Could Microsoft's excessive monetizing come back to haunt them in the form of consumer ill-will and defection to other consoles, or are they justified in charging for Facebook and Twitter access, etc.
(Industry, Microsoft, Xbox, Xbox 360)
Let's see how much price gouging Microsoft does next gen when ps4 launches first with a lot of first party exclusives. I'm just hoping ps4 launches first actually with an improved psn and lots of quality games so by the time xbox 720 is out they'll have to drop charging for xbl to garner more sales from educated gamers
I know for me that I will never buy xbl next gen if I actually get an xbox 720. I don't want to purchase a service that I can get for free on a more reputable company like Sony that is known for supplying gamers with way more games
Same here.... ... I have an Xbox Gold subcription right now, but I will not have it be renewed, and I'll be going with PSNplus in the future cause it offers endlessly more value for money than Gold.
Microsoft has really dropped the ball these last 2-3 years with their focus on Kinect and overcharging us for XBL Gold just so we are able to play our MP games online.
Glad to see at least some progress from the Microsoft camp. I get this feeling that most people who game on the 360 are a bunch of rich kids, cause I live in a two income home, me, my wife, and my 3kids (whome have their own ps3's and wii) and just thinking about paying for something like xbl I would just lol! lmao!
I completely agree, ive been an Xbox Gold subscribing ever since the beta testing, i was first wave 9yrs ago, ive renewed every year until now, PSN is way better value for your money with PS Plus. I hate how much advertising is on the Xbox dashboard as well. No more Live for me sticking with PS+ forever! My xbox has become the dustbox.
@ from the beach, it's not just about the cost per month. It's the fact that you're paying for things that are absolutely free elsewhere.
We've had free online play for ages. All of a sudden MS comes along with Live and starts charging for that very same thing and you say it's fine simply because it's only £3 a month extra? Would you be happy if they started charging you an extra £1 a month for a new feature simply because it's only £1?
@From the Beach.... .... when someone pays 60 bucks for games like Halo, Forza, Gears, whatever....
... why should they need to pay EXTRA money for XBL Gold in order to be able to access to Online MP!?
It's ridiculous and greedy, and Sony has shown how to have a paid service for PSN that IS worth the money, without charging money just so you can play your games online (cause online MP is still completely free with Sony).
We are all individuals and we might prefer things for our own reasons even though it might not be the best.
I loved n64 and GameCube even though Sony's offering (ps1,ps2) were better. I played the ps1,ps2, xbox, and dreamcast a lot but I loved the Nintendo console.
I liked the Wii but I was very disappointed in a lot of things where I think Wii u will correct.
Xbox was my first console in this gen and I liked it a lot. I have way more friends on xbox live than I do psn. In the years following the xbox 360 launch I realize after having xbl run out a couple of times that paying for xbl is silly when ps3 offers a similar service for free. I also realised that paying for xbl is setting a bad precedent for them to raise the price in the future if they add things that you can get for free elsewhere and they did. Xbl doesn't cost much to some but paying for it will justify Microsoft to continue raising the price in the future.
The wiis strength are being cheapest, most motion based games. lack core game offering
Xbox 360 has xbl (best online) plays a lot of superior 3rd party games ,Kinect, lacks exclusive core games
Ps3 has a lot of exclusive titles, psn is mediocre , lacks party chat caters the most to core
nothing like a good "paying for live" thread to get the fanboy juices running..
when are the people on n4g going to realise, that it dont matter if they write the same rubbish 1000x, people are still enjoying and will still pay for live!!??
give it a rest. and because you fanboys are easy hit getters, the same bloggers write the same just for n4g thrash to leach said hits.
i pay for live, i have a ps3, i am happy with both.... and about 30m people do not give a flying fuck with you idiotic fanboys write on her. ffs. live just gets more and more subs..
@Everyone: Ignore EVILDEAD360. He's an MS PR rep that does his job for free.
OT: The fact is, no matter who wants to spin it, MS is charging for features that are free everywhere else. That in itself is price-gouging. But what makes it worse is that they can, and will, raise the price of the service again in the future, while everyone else is over here not charging anything to give people the right to access their own internet connection to play online. In the end, I don't see how it is possible that anyone can like paying $60 base a year for the right to access their own already paid for connection.
just a little clarification Live existed before such features like facebook, youtube and the such. The idea that people are paying for live to get these features is a very pessimistic pov.
These features were added to the gold side of live that people were already paying for. Its a matter of justification. I know I will get disagrees for that comment but I will explain.
If the service had just been the way it was from the beginning (strictly online play) and these newer features were added across the board then there would have been no real incentive to justify the purchase of live or the continued enrollment in live.
New features are going to be tailored to those who are the elite members of the club. PS+ is a good example of the same way of thinking. New things like cloud storage and auto sync of trophies are not available to just any PSN member but strictly the "+" members.
Sony knew they couldnt just start off charging for an online service that wasnt as structured as live. So they went free for the basic nature of online play while at the same time they were working on a perks program for those that would be interested.
It would cost roughly the same as live but offer members games they could download and play for the duration of their membership. Notice I didnt say free because we all know nothing is truly free.
I mean neither service is without criticizim. Live is criticized for the pay to play online. Everything else that is added to live is all part of the membership if you use it or not.
Some criticize PS+ for the games are only good for the length of your membership. that could mean that if someone were to take advantage of all the games that are offered in PS+ and never buy one retail then it works in their benefit. Like an extended rental with no late fees. Some of those games have online features which could throw them into the same view as pay to play online.
If that person were to cancel their membership then they would have to pay retail for all the titles they just lost (assuming they wanted to continue playing them without PS+).
both services have their strengths as well. What really bugs me is the narrow view some have when looking at one and not seeing that a similar approach is being made to the other. Bottom line is both companies are wanting the consumer $$ when it comes to their online service.
The perceived value in something is only as good as the frequency in which it is used. If you are a live user and use it constantly then yeah you are going to feel you are getting your money worth. Same with PS+.
After reading some of these comments I would like to add the fact that Live was released in 2002. So if you've been paying for live since then you have spent over $600 just to play your video games online..............and people complained about the original price of the PS3.
I feel bad for the Parents that bought an Xbox for their kid and have been suckered into paying their fees all these past years. I bet a good portion of the people who aren't bothered by the fact that MS charges for Online is because they don't pay for it themselves.
You gotta love that anytime someone wants to do a Live price check they whip out the $60 price tag when there are many places you can find it offered far cheaper than that. I wasn't aware Live cost $60 back in 2002...nice. This site is notorious for people cherry picking facts to suit their own ego-feeding arguments. You don't find value in Live then don't buy it...but at the same time degrading someone who does find value in it is not needed either. But such is the way of some...to feel good about themselves they find it necessary to tear down others.
And for me, it has been $600 well spent. I’ve been on XBL since it was in beta, I’ve seen the service grow and change. I don’t see it as paying to play online-I only hear fan boys make that argument.
The fact is it’s the quality of the service that I am paying for. I never have problems, it’s smooth and very well integrated. It doesn’t feel or function like a free, tacked on afterthought. This was designed from the beginning to function the way it does and it does it extremely well. When considering the completion, Microsoft utilized their skills in said field and created a superior online console service, worth paying for in this customer’s opinion. And wait until the update for XBL is released, the beta is extremely nice (Internet Explorer has made me a believer in console browsing).
I pay for XBL because I get my moneys worth. Reliable, well integrated, functional, always improving and just overall better than the competition. The consoles do what they do, and XBL is Microsoft’s Ace.
@DragonKnight, They do have options, they just don't like them. Hate if you want to.
XBL potentially shows that some humans will pay for a service if they find it to have value; concordantly, PSN+ potentially shows that some humans will pay for a service if they are bribed. In the five years that I have been a 360 owner, MS has steadily upgraded, and added to the service. In fact, my 360 is my gaming, entertainment, and now, thanks to the beta, primary method of accessing the internet. Since I am a member of the family plan, I pay, a paltry, 99$ per year for 4 gold subs. I love gaming, its not a secondary hobby for me; therefore, paying to have so much fun, as I do on XBL, is well worth the price.
People like EvilDead360 are the reason why nothing is likely to change. They're not only content with paying unnecessary fees for free things, but they champion the idea. It's a very strange phenomenon among 360 gamers. I'm really curious about how Microsoft managed to pull that trick off. I imagine many other companies are interested as well. Gouging your customers with fees and receiving fierce loyalty in return. Sort of like Stockholm syndrome.
I will personally pay for live all the time. I've never had a good experience with PSNs online service ever. I realize thats just me and most other people have but 60 bucks a year isn't really that bad when you think about it. 5 bucks a month to play all games online, get demos early, get discounts on a lot of xbl games, crackle, facebook, twitter, hbo go (provided i have hbo of course), and a ton more. PSN only gives me a crappy internet browser, netflix, youtube, hulu plus, annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd.......oh wait if i remember correctly that's about it. I get the whole argument of "the things they give you on gold you can get everywhere else for free." Well that just isn't completely true but I understand your argument none the less.
Point is paying for gold isn't that big of a deal. What i do love the most though is people will complain about paying for gold and then they say they will pay for PSPlus. Kind of boggles my mind. Yes you get discounts on games and a lot of stuff free I get that but in the end you're still paying for an online service even if the multiplayer part of it you can get for free.
I love both MS and Sony's consoles. I hope the PS4 comes out swinging first. If they can make PSN on PS4 as multiplayer friendly as Xbox Live (including cross-game chat!) then they will really give them a run for their money. I would love for PSN to force Xbox Live to be free...one less bill I and many others would have to pay.
Yi-Long - "when someone pays 60 bucks for games like Halo, Forza, Gears, whatever.." ".. why should they need to pay EXTRA money for XBL Gold" Y'know, I think that's a better question for people playing WoW..!? That of which I quoted could be used for almost anything and everything. Phones do the same thing. ISP's do the same thing. TV providers do it, too. You pay for your phone, then get charged extra to use it efficiently! You pay for a modem, but have to pay for the internet through an ISP! You hafta pay extra to TV providers to get channels like HBO and Starz!
And, then you go on to say that it's "ridiculous and greedy." Surely you don't complain on forums about the things I just listed? So why are you bitching over a few dollars to use xBox Live? The only plausible excuse is that of cause Sony doesn't charge.. But, again, you can find things that are 'free' for almost everything.
Maybe now PSN is worthy of signing up or even worth more than Live but for the majority of the past ten years Live has been the clear cut superior online service. Recently though MS needs to start adding more value for less to strike back in order to continue competing.
Why do people buy brand name stuff for far more than other items?
Why do people buy luxury cars?
Why do people buy polka dot clothing?
Point being, when the competition supposedly offers the same for free, yet people choose to pay doesn't that tell you something?
That obviously means MS is offering something that the competition isn't and people are willing to pay for it more than getting all the other stuff (for free)!
For some reason that is hard to understand for people, if *I* don't want it, surely nobody else does!!! /s
I read the counter argument for WoW as a foil for XBL. I would like to start by saying WoW was a pioneer in it's genre, much like XBL was for online play on consoles, they offered something no one else had and it was enticing for buyers, making WoW a smash hit even though you have to pay a subscription. A key thing to note was that there was no alternative, live an online game similar to wow without a subscription that was popular. Now there is an alternative that is pretty popular and hyped like Guild Wars 2, which recorded a high of 400,000 concurrent users and 1,000,000 players logging in on one day during the 3-day head start, only available to people who pre-ordered it. I'm not saying that it's gonna kill WoW, since there are people who have been putting in a lot of hours into it who would never think about switching, but I'm sure a subscription-less game as big as GW2 will sway a few users.
P.S. I kinda feel bad for Yi-Long who is probably getting tons of Notifications for things that aren't specifically addressing his point.
The thing is, so long as MS can maintain the myth that you pay for quality, they'll continue to have casual gamers who'll pay for features they don't use that much, like online multiplayer, or to access things they pay for in addition, like Netflix and cable channels.
Of course if they can get cable companies to go along with them, use the Xbox as a cable box even while providing similar apps to the PS3/4 and other devices, then they'll have "won" because...because...
Sock Gnome logic?
Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why people didn't see the rip-off that the arcade SKU was.
* Extremely slow download speeds compared to Xbox Live * Games need to patched constantly, and patches as well as demos need to be downloaded then installed, which is even more timedraining. * Much less content in the form of exclusive downloadable titles, demos etc. * If you live in Europe, like I do, you get less demos and content than if you live in the US. * Much more common with deserted servers than on Xbox Live. Even big titles like Killzone 2 suffer from it. * Crappy sound quality in voice chat. Sounds like talking through a tin can. * No isolated party chat or cross-game chat. No fast way of muting selected players in a game. * Laggy PSN Store with messy interface where nothing is properly categorized. * All small features like the ones mentioned above are much more intuitive and work better on Xbox Live. * No Indie games channel. * Not trial demos for all games like on Xbox Live. * No custom soundtrack option for all games like on Xbox Live.
What I'm trying to say is that on paper PSÄN might look up to par, but once you've started using it and have experienced both for a while the difference becomes clear.
@JellyJelly You sure you own a PS3? Based on your previous comments I've read, it just sounds like you never did. In fact everything you ever write down sounds like fanboy dribble you pick up from other fanboys who don't own a PS3. PSN has great download speeds. No idea where this false myth about PSN downloads being slow came from. Deserted servers? Yeah okay, just popped in Killzone 2 and found something out. You're full of shit! :D Funny thing, I have more faith in finding a legitimate non hacked game of CoD WaW in PSN than I ever do on Xbox Live. Voice chat quality really only depends on the mic used. And for the most part, it's not even that bad. Laggy PSN store? No proper categorizing? Lol okay What the hell do you call Xbox Live's mess of a dashboard and marketplace? Especially since Microsoft just loves to rehaul the whole damn thing every damn time it's a complete annoyance having to relearn how it works and where everything is kept. Heard of PS Minis?
Cross game chat. Let me introduce to you a little device called the PS Vita. A sweet little handheld that offers that feature at no cost. PS3 doesn't have it? Not the point. It's clearly something that can be offered for free on other platforms. Custom game soundtrack? What does this even have to do with Live or additional costs? But anyway.. Did I mention the little device called the PS Vita?
Everything else you've stated I suppose are valid points. But nothing that can't be improved without charging us the gamers. I have used both. I had at least 2 years of Live. It was never worth it. I don't see the value in features and a social experience you can get elsewhere for free.
Why aren't extra features like Netflix, Facebook, etc, given for free under the free Silver subscription then? Know why? Because Microsoft needs these to help justify charging for online play.
Microsoft uses free services to justify another free service.
Sure, you don't pay for Gold to use Netflix or Facebook, you pay because you want to play online and have no other option. So let's cut the BS.
I get plenty of stuff from Xbox Live that competing services don't offer in the same capacity or convenience.
Anyone that thinks PSN experience is the same as Xbox Live is just fooling themselves or hasn't used both services in any meaningful amount of time.
@NathanExplosion:
"Why aren't extra features like Netflix, Facebook, etc, given for free under the free Silver subscription then? Know why? Because Microsoft needs these to help justify charging for online play."
Because MS makes the apps themselves and tailors it for the Xbox experience. That is why apps on Xbox always look different than on other platforms and always ensure recognizable user interface across the entire experience. The sort of thing that made MS Office the undisputed leader of office productivity software.
The question of why is MS charging for this alone is kind of stupid anyhow. It's in fact, the reverse of a customer asking why can't I pay more?
Business are out to maximize their profit, not give stuff away for free. If they do, they plan to make it back somewhere else. Without profit there is no business!
@nuketail Microsoft does not make these apps, they may adjust the interface but they don't make the apps. Microsoft makes at least one billion dollars a year off of Xbox live users. Are you telling me Microsoft needs 1 billion dollars to tweak a UI?
Hmmm. I think that Microsoft has, by far, the most robust online console experience availabe. I don't really see this as price gouging. IMO this article is just flamebait for hits and to get fans of both ps3 and Xbox 360 riled up. Looks like it worked.
Some teenagers completely biased idea of a xbl VS PSN article (from 2 years ago) is your proof?
Wow.
Headset Support Friends List Gamerscore for Tracking in Game Achievements 4 Way Voice Chat Downloadable Demos Downloadable Game and Film Trailers Downloadable Community Arcade and Retail Arcade Games Downloadable Game Addons Film Rental Service Community News and Entertainment Online Gaming
All those "Pros" he lists for Xbox, are also on PS3.With the added benefit of not having to pay for it, and not having to pay extra just to use Netflix, facebook etc.With the addition of having a web browser as well.
"The Xbox experience is unique due to the intense community spirit that you can not find anywhere else" Weird how this kid equates gaming online (ala PC or PSN) as a unique community experience to xbox, but okay, i'll let that slide.
Why no mention of Home? The free virtual world used by 12+ MILLION everyday?
Really i don't even feel like going any further with this.Possibly the stupidest "article" i've read in some years.And im not even sure if you're trying to troll by linking me that or what.
If by some chance you take that kids comparison as gospel..then..wow.
I agree. Since I can't fairly judge PSN, due to a pre-existing condition of Sonyophobia, I can only speak to the merits of XBL, of which there are plenty, but this article fills me with a pervading sense of Deja vu, so I will just leave it at that.
This is just proof that paying for XBL is something that should stay in the past, like that dated article you posted. PSN has matched XBL feature wise for the most part besides a couple of major features like Cross game chat.
Now PS Vita has that.
The major problem is that PSN as a whole is not cohesive and consitent like XBL. You expect Sony to make that mistake again with PS4? Not a chance. Their online will be as good as XBL, and they will not charge you to play games online - only for PS+ which gives you back more than you put in.
XBL payment is a leech. A great service, but one that takes more from you than it gives back.
@digitalraptor As of now all we can do is speculate on whether or not sony would follow the same layout they have for PSN/PS+.
for all we know, they could change things for PS4 and charge for playing online like MS. Yet it would be considered part of the PS+ program to make it a benefit of being a member.
Like i said, we just dont know. One thing is certain, sony knows there is a level of gamer out there that will pay for a service that sets them apart from the regular gamer. Those who are willing to pay will be expectant of certain features that will not be made available to everyone. Thus the reason to be a member in the first place.
MS was upfront about their live service when it first debuted. People knew what they were paying for. Since then the service has grown with many more features all part of that same membership.
MS didnt have to make a silver level but they did to give the very basic community part of live to anyone. Sony couldnt charge for their service from the beginning so they did what MS did but added online play.
There is a condition not many know about. Sony can at any time, change the terms and actually put limits on the free players if they so wish. By that, you know they are evaluating the PS+ to see where they can create more demand for members. The last possible effort would be to move a great portion of the 'free' online play over to the PS+ members.
+ members would be oblivious to this change because they are already paying. Free (the real "free") members would be the ones to suffer just like they get passed over with new features aimed at + first. If you think Im kidding im not.
It can be very easy to make certain servers that have the best performance available to only the + members. It would be easy for sony to make new content coming out for top games (like maps and tracks) available to the + members. It would be easy for sony to put restrictions on player count and even access to certain "members only" spaces in home.
They havent because the ratio of + isnt at the point to which sony would feel comfortable in making such changes. Obviously you have heard the phrase: bite the hand that feeds you. Right now the number of paying + members pales in comparison to gold members. If it were to increase then it would give them the opportunity to make such changes.
Right now they are giving new members the incentive to join up and pay by way of games that are only good for the life of your membership. It sounds like a great incentive. Pretty much something too good to just simply walk away from. Once you are hooked, thats when they got you.
Sony wants their service to be as successful and profitable (if not more) than live. To do that you have to make changes that go against the grain and possibly....their word. especially when it comes to the bottom line.
I wouldn't be surprised if sony follows suite with a mandatory paid online service. They are missing out on a ton of money ms is collecting every month.
yeah if microsoft charges once again to play the other half of our games, im not getting one. if multiplayer is free ill get one, simple as that. its not that 60 a year is alot, its the fact that its free on all other platforms, i can get a couple games with that 60 or a controller, etc etc
Running costs and maintenance of xbl costs money, so i understand why they charge for it. It's a bit to expensive, It could be cheaper, 25$ a year. What i don't understand is why Sony or Nintendo don't charge for it. That's one the reasons Sony's gaming division has been taking losses for several years now.
I have a feeling Sony is going to charge next gen to play online, with extra benefits that XBL doesn't offer... and Microsoft is going to react by adding benefits to xbl.
LIVE is the best on line service any console has had to date, and will be the reason i stick with xbox next gen.
say what you want, but when you pay for gold you get a QUALITY experience, and you can always get a good bargain if you look around, you never have to pay full price for gold.
PS+ = rentals, im sorry but if you PAY for the content should you not keep it? isn't gouging a word better suited to a company that forces you to keep paying if you want to play these soo called free games.....
and psn is awful, its bland boring interface somehow still manages to be a complete mess, navigation is still laggy and to be honest feels like a beta.
I believe the last time you used PSN was in 2007, because today it works perfectly well and and free of silly adverts plastered everywhere unlike on XBL.
boring as hell compared to LIVE right? bland and dull is how I felt since the jump and NO things aren't any different currently. Sony doesn't charge because that's one of their selling points. Instead, they'll focus on things that don't freakin matter like Playstation Lifestyle or HOME, while at the same time giving/renting out free games to consumers like bait.
believe what you want, i play my ps3 from time to time but everything about psn store sucks, its plain, its ugly its slow, even the little tink noises do my head in, its a shambles compared to live.
so yes you pay for live but its a true premium service, i don't have to worry about adds either as living in NZ they don't seem to bother putting them up, and at least lives avatars are integrated, and can be used in real games, hows home going now days? i used it once and never bothered loading it up again.
I hate PS3 fanboys and I find myself defending XBOX almost 98% of the time, but I have to admit, XBL is becoming a money pit. They do have tons more going on from arcade games to apps, but honestly...those should be choices. I shouldn't have to pay to play online. PS+ offers things once you pay but doesn't restrict you from Netflix access of online play. That should be the gamers choice not a mandatory fee. They should restructure that if they plan on the future. That should actually be a marketing tool by Sony. If you have a Netflix subscription...why should I pay $60 a year to watch it on my xbox when I can watch it free on my computer, wii, and PS3? Makes no f-ckin' sense.
Xbox Gold offers you perks for a price while most of those same perks are offered for free on PSN and PS+ just sweetens the deal with discounted and free games.
Maybe when Xbox can justify the price I'll go back to Gold, until then no thanks.
6 years with XBL now, I think it should get free ASAP. There are other things to charge for than online play. Plus we would have more people to play with.
*Microsoft charges for Avatar stuff, Name Change.* - OH NOES, THE HORROR! They're a business, that's their prerogative. If it means so much to you, bite the bullet and take the costs, all 80 cents or dollar 20 of it ...
Charged $10 to change your username? I'm sure there are more than a few PS3 folk who would worship Sony eternally if they allowed them to change their names. Want a different handle?
Too freaking bad. Better say goodbai to your trophies and other account specifics because you're going to need to register a new account with a new email address. LOL, why're we even talking about this again?
*Xbox Live Gold doesn't cover Netflix, other premium apps.* - It's not exactly free on PSN either? WTH. The point of advertising those paid programs as being on Xbox 360 is not to say that they'll be free with XBL Gold, but that the services are available to you on more than one of your devices. Interconnected entertainment I believe the term is. Tablet, Phone, Laptop, Console, access anywhere if you have an account, etc.
*What do I actually get for Xbox Live?* - Quite a few things, but most notably, a comprehensive online system, cross game chat, and the Xbox.com hub, which is incredibly useful and intuitive.
Say what you want about Cross Game Chat, but I use at least 60% of the times I'm on 360. Friends want to know how the game I'm playing is, if I've heard the latest news, or just want to chill out, have a laugh, etc. Much harder to do on PS3.
*PS Plus* - PS Plus is indeed a good deal. I give credit where credit is due. Microsoft has not done enough to reward customers for loyalty, whereas Sony is doing a great job. Only thing I dislike about it is that all those free games you get are pretty much rentals, as once your membership is up, you can wave goodbye till you get that plus sub paid in full again.
Each has its strengths and numerous weaknesses. Sony allowing you to choose your own HDD over MS's proprietary HDDs is a win for them. MS's Xbox Live platform (On the Console and on the Web) over Sony's one-sided PSN platform (Almost entirely based on the console) is a win for MS. There's no such thing as a perfect platform people, no matter how much you wish there was.
***"PS Plus is indeed a good deal. I give credit where credit is due. Microsoft has not done enough to reward customers for loyalty, whereas Sony is doing a great job. Only thing I dislike about it is that all those free games you get are pretty much rentals, as once your membership is up, you can wave goodbye till you get that plus sub paid in full again."***
By that logic, pretty much everything you get with live is a rental because "once your membership is up, you can wave goodbye till you get that xbl sub paid in full again."
LOL @ Redgehammer... exactly. SDF tries to spin this as much and in anyway they can. Now it's a rental for my arcade games I bought if I decide to go Silver? Uhmmmm.. Wrong.
XBox Live easily is beter than PSN. Funny how cross game chat never mattered until now that Vita has it too. Ha!
xbox rewards is a good loyalty program no? sure you don't get a huge amount of MS points but if you do regular surveys and other actions the points soon stack up, also i didn't realize you couldn't party up on psn, i don't know many people that own playtstations so i never even thought about that.
@Redgehammer What are you talking about. You keep any games and content you purchased on PSN and PS Plus as well even if you only payed 1 cent with Plus discounts.
In other words, you keep anything you payed for. You ignorant sheep just repeat anything and don't know the difference between bonus free games with payed subscription and content purchased.
Yep, try to "party up" on PSN, impossible. I don't know why they continue to defend a CLEARLY inferior service in PSN. Oh no! I won't have any bubbles now! How WILL I go on?
This is PSN's achilles heel, and the only thing I don't like about PSN. Each developer has to provide their own way of connecting players to their friends, and parties. And all of them have different ways of doing it. Where as on XBL this aspect is pretty much seamless.
Next-gen is going to be very funny when Sony offers free online and free party chat...etc on the PS4 while MS is still charging people for stuff that should be free.
I think any core gamer that has LIVE doesn't even pay attention to things like facebook and twitter access.
360 core gamers pay their fee so they can play online and have some great community features. Now personally I don't like paying for LIVE, I do pay for it but that's just because I use my parent's Sky TV account to use the Sky player thus not having to pay for Sky Sports myself. They don't use Sky Go online so not really any inconvenience to them lol.
But yes back on topic, any core 360 gamer pays for a good online gaming service and the community features they really like. I really only use my 360 for the Sky Player and things like Halo and Gears as those are really the only 360 exclusives that interest me. I'll use my PS3 for Sony exclusives and for any 3rd party games that would normally require GFWL on PC (such as the last 2 Batman games, GFWL always gives me problems)along with any games they give me for my PS+ subscription and use Steam for any 3rd party published game I want to play, especially FPS games.
I can't see fans of the 360 ecosystem defecting en masse to another platform, not unless Microsoft implement a significant price hike.
Each have benefits that suit different people, I'm personaly done with paying for live, I dont play enough on the Xbox anymore to justify the expense, will buy a 3 month one when forza comes out, probs again when gears comes out too, but for now ps+, for me, wipes the floor with what Xbox live offers at the min.
Paying to play online? hahahahahahahahahaha so you can play games online on PC, PS3, Vita, DS and Wii for FREE. Yet you'd rather pay? Anyone who pays for online is nothing but a fool.
Paying for something everyone else does for free XD
I don't because I ain't a mug. I'll just stick to playing borderlands 2, Fifa 13, Fall of Cybertron online all on my PS3 so I am sure that will make up for the lack of Halo 4 in my life :)
Oh and I dont have to pay to accsses my netflix which I have already paid for.
Its a shame as 360 has some great games, but I refuse to pay for something no one else charges for.
I won't. For me, I've always enjoyed the world Bungie created with the Halo series and I had fun back in the day playing local Halo multiplayer, but taking Halo 3 online for me was an absolute nightmare. For a game rated M, there was nothing but kids screaming, playing loud music and shouting every racist, homophobic slur they're little 12 year old brains had learned up to that point. It was actually my experiences online with Halo 3 that caused me to ask "Why am I paying for this," and turn my back on XBL years ago. I almost never play online to start with, but when I do it's simply on my PS3 now. And for the money I was spending on XBL, I simply switched to PSN+ and actually get something for it. There are plenty of games I wanted to play but passed over because, let's face it, there's only so much money to go around and you can't buy everything you want. Now, with PSN+, I've got a second chance at fantastic games like FarCry2, Infamous2, Just Cause 2, etc... That's far more value to me than having the opportunity to have racist, homophobic 12 year olds from the US scream at me playing Halo 4. I'll be buying Halo 4, without a doubt, but it won't see a second online.
So bestgamerintheworld.me is a very reliable source...
Why didn't he mention that you can easily use any USB flash memory to get more storage. That would be more than enough for a 3-4 game demos and streaming content. Or what about memory cards for the almost-dead vita? did he check those prices?
I don't get the point that it will hurt them next gen, while it isn't hurting them this gen. Everybody knows XBL costs money and still there are 2 articles on N4G stating that 360 outsold the PS3 in the US yet again.
I pay for XBL for more than 8 years now, because it is worth it. I played Steam, PSN, battle.net, Dreamarena and XBL offers the total package. Why someone is buying a videogame console only to stream movies is beyond me anyway. Just use your laptop and you are fine. If you want to use a console for online streaming / downloading movies, why should you pick the model with no HDD then?
Having read the above comments I would say that whilst I don't have a huge issue with MS charging for online play the fact that they are should reflect in new and innovative game releases.. however (imo) that isn't the case.
Fine, if MS want to charge for online play then let it be just that, 'Online Play', not all of the other things which should otherwise be free or which are being charged separately anyway.
I find it hard to fathom that a Gold membership is required to watch Netflix... I mean on the official MS site for Gold membership it states one of the benefits of membership as "Access to thousands of HD movies from Netflix (Netflix sold separately)"... 'Netflix sold separately' WTF!! they charge you to access something from Netflix which you already paying for in your Netflix sub i.e. streaming films online!. :O
#Flabbergasted I am at MS's flagrant abuse of their charging system. Sony, yes they have PSN+, love it or hate it, but you don’t need it to play online or to watch films on Netflix etc!!
MS need to change they way they deal with this next Gen and Sony need to not change if either of them want my custom next Gen.
I agree with this as far as Netflix goes. I think since you're already paying for Netflix, you shouldn't have to be a gold member to use it. Let it be part of the silver membership.
Anyone that actually pays $60 a year for Xbox Live is doing it wrong. I haven't paid a penny over $35 in over 4 years.
At $5 a month, it's worth it to me for cross game chat alone. But I don't pay that. I pay less than 3.
If you need to justify paying even $60 a year to subscribe to a service, it's possible gaming isn't your thing.
I'm not going to contribute to the inevitable fanboy showdown that this article is intended to turn into. Price gouging is what the oil companies are doing to us. This is fair market value and by trying to look for half a second, it's a product that can be acquired at a significant discount.
Fine, for online play and things associated with it i.e. CGC (albeit I don't agree with charging for online play alone), but why make it mandatory for things that with any sensible reasoning should be free?
$60 a year! yes I can afford that as I earn £45k (circa $73k a year).. but should I be paying it? what next.. $70, $80, $90 a year.. where does it end? Is it really necessary? are you getting value for money vs other gaming platforms?
I would love to be a door-to-door salesman knocking on your door.. "well if you can't afford $60 for this sponge with so many uses Sir then you shouldn't be washing!"
Way to be dramatic. I also see the correlation between someone paying for a video game service and a sponge. Classic sensationalism at it's finest.
Bottom line: Microsoft created a product. They set a price. They made it known the product required a subscription plan to access certain features. None of this was a secret when the consumer made the purchase. Don't like it? Don't buy the product. It's a fairly simple concept. Microsoft is obviously dominating the only market that matters to them, and for a very long time, an extremely large number of consumers have clearly preferred it over other options.
If the consumer doesn't like it, they can feel free to buy something else or make their own. Fairly simply.
No one is paying for Twitter/Facebook. They're paying for online and they have no choice if they want Xbox. I've long stopped giving a s*** about what other gamers do with their money...
If people want to pay to access their own internet to use p2p (aka MS's magical servers that most of them think they're paying for that removes lag, cheaters, and scammers), let them. Enjoy your PSN and whatever the Wii uses and Steam, and leave them to their own foolishness.
It's perfectly possible to pay £1 a month for Xbox Live....I did it for 6 months when I went through a CoD multiplayer phase. Usually I don't play online, so paying over £30 a year just for that is not enticing to me in the least.
I DO however pay for PS+, because it offers me something I want without taking away the ability to fart around online for a while if I like. I've just got plus for £29.99 for the full year as it's on offer, but even at standard price it's perfectly possible to get both Plus and Live significantly cheaper due to discounts on points cards. You pay for what you want. I prefer the unbelievably cheap access to all the gratis games you get via Plus - Resident Evil 2 and 3, Silent Hill, Trine 2, Simpsons Arcade game, Shank 2, Sly Raccoon...those games alone would cost more than the £30 I paid never mind all the others like Infamous and the like.
That's great value, especially for someone brand new to the PS3 as they get a bunch of quality games for not a lot of money. MS need to evolve a little next gen or they truly do risk being left behind. Sony are the ones investing in new, exclusive IP, and offering great value for money. Live doesn't offer all that much for it's money, people will eventually cotton on to that fact...especially if the PS4 has an improved online component, which it's bound to have, and a faster internal modem too.
You can't write the 360 off though, it has some damn fine games of it's own, and 3rd party titles are usually at their best on that format. If they want to keep that fierce loyalty they have next gen, they need to offer a little more than just online access. It's better than the PS3's offering, but not £35-40 better, especially to people that only occasionally game online.
Nobody "really really" wants to to write off the 360. They really really want things that aren't currently there, or they really really don't want to have to pay just to play the online portion of their games.
Well, some people might. Some people might also want MS to go away. But I think folks would be happy if Microsoft wasn't so greedy. Not to say that they have't done ANYTHING good, but I think most people can see the difference between how Microsoft operates in the gaming arena, and how Nintendo and Sony do it.
Namely: milking their consumers. Honestly, while it would be somewhat more acceptable if it were, say, a dollar a month, the hard truth is that you ARE being charged for a feature that's free everywhere else in the industry.
"Bu, bu, but you still have to pay for your internet, so it's not REALLY free."
Of course, genius. You pay your ISP for your internet. You pay for the platform. You pay for the copy of the game. All these things are the same no matter what.
Only Microsoft makes you pay on top of that, and therein lies the problem. Nobody would mind if they charged for the features on top of that, such as cross game chat(assuming it wasn't an exorbitant fee). But paying for the basic function of online play is like buying a house and then having to pay every time you wanted to open the door.
@Hicken, milking consumers is an area where MS do not stand alone...how about Sony and their overly expensive proprietary cards for both the PSP and Vita? How about Nintendo with their price-fixing of first party titles to the point that the price barely changes even years after release? All 3 companies are businesses, they are ALL out to make money. Sony are finally seeing the light in terms of tempting the customer and rewarding their loyalty that the likes of Valve and GOG have been doing for years. MS and Nintendo may need to evolve in the future, but this gen they have mostly given their loyal fans exactly what they wanted from their particular console - with the possible exception of the Wii and its relative lack of core games.
Hicken writes: "Nobody "really really" wants to to write off the 360. They really really want things that aren't currently there, or they really really don't want to have to pay just to play the online portion of their games."
First off there are two different views to this and once again you want to focus on only your viewpoint. Poeple like Xbox Live. They like the way it works, they like how all games are universal with one another whether it be Achievements, voice communication from one game to another and so on. They also like how patches and updates are quick and painless unlike their main competitor. They also like how aggressive Microsoft is at attaining timed exclusive content and the many great XBLA games. They also like how well the servers are run.
People tend to forget servers are run and maintained from their (3rd party) end on Playstation Network. On the XBOX 360 they are run through XBOX Live. EA is one of the few exceptions as they like to control their own servers. That way they can pull their games at any time. This is why Call Of Duty had more issues on PSN. From hackers to servers crashing because they are too busy and Activision having to fix the issue. Microsoft handles all of this on their end.
So why would anyone listen to people like Hicken and his opinions when it is well known he hates Microsoft and doesn't own a XBOX 360. Opinions need to be from those that actually use the service and i use both SEN and XBL on a regular basis. It's easier and more consumer friendly to use on XBOX Live. People pay a premium for Apple products because they like the software that goes with it. They like the way Apple operating system works.
Yes, there is an opposite point of view and that is there should be free access to online multiplayer. Microsoft should offer a basic service for free but it's unlikely they will. They know people will pay for it and the service is integrated in such a way i'm not sure if they can have a no frills online service that doesn't have the seamless and smooth experience the competition is so far unable to match. Valve's Steam is more comparable but then again not all PC games are supported by Steam.
Microsoft is also pushing forward, whether it be voice enable searching or gesture based commands with Kinect. They are also aggressive getting things like ESPN and UFC. They realize the gaming aspect of gaming systems is not all people do on them now. They watch movies, send messages, share sport events with other Live members and so on.
So yes, they should offer some form of online level for free but what they do offer is not the same as the free versions available elsewhere.
Oh and do you want to know just how much value Sony gives customers and how they never rip people off according to Hicken? Just look at last generation when we saw the original XBOX come out with more RAM, true dolby digital audio support, built in 4 controller ports, built in ethernet adapter, and a hard drive. All for the same price as the PS2. It's called demand and XBOX Live memberships have grown over the years even though there are other gaming platforms available. So to suggest nobody would pay for Live is a misconception, mainly from those who don't use the service.
MS isn't charging for facebook, youtube, or twitter. you are and have been paying for online since 360 launched 7 years ago. the fact that features has been added to the service is a plus.
the sad thing about this article and most of the comments in here is. this just didn't start yesterday. this has been going on for almost 7 years. if people didn't want to pay for the service they wouldn't have. but they do and they enjoy the service.
there are other options out there. yet the other option don't make half of what MS makes with their service. because people outside of these forums just aren't interested. it's not like people are uninformed. because I'm sure there are a lot of sites and people owning a ps3 have been saying this for years and it still haven't changed a thing nor has it sayed many to leave. in fact live user base grows every year in stead of declining. which says people don't mind paying for a service they feel is worth it.
article like these come out every year about MS justifying the cost of live when everyone else is getting it for free. don't you think you should come up with something more original than to keep repeating the samething many other site have been for the last 7 years. yes i enjoy live and will continue paying for it until i feel like stopping. but i will not sub to psn+ for a rental service because i did that with gametap years ago and still have a account with and still can download some games for free which is the same as PSN+ just without 50 a year
Why should these things be added to the 360 paid service though.. how are they a bonus for a paid service when Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are things that are accessible free everywhere else?
The answer is that MS have cottoned on that it will give the people who pay for it a false sense of ‘worth’.. and seemingly its worked!
you not getting it are you. if everything MS offers are free everywhere else why aren't people flocking to that service. again because they aren't interested in what the option has to offer. period
you can argue how MS is giving a false sense of "worth" or "it's not worth it because Y is better. but that's your opinion as to why you don't what to pay for a service people don't have a problem doing. it's their prerogative in doing so.
i feel psn+ isn't worth the 50$ a year. especial since your renting games I've already played and finshed years ago or have no interest what so ever in playing when they was released. plus I've been there done that with gametap with the whole rental thing and have no desire in doing with psn+. again my preogative
So Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are free huh? So you don't have a paid ISP to provide you the service to access those huh? You don't have a phone, computer, laptop or tablet to run the functions huh?
The "service" of facebook, Youtube and Twitter are Free...but you have to pay someone in order to access it.
I'm sorry if you can't access features without gold membership you ARE paying for them.Also yes PS+ is a rental service of a sort but so is gold membership.They let you rent back what you already pay for
That's just wrong, plain wrong. Live is contained entirely within MS's servers...buying a game does not, and never has, entitled anyone to use that service without paying for it first. You are not renting anything, you are paying for access to their service. It's like any other internet site where you pay a membership fee - you're not entitled to enter those sites simply because you have an internet connection. That's faulty logic on your part I'm afraid.
I lol at you guys saying paying extra is okay cuz you already pay in the beginning. is this really a justification that supports the pro live side of the fence?
I mean really is a Pro Live stance one that is
Hey I already paid for the console I already paid for the game I already pay for my ISP so i should pay to play that game now? Is this really what pro live people want to get behind.
READ IT OUT LOUD AND TELL ME HOW SAD AND DUMB THAT SOUNDS . READ THAT TO ANYONE WHO HAS A NON FANBOY BRAIN LIKE YOUR PARENTS AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY.
I have it. I have family who play games with me across the country and none of them will sit there and say YEA I LOVE PAYING FOR XBOX live
It is a mandatory thing to play online. For anyone in there right mind to justify paying for something that offers very minimal differences and enjoy it is CRAZY.
Now paying for it because you need to like playing with family is different we all know its lame and stupid but we suck it up. You will never hear anyone i game with say ohh THANK GOD i just paid for live WHEEEEEW
I think Sony was caught off guard a bit about how successful live was, but now that all this is common knowledge and they have developed a healthy PSN, the PS4 will be in great shape since its probably been developed from the ground up with a robust PSN feature set in mind unlike the PS3 where they had to catch up and build it up post launch. You know the ps4 will be setup with Spare OS power and hardware power dedicated to the social experience that Live provides.
LOL... oh I suppose its about that time of year. News is pretty slow... so sites have to drum up the site hits somehow. ANYONE using their console to access Facebook or Twitter as some primary source is an idiot... full stop. Making a case MS is price gouging customers because they have facebook apps or twitter apps via XBL Gold is such a stretch its just funny.
I also found it funny how he says they charge you for avatar clothing...as if they are the only ones doing such a practice. Last I looked there are tons of free items to put on your avatar and you win plenty of avatar award items from games now a day. Where was that mention to his "friend"?
While they do charge for online play, you are paying not only for that but also the online party chat and stability of Xbox Live. The service still is the (sorry for the pun) gold standard for consoles.
Beats sweeping the issue under the rug, letting Microsoft raise the price in the future by setting a precedent, and restricting features that are free to everyone but players on Xbox consoles.
The lack of choice and the price you pay against what you get in return is the elephant in the room, not the quality of the service.
Why is BBC iPlayer free to all XBL members but apps like Facebook, Twitter and Netflix are exclusive to XBL Gold? Because the BBC believe that content you have a right to access for free should remain that way, and so they said no. I think more people need to be saying no to Microsoft, or at least seriously question what it is they are paying for. I don't think that question crosses their mind, because to enjoy online gaming on Xbox you HAVE to pay for it.
Shit Xbox live is cheaper than the cost of getting online, last i checked i need to pay cable provider to access the Internet . so fk with face book is not free ,same goes for every other FK social app out their. it cost money ,enough with the belittling of a service that is relatively cheaper than the Internet access.
Complaints from something 95% of the people here don't have. How can you complain about something you don't, or will never pay for? Ever notice the people who never complain are the people who have Live? That's because they are too busy chatting and having fun on a safe network to care.
People can complain about the price without having to have it. People do it with the Vita all the time. If you're talking about the quality then you are correct.
That is true. I have XBL and I love it. I have no problem paying for it due to it's high quality...but I would rather it be free and every year I do groan about making my XBL payment...but I will always say you get what you pay for and XBL is worth every cent.
Something Sony fanboys never want to consider is that the opposite might happen next gen and Sony might start charging for PSN. M$ makes a shit ton more every year than Sony off online venues. Sony needs the money, it doesn't make business sense to "release a service that's better than XBL and not charge for it". Especially when Sony hasn't proven they can build a better online experience than MS
MS has position itself with XBL the same way Apple has with the Iphone. People believe MS service is better and is willing to pay more for the superior product.
Yes it is a shame that we have to pay for XBL. But it doesn't really bother me. I have been, and will continue to be an XBL gold member. It's a great service that has been there to give me my greatest and most fun moments with friends. If they could make online gaming free but still provide the option to pay for the optional gold services (apps and what-not), that would be a better option imo.
if sony had any business sense left they would charge something too. PSN has the better price but Xbox live has the better service is what it all boils down too. Deep down sony knows xbox live is superior. Thats why they had to come up with PSN plus.
Ding ding ding. Winner. I dont online game on consoles well, because the services dont let me use Mumble or Ventrilo. Being able to talk to makes playing 7 different games at one time is too convient for me.
SFB's aren't really loyal. I mention this a while back if Sony ever charges for an online service, they would leave Sony's console in a heart beat. Not all the fanboys but probably the 80% of the people on this site.
That's not being a fanboy. A fanboy will respect there decisions there company makes.
A fanboy gives criticism, as well as positive criticism. And not pretend everything's ok. Like Sony's financial troubles FB's make excuses when they should say "Hmm, what can I do as a fan to help Sony." Well, Sony can start by charging for an online service. That is, if SFB's stick around to pay.
MS are gouging idiots of their money and sadly not just idiots stranger still normal - intelligent people are paying for things alot of people are enjoying for free via PS3, PC, Mobile etc. boggles the mind but as long as people will pay, MS will charge and make a profit :) fair play to them
I would rather charge and make money than not charge and lose money. There are idiots but it sure isn't MS. They aren't the one's who had to replace their CEO. Now why did they do that? It sure as hell wasn't because they were making smart decisions.
Have both console, but love online play on PS3. Bought XBOX only for COD but not like to play cod on xbox cause in my region I found XBOX has huge lag compare to PSN. No netflex, hulu available in my region but still paying $60? Outside US I found XBOX live has a worst service. Facebook ha ha. Hey fanboys have u seen XBOX on screen keyboard? Even mobile phone have qwerty keyboard but XBOX don't have? I play so many games from my multiple account, If i wanna play COD on my multiple account then I have to pay them more than console price. May be XBL is gr8 in US but outside this is worst. I faced it guys.
Disagree? LOL I supported which is best for me. I told u In US may be XBL is great but outside US it is worst, plz power on ur XBOX and see on screen keyboard and then click on like dislike. If I play COD from my 2 accounts then I have trom pay them $240 ($120 for 2 gold membership+ $60 for game + $60 Elite)
Yeah that onscreen keyboard does suck, thats why I bought the chatpad preipheral. look it up, ps3 has one too. I cant imagine the ps3 onscreen keyboard is much better than microsofts either.
if Xbox LIVE made online multiplayer free to Silver membership would you still buy Gold? i doubt it. the service itself isn't worth it without PERIOD WIN PS3 PC Gamer FYI
0°
10°
30°
20°
Ad 
20°
I know for me that I will never buy xbl next gen if I actually get an xbox 720. I don't want to purchase a service that I can get for free on a more reputable company like Sony that is known for supplying gamers with way more games
... I have an Xbox Gold subcription right now, but I will not have it be renewed, and I'll be going with PSNplus in the future cause it offers endlessly more value for money than Gold.
Microsoft has really dropped the ball these last 2-3 years with their focus on Kinect and overcharging us for XBL Gold just so we are able to play our MP games online.
Sony has picked up that ball and ran with it.
Hardcore 360 gamers arent 'defecting' Live because fanbloggers are still pretending that they are 'paying for Facebook and Twitter'.
In fact, what your going to see is the fact hat Live is going to be one of the major reason 360 gamers adapt the 720 when it releases.
Had it last gen, this entire gen, and absolutely will have it next gen.
Evil
If you can't afford that you're getting "bent over the desk" by life.
We've had free online play for ages. All of a sudden MS comes along with Live and starts charging for that very same thing and you say it's fine simply because it's only £3 a month extra? Would you be happy if they started charging you an extra £1 a month for a new feature simply because it's only £1?
There's no other way to play Halo 4 online, or Gears of War 3, Crackdown, Forza 4, Jutekki etc.
That's worth the £30 to a great many people.
I take your point, you don't object to the particular cost but simply the fact of being charged at all to play online.
That's all Xbox gold gets you, right?
.... when someone pays 60 bucks for games like Halo, Forza, Gears, whatever....
... why should they need to pay EXTRA money for XBL Gold in order to be able to access to Online MP!?
It's ridiculous and greedy, and Sony has shown how to have a paid service for PSN that IS worth the money, without charging money just so you can play your games online (cause online MP is still completely free with Sony).
I loved n64 and GameCube even though Sony's offering (ps1,ps2) were better. I played the ps1,ps2, xbox, and dreamcast a lot but I loved the Nintendo console.
I liked the Wii but I was very disappointed in a lot of things where I think Wii u will correct.
Xbox was my first console in this gen and I liked it a lot. I have way more friends on xbox live than I do psn. In the years following the xbox 360 launch I realize after having xbl run out a couple of times that paying for xbl is silly when ps3 offers a similar service for free. I also realised that paying for xbl is setting a bad precedent for them to raise the price in the future if they add things that you can get for free elsewhere and they did. Xbl doesn't cost much to some but paying for it will justify Microsoft to continue raising the price in the future.
The wiis strength are being cheapest, most motion based games. lack core game offering
Xbox 360 has xbl (best online) plays a lot of superior 3rd party games ,Kinect, lacks exclusive core games
Ps3 has a lot of exclusive titles, psn is mediocre , lacks party chat caters the most to core
when are the people on n4g going to realise, that it dont matter if they write the same rubbish 1000x, people are still enjoying and will still pay for live!!??
give it a rest. and because you fanboys are easy hit getters, the same bloggers write the same just for n4g thrash to leach said hits.
i pay for live, i have a ps3, i am happy with both.... and about 30m people do not give a flying fuck with you idiotic fanboys write on her. ffs. live just gets more and more subs..
These days, I just play 360 exclusives for the SP campaign.
OT: The fact is, no matter who wants to spin it, MS is charging for features that are free everywhere else. That in itself is price-gouging. But what makes it worse is that they can, and will, raise the price of the service again in the future, while everyone else is over here not charging anything to give people the right to access their own internet connection to play online. In the end, I don't see how it is possible that anyone can like paying $60 base a year for the right to access their own already paid for connection.
Microsoft obviously don't think online gaming is something that should be intrinsically free - I'm not so sure that's ridiculous and greedy.
Tokugawa - you know you're right, I jumped into this after reading the "bent over the desk" comments and feel like I've been properly trolled.
Live existed before such features like facebook, youtube and the such. The idea that people are paying for live to get these features is a very pessimistic pov.
These features were added to the gold side of live that people were already paying for. Its a matter of justification. I know I will get disagrees for that comment but I will explain.
If the service had just been the way it was from the beginning (strictly online play) and these newer features were added across the board then there would have been no real incentive to justify the purchase of live or the continued enrollment in live.
New features are going to be tailored to those who are the elite members of the club. PS+ is a good example of the same way of thinking. New things like cloud storage and auto sync of trophies are not available to just any PSN member but strictly the "+" members.
Sony knew they couldnt just start off charging for an online service that wasnt as structured as live. So they went free for the basic nature of online play while at the same time they were working on a perks program for those that would be interested.
It would cost roughly the same as live but offer members games they could download and play for the duration of their membership. Notice I didnt say free because we all know nothing is truly free.
I mean neither service is without criticizim. Live is criticized for the pay to play online. Everything else that is added to live is all part of the membership if you use it or not.
Some criticize PS+ for the games are only good for the length of your membership. that could mean that if someone were to take advantage of all the games that are offered in PS+ and never buy one retail then it works in their benefit. Like an extended rental with no late fees. Some of those games have online features which could throw them into the same view as pay to play online.
If that person were to cancel their membership then they would have to pay retail for all the titles they just lost (assuming they wanted to continue playing them without PS+).
both services have their strengths as well. What really bugs me is the narrow view some have when looking at one and not seeing that a similar approach is being made to the other. Bottom line is both companies are wanting the consumer $$ when it comes to their online service.
The perceived value in something is only as good as the frequency in which it is used. If you are a live user and use it constantly then yeah you are going to feel you are getting your money worth. Same with PS+.
sorry for the long read.
I feel bad for the Parents that bought an Xbox for their kid and have been suckered into paying their fees all these past years. I bet a good portion of the people who aren't bothered by the fact that MS charges for Online is because they don't pay for it themselves.
And for me, it has been $600 well spent. I’ve been on XBL since it was in beta, I’ve seen the service grow and change. I don’t see it as paying to play online-I only hear fan boys make that argument.
The fact is it’s the quality of the service that I am paying for. I never have problems, it’s smooth and very well integrated. It doesn’t feel or function like a free, tacked on afterthought. This was designed from the beginning to function the way it does and it does it extremely well. When considering the completion, Microsoft utilized their skills in said field and created a superior online console service, worth paying for in this customer’s opinion. And wait until the update for XBL is released, the beta is extremely nice (Internet Explorer has made me a believer in console browsing).
I pay for XBL because I get my moneys worth. Reliable, well integrated, functional, always improving and just overall better than the competition. The consoles do what they do, and XBL is Microsoft’s Ace.
@DragonKnight,
They do have options, they just don't like them.
Hate if you want to.
In the five years that I have been a 360 owner, MS has steadily upgraded, and added to the service. In fact, my 360 is my gaming, entertainment, and now, thanks to the beta, primary method of accessing the internet. Since I am a member of the family plan, I pay, a paltry,
99$ per year for 4 gold subs. I love gaming, its not a secondary hobby for me; therefore, paying to have so much fun, as I do on XBL, is well worth the price.
Point is paying for gold isn't that big of a deal. What i do love the most though is people will complain about paying for gold and then they say they will pay for PSPlus. Kind of boggles my mind. Yes you get discounts on games and a lot of stuff free I get that but in the end you're still paying for an online service even if the multiplayer part of it you can get for free.
Gotta love competition!
I read somewhere that people in xbox marketing division all have PhDs in Psychology or something like experimental psychology
"when someone pays 60 bucks for games like Halo, Forza, Gears, whatever.."
".. why should they need to pay EXTRA money for XBL Gold"
Y'know, I think that's a better question for people playing WoW..!?
That of which I quoted could be used for almost anything and everything.
Phones do the same thing. ISP's do the same thing. TV providers do it, too.
You pay for your phone, then get charged extra to use it efficiently!
You pay for a modem, but have to pay for the internet through an ISP!
You hafta pay extra to TV providers to get channels like HBO and Starz!
And, then you go on to say that it's "ridiculous and greedy."
Surely you don't complain on forums about the things I just listed?
So why are you bitching over a few dollars to use xBox Live?
The only plausible excuse is that of cause Sony doesn't charge..
But, again, you can find things that are 'free' for almost everything.
Why do people buy brand name stuff for far more than other items?
Why do people buy luxury cars?
Why do people buy polka dot clothing?
Point being, when the competition supposedly offers the same for free, yet people choose to pay doesn't that tell you something?
That obviously means MS is offering something that the competition isn't and people are willing to pay for it more than getting all the other stuff (for free)!
For some reason that is hard to understand for people, if *I* don't want it, surely nobody else does!!! /s
Fanboys think they are right.
Rest of the world know they are wrong.
P.S.
I kinda feel bad for Yi-Long who is probably getting tons of Notifications for things that aren't specifically addressing his point.
Of course if they can get cable companies to go along with them, use the Xbox as a cable box even while providing similar apps to the PS3/4 and other devices, then they'll have "won" because...because...
Sock Gnome logic?
Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why people didn't see the rip-off that the arcade SKU was.
but imo, live pisses all over sonys offering.. 3quid a month well spent! whilst the psn feels like i am playing on the old xbox..
* Extremely slow download speeds compared to Xbox Live
* Games need to patched constantly, and patches as well as demos need to be downloaded then installed, which is even more timedraining.
* Much less content in the form of exclusive downloadable titles, demos etc.
* If you live in Europe, like I do, you get less demos and content than if you live in the US.
* Much more common with deserted servers than on Xbox Live. Even big titles like Killzone 2 suffer from it.
* Crappy sound quality in voice chat. Sounds like talking through a tin can.
* No isolated party chat or cross-game chat. No fast way of muting selected players in a game.
* Laggy PSN Store with messy interface where nothing is properly categorized.
* All small features like the ones mentioned above are much more intuitive and work better on Xbox Live.
* No Indie games channel.
* Not trial demos for all games like on Xbox Live.
* No custom soundtrack option for all games like on Xbox Live.
What I'm trying to say is that on paper PSÄN might look up to par, but once you've started using it and have experienced both for a while the difference becomes clear.
You sure you own a PS3? Based on your previous comments I've read, it just sounds like you never did. In fact everything you ever write down sounds like fanboy dribble you pick up from other fanboys who don't own a PS3.
PSN has great download speeds. No idea where this false myth about PSN downloads being slow came from.
Deserted servers? Yeah okay, just popped in Killzone 2 and found something out. You're full of shit! :D Funny thing, I have more faith in finding a legitimate non hacked game of CoD WaW in PSN than I ever do on Xbox Live.
Voice chat quality really only depends on the mic used. And for the most part, it's not even that bad.
Laggy PSN store? No proper categorizing? Lol okay What the hell do you call Xbox Live's mess of a dashboard and marketplace? Especially since Microsoft just loves to rehaul the whole damn thing every damn time it's a complete annoyance having to relearn how it works and where everything is kept.
Heard of PS Minis?
Cross game chat. Let me introduce to you a little device called the PS Vita. A sweet little handheld that offers that feature at no cost. PS3 doesn't have it? Not the point. It's clearly something that can be offered for free on other platforms.
Custom game soundtrack? What does this even have to do with Live or additional costs? But anyway.. Did I mention the little device called the PS Vita?
Everything else you've stated I suppose are valid points. But nothing that can't be improved without charging us the gamers. I have used both. I had at least 2 years of Live. It was never worth it. I don't see the value in features and a social experience you can get elsewhere for free.
Too long; didn't read.
Why aren't extra features like Netflix, Facebook, etc, given for free under the free Silver subscription then?
Know why? Because Microsoft needs these to help justify charging for online play.
Microsoft uses free services to justify another free service.
Sure, you don't pay for Gold to use Netflix or Facebook, you pay because you want to play online and have no other option. So let's cut the BS.
Anyone that thinks PSN experience is the same as Xbox Live is just fooling themselves or hasn't used both services in any meaningful amount of time.
@NathanExplosion:
"Why aren't extra features like Netflix, Facebook, etc, given for free under the free Silver subscription then?
Know why? Because Microsoft needs these to help justify charging for online play."
Because MS makes the apps themselves and tailors it for the Xbox experience. That is why apps on Xbox always look different than on other platforms and always ensure recognizable user interface across the entire experience. The sort of thing that made MS Office the undisputed leader of office productivity software.
The question of why is MS charging for this alone is kind of stupid anyhow. It's in fact, the reverse of a customer asking why can't I pay more?
Business are out to maximize their profit, not give stuff away for free. If they do, they plan to make it back somewhere else. Without profit there is no business!
"Sure, you don't pay for Gold to use Netflix or Facebook, you pay because you want to play online and have no other option. So let's cut the BS."
Lets be real here, If every 360 game you bought allowed MP online without an extra cost, would you still subscribe to gold ?
I guarantee if Silver allowed online play, a component free on all other platforms, MS subscriptions would be dropped like a hot potato..
And all this crap that 360 game servers are better "Because you pay" is absolute FUD.
Care to explain what it does better then say, steam, or PSN? Other than cross chat.
http://phlash.hubpages.com/...
READ please.
Wow.
Headset Support
Friends List
Gamerscore for Tracking in Game Achievements
4 Way Voice Chat
Downloadable Demos
Downloadable Game and Film Trailers
Downloadable Community Arcade and Retail Arcade Games
Downloadable Game Addons
Film Rental Service
Community News and Entertainment
Online Gaming
All those "Pros" he lists for Xbox, are also on PS3.With the added benefit of not having to pay for it, and not having to pay extra just to use Netflix, facebook etc.With the addition of having a web browser as well.
"The Xbox experience is unique due to the intense community spirit that you can not find anywhere else" Weird how this kid equates gaming online (ala PC or PSN) as a unique community experience to xbox, but okay, i'll let that slide.
Why no mention of Home? The free virtual world used by 12+ MILLION everyday?
Really i don't even feel like going any further with this.Possibly the stupidest "article" i've read in some years.And im not even sure if you're trying to troll by linking me that or what.
If by some chance you take that kids comparison as gospel..then..wow.
Thank you for linking a 2 year old article...........very informative for those of us that like to live in the Past.
Since I can't fairly judge PSN, due to a pre-existing condition of Sonyophobia, I can only speak to the merits of XBL, of which there are plenty, but this article fills me with a pervading sense of Deja vu, so I will just leave it at that.
Now PS Vita has that.
The major problem is that PSN as a whole is not cohesive and consitent like XBL. You expect Sony to make that mistake again with PS4? Not a chance. Their online will be as good as XBL, and they will not charge you to play games online - only for PS+ which gives you back more than you put in.
XBL payment is a leech. A great service, but one that takes more from you than it gives back.
As of now all we can do is speculate on whether or not sony would follow the same layout they have for PSN/PS+.
for all we know, they could change things for PS4 and charge for playing online like MS. Yet it would be considered part of the PS+ program to make it a benefit of being a member.
Like i said, we just dont know. One thing is certain, sony knows there is a level of gamer out there that will pay for a service that sets them apart from the regular gamer. Those who are willing to pay will be expectant of certain features that will not be made available to everyone. Thus the reason to be a member in the first place.
MS was upfront about their live service when it first debuted. People knew what they were paying for. Since then the service has grown with many more features all part of that same membership.
MS didnt have to make a silver level but they did to give the very basic community part of live to anyone. Sony couldnt charge for their service from the beginning so they did what MS did but added online play.
There is a condition not many know about. Sony can at any time, change the terms and actually put limits on the free players if they so wish. By that, you know they are evaluating the PS+ to see where they can create more demand for members. The last possible effort would be to move a great portion of the 'free' online play over to the PS+ members.
+ members would be oblivious to this change because they are already paying. Free (the real "free") members would be the ones to suffer just like they get passed over with new features aimed at + first. If you think Im kidding im not.
It can be very easy to make certain servers that have the best performance available to only the + members. It would be easy for sony to make new content coming out for top games (like maps and tracks) available to the + members. It would be easy for sony to put restrictions on player count and even access to certain "members only" spaces in home.
They havent because the ratio of + isnt at the point to which sony would feel comfortable in making such changes. Obviously you have heard the phrase: bite the hand that feeds you. Right now the number of paying + members pales in comparison to gold members. If it were to increase then it would give them the opportunity to make such changes.
Right now they are giving new members the incentive to join up and pay by way of games that are only good for the life of your membership. It sounds like a great incentive. Pretty much something too good to just simply walk away from. Once you are hooked, thats when they got you.
Sony wants their service to be as successful and profitable (if not more) than live. To do that you have to make changes that go against the grain and possibly....their word. especially when it comes to the bottom line.
Its already proven people will pay it.
and more reputable?? i don't know about all that
I have a feeling Sony is going to charge next gen to play online, with extra benefits that XBL doesn't offer... and Microsoft is going to react by adding benefits to xbl.
say what you want, but when you pay for gold you get a QUALITY experience, and you can always get a good bargain if you look around, you never have to pay full price for gold.
PS+ = rentals, im sorry but if you PAY for the content should you not keep it? isn't gouging a word better suited to a company that forces you to keep paying if you want to play these soo called free games.....
and psn is awful, its bland boring interface somehow still manages to be a complete mess, navigation is still laggy and to be honest feels like a beta.
im so done with sony, hear the frustration?
believe what you want, i play my ps3 from time to time but everything about psn store sucks, its plain, its ugly its slow, even the little tink noises do my head in, its a shambles compared to live.
so yes you pay for live but its a true premium service, i don't have to worry about adds either as living in NZ they don't seem to bother putting them up, and at least lives avatars are integrated, and can be used in real games, hows home going now days? i used it once and never bothered loading it up again.
Ctrl+F ''PSN''
64 results.
Such is life on N4G.
Maybe when Xbox can justify the price I'll go back to Gold, until then no thanks.
Charged $10 to change your username? I'm sure there are more than a few PS3 folk who would worship Sony eternally if they allowed them to change their names. Want a different handle?
Too freaking bad. Better say goodbai to your trophies and other account specifics because you're going to need to register a new account with a new email address. LOL, why're we even talking about this again?
*Xbox Live Gold doesn't cover Netflix, other premium apps.* - It's not exactly free on PSN either? WTH. The point of advertising those paid programs as being on Xbox 360 is not to say that they'll be free with XBL Gold, but that the services are available to you on more than one of your devices. Interconnected entertainment I believe the term is. Tablet, Phone, Laptop, Console, access anywhere if you have an account, etc.
*What do I actually get for Xbox Live?* - Quite a few things, but most notably, a comprehensive online system, cross game chat, and the Xbox.com hub, which is incredibly useful and intuitive.
Say what you want about Cross Game Chat, but I use at least 60% of the times I'm on 360. Friends want to know how the game I'm playing is, if I've heard the latest news, or just want to chill out, have a laugh, etc. Much harder to do on PS3.
*PS Plus* - PS Plus is indeed a good deal. I give credit where credit is due. Microsoft has not done enough to reward customers for loyalty, whereas Sony is doing a great job. Only thing I dislike about it is that all those free games you get are pretty much rentals, as once your membership is up, you can wave goodbye till you get that plus sub paid in full again.
Each has its strengths and numerous weaknesses. Sony allowing you to choose your own HDD over MS's proprietary HDDs is a win for them. MS's Xbox Live platform (On the Console and on the Web) over Sony's one-sided PSN platform (Almost entirely based on the console) is a win for MS. There's no such thing as a perfect platform people, no matter how much you wish there was.
By that logic, pretty much everything you get with live is a rental because "once your membership is up, you can wave goodbye till you get that xbl sub paid in full again."
XBox Live easily is beter than PSN. Funny how cross game chat never mattered until now that Vita has it too. Ha!
What are you talking about. You keep any games and content you purchased on PSN and PS Plus as well even if you only payed 1 cent with Plus discounts.
In other words, you keep anything you payed for.
You ignorant sheep just repeat anything and don't know the difference between bonus free games with payed subscription and content purchased.
M$ has really let me down with their relentless casual/Kinect focus. Once my Gold subscription runs out I'm off.
360 core gamers pay their fee so they can play online and have some great community features. Now personally I don't like paying for LIVE, I do pay for it but that's just because I use my parent's Sky TV account to use the Sky player thus not having to pay for Sky Sports myself. They don't use Sky Go online so not really any inconvenience to them lol.
But yes back on topic, any core 360 gamer pays for a good online gaming service and the community features they really like. I really only use my 360 for the Sky Player and things like Halo and Gears as those are really the only 360 exclusives that interest me. I'll use my PS3 for Sony exclusives and for any 3rd party games that would normally require GFWL on PC (such as the last 2 Batman games, GFWL always gives me problems)along with any games they give me for my PS+ subscription and use Steam for any 3rd party published game I want to play, especially FPS games.
I can't see fans of the 360 ecosystem defecting en masse to another platform, not unless Microsoft implement a significant price hike.
Paying for something everyone else does for free XD
Oh and I dont have to pay to accsses my netflix which I have already paid for.
Its a shame as 360 has some great games, but I refuse to pay for something no one else charges for.
wow, best game in the world amirite?
It would be a privilege to not have to play Halo 4. :P
Couldn't care less about it.
Why didn't he mention that you can easily use any USB flash memory to get more storage. That would be more than enough for a 3-4 game demos and streaming content. Or what about memory cards for the almost-dead vita? did he check those prices?
I don't get the point that it will hurt them next gen, while it isn't hurting them this gen. Everybody knows XBL costs money and still there are 2 articles on N4G stating that 360 outsold the PS3 in the US yet again.
I pay for XBL for more than 8 years now, because it is worth it. I played Steam, PSN, battle.net, Dreamarena and XBL offers the total package. Why someone is buying a videogame console only to stream movies is beyond me anyway. Just use your laptop and you are fine. If you want to use a console for online streaming / downloading movies, why should you pick the model with no HDD then?
Fine, if MS want to charge for online play then let it be just that, 'Online Play', not all of the other things which should otherwise be free or which are being charged separately anyway.
I find it hard to fathom that a Gold membership is required to watch Netflix... I mean on the official MS site for Gold membership it states one of the benefits of membership as "Access to thousands of HD movies from Netflix (Netflix sold separately)"... 'Netflix sold separately' WTF!! they charge you to access something from Netflix which you already paying for in your Netflix sub i.e. streaming films online!. :O
#Flabbergasted I am at MS's flagrant abuse of their charging system. Sony, yes they have PSN+, love it or hate it, but you don’t need it to play online or to watch films on Netflix etc!!
MS need to change they way they deal with this next Gen and Sony need to not change if either of them want my custom next Gen.
At $5 a month, it's worth it to me for cross game chat alone. But I don't pay that. I pay less than 3.
If you need to justify paying even $60 a year to subscribe to a service, it's possible gaming isn't your thing.
I'm not going to contribute to the inevitable fanboy showdown that this article is intended to turn into. Price gouging is what the oil companies are doing to us. This is fair market value and by trying to look for half a second, it's a product that can be acquired at a significant discount.
$60 a year! yes I can afford that as I earn £45k (circa $73k a year).. but should I be paying it? what next.. $70, $80, $90 a year.. where does it end? Is it really necessary? are you getting value for money vs other gaming platforms?
I would love to be a door-to-door salesman knocking on your door.. "well if you can't afford $60 for this sponge with so many uses Sir then you shouldn't be washing!"
Bottom line: Microsoft created a product. They set a price. They made it known the product required a subscription plan to access certain features. None of this was a secret when the consumer made the purchase. Don't like it? Don't buy the product. It's a fairly simple concept. Microsoft is obviously dominating the only market that matters to them, and for a very long time, an extremely large number of consumers have clearly preferred it over other options.
If the consumer doesn't like it, they can feel free to buy something else or make their own. Fairly simply.
If people want to pay to access their own internet to use p2p (aka MS's magical servers that most of them think they're paying for that removes lag, cheaters, and scammers), let them. Enjoy your PSN and whatever the Wii uses and Steam, and leave them to their own foolishness.
I DO however pay for PS+, because it offers me something I want without taking away the ability to fart around online for a while if I like. I've just got plus for £29.99 for the full year as it's on offer, but even at standard price it's perfectly possible to get both Plus and Live significantly cheaper due to discounts on points cards. You pay for what you want.
I prefer the unbelievably cheap access to all the gratis games you get via Plus - Resident Evil 2 and 3, Silent Hill, Trine 2, Simpsons Arcade game, Shank 2, Sly Raccoon...those games alone would cost more than the £30 I paid never mind all the others like Infamous and the like.
That's great value, especially for someone brand new to the PS3 as they get a bunch of quality games for not a lot of money. MS need to evolve a little next gen or they truly do risk being left behind. Sony are the ones investing in new, exclusive IP, and offering great value for money. Live doesn't offer all that much for it's money, people will eventually cotton on to that fact...especially if the PS4 has an improved online component, which it's bound to have, and a faster internal modem too.
You can't write the 360 off though, it has some damn fine games of it's own, and 3rd party titles are usually at their best on that format. If they want to keep that fierce loyalty they have next gen, they need to offer a little more than just online access. It's better than the PS3's offering, but not £35-40 better, especially to people that only occasionally game online.
Well, some people might. Some people might also want MS to go away. But I think folks would be happy if Microsoft wasn't so greedy. Not to say that they have't done ANYTHING good, but I think most people can see the difference between how Microsoft operates in the gaming arena, and how Nintendo and Sony do it.
Namely: milking their consumers. Honestly, while it would be somewhat more acceptable if it were, say, a dollar a month, the hard truth is that you ARE being charged for a feature that's free everywhere else in the industry.
"Bu, bu, but you still have to pay for your internet, so it's not REALLY free."
Of course, genius. You pay your ISP for your internet. You pay for the platform. You pay for the copy of the game. All these things are the same no matter what.
Only Microsoft makes you pay on top of that, and therein lies the problem. Nobody would mind if they charged for the features on top of that, such as cross game chat(assuming it wasn't an exorbitant fee). But paying for the basic function of online play is like buying a house and then having to pay every time you wanted to open the door.
How about Nintendo with their price-fixing of first party titles to the point that the price barely changes even years after release?
All 3 companies are businesses, they are ALL out to make money. Sony are finally seeing the light in terms of tempting the customer and rewarding their loyalty that the likes of Valve and GOG have been doing for years.
MS and Nintendo may need to evolve in the future, but this gen they have mostly given their loyal fans exactly what they wanted from their particular console - with the possible exception of the Wii and its relative lack of core games.
"Nobody "really really" wants to to write off the 360. They really really want things that aren't currently there, or they really really don't want to have to pay just to play the online portion of their games."
First off there are two different views to this and once again you want to focus on only your viewpoint. Poeple like Xbox Live. They like the way it works, they like how all games are universal with one another whether it be Achievements, voice communication from one game to another and so on. They also like how patches and updates are quick and painless unlike their main competitor. They also like how aggressive Microsoft is at attaining timed exclusive content and the many great XBLA games. They also like how well the servers are run.
People tend to forget servers are run and maintained from their (3rd party) end on Playstation Network. On the XBOX 360 they are run through XBOX Live. EA is one of the few exceptions as they like to control their own servers. That way they can pull their games at any time. This is why Call Of Duty had more issues on PSN. From hackers to servers crashing because they are too busy and Activision having to fix the issue. Microsoft handles all of this on their end.
So why would anyone listen to people like Hicken and his opinions when it is well known he hates Microsoft and doesn't own a XBOX 360. Opinions need to be from those that actually use the service and i use both SEN and XBL on a regular basis. It's easier and more consumer friendly to use on XBOX Live. People pay a premium for Apple products because they like the software that goes with it. They like the way Apple operating system works.
Yes, there is an opposite point of view and that is there should be free access to online multiplayer. Microsoft should offer a basic service for free but it's unlikely they will. They know people will pay for it and the service is integrated in such a way i'm not sure if they can have a no frills online service that doesn't have the seamless and smooth experience the competition is so far unable to match. Valve's Steam is more comparable but then again not all PC games are supported by Steam.
Microsoft is also pushing forward, whether it be voice enable searching or gesture based commands with Kinect. They are also aggressive getting things like ESPN and UFC. They realize the gaming aspect of gaming systems is not all people do on them now. They watch movies, send messages, share sport events with other Live members and so on.
So yes, they should offer some form of online level for free but what they do offer is not the same as the free versions available elsewhere.
Oh and do you want to know just how much value Sony gives customers and how they never rip people off according to Hicken? Just look at last generation when we saw the original XBOX come out with more RAM, true dolby digital audio support, built in 4 controller ports, built in ethernet adapter, and a hard drive. All for the same price as the PS2. It's called demand and XBOX Live memberships have grown over the years even though there are other gaming platforms available. So to suggest nobody would pay for Live is a misconception, mainly from those who don't use the service.
the sad thing about this article and most of the comments in here is. this just didn't start yesterday. this has been going on for almost 7 years. if people didn't want to pay for the service they wouldn't have. but they do and they enjoy the service.
there are other options out there. yet the other option don't make half of what MS makes with their service. because people outside of these forums just aren't interested. it's not like people are uninformed. because I'm sure there are a lot of sites and people owning a ps3 have been saying this for years and it still haven't changed a thing nor has it sayed many to leave. in fact live user base grows every year in stead of declining. which says people don't mind paying for a service they feel is worth it.
article like these come out every year about MS justifying the cost of live when everyone else is getting it for free. don't you think you should come up with something more original than to keep repeating the samething many other site have been for the last 7 years. yes i enjoy live and will continue paying for it until i feel like stopping. but i will not sub to psn+ for a rental service because i did that with gametap years ago and still have a account with and still can download some games for free which is the same as PSN+ just without 50 a year
The answer is that MS have cottoned on that it will give the people who pay for it a false sense of ‘worth’.. and seemingly its worked!
you can argue how MS is giving a false sense of "worth" or "it's not worth it because Y is better. but that's your opinion as to why you don't what to pay for a service people don't have a problem doing. it's their prerogative in doing so.
i feel psn+ isn't worth the 50$ a year. especial since your renting games I've already played and finshed years ago or have no interest what so ever in playing when they was released. plus I've been there done that with gametap with the whole rental thing and have no desire in doing with psn+. again my preogative
The "service" of facebook, Youtube and Twitter are Free...but you have to pay someone in order to access it.
You are not renting anything, you are paying for access to their service. It's like any other internet site where you pay a membership fee - you're not entitled to enter those sites simply because you have an internet connection. That's faulty logic on your part I'm afraid.
I mean really is a Pro Live stance one that is
Hey I already paid for the console I already paid for the game I already pay for my ISP so i should pay to play that game now? Is this really what pro live people want to get behind.
READ IT OUT LOUD AND TELL ME HOW SAD AND DUMB THAT SOUNDS . READ THAT TO ANYONE WHO HAS A NON FANBOY BRAIN LIKE YOUR PARENTS AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY.
It is a mandatory thing to play online. For anyone in there right mind to justify paying for something that offers very minimal differences and enjoy it is CRAZY.
Now paying for it because you need to like playing with family is different we all know its lame and stupid but we suck it up. You will never hear anyone i game with say ohh THANK GOD i just paid for live WHEEEEEW
I also found it funny how he says they charge you for avatar clothing...as if they are the only ones doing such a practice. Last I looked there are tons of free items to put on your avatar and you win plenty of avatar award items from games now a day. Where was that mention to his "friend"?
While they do charge for online play, you are paying not only for that but also the online party chat and stability of Xbox Live. The service still is the (sorry for the pun) gold standard for consoles.
The lack of choice and the price you pay against what you get in return is the elephant in the room, not the quality of the service.
Why is BBC iPlayer free to all XBL members but apps like Facebook, Twitter and Netflix are exclusive to XBL Gold? Because the BBC believe that content you have a right to access for free should remain that way, and so they said no. I think more people need to be saying no to Microsoft, or at least seriously question what it is they are paying for. I don't think that question crosses their mind, because to enjoy online gaming on Xbox you HAVE to pay for it.
I'm not bashing PSN at all, I'm just praising Xbox live for what it does good, so don't take it negatively.
since it bothers people so much.
MS has position itself with XBL the same way Apple has with the Iphone. People believe MS service is better and is willing to pay more for the superior product.
That's not being a fanboy. A fanboy will respect there decisions there company makes.
A fanboy gives criticism, as well as positive criticism. And not pretend everything's ok. Like Sony's financial troubles FB's make excuses when they should say "Hmm, what can I do as a fan to help Sony." Well, Sony can start by charging for an online service. That is, if SFB's stick around to pay.
plus the head of xbox division has changed a few times this gen
I cant imagine the ps3 onscreen keyboard is much better than microsofts either.
PC Gamer FYI