Why do we pay? writes: "We're all paying for XBOX Live here. Other consoles have inferior, but free online gaming features. The PC has free and much superior online play. So my question is why do we continue to pay for a service that doesn't even have a server for an individual game?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
sonarus4875d ago

we pay because WE BELIEVE we have no choice

4875d ago
Breakfast4875d ago

I dont want to pay...but im more then willing to pay...if that makes any sense.

sonarus4875d ago

Exactly breakfast no one wants to pay, but we want to play online. You aren't going to forfeit your online options simply because of 50 bucks. If ps3 had way better online features than 360, we would still pay that 50 bucks or not play online. Those are the rules set by msoft you either pay or don't play

Lifendz4875d ago

I can hop online and play PS3 multiplayer games for free. I can talk to my friends for free. PSN may not have all the content that XBL has but that's something that time will fix. Remember, XBL had some years ahead of PSN and when it first launched it was a graveyard.

But yeah, how you guys pay for Live is b3yond me. If you got a 360 back in 05 and have been paying for live since you're at around 150 bucks. 150 bucks just to play online! Ridiculous.

Breakfast4875d ago

@ lifendz

Trust me ps3 online service is inferior. Maybe at least until the summer. Go play xbl and youll see a very big diffrence in how you play. Thinking other wise is just crazy

Lifendz4875d ago

it's not as inferior as you're trying to make it out to be. I can play COD4 online with my friends for Free. That's what I want to do. I can use my blu-tooth headset and it doesn't cost me a thing. I can download videos of games and (very soon) other forms of media as well...for free.

And PSN has never been down for an extended period of time as Live has. Last holiday season anyone? Yeah, so stop it already.

And FYI, I've played on live quite a bit. My last roommate had a 360 and we played quite a bit of Gears online. There may have been more bells and whistles and things to spend your money on, but in the end what matters most is the ability to play games online with your friends and others.

I can do that for free on PSN. YOu pay on 360.

chaosatom3334875d ago

"However, the Playstation Network has one advantage and that is the fact that every game has its own server."

How does xbox live work? Could Anybody explain?

Breakfast4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

Its free on MY ps3 too. Your seeing things so one sided its not even funny. Im talking in game of course you can download crap i dont care about that. Just look at what your friends are doing, message them, in-game talk to them, invite them even if theyre playing diffrent games, you can do so much that psn doesnt have. You just fail to realise that because you see things from one side.

p2p. The game picks a host, and you play off him

Lifendz4875d ago

You're being so defensive that you're not understanding what I'm saying.

The main thing I want online is to play with friends and others. I do that for free with PSN. You have to pay to do that on 360. Yes 360 has the in-game messaging. Cool. Would I want to pay to have that feature? No. Yes 360 has the arcade games and other games like Uno (which I really liked btw). Do I want to pay to have those features? No.

I'm not alone on this either. I get just want I want out of PSN and I'm very happy with it. It may not have all the extra features but for a free service that is young and always improving it's almost unfair to compare it to live.

Is it inferior? Sure. But not by much and when you factor in that it's improving, it's only scratching the surface of what it'll be, AND that it's free I'd say it's a superior service to XBL.

And I didn't even mention dedicated servers.

Shortstop4875d ago


I agree entirely. Maybe it's the younger generation that wants all the bells and whistles, but playing online should never cost more than having an ISP. Just hope Sony knows that one of the main reasons it has so many fans is because it doesn't treat it's customers like walking wallets (well, not to the extent that M$ does anyways ;) )

Lifendz4875d ago

I think you hit it right on the head. The bottom line arguement that I'm proffering isn't sinking in. I'll make one more analogy on this subject before I move on:

Let's say wanting to play games online with friends is analogous to wanting to go buy groceries. Now let's say there are two stores: one that is a major super store grocery store-XBL- that requires you to pay a membership fee on an annual basis to shop there. Now lets' say there's a smaller grocery store that hasn't been around as long but has all the food you want at the same price as the major store but without the mandatory membership fee-PSN.

Now if all I want is to buy food I can do that at either store. Sure the major store may sell other things there like clothes, furniture, and tvs but I'm here to get food. If all I want is food, then why is the smaller store inferior. And just go with me in this hypothetical scenario because I know how capitalism works and that a smaller store can't compete with a major store in terms of prices. Forget that for the purposes of my argument if you can and perhaps you'll see my point on Live vs. PSN.

Bottom line: I want to play games online with friends. I do that for free on PSN. That said, PSN is not inferior at all to me. In fact, the money I saved on not having to play online is money I can use to buy more food...I mean games.

PSN: Lifendz

FordGTGuy4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

But wasn't it Sony's excuse that the Sony PS3 cost so much to force people to work longer hours to buy one?

Who treats who like a walking wallet?

Xbox Live doesn't use servers for separate games instead its entire service(with all the games) are run on a group of servers. This allows for a unified playing experience which you cannot have on PSN. Not only does Xbox Live have many times the Content of PSN but has a guaranteed feature list that trumps PSN altogether.

Xbox Live Guarantees features and that is why people pay for.
These include:
*Voice Chat.
*Friends List.
*Private Chat.
*Custom Music(This includes interfacing with MP3(USB storage devices), Computer & HDD).
*Players List.
*Incoming and Outgoing text, audio & picture messages.
*Friend Invites.
and this list grows with every update.

Is it worth it? That is up to the consumer but with over 11 million Gold Members strong it must be.

BTW Grocery Store analogy = EPIC FAIL.


PSN does not guarantee any of those features let alone are they on par with Xbox Live.

Can you private chat on PSN cross game?

You cannot send and receive messages in all formats while ingame on PSN the same goes with accepting invites.

BTW voice chat in the game is a choice by the developer/publisher of the game on PSN not guaranteed by PSN.

Its going to have it in the future is not an excuse.

St04875d ago


*Voice Chat. (PS3 also has)
*Friends List. (PS3 also has)
*Private Chat. (PS3 also has)
*Custom Music(This includes interfacing with MP3(USB storage devices), Computer & HDD). (Will have in the future)
*Players List. (PS3 also has)
*Incoming and Outgoing text, audio & picture messages. (PS3 also has)
*Friend Invites. (PS3 also has)

Everything you said there the PS3 can also do apart from ingame music which will be added in the near future.

XB live is a ripoff imo

crck4875d ago

I agree with you. Its mostly the teenagers that care about those extra features. I don't give a damn about them. I go online to play with or against others. And for that sole purpose PSN is superior because of the dedicated servers. I have no desire to chat, invite people, gossip or make friends online.

Delt44875d ago

You both made good points. The discussion here shouldn't be Who is inferior it should be why? what are the reasons that we pay and do we all believe that is fare. And So far millions of people who have been playing xbox live sense the original xbox are saying yes. If others don't think it is tell us why don't pull crap out your butt about PS3 and how great they are, cause that had nothing to do with the article.

let the disagrees come! i know they will

sonarus4875d ago

@fordgt: But wasn't it Sony's excuse that the Sony PS3 cost so much to force people to work longer hours to buy one?

This is a false statement. When ps3 announced the price to be 600 what they said was when you think about the value you are getting for the machine it is actually quite cheap. We want you to want our system so much you would take another job to buy it.

Every company wants you to love their system. Sony may have stretched it with the another job but they didn't say you can't buy a ps3 unless you have 2 jobs and they have been more than supportive of the customer eating up huge losses by dropping the price

Lifendz is correct. Msoft should NOT charge for online gaming but they do and you either pay or play it is that simple. The essentials of online gaming sony does for free sure msoft may do it in a fancier manner but sony does it for free. 3yrs owning an Xbox 360 that is already 150 dollars added to your console. DO you know how much B.S. there is to pay 250 dollars to play online for 5 yrs?. No one else charges except for microsoft and that is B.S. they could offer live for free if they wanted but those are the set rules

chaosatom3334875d ago

I am not going to call on xbox because they have to pay 50 per year because i guess that's ok consdering it's per year.

Now you mentioned that
*Voice Chat.
*Friends List.
*Private Chat.
*Custom Music(This includes interfacing with MP3(USB storage devices), Computer & HDD).
*Players List.
*Incoming and Outgoing text, audio & picture messages.
*Friend Invites.

Ps3 can do all of this just not in-game. Also, it vaires from game to game, resistance can do most of it in-game. It's just that ps3 doesn't have a center Home to connect all of those features. Home, how ironic.

edit: hahaha

wallace10004875d ago

We pay because xbox live is a sweet service and $50 a year is nothing in the grand scheme of things. For me personally, someone said free on PS3 is an option but i can't play halo 3 on it so it isn't really an option at all.

wallace10004875d ago

Did two people disagree because they can think you can play halo 3 on a PS3 or because they think xbox live isn't the best online service for a console?

Richdad4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

Paying is not bad if we get the best LIve has great feautres to make us pay but the thing is that the concept of spending point on game guide downloads etc should be for free since we have already paid its going that way i.e getting cheap but I think still they should reduce the price less than 50$, as they are raising money by selling game may be a 20-25$ would be a good price.
Although PSN is free now, but Sony is itself putting servers for it so how much longer they are gonna cope up with the burden. In PC case is different you can advertise and earn their are different mehtods and the publsiher has the burden of the online scheme, but Sony is trying to make PSN better I dont how much longer it would be free. Although not soon but its gonna be a pay service too.

dantesparda4875d ago

Voice Chat. (Is this really a feature of Live or just a BIOS/Firmware feature? Come on!)
*Friends List. (Same as above)
*Private Chat. (Same as above)
*Custom Music(This includes interfacing with MP3(USB storage devices), Computer & HDD). (This is definitely not a Live feature, its a 360 BIOS/firmware feature)
*Players List. (BIOS/Firmware feature)
*Incoming and Outgoing text, audio & picture messages. (BIOS/Firmware feature)
*Friend Invites. (BIOS/Firmware feature)

Almost all these features can be done by the PS3, (except in-game music, and even that can be done on some games). People these are not Live features but rather features of the 360. The PS3 will be able to do all these with firmware/BIOS updates. You are simply paying to play online, that's it. Accept it! And that is a rip off, but if you wanna play online on the 360 you dont have no other choice but to pay!

kr90914875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

I agree with lifendz. I can see why 360 owners pay for online but personally i would rather not pay for features that i most likely wont use such as in game messaging. That's just my opinion. That's why i like PSN so much...because it doesnt charge you for features that you may not use.

But i agree that LIVE has more features than PSN...but it should because it's users are paying for it. plus that should change in the near future. PSN will be on par with xbox live by years end, hopefully sooner.

eh, just my two cents.

DRUDOG4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

The bottom line that I don't think anyone here has stated clearly is if you are happy with what you're paying for or getting free? Admittedly I've had a limited amount of time on Live, but I have experienced it enough to know that some things it offers are more than I need or even want.

If I had a large amount of friends that played games or if I actually wanted to chat with other people while trying to play than I probably would pay for some of the things that Live provides. I felt strongly about paying to get online with the original Xbox. I hated the idea of it. I felt back then that no matter what extra content was being provided it still didn't justify being charged to access it.

So, back to my original question: Are you satisfied with what you're paying for or getting free? Whichever service you use that satisfies your needs is going to be superior in your mind. Live is not superior to me because I don't value the extra things is provides over PSN. That doesn't mean it's not superior for others, it's just my opinion so take it for what it's worth (nothing!).

I don't think it's superior because PSN provides me what I need for free. Do I wish I could do things on PSN that Live does now (e.g. chat cross-game with friends)? Sometimes, sure, but I also really like to play games without being bothered. I also like that I pay nothing for a service that works like a charm, no lag, no dropped service and plenty of content that keeps getting better. PSN is superior for me because I get what I need and it's free. Being free is a major factor in deciding how much I need. Lifendz' example about grocery stores wasn't maybe the best, but it was true. If you don't need what the pay-to-play service is providing and can get the same value (for what you need) at the free-to-play service than which would you choose? Which would then be superior? I guess in the end there will be no argument about it once Sony implements Home/in-game XMB and provides most, if not all the same, services that Live does.

I do find it odd how much Live members have to pay for little things(e.g. themes) or the ads on the blades when PSN has no advertising (for now) and themes/backgrounds are free. I don't like being nickeled and dimed for little things or add-ons to consoles that are overpriced, but that's for a different post...

kr90914875d ago

I agree with you DRUDOG. That's pretty much what i just posted above you. Nice to see someone here who can look at this rationally.

Bubbles for you!

DRUDOG4875d ago

Back at you kr9091. You knocked out the response much shorter and much more quickly than I did!

fredy4875d ago

comparing XBL to PSN, man your a Joke. hahaha

player9114875d ago

See p2p gaming is the way to go. Sony Fanboys always try to spin it by saying games having "Dedicated Servers" are the way to go. This is completely false in everyway. What happens in a few years when the game loses popularity and they take down the servers for a new game?

What happens then? You see this all the time and not just with the PS3 but also with the Wii. Metal of Honor: Heroes 2 doesn't have multiplayer in Australlia because they didn't want to pay for servers.

Companies will only upkeep a server if its profiting them. After a few years they'll yank the server to use for a new title.

With p2p, even if there are only 2 people in the world with the game... they'll connect and play. I mean people still play original halo 1 and 2 games on their original xboxs.

Plus dedicated servers get maxed out and bogged down. In a Peer 2 Peer network, it'll pick the best connection to host and that person only connects with people playing in the game... not hundreds of thousands of others.

Trust me, I'm an IT Administrator and have been in networking longer then most of you have been alive. P2P is the way to go and is becoming the norm more and more.

And another thing like stated previously with Live, is that it is like a standard to have all those features in every game. Just about every game supports live now, even the arcade games. And with that you get the whole enchilada, not just this and that and a little bit of this.

Plus you guys make it seem like $50 a YEAR is alot. I know right now if Sony said we'll include all these NEW options for a flat rate per year... most of you would jump at the offering. Anyone would.

mistertwoturbo4875d ago

Player 911, yes $50/year alone doesn't seem like much. But you must realize, for 360 owners or just console owners in general. Will buy that one console and stick with it. So that person who wants to keep playing online on they're 360 for 6 years, basically just paid $300. The cost of a new console.

$50 isn't much, but it adds up. Also considering they have to pay the initial price for the 360, plus the ISP they use.

HOWEVER, for those that find the features very useful to them, and they LIKE having those features, are the ones that don't mind paying. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It's just that others, prefer to play online games for free, since the PC gaming era. People never had to pay to play UT2k3, starcraft, counterstrike etc. (except those MMOs.) So why be FORCED to pay for services that not everybody wants? Except to hop online, join your buddies in a server, and just play the game.

Shankle4875d ago

Imagine if the Live service was reversed. Say that, like PSN you could play online, download demos and trailers, and interact with your friends to the extent you can on PSN, all for free. This would be silver membership. Then, gold membership would give you all the extras like the arcade, ingame messaging and fast downloads. Would you then pay $50 a year for gold membership?

slowlearner4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

my friends own a 360 and that is who i want to play with. It's also an easy communication tool. Plus I'm an adult and i can do whatever I please with my money. Bells and whistles has nothing to do with the younger generation crck and shortstop, when you don't go to school with your friends anymore it's much easier to keep track of them by a gamertag than a phone number or address. K thanks for asking.

@sonarus 1.16 fordgtguy is right krazy ken wanted people to work more hours for it -
"…for consumers to think to themselves ‘I will work more hours to buy one’. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

le killer4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

i've been paying since 04. call me what you want. it's a great service, and i personally think it's woth the £3+ a month. and 10+ mil seem to agree.yeah, a couple of games sony have released have dedicated servers. but try hosting 40 players on anything less than 2.5meg up, and you won't do it!

although i think games with matchmaking should run on dedictaed servers to cut down the host avantage. plus games with high player counts also.

but as someone else said, this really is the bash the 360 site nowadays. when is it gonna stop i have to ask? or will it only stop when sony are finally siting in a comfortable second?????

wallace10004875d ago

Stupid fanboys make me feel sorry for them

tuaamin134874d ago

Yeah, I agree that the dedicated servers are very nice. However, you missed one important thing: The PS3 games with dedicated servers also support P2P. So it's not like Capcom shutting down RE:Outbreak or Konami killing the DDR servers. You can still play P2P, even with the dedicated servers gone. This allows Sony to keep supporting the game, but minimize the number of dedicated servers in the future. Sony can take like 75% of their Warhawk servers, port them to KZ2, and Warhawk will still work. It won't have as many dedicated servers (or maybe even none) but people who still want to play have the option to play ranked player (p2p) servers.

Shortstop4874d ago


P2P is not the only way to go forward, and it should not be. For example, in Warhawk, there's tons of dedicated servers. Many with up to 32 players allowed. If I am to host a P2P game, I am allowed a maximum of 8 players, and that just isn't enough.

If you're not getting dedicated servers from M$ then you're getting ripped off, plain and simple. That's absolutely where the money should be going first.

jadenkorri4874d ago

ya, regardless of which console they own, they are gonna defend it whether they like live or psn...those that have tried both have a right to express what they irritates me that people say this is better and they haven't even tryied both....that aside 360 players pay to play and psn players don't..granted theres more stuff on live, and thats why you pay, but if psn offers the exact same thing and its free, i think thats where this article is trying to get at...but personally if MS continues to charge and sony stays free, not really gonna affect me besides i don;t see live going free, be like WOW going free...not going to happen

wallace10004874d ago

Well said jadenkorri, bubbles for you dude. People shouldn't be running something into the ground unless they have used it.

+ Show (33) more repliesLast reply 4874d ago
Mr Playboy4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )


for best online experience in this generation

Sir Ken Kutaragi 34875d ago

Because your idiots

+It says - 'The PC has free and much superior online play'

Bill Gates4875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

You pay because you are BABOONS...........AHAHAHHAHHAH HAHA

$150.00 since 2005 just to play online, and counting.....


mikeslemonade4875d ago

MS has brainwashed the bots into thinking that $50 a year is okay and it's not. There are people who buy 3 or 4 games a year and paying $50 is rediculous if you just want to play online maybe once a week. XBL will not grow past 20 million people if they stick to the $50 a year tag. Only half of the owners of 360 have xbl gold anyway.

TheTerminator4875d ago

"We get what we pay for"

They need to stop saying that, they get the features for free, but the multiplayer costs

Breakfast4875d ago

hopefully when HOME comes out theyll rethink theyre position

Gondee4875d ago

man, this has realy become bash the xbox360

I pay beause i get all the fetures now. I pay beause people at my school play as well. And its extreamly easy to send a privite chat or cross game invite.
I pay beause theres nothing better out there, and it continues to grow and expand, its devlopment is the key.

The_Engineer4875d ago

I bought a second 360 for my son just so we can chat during the week when he is with his mother, we have been able to voice chat all of two or three times, the rest of the time it would just FAIL.

this is what Im paying 2 subscriptions for?? SO I can't even voice chat with my son?? F the 360 and F msoft and most of all F all the moronic bots out there who support this crap. I actually had 3 subscriptions (one left over from my previous 360, you know the one with no HDMI) which I transferred over to my pc for use with gears on pc. I just let it expire and have no plans on renewing. will do same with the other two when they are up, my kid already says the 360 bores him and he wants a PS3.

niall774875d ago (Edited 4875d ago )

you pay for something, there for you think its better then something thats free, even if it isnt better then the free thing you have to feel you are not wasting your money so you think its worth it.

player9114875d ago

Thats not always the case. At first glance maybe. Looking at 2 energy drinks... one is $1 and the other is $5. You may THINK the $5 is better because of price but you can only truly know until you try both of them.

In the case of Live vs PSN, Live wins.

jadenkorri4875d ago

if you look at live when it first came out, how bad was it, or even a year later.... thing is time is what made it good, it wasn't great when the 360 released obviously and the same goes for psn...however live has had 3 years and is still having problems happening, random freezing, long logins or inability to log in, or even downloaded content on new/repaired/switched console...anyways theres a list of problems....psn, i rarely hear of major problems other than the rare outage which ive never experienced...since day 1, I've had no problems connecting, chatting, multi-player has never disconnected on me with the exception of when someone logins to Diablo 2 its a hog and it only happens when he plays that game....anyways no problems yet and im glad for the free service...people will have to wake up and realize that MS is ripping you off......

Shortstop4874d ago

Actually, there have been studies that prove that when people consume the exact same product at different prices, the person consuming the more expensive product feels more satisfaction. I know there's been a few studies on this and the one I specifically remember used wine as the product. Can't recall the source though, sorry, but honestly, use google if you doubt me.

wallace10004874d ago

That makes sense but the problem is that PS3 owners will say PSN is better and 360 owners will say live is better. Just look at the people arguing and see what console they own :-P

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4874d ago
Meus Renaissance4875d ago

You pay because you choose to.

LJWooly4875d ago

Exactly. That's as simple as it gets, and anyone who comes up with anything more deep or complicated than that is just looking too far into a simple thing.

Anyone who has that much of a problem with it would have gotten a PS3 by now. They're not even that expensive anymore.

shelbygt334875d ago

And, all of my friends own Xbox's. I am the only one of my "real life" friends that own a PS3. I'll gladly pay the $50 to play online with all of them - it's money well spent in my book.

(And not to start a flame bait - but my PS3 online experience has been less than stellar - lagging and poor to no found connections with Army of Two and UT3)