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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Mass Effect 3 Demo Shows the Absurdity of Xbox Live Gold - 1UP

Tagged games:

Here is a question that I don't think I've seen asked. Next gen Sony is most likely going to have their shit together when it comes to online. They're going to have trophies, cross-game chat, user-friendly store, and probably more things that aren't in this gen (so will Live). This gen was the first time Sony attempted to have a central network on their console, while it was MS' second go at it. Predictably, Live is a better service, but they have more experience.

What I'm asking is: That next gen, if PSN and Live offer the same expereince (because Sony will know what they are doing), but PSN is still free, are people still going to stick with paying for Live?



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

Around the Network
JOKA_ said:
Here is a question that I don't think I've seen asked. Next gen Sony is most likely going to have their shit together when it comes to online. They're going to have trophies, cross-game chat, user-friendly store, and probably more things that aren't in this gen (so will Live). This gen was the first time Sony attempted to have a central network on their console, while it was MS' second go at it. Predictably, Live is a better service, but they have more experience.

What I'm asking is: That next gen, if PSN and Live offer the same expereince (because Sony will know what they are doing), but PSN is still free, are people still going to stick with paying for Live?


The better question is, if the Nintendo Network is on par yet is free, what then? Mario go time for everybody? I say let the sheeps be sheeps behind that fence while we point and laugh is good enough for me.



Oh boy another topic to let people come in and whine about XBox Live pricing.

Honestly can't wait for the PS4 to start charging for online and hear the reactions then.



It's just that simple.

Hey, if people will pay for it, why not charge for it?

I personally don't really care if they charge for it or not. Outside of Halo, I don't have any desire to play any 360 games online. I do enjoy a very few PS3 exclusives online and since the PSN is free, I'll stick with it for any games on both the PS3 and 360. But my roommate has XBL, so I get both for free anyway.



MonstaMack said:
Oh boy another topic to let people come in and whine about XBox Live pricing.

Honestly can't wait for the PS4 to start charging for online and hear the reactions then.


You got proof?? Or are you just talking out your butt??



Around the Network

I have no problem paying for Live. We've been down this road in this argument a million times.

Bandwidth costs money. Offering that demo, which will be downloaded 2 million times at 5 gigs apiece costs money. And that's ONE item. It all costs them money to host and provide all this content. The fact that EVERY XBLA game has a demo to try before you buy? Costs money. Having access to all the apps, whether you only use one or you use 10, costs money. None of it is free.

Sony is completely regretting their approach. They need that revenue badly. But they didn't go that route to be the good guy. instead, like so many things in the PS3 development and launch, they completely f'ed up. In this case, they totally underestimated the importance of connected home consoles because Japan was way behind in the way they used connected gaming. It wasn't important to them. (See Nintendo.) Sony made online gaming a feature they knew they needed to have to be competitive, but launched with no PSN, no plan, no anything and have been scrambling ever since, with money flying out their door the whole time. They've been playing catch-up ever since, but if they had to do it all over again, they'd follow Live's model much more closely, though likely not exactly.

Why shouldn't the people most heavily using the product support the costs? And why shouldn't the company providing the services make some profit off it? That's the whole reason the company is in business and we have these platforms at our disposal. MS is making money in their entertainment division and they still have large and vocal percentage of their shareholders that wan them out of the console business because they are not making ENOUGH money. Imagine how badly some of Sony's investors want them out of the sector where they are flat-out hemorrhaging money.

These arguments are immature and childish. You want great new games, but you want them to be cheap if not free. You want awesome, reliable, secure service, but you want it to be free. You want more, and bigger and better and faster and more awesome but you don't want to pay for any of it. It's just a completely unsupportable, ridiculous argument.

SONY AND NINTENDO AND MICROSOFT AND DEVS AND PUBLISHERS ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING PROFITS, NOT GIVING AWAY THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR FREE. They don't care about you as a person, but only as a consumer. They care if you're having fun and feeling like you get value, but only so that you'll spend more money on the platform and buy the next one. That is ALL. The sooner you come to grips with that, the happier you'll be.



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

oniyide said:
MonstaMack said:
Oh boy another topic to let people come in and whine about XBox Live pricing.

Honestly can't wait for the PS4 to start charging for online and hear the reactions then.


You got proof?? Or are you just talking out your butt??


No proof but I'm willing to bet five years of sig control over if you want to bet.

 

Just get tired of the complaining about live pricing. If you don't like it buy a PS3, or you know, get a job to pay for the $35 or so a year (paid $35 last year, thats the most I ever paid for live. Wasn't too many deals)



It's just that simple.

fastyxx said:
I have no problem paying for Live. We've been down this road in this argument a million times.

Bandwidth costs money. Offering that demo, which will be downloaded 2 million times at 5 gigs apiece costs money. And that's ONE item. It all costs them money to host and provide all this content. The fact that EVERY XBLA game has a demo to try before you buy? Costs money. Having access to all the apps, whether you only use one or you use 10, costs money. None of it is free.

Sony is completely regretting their approach. They need that revenue badly. But they didn't go that route to be the good guy. instead, like so many things in the PS3 development and launch, they completely f'ed up. In this case, they totally underestimated the importance of connected home consoles because Japan was way behind in the way they used connected gaming. It wasn't important to them. (See Nintendo.) Sony made online gaming a feature they knew they needed to have to be competitive, but launched with no PSN, no plan, no anything and have been scrambling ever since, with money flying out their door the whole time. They've been playing catch-up ever since, but if they had to do it all over again, they'd follow Live's model much more closely, though likely not exactly.

Why shouldn't the people most heavily using the product support the costs? And why shouldn't the company providing the services make some profit off it? That's the whole reason the company is in business and we have these platforms at our disposal. MS is making money in their entertainment division and they still have large and vocal percentage of their shareholders that wan them out of the console business because they are not making ENOUGH money. Imagine how badly some of Sony's investors want them out of the sector where they are flat-out hemorrhaging money.

These arguments are immature and childish. You want great new games, but you want them to be cheap if not free. You want awesome, reliable, secure service, but you want it to be free. You want more, and bigger and better and faster and more awesome but you don't want to pay for any of it. It's just a completely unsupportable, ridiculous argument.

SONY AND NINTENDO AND MICROSOFT AND DEVS AND PUBLISHERS ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING PROFITS, NOT GIVING AWAY THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR FREE. They don't care about you as a person, but only as a consumer. They care if you're having fun and feeling like you get value, but only so that you'll spend more money on the platform and buy the next one. That is ALL. The sooner you come to grips with that, the happier you'll be.


/thread

Excellent post.



MonstaMack said:
oniyide said:
MonstaMack said:
Oh boy another topic to let people come in and whine about XBox Live pricing.

Honestly can't wait for the PS4 to start charging for online and hear the reactions then.


You got proof?? Or are you just talking out your butt??


No proof but I'm willing to bet five years of sig control over if you want to bet.

 

Just get tired of the complaining about live pricing. If you don't like it buy a PS3, or you know, get a job to pay for the $35 or so a year (paid $35 last year, thats the most I ever paid for live. Wasn't too many deals)


Its not the price its the pricinple. Why cant MS just let you play your games that you bought online on Silver?? Thats it, keep all the bells and whistles on Gold and just have people play stuff on Silver, its not like there paying to keep the servers up.  If SOny does, and thats a big IF, charges to PLAY online. I wont game on the next Sony console, ill go WiiU/PC exclusively



oniyide said:
MonstaMack said:
oniyide said:
MonstaMack said:
Oh boy another topic to let people come in and whine about XBox Live pricing.

Honestly can't wait for the PS4 to start charging for online and hear the reactions then.


You got proof?? Or are you just talking out your butt??


No proof but I'm willing to bet five years of sig control over if you want to bet.

 

Just get tired of the complaining about live pricing. If you don't like it buy a PS3, or you know, get a job to pay for the $35 or so a year (paid $35 last year, thats the most I ever paid for live. Wasn't too many deals)


Its not the price its the pricinple. Why cant MS just let you play your games that you bought online on Silver?? Thats it, keep all the bells and whistles on Gold and just have people play stuff on Silver, its not like there paying to keep the servers up.  If SOny does, and thats a big IF, charges to PLAY online. I wont game on the next Sony console, ill go WiiU/PC exclusively


How big is the IF? Are you betting for sig control or not? Bleh, put the money where the mouth is.

If you could play online with Silver a majority of people wouldn't pay for LIve, thus less revenue for MS. How many people actually buy a PS3 because online play is free, vs exclusives and what not? I doubt Sony would lose many buyers if they went to charge for online.

PC is still the best bet anyways as long your willing to upgrade your PC here and there. Look at all the amazing deals for digital games on Amazon alone.



It's just that simple.