I have a question for GOLD defenders. I'm a subscriber myself but I think it's stupid.

My question is what would you think if Sony stopped including online passes in new games? This means even if you buy cod day one you still needed to pay an extra $10 for the online pass. That's just stupid, yet exactly what GOLD does. If you buy 6 xbox games a year that is equivalent to $10 a game for GOLD. Why the fudge would you agree with that? I can understand subscribing because you prefer live or need to play halo online, but you are retarded to try and defend the cost. It's moronic.

A paid service will always tend to be superior to a free one. Nothing in life is free therefore if you refuse to pay for an online service, something else MUST give.

Well, these threads always end up the same with the two camps firmly entrenched in their opposing viewpoints.

Personally, I find the idea of paying to play online, something I've been able to do for free since I got my first PC in 1996, absolutely ridiculous and abhor MS' business model with Live. For MS it seems to be working though. I suspect in the future though that MS will find the subscription fee to play online actually drives more customers away and growth will slow to the point of being detrimental (less consoles sold). The whole industry seems to be moving towards Free-2-Play, and not just for MMO based games. Eventually, MS will have to change to compete with this general trend.

You've been connecting to the internet for free for the last 15 years???

In all seriousness though, you can't compare online gaming on PCs to online gaming on consoles.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.  Online gaming on PCs started off mainly through LAN networks and private servers.  There was never a centralized network through which all online gameplay and interactions went through such as XBL or PSN.  Of course these days you have things like Steam and Origin, but it's still not the same thing.

The reason M$ started charging for XBL from the beginning was because it cost money (lots of it) to lay the groundwork for such an online network unique to one console.  It cost even more money to revamp XBL for the current gen, not to mention score exclusive agreements with other companies like ESPN and UFC for their online apps.

And it's not like M$ are the only ones to ever charge people for playing online... Sega did the same thing years earlier, initally allowing gamers to play certain games for free on Dreamcast but later requiring a subscribtion to SegaNet, and even earlier they charged a nominal fee to play compatible Saturn games online with the NetLink adapter.

Personaly I think M$ should drop the price of XBL a bit... there was no need for them to raise the price from $50/yr to $60/yr while providing no new services or benefits in return, but if they dropped it to say $30 or $40 a year I'd have no problem paying it... hell, I only pay $40/year now anyway for XBL because I always get the subscription cards or online codes on Amazon or elsewhere when they go on sale.

The only thing "moronic" is paying for a service you admit that you think is dumb.

Your analogy doesn't really work because

a. Sony doesn't control CoD, the only franchises they can force online passes on are their own franchises, which no one cares about mostly

b. In your scenario you're still getting an online pass to a PSN network that pales in comparison to Live

c. You can pretty much always get Live deals for $35-40 for a year subscription

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that some people don't mind paying for a superior service.

I pay every year for GOLD just like I pay every week for gas. They cost way more then they should, but as long as I own a 360/car I'm practically forced to buy.

A. If what you said was true, that would actually make things worse for GOLD. However online pass is included with most non Sony games too so your point is moot. BTW everyone knows you're a 360 guy and don't enjoy first party games from Sony. There is no need to remind us in every one of your posts.

B. Live has more features to help get people into lobbies, that's true. However again lets look at the cost per game. Say I want to buy Black Ops 2 but I'm not sure which console to get it on assuming I have both. Well I can get it on PS3 for $60 or I can get it on 360 for $70 with "bonus matchmaking tools and cross-game chat." Only a fool would pay $10 extra for those features alone.

C. Alright, care to message me next time you see one? I'd much rather have it for that price since it sure isn't worth $60. My question then would be if it is so common to get it for $35-40, why do many people try and justify it at $60 when that isn't what they pay?

The problem is because this "superior" service isn't optional to any real 360 gamers. In order to fully play 80% of my 360 games I NEED to be a GOLD member. You may not mind paying for it, but you should.

From my observation, one reason why people continue to pay for Live is because they have no choice. They either fork up the $60 a year or else they can't play online with their friends, use apps like netflix, and crunchyroll. You may include cross game chat. These are features you just can't play without for games like CoD.

To Gold members that is their payed "superior service." They'll defend that belief by saying its just superior. While on the other hand you get all that for free on PSN. Excluding cross game chat of course.

If Live offered monthly free games with that subscription, then I would agree that it is not on par with PSN+

Well your issue is you view it as a necessity, equal to gasoline. If paying for the service bothers you that much then you clearly don't think it's worth the price. So then why pay? PSN is archaic in comparison but it gets the job done for free, use that.

A. It doesn't matter if its included with other games. You posed a hypothetical where Sony makes CoD require an online pass and I was just letting you know CoD is a 3rd party franchise and Sony can't make them include an online pass. At best Sony can make all of their own titles have an online pass and they pretty much do already. And you seem butt hurt about my comment about people not caring much for most of those franchises. Are you saying people actually do care about Resistance 3, Twisted Metal, LBPKarting, Reality Fighters, PSASBR, The Show, etc? Sales say otherwise.

B. $70? My 360 copy of Black Ops 2 cost $60. What if I buy ten 360 titles in a year and only paid $35 for my Gold subscription? That's less than a dime a day for a vastly superior online experience. Does that meet your standard for cost? Then again you're the guy who pays $60 for Live and hates doing it so honestly I don't care about your standard.

C. Why do you need me to message you? Is your Google broken? TigerDirect had a sale that ended 3-4 days ago that had 12 months for like $37. All you have to do is look. As far as people "justifying at $60", idk what you're going on about there.

Every time this thread pops up, all the debating can be ended with one simple piece of logic. Some people find the service to be worth paying for and have no problem paying for it. You can call these people "moronic" or "fools" but if we pulled the curtain back, I am sure there would be things you pay for that others would consider "moronic". Who cares. If you don't think the service is worth it then don't pay. It's hilarious watching people put other gamers down for it though.

You keep saying Live is superior while downplaying PSN. Please explain yourself why its superior. Justify that $60 fee to play games online for a year. edit: curious, how many games do you play online anyways.

Nobody i know pays the full $60 especially when theyre are deals, promotions going on the entire time on both the marketplace and retailers.