I don't get why some people complain when MS makes money... are you worried about something or what?

Is anyone complaining about MS making money? I see people who thinks it is unreasonable that Xbox Live is a paid service, when Steam is free and has more features than Xbox Live.

Not the same thing.

Yes they are. MS is making money for what Valve is unable make money for and people complain. Pretty simple!

If the OP went like this: "Ah ma gawd, xbox live is overpriced, it sucksers!" you'd have a point, but the OP actually illustrates how Xbox Live is a paid service only because it lacks competition on the 360, with GfWL and Steam as the example. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to step up and argue about your case, rather than calling everyone whiners.

I simply feel it's bad marketing.  How do you get Steam into more people's homes?  Buy selling more games that require Steamworks.  When every major game that requires Steamworks is also on consoles, it does little to expand Steam beyond its current install base.

It'd be like Microsoft releasing Halo on PS3.  Yes, they'll be making another 5 million in sales, but they'll only be hurting their core business in the long run.

This is why I appreciate the Witcher 2.  It seems like it'll be the first real "system seller" for Steam since Half-life 2.

They don't want you to switch platform, they want to bring their platform to you.

Not. MS tried more than once to switch from license to yearly subscription also for Windows and Office, most companies refused, as they often preferred to use their internal IT department or third parties for the additional services that MS offered (and more and better taylored ones too) and as they didn't find appealing to be able to always upgrade to the latest MS SW, that was the main selling point of subscription. Transforming its current rich business model in an even richer one based on fees generating a constant stream of money also from existing customers is the old MS dream.

Considering Windows and Office are some of the most pirated programs in the world, I don't blame them from considering going that route. Anyhow, come to terms with MS being is a business and they are always looking for ways to make money.

The fact that they include in the pay version of Live subscription even the minimum vital service of basic online multiplayer that is free everywhere else, is a clear demonstration that MS wants to force this model on users whenever it can.

What's your point? MS found a way to charge for online play and others will likely follow. PSN Plus for example is just a stepping stone for Sony to do the same.

By the way, the 360 does have popular exclusives you can't play free anywhere else. I feel like people forget this.

Unless you show me that 360 gamers just wanting basic online multiplayer and nothing else can get it for free like every other gamer.

That's not what MS offers. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Simple as that.

This is exactly my point. And I respect those that pay for it because they find the price justified by the offer. But I'm not at ease with MS imposing its model and possibly spreading it to others, I prefer to keep on having a choice, if you don't mind. BTW I don't like so much Steam either.

1) I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. You don't like what model exactly? Having to pay for stuff you feel should be free? Or having to pay to use something with a monthly or annually fee?

Feels like this went on a tangent.

About PSN Plus, they started making pay for premium features, but basic online multiplayer was free from the start and PS gamers won't accept to start paying for it. PS3 is still third this gen, BTW, so it hasn't the strength to impose it, and it also needs features to justify its higher price.

Sony could not charge for online play on PS3 period.  Developers and consumers wouldn't be happy and it would probably lead to them getting sued.

2) When PS4 rolls around though, I'm rather positive you'll need PSN Plus for online play.