Xbox LIVE Has Gamers Brainwashed writes: "For only $49.99 you can join throngs of zombies on Xbox Live or you could get a get a return on your investment with PlayStation Plus. I know what you’re thinking. Oh brother…another PS3 fanboy post. Granted, I prefer the PS3 over my 360 but I also prefer common sense over irrationality.

Millions of users love Xbox Live and with good reason; however, love alone does not excuse paying for over 80% of features available elsewhere for FREE. With the exception of Xbox Live Primetime, Cross Game Chat, True Skill, and Live Anywhere, Xbox Live features are ridiculously unnecessary."

The story is too old to be commented.
Duke Spookem3081d ago ShowReplies(9)
LordMarius3081d ago

This is why I hope PS+ is successful, it will show Sony that it can get Xbox LIVE type of revenue without messing with our FREE online option since I dont intend to pay for my internet twice

darthv723080d ago (Edited 3080d ago )

Sony charging after the fact is ok with people when you know they will start imposing restrictions on free members to entice them to become paid members.

I cant wait to see all the "members only" spaces that will come to home. Or the games you want to play that have "members only" matches running that are bigger than the free ones.

But hey, free is still free....just not as free as it used to be.

edit: online memberships are where the $$ is at and sony finally joined the club (no pun). All that is left is nintendo.

goalweiser3080d ago (Edited 3080d ago )

LOL. I am going to PM next year when they prove you wrong. Why would Sony spend so much time pointing out Microsoft's mistakes only to repeat them?

Sony's track record shows they do exactly the opposite of what Microsoft has done this generation.

Blu Ray, free online gaming, variety in 1st party titles, PS Move, build quality, valuing consumer feedback, PlayStation Home, resistance to paying for exclusives, everything built into the system from the getgo, and now of course PlayStation Plus.

You see the facts don't support your claim and saying you're scared of future charges when you own a 360 is hilarious.

HolyOrangeCows3080d ago

Indeed. I think it's a step in the right direction to give players BENEFITS for purchasing a service, and not RESTRICTIONS for NOT buying it.

3080d ago
newhumanbreed3080d ago

Oh god, if PSN and PS+ are so perfect, why do you guys continue to bash the people that pay for Live. Jeeze, none of these services are perfect, so instead of bashing the other, why not send suggestions to the companies to improve your console of choice. God I hate when all people do is bash the other console. Grow up, buying a console doesn't mean you enlisted in an army.

onanie3080d ago

I think the fundamental point that the article makes is that no one should have to pay for the simple notion of playing online.

Elsewhere, people expect to play online for free as a natural consequence of having a paid internet connection. Microsoft somehow managed to turn that into a "feature", and charge for it. Personally, I do not agree with that.

goalweiser3080d ago (Edited 3080d ago )

That's what I got out of this unfortunately not everybody is patient enough or wise enough to face the facts and stop hiding behind opinions that are a dime a dozen.

You have people complaining about N4G and the quality of articles yet they don't read or comprehend. When good articles like this or ones requesting gamers to question their choices, they would rather cry foul rather than think. I just read an article on here about the components used to make consoles and the damage these consoles cause to countries these supplies come from. I don't see any posts from the same people screaming flamebait or putting down TheL1T.

All I know is that he used factual information to make his point while a lot of others are adding nothing of value to this site. If these guys were doing their part on N4G, more good pieces would be recognized.

cyberwaffles3080d ago

i know a lot of people may not like darth's comment, but he proves a good point.

we can't trick ourselves into thinking microsoft is the only "evil" business conglomeration out there and that sony is the innoncent underdog to save the day from subscription-based online gaming. it only takes one thing to lead to another and if sony sees success with something, they may push it further and further to a point where the consumer might regret ever propagating such things.

we've all seen in the past. online gaming used to be free until the xbox came out (luckily it's the only console for now that imposes a paid subscription), DLC used to actually add a lot of great content and was free, developers and producers used to not have DLC planned before a game's release (generally speaking, i may be wrong); lots of things change over time depending on how consumers react to new business practices, and sometimes they're for the worse.

shoot, i thought battlefield bad company 2 was going to be the underdog to save online FPS gaming from COD (after hearing that Kottick was thinking about charging to play COD online) but EA (not surprisingly) have some pretty cheap business practices going on too with their so-called DLC. all they've been doing is reissuing the same maps from the game into different modes which should've been in the original game to begin with.

anyways, don't be surprised if sony does stuff like darth is speaking about. i can easily see it happening and before you know it, sony will be on par with xbl as far as making gamers pay online and the competition between the two will just be adding features (probably useless ones like already on xbl) for a price instead of making it free.

AAACE53080d ago

Coming to N4G can teach you why people try to avoid religion! Basically you have 2 or more sides trying to get people to believe what they believe. And the bad thing is they go through some dirty tricks to try to convert someone!

Why can't you just let people make up their own minds? Why do you feel like you need to save them from something?

We are born with something called free will! Which means a person will make a decision based on what seems right to them at that time. They may change their mind, or you may be the one to speak the words that influence them. But seriously.... this is starting to feel like an evil religion thing.

Point is, someone may see what you see right away, while others may never see it, and will look at you like you are crazy. But you don't have to throw it at them all the time.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3080d ago
MariaHelFutura3081d ago (Edited 3080d ago )

If you think a person can`t be mind controlled you`ve proven mind control works. Dogs can be trained and so can Humans, it`s only a question of if you can take it as far as it needs to be taken to accomplish the end result. Methods range from Biological, Sub-Conscious and Conscious. Biological being something like Tylenol that makes your brain think you don`t feel pain anymore, when in reality the pain is still there. Conscious, a good example is $$$ it makes you do thing like work and stress out of knowing you need it to live, we are controlled by it and we understand this and actually are quite cool with it. Subconscious, which is by far the most dangerous. It`s trying to create a feeling that happens without you knowing why you feel it. A tamed example would be someone spanking a child to create the attachment of pain with failure. If you get extreme enough a give enough time and effort with subconscious brainwashing you can make any organism do anything since everything you do has to be translated through your brain first, even something like being happy, scared or upset.

MariaHelFutura3080d ago (Edited 3080d ago )

Also, interesting fact: Butterflies are often associated with Brainwashing for the reason being the begin their lives as one thing and die another. Also, one is restricted to the ground and the other being able to fly.

ZombieNinjaPanda3080d ago


Pm that link for the Butterflies, if there is one. I'm actually interested in reading this.

XabiTheHumble3080d ago

@MariaHelFurtura beautifully put.

Newtype3080d ago

I had a guy a work who went insane when I bashed his 360....and WOW. He started to cry.

BiggCMan3080d ago

well i would to if someone bashed my ps3. or anything valuable that i own for that matter. thats pretty fucked up.

hybridtheory123080d ago

I think he means BASHED as in "insult"

cyberwaffles3080d ago

really is sad if you're crying over video game consoles. there are more important things in the world to cry over about.

baodeus3080d ago

seriously? Man what the hell is going on with this generation? I think if they insult his mother, he wouldn't get that upset.

goalweiser3080d ago

The reports on my submission just goes to show what Xbox gamers are capable of.

I'm not sure if they even read the article. They report yet they don't even give good reasons. That's the exact type of blindness that Xbox LIVE subscribers are showing.

I have no problem with people using Xbox Live. I agree that using Xbox Live and then saying PlayStation Plus is not worth it is ridiculous.

Honestly...when has Xbox Live granted gamers over $80 worth of free conent? What new features have they offered that make gaming better on the Xbox 360? When does Microsoft ever ask for our opinions on what we want on Xbox LIVE?

They don't. They give us what THEY think we want.

iamgoatman3080d ago

The reports are probably because the article is just flamebait. Any comments in response have been seen before on hundreds of other articles, it always ends up with people bickering over whichever they prefer, it's not needed.

Just because some people don't have a problem with paying for an online service, doesn't mean they are brainwashed zombies as the article and headline suggests.

darthv723080d ago

Here is what I had typed in the first comment section. On a side note, there should be a more direct approach to hiding the comments that are unfit for the conversation. Not just hide the main one and the rest all get punished. 2 cents now spent.

"I would most likely stop paying if i saw features being taken away from the service I pay for. That isnt the case for live and is the opposite. I see more and more stuff having been added to live over the course of its lifetime.

Having never been a silver member (because I am an original xbox live member) I really cant equate the loss of features from a free service to a paid service. I have said this before and feel it will happen. Sony will start taking away some features from the free side of psn and make it part of the plus membership. What those are is up to them but we have certainly given them the green light to do so.

They are watching the conversion of free to paid and will obviously see the ratio and think of ways to entice free members to become paid either by imposing restrictions in games or home (members only spaces or game types).

I will get disagrees but it will happen. Live was always paid from the beginning. You knew what it was about. PSN being free and now paid you dont know what changes are in store for the free side. It is certainly more cost effective for sony to remove something from the free psn and make it part of the paid rather than try and come up with something new and fresh.

I am a paid live member with no complaints. I am also a free psn member with fears that what I have free today will require a membership tomorrow."

baodeus3080d ago (Edited 3080d ago )

so what if you already own those contents or you don't need them? And since when did PSN+ or PSN ask people for opinion on what they want. They still haven't implement the cross game invite/chat/party system that people wanted since the start of PS3.

It is better to pay for something that you want whenever you want? or do you prefer to pay $50/year just to get access to contents online or some free stuffs that actually aren't free ($50/year). On top of that, you actually have to purchase more stuff (even if you don't want too) each month to put the PSN+ discount to good use. If you just want to play game online for free, PSN is great, but then PSN+ is just worthless.

I just stick with free PSN and pay $40 for live. (live provide a great community for gaming, which i really like and why i payed for it) When i jump on PSN, i might as well just play single player game. I do love it that it is free, but when i buy stuff (which i rarely do,) i just go on live because i get all the information i need to make a decision, while on PSN, i have to jump through hoops or might as well search online just to get some informations like an arcade game for example (no demo, no description, no pictures, nothing...).