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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Why I like Live better than PSN

Mad55 on 02 January 2011

xbox live>psn....but psn should charge for online.



Around the Network
fastyxx on 03 January 2011
mantlepiecek said:
fastyxx said:
mantlepiecek said:Steam says hi. Wii says hi. PSP says hi. DS says hi.

PS2 says hi.

All of these, say Hi.

The only system to charge for online is xbox 360, and it will be the only system to charge for it as well. Until the nextbox releases.

Btw Games for windows live was going to cost $50 as well, but you know, PC gamers have a backbone and hence M$ couldn't go forward with the plan. 

LOL

 

You're comparing PS2/PSP/DS and Wii features as an online service to Live?  

For serious?  

 

Then what should I compare live too?

I can only compare it to other devices that give online gaming, and as far as I know I know all of them give it for free. Live is the only one that charges for online gaming. Even steam, with its cloud-based storage and automatic updates and cross-compatibility between Mac and windows is free.

As I said, games for windows live, which is an exact clone of xbox live, is for free on the PC. There's no reason for MS to charge for it.

Even onlive has free online gaming.

As far as superiority between Xbox live and PSN  goes, that's actually debatable. You guys should compare PS plus and XBL gold. And then you would realise which is superior. 

Ans PS plus has just started. After the completion of one year they will improve even more as they have shown this christmas.

 

Comparing Live to those is like comparing a 28" inch tube TV from 15 years ago with a 50" 1080p HD flatscreen today and saying it's competitive because it was cheaper and they "do the same thing."



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

chocoloco on 03 January 2011

Live is only a tiny bit better than psn, but psn always wins because I play for free. There is hardly an arguement against that, but anybody who believes one is way better than the other is living in denial.



Icyedge on 03 January 2011
fastyxx said:
mantlepiecek said:
fastyxx said:
mantlepiecek said:Steam says hi. Wii says hi. PSP says hi. DS says hi.

PS2 says hi.

All of these, say Hi.

The only system to charge for online is xbox 360, and it will be the only system to charge for it as well. Until the nextbox releases.

Btw Games for windows live was going to cost $50 as well, but you know, PC gamers have a backbone and hence M$ couldn't go forward with the plan. 

LOL

 

You're comparing PS2/PSP/DS and Wii features as an online service to Live?  

For serious?  

 

Then what should I compare live too?

I can only compare it to other devices that give online gaming, and as far as I know I know all of them give it for free. Live is the only one that charges for online gaming. Even steam, with its cloud-based storage and automatic updates and cross-compatibility between Mac and windows is free.

As I said, games for windows live, which is an exact clone of xbox live, is for free on the PC. There's no reason for MS to charge for it.

Even onlive has free online gaming.

As far as superiority between Xbox live and PSN  goes, that's actually debatable. You guys should compare PS plus and XBL gold. And then you would realise which is superior. 

Ans PS plus has just started. After the completion of one year they will improve even more as they have shown this christmas.

 

Comparing Live to those is like comparing a 28" inch tube TV from 15 years ago with a 50" 1080p HD flatscreen today and saying it's competitive because it was cheaper and they "do the same thing."

He does have a point that online gaming (PC and consoles) and online network (MSN, facebook, youtube) are all free. Its not often that you see a company charge for the kind of thing Live does. Though, its not really expensive and they have all the right in the world to charge if they want too, no biggy to me. But he still have a point.

Also, Microsoft surely charged for Live because it was a good way to compensate for what they were loosing elsewhere, giving them more chance to enter the gaming business without loosing too much. Having that in mind, I think that if 360 keeps being as successful, I could see Live being a free service in the next generation of Microsoft's hardware. What do you think about that?



fastyxx on 04 January 2011
Icyedge said:  He does have a point that online gaming (PC and consoles) and online network (MSN, facebook, youtube) are all free. Its not often that you see a company charge for the kind of thing Live does. Though, its not really expensive and they have all the right in the world to charge if they want too, no biggy to me. But he still have a point.

Also, Microsoft surely charged for Live because it was a good way to compensate for what they were loosing elsewhere, giving them more chance to enter the gaming business without loosing too much. Having that in mind, I think that if 360 keeps being as successful, I could see Live being a free service in the next generation of Microsoft's hardware. What do you think about that?


And as someone else said, TV is free, but people pay for cable and premium channels.  And water is free, but we buy bottled water.  And dial-up is cheaper than cable internet.

Microsoft is increasing numbers of Live accounts while RAISING prices.  Why in the world would they make Live free?  That's ridiculous.  Their key is just to make sure that the perceived value to the majority of the customers is that it is worth the money.  They will make heavy, heavy discounts available before they ever make it free, because they make too much money off the suckers who just let it auto-renew versus go to Amazon and buy a card for way less.  I mean, all the whining about $50, now $60 a year goes on, and I've paid for 8 years and only paid anywhere near full price the first time.  



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Around the Network
Icyedge on 04 January 2011
fastyxx said:
Icyedge said:  He does have a point that online gaming (PC and consoles) and online network (MSN, facebook, youtube) are all free. Its not often that you see a company charge for the kind of thing Live does. Though, its not really expensive and they have all the right in the world to charge if they want too, no biggy to me. But he still have a point.

Also, Microsoft surely charged for Live because it was a good way to compensate for what they were loosing elsewhere, giving them more chance to enter the gaming business without loosing too much. Having that in mind, I think that if 360 keeps being as successful, I could see Live being a free service in the next generation of Microsoft's hardware. What do you think about that?


And as someone else said, TV is free, but people pay for cable and premium channels.  And water is free, but we buy bottled water.  And dial-up is cheaper than cable internet.

Microsoft is increasing numbers of Live accounts while RAISING prices.  Why in the world would they make Live free?  That's ridiculous.  Their key is just to make sure that the perceived value to the majority of the customers is that it is worth the money.  They will make heavy, heavy discounts available before they ever make it free, because they make too much money off the suckers who just let it auto-renew versus go to Amazon and buy a card for way less.  I mean, all the whining about $50, now $60 a year goes on, and I've paid for 8 years and only paid anywhere near full price the first time.  

For the second part, im glad to know your opinion. Your logic is also good. For the first part, read what is underline and bold in my first post.