I really wouldn't mind paying for online gaming if they provided an awesome service with fast dedicated servers near my location. It probably still wouldn't be as good as PC online due to low customization (can't play fan-made maps, etc), but at least I would feel that they're spending my money to improve my experience.

But paying MS just for the privilege of being able to host games on my connection or connecting to another gamer's 360 as the server, that just feels like being ripped off. It's not just a matter of principle, actually, as this has obvious implications on performance and online capabilities.

For example, I can play with 32 players on TF2 on the PC... on the 360, you play with 16 players if you're lucky (or so I hear).

It's a rip off yeah.

So let me ask you something. What separates your "Live is holding Microsoft back" from the times I've heard similar rants in 2008, 2007,2006, and late 2005?

50 a year is chicken scratch. Are you telling me you can't afford 4.25 a month?

Also Xbox live has proven to be far more stable than PSN in stress tests (I.e. Call of Duty debaucle). It simply is not fair to compare it to the PC.

The console will probably hit 34 million units sold by the end of the week. If you want to call that a number stifled by Xbox live, then that's your opinion. I just think its wrong.

Paragraph by paragraph:

1- What separates my rant from past ones is that now we're at the point where the 360's online system makes it a more expensive alternative than the PS3. We're also at the point that this might be giving a visible edge in favor of the PS3.

2- I can afford it just fine. That doesn't mean I think it's worth it (see my previous post).

3- Whether Xbox Live is more stable than the PSN or not I don't know and is besides the point. I gather that the PSN does have dedicated servers for many games, and surely it could be improved if Sony charged for it.

4- Irrelevant.

Before I respond to this post, let me just say that even though I don't see a problem with Live being a charged service (Xbox did basically launch online gaming on consoles into popularity afterall), I believe now that Sony has basically caught up, MS shouldn't charge for the service for the next box.

Now to rebut the post:

This has to be one of the more ignorant posts I've read in a while. You're saying we should blame MS and the users who pay for XBL? Shouldn't we be thanking these people because it forced Sony into the online gaming market for the first time in a serious manner? (FFXI on PS2 doesn't count because it was basically a joke). In addition, should we also be blaming 360 and PS3 early adopters for pushing up console prices for even considering spending money on those consoles from the start at such ridiculous prices ($1000AUD for a games console?).

The answer is no. It's thanks to these individuals who bought the PS3 and 360 earlier on and allowed for more production and therefore cost effective SKU's to be produced that we are able to enjoy these consoles at a lower price. In that same sense, you should be thanking MS and the early Gold users for showing Sony and Nintendo that online gaming can be a area to improve in. MS forced Sony into action. PSN wouldn't exist in it's current state if it weren't for MS leading the way and them being funded by those XBL users.

Are they stupid? perhaps. But the point is, your sarcasm isn't wanted if you cannot see the usefulness of their behaviour to us free PSN users. MS is trying to push for value with facebook and netflix, I doubt Sony would have considered Netflix on PSN if they didn't see it working for MS first.

We might as well blame Wii owners as well for us not being able to sit on our behinds to play our games next generation as well. Innovation? pffft who needs it, I'm happy to have one company that controls everything and does nothing, competition is bad for the industry. I love how the difference between the PS1 and PS2 was updated graphics, that's such a massive step forward for the industry (I'm being fairly sarcastic here).

Honestly, this XBL argument is stupid. If people see value in it, they will buy it. So far, I'm fairly certain based on how XBL is doing that people do see value in it. In the same sense, I'm sure people saw the 360 and PS3 at their launch prices as good value when they bought them and you might think so as well, I personally don't, but does that mean that the consoles at launch weren't good value? Nope, because value can be subjective. You might think differently, but don't state it as fact when it's just your opinion (which you're entitled to of course).

EDIT: I should note that like I said at the start, my opinion now is that XBL on the nextbox should be free (and therefore may not be good value now). But I'm replying to the post I quoted by saying that this person is ignorant for not seeing why XBL was a charge worthy service in the beginning (and why, I feel, it was necessary for the industry).

Well, as someone coming from PC I don't see the point of paying for what Live offers, particularly if PSN on another console gives you more or less the same stuff for free, but on the other hand Live is relatively cheap, so while in a sense it's perhaps not great value, it's perhaps too cheap overall to count as having low to no value for the cost.

I'm not sure it's really holding 360 back, either to be honest. I think RROD and MS weak brand at beginning of the 360 lifecycle held the 360 back way more than Live, particularly outside the US.

But there were periods when the 360 outsold the PS3 even in Europe, after it got good price cuts. Now the value is back on the PS3 camp and the PS3 wins in sales, so I do think value for money plays a big part.

NJ5 in post about something other than the demise of Sony, shock!
You have a point but to be honest i dont think it makes the biggest of odds.

OK that comment was inevitable, but I do post about lots of things, even in offtopic.

As for your second paragraph I didn't really understand it.

Thats one of the reasons I went for PS3 but wanted to get Xbox Elite first. You already pay for your broadband so when I read that you have to pay for Gold membership to be able to play online I decided that PS3 was better value.