DirtyP2002 said:
Those are the games both consoles are purchased for, not just the 360. So if this would really be an issue for most gamers, they would buy the other console and the software for the other console. Yet, these titles sell better on Xbox 360. My point is that the 360 sells extraordinary well in the countries, where online multiplayer gaming is big and it sells less in countries where singleplayer games still dominate. That makes zero sense if paying for XBL is an issue for the consumers. |
Friends list obviously. A lot of people have that aspect to consider.
And then xbox 360 has had it's fair share of online exclusives like gears of war, halo, etc. If someone bought an xbox 360 he would pretty much need to get gold to play all those games.
I am not sure how PSN comes into the argument though. Not a single other platform charges for online gameplay.
Again, halo, gears of war, left 4 dead, all of them kind of exclusive and even without L4D, that's two popular online games we are talking about that PS3 doesn't have.
Consumers just pay for it because they have no other choice if they want to play halo with their friends. And ultimately it's not like super expensive, is it?
It's just that it doesn't automatically make XBL the best service and doesn't prove that people enjoy paying for it.
For eg if I wanted to play halo 4 mp, I would need to get Gold. Depending upon how much I feel like playing it, I will probably get the Gold account even if it costs $50 or whatever after finding it for cheap. There really is no other way.







