By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
nightsurge on 30 December 2008
Edit Thread
Euphoria14 said:
nightsurge said:
Euphoria14 said:

Think of it this way, suppose I have 3 friends who don't have a 360 and want to play a game with me online, I need to shell out anywhere from $32 for 1 month or $200 for 1 year just so they can play with me?

I know people say "$50 is nothing for 1 year", but look at it in my situation, it is nothing more than a god damn rip-off, which is why I get so angered with this current renewal situation and why I prefer my PS3 for online.

Unless of course there are no games that support 2-4 player online with 1 console other than Castle Crashers.

Well, most online enabled Xbox 360 games offer guests to play.  Most multiplayer online games do, at least.  Perhaps not the XBLA games.... I've never tried Castle Crashers and guests so I can't say.

 

Does it allow a guest in GeoW?

 

Anyways a smart person I know personally recently said this to me in regards to MS charging for online with the XBox360.

"Hmm, yeah I enjoy spending money for online when I already pay Cablevision for it in the first place... doesn't make much sense to me. When is Apple, HP, Gateway, etc going to start charging us for our computers to be able to use the internet? It's the same thing isn't it? If they did that people would fucking flip but its okay for Microsoft."

Many non gamers share this view and makes me believe only the 360 userbase falls into this trap. If Sony was ever to impliment something like this, believe me I would never pay for that shit either. I already pay for my ability to use online, I shouldn't have to pay again.

Thinking on these lines, honestly I doubt I will be buying LIVE after I am finished with this situation. Just like I have been for the year or so before I grabbed the 1-month plan.

Apple, HP, Gateway... these companies sell computers.  Computers have many functions, but their sole purpose is not to access the internet.  If it were, internet companies would sell them.  Your friend is just dillusioned from not being a gamer, and not understanding the situation as most non-gamers don't.  Console online gaming was always charged for.  Ever since the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, and even the very few gamecube MMO games.  The only online games on PC that don't charge are the Shooter type.  It is rare to find a good MMO that is free.  Perhaps Microsoft will go free with XBL on their next console, but I think it is more likely to see PSN or Nintendo start charging for online service.  It costs money to run.  XBL is not a "part" of the internet and isn't "included" with the internet, it is an additional service.

Your friend doesn't get it right.  By his logic, why should I have to pay for HBO or Starz?  I get other movie channels for free, so why pay for those?  I also find it funny that people referrence PC gamin being free, when PC gaming is brought to us by none other than Microsoft via their OS and even their games most of the time.

So, while I think it is a bit extreme to compare a gaming console charging for online play and a computer which is used for many different things charging us to access the internet, I would still like to see XBL go free.  Perhaps they will with their next console.  For now, though, paying for Xbox Live gets me so much more content, and a lot that I can't get with just the "internet" on a PC or something.  Sony offers theirs for free, and they take quite a hit as well as force developers of PS3 games to take a hit by hosting their own games.  The business plan is clearly in favor of Microsoft, but in the end I'm sure XBL will change to fit the demands of the consumer, which is to say it will at least drop in price at some point.  Most services get cheaper as they get older, and XBL price hasn't changed much in 5+ years.