Scoobes said:
J_Allard said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
I don't agree with everything in the OP, but I do agree paying to get access to online multiplayer and other applications is unacceptable. I subscribed to Xbox LIVE for four years: from 2008 until this year when I cancelled. And it wasn't about the money -- I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford the cost -- it was about the principle. I can play online with friends for free on Playstation, on Wii, and on PC. I should be able to do the same on Xbox.
I'm really shocked that so many are defending paying for Xbox LIVE. I can understand the argument "well it sucks, but how else am I supposed to play Halo?" I don't understand all the people defending the practice as if they were shareholders. |
People will gladly pay for a service if the quality is worth the money. You don't need to be a shareholder to believe Live is superior enough to justify the entrance fee.
Your principal doesn't apply to the real world. I mean, I can watch digital TV for free. That means I shouldn't have to pay for Showtime. I can watch NFL games for free on FOX or CBS. That means I shouldn't have to pay for NFL Sunday Ticket.
|
Out of interest, what makes you think Live is greater quality then the competing services of PSN, Steam & Nintendo?
I honestly see very little (both in this thread and in general) that would make me want to pay for Live or assume it's superiority over the other services I currently use.
|
Reasons I have already expressed in this thread. In my years of using both I have found Live to have superior latency, more features, more users, and probably most importantly, better parity of features across all titles. What you get with one title on PSN is not true for the next title. I'm not even considering Nintendo's joke of an online offering or a PC service like Steam to be competition.
Those might not seem worth a few bucks a month to you and that's fine.
