tuoyo said:
Yes I think it is that simple. And that is what I don't agree with. The developer and Microsoft should be the ones to foot the bill not the consumers. That cost should have already been included in the console/game cost. All those that pay for Live and are championing how superior it is if you had the choice between a free service equivalent to that on PS3 or the service you get now for $50 would you go for the free or the PS3 type service? I would suggest that out of every 10 people that say they would pay the $50 1 is being honest, 8 are liars and the other is blinded by fanboyism.
|
F*cking bullsh*t ! 
Where is SONY with the cost of everything integrated into the price of the plateform ? Behind everybody !
The opposition to XBL keeps coming with the same argument that makes Sony loosing its status of leader on the gaming market. Wake up !
We can argue about the price, inside or outside the TCO of the 360 but the fact remains : XBL is the best solution for online console gaming. It actually brought something to the plateform.
Now to see if it should be hidden into the cost of something else in the futur well maybe, I don't know ...
Online gaming will always be a cost to somebody, and to pay a cost you need margin to be generated on the products.
Microsoft decided to make a separate cost for that so offline player don't pay the bill direclty, and the enthousiam of the market generates the effort to be put on the features of XBL. What is wrong with that ?
Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.
