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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - What would make Xbox LIVE's $60 fee an unquestionable value?

Jay520 on 09 December 2012
JayWood2010 said:

You know what, don't worry about it.  You are missing my point entirely and you continue to always want to start and argument. Later


I get what you're saying exactly. You said the PS3 doesn't have as many active online games as Xbox lIve. I asked you to define active because I thought RDR was pretty active. Then you pointed me to Call of Duty, Halo, and BF and said they were more active. Then I told you it doesn't matter, as gamer, if one game is very active and another is extremely active. As long as a game is active enough to easily find new opponents, then it's active enough. Any more activity is irrelevant to gaming experience. And now you give me this cop out by saying I missed your point.



Around the Network
Jaywood2010 on 09 December 2012


You know what, don't worry about it.  You are missing my point entirely and you continue to always want to start and argument. Later


I was kinda looking forward to a battle to see who was the greatest Jay# guy.  You two WILL collide someday and when you do, I'll be there to watch it.

lmao XD Well I tell you what you can be the ref when it happens then :P




       

Jaywood2010 on 09 December 2012
Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:

You know what, don't worry about it.  You are missing my point entirely and you continue to always want to start and argument. Later


I get what you're saying exactly. You said the PS3 doesn't have as many active online games as Xbox lIve. I asked you to define active because I thought RDR was pretty active. Then you pointed me to Call of Duty, Halo, and BF and said they were more active. Then I told you it doesn't matter, as gamer, if one game is very active and another is extremely active. As long as a game is active enough to easily find new opponents, then it's active enough. Any more activity is irrelevant to gaming experience. And now you give me this cop out by saying I missed your point.

You don't stop do you?  Online activity is important due to how quickly you can find a game.  And even though PSN gamers brag about it being free, there is not many games to play on competitive multiplayer and the numbers show. That is what I was saying so cool it bro




       

bananaking21 on 09 December 2012

MS charging 60 bucks a year to able to play online isnt justified, even if they give you other services paying to play online is simply bullshit. its like Dell charging me 60 bucks a year just to use access the internet on my laptop. its simply a rip off



SpartenOmega117 on 09 December 2012
nightsurge said:
You get what you pay for. I know on Xbox Live all my games will have near flawless online performance because Microsoft hosts all the servers used for matchmaking and all the logic on their end for both First Party and Third Party games. The only time MS doesn't host the servers is for dedicated server games, but even then MS hosts the matchmaking and skill tracking services.

Just take any CoD in the last 4 years as an example. Play on Xbox Live and have relatively little lag, few disconnects or other network issues. Play on PSN and have every other game be incredibly laggy and disconnects everywhere. Not to mention the competitive/team play is very lacking on PSN since most people do not use microphones.

Xbox Live is like the MLG of online services. People pay for it because it is superior in performance to any of the competitors. Microsoft will keep adding value to it. That I have no doubt. I just hope it isn't in the form of some discount program and the occasional free game that I don't have time to play with all my other games I have to begin with. That being said, I still have gotten about 4-5 free games from Xbox Live over the years and several discounts/free points via their rewards program... haha sooo...


So you really have never experienced a leggy game on Xbox live? Both psn and Xbox live use PvP severs for most of the games where it depends on the player with the best connection. Remember host power in gears 1 and 2?

Around the Network
o_O.Q on 09 December 2012
Mr Puggsly said:
maverick40 said:
kowenicki said:
It already is.

The fact that someone decides to give away something almost similar for free is irrelevant.

Don't value it? Then don't pay for it. Simple.

It is unquestionable because if you want to go online you have no choice but to pay the fee. This fact alone means most people need to justify paying for a service that is needed to get 100% out of the product. 

Microsoft are on to a winner here. 

Don't forget online games exclusive to PS3 and Wii are bad. This makes the superior online games found on 360 more desireable. Millions of people rather pay to play the games they enjoy rather than settle with something free.


i play uncharted 3 regularly online and never have issues finding matches...

even starhawk even though it sold poorly has a very dedicated community which i play with from time to time 



o_O.Q on 09 December 2012

lol i have a feeling that many of the people bashing psn's online play here have never actually played it for a considerable amount of time
most of my gaming in general is multiplayer gaming and i have never had notable issues playing on psn



UltimateUnknown on 09 December 2012
brendude13 said:
There is not really much that they could do that would make it worth the £40 in my opinion. I just want them to lower the price, £15 or £20 a year would be more reasonable.

I don't think lowering the price is going to help because you really can't beat free. Sony is giving almost the same thing pretty much for free. The people who defend paying for Live just haven't played PS3 and don't know what they are really paying for with Live, just like me before I got a PS3 myself. As of now Live is just a more polished and glittery version of PSN and I'm sure next gen PSN will be even better which will make for some tough competition.

The only way I can see them justifying the cost is by giving actual games (or other services) for free like with the PS+ subscription, which they did start with Happy Wars and its a fun game. But they need to do a lot more. I personally don't see myself ever going back to the Xbox brand if both the companies keep their current online model. I'd much rather go with PS since online is free and the number of exclusives they have is on a different level to what Xbox has. This is after I've had PS3 for only about a month and the 360 for over 3 years.



 

Jay520 on 09 December 2012
JayWood2010 said:
Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:

You know what, don't worry about it.  You are missing my point entirely and you continue to always want to start and argument. Later


I get what you're saying exactly. You said the PS3 doesn't have as many active online games as Xbox lIve. I asked you to define active because I thought RDR was pretty active. Then you pointed me to Call of Duty, Halo, and BF and said they were more active. Then I told you it doesn't matter, as gamer, if one game is very active and another is extremely active. As long as a game is active enough to easily find new opponents, then it's active enough. Any more activity is irrelevant to gaming experience. And now you give me this cop out by saying I missed your point.

You don't stop do you?  Online activity is important due to how quickly you can find a game.  And even though PSN gamers brag about it being free, there is not many games to play on competitive multiplayer and the numbers show. That is what I was saying so cool it bro



Online activity matters because of how quickly you can find a game? Interesting, in that case, the PS3 has PLENTY of games that has no trouble finding matches. Much more than just Call of Duty and Battlefield lol.

o_O.Q on 09 December 2012
JayWood2010 said:
Jay520 said:
JayWood2010 said:

You know what, don't worry about it.  You are missing my point entirely and you continue to always want to start and argument. Later


I get what you're saying exactly. You said the PS3 doesn't have as many active online games as Xbox lIve. I asked you to define active because I thought RDR was pretty active. Then you pointed me to Call of Duty, Halo, and BF and said they were more active. Then I told you it doesn't matter, as gamer, if one game is very active and another is extremely active. As long as a game is active enough to easily find new opponents, then it's active enough. Any more activity is irrelevant to gaming experience. And now you give me this cop out by saying I missed your point.

You don't stop do you?  Online activity is important due to how quickly you can find a game.  And even though PSN gamers brag about it being free, there is not many games to play on competitive multiplayer and the numbers show. That is what I was saying so cool it bro

lol this is where i have to ask which games you've had difficulties finding matches for on psn?

tbh i'd really like to hear this

 

"And even though PSN gamers brag about it being free, there is not many games to play on competitive multiplayer "

 

lol considering that the majority of what i do and what many of the people on my friends list do with our ps3s is competitive multi i'd really like you do elaborate on that