By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dsgrue3 on 04 December 2012
Edit Thread
J_Allard said:


When I go into a game store to pick up a game I can buy it on PS3, 360, or the Wii (or PC in some small cases, rarely play games there). I have those options available to me. If it is a game heavy on MP I will always go 360 simply because I know the online experience will be better because of Xbox Live. There is no extortion there. MS provides a service and I gladly pay for it. Now, if the difference between the two were negligible to me, or the MP portion does not interest me or is non-existent, I might go PS3. There is choice there, no extortion.

If I didn't believe Live was worth paying for, then maybe I'd look at a copy of Left 4 Dead 2 on the shelf and think extortion. But that isn't my opinion. It's yours, but it's not a fact.

If that TV maker or PC maker designed an exclusive service around the online portion that blew away what the competition was offering, then where is the issue? As a consumer you either agree it's a premium service and pay it, or disagree and shop elsewhere. Again, you made this exact decison.

Choice does not refute extortion. One of the examples involving extortion is "6 dollars for coffee is extortion!" There is a choice in this example of extortion.

The XBL service has nothing to do with the actual networking of games. Again, that's the developer. And in respect to network, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any definitive evidence that XBL has less lag/disconnects what have you.

So you would have no issues paying Sony/LG/Toshiba a monthly/yearly fee to access the internet on their TVs if they had a subjectively enhanced version? I just want to be clear on this.

And if Steam were to be purchased by Dell and a subscription was then instituted in order for you to use it, you would be okay with that even though there's no objective benefit?