Mr Puggsly said:
Oh boy, let me walk you through this. There is a lot of overhead in creating/maintaining an online infrastructure and ofcourse bandwidth fees. Sony admits they have been in the red for years with PSN. Don't believe me? Read this article. http://www.1up.com/news/hirai-psn-losing-money-turn If PSN is that expensive to operates then we can presume XBL is actually far more expensive to operate. XBL maintains all servers (excluding EA), while PSN does not. MS covers all bandwidth fees, while Sony puts some of it on the publishers. On top of that PSN offers much less content. Most notably content like demos, trailers, and even images. Most likely to keep bandwidth fees down. Socialism is not entirely bad. You however are starting to cross a line because you think you're entitled to these online services regardless of overhead. You give a few bucks to an internet provider but I assure you your internet provider is not covering the overhead cost of services like PSN or XBL. Its fair for MS to charge a fee to access online services because you have other options. XBL is forced on no one. If you buy a 360 its understood you will have to get a Gold subscription to access online services. If you didn't know that before making the purchase, you can return the console. Now explain to me how that's not fair? If you don't support what MS does you're free to take your money elsewhere, many do. Yay free market!
How do you know $10 dollars goes directly to Activision? Frankly I don't care if it does, but was this announced? You don't have pay for that extra crap to play CoD or BF3. More importantly, you don't have to play CoD or BF3 at all. Commies just don't understand these things aren't forced on people. People choose to give money to these services because they actually want it. |
LOL..@ Commies. Theres no commie here (a utopian way of life that in reality doesn't work). Don't get mad at me because I know how the American economy works. I'll give you one thing, you're correct that all of those things are optional, but what if someone who is a shooting fan wants all those games on an Xbox? Free market? Microsoft and competition don't mix if you know their history, just saying. They like being a monopoly and thank god for Apple that the "free market" continues.
Anyway as for the Xbox Live fee hike:
Bobby Kotick complaing that he doesn't get a cut of the Xbox Live subscriptions after Microsoft boasted about the majority of Xbox Live players being COD players.
http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/07/08/activision-wants-cut-from-xbox-live-subscription/
"So, with $60 a year out the door for many Call of Duty players – that would be those playing on Xbox 360, as opposed to PC or PlayStation 3 – it's already a significant $5 a month expense and Activision has only snagged a "modest amount" of that $5. So, subscription service, right? "We have an obligation to provide a return for our shareholders,"
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/12/bobby-kotick-on-the-business-of-call-of-duty-dlc-treyarch-inf/
A good enough portion of the money you pay yearly goes to Activision even if you don't play their games.
