I'm guessing you weren't typing on a pc...
PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.
Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?
Its the whole dang package baby!
Aside from being the benchmark in online integration, the price of live is more than offset by the discounts available to subscribers.
@richardhutnik i said recently all those games you mentioned are years old PSN has been improving and now you can play demos just like live the only difference is the PLUS users get it a bit sooner that does not sound to different than the Silver/Gold accounts on LIVE, but like I said I dont really download demos so that whole area is meaningless to me.
@voty2000 i agree with what you said except for the last point, PSN has been improving since its inception. There are a hell of alot more PS1classics, it runs better than it used to and it added a couple of little things recently (like a rating system) and is still free. I dont agree that people paying for LIVE means there making it better they can do it without charging people they do it with MSN
| Squilliam said: Maybe if Sony actually invested in improving their features you would have an actual good reason to ask that question. However firmware upgrades and PSN come out of Japan and Japan doesn't get the importance of online gaming. It wouldn't hold your breath. |
^ this
Question for the general populace: Does have dedicated servers effect the sales of games?
I personally don't think it does. So why do you ask corporations to invest their money into something that won't make them any money?
I understand it would be nice as a customer to be given servers, but I really feel like it's something that companies that need to make money (or have had it as a standard) use to entice consumers. I don't feel like the do it "out of the goodness of their heart" I think they do it so that you argue here and now about them having it. So that you buy it, cause that's the way they know they can get your money. Just like the PS3. They don't charge for online gameplay, but I bet you every year they look at PROFIT (not revenue) for Microsoft and go "if we hadn't charged $599.99 for the original PS3... we would have totally done that!"
the question of the OP is Xbox Live worth it. I would say the discounts we get alone make it worth it, but then again, I play online a lot, and I as showed earlier, online gaming isn't as important to the PS3 consumer. Plus x-gaming chat, party chat, Netflix search options (thank god for that), ESPN, Games on Demand (I haven't bought a game from Gamestop that wasn't less than a year old, cause now I can actually pay the creator directly for cheap, and not have disc), almost all games have trial or demo to them, Indie games are soooooooooo cheap, and we get amazing discounts like buy $30 of MS points get $10 free(it might be different, but anyone that knows what I'm talking about understands)?
I just made that list and easily think that $60 a year is fine, though I won't be paying that ever cause of the new family pack for $25 a person!!
seriously guys, put that all together, and your mind will explode.
V: And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence.
| makingmusic476 said: I see a few people mentioning features here and there, but ultimately you're not paying for features. You get almost all the features of Live with a Silver account. Ultimately, you're paying for online play. I have two problems with this concept: 1. It's unfair to consumers. The majority of 360 games with online multiplayer use a P2P model, in which whoever hosts the game sets up their 360 as a temporary server, and all data for the game is sent back and forth between his and the other players' 360s. To play a game you've already paid for online, you are using hardware that you've already paid for as a host and bandwidth that you've already been charged for to send and recieve data. Even for games that use dedicated servers, server-related costs are handled by EA or whomever, not Microsoft. 2. It's unfair to developers. Imagine you're a developer, and you just finished working on a game with a lengthy singleplayer and robust multiplayer modes. Anybody who buys your game on PS3 or Steam can access all of the content from that game immediately. As it should be, since they paid for it. Paid you for it. On 360, however, they would only be able to access a part of that game unless they're paying for Gold. Microsoft is holding parts of other companies' products hostage to get people to pay for Live. --- Now one could argue that it costs Microsoft money to organize and track a peron's achivements and friends lists, as well as facilitate communication between said friends, and thus they have a right to charge to cover these costs. I would agree in theory, but this is not what you're actually paying for. These features are available to all for free through Silver. You are paying for the "right" to play online. |
Your a 100% right.
| d21lewis said: Here's the analogy: -Wii's online is just some skanky girl that will let you have sex with her. You probably won't feel satisfied afterwards and you may even feel a little guilty. Plus, you'll always wonder if she gave you a disease. -PS3's online is that sweet girl you always wanted to have sex with. You can be her friend and eventually she gives you what you want. You feel pretty good about yourself and you're happy with her. -360's online is that one really sexy girl that makes you spend your whole paycheck to get with her. To your surprise, she's REALLY good at having sex. Yeah, all you wanted was the sex but when you wake up in the morning, you find out that she made you breakfast, mowed the lawn, bought you a new iPod, and gave your dog a bath. You'd be happy just having more sex but considering that she's only with you for your money, it's not that bad since you're getting more out of the deal than you want. -And PC is like a pornstar that has sex with you AND buys you nice things. |
@bolded
That's actually good value. LIVE is NOT. No wait... Paying for sex? Man, your sad.... When you have to pay girls to come around your house and have sex, they're actually the WORST choice, not the BEST. So your analogy is crappy as hell.. Actually makes LIVE sound like a whore where you have to pay for otherwise free services. Whereas your sweet and faithful girlfriend, the PS3/PSN, gives you all those services, and MANY extra favors (everything PSN/PS3 related) as well, for free, because she loves you. However, there are some things she won't do, and I can live with that, because I don't need everything and in the future she might also improve some of her faults.
I don't care what anyone says, PSN is better, because it's FREE. LIVE is NOT, and I also get this "optional" but mandatory feeling surrounding LIVE. I don't give a shit if you say it's optional, it's not if you want to enjoy your (bought and owned) games to the fullest. If you want to get something out of your X360, you have to pay for LIVE, so it's not optional, it's "optional".
akuseru said:
@bolded That's actually good value. LIVE is NOT. No wait... Paying for sex? Man, your sad.... When you have to pay girls to come around your house and have sex, they're actually the WORST choice, not the BEST. So your analogy is crappy as hell.. I don't care what anyone says, PSN is better, because it's FREE. LIVE is NOT, and I also get this "optional" but mandatory feeling surrounding LIVE. I don't give a shit if you say it's optional, it's not if you want to enjoy your (bought and owned) games to the fullest. If you want to get something out of your X360, you have to pay for LIVE, so it's not optional, it's "optional". |
In the end, if you buy a girl gifts, take her out to a movie, or dinner, you're paying for it. Don't fool yourself. And don't dare question my "game"-video or otherwise.
@ajescent
check who "challenged" you... it wasnt me. I am not defending me.
You said that Sony could put a fee on gaming, do you think anybody would then pay to get it on the PS3 after on the same service they provided it for free?
That is my point. If Sony was to do that it would turn a lot of people off ps3, the fact is a big reason 360 is doing it is becasue they can. The service is worth it.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
