By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft respond to PS3 Netflix Announcement

justinian on 28 October 2009
WereKitten said:
selnor said:


For some who only play online yes I agree. But certainly the stability of playing online with Live shows over PSN. At least from my experience with the same connection disconnections on PSN are very frequent, but the same house with same speed can go hors with no loss on Live.

I'm not questioning the quality of the connection or server offer over the competition - though your mileage may vary, never had a disconnection while playing online with PSN over WiFi in the year I have had it and if I were offered an "improved" connection for money I wouldn't need it.

Just saying that the real value bringing most people to pay for live gold what they pay is the simple fact that it's mandatory to play online. Thus its value is artificially inflated and the adoption doesn't really tell how much people think that stability -or the extra features such as early demos- is worth in monetary terms. That is what your previous post seemed to state.


Totally agree with this statement.

FACT: You don't have a freaking choice if you want to play online with a x360.

And because you don't have a choice but to pay you make out like it is good thing because it makes you feel better.

The trick is for MS to offer free online gaming and make users pay for everything else on Live.

That will definitely prove how much of this "I Love to pay for Live" is BS.

Saying all that I am glad MS charges for Live. 

I also believe - although I can never prove it, so don't ask me to - that this is a reason why x360, even with being the cheapest console and being out for so much longer, it's sales are miles behind the humble wii which offers free online.

I've overheard a conversation twice in different stores where paying online was the decisive factor in getting a wii for a newcomer to gaming.

If Live was free x360 sales would have been double by now IMO, *and that is based on more than overhearing a couple people talking about it.

Live payments offers good financial backup to cover for this.

PS3 don't count because for too long it was too damn expensive *and the x360 and wii were more appealing in terms of price.

*Edited:



Around the Network
dbot on 28 October 2009
selnor said:
WereKitten said:
...


For some who only play online yes I agree. But certainly the stability of playing online with Live shows over PSN. At least from my experience with the same connection disconnections on PSN are very frequent, but the same house with same speed can go hors with no loss on Live.

If we are speaking anecdotally, I have Xbox Live Gold and PSN and see absolutely no difference in online play between the two networks.  Though Live does have better friends support and communications.  I tried Live for a year, but will not be renewing it.  



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

MAFKKA on 28 October 2009

I usually dont care about LIVE vs PSN but people seem to think that Facebook, Twitter and Last.FM is the only sites of value. And is the only sites/integrations that can compare to PS3s versions via the webbrowser.

I use the browser daily to visit NFL.com, Youtube, Vgchartz, Google, TVshack (stream videos and that shows on my TV) etc. All sites work without any problems. And i bet there are thousands of other websites that people visit via the browser. So i dont get why one can only count the value of integrated Facebook, Last FM and Twitter and claim that its the true standards of what the experience is suppose to be, compared to the PS3 browser?

And i agree with what someone said earlier. Online multiplayer is by far the biggest reason Gold subscriber excists, and that feature is software based to begin with.



slowmo on 28 October 2009
akuseru said:
slowmo said:
dsgrue3 said:

slowmo said:
It's always fun to hear from so many Sony fans concerned for the wallets of the poor 360 consumer. Free would indeed be better than a paid service if they were the same, but they're not so it isn't.

By the way, my USB wireless keyboard plugged into my 360 makes typing anything easy anyway for the guy so concerned about typing a status update.

Plugging my USB keyboard into my PS3 also allows me the same thing. Moot point sir.

 

Zlejedi said:
Microsoft failed at math classes again as everyone knows X/0 >>> Y/4 ;)

 You cannot divide by zero...unless you're a PS3, cause it only does EVERYTHING.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Anyone that pays for Live feels it is worth it and that's fine. PSN is catching up to Live, this cannot be denied, and a service close to Live which is Free is a much better value than a slightly better service for 50 bucks a year.


PSN is catching up with Live but why has it taken over 3 years?  A service thats not equivalent cannot be better value in any way other than subjectively for each individual user, the fact so many people pay $50 a year to experience Gold access suggests your statement is false for a significant number of gamers.  Taking away feature lists and considering the experiences as a whole PSN is still a way off being the fully integrated service Live is and thats where many see the value of the service.  You're welcome to your opinion that PSN is a better value propostition for yourself but owning both consoles myself I still prefer Live and don't mind the fee for the service I receive.

Because the "advantages" that LIVE has is not anything special... At least me and all my friends don't care about it. And the 2 people I know with a 360 praise it all the time, but they never use it... I would never pay $50 a year for voice chat... lol

 

selnor said:
People who have and use Live Gold regularly understand why it is a paid service. It really is leagues ahead of the comp in the online service. If it wasn't people wouldn't pay.

No it is not.. and yes, people would pay, because people are stupid.

You sir are an idiot.  You don't even pay for the service so how can you disagree with Selnor's statement.  If the sort of people you hang around with go around calling people stupid for having a differing opinion then to be frank I'm quite glad you aren't part of the Live community, PSN is welcome to you.



d21lewis on 29 October 2009

Netflix costs $9 a month. That's over $100 a year, and thus, too expensive. Do PS3 fans want this service when they can have a similar service (watching movies for free) by going to the local library?



Around the Network
MAFKKA on 29 October 2009

^ http://www.lisnews.org/granny_finds_porn_flick_library_movie_rental ?



toadslayer72 on 29 October 2009

I actually feel bad only paying between $35 and $50 a year for Live. All these dudes arguing about the minimal cost of Live when they are spending their money on all kinds of gaming/tech shit. You guys really that broke? Balls deep from MS.......for only $50 a year at the most, now that's a steal.



I LOVE paying for Xbox Live! I also love that my love for it pisses off so many people.

Lafiel on 29 October 2009

Xbox live has some nice advantages over PSN, as it is integration is more sophisticated and matured. ("a generation ahead" is marketing talk though)

I can see why people are willing to pay for that, although their initial motivation to subscribe to the gold service might have been to be able to play online.

Having said that I personally have no further use for it's additional services and features and as PSN always has been a reliable method for online gaming for me I'm content with whats offered to me by Sony for free.



AlJensen on 29 October 2009

Wow, I have never seen XBL can someone really outline the differences between it and PSN?



 

 

tedsteriscool on 29 October 2009

I don't care how much "better" they think their service is than Sony's. In the end, a Netflix subscription > Netflix + Live subscription.