Top
230°

Should I still be paying monthly fees for games? Part 3 – Xbox Live Gold Vs PS+

Michael C Black returns to CalmDownTom to cast a critical eye over Xbox Live Gold vs PS+

Read Full Story >>
calmdowntom.com
The story is too old to be commented.
STGuy10401528d ago

Both offer services worth paying for in my opinion.

Dovahkiin1528d ago

To put it simply, you paid for an Xbox, and you pay for your internet monthly. Yet to play your Xbox over the internet, there are more fees to pay? I don't think that is right, what Sony is doing, by offering you a more premium service for a small fee, is perfect. That way you don't have to pay for things you don't want/use.

And i paid for XBL for over 3 years, but I certainly don't think it's right.

t0mmyb0y1528d ago

I have never understood why Xbox's have to pay to play the same games everyone else plays online. And it's even more mind boggling that so many people take the hit.

palaeomerus1528d ago

$15 a month to rent some mostly rinky-dink games that are rather slow to come out,that usually turn up cheap in steam sales or humble bundles, and get a few older games with a discount is a rather worthless premium. Certainly NOT worth $15 a month.

Paying $35 a year(the price I actually pay for live) for a good online contact gaming network with a lot of people on it is a little bit annoying but not really onerous. I prefer the second option.

Wikkid6661528d ago

Because MS is actually in business to make money. It costs millions of dollars to run servers, etc... so why should it be free? because others do isn't a valid reason? They are providing a great service and I only pay about $3 per month.

Qrphe1528d ago

@palaeomerus

What's this $15/month service you speak of???

ApolloTheBoss1528d ago

And that's why I'm switching to PS3 next year. Don't hate me for it. It's my decision.

darthv721527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

as the increase in online passes from developers it may get to a point where MS would reconsider the actual fee for playing competitively. I mean it is more possible that online passes could replace the monthly/yearly sub rate for live as a whole. Yet that would be even more $$$.

How it all started was, there was no console structure for an online community driven service. MS took the AOL approach in simplifying it. Obviously, without the competition from PSN and their free to play, we would not be having as much heated debates as we do.

It was rumored before Sony launched PSN that they too wanted to have it be a premium service. However, they lacked the infrastructure to warrant charging customers for a service that wasnt up to speed. So naturally Live was the blueprint Sony used to design PSN but instead of making it a fully community driven approach, they went for the on your own approach.

Like people who paid for AOL felt the community of internet and email and friends and whatever features of AOL as a whole made them different than someone just signing up with a local ISP and then...they are on their own.

Sony could not compete with live unless they took the one thing that made live a requirement and made it free. Online play. That too is somewhat of an argument because many think all sony games are run through dedicated servers (which many are) and that all MS games are P2P (which they are not).

so much misinformation about both services and yet if there was a full disclosure in black and white I think we would still have people saying they dont believe how things are run. That is just the nature of something you support. you will support it even with furious defense if someone opposes your view. And for what?

These are services people. Just like the platforms are simply that. Platforms to play games on. These are not sports teams to rally behind or wives and girlfriends you feel you have to defend their honor.

sorry...back on track. So now we are at a point where sony and their paid service is doing the EXACT SAME THING as MS and their paid service. Basically that amounts to providing something to the consumer that they feel is worth paying for. I'm not debating what you get for your $$ but quite simply the fact that if it's worth paying for....people will pay it.

Being a paid member of something should make you feel like you really are getting more for your $$ than those who arent members. Honestly...it does. Gold vs Silver or even PS+ vs non PS+. Not to mention that once you are a paying member, it becomes difficult to just give all that up. That is how they hook you.

pablo-b1527d ago

wow the once a week live vs psn thread...

dont people get bored writing the same stuff which wont change anything??

gaffyh1527d ago

@darth - I'm sure every online network wants to charge people to use their service, but the thing is, most services can't do it because they don't offer enough for it. The only reason MS can do it is because they had people invested in the service from the risk they took with the original Xbox and Halo fanboys, so they simply converted those, who then became fans of COD, which has brought in so many extra subscribers.

PSN was so crap when it first launched, I don't think many people remember it. Sony couldn't have charged for the service in that state. The online play was fine, but the Store was literally a webpage, and now it is a million times better than it was.

DigitalRaptor1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

@palaeomerus

You are ridiculous. Which service is charging $15 per month? Cause it's certainly not PS Plus. It's $50 for the year -> that's just over $4 per month.
http://us.playstation.com/p...

You really need to educate yourself before making yourself look completely foolish, by hating on a service that we all know you haven't used or played, or even know anything about.

"Mostly rinky-dinky"?

Hmmm.. Red Dead Redemption, LBP2, Darksiders, Borderlands, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dead Space 2, Saints Row 2, Just Cause 2, Resident Evil 5, Oddworld: Strangers Wrath and many, many more. Wanna rent the games offered on plus separately? It will cost you a lot more than a year's sub. And a PS Plus subscription is much more than just access to a boatload of games. Look up PS+ and read about it, cause you seem to be clueless.

Keep paying Microsoft to unlock half your owned games because they can't afford to let you have that access for free. Microsoft definitely don't have a market value of $247.2 BILLION... definitely not.

I don't disagree with MS giving the choice to pay for premium features, but the simple ability to play online games (that is free on every other device) is outrageous and always has been. When it comes to XBL, there is no REAL choice and never will be.

So as a gamer, what is better? Paying a ransom for a service? Or paying for access to games and much more?

mewhy321527d ago

Can you say 'flamebait'? Wow. I bet this is getting lots of hits. I pay for both and enjoy both. Get over it.

2v11527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

to darth
So now we are at a point where sony and their paid service is doing the EXACT SAME THING as MS and their paid service.
how can you say this! lol this is wher i think i waste mi time reading you post
now gametimeuk speaks more clear truth

darthv721527d ago

here is what you chose:

"So now we are at a point where sony and their paid service is doing the EXACT SAME THING as MS and their paid service."

Here is the full statement:

"So now we are at a point where sony and their paid service is doing the EXACT SAME THING as MS and their paid service. Basically that amounts to providing something to the consumer that they feel is worth paying for. I'm not debating what you get for your $$ but quite simply the fact that if it's worth paying for....people will pay it."

If you are going to use my quotes then please be respectful and use the whole context of the quote. Seeing as you chose to stop after the first part, you missed the part that was the "key" to the whole statement. It wasnt about what you got for the $$ but more about how both have created something that consumers are willing to pay for.

That is where they are essentially doing the same thing in regards to having some type of premium membership service. Doing a comparison of the service is not my point as each side will have the pro's and cons and will have the members that enjoy what they offer. That is just personal choice.

Yeah my comments drag on (sorry about that). I am not one for incomplete thought. I try to be as complete as i can but have not quite figured out how to do so without long drawn out explanations (just like right now).

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1527d ago
stage881527d ago

Why is there another news article on this??

PS+ is the better value and option. People have come wise to MS and paying to play online is something I'll never support.

IAMERROR1527d ago

I think it's pretty funny that people say "PSN+ GIVES YOU FREE GAMEZ". Those "free" games are as free as Xbox live gold.

rezzah1527d ago

Nope.

You pay for access to play online.

You pay for access to discounts, free stuff.

If we payed for access to PSN, then we would pay for access to PSN and then have to pay for access to PSN+.

That's the difference, it is the meaning of what you pay for.

moparful991524d ago

You are one of those people that spin facts to fit your agenda.. Look I pay for a service that gives me access to games at NO ADDITIONAL COST, I also get automatic downloads of updates, firmware, etc. I also get online save game storage, deep discounts on games and dlc, free avatars and themes etc.. Look you can sit here and twist words and meanings all you want but the fact of the matter is I actually recieve something of value in return for my subscription whereas live subs are paying for the privelege to play ther games online..

rezzah1527d ago

If PSN+ was added to the 360, then not only would you pay for Live but you would have to pay for "Live+" too.

Two separate payments for two separate things.

darthv721527d ago

the free game you get for being a PSN+ member offers online play? Wouldnt that be similar to paying to play online like live? Granted that is a very rudimentary example but it is plausible none the less.

Take into consideration the number of games that have some type of online element and eventually the optional PSN+ membership becomes somewhat of a requirement.

That part only pertains to the games that are offered as part of the membership service and do not reflect PSN as a whole.

rezzah1526d ago

Live provides online play.

PSN+ provides exclusive content.

It is not similar because of what you pay for, even if one of the contents further allows you to play online.

There is the game and the online mode within the game. In order to play online mode, we need the game first.

Live requires that you have the game, which has its own cost. The you must pay another fee to play online.

PSN+ provides that same game for free. The online mode is also free. Remember that you are not paying for access to just free games, but discounts, other things that are free, certain demos, beta opportunities, and whatever else there is.

Without PSN+ you buy the game, then you play online for free. Maybe you could have bought the game for a discount or even have gotten the game for free with PSN+. It will not change the fact that you do not pay for online.

This ^ was for your question.

Now even if PSN+ became a requirement such as Live, then there would be no point for the existence of PSN+. PSN itself would be free, but not everyone is willing to be forced into paying for extra content. Extra content resides outside the realm of regular content which is provided for free.

Trying to compare the two is pointless as they are separate things. One cannot be like the other. And if you attempt to make PSN+ seen as Live, then the nature of PSN+ will contradict the existence of PSN.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1524d ago
-GametimeUK-1528d ago

I have paid for LIVE in the past and now I pay for PS+
I just like the PS+ approach more. I treat it kind of like a nice cheap game rental service with some extra benefits. I think it is well worth the price.

With Xbox Live I used to pay simply to play online. I no longer feel the need to do so and it is the only feature I would use.

Live is great is everything appeals to you, but PS+ suits my lifestyle much better.

Xof1528d ago

I don't think either service is worth paying for. XBL is probably the worst because you have to pay just to access online content, period--a fee on top of ISP subscriptions, and on top of this Online Pass bullshit. Basically, it's just Microsoft and publishers (EA) saying, "We'd like you to give us money, just because."

I can see the appeal of Playstaion Plus, and in concept I think it was a very good thing, but I don't like the direction it's gone in. Back when it first started up, there was a lot less--fewer "free" games, no free trials, fewer titles, period--but it did offer a lot more discounts. Meaning, conceivably, you could make up the subscription cost in savings.

But the "sales" are pretty sucky. Sure, the free games are nice--until you realize that you're just renting them for the duration of the PS+ subscription. This makes it conceivable to spend more money on renting games via a PS+ subscription than the games themselves would have cost to buy.

Ideally, a system like PS+ should offer a base discount for ALL titles, the occassional special sale (like steam), and should keep a running balance of what you "buy" versus what you pay. If you 'buy' a $50 game for $0 with a PS+ subscription, but don't buy anything else for... however long $50 gives you with PS+, you should then "own" the game even without the subscription.

t0mmyb0y1528d ago

"...but I don't like the direction it's gone in. Back when it first started up, there was a lot less--fewer "free" games, no free trials, fewer titles"

You don't agree with the direction that they are going in because now you get more free games, trials, exclusive betas, early access to PSN games...I don't get it.

Gridloc1528d ago

Here we go again. People forget PS plus is an optional service. You can still play your whole game for free. As for the the your only renting games on PS plus is crap. So then Xbox live is only renting the online portion of the game you bought. Xbox will more than likely launch their next console first. Will you be willing to pay 100 dollars for Xboxlive? Don't be surprised if that actually happens. MS has become extremely greedy this gen. I've said it before if Xbox let you play the online portion of your games for free, you would see an all time low in gold subscriptions.

Xof1528d ago (Edited 1528d ago )

@Tom: Maybe... re-read my post? I thought I articulated it well.

Back when PS+ started, there was more legitimate value because it had more sales--more discounts for games--which made it very likely to get more than you paid for.

Sure, the new model may seem better, with free trials and free games--but it's not, because those games aren't free. They are perpetual rentals. This makes it more likely to get less than what you pay for.

My basic point was that, for certain gamers (myself included) the current PS+ model offers us less value than if we simply buy the games without it.

I don't get why so many PS+ lovers refuse to acknowledge that the free stuff isn't free. It's a rental, an indefinite rental, but a rental all the same.

@Gridloc: You've replied to my post, but you're not replying to my post. I never said, or even intimated that PS+ wasn't optional. Not even close.

If you want to launch off on a tirade against an Xbox fanboy, you'll have to do better than spout bullshit at someone who's simply critical of Sony.

SkittlesLikesPopcorn1528d ago

XOF..
what you say does makes sense. but dont forget that there is a pretty big convenience factor with PS+ because games get circulated to you monthly. All you have to do is sit back and play. for 50$ a year i think that is a steal. It will let you to always play something fresh if you are in a mood for it.

I personally plan to get PS+ b/c im getting vita this holiday season. I think between ps3 and VITA PS+ will give me my moneys worth.

Larry L1527d ago

Xof

What is your point......Live Gold is also a perpetual rental service. You pay that subscription to rent the online portions of Xbox games. If your sub lapses, you can no longer play your games online. It's that simple. All it's other features are just fluff because they can be accessed on other devices for free.

Also, game trials have been included with Plus since day1, that's not new. And what I find inconcievable is that you think there's any possible way that I could play all these games I've gotten from Plus for less than $50 a year. That's complete non-sense.

I've been a Plus subscriber since about 2 months after the service started. I see absolutely no diference in the value I'm getting. If anything, there's more value now. They have cut down on actual SALES a bit, but there are still some decent sales. And since they're giving more free games than before and less sales, it gives the gamer more money to actually spend on the games they actually want to buy.

And I LOVE that they're doing sales on Day 1 games. I'm admittedly not a gamer who likes to spend money, but for example DOOM 3 BFG has a Day 1 discount, which will save me a decent amount vs buying it in store for full price plus tax. And since it's a game I would never trade in anyway, it's a fantastic deal for me over buying at retail day 1.

For me, Plus is pure value, start to finish. XBL on the other hand is just another bill.....another burden on my already strapped wallet. Granted, I gave up on Live LONG before Plus was even a twinkle in Sony's eye, but that's really neither here nor there.

moparful991524d ago

@xof See you are looking for the negative in this.. Yes its a perpetual rental service but my way of thinking is this, if they continue to deliver great high end games at no additional cost why would I want to allow my plus sub to lapse? Its actually kind of brilliant, by giving me access to all of these games they have guaranteed that I will continue to subscribe year after year.. Whats more alot of the games that I get from the service I rarely go back and play so if in the off chance that I let my sub expire and I lose those games well oh well I can still buy disc based games and play online for free... To drive my point home I tallied up the current market value of all the games I have recieved from plus and the grand total sits about $300 right now and I've been a subscriber since they announced it at e3 in 2011.. $100 turned into $300 of content.. You can't tell me that I haven't made a good investment..

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1524d ago
Irishguy951528d ago

If there were any games I really wanted to play on Xbox i'd get live for them too, Halo 4 is coming up for example, i'll get live for that. But I haven't gotten it since Gears 3

Summons751528d ago

I really appreciate it how you called PS+ a game rental service instead of claiming Sony is handing out free games to keep. That is my problem with PS+, I don't like paying for a game that I am not guaranteed to keep plus I like a physical collection on my shelve. Both services have good perks for those who are willing to pay.

KillerPwned1528d ago

@UK

I was doing the same thing you did awhile ago paid for live and now I am only paying for PS+ and its one hell of an amazing service.

I do agree with everything you said.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1524d ago
Nutsack1528d ago

I stopped using XBL, as PS+ gives more bang for the bucks.

One thing that kept me at XBL for long was Gears MP and the friendbase I played it with. Also the cross game chat&invite.

But over time it got less important and PSVita showed how PSN CAN pull cross game chat&invite off with the right memory allocation. Too bad PS3 won't get it, but PS4 will.

Sticking with PS+, good thing is, I was a member at launch of the PS+ service too and the stuff from then gets activated again even with 2 years of inactivity in between. Nice.

OhReginald1528d ago

ps+ offers wayyyy more.

xbox live only lets people play online with each other, which is free on psn....

AngelicIceDiamond1528d ago (Edited 1528d ago )

Pay for both if you can. If you like Free online and a free game rental service Plus. If you like a tailored gaming universe that's suited for online games then Live.

Its so late in the gen, both are great services. Its a matter of preference at this point.

@ any disagrees I would like a reply explaining why. If not, then I'm getting trolled for no reason what so ever.

Pillsbury11528d ago

I'll give you a reply, tailored gaming universe? Fact is you HAVE to pay to play online. I have no problems connecting and chatting with my friends on psn. I ask you would you pay for something that should be free?

AngelicIceDiamond1528d ago (Edited 1528d ago )

That's good, you can play with friends and chat with them online. but my system is different then yours and does that better. Online integration such as chat channels/ chat & IM, Beacons that lets me organize my games that I wanna play with people. voice msg party chat smooth interface that changes and gets better pins lets me organize the stuff I like live sports, shows, important events and TV.

From that perspective its better. Online deals and free games PSN offers, Live doesn't for the meantime anyway. Soon we'll have F2P games coming to Live pretty soon.

I respect yours and anybodies choice of system. As long as I get some respect in return.

I agree with you because I like your service of choice.

FunAndGun1528d ago

"If you like a tailored gaming universe that's suited for online games"

lol, what does that even mean!? The same could be said for PSN.

does cross game chat = "tailored gaming universe that's suited for online games."??

I still fail to see how a MANDATORY 'service' can be considered a 'great' service.

ItsTrue1527d ago

Haha you're getting trolled for no reason, they just want you to understand that no one should go to cafés.

moparful991524d ago

I disagreed with you because I've used both service extensively, Psn more because I own a ps3 but my point is this.. The basic rudimentary elements needed to play games online are there for both psn and live... Everything else is fluff, I love how I sign in to psn and nothing is shoved down my throat as far as adds are concerned, I feel that the xmb is better suited to handling online interacton because I can see a majority of my xmb at a glance no need to scroll through a bunch of tiles to get to something. Having everything organized under easy t see and recognize icons is more convienent in my opinion.. I mean if the xmb wasn't such a great UI then why is it that the NXE uses a similar cross scrolling system. scroll up and down for category and left to right for subcategories.. The xmb is left and right for category and up and down for sub category.. Anyway cross game chat has never been a big deal to me and yes I have used it.. I only talk to the people in game with me.. If thats important to you then so be it but for me it holds no weight in this argument. Of course it all comes down to preference but the way you stated that Live is the "tailored gaming universe" so matter of factly doesn't sit well with me.. Of course the deal breaker for me was the live membership fees which alot of people lord over ps3 users as a sign of elitism...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1524d ago