Submitted by hamsterfist 2264d ago | article

Xbox Live: Overpriced

Article Excerpt:

"During a couple of my last posts I had written about how Xbox Live is over priced, but never offered too much of an explanation. I mean the articles where about different topics, but there were numerous comment postings defending XBL. I wanted to lay out my case that Microsoft is clearly over charging for Live and that some of the downloadable content is nothing more then a money grab. That is not to say Sony is innocent with the PSN, but it is easier to forgive them for that. The Playstation Network is free afterall, isn't it?" (Xbox 360)

« 1 2 3 »
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
sigh...here we go...

Ok let me redirect my comment .....

Obviously no one wants to pay for anything not even xbox live service , but this is how Microsoft wants it to be .

The fee (to me) is more of a nuisance then it is a hassle .
#1 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(25) | Report | Reply
SnuggleBandit  +   2264d ago
Then why not have any nuisance at all? (psn)
N4G king  +   2264d ago
"Xbox Live: Overpriced"

thank you captain obvious

KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
Having both is better...cant wait to have both...but i was just saying its a "nuisance" as if to me its not a big deal .
ATY  +   2264d ago
"Then why not have any nuisance at all? (psn)"

Because even with the billions in Microsoft profits from their OS and office software funding it, Microsoft's lack of internal hardware design and manufacturing puts them at massive disadvantage both in console manufacturing cost and performance.

The Xbox has racked up some 7 billion in losses over the 7 years its been around. And that is dramatically understating the losses since the Xbox is mixed in with other profitable products to hide the billions in losses.

The 50 dollar a year online fees effectively act as a loan from Microsoft to Xbox owners because they can't sell their console hardware at a competitive cost. So the base price of the Xbox is effectively the down payment with 50 dollar a year installments.

Take away the hundreds of millions a year in online fees and the Xbox would be generating would have been generating losses in the 10-15 billion dollar range.

Talking about is it worth it doesn't make sense. The Xbox project would not exist without the crutch of the 50 dollar a year online fees. They aren't going away. It's almost the 4 year mark for the Xbox 360 and the E&D Division just posted a 31 million dollar loss last quarter. Take away the 50 dollar a year online fees and the E&D division would still be generating hundreds of millions of dollars of losses a year.
#1.4 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(13) | Report | Reply
Syronicus  +   2264d ago
I don't pay because...
There are two other platforms that allow me to play online for free. Why pay on one pltform when you can do it free on two others?
tehReaper  +   2264d ago
PSN is a nuisance because it doesn't have the same feeling as LIVE. Simple as that. I'd rather pay a monthly fee to have best of both worlds, instead of being limited to one basic free service. PSN will get better, but it's not what everyone wants.

People pay for Qore because they want something extra(betas, exclusive videos) just like every gold member on LIVE gets and more. While I agree games should be playable online out of the box for 60 bucks, I don't look at it that way when I see everything I get on LIVE.

If I didn't have to pay to play online, I'd still get the golden membership because of all the extra support and features it gets.

Call me brainwashed or whatever, but LIVE is the reason why I see value in the 360.
Greywulf  +   2264d ago
The list of reasons why XBL is worth its price, is dwindling and isn't much different from XBOX1's offerings.
1. Voicemail/VoiceChat/Cross game.
2. Universal Invites.

Yes, theres other fluffy non-game related features, which all services are adding to, Vidzone/netflix etc. but the core game functions aren't worth it anymore.
Fan Tastic  +   2264d ago
Not really over priced..
It's just that the competition (Sony's PSN Service) is better and it is free. Dedicated serving hubs for the best experience in gaming. Sony is the Alpha and the Omega!
Megaton  +   2264d ago
It's a yearly sucker tax to me. It's the only platform that charges, and what's the main difference between it and the others? Cross-game chat and universal party system?

Playing your games online is the only thing that truly matters, and unfortunately Microsoft is using this to their advantage, forcing people to pay if they wanna use all the features of the $60 game they just bought (assuming said game has multiplayer). It's a pretty low down thing to do. Charging extra just to get access to all of your game on the 360.
jmare  +   2264d ago
@ demon
Let's be honest. Regardless of all the "features" that Live has or doesn't, there is one reason and one reason only people pay for Live: They want to play online.

That's it. That's the secret. People pay for Live because they want to play online; none of the other features matter more than that.
lowcarb  +   2264d ago
If you don't want it or can't afford it then just don't buy it. I bet if Psn was nonexistent you would still see arguments about live's charge throughout the Sony community. What's confusing to me is why Sony fanboys worry so bad about what's going on with 360 and it's customers. You guy's should be asking why PSN doesn't offer the same thing live does and demand it all for free.
Tony P  +   2264d ago
The sole feature that bothers me (and probably bothers most) about XBL is having to pay to play for online MP when all of their competitors can afford not to. Making NXE, chat, vision chat, Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Last.fm etc. premium perks would be enough, perhaps? But I think they'll always play it safe by charging for the MP.

At the same time it's weird to me that online play on consoles arguably became such a driving force with Xbox and not PS2 even though MS charged for it.
The-Warranty   2264d ago | Spam
Greywulf  +   2264d ago
Demon, dont you kinda own yourself when you say "While I agree games should be playable online out of the box for 60 bucks'
just saying, thats why its...



PSN is great for:

1. Playing a game you purchased online for free.
2. Messaging friends, that also play the game.

XBL is a community. More like an online service like AOL rather than just a service provider like PSN is. But the day PSN adds Cross game invites/Chat, thats the only reason youre paying for XBL. Keep in mind pS3 has a browser, and you can simply netflix from your pc to your ps3, if thats a gigantic purchasing decision for your gaming console.
SnuggleBandit  +   2264d ago
Watch it ATY i just said the same thing down further in the comments and got deleted...
HolyOrangeCows  +   2264d ago
Xbox LIVE is overpriced.
Their servers aren't any better than on other platforms.
I don't want to pay $50 a year for chat options and some non-gaming related stuff.
cmrbe  +   2264d ago
I understand Konic. Having most of your friends on xbxolive is also a reason why its easier to deal with the fees i guess.

I still wonder though. Does MS really need to charge for live to keep live as is?. It would help their console much more if they were to make live free.
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
Yeah i suppose thats one of the reasons . But i guess what wwe all should be looking at is what we are paying for .

Personally i dont know the difference of psn vs xbl . But by seeing forums and wiki ...each service has something the other doesn't have .
ATY  +   2264d ago
"Their servers aren't any better than on other platforms. "

The Xbox servers are worse than on other platforms:

Microsoft: P2P networking

PC gaming: Dedicated servers

Sony: Dedicated servers

P2P online tech that Microsoft relies on means that games are hosted off other players home network connections. That means that the number of players is severely limited. And it leads to terrible lag problems in games due to the tiny upstream bandwidth home network connections have and the person hosting the game could easily be downloading torrents or other stuff clogging up their connection.

Sony's, and PC gaming, online don't have that problem. They are hosted off machines that are doing nothing but serving games. That is why Sony is able to have gigantic online games with 40, 64, and even 256 player MAG with lagfree online play. And why Microsoft can't even get 10 player online games like Gears of War have horrible lag and connection problems.
thebudgetgamer  +   2264d ago
i say if you are willing to pay then by all means go right ahead.
who the hell am i to tell you how to spend your money. for me personaly i would rather buy games but to each their own i guess.

tehReaper  +   2264d ago
"Demon, dont you kinda own yourself when you say "While I agree games should be playable online out of the box for 60 bucks'"

Own myself? Dude, I'm not dumb. I know it's wrong that Microsoft makes you pay to play online. It's just not an issue for me, considering my job. For others it is, and not everyone is like me. I comprehend that.

I see more value in the PS3 slim now than the 360 as a hardware console, but at launch people paid 500-600 dollars for Blu-ray, Wifi, and the backing of the brand name of Sony. Those were "extra" features at the time but people still saw value(why wouldn't they?). That's not the case now, obviously because of the price drop, but you know what I'm getting at hopefully. Microsoft has charged a fee since the original Xbox. Why is that? Because they offer the best service. PSN wouldn't have as many features if LIVE didn't set the bar. Microsoft will just keep adding more features and more value to justify the price to keep their users.

Me? I want the best. I can't get the best with just one console. So I have both. If I want Blu-ray and Sony's sweet exclusives, I got them. If I want an amazing online service, XBLA, and MS' exclusives, I got them too.

Why do you think there are less active players on PSN than LIVE? There's only a 8 million gap. Surely the free service should be more active, am I right?
#1.21 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
cmrbe  +   2264d ago
The Budget
Yes that is true but as long as xbox fans are willing to pay MS will most likely never make it free. Why should they make it free if xbox fans are ok with paying?. Truth is no one really wants to pay. If MS were to make xboxlive free today i doubt you will see any x360 fans complaining about it lol!.

@Konic. Live is a more unified service which makes it easier to use which is why alot of people prefer live. It combines social networking with online gaming seamlessly. PSN got the online gaming perfectly. Its just the social networking community/communication features that they have to integrate well that is left. I personally don't care networking/community features which is why i prefer PSN.
ChozenWoan  +   2264d ago
Here's a nice PSN feature...
Thanks to the browser I can order a Papa John's Pizza right from my PS3. Now I don't even have to leave the house all weekend while binge gaming.

So can you do the same with the $50 a year ($250- $500 this console gen) service? At $50/year I could purchase 1 pizza/2 months (30-60 this console gen), ohh the sweet taste of the PSN.
#1.23 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
lol I never tried that! ahh free web browsing, I love PSN
thebudgetgamer  +   2264d ago
the thing that bothers me is that it seems some people are fighting to pay for xbl. who doesnt want things to be cheaper?

EDIT: nevermind things should be MORE EXPENSIVE.

edit2: below do you actually send microsoft 8 dollars a month?
#1.25 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
jav0918  +   2264d ago
Obviously its not overpriced and its worth the 8 bucks a month or 50 dollars a year which is nothing because millions of people play it. The only people complaining about live are the people who don't play online anyway or don't have an xbox 360 its like the first guy said its nothing. Just 8 bucks and you get a whole bunch of features. Its like paying for Qore on the ps3 you access to betas and stuff.
NoBias  +   2264d ago
All this site does is Rinse & Repeat
Doesn't this garbage get old after a while? I'll keep purchasing live. I'll also keep playing on PSN. I'm sorry, LIVE is cheap and if you can't afford $3-$4 a month... Well.... That really sucks for you.

I make $147 a day with my job. Others could easily make that in 2 days. Either way, that's 3 years of LIVE. One or two days of work equals 1,095 days of LIVE. I'm sorry, I understand people are going through hard times (hell I am, still paying off college and bills and all that) but damn, LIVE is the cheapness and gamers that keep complaining about it are cheap as well.

Most who do complain don't even have 360's though and that's the part that just gets annoying after awhile. Either way all the dumb articles that continuously pop up here on this site month after month after month after month after MONTH are not going to make me say:

"You know what, yeah! I'm done paying for LIVE! Why didn't I think of doing this earlier?! I could have saved myself a whole $100!... even though it's been 2 years... and it's not hard AT ALL to save up $100 over the span of 730 days..."

For people who have PS3's and have built beastly PC's... You all are cheap...
#1.27 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
TotalPS3Fanboy  +   2264d ago
Xbox Live is still not worth it, even if I am a millionaire.
HolyOrangeCows  +   2264d ago
It is NOT $8 a month, it's $50 for an unforeseen year of LIVE.

Remember when Xbox LIVE pretty much crashed in early 2008?
Snoogins  +   2264d ago
Of course XBL is overpriced.
The ONLY difference in features between PSN and XBL Gold (premium, not features included in free Silver):
Netflix Instant Queue
Party movie streaming
Universal Voice Chat
Universal Game Invites

PS3 gets Twitter, FaceBook, last.fm and plenty of the other fluff for free via the browser. So, when PSN gets Universal Chat/Invites and Home Media Streaming, will you, the consumer, still be able to justify the $50 fee of XBL? Do the current exclusive features warrant the $50?
Saaking  +   2264d ago
XBL should be free. There is nothing MS giving you other than cross game chat. And even though you pay you STILL get ads. Wtf are you paying for? IMO XBL should def. be free.
darthv72  +   2264d ago
this is weird
Why do the sony fans worry so much about what the other guy is paying for? THey dont have to pay so why not be rejoicing in that instead of getting hot and bothered about something THEY DONT DO THEMSELVES???

It is really weird. Maybe it is some form of envy or something. You dont have what the other guy has so you feel the need to downplay it every way possible. There are classes to help people with that sort of addiction.

It is also funny how those who pay for live generally dont complain that much about psn being free but those who are on psn sure as hell complain about others paying for live. WOW what a strange twist of events.
HolyOrangeCows  +   2264d ago
It's cute how you assume it's Sony-only fans.
But the truth is, not everyone is content with throwing $50 away just because they can afford it.

Go play in the open zone with the others who can't stand others having varied opinions.
TotalPS3Fanboy  +   2264d ago
Because PS3 fans care when Microsoft screw over customers. Customers may not care, but PS3 fans care. It's like the girl getting abuse by her boyfriend in a relationship. She may not care. But other peole cares. Seriously, they just want to help.
#1.34 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
cmrbe  +   2264d ago
It is possible that to some PS fans paying for xboxlive is a turn off.

It is possible that PS fans want x360 fans to not pay for xboxlive like they are not doing for PSN.

It is possible that xboxlive subscription model is a threat to free PSN model as Sony might follow MS.

It is possible that PS fans don't see any reason why people should be paying for xboxlive and are just stating their opinion like i am on this article about xbolive and cost.
#1.35 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
NegativeCreepWA  +   2264d ago
Blah, blah, blah, that's all I'm hearing.

When Sony starts handling the match making servers for every game on PSN I will think Live is over priced. Right now they only take care of their own games, while third party devs fend for themselves.
coolirisGB  +   2264d ago
As expected all PS3 fans in here.
aueslander  +   2264d ago
....seeing as you gotta pay what, like $15 or so a month? Still, most PS3 fanboys back before the price drop would laugh and thumb their noses at those who didnt want to pay $399+ for a game console saying you were either too cheap or poor to buy one yet they then b!tch about that it costs 13.69 cents per day.

Also, if you only have a ps3 and have no plans on getting a 360, then why should you care? It's not affecting you at all since you said you wont buy a 360 NOR would you pay for online.

I mean really, shouldnt you sony fanboys be playing one of your super duper AAA exclusives that you always thump your chest about instead of coming here? KZ2 is supposed to be teh bestaz shooterz on any platform yet you are on here instead of using your FREE ONLINE TO PLAY THE DAMN GAME. Then again, seeing that only what, 9% +/- a few % of PS3 owners bought the damn game, it's no wonder ya'll are here. You hype up games to no end then don't buy them.

Sorry, was a bit off topic but yea, LIVE has been the same price since 2002 when it launched and most 360 fans dont have a prob paying $50 a year. Also, a ton of games have a good single player campaign so, if you are like me and care about campaign first, multi second, then YOU DONT HAVE TO BUY GOLD!!!!

And all this crap about saying the $50 is a loan for 360 owners to buy the 360, that is a crock of crap since, um, well, in case you are retarded I will try to say this simply, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONLINE TO PLAY THE SYSTEM.

God, this is another reason why this gen sucks ass, first you got fanboys on both sides that take things way too far (probably due to being kids like I was back during the SNES vs Genesis days when I admitedly was a fanboy but there was no wide spread internet) and now this gen's fans seem to only care about multi player as opposed to single which is where games should matter most. Care more about single player and be thankful for a second player.

Thing is, for you PS3 fans who ONLY do multi (and I know quite a few who only play the online portions and never touch the single player) shouldn't you be getting pissed that you are paying $60 for what to you is essentially an online only game ESPECIALLY if you never touch the single player?
Syronicus  +   2264d ago
"PSN is a nuisance because it doesn't have the same feeling as LIVE. Simple as that."
No, it's not that simple. That is simply YOUR opinion. All I require of an online service is to do just that, play games online. I can do that for free on the PSN and PC. All the extra features of Live are nice but they are not what I need to enjoy playing games online.
-chaz-  +   2264d ago
Anyone who says that "PSN uses dedicated servers" is a moron. There are maybe 4 or 5 games that use dedicated servers on the PSN, the rest is P2P.
Poopface the 2nd  +   2264d ago
OK so in conclusion
The only people who care about the price of LIVE are people who dont use it or dont have a 360.

I would like online gaming to be free on xbox, but now that microsoft is adding value so I might still buy it anyways. I just got netflix and I really like streaming movies to it. For people who played on live back in halo 2 days, they see live as constantly adding more value.

i THINK MICROSOFT NEEDS TO KEEP ADDING GOLD ONLY FEATURES AND EVENTUALLY MAKE ONLINE GAMING FREE. That way alot of people would continue to pay(maybe a reduced fee) for the other features it offers. Also the people who dont have Gold now would be more likely to buy online games/DLC if they could play online for free.

Even though I think it is a good idea to make online gaming free, I have no problem paying for it when I feel like playing my 360 online. It really isnt that expensive when you consider the prices of everyday stuff. The price of live has nothing to do with PSN, and only has to do with the value that LIVE offerers to its customers.

If you dont think its worth it shut up and dont pay. I think most people complaining are the ones who dont have an xbox.

I also have PSN and my favorite online game is CS source. I dont need to pay for LIVE but I dont mind paying the 4-5$ a month when I feel its worth it.

Alot of you need to stop trying to get people to see the PSN as the better value because its the only choice you have. If it is a big issue to them then they have already made their decision when choosing a ps3 or 360. For people like me who play one more than one platform, its our choice that matters to us, not what some whinny troll uses because they dont have a choice. If we listened to fanboys in the comment section we would be like alot of you and miss out on alot of games and features because you think the choice is mutually exclusive.
Gabe EatsWell  +   2264d ago
Xbox Live: Overpriced
D4RkNIKON  +   2264d ago
I am sorry but it just is... I would buy a 360 if I didn't have to pay a subscription fee. People say $50 a year is like nothing, but it adds up. 3 years is $150, that is a lot of content on PSN or AAA game titles.
Gabe EatsWell  +   2264d ago
tatotiburon  +   2264d ago
and in 60 years is us$3000 and i can buy a bike...but maybe i'll be dead...

lazy argument
SnuggleBandit  +   2264d ago
for me its that and the R R O D
PimpDaddy  +   2264d ago
Why are you 2 trolls even commenting on XBL
it's not like either one of you own a 360. So why bother. Go salute Sony somewhere else. I own both consoles. Who wouldnt want XBL Gold for free? But neither this Gabe troll or D4RkNIKON should be taken seriously. Its obvious they are both here to spread thier pro-PS3 agenda.

Its my opinion, but I dont mind paying a little bit over $4.00 USD a month to play online on a unified gaming service. Though PSN is a good service to me, being able to do cross gaming chats and in-game invites pushes XBL over the top for me.

I used to help moderate a gaming website and we would organize weekend games on both consoles. It was so much easier to get into a game of Halo or Gears vs Warhawk or RFOM.
DelbertGrady  +   2264d ago
I would buy a PS3 if there wasn't so much problems with the firmware updates.
peeps  +   2264d ago
"I would buy a PS3 if there wasn't so much problems with the firmware updates. "

really? what problems are these then. i know that a few ppl have had problems with 3.0, i personally haven't but oh look, for those that did 3.01 just launched
mfwahwah  +   2264d ago

We SONY fanboys don't bash the quality of live. We bash the quality of the value.

I mean I CAN afford $50 a year for Live. Easily. But you know what else I could afford? I could afford to buy gas at $10 a gallon. I could afford to buy $200 pants and $75 shirts. I could easily purchase a phone for hundreds.

I don't because I like a value. I enjoy saving my money every way I possibly can. Paying $4 a month when I can play for free on PSN or my PC (Which has just about all of those 360 "exclusives") seems stupid as Hell to me. And most of my friends own a PS3. They used to own 360s but I didn't buy one to join them. I convinced them to join me and I swear to you, they have not missed their 360. Every one of the 6 is happier with their PS3.
PandemicPrawn0  +   2264d ago
I might be wrong but...
I didn't think live was a subscription based service, isn't it more like a prepay service? you buy a three or twelve month top-up as you need it?

I'm not on live myself, but isn't the silver service still available for downloading content and games without gold membership?
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago

You dont need a gold account to download dlc .
kapedkrusader  +   2264d ago
...but you do to game online. Which is half or all of the fun of playing games like Call of Duty.
tehReaper  +   2264d ago
You can either go the pre-pay route or the monthly subscription fee.
Faztkiller  +   2264d ago
yeah u can still download stuff but somtimes the gold get stuff weeks before silver
peeps  +   2264d ago
yeh 1 thing that really annoys me about not being on Gold is not being able to get demo's when they release. it's a demo ffs, the point of it is to try and sell me a game and yet it's saying i have to wait a few weeks for a privalage to do so
Obama  +   2264d ago
Uncharted 2 - 21/20

Jump out~
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
shutupandplay  +   2264d ago
Oh, some PS3 site gave Uncharted 2 21/20. Just a bunch of immature, and insecure ps3 fans running a ps3 site.
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
Uncharted got a 11/10 ?!?!?

Obama  +   2264d ago
The same mag also gave Infamous 7/10, so before you call it bias do some research.
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
no no..

I wasn't going to call it bias .
Obama  +   2264d ago
I was talking to shutupandplay. He was suggesting that the mag is bias.
ShadowCK  +   2264d ago
It's not overpriced at all. 50 dollars per year?

Christ, Get a job you cheapskate.
cyborg6971  +   2264d ago
Getting a job isn't the point the question is is it overpriced. And it is, wow wii like avatars here's 50 bucks whatever. After the nxe it got worse the navigation was cumbersome and the look was g@y. I will always say if online gaming was at the silver level no one would have gold.
#5.8 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Saaking  +   2264d ago
Indeed xbl is a ripoff. But bots love getting screwed by MS.
11 360s and counting  +   2264d ago
Its not about being a cheapskate. Its about justifying what you are paying for. Bottom line, there is no justification. People are foolish and either accept or just don't see how m$ nickels and dimes EVERYTHING! Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS3PCFTW  +   2264d ago
I called this too a while back. check my sh1t
heres the facts no spin:

ms patented the ingame music
cross gamechat bullshit.
so they can charge for it

the xmb can handle that. but had ms not patented it...sony would have offered it for free on the xmb. meaning,IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE APPARENT that xblive is worthless from the start.

i told you xf@gs, U are getting raped.
Tee7soo  +   2264d ago
XBOX LIVE is so worth the money
i would pay 50$ for psn if it had half the featurs of live .
SnuggleBandit  +   2264d ago
PSN might not have as many features(mainly cross game chat) but the actual service is better...solely because of dedicated servers.
Alcon Caper  +   2264d ago
@play2man exactly.

plus if you think about the revenue they're bringing in with Live, they'll be able to improve on the service year to year. By this time next year, Live will have a vast array of improvements--who knows what they'll bring in next!

The fee is worth Netflix to your TV alone, honestly. (...and no more of that, well just run a cord to your PC crap). The interface was built for living room management and enjoyment and the inclusion of it on Live is a step away for the masses from having a PC in the living room.
#6.2 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
SnuggleBandit   2264d ago | Spam
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Except it does have most of the features of live, only cross game chat really.
ChozenWoan  +   2264d ago
HDTVs have a VGA input... and coupled with a wireless keyboard and mouse... you can sit on the couch and enjoy your PC. But don't tell anyone, they will think your crazy or something.
Arnon  +   2264d ago
Jesus freaking Christ. Quit mentioning Dedicated servers. Sony has no power over the servers of the games that are on PSN. The developers host the dedicated servers. Some games don't run on dedicated servers. My god, I cant believe people think Sony pays for every game on PSN to have dedicated servers.

It's the exact freaking same with Microsoft. Except Microsoft not only allows developers to host dedicated servers, but they allow developers to not pay at all, and thus, Microsoft pays for Player to Player servers. This not only is good for the developers, but it opens up exclusive matchmaking components such as Trueskill*, or enhanced matchmaking using cumulative gamerscore, reputation, location/language profile, and gamer zone.

There's a REASON Microsoft charges a yearly plan for Xbox LIVE. There's a REASON Microsoft touts Xbox LIVE as it's most prominent feature. If you guys actually read up on some of the exclusive features to it, you would probably know why. Xbox LIVE is LITERALLY a marvel in online gaming. They don't charge just because there's cross-game chat and party chat, and I sure as hell know that the PSN is nowhere NEAR the level of technical prowess that is XBL, and I swear to God, that if you disagree with this, you better show me some feature from PSN that will absolutely blow my freaking mind, because the PSN that I use, is nowhere near what you guys CONSTANTLY claim it is.

Don't believe me?

XBL: Rhoic
PSN: Arnon01

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
#6.6 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
JonnyBigBoss  +   2264d ago
It should be free, or at least the online playability portion of it. They don't even host dedicated servers, while PSN does and it's free.
BreakNeckSpeed  +   2264d ago
Name me more than 10 PS3 games that have dedicated servers ? Most of the games that have them are all exclusives.
jetlian  +   2264d ago
some 360
games do have dedicated servers. bad thing about psn and dedicated servers is once the company shuts them off your screwed. only a few on live have that ability
Kushan  +   2264d ago
Both services do dedicated servers and both services do P2P play. It's not up to the service, its up to the developers and publishers.
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
XBOX Live, but I do agree that the ability to play online multiplayer should at least be free. I'd rather have that for free than the ability to buy more XBLA titles.
dragonelite  +   2264d ago
Psn doesnt host dedicated server for every game.
Only first party games get dedicated servers.
But the 40 dollars/year you pay for live you see it back.
Live gets content faster gets content psn doesnt get.

But hey im with all you guys silver members need to have acces to online gaming and drop gold to 30 euro/year for the features.
But hey why are people paying 15 dollars/month for wow you pay 30 dollars now for wow then you have to spend 60 dollars for the expansion packs and a 40~60 dollars for every future expansion packs.

Its a service people want to pay for. Why have a membership on a gaming magazine when the news you read in it is old i bet your magazine cost are higher then live. Even when it has exclusive info the scans will be out the same day.
Pootangpie  +   2264d ago
sorry jleack they do have dedicated servers
halo 3 has them Perfect dark zero had them L4D and all of EA gmaes there on by defult only bitter fanboy retards that haven't used live claim this
The BS Police  +   2264d ago
Servers don't work...
It's been stated many many times on Bungie.net that servers does not eliminate lag. The further youa re from the servwers the more laggy your games will be.

Also, servers will crash depending on the games popualtion, imagine a game like Halo 3 launching with servers rather than using it's current matchmaking system... there would be riots in the streets.
Omega4  +   2264d ago
Says the people who dont actually use it
topdawg122  +   2264d ago
I use it, and it is overpriced. Quit protecting this crap, psn is not far behind xbl.
Omega4  +   2264d ago
If it was overpriced XBL users would be decreasing not increasing
Horny  +   2264d ago
I use it and it is overpriced. Then again I personally dont use most of the features, I just like playing games online. 20$ would be more justifiable for me. I think online play should be free for silver members, Im already paying monthly for my internet connection and they just charge me again to use it.
#8.3 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
kapedkrusader  +   2264d ago
"If it was overpriced XBL users would be decreasing not increasing"

Listen, people pay, because they want to play online. Some of the games that they want to play are exclusive to the 360. That's why RROD and other issues haven't decreased the users. Your argument is moot.
BreakNeckSpeed  +   2264d ago
Life is over priced....

The responsiveness and quality of live is unmatched when it comes to the online market for consoles.
DJ Pillz 317  +   2264d ago
Every PS3 game doesn't have dedicated servers, people need to shut the **** up.
Horny  +   2264d ago
Personally I dont give a crap what servers it has unless it runs smooth, and it will if you have a good connection. I play on both PSN and Live and I dont really use any features on either I just play games online and do think it should be free for live.
shutupandplay  +   2264d ago
Lol. PS3 fanboys are gonna gobble this right up. Personally, after you`ve tried both, you should have no problem forking over the 50, sometimes 40 bucks a year.
talltony  +   2264d ago
Yea right xbox live is def not worth the money, I know I have all consoles.
Gabe EatsWell  +   2264d ago
shut up and play
#11.2 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Alcon Caper  +   2264d ago
seriously. besides a sony fanboy clearly wrote the thing. With quotable gems like, "Microsoft will have effectively stolen money from everyone. Congratulations on getting robbed." and "I wanted to lay out my case that Microsoft is clearly over charging for Live and that some of the downloadable content is nothing more then a money grab. That is not to say Sony is innocent with the PSN, but it is easier to forgive them for that."

...but of course, SDF has to approve any anti-ms stuff, no matter how illegitimate
PlayStation X  +   2264d ago

the difference between psn n xbl aint much. voice chat n music is the only thing xbl has over psn.

is that worth $50 a year?
#11.4 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
I'll go ahead and cancel out talltony's argument.
I too, have all consoles, and XBOX Live is worth the price. It's nice to have an online service with a community feel to it unlike the quiet wasteland that is the PSN. Why wouldn't it be free to go online and talk to yourself while playing Call of Duty? lmao. I just really wish Sony would include mics with every PS3 like MS does.
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Feeling is the same on both, except one has dedicated servers for free.
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
@ The-Warranty
Yes, the PS3 has SOME (not too many) games with dedicated servers. Live also has SOME dedicated servers. SHOCKER!
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Yes but all(maybe like 2 without) of the exclusives on PS3 do have DS

but on XBL hardly any do, especially recent ones(Gears 2 lol)
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
@ The-Warranty
So the most popular online games (COD series) doesn't have dedicated servers. Just making sure we are all clear on this.

EDIT: That was exactly my point. Are you inebriate currently? You don't seem to understand anything, and your critical thinking skills are non-existent. Just keep saving up for that PS3 you hope to own one day.
#11.9 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
I said exclusives, not multiplatform games. for example uncharted and killzone 2 And doesnt COD have P2p servers?

lol okay whatever
#11.10 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
talltony  +   2264d ago
The only thing I agree wit u on is that Sony should of included a mic wit every ps3. The psn is not a wasteland if you play wit friends on it. I'm betting that all ur friends are on live. Live is not worth the money at all, u are paying to be in a comunity with the most screaming, swearing, racist 10 year olds in any online community ever. I can easily play wit my friends on psn for free in a much more mature community!
#11.11 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Xbox360Elite  +   2264d ago
Uncharted 2 won't even in its life time come close to the sales of Halo3 ODST and that is just a embarrassment for a game which is hyped to be the best game coming out on ps3 hahahahahaha 640p verses 720p and guess what halo3 odst wins.
topdawg122  +   2264d ago
No, apparently Wii sports wins by your idiot logic
PlayStation X  +   2264d ago
just like no game on the xbox will ever come close to the sales of Gran Turismo.

infact both xbox's put together dont even make the sales of the gran turismo series.

now sit the fck down
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
@ Playstation X
XBOX360elite says stupid things all the time, but your reply was equally moronic. Why don't we just go ahead and start shouting about how the Wii and 360 combined don't equal the sales numbers of the PS2? lmao.
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   2264d ago
I really wish Xbox Live would have a free feature. I was talking to my friend about this not too long ago.

What they could do is basically give you online access for games with silver membership, but with Gold, you get stuff like Chatting, you get an extended friends list, you get cross game invites, cross game chats, you get demos and stuff earlier.
Harry_Manback  +   2264d ago
That would be really nice if thats how they did it
But lets be honest, nobody would pay for live and MS would lose tons of money.
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   2264d ago

Yes this is true, but with the amount of profit they've already made of Xbox Live, I wish they would be able to do that already.

Hmm..with the amount of profit a lot of people are making this gen, they're still not doing a really good job (coughinfinitycoughwardcoughco ugh)
tha_meat_beater  +   2264d ago
feebox live
cash in
Gabe EatsWell  +   2264d ago
M$ theevil empire grows even richer.
Kushan  +   2264d ago
Overpriced, maybe, but people need to stop acting like the service is identical to PSN. PSN is great, it's free - you can't complain about free, but Live DOES have extra features. Sure, you might not necessarily want or care about those features, but they are there. As long as Live has those features that set it apart from the PSN, Microsoft will be able to justify charging for it.
SnuggleBandit  +   2264d ago
ya live has features like p2p gaming...its da best /s

and they ignore that the ps3 is neflix/twitter/insert website here compatible
#15.1 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
kapedkrusader  +   2264d ago
Then stop acting like the PSN doesn't have it's benefits too...
...I'm tired of all the hoopla MS is making over Twitter and Facebook, the PS3 has had access to both through it's browser and sum. Fine, they are both more integrated with Live. I'll take Pornhub over Twitter/Facebook integration any day.
aueslander  +   2264d ago
.....live uses dedicated servers for some of it's games like Halo. At least years down the road if you want to play say gears you can since it is P2P but say in 5 years if you want to play KZ2 you may not be able to if GG shuts the servers down.

ANd kapedkrusader, yes you can do netflix and twitter and all on the PS3 browser but lets face it, the PS3 browser sucks ass.

Also, on a serious not, if you stream netflix on your ps3 using its browser can you do in HD? I only ask cause this fall the 360 will start streaming HD not only from its own library but will also be doing so from netflix. I don't think the PS3 browser can do that.

At any rate, I still wonder why people talk up the ps3 web surfing when a pc/mac does it better and really, do you think a main selling point to a console is surfing the web on a crappy console?
AliTheBrit  +   2264d ago
My god, £35 a year

seriously you kiddies need to grow up, look at how much you pay WEEKLY for bills, then tell me xbox live is overpriced.
DJ Pillz 317  +   2264d ago
Essentially, you're paying $50 USD a year for cross game chat and some other features, which is very cheap when compared to paying $70 USD a MONTH for phone service. Let's not get started on the car payment and insurance...
jarhead906  +   2264d ago
Would you pay $5.00 for a pencil? Surely not. That's ridiculous.

Comparing the price of your weekly/monthly bill to that of Live doesn't work. Just because you're paying a significantly smaller amount of money doesn't mean that the smaller item's cost is now insignificant.

As for my weird pencil comparison, you know you can get the pencil for a significantly smaller price. After all, the product is known to be cheap in every aspect such as manufacturing. Now we look at an online service. It's not like Microsoft discovered online multiplayer. It's been a service for years and free outside of your ISP's price. Now all of a sudden MS tries to standardize it and charge an amount of money that IS significantly larger than what it had always been ($0.00 versus ~$5.00).

At the end of the day, if it's what you want to spend your money on, go ahead. As for me, it's a matter of principal and being the opposite of ignorant.
AliTheBrit  +   2264d ago
The day PSN can match Xbox Live in both quality and features, and still remain free, is the day Xbox Live will be overpriced.
shutupandplay  +   2264d ago
I`m eagerly looking forward to that day.
NegativeCreep427  +   2264d ago
You guys got to admit that the Microsoft Points system is totally shafting consumers.
You basically have to pay for future purchases, in the present. And like the author of this article said, prices for downloads, DLC, and the like are rarely priced in the way that a person can easily empty out their MS Point account.

I do believe that alot of people, when they quit the Xbox 360, will have some MS points in their account balances that they will not be able to spend, which means Microsoft will be getting alot of free money from their consumers. And apparently to idiots like shutupandplay, that is all fine and dandy!!! Spread your butt cheeks and let Microsoft right on in, right shutupandplay?
#17.2 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
OK, negativecreep...
So you agree with PSN's $5 minimum add-to-wallet amount? I guess so. Oddly enough I have $2 and change left on my PSN wallet, and I have 80 MS points right now. Seems like they are both shafting me.

@ The-Warranty - FALSE. That is how I always pay, moron. You have to add the funds to your wallet, then checkout. It automatically will do this if you click to buy something. Do you even own a PS3, or do you just troll on here with no current gen console?
#17.3 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Or you can pay straight from a credit card, no money left over on PSN when you do that.

EDIT-lol you dont have to add funds everytime moron, you save your credit info and checkout the item. No money left over.
#17.4 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
My credit card info IS saved on the PS3, you really are making a fool of yourself. Maybe if you OWNED a PS3 you would know these things. BTW, I have purchased 33 games from PSN, so I have done this many many times.

Lol. Yes, way to end this debate. I'll continue to use my PS3, while you continue to save for one so you won't have to play on your friend's all the time. At least it's only $299, now.

The fund are automatically added to my wallet from the CC info I have saved. However, it will not let me add less than $5.00 from my CC at a time. You can either believe me or look at the proof: http://boardsus.playstation... http://www.redflagdeals.com... You really are a moron.
#17.5 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
You seem not to be educated enough on using the PSN store, maybe you should use your PS3 more.

EDIT.......umm okay I dont have one, maybe you should at least watch an instructional vid on how to buy things from PSN before you talk. :)

"However, it will not let me add less than $5.00 from my CC at a time"

LOL! thats your problem! not mine, I dont have to add funds when I buy. Sucks for you, guess your such a moron you thought it was the same for everyone else. :-D
#17.6 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
kaveti6616  +   2264d ago
Another example of opinions being treated as facts. Thank you, N4G, for feeding this to fanboys who in turn will regurgitate it in every other thread and act like it's a fact.

It all comes down to how much money you make. That determines your perception of value. To someone like me, a Bugatti Veyron is overpriced and unnecessary. But guess what? To Puff Daddy or Jay-Z or *insert wealthy person's name here*, it's worth the money. That's it. Now, someone might come onto this board and argue that they have a very high income and still think that LIVE is not worth it, and they will pass that off as "factual evidence" against the price of XBL. Still, that's an opinion. Anyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people think it's worth the value, and no matter how loud you yell, or how many names you call them (thus making an enemy out of a stranger), you're not going to change their minds, and even if you do, the way in which you go about convincing someone to agree with YOUR OPINION is shameful and ego-centric. I have both XBL and PSN, and my opinion is absolutely, positively, insignificant to someone else. If you think XBL is better and worth the money, good for you. If you think PSN is better, good for you. Everyone should all stop acting like jerks.
baph777  +   2264d ago
Yeah it's overpriced....
Yeah, xbox live is overpriced. And the worst thing was they started making exclusives on there where you had to wait a couple of weeks to download some of the free trailers and demoes if you weren't a gold subscriber. Xbox Live shouldn't cost any more than $25.00 a year and its price cuts down on the amount of xbla games you can get if you're on a budget. It also prevents a lot of mmos from showing up there in my opinion. Do you want to put an mmo on a system that already has heavy fees on top of your normal internet charges and then strap another $20.00 monthly fee on top of that? I don't think so, and that could be why certain mmos have been postponed or not agreed upon as of yet.
air1  +   2264d ago
of course psn is free. who would pay for psn when clearly live is superior... if psn was 50 bucks too would you still choose pasn over live? hell no..

i do think live should go down to 30 bucks a year. in my case though, i dont play online all year long so i pay as i play and 7 or 8 bucks sure as hell isnt expensive...
#20 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Meh yourr opinion, but facts are the features are about the same on both with one having dedicated servers for free
air1  +   2264d ago
key word "about the same" that is a fact...

its not just the features but the community live has its just always alive with game nights and special events and stuff psn can be dead at times for a long time with nothing going on as a "community"

you guys seem to think that its just about getting hooked up online, play and thats it.. live goes deeper then that if you ppl just took the time and just experienced it instead of being so heavily influenced by n4g blogs you would know exactly why more ppl pay for live than ppl that sighn up for the free service..


my point exactly warranty. you sony fanatics just dont know what live is like, other then the stuff you read lol... whats wrong with the community?let me guess you are going to say its full of bad little kids amiright.. live has this thing called a friends list use it if you find your self playing with a bunch of kids then that must say something about you. but thats not what i meant by community anyway, by community i mean that a lot more things go on in live with game nights etc..

if you need a crash course on how live really is and how to avoid kids then esnd me an invite so you can try it out with my clan, assuming live wont break your banking account, lol..

wanted in bpt (360)

wanted_in_bpt (ps3)
#20.2 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Not really influenced by N4g I have played on both and yeah its about the same

and dont go raving about the community because we all know ow the community is on XBL :)
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
@ The-Warranty
Yeah, there IS a community on Live, whereas PSN doesn't really have one. Oh wait, there is that killer app, "Home". lmao.

The last time I went on was when it first came out just like 90% of PS3 owners. I guess you don't play on Live much if you think it is only children and racists though.
#20.4 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
The-Warranty  +   2264d ago
Yeah the community is great on Home,Hardly and kids and racists, last time you been on?
talltony  +   2264d ago
Who would pay for a service whith the biggest online action games? Pretty much every single Sony exclusive uses dedicated servers while live plays all excluisves using p2p. When it comes to online games you are actually being short changed on live.
Double Toasted  +   2264d ago
Until PSN offers something...
better...no its not overpriced.
baph777  +   2264d ago
Yeah but
You can get better on PC for sure and like PSN it's free other than your monthly internet charges.
Sie  +   2264d ago
While i love XBL i'm basically paying £35 per year for party mode and cross game chat as those are the main features that i believe are needed on PSN.

At the moment it's worth the money because it has those features over PSN, but if/when PSN gets those features thats the day i will stop paying.
Shadow017  +   2264d ago
slightly better online with sh!tty games(360) or decent free online with best exclusives(ps3) really it's you're choice like i said before no wonder most of you bots have a ps3.
air1  +   2264d ago
maybe us bots have a ps3 too cause we are not a 1 brand whore.. i got mine for the exclusives nothing more cause we all know how the 360 wins in the multi plats. a great game is a great game no matter what console its on real gamers know that, sony fanatics dont, they just cant see passed that tunnel vision like you shadow..
#23.1 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
talltony  +   2264d ago
Air 1
I have a 360 but IMO the ps3 exclusives set them apart from the comp. Multiplats are on both consoles and can hardly be told apart. Why not prefer the dependable console with the best exclusives??? U can play the same multiplats on it. Man honestly I feel the 360 was a good tie over until the ps3 caught it's stride.
Socomer 1979  +   2264d ago
notice how they say xbox live has extra features but...
they are too scared to list what features they are talking about.
total non game related features.
basically paying for stuff every other console has for free.

whats next?
i pay 1.99 for myspace on xbox?
Sie  +   2264d ago
Sorry but the last time i logged in to PSN it didnt have party mode and cross game chat.
Kakihara  +   2264d ago
Water: wet.
KionicWarlord222  +   2264d ago
grass is green.
Feral Gamer  +   2264d ago
Hell, if Live were free, I'd pick up a 360
PimpDaddy  +   2264d ago
Your willing to spend $200.00 - $300.00 on a console but are worried about saving $50.00 a year?

If XBL is whats keeping you from buying a 360 now, then you never had any intention of buying one in the first place. Any 360 owner will tell you that XBL is the 360's most appealing feature.

Dual console owners such as myself dont make fake lame excuses. We actually buy the consoles, play the games, and use the services.
NaiNaiNai  +   2264d ago
still playing Xbox live, along with the 3 times as many psn users.
Odin777  +   2264d ago
I will never pay for LIVE! Even if it was $.25 every 2 years...its the principle of the thing. If the service gave some sort of justification for the fee, maybe. But cross game chat, twitter, facebook, and whatever other mundane features LIVE has, do not cut it. All I want to do is play Gears2 Horde mode online for free...greedy bastards! /rant end
Flawza Motorputt 3  +   2264d ago
In other news, water is still wet.
PimpHandHappy  +   2264d ago
PSN wins
bigger and better games online along with ANY multi-plat that is big on XBL

its free
sorry but thats just the truth
and the truth is IT WORKS JUST FINE
NaiNaiNai  +   2264d ago
you know the funny part.

theres more people playing Cod 4 on xbox live *WHICH COSTS MONEY* then there are people playing killzone 2, CoD4, Waw, and Res 2 all together on PSN.

funny how that works isn't it?
butterfinger  +   2264d ago
@ NaiNaiNai
PS3 fanboys don't care about numbers unless they just got a price cut and are finally outselling the competition. Shhhh....

@Carlton Banks - You really need someone to explain to you why it is better to have more people on your online service than everyone else? That's sad. Even Sony knows better than that.
#30.2 (Edited 2264d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Carlton Banks  +   2264d ago
I'm confused since there is on average 16 players in a match at one time in online games, Why the hell does it matter is there is more people total online.

Oh wait I forgot these guys sure love numbers, lol.
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

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

Dead Secret Dev has seen 'universally positive' Reaction, Planning more VR

3m ago - VRFocus reports on Dead Secret developer Robot Invader noting that it has seen a 'universally pos... | PC

Just Cause 3 - First Impressions | GameSpew

15m ago - GameSpew have got their hands on a retail copy of Just Cause 3, and are sharing their initial imp... | PC

HotLiked - What the Internet is talking about right now

Now - Kill some time at HotLiked.com. You will regret it... | Promoted post

WWE 2K16 only £15.99 on Xbox One

45m ago - DS: Like men in underpants acting poorly and slapping each other about. It's ok, we can't let go... | Xbox One

Live Your Apocalypse Movie Dream in Please Don’t Touch Anything for Android

1h ago - Carl Williams writes, "Everyone has probably had that dream when watching one of those end of the... | Android

New Legend of Zelda Book Explains Just How Much the Game Changed in Localization

1h ago - A new book series explores the localization of one of gaming's most iconic franchises. The first... | Culture