| vlad321 said: I fully agree with you, however on the point of it stopping sales and affecting microsoft I doubt that it actually does that. Console players DO have simpler and lower expectations and as far as they know LIVE is worth every dime. I've been saying that forever now. And you've been wrong forever now. I think it's funny that you assume people willing to pay for products when others settle for what's free means THEY have the simpler expectations. Some of us want the best, and pay for it. Some people enjoy the console experience.
Well, good for your family. I'm glad you got a good laugh out of it. I'm sure some people laughed when it was first suggested that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or that tiny little organisms can make you sick, too. Ignorance is bliss. You all laughed at the idea of LIVE, but there's one thing you apparently didn't know back then - consoles had NOTABLY less lag in games than PC games. Due to every Xbox having the same network adapter and hardware, consoles on the same internet connection provided a better gaming experience. You got to use a mouse and keyboard? Great. We didn't have to shoot 2 feet in front of our targets to hit them. I'll take that any day. *facepalm* Yes, because clearly those are the only differences between the systems. There are a myriad advantages to the 360. Most people prefer the controller. How about the fact that it has both of this generations biggest HD exclusive franchises? How about because Xbox Live gets new features first? How about because Live gets more exclusive demos? How about because Xbox Live has a superior Netflix streaking setup? How about because Xbox Live has more of your friends playing? I could go on. In short, if you consider $4 a month to be "bending over and taking the stick," perhaps you'll feel differently when you have a real job, and view that amount for what it is - virtually nothing.
Is that a joke? For nearly the first 2 years of the PS3's existance, it was inferior in every way to the 360. Multiplats ran and looked worse. It had less games, and PSN was a joke next to Xbox live. Actually, it was largely blind Sony fans than kept them afloat until the system became worth owning. Now it's a valid contender, but make no mistake, there were a lot of bitter PS2 fans who bought PS3s and wished they had gotten 360's. This is no longer an issue, but to even insinuate that it is MS that benefitted most from the ignorance of customers this generation... Well, that just shows your ignorance. Live offers a great many bells and whistles. And yes, you can get more content through a web browser. So? I can get more content online than I can via cable, so is that robbing me too? But wait, I can get an older game for $10 that may have more content than a new game for $60, I guess paying more is always wrong, because content is content, right? And yes, I'm fully aware of what MMO games are capable of. But guess what? In a MMO game, what are people doing when they see 200 people? Sitting in a town, or an auction house? Raid groups and PVP encounters (with only a VERY few exceptions) are typically much smaller affairs, with 10,25 or 40 players caps. And guess what? People generally have to use a solution like Team Speak or Ventrilo to connect with their friends. And if someone wants you to log online to play, even if you're at your computer, they need to use something like AIM to tell you to log on and play. Xbox live handles it all. MMORPGs generally have really poor voice chat integration, if it's even there at all. I guess Xbox has spoiled me on that one, but noone expects that in games on PC, players have "simpler and lower expectations."
@Jagged Steam does the whole "millions of players online and installing/searching for games" already for free. Magically LIVE doesn't. Explain how. |
