By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why Steam is Awesome, and How You Can Make Live Free

JaggedSac on 07 December 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:


Eh other than games like Smash Bros and Halo melting down servers (I was actually online for both occurrences lol), most games don't require that sort of upkeep and therefore could easily have servers.

Even with a few games using servers on XBL, it in no way justifies 50 dollars a year (didn't it recently go up to 60?)  I mean that's a few games to me, I don't mind seeing some banner ads to play my games online, but Xbox Live has ads and subscription fees and I don't quite understand the true need for any of that.

I see the cost effective thing but its like "we're already paying you guys 60 dollars (typically) per game, the least you could do is let me play online for a few hours till I get bored" lol

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying for Live, but if it would stay exactly the same as it is now and be free, that would be wonderful.  I get an absolute ton of game time playing with friends in parties in CoD, Halo, etc.  Just a really nice system for getting into games with your buds with great ease and the communication capabilaties are top notch.  On the other hand, I can definitely see where gamers would be miffed about paying for this stuff.

As far as ads go, I really don't notice them to be honest, at least intrusive ones.  I don't consider panels letting people know what game content is available on their marketplace as intrusive advertisement.  I find them useful.



Around the Network
MaxwellGT2000 on 07 December 2010
JaggedSac said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying for Live, but if it would stay exactly the same as it is now and be free, that would be wonderful.  I get an absolute ton of game time playing with friends in parties in CoD, Halo, etc.  Just a really nice system for getting into games with your buds with great ease and the communication capabilaties are top notch.  On the other hand, I can definitely see where gamers would be miffed about paying for this stuff.

As far as ads go, I really don't notice them to be honest, at least intrusive ones.  I don't consider panels letting people know what game content is available on their marketplace as intrusive advertisement.  I find them useful.


I like how PSN handles it, you idle for a second and content related to games you're playing pops up along with new content, probably the smartest ads I've seen on these services even Steam.  

I get sorta upset with this generation in general, I like online, but I don't like it being 80% of the reason you buy a game lol and it seems that just works into the formula, you buy a game with a weak singleplayer, so you want to play multiplayer, but guess what there's no local multiplayer it's all online, and with Xbox that means you got to pay more just to get it.  I just don't like that lol I already get irritated at the other things adding one more reason to be irritated at a game isn't on my list of things to do



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

evolution_1ne on 07 December 2010
Mr Puggsly said:
evolution_1ne said:

seems more like a hope/ wishful thinking to me. And even though my point still stands PSN users WON'T pay for it, I don't give a crap what they offer, if online gaming is charged next gen Sony is fucked.

P.S. M$ charging for Live has nothing to do with it because they did the same last gen......

Sony is fucked if they charge next gen? No, I think Sony is fucked if they launch a console more than double the price of the competitors again.

The masses don't even play game consoles online. Hence, the masses won't care if Sony charges for online play.

P.S. Did Xbox Live really show potential to be a massive success last gen? No, it happened this gen. MS proved people will pay and Sony wants in on that.

Sony barely even mentions PS3 has free online play anymore. I wonder why?

you don't understand my point, I'm not saying they won't charge for it more than I'm saying PSN users WON'T pay for it. Sony can charge, but the users WON'T, pay psn users=/= xbl users. 

XBL users have never and don't know what it's like to have a free online service, so they'll pay for anything as seen in xbl subs. psn however, not the same thing. I think Sony knows this which is why psn plus is set up the way it is. It's not a stepping stone for anything, and would be extremely foolish of Sony to think that it is. 



Mr Puggsly on 07 December 2010
evolution_1ne said:
Mr Puggsly said:
evolution_1ne said:

seems more like a hope/ wishful thinking to me. And even though my point still stands PSN users WON'T pay for it, I don't give a crap what they offer, if online gaming is charged next gen Sony is fucked.

P.S. M$ charging for Live has nothing to do with it because they did the same last gen......

Sony is fucked if they charge next gen? No, I think Sony is fucked if they launch a console more than double the price of the competitors again.

The masses don't even play game consoles online. Hence, the masses won't care if Sony charges for online play.

P.S. Did Xbox Live really show potential to be a massive success last gen? No, it happened this gen. MS proved people will pay and Sony wants in on that.

Sony barely even mentions PS3 has free online play anymore. I wonder why?

you don't understand my point, I'm not saying they won't charge for it more than I'm saying PSN users WON'T pay for it. Sony can charge, but the users WON'T, pay psn users=/= xbl users. 

XBL users have never and don't know what it's like to have a free online service, so they'll pay for anything as seen in xbl subs. psn however, not the same thing. I think Sony knows this which is why psn plus is set up the way it is. It's not a stepping stone for anything, and would be extremely foolish of Sony to think that it is. 

Oh boy, your argument gets worse and worse. You seem to be under the illusion that people paying for Live never used free options elsewhere.

For example, I played online games free on the Dreamcast, PS2, and PC for years. I didn't pay for Live on the original Xbox because it didn't seem like a good value. But I have no problem with paying for Live on the 360. You think I'm the only guy who pays for Live and never used free options? You see why your argument is highly concentrated fail?

It might even shock you to hear there are people who own a PS3 and 360. Yet they still pay for Live! Crazy, huh? Sony fans will pay for online play on PSN and they'll argue why its better than Live. Simple as that.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)