 5 year old hardware. They make money on every WiiU sold after one game purchase because the hardware is old and is cheaper to produce than it was when it first came out. They can get by without the trickle down profit.
InTheLab  +   476d ago
It's mind boggling how many people defend Live. Now take that number of defenders and ask then about Microsofts "servers" and how awesome they are. Then ask them how EA can shut down online portions of their games for maintenance even though they're on MS' "servers". Or how some games lose online all together even though MS runs the "servers" you pay for.

Ask them about security and how there's never any hacked games and lobbies, and how said non-existent games and lobbies have been hypothetically hacked for the last 6 years.

Ask them about Cross game chat which is usually what they'll say is worth all of that money.

Better yet, just let them blow their money on a feature that should be free and enjoy your equivalent experience free and clear as online gaming has always been and how it was meant to be.

Edit: I was online with my Sega Genesis playing Comix Zone like 20 years ago...long before Live or the Dreamcast.
#25 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Ravenor  +   476d ago
EA runs the dedicated servers for their own games, they do that so they can rationalize making you register for their service. It's also how EA games can be taken down.

MS doesn't actually run servers more or less, it's purely Peer2Peer. This is why you can still access online features in Perfect Dark Zero or CoD2.
InTheLab  +   475d ago
I know all of this. It's why I keep typing "servers". I know full well how online gaming works.

Apparently, sarcasm only works on this site when you type /sarcasm
#25.1.1 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Mithan  +   476d ago
Another bullshit sensationalist article.

Will not read or click on the gameshit link.
wishingW3L  +   476d ago
no. XD
stage88  +   476d ago
Here we go again...

Yes, xbox live is not the gold standard. Paying to access part of a game you've already paid for is absolutely ridiculous.

Reasons xbox fanboys stick up for it:

1. They've invested so much into it that they just can't make the switch, at least, not until next gen.

2. Denial

Next article please.
Ravenor  +   476d ago
Or your friends and family largely use the service? I use my PS3 to play shit online too, but I do that with a considerably gimped pool of friends.

I get it, paying for Xbox live is ridiculous. I've been PC gaming online since the mid-ish 90's now for free(sans MMO) and the PS2 offered online for free. But if my parents, sister and friends are all actively using their Xbox more than what`s my alternative?
Trekster_Gamer  +   476d ago
I am a diehard XBOX 360 fan and I totally agree. I really only use online gaming and if it is free still on the next PS and I am still having to shell out 60 a year for this when I might have to rethink my purchases
optimus  +   476d ago
I've been a Live subscriber for the last few years (although i've gotten deals on it)... Even with the price increase last year (2011) people STILL payed...microsoft would be stupid now to make it free...even sony implemented some sort of payed service, granted it offers more but still, people DO pay...in terms of what people prefer is subjective, my friend has both but prefers xboxlive cause it's a better overall online experience according to him...

I'm more of a casual gamer and play mostly single player games so i don't HAVE to have xboxlive but if i do want to play online then i don't mind spending 8 bucks for the month i think i'll be playing a lot... Next gen will undoubtedly offer more for the money... On both sides.
#29 (Edited 476d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Trekster_Gamer  +   476d ago
The gold service should NOT INCLUDE Multiplayer gaming as this is FREE FREE FREE on every other system made!

You should read the article a bit more closely as he clearly stated this.

You should pay a small fee for whatever you want and Multiplayer should be FREE! If they would do this then I would move to the next XBOX without a second thought.
optimus  +   475d ago
...and you should read my comment more closely because i did say people STILL pay... Even if certain things like multiplayer is free everywhere else people STILL pay and because they do, microsoft will STILL charge for it...like i said, i have friends that own a ps3, and a pc and STILL pay for xboxlive...and by the looks of it, they're not the only ones.
hennessey86  +   476d ago
Not again
I will bet my car that Sony will introduce a similar paid service next gen, they can't afford to keep throwing money at the play station brand.
DarthJay  +   476d ago
You would win a new car.
P_Bomb  +   476d ago
If they couldn't afford the Playstation brand they wouldn't have bought Gaikai's cloud gaming service for $380 mil' to compliment it. Playstation's still one of their cornerstones, along with Sony Pictures which was #1 for marketshare in 2012 http://www.superherohype.co... . It's the TVs and cameras etc that are the real thorns. Their TV business has lost money for eight straight years.
Captain Tuttle  +   475d ago
Or buying Gaikai was a poor business decision, companies make those you know. That being said it's a good time for Sony to but things if they think they can handle the debt: the strong Yen that hurts them as an exporter helps them when purchasing assets from countries with weaker currencies.
turnerdc  +   475d ago
Well...

http://www.gamespot.com/new...

http://www.computerandvideo...

They did also have to borrow money to acquire Gaikai which they are selling bonds now to repay...

http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...

"The sale, the first convertible bond from Sony since 2003, comes after the share price plunged as Sony suffers losses at its main television business. Chief Executive Officer Kazuo Hirai is cutting 10,000 jobs and selling assets as he focuses on mobile devices, games and digital imaging to turn around Sony, whose stock dipped to the lowest since 1980 this month.

Sony, worth more than $120 billion in 2000, is now valued at about $11 billion. Apple Inc. (AAPL) is valued at $511 billion and Samsung Electronics Co. is at $184 billion.

The transaction will be the first convertible sale since 2003, according to Mami Imada, a spokeswoman for Sony.

The maker of PlayStation game consoles will use 60 billion yen of the proceeds to invest in CMOS image sensors, 50 billion yen to repay short-term debts for acquiring shares of Olympus Corp. (7733), 10 billion yen to repay borrowings for acquiring Gaikai Inc. and 30 billion yen to repay bonds maturing next year, according to the statement."
#30.2.2 (Edited 475d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember