kitler53 on 03 December 2009
| WiiStation360 said: IMO, these arguments always always boil down to: "Are YOU getting your moneys worth with a Gold subscription". Xbox Live Gold is a good value for certain segment of the gaming population. These are the people who use the 360 as their primary console, and spend 20+ hours a week gaming online and who buy 2+ games/month. This is who Gold subscriptions are marketed towards, and these user are happy to pay it. It is a very small part of their gaming budget. The Gold subscription is limiting to people who are the occasional gamer, or are buying the 360 as a secondary console, and sometimes want to play a game online or who want to occasionally use additional functionality that is free elsewhere. (netflix, facebook) They are paying the same for a Gold subscription, but not getting the same value as the gamer mentioned above. I do not own a HD game console. I game on my PC/Wii/iPod/DS. I will probably eventually pick up a HD console as my 5th current gen device to play games on. It is hard for me to justify spending $50/year on a service that I will only occasionally use, and never being able to play games online is not a great option. I wish the Silver offered more functionality so that I could get a 360, and not feel like a second class citizen for not paying paying $50/year. Maybe a limited number of online hours a month for free, with Gold being unlimited. Maybe with Natal and the push for more casual gamers, things will change. MS is stuck with the problem of not being able to drop the fees, because they are making too much money off of them, and limiting their market outside of the hardcore console gamers who are happy paying for online. |
great post!
