By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
reidlosdog on 18 October 2010
Edit Thread
dahuman said:
makingmusic476 said:

I see a few people mentioning features here and there, but ultimately you're not paying for features.  You get almost all the features of Live with a Silver account.

Ultimately, you're paying for online play. 

I have two problems with this concept:

1. It's unfair to consumers.

The majority of 360 games with online multiplayer use a P2P model, in which whoever hosts the game sets up their 360 as a temporary server, and all data for the game is sent back and forth between his and the other players' 360s.  To play a game you've already paid for online, you are using hardware that you've already paid for as a host and bandwidth that you've already been charged for to send and recieve data.  Even for games that use dedicated servers, server-related costs are handled by EA or whomever, not Microsoft.

2. It's unfair to developers.

Imagine you're a developer, and you just finished working on a game with a lengthy singleplayer and robust multiplayer modes.  Anybody who buys your game on PS3 or Steam can access all of the content from that game immediately.  As it should be, since they paid for it.  Paid you for it.  On 360, however, they would only be able to access a part of that game unless they're paying for Gold.  Microsoft is holding parts of other companies' products hostage to get people to pay for Live.

---

Now one could argue that it costs Microsoft money to organize and track a peron's achivements and friends lists, as well as facilitate communication between said friends, and thus they have a right to charge to cover these costs.   I would agree in theory, but this is not what you're actually paying for.  These features are available to all for free through Silver.  You are paying for the "right" to play online. 

The truth is I didn't even know that O_O; well, I certainly don't miss it lol.

"Question for the general populace:  Does have dedicated servers effect the sales of games?

I personally don't think it does.  So why do you ask corporations to invest their money into something that won't make them any money?

I understand it would be nice as a customer to be given servers, but I really feel like it's something that companies that need to make money (or have had it as a standard) use to entice consumers.  I don't feel like the do it "out of the goodness of their heart" I think they do it so that you argue here and now about them having it.  So that you buy it, cause that's the way they know they can get your money.  Just like the PS3.  They don't charge for online gameplay, but I bet you every year they look at PROFIT (not revenue) for Microsoft and go "if we hadn't charged $599.99 for the original PS3... we would have totally done that!"

"

Also stated this earlier in reaction to this specific post.



V:  And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence.