What if LIVE was totally free?

[NightDragon83]

durtysouthhustlah said:

NightDragon83 said:
Yeah, because that extra $50 for a YEAR (which you can usually get online at Amazon or other sites cheaper) is a real deal breaker, but paying an extra $100-$200 for a system with "free" online is fine right?

If you take the difference between the 360 Arcade and the recently reduced PS3 160 GB bundle, that's enough to cover 5 years of XBL at full price of membership.

And even if you don't wish to pay for Gold... you still have access to all of the movies, arcade games, and other DLC that's available on XBL, you just can't play online multiplayer.

O NOES! Mr. Bill spots a troll!

If LIVE was free, it would be cherry. Folks are still paying for the service - more than the free PSN service. LIVE offers Netflix - and in all seriousness, in the past few weeks, it's the only reason I boot up my Xbox.

I was unaware that making a completely logical point was the equivalent of trolling.

PS3 owners are always citing having to pay for XBL as the main reason why they prefer PSN, and they also use that point to justify the higher price point of the PS3 by saying that it makes up the difference in price between the 2 systems over the long run if you factor in paying for an XBL Gold membership.

All I did was point out that fact in my post but from an opposing point of view, saying that if you're willing to drop an extra $100-$200 up front for a more expensive system because it has "free" online, then what's the big deal with spending an extra $50 max a year for XBL?