Quantcast
Xbox Live PC free and console gamers are not happy

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Live PC free and console gamers are not happy

Kerotan said:
That's the point.  Sony would have been a few billion better off if they did on ps3 and Microsoft would have lost billions more from the band.  Investors without their live revenue and potential future revenue might not even let their console exist anymore.  Sony badly need the billions too for obvious reasons and they do it in a way where gamers get amazing value.  Win win. 

 

As for Nintendo let's not drag this thread off so message me on my wall and we can continue that. 

You're the one that brought Nintendo up, so there is no "us" about it. Frankly, I don't care enough to continue it elsewhere. 

You like paying extra for online? Cool. Good on you. But don't try to act as if people who don't think it's a good deal are insane for thinking so. Not everyone has the same tolerance level.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

Around the Network
oniyide said:
Kerotan said:

What about the games we get that makes the 5$ a month seem like they are paying us.  I understand you are not in our position but you can't diss gold and plus when they offer us gamers the best sub services in gaming.  

1. I dont know about current XBL but with PS+ you stop subscribing you lose the games. 

2. MS only just started doing that. It hasnt been the case for a long time, so what were people paying for prior to that?

Yes you lose access to the games if you unsub. But if you get value from the service through playing the games to the extent that you wanted to play them then it is good value and you lose nothing really when you unsub. If you look at the PSN+ "free" games as long term rentals, rather than ownership then the cost/benefit still stacks up extremely well. especially if you have a PS3 and PS4 and / or Vita. The value from getting a bunch of "free" games for 2 consoles each month is ridiculously good. I'm not sure how long I'll keep PSN+. I am accumulating games at a faster rate than I can play them, and the only way I am likely to get through the PSN+ games is if I stop buiying games. But if I don;t get through the games I already have from PSN+, then I neeed to keep the sub in order to play them, which means I accumulate more games. There hasn't been a month yet when at least one of the games (and usually 2 or 3) available for PS3 or 4 hasn't been a game I wanted. I think The Order will have to be my last game purchase for a few months so that I can work through my PSN+ catalog.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

As one who has used XBox Live for seven years or so, I am completely and utterly indifferent to this. If I wanted to game on the PC, I would. I do not. That's the choice I made and seven years later, I still feel I made the right call. Everybody who is getting pissy about this can use XBox Live on PC and not spend an extra cent on it. They get it free just like everybody else. Why the Hell are people getting upset over a free service that they can opt in on?



Kerotan said:
oniyide said:

1. I dont know about current XBL but with PS+ you stop subscribing you lose the games. 

2. MS only just started doing that. It hasnt been the case for a long time, so what were people paying for prior to that?


They used to pay for just the service.  Ps plus brought in unmatched value.  Tough shit if someone unsubs though.  gaming mustn't be for them because there is no reason to stop subbing if you have the time to play.  


i understand that, but what is the service? is it just to play online? if so why?



Then stop paying for Xbox Live and join the PC gamers. Most of the Xbox "Exclusives" are on PC anyways.



Around the Network

@ aLkaLiNE

Yes its relevant. Look at console history. Online didn’t really start till dreamcast when it had modem built in with the system and even that was small as I remember playing phantasy star online. That was more like a test for consoles gamers into playing online with other people. Ps2 had it but you had to buy a mandatory accessory to play it. Do you remember that? When MS came to the picture with the original Xbox , the idea of having an ecosystem where you can see all your friends, getting them to join you and then playing online with them while you sit on the couch. They That form on online gaming never happened before and it was new and ms was the only one at that time and they had for a long time , enough to have a viable market to keep on charging. Whereas for pc it was different. What made it special was being able to connect fast, chat with people you are playing with it and it was reliable and easy to go online.

Ms did try to charge online gaming but failed as pc gamers would never pay, heck a lot still don’t pay for games and instead they pirate them. When steam came out with free online gaming, it was hugely popular and not only that the games itself is super super super cheap. Steam when it came out was the only thing to provide free online gaming with cheap games and good service and now they dominate the pc online market. If anyone new tries to bring in pay for online, all their customer will run to steam. It won’t last hence why ms had to make sure it was free. They know from their past experience and we all know how hugely popular steam is.

Now look at Sony, they tried to introduce free gaming with ps3 . Even though ti was popular, they didn’t make much money if at all. Sony back in ps3 days nearly went bankrupt and was losing a lot of money. Look at them now with paid online service. They are in much better financial state then they were with ps3. Having psn under the pay wall contributed towards.
The free service even though was good (because it was free), it was terrible when paying online as there was lag and didn’t work very well. I used to get disconnected when playing online. If you are talking about nickel dime what about sony mandatory super expensive memory cards that we were force to buy for psp and psvita? What the mandatory accessory for ps2 to play online? What about fault with ps1 and ps2 with the lens problem. Sony went to court with that and we didn’t get any replacement. We were force to by a new console that rectified the problem.



Console's owners are furious? :) Really?
Way to generalize here...

Like several Xbox Live users posted in this thread, I (and they) do not care... Completely indifferent.



Skullwaker said:
Kerotan said:
That's the point.  Sony would have been a few billion better off if they did on ps3 and Microsoft would have lost billions more from the band.  Investors without their live revenue and potential future revenue might not even let their console exist anymore.  Sony badly need the billions too for obvious reasons and they do it in a way where gamers get amazing value.  Win win. 

 

As for Nintendo let's not drag this thread off so message me on my wall and we can continue that. 

You're the one that brought Nintendo up, so there is no "us" about it. Frankly, I don't care enough to continue it elsewhere. 

You like paying extra for online? Cool. Good on you. But don't try to act as if people who don't think it's a good deal are insane for thinking so. Not everyone has the same tolerance level.


I did and it was a side point.  You asked me to expand so I directed you where to go. 

 

I also dont think the sub service is good value I know it is.  I subbed to it on the ps3 when it was optional and it's given me so many great games I'd never have considered playing. I've extended it for 2 years this year.  Top notch service. 



Lets hope those "superior" servers finally get an overhaul this gen.



REKT
E
K
T

Honestly though, it's reaching the point where my XB1 has become my media box.