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

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

Tagged games:

Nem on 05 February 2012
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.


Ok, first point. demos are available to all Xbox users, not just gold.

Bandwith cost, you're already paying for it on your ISP side you want to pay it for both sides? Also, costs of servers have dropped dramatically the the last decade. It really doesnt cost much.

But most of all explain to me something. If i buy a full priced game now and pay for Xbox live gold, but for some reason dont have time to play it, except in 2 years time... do u think i'll be able to? By then Microsoft has moved to the nxt Xbox and closed all the 360 servers. Sorry but i dont call this value per money. I call it getting raped for your money.

Sony is not regretting their decision. The reason why Sony has losses is due to their business in general and not specifically the PSN.

Also i know of one costumer that is gonna go back to them next-gen for that reason alone. I'm sorry but i do think you really dont have a good view of how much they are taking advantage of you. Network costs = minimum. They are off-set many times over, just with royalties from online sales of games, DLC and premium services.



Around the Network
xKratosWitAGunx on 05 February 2012
SvennoJ said:
Xbox live is free this weekend in Canada. I'm not going to run out and rent some multiplayer games, but it gave me time to check out all the video apps. To be shocked by the low quality video and very limited selection we get here. (Still no fix to the washed out colors and black level btw)

Only You Tube had reasonable quality. My own HD videos didn't look like total crap like they come out in the ps3 browser. (seems to be stuck on 240p in the ps3 browser) The sound is still distorted though, like somebody cranked up the bass to maximum.

Anyway a weekend is not going to convince me to get gold or buy any multiplayer games for 360.


you can watch HD videos with the PS3 browser.

ps3youtube.com .........seriously why doesn't everyone know about this!!

but in order to enable HQ playback u gotta do some quick steps. didnt take me more than a minute..



fastyxx on 05 February 2012
TheKoreanGuy said:

Your argument is flawed. Then why does no one else on this entire planet charge to use their online services? Neither Sony, Nintendo, nor Steam follow this even though Xbox has been charging for their service from the beginning. Sure, maybe if you want extra features, charge them for that. Microsoft doesn't NEED to charge for ONLINE to make that profit. If I took FaceBook or Google for example, they make a profit without charging for any of it. Imagine the outrage that would occur if we suddenly had to pay for it. It's these double standards that irk me.  Microsoft even puts ads on your dashboard like wtf. Microsoft is the one scrambling for money and succeeding at it too. This becomes more evident with Kinect and how they are putting all their effort into taking some of Wii's market share away from them when they PROMISED they would provide core gaming experiences on Kinect.

I don't want the best online experience possible for free. It would obviously be nice but if it truly is the best service available then it deserves to make a profit. What I want for Microsoft to do is to offer at the very least DECENT ONLINE for silver members. Microsoft could then offer a vastly superior online through gold membership. Is it that hard to allow this? Are they going to lose SO much money from this? Surely they probably considered it before, but realized they want money and a lot of people would stop paying for Live. But if consumers are not willing to upgrade to Gold when they are offered online for free, then that is not the consumer's fault; it is Microsoft's fault for not making their service more appealing. If they need to have online capabilities for only Gold members in order to make it appealing, then Live really is worthless. They are doing a disservice to their customers by not allowing them to play their games without FIRST paying microsoft. You keep saying businesses are in this to make a profit but why do you consider it "childish" to think about the interests of yourself? Truth is Sony have done a great job in bringing PSN on par with Live, but Xbox gamers are too stubborn to admit it since they are paying for theirs.

You are absolutely, positively, incredibly wrong and naive.

1.  First of all, facebook and Google are completely different business models, and they are the ONE giant successful example of each element in their respective fields.  FB and google have ads EVERYWHERE, for example. Unless you are suggesting that MS force commercial breaks and ads in ALL your content while you're playing, that argument is completely, utterly silly.  (And we ARE in fact paying for google and facebook, whether we use them or not, though the added costs built into virtually every product and service we buy, by the way.  Nothing is "free".) 

2. What part of SONY IS LOSING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS do you not understand?  Part of why they are losing so much money is they are having trouble paying for the research, development, support and infrastructure of PSN without consumer dollars.  

3.  Are you really suggesting that Nintendo's online service is anything like PSN, let alone Live? That's just mind-blowing.  Talk about not having an online strategy.  Plus, Nintendo makes money on their hardware, while Sony and MS generally don't until perhaps late in the cycles.  It's a different price model.  (And I'd argue Nintendo's downloads are relatively high priced for the file size, in general.  Paying $5 or $8 for old NES games that are like 20MB each versus millions of multi-gig free demos and the like on Live)  

4.  Steam is a store and a store only.  The price for their bandwidth is included in the pricing of their games.  Simiar to Live, their social features, like friends and acheievements, are set up only so that you feel almost obligated to use their retail portal so that they can be a dominant retailer of digital downloads.  You are paying per download in the price of each game versus a subscription fee.  

Paying for Live is okay, but paying for Facebook would be stupid? If you want to say paying Microsoft for their service is justified, then you also better be prepared to argue for paying for EVERY service you use.

I have no issue paying for the services I use.  I pay for PSN +, I pay for Live, I pay for Netflix streaming, I pay for Hulu+, I pay for WoW, I pay for satellite TV, I pay for internet access, I pay for data plans on my phone, I pay for lots of things.  Because I find value in the service.

I bought the TV, why should I pay for cable or satellite?  I bought the phone, why should I pay for calling/texting/data?  The argument is silly.  

Microsoft is the one scrambling for money and succeeding at it too.

THIS IS THE WHOLE REASON MICROSOFT AND SONY AND NINTENDO EXIST!!!!!  I don't get how you don't understand this.  



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

welshbloke on 05 February 2012

We get it you guys do not like Live cos it costs money but we do not live in Eutopia and Microsoft makes good money on live because guess people are will to pay for the service. You can bang on about it as much as you like that my friend is the facts.

Live makes money and lot of it, PSN (Sorry SEN) makes money but not so much if at all.



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Vertigo-X on 05 February 2012
pezus said:
MaulerX said:
That article made my head spin. What's the problem? Its like they're trying so hard to turn a positive into a negative. I don't see anything wrong with temporarily giving Silver members Gold status. Way better than not allowing them to play at all.

They're using the ME3 demo situation as an example of why MS charging so much, in a time when you can play online everywhere else for free, is absurd.


The argument that MS could have XBL free reminds me of an argument against Apple charging its prices and making so much profit. Why should they charge so much when they're making gangbusters? Answer: Because not only can they, people actually don't care.



The BuShA owns all!

Around the Network
nightsurge on 05 February 2012
pezus said:
TheKoreanGuy said:
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.

Your argument is flawed. Then why does no one else on this entire planet charge to use their online services? Neither Sony, Nintendo, nor Steam follow this even though Xbox has been charging for their service from the beginning. Sure, maybe if you want extra features, charge them for that. Microsoft doesn't NEED to charge for ONLINE to make that profit. If I took FaceBook or Google for example, they make a profit without charging for any of it. Imagine the outrage that would occur if we suddenly had to pay for it. It's these double standards that irk me. Paying for Live is okay, but paying for Facebook would be stupid? If you want to say paying Microsoft for their service is justified, then you also better be prepared to argue for paying for EVERY service you use. Microsoft even puts ads on your dashboard like wtf. Microsoft is the one scrambling for money and succeeding at it too. This becomes more evident with Kinect and how they are putting all their effort into taking some of Wii's market share away from them when they PROMISED they would provide core gaming experiences on Kinect.

I don't want the best online experience possible for free. It would obviously be nice but if it truly is the best service available then it deserves to make a profit. What I want for Microsoft to do is to offer at the very least DECENT ONLINE for silver members. Microsoft could then offer a vastly superior online through gold membership. Is it that hard to allow this? Are they going to lose SO much money from this? Surely they probably considered it before, but realized they want money and a lot of people would stop paying for Live. But if consumers are not willing to upgrade to Gold when they are offered online for free, then that is not the consumer's fault; it is Microsoft's fault for not making their service more appealing. If they need to have online capabilities for only Gold members in order to make it appealing, then Live really is worthless. They are doing a disservice to their customers by not allowing them to play their games without FIRST paying microsoft. You keep saying businesses are in this to make a profit but why do you consider it "childish" to think about the interests of yourself? Truth is Sony have done a great job in bringing PSN on par with Live, but Xbox gamers are too stubborn to admit it since they are paying for theirs.

I think I can safely say this now like a guy above

/thread

Such a completely flawed counter post that in no way whatsoever deserving of /thread. I won't even begin to disuss why the comparison to Facebook or Google is incredibly ridiculous.

You want to know why Steam, Sony, and Nintendo don't charge for their services? Because they make the GAME DEVELOPERS front a lot of the cost of bandwidth and host the servers, while Microsoft fronts the bill for every multiplayer game on Xbox Live (except for dedicated server games, but MS will still host all the matchmaking services and trueskill). Do you have any idea how much it costs to host millions of users on an online service? It is not cheap, and most certainly not free. Why else do you think Sony all the sudden started trying to charge $50 a year for what boils down to a discount package? To make up the costs of all their bandwidth, data management, etc. Why else do you think the Playstation product division remained so negative in profits for so long even after becoming profitable on hardware? Steam doesn't even host multiplayer for anything other than Valve's own games. Everything else is the game developers themselves. And then we have the Wii which is a broken and unorganized service that is more of a hassle than a benefit when it comes to playing online.

This is why most multiplatform games have better multiplayer on Xbox Live (which is proven very easily by the majority of experiences from users that have both PSN and Xbox Live and any unbiased comparison). Because MS hosts the servers and have all the years of experience in getting the best results and they also integrate everything so well across all games. But I am getting ahead of myself by going that route.

Yes, perhaps they could offer just basic, dumbed down multiplayer for free to silver, with no voice chat, cross game chat, no friend invites/messages, or any other bonuses to Gold, but what would be the point? The best things about Xbox Live is playing with friends, talking trash or making new friends, or simply chatting with your friends regardess of what you are doing on Xbox Live via Party/Private Chat.

The fact of the matter is, these are services provided by companies that involve a very considerable cost in multiple ways. That cost has to be paid for somehow, either by the game developers, the main company providing the service, or it can be passed on to the customers using the service in return for all the value and better quality that the service provides. Personally, and I know I am very far from alone here, I don't mind paying a small fee ($35-50 a year) for services that offer a much higher level of quality and value than other alternatives.



pitzy272 on 05 February 2012
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.


@bold:  I've thought the same thing. Tbh, I only own a ps3, but I actually wish Sony would charge for online like Microsoft so they could make more money since I like and respect Sony as a company (mainly bc they're not doing so well with the whole profit thing). The money they make from online fees could offset a large part of their losses. Online does cost money, and I certainly don't think PS Plus is making them enough to make up for their online costs.

I think without a doubt Sony will charge for online with the ps4. I think they would've already done so with ps3 if they hadn't promised/advertised the fact of a free psn. As I stated earlier in the thread, though, I hope if (when) Sony charges for online, they allow for more options. Hopefully they allow you to buy by hour blocks (20 hrs, 40 hrs, etc.).

Also, I think it would be wise for Sony to charge money ONLY for online GAMING. I feel the entire Playstation Store - demos, videos, movies, etc. - should absolutely remain free. Did I hear someone say you have to have at least XBL Silver to be capable of these things? If that's the case, then I must admit I don't like this at all.



oniyide on 05 February 2012
DarthVolod said:

Some people will turn anything into an excuse to take a jab at a rival console they happen to not like. A couple of things this journalist fails to mention ...

Yes, Microsoft asks for $40 per year (only idiots pay $60 since 12 month always goes on sale once per year to $40), but in exchange you get cross game chat thanks to the party system. I can not stress how useful this is (especially to achievement people like myself who like to coordinate events between groups of people who are often in several different games). I really don't know how people get by on PS3 without it. I got nothing against the system, but if it was my main console I would have to get something to communicate with others with like skype or, as some of my friends do, play on PS3 while having their Xbox turned on so they can party chat (lol).

I will admit that there really is no good reason why we can't play multiplayer without Gold, but it really doesn't matter to me as I would gladly pay the 40 dollars a year just for cross game chat. Besides, are you really going to go play multiplayer all by yourself with no friends/relatives/Live friends there to play with you? Sounds kind of boring to me. Is kind of like playing against a bunch of bots with each AI set to a random difficulty ... may as well just play singleplayer.

Maybe next gen things will be different, but it is irresponsible for a supposed video game journalist to pick a meaningless fight like this for hits while also completely ignoring the fact that Xbox Live and PSN are not on equal footing merely because the PSN has made great improvements since its abysmal start.

Me and my friends get by without it, I dont understand how someone could love cross game chat. Why would you want to talk to someone that is NOT playing the same game as you??? Whats the point, if im playing a single player game, i probably dont want to be bother, if I have to talk to my friend that bad, ill pick up my phone and call him/her. If im playing a mulitplayer game online I sure as hell dont want to talk to someone playing FF13 or something. IMHO



oniyide on 05 February 2012
pitzy272 said:
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.


@bold:  I've thought the same thing. Tbh, I only own a ps3, but I actually wish Sony would charge for online like Microsoft so they could make more money since I like and respect Sony as a company (mainly bc they're not doing so well with the whole profit thing). The money they make from online fees could offset a large part of their losses. Online does cost money, and I certainly don't think PS Plus is making them enough to make up for their online costs.

I think without a doubt Sony will charge for online with the ps4. I think they would've already done so with ps3 if they hadn't promised/advertised the fact of a free psn. As I stated earlier in the thread, though, I hope if (when) Sony charges for online, they allow for more options. Hopefully they allow you to buy by hour blocks (20 hrs, 40 hrs, etc.).

Also, I think it would be wise for Sony to charge money ONLY for online GAMING. I feel the entire Playstation Store - demos, videos, movies, etc. - should absolutely remain free. Did I hear someone say you have to have at least XBL Silver to be capable of these things? If that's the case, then I must admit I don't like this at all.

Man, im on the opposite end of the spectrum. I really hope SONY doesnt do that. People will never perceive the service as good as LIVE. Why do people act like SOny's woes could be solved by charging for online?? Do people really believe, that most would go for that??? If anything I think they will just drive more people into MS's or Ninty's arms.



NotStan on 05 February 2012
nightsurge said:
[..]

Such a completely flawed counter post that in no way whatsoever deserving of /thread. I won't even begin to disuss why the comparison to Facebook or Google is incredibly ridiculous.

You want to know why Steam, Sony, and Nintendo don't charge for their services? Because they make the GAME DEVELOPERS front a lot of the cost of bandwidth and host the servers, while Microsoft fronts the bill for every multiplayer game on Xbox Live (except for dedicated server games, but MS will still host all the matchmaking services and trueskill). Do you have any idea how much it costs to host millions of users on an online service? It is not cheap, and most certainly not free. Why else do you think Sony all the sudden started trying to charge $50 a year for what boils down to a discount package? To make up the costs of all their bandwidth, data management, etc. Why else do you think the Playstation product division remained so negative in profits for so long even after becoming profitable on hardware? Steam doesn't even host multiplayer for anything other than Valve's own games. Everything else is the game developers themselves. And then we have the Wii which is a broken and unorganized service that is more of a hassle than a benefit when it comes to playing online.

This is why most multiplatform games have better multiplayer on Xbox Live (which is proven very easily by the majority of experiences from users that have both PSN and Xbox Live and any unbiased comparison). Because MS hosts the servers and have all the years of experience in getting the best results and they also integrate everything so well across all games. But I am getting ahead of myself by going that route.

Yes, perhaps they could offer just basic, dumbed down multiplayer for free to silver, with no voice chat, cross game chat, no friend invites/messages, or any other bonuses to Gold, but what would be the point? The best things about Xbox Live is playing with friends, talking trash or making new friends, or simply chatting with your friends regardess of what you are doing on Xbox Live via Party/Private Chat.

The fact of the matter is, these are services provided by companies that involve a very considerable cost in multiple ways. That cost has to be paid for somehow, either by the game developers, the main company providing the service, or it can be passed on to the customers using the service in return for all the value and better quality that the service provides. Personally, and I know I am very far from alone here, I don't mind paying a small fee ($35-50 a year) for services that offer a much higher level of quality and value than other alternatives.

Boom nailed it.

Even if it doesn't host the servers, it still remains a solid and good service, party chat really is an important feature.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.