By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dorbin2009 on 03 December 2009
Edit Thread
NJ5 said:
dorbin2009 said:
So let me ask you something. What separates your "Live is holding Microsoft back" from the times I've heard similar rants in 2008, 2007,2006, and late 2005?

50 a year is chicken scratch. Are you telling me you can't afford 4.25 a month?

Also Xbox live has proven to be far more stable than PSN in stress tests (I.e. Call of Duty debaucle). It simply is not fair to compare it to the PC.

The console will probably hit 34 million units sold by the end of the week. If you want to call that a number stifled by Xbox live, then that's your opinion. I just think its wrong.

Paragraph by paragraph:

1- What separates my rant from past ones is that now we're at the point where the 360's online system makes it a more expensive alternative than the PS3. We're also at the point that this might be giving a visible edge in favor of the PS3.

2- I can afford it just fine. That doesn't mean I think it's worth it (see my previous post).

3- Whether Xbox Live is more stable than the PSN or not I don't know and is besides the point. I gather that the PSN does have dedicated servers for many games, and surely it could be improved if Sony charged for it.

4- Irrelevant.

 

1. Multi platform games are still selling better on the 360 than the PS3. This invalidates the notion that PS3 is getting visible market points for its "free" network. Look at some of the more popular online games (Modern Warfare 2 for instance). Xbox sells the software like hotcakes because, at least here in America, LIVE parties occur quite often. It's an accepted part of buying the system. The only people (generally speaking) who still argue this point on VG Chartz, are either fanboys or people trying to get behind a cause.

2. As an Live user for many years, I have to say that there never has been a time when I sit there and say to myself that this service has not been worth it. For two hours of my workday I get to enjoy a years worth of playing Halo, GoW, MW2, SF4, LFD2, etc etc online. Half of those games are not available on the other system. I find it silly and mostly ironic that gamers find the pricetag of live infuriating, when half the gusto behind being a gamer is spending money on your hobby. So for a PS3 owner, a 1080P TV (to fully enjoy Blu-ray), a 600 dollar system, waiting until just now to get some of the features of Xbox live on PSN, and a lack of cross game voice chat are all okay and servicable, but 50 dollars for a superior online service are not?

3. You absolutely cannot throw the point out of server stability when discussing the value of Xbox Live. The service has had maitenance a handful of times and has rarely had a crash. There were several articles both on here and other websites discussing Sony experiencing problems on their network, especially due to Modern Warfare 2.

4. Not irrelevant. The 360 is known for its multiplayer experiences within Halo and other games. If the price of live was an issue then there would be a massive drop off in sales. Currently, while PS3 is catching up, Microsoft has done very little to ebb the tide this year and is still handling itself quite well.

I know its a great thought that when consumers go to choose a PS3 or an Xbox 360, the thought of having to pay for Xbox live makes them sway towards the PS3, but that simply does not happen. And I would much rather the company charge for Live than have their quarterly numbers deep in the red.