Hypocrisy much, you just complained about comparing apples to peaches then go off and compare online service provided by a company to enslavement of an entire race based on the colour of their skin. Nice one.

Any way we slice it Microsoft has decided to continue using the pay system. They still have millions of subscribers willing to pay so they don't see the need to stop the current model. I always find deals and never pay the full $60. Just recently some sales sites had 12 month subscriptions for $36 and no shipping. I like what I pay for and thats pretty much all there is to it.

I agree with Sevengen. I wish VGchartz have a ignore fucntion so I can stop reading dumb post like TheKoreanGuy.

Yes, but PC players are less willing to pay for online because it's never been that way.  Online console gaming was new so people who never played on a PC were willing to pay for the ease and convenience of a dumbed down version where they didn't have to setup vent or browse through server lists.

Nothing wrong with free, and if console players want they can play on PSN or Steam, but Live has value to people who like the bigger and more active online console community.  It's like paying the cover charge to get into a club, or for CEVO, or for reserve slots on a server, it is for supporting the community.  The token charge is good in the sense that membership means something, which hopefully deters people from griefing and abusing the system.  It also creates the perception of Live being the premier service, while PSN just seems second rate (hacking incident didn't help at all).

The comparison is there. He said millions support Live so it's okay to keep it the way it is. Millions of people supported slavery AT THE TIME. I know very well that slavery and online services are two different things. But it does provide a counter argument that just because a number of people do support a service is not enough justification. I just used an extreme example to make my point. I want to see exactly why Microsoft needs to have online gaming as a PREMIUM service. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Microsoft can keep everything, literally everything else on GOLD. Just let me play games I've paid for online and give me basic friendlists and text functionality. That is not asking for a lot. Sevengen was basically saying, look at all these guys who back me up, so that means I'm right too and we are happy. I may have said that comparing two different services is wrong, but my analogy with slavery was not comparing services. One is cheap labor while the other is online functionalities. I was comparing the REASONING behind the services. Fees for online gaming are fine since we think so. Cheap black labor is fine because we think so. It doesn't work that way.

I guess I'll never understand as it's always been a free service for me and Live is the only service that charges. It just surprises me how easily MS has managed to get that mindshare of paying for online gaming.

"Confirmation bias - a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses." This is a very real thing with news, TV and the like.

I think Microsoft provides a great service through Gold. But it's not right that they have included basic online with the package.

I didn't make you read any of it. So stop bending over and taking it from Microsoft. Let them know as their customers that you want what should be free to remain as free and what shouldn't be free should in fact require your money.

Wow I come back to this thread only to see walls and walls of text. Are you people sane? I mean comparing Steam to XBL or PSN? WTF is wrong with people? If Steam's service is king, then XBL and PSN are like fucking ants crawling on the ground, why would people even put them in a comparison? Absolutely nuts!

someone offers a service, if you want it and think the price is fair pay for it, if you don't then don't, it's not hard
mass effect 3 demo provides a temporary upgrade to a service like so many 48 hour passes, again easy to understand, causes confusion, seriously, free samples have existed for some time there people get it. Then again people don't understand back to the future 2's plot even though he explains the plot on a black board for crying out loud

Koreanguy said: "Let them know as their customers that you want what should be free to remain as free and what shouldn't be free should in fact require your money."

.....wow, who are you to tell Microsoft, let alone any company, what should and shouldn't be free. You're some dude on a message board. What's more, your ENTIRE argument is one giant contradiction. Here, let me explain.
You say that Xbox Live Gold should be free, because historically, other providers have not charged for online gaming. First off, you're wrong about that because Sega, the very first console manufacturer to attempt a dedicated online gaming service, charged $19.99 a month for SegaNet. So right there is a precedent that completely and thouroughly counters your 'what should be free to remain as free' argument. You couldn't be anymore wrong. There have only been 3 console companies to incorporate a serious online stategy with their respective consoles; Sega, Sony and Microsoft. Of the three, two of them charged for their service, one did not. So just that in itself more than shows you what the normal, accepted business practice is. Sony not charging is actually the exception here. For the love of god, please understand that.
And there's another problem with your statement, 'should remain free'... Xbox Live has NEVER been free. They have always charged. So by your explanation of things, you're interpretation of them, once a business practice has been set, so to speak, it should remain static and not change because customer's of that business now have a certain expectation of them. Proof of that would be your adamant assertion that online gaming should be free, because that's how you've experienced it and assume it should continue.
Well... then, using YOUR take on all of this, that would mean Xbox Live should continue to charge for Gold because that's what they've been doing from day one. That's the expectation they've developed with their customers.
I mean do you see, even a little bit, the gaping holes in your logic? The nonsense of it?
I'm not going to keep posting back and forth with you. Mainly because it's a non-argument: Microsoft provides a service they chose to charge for, which is how business works. Remember that K-guy, Microsoft doesn't exist for you, or for software clubs, or hard-core game players.. they exist to make money for themselves, their employees and their stockholders.
Secondly, I'm not going to keep this up with you because anyone can plainly see the death throes of your argument. When someone resorts to extreme comparisons, such as people continuing to pay for Xbox Live alongside the cultural acceptance of slavery in America a couple hundred years ago, that demonstrates unequivocally that their losing the conversation.
Xbox Live and slavery?
I got nothing more to say man. peace.