I do not care about PSN yet, i do not have a ps3. But the fact is if you have live you will play map packs sooner than if you play on ps3. Thats a plus is it not?

I already said what please me with live. All i want is how they do matchmaking, and now i enjoy netfilx too. I have payed the same for live since they launched it on xbox and since than all they have done is add more and more features. I figured we were long over do for a price increase as i thought it was a steal before because i enjoy the match making so much.

If you do not enjoy live so be it. Its a great service for match making, the best I have ever used any where on any platform. I do not see any service coming close to it in the near future. At least for what I want in an online service.

I also do not care how they spend the money i give them as its their choice. I do not care how any company spends my dollars so long as i get what i wanted from them and the money is not used for some illegal act. But in the case of MS for live to me it looks like most money goes back to improving the service. Even if that means exclusive content for games i may not play. I probably wont even get tha map packs as i do not enjoy CoD as much as Halo and I only have so much time for onlline gaming as i enjoy single player more.

No, because activision is also the biggest publisher in the world. CoD is their biggest console franchise, sure, but overall they account for a lot of games, CoD is just the biggest seller. Bear in mind, even if a game sells a few million copies, it's probably not bringing people onto live for $5/month. CoD is one of the few franchises with enough popularity to, on its own, convince people to subscribe to gold, and thus be worth a modest share of the profits.

This is all supposition. Lets say 60% of live users play CoD. Live can easily calculate stats on that. Maybe they have a system worked out where activisions get x% (say 20%) of subscription fees where live users play ONLY CoD, and a reduced rate, say 5% for users play play CoD and other games, and 0% for non CoD players. We don't know. It would be a very easy system to set up. Now you may think, "but hey, I pay the same extra 80 cents a month either way." True, but if you signed up for gold, you use something on gold that's worth that money, right? Noone's whining that Xbox live is a better service because games like Halo and CoD bring more people onboard, even though people who play JUST to play those have subsidized costs for other lesser services this whole time.

The fact is, everyone that uses gold uses aspects of the service, which is still dirt cheap. But if you play CoD, you know your monthly payment has some of it go to activision. The only other way would be to make everything on live a la carte, and get nickel and dimed for every service and major game. I play Halo but not CoD, I should only pay $57.50 a year! I play CoD but not Halo, I should pay $56.25!   The price "hike" was what, 80 cents a month? And that's after the price didn't rise for inflation for 8 years? Logically, MS made a reasonable price hike, and make a DLC deal for activision out of their margin, NOT out of your pocket.

I have no problem with Live, altough i wouldn't pay to play online a game i already paied...

My observation were just to the fact that you were rejoicing that they could use the money to buy exclusive content and make the game on Xbox better than on PS and this way screw the other system users... if you just did said, you were happy your money were used to make better games (for you or everyone) i would have no problem... but the way you said closely resembled fanboyism.

i never mentioned ps. i said all competitors.

I never said it was a big piece. I just said ESPN probably gets a piece.

Sure you did... and I'm sorry for making it PS vs Xbox ... but the point is the same... altough I believe you were thinking about you having a better experience (nice tought), when you put that way looked like you wanted just for xbox and didn't cared for people playing other systems... sounded a little fanboyish, not that you are one...

As wise members here say... let's compete for first, but more than this let enjoy our games as all of us are gamers... don't be a hater be a gamer...

You mentioned the ps, not me. I only responded to you. My point remains the same its a good idea for microsoft to use live subscription fees to obtain exclusive content. I'm not competing for first on anything so i do not see what your saying there. I am just responding to the fact that some people do not think its fair for ms to use their subscription fees to pay activision for exclusive content

Probably 5-10%