By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 13 May 2012
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

LOL..@ Commies. Theres no commie here (a utopian way of life that in reality doesn't work). Don't get mad at me because I know how the American economy works. I'll give you one thing, you're correct that all of those things are optional, but what if someone who is a shooting fan wants all those games on an Xbox?  Free market? Microsoft and competition don't mix if you know their history, just saying. They like being a monopoly and thank god for Apple that the "free market" continues. 

 

Anyway as for the Xbox Live fee hike:

Bobby Kotick complaing that he doesn't get a cut of the Xbox Live subscriptions after Microsoft boasted about the majority of Xbox Live players being COD players.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/07/08/activision-wants-cut-from-xbox-live-subscription/

 

"So, with $60 a year out the door for many Call of Duty players – that would be those playing on Xbox 360, as opposed to PC or PlayStation 3 – it's already a significant $5 a month expense and Activision has only snagged a "modest amount" of that $5. So, subscription service, right? "We have an obligation to provide a return for our shareholders,"

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/12/bobby-kotick-on-the-business-of-call-of-duty-dlc-treyarch-inf/

A good enough portion of the money you pay yearly goes to Activision even if you don't play their games.

What if you want all those shooters on Xbox? Then you pay the fees! If you feel the product isn't worth the price, don't give them your money. Simple as that.

Microsoft and competition don't mix? What the fuck are you talking about? Microsoft has a ton of competition. I won't even bother getting into this.

I already know Activision is getting a piece (which I feel they deserve). But clearly you were talking out of your ass when you said its $10.

 

"A good enough portion of the money you pay yearly goes to Activision even if you don't play their games." This is a ridiculously stupid argument.

If you pay for cable, do you only pay for channels you want? No, you pay for the whole package. Don't like that? You can cancel.

If you pay for PSN Plus, do you get to pick the free content and discounts you want? No. Don't like that? You can cancel.

If you pay for Netflix do you just pay fees for programs you enjoy? No, you pay for access to everything available. Don't like that? You can cancel.

If you pay taxes do you pay only for the services you use? Nope, but we have to pay anyway.


Nothing wrong with paying for bundles, but because of competition with the online market companies are breaking up their channels into bundles. As time goes by and the online market with Hulu, Netflix and more keep putting pressure on cable and satellite providers they will have to break down the cost of their bundles. Internally the satellite and cable companies make you pay for bundles of channels from one small amount to the largest. Theres actually choice...not my way or the highway. Bad example.

Want to buy a song on Itunes instead of buying the whole package? Itunes microtransactions. Half the reason Apple is is gouging out the gaming market. It's called Microtranactions. You pay for what you want.

If you pay for PSN Plus everything they have thats available to be played for free is up and ready to be seen before purchase of PSN Plus. Theres a lot of good stuff there and it's optional. Sony doesn't lock you out of your own personal subscriptions that you pay for. Microsoft should have Hulu Plus, Netflix and more on Silver beside you pay for all of those things despite their existence.

You're comparing the US tax system to an online OS subscription? Ok...this argument is over.