El_Machete said:
kowenicki said:
El_Machete said:
dsgrue3 said:
kowenicki said:
These articles are dull and lazy "journalism" - nothing new there in gaming I know.
Don't want to pay for it... then don't. Stop preaching. Its so boring. How many have we seen like this now?
My view: If they change the model then fine. If they don't.... then fine.
I don't care either way. The price is less than the price of one game ffs. |
The price isn't the issue, the principle is. Did you read the article?
"charging significant money ($59.99/year, or $9.99/month) for features given away for free on competing platforms"
"Microsoft's ardent desire to force people to pay more money means that you might not get to experience the entire game that you just purchased."
"Cordoning off entire sections of a game from people who paid good money for that product is indefensible"
You're locked out of the multiplayer aspect of your game simply because MS feels like it. MS didn't make that game, why are they restricting something you pay for (game + internet)?
|
this is the core of my problem with xbox at the moment. I wanna play Halo 4 and Gears 3, but don't want pay extra for online.
And to all the people here saying "not another GOLD is bad" article... how many do we have to see to realize that something is wrong?
|
Help me out here:
You have an xbox, but you dont want to buy Halo and Gears because you will have to pay for onlne?
or
You dont have an xbox and the price of LIve is putting you off, but you really want to play Halo and Gears?
|
I have 2 360, one is rrod (thinking of fixing and giving it to little brother) and i have an slim. I have a silver account. So if i buy Halo 4 i will not be able to play online, and i will not get gold for only one game.
|
What's your point?
Nothing is wrong with paying for online/gold.
If people are prepared to pay then why shouldn't a company charge for it and with gold subscribers at what 30-40 million+ then why the hell would they stop charging for it?
